|
|
| I saw on Facebook that there was a 70lber caught and certified out East anyone have any pictures or more details? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 143
Location: La Crosse, WI | Saw on Spencer Berman's facebook as well, but he said it was just a rumor at this point. Hope its true and hope they got some good pics |
|
| |
|
Posts: 109
Location: Ottawa Lake, MI | Here we go! lol |
|
| |
|
| I heard 59 by 34. Puts it at 85 lbs. only time will tell |
|
| |
|
Posts: 373
| I look forward to seeing pictures!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1301
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | My information so far is 65.5 pounds, not yet confirmed...stay tuned! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1301
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Ok, well here we go again..."supposedly" the fish was 59 x 34. The fish was NOT weighed The first report I had on it had it a 60.5 pounds and I don't know where the 65.5 came from (this has been circulating for several days now). As I have long stated, "If you don't weigh it, you shouldn't say it". As of yet, there have been no photo's of this fish released.
Based on info to date, you'll have to make up your own mind... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 383
Location: SE Wisc and Vilas County | cant wait to see some pics. saw Spencers post earlier and have been thinking about it ever since. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 310
Location: Lake St.Clair | Would love to see some photos of this supposed fish!!!!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 222
| There is a new fish on the other musky website board 57" x 28" |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1901
Location: MN | Larry Ramsell - 11/19/2013 10:13 PM
The first report I had on it had it a 60.5 pounds and I don't know where the 65.5 came from
I love rumors. Love it when rumors are verified and we get to see the fish. But Larry you have to recognize the irony of your statement above do you not? You previously speculated/reported/were told (and told us) that 65.5 was the information you had. Then you wonder where the 65.5 came from? Well at least one source, to many of us, was you! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Propster - 11/20/2013 6:40 AM
Larry Ramsell - 11/19/2013 10:13 PM
The first report I had on it had it a 60.5 pounds and I don't know where the 65.5 came from
I love rumors. Love it when rumors are verified and we get to see the fish. But Larry you have to recognize the irony of your statement above do you not? You previously speculated/reported/were told (and told us ) that 65.5 was the information you had. Then you wonder where the 65.5 came from? Well at least one source, to many of us, was you!
Perhaps I missed an earlier post but 60.5 < 65.5 |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32958
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Larry said in his first report that the information he had was the fish weighed 65.5, but wasn't confirmed, and he said 'stand by'.
In case you are in such a hurry to insult him you pretend not to know what that means...it was clear he was still trying to confirm.
The last information he had was 65.5 and was unconfirmed. That had 'been in circulation for several days now' as stated. That's what I had found out as well, and I also had heard earlier that the fish was 60.5. Note no one from the Modern Day World Record organization broke the story.
So far it appears the fish was not weighed as of the last investigation Larry did last night. That, Propster, is called an 'update'. If it had been weighed, Larry would have been on his way over to confirm the report.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 20281
Location: oswego, il | So in short stay tuned means wait for the facts? Whew, I just called off an air strike on this thread! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 225
Location: Ontario, Canada | The MDWRA or whatever its calling itself has no credibility with the angler. Thats why they didn't break the story. The angler that caught the fish is trying to avoid the 'circus side-show' that usually ensues after a fish of this calibre is caught, and released... |
|
| |
|
Location: Hayward WI | Winternet is arriving early this year, must be global warming............ |
|
| |
|
Posts: 81
Location: Toronto, Ontario | pigeontroller - 11/20/2013 10:34 AM The MDWRA or whatever its calling itself has no credibility with the angler. Thats why they didn't break the story. The angler that caught the fish is trying to avoid the 'circus side-show' that usually ensues after a fish of this calibre is caught, and released... Amen....none whatsoever. |
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | A the risk of upsetting lots of folks a CATCH & RELEASE RECORD means nothing.
This said congratulations to the angler hell of a catch.
In my opinion a fish approaching or exceeding record size is past its best spawning years and will soon go into decline. It should be harvested, its vent duct taped and a towel stuck in its throat and documented by as many professionals as possible.
Personally I would submit for a Ontario or Canadian record (providing the fish is caught in Canadian water ) and let the other organisations be #*^@ed.
