|
|
| With some of the recent kept fish and questionable weights. What is the longest kept fish in the past 5 years in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Canada, Michigan etc..?
The longest kept fish in recent times I know of is a 58.5 from Minnesota and 52lbs from Minnesota. Not sure about the other areas?
I like Ben Olsen's post......There seems to be a lot of newer musky fishermen every year that kill fish thinking they have some amazing record. Several years ago I heard of a 57" that went 50lbs in Minnesota. After talking with the actual taxidermist he said 45-46lbs tops. (lots of soft scales out there) |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1086
| You'll never really know. You can only determine the answer to your question from the small percentage of fish you hear about.
Only a small percentage of fish that are caught are ever heard about or reported. There's a lot of fishermen fishing for different species out there and a lot of muskie fishermen out there that don't advertise their catches. That don't spend time in internet forums like this. That don't buy into the publicity or the noteriety of it all.
Big fish are old and tired and might already be near the end of their life span due to age or health reason, before they're even hooked up with a hook at the end of an anglers line and through the fight process...the stress nearly kills them before they're even in the net. Regardless of all attempts to release that fish. That fish very well may appear to release healthy and just fine. Fact of the matter is...you don't know if that fish will make it beyond the next few hours, next few days, weeks or months. I can guarantee you there's a lot of big fish that are caught, that aren't heard of or known about, that may or may not revive and may be kept and either given to a taxidermist to make a mold from, or to have a skin mount made or to have the meat donated to a shelter, etc, etc.
Big, old fish like that, are reported to be past their spawning ability as well. So...is it better to keep a fish that wasn't able to be revived to have others benefit from it in the way of donating that fish to a taxidermist to make a mold from for future anglers to get replicas made from, or to donate the meat to a shelter to have hungry people have a meal from? Or to leave it lay in the water, die, maybe or maybe not float to the surface for another angler to find and become furious of because the happened to come across a dead 50+ inch fish and quickly "assume" and jump to conclusions that some uneducated angler killed that fish...even without knowing the full story?
Remember...fish are living creatures. A fish that is freshly caught... that would maybe measure 57 inches long and might weigh 50 lbs. But through the process of that fish dying, and it losing whatever contents it may have had internally in the stomach and through dehydration and again through a freezing process which dehydrates the fish even more so...once it gets to the taxidermist...it very well could only end up measuring out to maybe only 54 or 55 inches and only weighing 45-46 lbs. That's all due to a living fish dying and dehydrating which shrinks the body and it loses weight.
Ever pull weeds from your yard throw them to the side to see them wilt after even a few minutes? Loss of water pressure and dehydration....same thing with all living creatures..humans and fish alike.
Another fact of the matter is not all anglers have the same level of experience and education and not all anglers are accustomed to the ethics of a CPR program and not all anglers spend time searching out education through clubs like Muskies Inc and/or internet forums such as this.
Fact of the matter is....humans like to fish, fish of all species are caught, whether intentionally targeted or anglers targeting other species that accidentally catch a muskie and the muskie die due to being caught on light tackle. Lots of unknown factors out there and lots of situations happen.
All we can do is hopefully try to reach out and do our best to educate others. Some are open to education...some are not. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 173
| Mack do you know of any science behind the statement " big fish are past their spawning ability". I often see that repeated in print but don't think that is more than speculative. [ serves as mental salve for those keeping big fish too] |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1086
| I don't know of any science behind it. Like you...I've only seen that reported and printed for reading. We'd need to have a biologist weigh in on that. But I could see how it could potentially be conceivably true.
Kinda like older, human women...sure...some might still be able to have a healthy baby, but a lot of women, as they age, their bodies may not be able to handle it or produce the necessary means to reproduce another human life. Could the same hold true for older fish? :shrug:
I make no claims to know one way or another. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 7
| My theory is that really big females still produce eggs but they don't go into the classic spawning area's anymore, they stay deep. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 999
| Here we go again! Like a broken record! |
|
| |
|
| *Its not only spawning*
"Ever pull weeds from your yard throw them to the side to see them wilt after even a few minutes? Loss of water pressure and dehydration....same thing with all living creatures..humans and fish alike."
I completely disagree with his entire line of reasoning, as a matter of fact it's not even remotely close to the same thing. First of all, weeds don't have bones and bones don't shrink much, if at all. For sure a live 57" fish is not going to measure 54" at the taxidermist. I would venture to guess that most of these shrinking muskies are simply the result of accurate measurements being performed by the taxidermist. I could understand a 1/2" or so discrepancy, but 3-4" is obviously a stretch.
