|
|
| Hi, I am wondering what you think the maximum size a musky can grow?
In my opinion, they could hypothetically grow to 85 inches in length. This would put them in the 80 lbs range. A musky this large would be rare, but not impossible!~
Thank you in advance,
MS |
|
| |
|
Posts: 458
| Dear God,
Please make winter end.
Thanks |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4080
Location: Elko - Lake Vermilion | WOWEZER !
You need to READ the thread about the world record,..... That should keep ya out of trouble for at least a day.
Jerome |
|
| |
|
Location: Des Moines IA | Well, the Lake county Sheriff told us there's a 72 incher in Lake Catherine in northern Illinois. So I'm guessing 85 is attainable.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | coupla tons, a least. To be perfectly honest, they get as big as John says they can get. photo attached.... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 717
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | And people who live on the 320 acre lake by me say that the DNR took a 75"er out of the lake and put it into another bigger one. It was causing too much ruckus on the little lakes eating all the dogs of the residents. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1141
Location: NorthCentral WI | LMAO! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 392
Location: lake x...where the hell is it? | edalz - 2/1/2011 5:07 PM
Dear God,
Please make winter end.
Thanks
I second that, can i get an AMEN?!?! |
|
| |
|
| While its not the biggest out there I have heard second and third hand of the Minnesota state record being netted by the DNR In just about every lake I have musky fished on. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 67
| LMAO
Edited by Trophyhunter1958 2/1/2011 7:10 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 402
Location: Eagle River, WI | Apparently they get longer than 90".
I have had numerous tourists tell me that they have had a fish swim under the boat and they could see it on both sides at the same time. The boat always has at least a 90" beam. Thank god for tourists, they humble us all. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 559
| I have seen some dandies some I thought were over 60' but after they took a second look I now that they were a mid 50" fish. one on the other hand was bigger and I was not the only one to see it IT was a surf board.
ps. if they get as much food and drink as me they will all be, what we call heathly
Top h20 you sure like to stir the pot. I like that so sharpen your spoon
Yes the windsor is on
Edited by bobbie 2/1/2011 7:42 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 73
| If only Cliff Clavin could weigh in on the matter. "Well Sammy, it's a little known fact that the, uh, Esox Masquinongy can reach magnaminous proportions of...." |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20219
Location: oswego, il | I know they get big enough to almost pull you in on the chip. 85 at least. |
|
| |
|
| paging Drs. Casselman and Crossman...please report to this thread STAT! Theoretically female muskellunge can grow to 68 inches and 73.5 pounds. Casselman and Crossman. 1999 Cleithrum Project Bookle |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1663
Location: Kodiak, AK | I know there's several 72" fish in LSC! I love when the bass guys tell me they see "six footers" all the time while bass fishing, so I know they're out there. But I must say one time a bass fisherman and his son were at the ramp and asked me if I was guiding because they said they want to actually target muskie because they caught a "50" that day on bass gear and wanted to catch bigger. I kinda doubted it, as they were pretty goofy looking and acting, but I played along and asked if they got a pic. They did, and lo and behold, they had a pic of a fish that had to go 52-54" I said, "um yeah, that's a nice fish ya got there." Came on a firetiger Rat-L-Trap on 8 lb test with no leader....that's how it goes.
So I say, 72" because so many people here see them all the time. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 322
| Come on "Max Size" SharkFirst is the forum board you are looking for.
|
|
| |
|
| How much they can legitimately grow in the wild
or how much they can grow in a taxidermist's studio?
In the wild with the right genes, who knows.
In a taxidermist's studio with a plump couch full of suitable stuffing?
I think we all know... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 574
| When I worked at the bait shop, guys would tell me about 60 inchers they fought for an hour and got to the boat that ate their walleye in Mendota...
So I guess if they get that big where they dont even stock them, and the size limit is only 36 there......
There must be an 80lb 85incher somewhere...
Probably in the Vermilion thats has 2 Ls... wherever that is..?
Edited by Jason Bomber 2/2/2011 6:36 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1220
| Anybody that hangs aroung this sport for long, knows that the one and only question that is usually asked of the musky angler is, "What's the biggest musky you ever caught?" Minnesota folks like to say, "near 60" because with the quality of the Vikings play and their 48" size limit, that's all they got. Wisconsin guys penalized with a state-wide 36" limit won't lie quite as badly (plus we have the Packers) and will likely claim, "Low 50's." FIB's carry the weight of the collapsing Bears, folding Cubbies and really tiny fishery so they might only lie their way up to 44 inches. They are more likely to brag about how many other anglers they cut off getting to the spot. So, recognizing that this is more about BS than it is about fact, and the fact that this is WINTERNET when all the guys are really well endowed.....I'd say a musky will get to 72 inches and I will be the one to catch it perch fishing in Sturgeon Bay waiting for the musky season to open. Naturally, I will be using 80 pound braid as I do for all the early pan fishing season. Marty Forman |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8781
| Not big enough |
|
| |
|
Posts: 633
| I think the max size of a muskie depends on who you are hanging around, and how many drinks everyone has in them. |
|
| |
|
| So I say that the Yeti exists, "because so many people here see them all the time."
