|
|
| MH had an article from MI Canada in rebuttal to the WRMA report on the O'Brien fish. Wondering if any of you has read it and what you think.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 540
Location: MN | To ****ing early for this #*#*!! |
|
| |
|
| Then move on to something else............MH didn't think it was too early. Neither did MI Canada. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 181
Location: St.John, Indiana | How can a potential record fish be so mishandled ? One would think extra care would of been taken ,or was is done as planned !
I vote to wipe the books and start from scratch! But then where do you start ,do we go back and check every fish caught that was close, I'm sure that is not possible.
So maybe put an * by the record to signify questionable size. Vexing!!!
The real question is are there any 70lb Musky swimming in our waters? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| It doesn't seem like there is any credible undisputed evidence of ANY musky even reaching 60#'s much less 70#'s. I don't think they get as big as most would hope.
The biggest I can verify legnthwise is 57-8". Those were only in the mid 40lb. class. Seems like a 60lb + fish is yet to be fully authenticated.
Edited by fins355 10/5/2011 7:16 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1529
| its not m.i canada.
its muskies canada. .
while both groups are similir, theres big differences on thought and standards |
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | The following is the WMA's rebuttal that appeared in the last issue of Musky Hunter, for those who do not get the magazine.
WORLD MUSKIE ALLIANCE REBUTTAL TO:
“Muskies Canada responds to WMA’s O'Brien challenge”
We find it very disconcerting that Muskies Canada Inc. (MCI) penned a slanted letter to Musky Hunter regarding the contents of our O’Brien Summary Report. We say slanted because Ian Young (President of MCI), misleadingly only commented on the frozen fish and “unquestioned integrity and competence” of the witnesses.
Unfortunately, Mr. Young (on behalf of MCI and all of Canada) lead the charge to maintain this fish as the 65lb Canadian record, and without a reasonable explanation our report was summarily dismissed and the record stands. “To conclude, we continue to accept the support for the size and weight of Ken O'Brien's fish from the eyewitnesses on the day it was caught and do not agree with the evidence and reasoning supporting the WMA's challenge”.
Hopefully, the truth (whether one cares about the records or not) is still important, and although Ian Young may not want to hear this, we still hold out hope that there are some honest and concerned MCI members who do. Surely there is enough interest in the maximum obtainable weight of this great fish to warrant a proper review by MCI.
Mr. Young can claim that O’Brien’s fish mysteriously lost 4” in length because it was “bent up to put in the freezer”. However, this is simply not true because Larry Ramsell stated there was plenty of room in the freezer it was placed in. “As for the head being bent over when I re-measured the fish, all one need do is look at my photo in the Summary Report, the lower jaw is in line with the fork of the tail and certainly isn’t hiding 4” of length!”
Further, how can Mr. Young claim “the weight loss can be accounted for by the massive loss of blood due to mishandling of the fish” when the fish had already bled out prior to being weighed in at 65lbs? The facts are that when Mr. Ramsell re-weighed it at 56lbs, the eggs, stomach contents, and fish were still just as intact as when it was weighed and placed in the freezer, a nearly 15 % weight lost is not plausible due to dehydration. Marc Thorpe quote (past President of MCI), “Any dehydration loss after only 8 days should have been in ounces, not pounds”.
Outside of our report, one of our more profound discoveries is that Advanced Taxidermy has been using a different mold cast for making their O'Brien replicas even though they own an original one. The mold cast that Advanced has been using was from a different fish that measured 58”. Therefore, if Mr. O'Brien's fish was truly 58", why would they have used this other fish mold to make O’Brien replicas?
A popular misconception is that WMA is somehow responsible for fracturing the muskellunge community by wanting to authenticate our history. Once again, (as with Spray and Johnson) when our research debunks someone’s pet fish, things get covered up and twisted into something ugly. In a nutshell, had MCI honestly reviewed our report, the WMA would have been in position to champion Canada’s largest muskie.
