|
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | I have one question in regards to the new world record. We all know it was caught on a 7 inch sucker minnow . Were the stomach contents studied? Did she have anything in her stomach? If so what did it weigh? To me this is an important topic as to her weight potential. If she was 58 empty she could have weighed as much as 70 pounds with 12 pounds of forage in her gut. Not probable as it would be more like 3 to 5 pounds full. Even then 63? 64? I wonder if anyone has ever caught and killed a musky that had over 10 pounds of fish in its stomach? I believe that Stomach contents are the unknown variable and knowing what one of the mega fish can choke down is important "to me" anyway. Mike |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Larry Ramsell is the best guy to ask about the diet thing in general--and he may have an idea about the stomach contents of that fish as well. There was a study done here in Wisconsin a few years ago, about the diet of muskellunge:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/MuskyDiets
I haven't read it in a year or two, but don't believe there was anything even close to that weight found. I'll go through it again tomorrow, but there's the link to it if you want to have a look as well.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 5/21/2013 10:03 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | Probably nothing sampled even close to a 58 pound fish either. It did state repeatedly that Muskellunge ate forage 6 to 47% their own body length and that the length of the Musky did relate to the length of the forage. 47% of 58 inches is 27.26 inches. A 20 inch small mouth is roughly 5 pounds. Pike in the 25 to 27 inch range are 3 to 5 pounds. Whitefish get pretty big over here. We catch them every fall in the 3 to 5 pound range 20 to 25 inches. This study showed mostly that in Wisconsin and some Canadian waters Yellow perch were the main forage. The Biggest Muskies seem to grow in waters where Whitefish, Cisco and or other oily bait are present. Still an interesting read. Thanks for posting it. Mike |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | You'd have to talk to a couple of the local Green Bay taxidermist about fish approaching that size here in this area--or you could talk to the one angler who harvested more than one large fish back in 2006 or 2007. As I recall, one of them was about 54 pounds. But he could probably tell you what those fish had been feeding on. I'm pretty confident that they were gizzard shad and/or gobies, as those are pretty prevalent in these waters. You can troll over a school of shad a hundred feet long or more, in the Fall here at the mouth of the Fox river. I've seen numerous hook echoes near some of those schools, and have harpooned many a shad trolling in the river channel. And I've caught muskies in the same area, on the same day. All my fish were released, so I cannot prove what those fish were feeding on--but I'd bet a lot on it being gizzard shad.
So my point is that not all big muskies feed on BIG forage. If it's easier to feed on 5-8" shad, they will. They'll just eat more of them. Killer whales eat small herring, and the size disparity there is more significant that that between muskies and gizzard shad. Captain Larry Jones has told me many times that they'll catch BIG muskies in and around schools of shad. Muskies are opportunists, and if shad are plentiful and require very little work as forage, that's what they'll eat.
Shad...it's what's for dinner!
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Mike:
That fish had an almost completely digested 13-inch smallmouth bass in it...only thing left was the backbone, ribs, tail and a tad of skin near it and the lower jawbone. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | Larry Ramsell - 5/23/2013 9:22 AM
Mike:
That fish had an almost completely digested 13-inch smallmouth bass in it...only thing left was the backbone, ribs, tail and a tad of skin near it and the lower jawbone.
So she was pretty much empty and I'm guessing a 13 inch small mouth only weighs about 1 pound to 1 1/2 pounds live. I kept a 21 inch small mouth once when I was a kid that weighed 5 pounds 7 ounces. I can only wonder what the biggest fish she ever ate was. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | tcbetka - 5/22/2013 8:45 PM
You'd have to talk to a couple of the local Green Bay taxidermist about fish approaching that size here in this area--or you could talk to the one angler who harvested more than one large fish back in 2006 or 2007. As I recall, one of them was about 54 pounds. But he could probably tell you what those fish had been feeding on. I'm pretty confident that they were gizzard shad and/or gobies, as those are pretty prevalent in these waters. You can troll over a school of shad a hundred feet long or more, in the Fall here at the mouth of the Fox river. I've seen numerous hook echoes near some of those schools, and have harpooned many a shad trolling in the river channel. And I've caught muskies in the same area, on the same day. All my fish were released, so I cannot prove what those fish were feeding on--but I'd bet a lot on it being gizzard shad.