People "see" what they want to see (or 'think' they see) without the ability to confirm it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | OK, I'll be serious here.
By all factual accounts, (not Hayward WI, related), it appears that the maximum size for an indivual Muskie depends on genetics, environment, food sources, and longevitiy. Based on verified fish that have been caught, (as in not Hayward) it appears that the largest Muskies can grow into the upper 50 inch range and some can hit the 60 inch mark.
Weight-wise, it appears that the largest Muskies can grow to be over 50 lbs with some hitting the mid-50 lb and a few Muskies, given ideal conditions, may hit the 60 lb mark. That is if one looks at only verified Muskies and not the supposed record fish of years gone by.
I believe that we are now seeing the maximum or near maximum Muskie size being reached on waters like Green Bay, St. Lawrance, Mille Lacs, Georgian Bay and the big V. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3147
| I still dont see how a 2007 camaro Z28 can metamorphisize into a three story mechanized monster in the movie 'Transformers' I cant even stretch my legs out in the one I was in??? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 574
Location: Germantown, WI | My guess is with so much catch/release, you will have someone catch a fish up to maybe 64" and low 60-some pounds in the next 10 years |
|
| |
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | Yeah, it seems possible with catch and release that a Muskie could grow up to 64 inches and the low 60 lb class.
Its fun to think about really huge Muskies, but then reality sets in when one gets on the water and one is happy to catch a mid-40 incher. I find that my hopes and expectations are always higher in the winter than in the summer. 
I have to admit that I have been chasing a really big Muskie on Minnetonka the past few years. It is far larger than anything I have ever caught or seen. Due to her sudden ways of showing herself, usually right at boatside and out of nowhere, I have begun to carry toliet paper and a few clean clothing items in the boat - just in case. I doubt she is anywhere near a WR, but she might exceed the current MN state record. There certainly are big fish around and one never knows what will happen on any given cast. Makes it all fun, eh? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1663
Location: Kodiak, AK | Guest - 2/2/2011 11:16 AM So I say that the Yeti exists, "because so many people here see them all the time." People "see" what they want to see (or 'think' they see) without the ability to confirm it. I see you're just as serious as I was in my post. I think alot of it for non-muskie fishermen is just good old fashioned, not knowing how to judge fish. They catch 16-20" smallies all day and then see a 44" muskie and it looks immense and it's easier to say "five footer" or "six footer" than it is for them to say "50 inch class fish" or even know what one looks like boatside. But I still say 72" because all of the guys at the boat ramp can't be wrong! LOL |
|
| |
|
Posts: 243
| Junkman - 2/2/2011 9:02 AM
So, recognizing that this is more about BS than it is about fact, and the fact that this is WINTERNET when all the guys are really well endowed.....I'd say a musky will get to 72 inches and I will be the one to catch it perch fishing in Sturgeon Bay waiting for the musky season to open. Naturally, I will be using 80 pound braid as I do for all the early pan fishing season. Marty Forman
Hilarious. Good luck on those panfish. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 706
Location: Richland Center, WI. | Junkman - 2/2/2011 9:02 AM
Anybody that hangs aroung this sport for long, knows that the one and only question that is usually asked of the musky angler is, "What's the biggest musky you ever caught?" Minnesota folks like to say, "near 60" because with the quality of the Vikings play and their 48" size limit, that's all they got. Wisconsin guys penalized with a state-wide 36" limit won't lie quite as badly (plus we have the Packers) and will likely claim, "Low 50's." FIB's carry the weight of the collapsing Bears, folding Cubbies and really tiny fishery so they might only lie their way up to 44 inches. They are more likely to brag about how many other anglers they cut off getting to the spot. So, recognizing that this is more about BS than it is about fact, and the fact that this is WINTERNET when all the guys are really well endowed.....I'd say a musky will get to 72 inches and I will be the one to catch it perch fishing in Sturgeon Bay waiting for the musky season to open. Naturally, I will be using 80 pound braid as I do for all the early pan fishing season. Marty Forman
That is some funny stuff! Everyone knows you should use at least 100 pound for the early season pannies. No ultralight stuff here folks!
Ken |
|
| |
|
Posts: 54
| Yowser! 80 squared? That's a Biggun. Get the Net? I got to get back to my show. BloodHook! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | >> Minnesota folks like to say, "near 60" because with the quality of the Vikings play and their 48" size limit, that's all they got.