I know first hand that this mattered greatly to the late Martin Williamson because I had the privilege of speaking with him many times about it. As a matter fact, I spoke with him only weeks before he passed regarding our O’Brien report findings and where his magnificent 61 lbs. 4 oz. muskellunge now stood. I hope MCI management can live with depriving his legacy of possibly achieving something that he was rightly entitled to.
I personally think it is shameful that Ian Young is using a great organization like MCI to protect the individuals responsible for desecrating a genuine mid-50lb fish. All we are asking for now is that since MCI has thrown their hat in the ring (for all the wrong reasons), they should honestly review the entire report this time around.
Sincerely,
Jerry Newman
World Muskie Alliance
www.worldmuskiealliance.com
PIC>>>> MCI’s position challenges the competency of Dr. Crossman’s staff who prepared O’Brien’s fish at the Royal Ontario Museum (ROM). How could the ROM have received a 58” fish and ended up with this 54” mold cast?
(O'Brien mold 10-10 Hawksley - Copy.JPG)
Attachments
----------------
 O'Brien mold 10-10 Hawksley - Copy.JPG (24KB - 607 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Very interesting...
Do you recall which issue contained MCI's response to the WMA report Jerry? I don't get MH magazine, but if I cannot find someone who has it and can share the response, then I can certainly just call MH and get a back issue. I would like to read it, but haven't been able to find much mention of it online. I think it was October 2011, but I am not sure.
TB |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | I have now read the article that appeared in MH magazine. To say that the "rebuttal" is very disappointing is a gross understatement. I simply do not understand how it could have been submitted in good faith, knowing full well that the crux of the WMA report was the photo of the FRESH fish (i.e.; prior to freezing), hanging coplanar to a yardstick. At that point, any discussion of the possible influence of the fish's throat being cut is moot--because the freezing process is a non-issue. It's simply irrelevant because the photo clearly shows that the head and body of the fish are basically in the normal anatomic position. Gravity has seen to this. There is no possible way that a fish, hanging from a rope through its jaw, is four inches shorter than a length measured with it laying down. Again, gravity has seen to this. I did the calculations on the length estimates myself, and they were in close agreement with those of Mr. Mills. Simply put, the fish hanging in those photos is NOT a 58" muskellunge.
But as to the issue of the weight loss, this is substantially more complicated. The argument used to explain the significant weight discrepancy noted by Mr. Ramsell several days after the catch, was that the fish weighed nine pounds less due to blood loss and dehydration. I find this most interesting, so I decided to do a bit of research into the matter.
To start, I found this article: http://jeb.biologists.org/content/201/5/647.full.pdf
This article reports that the blood volume of most teleosts (bony fish) is in the range of 30-70 ml per kilogram of body weight. Presently, I am not aware of any published literature that specifically reports the blood volume of muskellunge, so I will use this range for the purposes of this discussion. Assuming Mr. O'Brien's fish was truly 65 pounds, this equates to about 30 kilograms (65lbs / 2.2 = 29.5454 kg). So if we use the upper limit of the reported blood volume figure, one might expect an average volume of blood quantity in a 65-pound muskellunge to be in the order of about 2100 ml. So given that a quart is about 1.05 liters, such a muskellunge might be expected to contain about 2.2 quarts of blood. And as there are four quarts to a gallon and a gallon of water weighs about 8.35 pounds, it should be relatively easy to see that a nine pound discrepancy in weight cannot be fully explained by blood loss alone. Even considering the fact that blood has a higher specific density than water and human blood is reported to weight about 2.315 pounds per liter, one would not expect the contribution of blood to the total weight of a 65-pound muskellunge to exceed about 5 pounds (2.1 liters X 2.315 lbs/liter = 4.862 pounds). So where did the other 4 pounds go? Dehydration?