Edit Don't know how you could submit your leader to more than one organisation.
Edited by horsehunter 11/20/2013 10:09 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 676
Location: Wisconsin | Ahhh, the favorite off season sport of Muskie anglers for the long winter months.....World Record Muskie Rumors. The current champion is the Green Bay Dude, game on!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1301
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | The MDMWRP does not recognized released muskies, so there is no way our organization would have been involved in any manner any way, even if the "anglers" loved us!
Claim what you wish, but to my knowledge, the recognized release record is 61 1/4 inches long...this one falls a bit short and since it wasn't weighed, "estimating" the weight via formula is merely that, an estimate.
Again, "If you don't weigh it, you shouldn't say it."
Undoubtedly a great fish was caught, Congrats to the angler...but so far no pics to view/enjoy and no pics/video of the measuring process. For now it is just rumor.
Edited by Larry Ramsell 11/20/2013 10:50 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1901
Location: MN | Steve,
I think you missed my point entirely, and Larry no offense intended. As I stated, I love these rumors and I meant it. I was not insulting you in any way, merely pointing out that the first I and many others had ever heard of the weight of a possible fish being 65.5 lbs was from you. I was merely commenting that it was ironic that you would say "you didn't know where that came from". I of course knew what you meant (you didn't know the original source), but all I was saying is that for many of us on here, you were the first source of the 65.5. All good, carry on. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 58
| Out east? Any one know where bouts? I'm in PA would like to no if it came from close by!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | wound up just bein' a 60lb. rat eh? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1301
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Susky; yes, out east...Ottawa River. Latest I heard it was caught back in September.
Propster, no prob, I thought that was what you meant. I just didn't word my post properly.
Sled: How many "rats" would you like to catch? Based on what most believe now, you could have one hand missing some fingers and still be able to count the legitimate muskies ever caught over 60 pounds and not much over 60 at that!
Dax and Peter: I understand you are upset about the O'brien fish not being what it was claimed to be, but the truth is just that, the truth...sorry, but I wasn't the person(s) that brought that all about. Even one of your past MCI Presidents, who was originally adamant that it was legit, now no longer believes that to be the case and has went to great lengths to get the necessary proof to prove it.
All: If any of you wish to believe in the Lawton, Spray, Johnson and/or O'brien records, all which have been scientifically proven to be false, that is your complete right to do so. Good luck catching one that will beat any of them!
Edited by Larry Ramsell 11/20/2013 11:39 AM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | I'm sure I could google it but which musky do you believe to be THE official record Larry? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 7123
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | I am so not moderating this thread. |
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | BNelson - 11/20/2013 1:01 PM I'm sure I could google it but which musky do you believe to be THE official record Larry? http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/articles/02.02.2013/5493/Modern.Day.Muskellunge.World.Record.Established/index.htm |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1301
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | BNelson: It isn't what I "believe" that matters. It is what YOU believe. The NFWFHF record and the IGFA record have both been proven to be somewhat less than claimed, as has the Canadian record. I used to believe in all of them (the good 'ol days of ignorant bliss!), and now I don't. Have there been muskies caught over 60-pounds? Probably, but historical documentation is scant or non-existant.
I do however, believe in the MDMWRP record caught last year and that is the one I'm shooting for with any possibility of accomplishing same.
Having caught some giants yourself, I'm sure you can appreciate what it really takes to break 60-pounds...
Edited by Larry Ramsell 11/20/2013 12:14 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8866
| I can't see how, with the advancements in technology, the increased popularity of musky angling, improvement of management strategies, and the predominance of catch and release that anyone could NOT believe that the largest muskies we are seeing in the last several years are a big as they get. Combined with all the research that has proven that the previous known "records" were falsified in one way or another, it just doesn't add up. Do you mean to tell me that the quality of muskies was actually better when every one that was caught wound up on the table?
Edited by esoxaddict 11/20/2013 12:26 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 676
Location: Wisconsin | This was posted on facebook......