Hey, we have the Twins and ice fishing too. Also, don't forget the Mall of America and a collapsed football stadium. How many people can say their football stadium fell down? That just doesn't happen everywhere.
Edited by Herb_b 2/2/2011 5:49 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 787
Location: Delavan, WI | Has anyone read the book Ferocity by Christopher Knight ? although its fiction its about a 10 ft' muskie that dwells in "Mullet lake" that likes to eat people goin for a swim- a must read for the all the die hards!!! |
|
| |
|
| Oh, you guys are wimps
I know there is a 70-inch 85-pound musky swimming around out there!
The question is who will be the lucky fisherman that catches it!
Think of the fame and fortune you will be on every fishing magazine in the world...and don't forget the endorsement cash flow!!
Take care,
Max Size |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | Im with most of the guys here on length. Maybe 60 inches and some change. I think there was a 66 inch fish turned into Muskies inc from Lac suel. I think weight is wide open with most of ther biggest ones falling short of 60 pounds. Im sure there a re a couple of freakish fat fish that are pushing the 70 pound mark at certain times of the year. Until someone kills a true 60 to 70 pounder and everyone gets to see it ,hold it ,and weight it themselves then there isnt any big ones over 60 pounds and never will be. Lol. Mike |
|
| |
|
Posts: 717
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | Kingfisher - 2/7/2011 4:14 PM
Im with most of the guys here on length. Maybe 60 inches and some change. I think there was a 66 inch fish turned into Muskies inc from Lac suel.
Mike, the longest ones ever reported were 60"ers. 2 of them. One from Lac Suel, 1 from (not specified). 1997, and mid-2000's. Somewhere around there. JFYI. |
|
| |
|
| Jim Munday - 2/1/2011 8:58 PM
If only Cliff Clavin could weigh in on the matter. "Well Sammy, it's a little known fact that the, uh, Esox Masquinongy can reach magnaminous proportions of...."
Nice! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8
Location: Eagle River WI | The largest I heard of was from Minnesota. It was 77" but was really skinny, probably an old fish, only weighing about 40-45 lbs. In it's prime it would have been a monster. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | JimtenHaaf - 2/7/2011 6:18 PM
Kingfisher - 2/7/2011 4:14 PM
Im with most of the guys here on length. Maybe 60 inches and some change. I think there was a 66 inch fish turned into Muskies inc from Lac suel.
Mike, the longest ones ever reported were 60"ers. 2 of them. One from Lac Suel, 1 from (not specified ). 1997, and mid-2000's. Somewhere around there. JFYI. ; )
It was an article in Musky hunter magazine a long time ago. 66 inches and some 45 pounds from Leech Lake. You right its not a muskies inc fish. I have seen the picture and Im sure Larry has a picture of it as well. It was 66 inches but only 43 pounds. It was a freak. Mike
http://www.larryramsell.com/DOCS/Do%20Muskies%20get%20that%20big.pd...
Larry mentions a verified 66 inch fish here. It that fish Im talking about. It was not real heavy for its length though.
Edited by Kingfisher 2/8/2011 12:42 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | So we know they can reach 66 inches and Larry says in his article that 68 is the longest verified musky ever. The Spooner Hatchery fish.. Its the girth however that is needed to make them truly huge. I still think 60 plus change for length and 70/75 pounds max.
Edited by Kingfisher 2/8/2011 12:52 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | I am convinced that Muskies can reach exactly 70.1825 lbs and not an ounce heavier!
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | So now,,,,,,,,being totally hypothetical if the Spooner fish reached its max potential of half its length in girth it would have a 34 inch girth and it would have weighed according the the Muskies inc calculator 98 pounds ha ha ha ha ha ahaha . Nope they cant hit 70 I love this stuff. I cant wait until open water. Im gonna need a bigger boat LMFAO Mike |
|
| |
|
| kingfisher, if you read/buy Larry's latest compendium you'll that 66" muskie was debunked, the taxidermist admitted to stretching the truth about that fish. The 68" doesn't look that long to me and is unverified even though it was captured by the WDNR. If you're going to believe what fishery personnel say, you might as well believe in the 102 lber that was said to be netted in the late 1800s. I think the story went on to say it fed the whole town, LOL!
60" 60 lbs is my guess, if a bigger one was out there it would have been caught already. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4080
Location: Elko - Lake Vermilion | Gosh !!,,,,, What a stupid thread, Really??????