In the mammalian body, intracellular fluid comprises about 60-65% of the total fluid quantity. So the other 35-40% is in the extracellular space, which is comprised of the vascular and interstitial spaces. Therefore it is theoretically possible (if we use human body fluid proportions) that a muskellunge might indeed contain as much as about 3 liters of fluid not in the blood vessels; and this might account for another 5-6 pounds of weight. However it must be realized that this fluid is NOT in the blood vessels, and therefore would not have been lost when the fish's blood volume was (reportedly) released by Mr. O'Brien in the boat after the catch. Instead, that intracellular fluid would have traveled across the cellular membranes by osmosis (diffusion of water across a membrane), after the fish's blood volume had decreased. And since the fish presumably died soon after its throat was cut, it is quite likely that any fluid shifts due to osmosis would not have happened to a great extent prior to the heart stopping. Thus there really should not have been much intracellular fluid lost while the fish was still alive. So now we have to consider the weight of the intracellular and interstitial fluids, in order to account for the extra 4-5 pounds of discrepant weight noted by Mr. Ramsell several days after the catch.
Since the fish was frozen after the catch and (reportedly) not removed from the freezer until Mr. Ramsell examined it several days later, it seems extremely unlikely that a significant quantity of fluid would have been lost during this time. For one thing, osmosis would not have proceeded quickly across the various membranes in the fish. Since the temperature in the freezer was (by definition) below freezing, most of the water in the fish would have been at least partially crystallized. While water is the main solvent in the body, there are various ions like sodium, potassium and chloride present; as are there solutes like various proteins. But the vast majority of ions in the body are contained in the blood, which (per our previous assumptions) would have bled out as the fish was dying. So the tonicity of any fluid remaining in the fish would have been much closer to plain water rather than to salt water. Thus it would seem that this would have been more crystallized (i.e.; frozen) while the fish was in the freezer. Simply put, there wouldn't have been enough salt left in the water to keep it from freezing. Thus it would seem very unlikely that an appreciable quantity of intracellular and interstitial fluid would have been re-vascularized after the fish was placed in the freezer. So what does this mean then?
Basically it means that whatever fluid was lost from the fish, was lost before the fish was frozen. And if the fish's "throat" was cut in the boat before the fish even got to shore (and was later weighed), any loss of weight occurred prior to the initial weighing of the fish...and not after. So if the fish was weighed at 65 pounds, it SHOULD have had a live weight of nearly 70 pounds (i.e.; prior to the loss of blood). However in this author's opinion, this would not at all explain the nine pound discrepancy in weight found by Mr. Ramsell several days after the catch. So the arguments used in the MCI rebuttal to explain this weight discrepancy are simply not valid, in my humble opinion. I agree with the quote from Mr. Thorpe that any further fluid loss would have been in the order of magnitude of ounces (not pounds), after the fish was frozen. Even if the fish had an extra 5-6 pounds of (non-blood) fluid volume after every drop of blood was lost, there simply was not time for the fish to have lost ALL of that fluid before it was frozen. Also, the intracellular/interstitial fluid would not have completely entered the intravascular space under osmosis: It would only have equilibrated with that space, and therefore there would STILL have been a significant amount of fluid remaining outside of the blood vessels, unavailable to be lost in that fashion. And by the way--since the heart had long stopped pumping, how would any of this re-vascularized fluid have gotten to the gill area to be lost? Once any osmotically-driven revascularization occurred, the fluid would simply remain in the vessels, not subject to loss at the point the knife had disrupted the vessel wall integrity (i.e.; the gill area).
So after reading the MCI rebuttal, I am even more skeptical of the true length and weight measurements of Mr. O'Brien's fish. While a tremendous specimen, there are simply too many unanswered questions remaining for my comfort. While I have no interest whatsoever in the "World Record" musky debate, I care very much about the truth and the facts surrounding such a catch. This is because, in my humble opinion, these facts represent the very essence of our sport. They represent the integrity of the people participating in the catch process. And if that essence and integrity is in doubt, then what do we have? We have nothing. While some may argue that this type of controversy contributes to the "mystique" of our sport, I feel that it only serves to cloud our history and invite bias against efforts to further the knowledge base in regards to the true potential of muskellunge across the entire range. Simply put, it makes it much harder for honest individuals to make positive contributions to the future of our great sport.