So my point is that not all big muskies feed on BIG forage. If it's easier to feed on 5-8" shad, they will. They'll just eat more of them. Killer whales eat small herring, and the size disparity there is more significant that that between muskies and gizzard shad. Captain Larry Jones has told me many times that they'll catch BIG muskies in and around schools of shad. Muskies are opportunists, and if shad are plentiful and require very little work as forage, that's what they'll eat.
Shad...it's what's for dinner!
TB
Girzzard Shad in Muskegon's Mona lake are HUGE . They look like Carp in Black Creek. I cant wait for that lake to get stocked as its going to grow some huge muskies. Mike |
|
| |
|
Posts: 371
Location: Dixon, IL | Interesting! I think eating lot of gizzard shad to grow fast and fat but don't live long! That's what I believe and that's why Illinois, Ohio and Pa muskie over 40 lbs is so rare! Maybe Cold water like Lake Michigan and deep water lake that muskie live longer and grow to over 50 lbs. I just think so! |
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | ILmuskie - 7/10/2013 7:55 AM
Interesting! I think eating lot of gizzard shad to grow fast and fat but don't live long! That's what I believe and that's why Illinois, Ohio and Pa muskie over 40 lbs is so rare! Maybe Cold water like Lake Michigan and deep water lake that muskie live longer and grow to over 50 lbs. I just think so!
Gizzard shad in many northern places only survive because of warm water discharges. Comparing all waters with gizzard shad to each other isn't a fair comparison. Also, it doesn't take long to get to 50# if the genetics are good 15-20 years can get it done. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | ILmuskie - 7/10/2013 7:55 AM
Interesting! I think eating lot of gizzard shad to grow fast and fat but don't live long! That's what I believe and that's why Illinois, Ohio and Pa muskie over 40 lbs is so rare! Maybe Cold water like Lake Michigan and deep water lake that muskie live longer and grow to over 50 lbs. I just think so!
Mona Lake connects to Lake Michigan via a small Channel so it is actually a drowned river mouth. Shad and Carp numbers in this lake are out of control. I have never seen Gizzard shad so huge in any Lake. Mike |
|
| |
|
Posts: 371
Location: Dixon, IL | Will Schultz - 7/10/2013 5:15 PM
ILmuskie - 7/10/2013 7:55 AM
Interesting! I think eating lot of gizzard shad to grow fast and fat but don't live long! That's what I believe and that's why Illinois, Ohio and Pa muskie over 40 lbs is so rare! Maybe Cold water like Lake Michigan and deep water lake that muskie live longer and grow to over 50 lbs. I just think so!
Gizzard shad in many northern places only survive because of warm water discharges. Comparing all waters with gizzard shad to each other isn't a fair comparison. Also, it doesn't take long to get to 50# if the genetics are good 15-20 years can get it done.
Agree and its small area! Muskies might eat shad, ciscoes, etc all year around and might move to warm water discharge during winter to eat shad and move out to open water to eat ciscoes, etc during summer. Muskies would grow to over 50 lbs! Green Bay have some warm water discharge area. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 371
Location: Dixon, IL | Kingfisher - 7/28/2013 2:23 PM
ILmuskie - 7/10/2013 7:55 AM
Interesting! I think eating lot of gizzard shad to grow fast and fat but don't live long! That's what I believe and that's why Illinois, Ohio and Pa muskie over 40 lbs is so rare! Maybe Cold water like Lake Michigan and deep water lake that muskie live longer and grow to over 50 lbs. I just think so!