Beam me up Scotty! quick ! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 39
| On my iPhone I have a Muskie Weight Calculator (which I'm sure most of you with iPhones already have) anyways, the biggest it says a fish can get is 70" with a girth of 35" and weighing 100 lbs, which would be an absolute monster. So I'm calling bull on the 80" fish, not because of that app but because I just don't see it happening. With all the current CPR and management out there we rarely see a 60", we've only seen a few high 50's fish. I know they're out there, the St. Lawrence, Green Bay, Big V and Mille Lacs are just too big to say for sure there isn't a WR and/or state record swimming in those lakes. I see the next monster fish, giving the WR a run for it's money, coming out the St. Lawrence, with all the big fish coming out of there and the numbers of the big fish they can only get bigger.
Either way everyone knows someone who's brothers friend's friends cousin caught or saw a WR muskie either walleye fishing or bass fishing on 8 lb. test line. I mean hell, I work with guys who say they catch monster muskies all the time walleye fishing, they catch 55+ inchers all the time. I just smile and walk away |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | How about a few quotes from Dr. John Casselman to Martin Williamson referencing the Cleithrum Project, Martin's fish and maximum growth:
"Martin: Special thanks for sending me the picture, beautifully framed, of your muskellunge. It's nice to see such a beautiful, authentic fish, confirming much of the science that I know about muskellunge growth potential....
"The reason why the fish is special interest to me is because the measurements describe the fish exactly. In 1964, when working on the St. Lawrence River, we tagged a female muskellunge that was 54 inches long, weighing 54 pounds. It was taken at spawning time... The proportions of these two fish - yours and that one - are very similar.
"I very much look forward to obtaining the cleithral bone from your fish. I leave it to you, Larry Jones, and Arunas to organize. As I mentioned, I'm particularly interested in year-class. In other words, in what year the fish hatched. Large trophy muskellunge have a very interesting synchrony in these year-classes. They almost invariably come from the strong El Niño years produce strong year-classes of these largest muskellunge. Particularly important years were, in order of summer temperature, 1955, 1959, 1973, 1975, 1995, 1998. I very much look forward to an independent age assessment of your fish to see where it falls - whether on one of these. Just as an aside, I'll enclose a copy of a recent e-mail on a muskellunge that was found dead in the Ottawa River. You'll see there how important it is to have accurate age assessments and how we are still trying to get more resolution on these age assessments, because with these older fish, we are really only accurate, at the best, plus or minus one year. We are working on developing some mathematical methods of improving this. Incidentally, the 1980s was a decade of frequently El Niño years just below the extremes, and as you may know, 1983 was specially warm. Muskellunge fishing in the past couple of years has improved tremendously. Since our age assessments on younger fish are more reliable, we know the 1980s produced exceptional reproduction. This also goes hand in hand with the value of catch and release and increased size limits. Fortuitously, in the mid-1980s, Ontario size limits were increased, and about that time, organized muskellunge anglers were promoting catch and release - Muskies Inc. and Muskies Canada, for example. So not only did we have increased egg production (in fisheries we call it reproductive capactiy, or potential), but climatic conditions were favourable for the production of strong year-classes. We have some ideas how this works, but I won't elaborate on it right now.
"A couple of other points of interest: Mathematically, we can estimate from growth of trajectory of ultimate size... The female muskellunge that I tagged years ago on the St. Lawrence River and your fish fall almost exactly on the the average ultimate size. The can get larger than this, but not very much...
"For someone who works in fisheries research, it is especially rewarding to see our water bodies producing these gigantic fish, and as I mentioned, your fish is one of the best examples. But if we are going to use weight as our criterion of fishing prowess, then I believe the only way we are going to reach excessive weight in this species is to catch females when they are fully gravid. I wouldn't be surprised if up to 30% of the weight of you fish was made up of eggs. We know something about egg development in the pikes and have some specific information from muskellunge. By late November and December, they have built probably 60% to 90% of their egg mass. Then ovary size doesn't increase much until about a month after spawning, when the moisture content increases as the eggs are "finished". This increase is not large, probably a 10% increase in ovary mass.
During the winter period, these large females are not feeding actively. In fact, they are burning up muscle and, to some extent, abdominal fat. So there's a loss of weight from this component. This means that to reach a very large size, the fish needs to be caught late in the fishing season...
"All of this is simply some of the science behind fish growth and age. None of it in any detracts from the beautiful fish you caught, its egg mass, or time of year. Indeed, it confirms the science that we've been deligently developing over a long period of time..."