Of course, my opinions might only be worth exactly what you paid for them...
TB
Edited by tcbetka 4/24/2012 9:04 AM
|
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | "I did the calculations on the length estimates myself, and they were in close agreement with those of Mr. Mills. Simply put, the fish hanging in those photos is NOT a 58" muskellunge. But as to the issue of the weight loss, this is substantially more complicated."
Tom, to uncomplicated things... my opinion is that once the claimed 58" length was scientifically proven false, everything after that can (and should be) dismissed as well for obvious reasons.
I tried to load the Muskies Canada Inc. rebuttal to the WMA O'Brien Summary Report here without much success (hard to read). If anyone is interested I will try again...
Edited by Jerry Newman 4/24/2012 7:38 PM
Attachments
----------------
MCI Young 001.jpg (33KB - 352 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Right, understood. And we've talked about that before at length. I don't disagree with that logic, but obviously there are some folks out there that might. So I decided to do a bit of research into just how likely it was that such a weight loss could be caused by blood loss or "dehydration." This is how we learn...and I found the results very interesting, so I decided to post so that others could think about it as well.
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 128
| fins355 - 10/4/2011 8:13 PM
It doesn't seem like there is any credible undisputed evidence of ANY musky even reaching 60#'s much less 70#'s. I don't think they get as big as most would hope.
The biggest I can verify legnthwise is 57-8". Those were only in the mid 40lb. class. Seems like a 60lb + fish is yet to be fully authenticated.
The latest big fish from Michigan was 1 whitefish in it's belly away from being 60lbs. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | I would agree that it is quite plausible that the MI fish could have achieved the 60-pound mark. It doesn't take much for a fish of that magnitude to munch 2-3 pounds of forage, and there you have it. It was truly a magnificent specimen, to say the least. I've long-believed in the existence of 60-pound muskies, and have gone on record many times (including several times on this forum) stating my beliefs.
I will be very interested to hear the report on the evaluation of the cleithra from this fish. If it shown that the fish is around the 20-year mark in age as has been suggested by someone very knowledgeable on that population, then I have no problem believing that the fish would likely have gotten even heavier that the reported weight. I will also be curious to hear the results of the egg count from the ovaries.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 11/8/2012 7:51 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | tcbetka - 10/26/2012 10:59 AM
I would agree that it is quite plausible that the MI fish could have achieved the 60-pound mark. It doesn't take much for a fish of that magnitude to munch 2-3 pounds of forage, and there you have it. It was truly a magnificent specimen, to say the least. I've long-believed in the existence of 60-pound muskies, and have gone on record many times (including several times on this forum) stating my beliefs.
I will be very interested to hear the report on the evaluation of the cleithra from this fish. If it shown that the fish is around the 20-year mark in age as has been suggested by someone very knowledgeable on that population, then I have no problem believing that the fish would likely have gotten even heavier that the reported weight. I will also be curious to hear the results of the egg count from the ovaries.
TB
And that point is exactly where I have always stood on the matter of how big can they get. Both Pike and Muskies are on record of eating fish half their own body length and still taking a lure . We now know beyond any doubt that there are 58 pound muskies out there. We have one and there are many other fish that have had the same and even larger (claimed) dimensions. I think its safe to say there are solid 60 pound muskies out there without counting stomach contents. Stomach contents are the unknown variable, always will be and always have been. Whether stuffed with rocks, sand, water, or other debris by unethical anglers or simply ingested by the musky herself .The contents of their stomachs make weights above 60 pounds not only possible but probable. I am sure this Michigan fish weighed between 60 and 65 pounds at some time in her life and at 21 years old she could have grown even larger. Lots of big suckers, Whitefish and Pike in that system. World records are not average fish. Larry and Mike weighed another at 58 pounds correct? Two 58 pound fish in one year? Sounds more like above average big fish to me not freaks. I do NOT think for one minute that our Michigan fish will last long as the world record. Nature has a way of humbling our greatest achievements and making fools out of our most brilliant minds. Once we say it cant happen it will.