I'll throw it right back at you and say that if I bought 65 pounds of fresh beef, froze and reweighed it a week later and it was only 56 pounds I would have a major problem with my butcher. If you catch my drift?
|
|
| |
|
| The bones may night skrink but you ever think about whats holding them all together, ie. cartilage, ligaments, ect, which contain around 75% of the water???? I have no idea of the skeletal systems of fish so hopefully someone can chime in here. So with that said, I dont think that it is too far off to say a couple inches. I cannot speculate on this cuz im not expect. |
|
| |
|
| As someone who did taxidermy at one time some years back, I can say there is some shrinkage but it is very little. A friend once brought in a muskie that measured 52 inches when first caught. After the mount was complete we measured it for this very reason. Just to see if there actually was any shrinkage and the fish was only a quarter inch short from the original length. I don't claim to be an expert that's from just one experience. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 173
| Tim I agree it is July and lots of fishing to be done. I just always question the "old big fish don't spawn " statement. I think it gives many a justification to not release big fish. The really BIG Torch Lake fish of a couple years ago had been trap netted and the eggs used in the Michigan hatchery program.
Harvest is ,was and will be a factor in numbers of big fish. To think otherwise is short sighted. |
|
| |
|
| My original post was asking what the longest fish was and the heaviest; not if a fish loses weight etc... after being out of the water.
The taxidermist I referred to didn't weigh the fish. He used the standard girth formula and was generous with the weight based on that. I heard of a 58.5 kept from Minnesota several years back that weighed in the 40lb range and I thought the fish that died on Hammernick last year was 52lbs on a certified scale. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1086
|
Guest - 7/14/2011 12:26 PM
*Its not only spawning*
"Ever pull weeds from your yard throw them to the side to see them wilt after even a few minutes? Loss of water pressure and dehydration....same thing with all living creatures..humans and fish alike."
I completely disagree with his entire line of reasoning, as a matter of fact it's not even remotely close to the same thing. First of all, weeds don't have bones and bones don't shrink much, if at all. For sure a live 57" fish is not going to measure 54" at the taxidermist. I would venture to guess that most of these shrinking muskies are simply the result of accurate measurements being performed by the taxidermist. I could understand a 1/2" or so discrepancy, but 3-4" is obviously a stretch.
I'll throw it right back at you and say that if I bought 65 pounds of fresh beef, froze and reweighed it a week later and it was only 56 pounds I would have a major problem with my butcher. If you catch my drift?
Only reason I brought up the weeds analogy is that it is a quick, easy way to see how much dehydration affects a living create after death. Of course weeds don't have bones. Ha! Yes...I agree...bones won't shrink. But, yes....exactly...the cartilage and muscle will shrink. The body will lose mass, which a lot of that mass is attributed to water weight within the body. Just like the weed analogy: loss of water weight. Sure...a taxidermist can still stretch that fish's skin back to the fish's living measured length and girth.
All I'm saying is...a live fish will measure and weigh one thing...once dead...depending on how long it takes to get the fish to a taxidermist for a re-measurement, and how much "internal contents" pass out of the fish, that fish will measure and weigh something different.
As for your fresh beef analogy. That beef weighed more when the animal was alive prior to going to sale at the butcher shop. So it's already lost all it's going to lose prior to you buying it and freezing it to eat later on. And then once you cook that beef...and you cook out the fat...you'll then have another weight entirely.
As for the original question of: "What is the longest kept fish in the past 5 years in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Canada, Michigan etc..?"
No body knows. Simple as that.
Man. Sure do wish I could go fishin'.....but instead...I'll suffice to sit here and read everyone's thoughts and opinions.  Ha! Yeaup...and it's only July and it's HOT out there! People would be pitchin' a b#tch if I was out fishin' right now too.
Can't win with the internet muskie experts! Dang if ya do! Danged if ya don't! |
|
| |
|
| I know of a 58 inch fish that came out of St. Clair last fall but I am not aware of its weight. |
|
| |
|
| Mack,
Even fish that have been freeze dried don't experience a loss in length like you claim so how could any skeletal length be lost under normal conditions? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1086
| Man you guys are a bunch of literal folks, aren't you? Take things way too literal and way too seriously.
I'm not making any "claims" to be exact science just making some general examples. Okay...so a 57 inch fish when measure alive might not lose 3 inches after death. But it will lose some length and it will lose some weight. There. Feel better? Geeeez.
Edited by MACK 7/15/2011 1:56 PM
|
|
| |
|
| A recent post had a fish measured with dollar bills...who cares...all my fish are video shot on the bump board.... |
|
| |
biggest kept fish