LR: Very interesting stuff. I especially zero'ed in on "Incidentally, the 1980s was a decade of frequently El Niño years just below the extremes, and as you may know, 1983 was specially warm." To me, this says that some of the genetic giants. or 'freaks' from those spawning populations are nearing the upper known end of their age spectrum, and hence, likely their maximum size as well! Will THIS be the year that the ONE is caught that puts all previous debate to rest? I hope so. |
|
| |
|
| Kingfisher - 2/8/2011 8:09 PMIm gonna need a bigger boat LMFAO Mike
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | Guest - 2/8/2011 11:03 PM
kingfisher, if you read/buy Larry's latest compendium you'll that 66" muskie was debunked, the taxidermist admitted to stretching the truth about that fish. The 68" doesn't look that long to me and is unverified even though it was captured by the WDNR. If you're going to believe what fishery personnel say, you might as well believe in the 102 lber that was said to be netted in the late 1800s. I think the story went on to say it fed the whole town, LOL!
60" 60 lbs is my guess, if a bigger one was out there it would have been caught already.
Im just having fun with this I really do love the lore, the myths and the legends. Its the greatest cluster of stretched truths and outright lies, speculations and facts all sewn together in the world today. It reminds me of our government ha ha ha ha . Have fun with it I am. But ok lets debate one thing you said. If I cant believe the fishery people who can I believe? You? ha ha ha ha ha ah This is rich. Mike
60" 60 lbs is my guess, if a bigger one was out there it would have been caught already.
And how do (YOU) know for certain it hasnt been caught already? speculation? facts? With catch and release there have been 4 fish that I know of which (COULD) have been over 70 pounds. There is no proof either way as these fish were released. So where do you get the proof that one has (NOT) been caught and released? How do you (KNOW)? Now read the 4 words in capital letters in a row and the truth shall set you free. Ha Ha Ha I love you guys . Mike |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | My honest opinion based on nothing but all of my years of hearing the myths and legends and seeing the facts from both released and killed fish is that a new world record will be a natural 60 to 65 pound fish at least 58 inches long and she will have consumed several large prey fish just prior to her capture in very late fall like December 15th. The added prey fish in her gut will put her over the 70 pound mark. I also believe with all my heart that very few will accept it. It will be the most contested fish in the history of modern angling. Mike
Edited by Kingfisher 2/9/2011 12:28 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 89
Location: East of muskie country | I have seen multiple 60"+ in the Passaic river. I love beer |
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | Hi Larry, thanks for posting the letter from Dr. John Casselman. I think his El Niño theory is an interesting angle to say the least. I believe I've heard you (or someone) say that Williamson's fish was a sterile female that was absorbing its a egg mass and that's why she was able to attain such a phenomenal weight. Then I read that Casselman says that the fish was basically carrying over 20lbs of eggs, this actually surprised me because it seems almost crazy percentagewise... even for a normal fish. But what do I know!
Casselman ~ "I wouldn't be surprised if up to 30% of the weight of you fish was made up of eggs."
What do you think?
Casselman ~ "In 1964, when working on the St. Lawrence River, we tagged a female muskellunge that was 54 inches long, weighing 54 pounds. It was taken at spawning time... The proportions of these two fish - yours and that one - are very similar."
I thought that was an interesting proportional comparison between 2 fish with a 7+ pound weight differential.
Casselman ~ "A couple of other points of interest: Mathematically, we can estimate from growth of trajectory of ultimate size... The female muskellunge that I tagged years ago on the St. Lawrence River and your fish fall almost exactly on the the average ultimate size. The can get larger than this, but not very much..."
Re: thread... "maximum size in Muskie can grow" That's easy, just ask an expert.
Thank you Larry!
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | Jerry Newman - 2/10/2011 10:43 PM
Hi Larry, thanks for posting the letter from Dr. John Casselman. I think his El Niño theory is an interesting angle to say the least. I believe I've heard you (or someone) say that Williamson's fish was a sterile female that was absorbing its a egg mass and that's why she was able to attain such a phenomenal weight. Then I read that Casselman says that the fish was basically carrying over 20lbs of eggs, this actually surprised me because it seems almost crazy percentagewise... even for a normal fish. But what do I know!
Casselman ~ "I wouldn't be surprised if up to 30% of the weight of you fish was made up of eggs."
What do you think?
Casselman ~ "In 1964, when working on the St. Lawrence River, we tagged a female muskellunge that was 54 inches long, weighing 54 pounds. It was taken at spawning time... The proportions of these two fish - yours and that one - are very similar."
I thought that was an interesting proportional comparison between 2 fish with a 7+ pound weight differential.
Casselman ~ "A couple of other points of interest: Mathematically, we can estimate from growth of trajectory of ultimate size... The female muskellunge that I tagged years ago on the St. Lawrence River and your fish fall almost exactly on the the average ultimate size. The can get larger than this, but not very much..."
Re: thread... "maximum size in Muskie can grow" That's easy, just ask an expert.
Thank you Larry!