A World Record Musky Story
Hi Y'all,
The Ottawa Chapter of Muskies Canada is a special place for many reasons. The club is a driver of cutting edge research, large scale environmental projects that make a real difference to the waters in our region, is a bastion of learning and data on muskellunge, and the home to three members or former members who have been in the boat with the largest musky in the world from a given year. No club anywhere can say that. Now there will probably be a fourth name to add to this list.
A friend of mine and fellow Muskies Canada member told a story publicly for the first time at our Ottawa chapter monthly meeting last night.
Earlier this fall he and another club member caught and released a 59 x 34 inch muskellunge. Pictures were shared in the room and that is as far as they will go for now. The story will be told in the next issue of the Muskies Canada Release Journal.
When I sent out my Facebook post yesterday I thought that this story was going to go public in a much bigger way as of last night. It is not, at least not for now.
This fish was released. Many would have kept it as the dimensions of it make it the biggest musky ever captured on a line. The largest fish in history. I have great respect for anyone who would be selfless enough to put this fish back.
The last time a 'live release world record' was caught was a few years back. It became a very controversial fish and created a great deal of animosity and internet aggression. Declaring such a fish opens an angler up to intense scrutiny and the musky world is a strange and wonderful place with both strange and wonderful people.
Some people fish for the pure joy of fishing. They are the lucky ones. To want to put this fish back and to care only for the well being of the fish is the highest tribute that can be paid to a muskellunge, to a river, and to nature. It is model behaviour. It is role model behaviour.
To my friend who caught this fish I say to you 'it couldn't have happened to a nicer guy'. Congratulations and we are all so happy for you.
JA
PS I wish you tight lines, and warm clothes, see you on the water. — at The Ottawa River Musky Factory. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | Bravo |
|
| |
|
Location: On the O | Not an Ottawa River fish....I wish
Congrats to you again sir.
Edited by BigC 11/20/2013 1:23 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1060
Location: Palm Coast, FL | Great post Chad and congrats to the angler! We will anxiously anticipate the Muskies Canada Release Journal! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 225
Location: Ontario, Canada | Larry Ramsell - 11/20/2013 12:38 PM
Susky; yes, out east...Ottawa River. Latest I heard it was caught back in September.
Propster, no prob, I thought that was what you meant. I just didn't word my post properly.
Sled: How many "rats" would you like to catch? Based on what most believe now, you could have one hand missing some fingers and still be able to count the legitimate muskies ever caught over 60 pounds and not much over 60 at that!
Dax and Peter: I understand you are upset about the O'brien fish not being what it was claimed to be, but the truth is just that, the truth...sorry, but I wasn't the person(s) that brought that all about. Even one of your past MCI Presidents, who was originally adamant that it was legit, now no longer believes that to be the case and has went to great lengths to get the necessary proof to prove it.
All: If any of you wish to believe in the Lawton, Spray, Johnson and/or O'brien records, all which have been scientifically proven to be false, that is your complete right to do so. Good luck catching one that will beat any of them!
Larry, I don't care about the O'Brien fish, or any other... My dislike of the MDWRMA or whatever it is has nothing to do with any of the fish you've discredited. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | pigeontroller - 11/20/2013 2:19 PM
Larry Ramsell - 11/20/2013 12:38 PM
Susky; yes, out east...Ottawa River. Latest I heard it was caught back in September.
Propster, no prob, I thought that was what you meant. I just didn't word my post properly.
Sled: How many "rats" would you like to catch? Based on what most believe now, you could have one hand missing some fingers and still be able to count the legitimate muskies ever caught over 60 pounds and not much over 60 at that!
Dax and Peter: I understand you are upset about the O'brien fish not being what it was claimed to be, but the truth is just that, the truth...sorry, but I wasn't the person(s) that brought that all about. Even one of your past MCI Presidents, who was originally adamant that it was legit, now no longer believes that to be the case and has went to great lengths to get the necessary proof to prove it.
All: If any of you wish to believe in the Lawton, Spray, Johnson and/or O'brien records, all which have been scientifically proven to be false, that is your complete right to do so. Good luck catching one that will beat any of them!
Larry, I don't care about the O'Brien fish, or any other... My dislike of the MDWRMA or whatever it is has nothing to do with any of the fish you've discredited.