One thing I can say for sure. All this debate on these fish has exposed a lot of misconceptions and truths about just how big they actually do get. This 58 pound fish reinforces my belief that they get bigger. It does not for one minute make me think that 58 or even 60 is the limit on how big they get. The best thing to come out of all this is the extra care now taken to prove weight, length and the verification process. There is zero dispute on this Michigan 58 pounder. Im excited because I live only three hours away form world class waters now.
Keep working on a better live fish formula. And to everyone involved in this , Thank you for all of this information . We are entering into some exciting times. Will Georgian bay answer the challenge? How about The St. Lawrence? or the many other possible waters holding a 59/60 pound Musky? Does anyone really think our 58 from Michigan is going to stand? I don't. Mike
Edited by Kingfisher 5/22/2013 8:38 AM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | I would agree that there are likely fish that, at one time or another during a given season, are probably in excess of 60 pounds. But with regards to the size of their forage though I'd almost argue that they could pick up more weight eating a greater quantity of smaller forage. Eating smaller fish a few at a time seems like a very good way to pack on the maximum number of calories before Winter, in my opinion. If the name of the game is to eat biomass, then smaller fish probably contain more caloric value per volume than a larger fish. Not only that but in all likelihood the musky probably won't be as satiated eating smaller fish, so their drive to continue feeding would quite possibly persist--ultimately resulting in a greater number of calories consumed. And of course the smaller forage are going to be more quickly digested, resulting in more quickly converting forage biomass to musky biomass.
So I am not claiming an absolute certainty here, in terms of the preferred forage of large muskellunge--but assuming equal availability across all sizes of forage, I am inclined to think that large muskies will actually prefer smaller, more easily-digested species, that will (ultimately) allow them to pack on more calories in a given length of time. And if this is indeed the case, then it probably speaks against the whole idea that a 60-pound musky is "one meal away from 70 pounds."
It's a very interesting discussion, and the physician in me tells me that it does indeed make at least some sense from a biological standpoint.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 5/22/2013 9:05 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Tom,
I have some interesting photos showing stomach content of muskies I've mounted over the years. It's amazing what these fish can "pack in". If you would like to see them let me know. I'll have to search a bit and scan them in.
DougP
Doug Petrousek
DOUGLAS TAXIDERMY
[email protected] |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | I for one would love to see what they can pack in. Maybe not one meal away but one feeding window away. Not much difference really. One 10 pound pike or two 5 pound Suckers, 3 three pound whitefish. Or 8 large Gizzard Shad. I would like to see the largest recorded stomach contents weight.
I have seen one. I first built Johnny Dadson a 21 inch Lake trout Lure. I asked why over 20 inches. He sent me a picture of a 22 inch Lake trout removed from a 54 inch Musky. This was a Georgian bay fish I think but Johnny would know exactly where it came from. 22 inch lake trout can be anywhere from 3 to 7 pounds. 47% of 58 is about 25 inches. Lake trout , Pike and Whitefish all weigh around 5 to 7 pounds at 25 inches. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Yes, I agree--if you can make them available Doug, I'd love to see them. You can post them on Flickr or Photobucket or someplace like that. That would be very cool!
I think muskies will eat whatever they can if they are hungry. But it would be very interesting to know what their "preferred" forage is, given a choice. I'm not sure how you would ever prove anything, especially since you might not know all the details of a particular catch--or even know where the fish actually came from, and what other forage might have been present in the area at the time.
Bottom line I think all we can say for certain is that big fish eat smaller fish, and that may be as good as it gets. No rocket science there I suppose--but I would love to see any pictures you might have Doug.