Mona Lake connects to Lake Michigan via a small Channel so it is actually a drowned river mouth. Shad and Carp numbers in this lake are out of control. I have never seen Gizzard shad so huge in any Lake. Mike
Large muskie there is very possible......lot of food! Puckaway Lake in Wisconsin have some large northern pike and few muskies. Shallow and lot of shad, carp, etc. Wis state record pike came from this lake. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 519
Location: Bloomington, IL | Why wouldn't the Williamson fish be recognized as the world record? If I remember correctly, this fish weighed 61.4 lbs. and was verified. |
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | Nupe - 8/27/2013 8:38 AM
Why wouldn't the Williamson fish be recognized as the world record? If I remember correctly, this fish weighed 61.4 lbs. and was verified.
If you mean the MDMWRP that fish couldn't meet the requirements for recognition. See the rules and requirements here:
http://www.modernmuskierecords.org/index.php?option=com_content&vie...
|
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | Kingfisher - 4/3/2014 2:41 AM All Larry told me was that she had a mostly digested small mouth and no eggs. Still her egg mass would have been real small in September. Fully ripe they would weigh a lot more so that still makes my point that at some time she may have weighed more like 65 pounds. Its all on that other thread in the Biological forum. Mike
Ok, so it was 2.3 pounds of eggs - Thanks Larry.
I can see how some would think she could weigh more at some point but just because the fish in her was almost completely digested doesn't mean that fish isn't still present in the form of growing eggs and/or fat on the fish. For instance, if she was caught the day she ate that fish would she have weighed 1.5# more? Not likely, because that fish provided the energy to grow eggs. Similarly, those eggs would make up more of her body mass in the spring but the energy to grow those eggs has to come from somewhere. Anything she would eat in the winter, which isn't going to be much because of low metabolism, is going to provide the energy to grow eggs. How much of the energy to grow those eggs is going to come from the fat stored from summer/fall? Eggs start growing in August and take lots of energy to grow. What I'm getting at is there isn't as much of a change in weight on these super fish through most of the year. For example, that 50# September fish may weigh 55# in the spring with maximum egg mass. Sure, there may be the perfect storm when a fish with 4 pounds of eggs is in glutton mode because of a forage concentration but these areas are known and still we've never seen a legit 60# muskie. I can believe in 60# but 65# seems out of reach. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | Ok Ill Bite. If she weighed 58 pounds like she did and instead of eating Joe's sucker she ate a 12 pound Pike, what would she weigh an hour after she ate it? She would weigh 70 pounds as the 12 pounds would be added to her base weight. Im now guessing her base weight empty now without eggs was about 55 pounds. Larry says eggs can make 20% of their weight. which would be 11 pounds so lets say 8 for guessing on the low side and taking 4 pounds from her fat reserves and adding low forage weight.. 55 and 8 is 63 pounds. one 7 pound Northern Pike and she is a Unicorn.
Okay so you saying these fish lose body weight to make eggs. So here we still have a large female documented with very little in her stomach and only 2.3 pounds of her weight was eggs. I think 65 is very possible in this fish and if she ever hit that glutton mode you speak of 70 is very possible. Will, Michelle and I watched a 50 inch Female at Budd try over and and over to eat a 29 inch Pike off our stringer. That pike weighed just over 6 pounds when we got it home. This was a 28 pound class fish. Our new record is twice as big. I have zero trouble believing she could eat 6 to 12 pounds of forage in one frenzy. I had babies here who would stuff them selves with minnows swimming around for hours with a tail sticking out of their mouths. I believe she weighed over 65 pounds at some time in her life. No way to prove it either way. I would have loved to have seen her in December or Just before she dropped her eggs. I am still predicting even with the new measuring process and verification process we are going to end up in the next 5 years north of 65 pounds. I doubt 70 will be reached but it could happen. In my opinion. Mike
Edited by Kingfisher 4/3/2014 3:23 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | I get what you're saying but history tells us these giants just don't eat much late in the year and through spring. Most often they're completely empty or have very little in their stomach. If they're not eating, or not eating much, then a late fall 58# will probably weigh the same when her eggs are fully developed in the spring. Just because the eggs could make up 20% of their weight doesn't mean we can add on 20%. |
|
| |
Michigan Fish