Awesome, so a 54 inch fish can reach 61 pounds. Then a 58 to 60 inch fish should be able to reach 65/66 pounds(Obrien Fish). Then its just one 5 pound Whitefish, pike , walleye, carp, away from 70 plus. Thanks Jerry
Edited by Kingfisher 2/11/2011 9:15 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Jerry:
When I worked with Dr. Lebeau on Eagle and Wabigoon Lakes in 1986, he told me that from the work he had done that in the allopatric specimen's, an egg weight of 20% was NORMAL. If captured in DNR nets before spawning, a 50 pound muskie could weigh 60, or according to Dr. Casselman (30% egg mass/body weight), 65 pounds! Accordingly, that is the basis for his comment "...to reach a very large size, the fish needs to be caught late in the fishing season...", or EARLY before spawning in areas where the season is open such as the southern waters.
I was told by the area biologist that examined it, that Williamson's muskie was a sterile female that was putting all of its energy toward growth instead of eggs, which obviously, had the same result...heavy weight to length ratio...as if it were egg laden as Dr. Casselman apparently thought. This in turn allowed that fish to obtain weights "normally" obtained by larger, older specimen's.
Basically, as I have alluded to in other posts, that fish was a freak...or more kindly, an anomaly and far outside of the norm. Dr. Casselman's statement "The female muskellunge that I tagged years ago on the St. Lawrence River and your fish fall almost exactly on the the average ultimate size. They can get larger than this, but not very much...", tends to "understate" potential MAXIMUM SIZE, as he prefers to use the "low side" average, rather than ULTIMATE maximum size, which by the way, he has stated that he believes to be in the range of 63 inches long and around 72 pounds for weight.
Maybe there is hope for us yet!
|
|
| |
|
| All great answers! So far... I like to think as big as it can, hope we get to find out someday We are only limited by our imaginations! |
|
| |
|
| Williamson's fish...61 lbs. 4 oz. (61.25 lbs.)
Casselman said "I wouldn't be surprised if up to 30% of the weight of your fish was made up of eggs.", which means he WOULD be surprised if it wasn't.
30% of it's weight in eggs = 18.375 lbs. According to Casselman in late November (when the fish was caught) muskies are up to 90% gravid. This means fully gravid the fish would be carrying 20.2125 lbs. of eggs.
61.25 lbs. - 18.375 lbs. = 42.875 lbs.
Casselman must have busted out laughing when he was informed that the fish contained only a small amount of undeveloping and underdeveloped eggs. After all, where did the massive amount of additional weight come from? Without the massive egg mass what contributed to the HUGE belly on this fish?
LR..."I was told by the area biologist that examined it that Williamson's muskie was a sterile female that was putting all it's energy toward growth instead of eggs, which obviously, had the same result...heavy weight to length ratio... as if it were egg laden as Dr. Casselman apparently thought.
WATER laden is the ONLY explanation for the HUGE belly on this fish since the massive amount of eggs has been ruled out. The massive belly is what CAUSED the heavy weight to length ratio and to claim otherwise is ludicrous.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | CS - 2/11/2011 11:51 AM
WATER laden is the ONLY explanation for the HUGE belly on this fish since the massive amount of eggs has been ruled out. The massive belly is what CAUSED the heavy weight to length ratio and to claim otherwise is ludicrous.
Or Forage laden, or Fish fat, or muscle mass, or just freakish large size. Large belly girth can also be caused by Bloating (air) therefore making formulas completely worthless . For instance a gallon Milk jug empty has the same girth as a gallon Milk jug full. Which one is heavier? Muskies and Pike have been known (proven fact) to eat forage 1/3 of their own size. There fore its is a no brainer that a flat out 60 pound Musky can and will eat Pike in the 10 to 12 pound range or consume up to and exceeding 10 pounds of forage fish such as Whitefish, sucker, Walleye, Mooneye and or Tulibee. What Larry is saying is the truth. It is Possible for someone to catch an egg laden Female in Late fall during a good feeding window right after she eats enough forage to put her over the top. I still say 58 to 60 inches long is needed to reach 70 pounds. But I want to examine one of the Casslemans statements. He said they grew proportionally . If you grow the New Brunswick fish 51.75 inches and 61 pounds on (A certified scale) to 58 inches proportionally what do you get? I get at 58.99 inches (14%) increase . at 14% increase in weight the fish would weigh 69.54 pounds. So at say 59.5 inches you could have your 70 pounder according to casslemans statement. But of course the New Brunswick fish must be a fake right? Other scientific studies have suggested that Muskies can not exceed half of the length in girth. This has been blown completely out of the water over 100 times. So a 60 inch fish could have a girth exceeding 30 inches. If cassleman is correct the New Brunswick fish with his proportional growth rate theory at 60 inches could have a 34.64 girth. If that girth is eggs or forage its a freak well over 70 pounds. No brainer. It is possible(not probable) but possible. There are probably no more then a dozen fish in the entire Musky range with those measurements. For anyone to catch one would be a sheer act of God. I have said it before,skill will have little to do with this fish being caught. Probably some salmon fishermen on a downrigger out in Lake Michigan or Lake Huron. Most likely if it happens it will not be properly documented and therefore ridiculed as a hoax. I think its out there but will never be accepted even if it is caught, weighed and measured,displayed and examined by the D.N.R. of the area. Someone will find fault with it because they did not catch it. Mike
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Well, surprise, surprise. Guess who is back making "cast in concrete" statements...none other than CS (give it a break George).