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | I'd like to see them too Doug.
Mike, when I worked on the Eagle Lake study in 1986, we had a 38-inch pike in the net that had a 22-inch whitefish in it! Almost 2/3 of it's length...can't use a lure toooo big! LOL |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Here's a few I have handy.....
(pike musky stmch cntnt.jpg smllr.jpg)
Attachments
----------------
pike musky stmch cntnt.jpg smllr.jpg (188KB - 2049 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| A couple more....
(musky stmch cntnt smllr.jpg)
Attachments
----------------
musky stmch cntnt smllr.jpg (154KB - 1538 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Incredible! I had no idea how efficient those big fish are at catching small prey. I can't believe all the perch and bluegill in the stomachs of those fish! I would have expected larger fish, like the sucker, whitefish and a pike...but wow!
Thanks for posting Doug!
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | Wow !!! I wonder , what does 32 mixed pan fish weigh? 7 or 8 pounds? |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | They almost have to. If each fish weighs 3-4 ounces, then 32 of them would be pushing 8 pounds! It's amazing how much those fish can eat--and it certainly reinforces the fact that they'll still bite after a meal...especially when they are feeding on small panfish and perch. So match the hatch, and set the hook!
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 82
| fins355 - 5/24/2013 2:31 PM
A couple more....
I'm calling bs on these two pictures, not a single tooth mark in any of those fish and no decomposition on a single one. Come on who do you take me for? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | No, I am not going to say it. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | DLC - 5/27/2013 8:15 PM
fins355 - 5/24/2013 2:31 PM
A couple more....
I'm calling bs on these two pictures, not a single tooth mark in any of those fish and no decomposition on a single one. Come on who do you take me for?
I call BS to your "BS" call Dan...
If you look at the size of most of those fish, it isn't very hard to imagine that a musky that large relative to its prey simply has to inhale the food. How would such a large set of jaws even get hold of such small prey? So I don't see any major problems with there not appearing to be tooth-marks on them.
Go to YouTube and watch some videos of large fish feeding on small fish. They just inhale the thing, and it goes right past their teeth.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 5/27/2013 10:10 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 82
| Yeah, ok. Boy are some going to have a field day with this. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 100
| I would like to know what time of year the fish above were caught. Specifically if the fish with large amounts of small forage were caught at different times of year than the fish with large forage in their bellies. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| DLC...you can call it bs if you like. These fish were opened by me for mounting and this is what was inside. The photos are mine and I stand by them. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Gregoire....these pics are not recent. If I remember correctly, the pike with the partially digested whitefish was from Tony Portincaso from the Churchill river system [1982-84 ??] . I'm not sure time of year it was caught but would guess early summer.
The musky with the bluegill and perch was from Cass Lake Mn. From what I remember the fish was caught in mid Oct. on the inside of a weedline in less than 6ft. of water. I recall thinking that was unusual since I would have thought that most of the panfish would have been deeper at that time of year. The fish may have fed in deeper water and come shallow to raise metabolism for digestion....???
I believe the musky with the perch was also from Cass Lake. I don't remember what time of year it was caught.
I will say that these pics are very unusual. Most of the pike and musky that I have mounted over the years have had little to no stomach content of any significance.
DougP
Edited by fins355 5/28/2013 10:40 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | This really does reinforce my belief that a 60 pound Musky is one feeding window away from 70 pounds. Here is one taxidermist showing several examples of what these big fish can and do ingest in one sitting so to speak. So if 60 pounds is as big as they get whats for dinner will determine how heavy she "could " get. I have zero doubts that true 60 pound Muskies reach the 70 pound mark on occasion and then slowly digest that weight away. Mike |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| I very much agree that IF a 60lb fish does exist....it could easily ingest 10lb of forage at one time. No doubt that it could ingest more than that.