CS wrote: "WATER laden is the ONLY explanation for the HUGE belly on this fish since the massive amount of eggs has been ruled out. The massive belly is what CAUSED the heavy weight to length ratio and to claim otherwise is ludicrous."
LR: Yep, the "ONLY explanation". Do you ever stop and read what you write? It is YOUR STATEMENT that is "ludicrous". Have you ever looked at the photo of Williamson's fish fresh out of the water on the boat??? Started out BIG and stayed that way...did NOT increase in size after it was out of the water for awhile like some others have.
I can forsee the moderator's having to swing the axe again soon!
Did it weigh 61-4? Don't know for sure. It WAS weighed on a balance beam scale, but to my knowledge it was not certified, and if correct, it therefore cannot be substantiated, but it was likely close.
Kingfisher: I like the way you think! At least with regard to potential size. Think however, you are a bit negative beyond that...think positive!
|
|
| |
|
| LR..."Have you ever looked at the photo of Williamson's fish fresh out of the water on the boat???"
Yes I have and it got bigger after it was out of the water awhile just like the O"Brien fish.
What exactly do you feel caused the abdominal area to be so bloated if it wasn't full of eggs? From my recollection, all the stomach contained was a 15" whitefish and two 10" herring. Casselman wasn't fooled the way you are. He knew that the fish could not be that heavy unless it had a very large egg mass.
Furthermore, this fish was caught in Nov. of 2000 and reported to be 53.5. This fish would NOT have been legal if caught in 2001 because the length limit was increased to 54" total length. Then in 2001 the 53.5" length mysteriously became a 'fork length' measurement. This was never mentioned in 2000.
And don't try and claim that Williamson didn't know the proper way to measure a muskie.
When I said before that Williamson was an avid muskie fisherman you said "yes but for how long?" A little research shows that a large slice of his angling efforts over the past 31 years has been pursueing muskies with 10 over 40 lbs. including a 42 pounder which earned him the live-release honors back in the days when Molson Brewery sposored a popular and highly successful fishing contest.
I'm planning on becoming the new 'world record muskie advisor' at the NFWFHoF.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 550
Location: So. Illinois | "The wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round, round and round, the wheels on the bus go............." you get the point....
Jerry (aka - AFChief) |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | Larry Ramsell - 2/11/2011 2:27 PM
Kingfisher: I like the way you think! At least with regard to potential size. Think however, you are a bit negative beyond that...think positive!
I try to think positive. I look at possibilities and use mathematical formulas on things that grow proportionately like length ,girth and weight. Even if that Spooner fish was only 65 inches and not 68 It still creates the possibility of a 65 inch fish with a 32.5 inch girth. It has been the consensus of many that A musky can not attain a girth over half their length. Most of us know this is not true as in that Michigan fish of 51 by 28 and many others that have been shown. So ok Ill play the game and just use half the length . so a 65 by 32.5 would be a staggering 82.85 pounds according to the Muskies inc weight calculator. Of course this is absurd right? Should we believe that a Musky can grow to 65 inches in length? how bout 63 by 31.5 wow 78.14 still absurd right? how about 62 by 31 ? Again 74.5 61 by 30.5 wow still 70.93 . Again all speculation just using the Muskies inc formula which many people seem to use to put fish down but when its turned around the other way oh no no no no, formulas dont work on these big fish. but it was almost exact on that old Michigan Record. Very Close on the new Michigan Record. We see fish with huge girths all over the known range. Slobs that defy science and explanation. How big can a Musky really get? Now I have a cool experiment I am going to do. I am going to take Kyle Andersons 56 inch 50 pound Musky and scale the picure up to what a 70 pounder would look like. by mathematical formula. My guess is that it wont look much bigger then it already does. Mike |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | here is 56 inch 50 pound fish and the fish grown to 70 pounds by mathematical formula. As you can see its not really that much bigger. My Photo sho[ is not as easy as my old one. I cant seem to put the bigger fish back in his hands. This fish is huge even at 50 pounds. But really doesnt grow that much bigger to gain the extra 20 pounds
Edited by Kingfisher 2/11/2011 4:40 PM
(muskie-new-michigan-state-record-225x300.jpg)
Attachments
----------------
 muskie-new-michigan-state-record-225x300.jpg (30KB - 488 downloads)
70lbsa.jpg (15KB - 204 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | 4 inches in length and three inches in girth all done by % with known starting point. But again this is just speculation. This what I would think a 70 pound fish would look like.