DougP |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| My personal best musky is 53" and 37lbs. When opened she was empty. No doubt that she could have swallowed 5lbs+++...?? of baitfish which would have put her comfortably over 40lbs. Based on what I have seen she could have weighed as much as 45lbs....IMHO. But she didn't ;-[
DougP |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | In addition to "food", don't forget that "egg mass" can come heavily into play regarding weight as well. According to Dr. Bernard Lebeau, egg mass can constitute as much as 20% of body weight at maturity prior to spawning! A 50 could weigh 60 without eating anything...a 60...???
There are times and places where Muskies can be caught when they are FULL of spawn...toss in a decent meal and we have a new ball game...BUT, it hasn't happened...yet.
Many say you must have the length to have the weight...I don't necessarily agree, i.e., the Barbossa fish from last year...54.75 x 30.5 and weighed just over 58-pounds on a certified scale prior to release! I know other similar examples. I also know of one caught post spawn in late June not too long ago that was 62-63 inches long (59-inch fork length) that weighed only 49-pounds and another November fish that was 61 1/4 inches long that weighed only 43-pounds! Length isn't everything either... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | Yes, egg mass plus stomach contents. I have to wonder what the Michigan fish at 58 pounds would have weighed with mature eggs in say April. My best guess is 62 to 63 pounds with eggs. Most seasons are closed in April. Ours opens the last Saturday of April. This gives us a short window of opportunity to catch an egg laden Female . Our Season also does not close until March 15th so in some of these warmer winters March fishing has been possible. My opinion is there are two times every year when the possibility is highest. Right before ice up and as soon as the ice is off. November/December and March / April. Mike |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | My biggest fish was 53.5 on a bump board and weighed around 34 pounds. My wife has a 55 that was weighed in at 37 and released. No 40 pound fish for us yet. We have come pretty close though on that Antrim system. Mike |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | So then, all the evidence I have seen in all of these discussions shows me that there are fish out there pushing 60 pounds empty. That when egg mass and stomach contents are added in they can and most likely do exceed 70 pounds. This window of highest weight is very short and many waters are closed during this time period. Just before ice up during winter months and just before the spawn.. This period includes under the ice and some of most unpleasant weather in the northern sections of the Muskies range. Knowing what I know now about Northern Michigan fish I feel I have a better chance at a world record by concentrating my efforts here at home.
Thanks for another great discussion gentlemen. Mike |
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | I honestly do not believe in a 70 pound muskie.
With any other animal or species the maximum obtainable size coincides with the largest known specimen… look up snakes for instance. Why not just use the same scientific approach when it comes to muskie?
The heaviest properly recorded muskie is 58 pounds, and rounding to 60 pounds does seem reasonable enough, but I also think it would take near perfect circumstances to achieve that weight as was the case with the modern day record.
IMHO anything after 60 is just idle speculation unless/until it happens.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1023
| DLC - 5/27/2013 8:15 PM
fins355 - 5/24/2013 2:31 PM
A couple more....
I'm calling bs on these two pictures, not a single tooth mark in any of those fish and no decomposition on a single one. Come on who do you take me for?
I believe it. I used to have a pic of a 48 with a full grown muskrat in its stomach. It got its claws through its stomach wall and got even by killing it. I found it floating and almost dead and unrevivable.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8782
| We know there have been upper 50# muskies caught. There have been some limited studies of stomach contents. It's not a stretch to imagine a large late fall musky, already starting to develop eggs, who just finished eating any of what's shown in the pictures above. I'd venture to say that there are muskies out there who at one time or another would tip the scales at 70#. It would have to be a freak, and stuffed full of forage at the time. But I say it's possible. I have my doubts about such a fish ever eating anything we would put in it's face, though. If it's down there pigging out on whatever, why in the hell would it decide to eat a lure?? 70#? Entirely within the realm of possibility. Will one ever be caught? That's a different story. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | If a Giant Musky is down there Pigging out on forage I would think that is the best time to put a lure in front of her. Those guys who caught those fish pictured above did just that.  |
|
| |