One way to really see how little difference they really are would be to look at a 60 by 30 next to a 56 by 27 replicas. They just dont look that different.
Mike
Edited by Kingfisher 2/11/2011 4:49 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | CS/George wrote: "Yes I have and it got bigger after it was out of the water awhile just like the O"Brien fish."
LR: Well, I don't know what photos you are looking at or when, but your rose colored glasses are misleading you. And how about the photos that are showing the fish held in a manner that doesn't exhibit max. girth. I suppose those just look to you like the ones you catch?
CS/George continued: "What exactly do you feel caused the abdominal area to be so bloated if it wasn't full of eggs? From my recollection, all the stomach contained was a 15" whitefish and two 10" herring. Casselman wasn't fooled the way you are. He knew that the fish could not be that heavy unless it had a very large egg mass.
LR: Gee, I wonder if the forage fish just disappeared after they were swallowed. Have any idea George, how much a 15 inch whitefish weighs; or two 10" herring?
No, "Dr" (out of respect) Casselman "wasn't fooled", he made his comments before the determination of just what was in that fish had been made. But I'm sure you're right that forage just couldn't replace missing egg mass. And of course, the fish couldn't possibly have had layers of fat in its stomach either, like all other females do, dispite the fact it was sterile...nah, not possible George, you "must" be correct...yet again...NOT!
CS/George continued: "Furthermore, this fish was caught in Nov. of 2000 and reported to be 53.5. This fish would NOT have been legal if caught in 2001 because the length limit was increased to 54" total length."
LR: Again George, you are SADLY mistaken. When Martin Williamson brought his fish to the Muskie's Canada Oddessy in the spring of 2001, I asked him how the fish had been measured. That is when he said that it had been a fork length measurement...the following years length regulation change had ZERO bearing on anything. The fish WAS legal when caught, even had its TOTAL length been 53.5, which it wasn't. From that point, since Martin brought the mounted fish with him, it was a simple matter to measure the distance between the fork and the tip of the tail to determine the additional two inches of TOTAL LENGTH! George, you simply need to get more facts before you, 'er, try to convince folks of anything.
CS/George continued: "Then in 2001 the 53.5" length mysteriously became a 'fork length' measurement. This was never mentioned in 2000."
LR: SEE ABOVE
CS/George cont.: "And don't try and claim that Williamson didn't know the proper way to measure a muskie."
LR: OK George, I'm sure you know just exactly when Mr. Williamson knew and what he didn't know. Pardon me for doubting your absurdity.
CS/George continued: "When I said before that Williamson was an avid muskie fisherman you said "yes but for how long?" A little research shows that a large slice of his angling efforts over the past 31 years has been pursueing muskies with 10 over 40 lbs. including a 42 pounder which earned him the live-release honors back in the days when Molson Brewery sposored a popular and highly successful fishing contest."
LR: Glad to see you finally did a little research. No let's see if you have done or can do more. What method of length measurement did the Molson Contest use the year Martin caught his 42 pounder? I know, but let's see if you do or can find out.
CS/George ended: "I'm planning on becoming the new 'world record muskie advisor' at the NFWFHoF."
LR (and I suspect I speak for many others): That's GREAT! You deserve each other. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | I guess what Im saying is that a 70 pounder isnt as big an aircraft carrier. It 4 inches longer and 3 inches of girth bigger then this 50 pounder. Mike |
|
| |
|
| Does anyone know the stomach contents of that fish? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | Guest - 2/11/2011 7:08 PM
Does anyone know the stomach contents of that fish?
I was told it was empty. Mike |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | CS/George: All the other BS aside, since you seem to conviently ignore what you cannot answer or come up with some off the wall stuff, you seem to forget that I have copies of the work you did AGAINST the Spray and Johnson muskies. Strange you now ignore your own work and join the "other team". As I said before, "GREAT". It truly is a match made in heaven.
Don't expect any further debate from me, you just aren't worth anymore of my time, since like JD, you pick and choose what suits your purpose and ignore the rest. Enjoy working with the Hall, although I can't imagine what they need you for since they don't maintain a list of valid 60-pound muskies, have their "local favorites" in place. Everyone here knows what a sham "their" current all-tackle records are. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Larry,
He's not worth arguing with at all, because he has the distinct advantage of being disassociated with reality. |
|
| |