Cool story. Did you come here just to brag you don't like the MDWRMA? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1301
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Dax/troller: Whatever. With an MDMWRP Committee consisting of many, many highly respected anglers, scientists and writers in the Muskie community both in the US and Canada, the problem is entirely yours I guess.
Esox65: If you only knew how wrong you were! As for "this fish", now that a few more details are out but no names or photos made public (yes, I know "who"), I don't really care. It is easy on the Internet for anyone to claim anything, but usually the claims are backed up much better than this one. If they wish to remain ANON, then they should keep the info to themselves period. That they have supposedly exposed it at a muskie club meeting shows that they don't wish to, hence conjecture will abound at the mere claim once it has gone viral as it has. Just the way it is in the real world today.
Again, if true as stated, congratulations to the angler on catching one of histories largest unverified muskies ever. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 225
Location: Ontario, Canada | Larry, it seems I am not the only one! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32958
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | MuskieFIRST supports the Modern Day World Record program. I am actually the PR person for the organization. I'm happy to speak personally to anyone who has any objections. If it's me who you have issues with...that's easy. Use your mouse and move elsewhere to discuss your muskie addiction or give me a call, 7156809265, anytime after I get out of the woods next week Friday.
Speaking strictly from the position of OutdoorsFIRST:
It's easy to sit behind your monitor and attack any organization without any justification or argument, but 'easy' isn't going to fly here. If you choose to be a reasonable human being, and engage us in conversation about your objections, we welcome the opportunity to talk about it. If not, and you choose instead to violate our permissions here, expect your rude, childish, or just plain untoward behavior to be addressed accordingly.
Thanks in advance.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 559
| why don't you all go and troll or cast some more
to get one bigger,( than said fish) congrats to the fisherman on the catch
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 483
Location: NE PA | My life will go on unchanged whether this is true or not. Fact is that the fish is undoubtedly a monster that was released to fight another day. Same as the fish from Green Bay that was recently CPR'd. I say good on him. Congrats to the angler. I can only hope to someday see a fish that could come anywhere close to that. In the mean time I'll keep dreaming and casting.
Edited by lennyg3 11/20/2013 7:55 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 84
| Congrats to whomever caught the fish and high fives for releasing it. The muskie fishery will be better for the genetic contribution that fish may make. (Is it true that the theory concerning such large and-or-old fish being past the point of effectively breeding is now being questioned?) If so, kudos for acting on the side of caution.
Edited by Old Guy 11/20/2013 9:03 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 519
Location: Bloomington, IL | 59 x 34 would put it at 70.24 lbs. by formula weight, not 85 lbs.
(59 x 34)/(25-10) = 70.24 lbs.
Of course, we'll see what the actual weight is if 59 x 34 is the real deal.
I hope it's legit for a new WR and hopefully a legit 70 lb'er. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1901
Location: MN | The formula is actually: (59 x 34)/25 - 10 |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1828
| Propster - 11/20/2013 11:14 PM
The formula is actually: (59 x 34)/25 - 10
Thanks for the correction. I was trying to picture a 134 pound muskie... |
|
| |
|
| first if you want something that sound more professional put the same amounts of members from both side of the borders.this way it will prevail future injustice.there is not a single serious reason that can justify a committee like this one.i think it's something like 80% us vs 20% can.i don't think a wr is more a wr if it's caught on the us side,or maybe the us pounds is just HEAVIER.one thing is sure lots of canadians me included have no interest into the mdmwrp and a committee like this one is not very unifying |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1530
| c,mon guys. we re-live this every year...
congrats to whomever on a big fish period... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 566
Location: Elgin, IL | Yep...Nice Work. ^ |
|
| |
|
Posts: 256
Location: plant earth | A musky that's close to those numbers give or take a bit is a great accomplishment. Bravo to the angler who landed the fish. Congrats. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 123
| Congrats to a great guy for putting in the time to get a awesome fish. I can't wait to see the pic of a true trophy for all musky anglers.
I don't understand why so many get upset over huge fish being caught I thought that is what we are all after.
Kudos also for letting it swim another day |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1301
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Jano wrote: "first if you want something that sound more professional put the same amounts of members from both side of the borders.this way it will prevail future injustice.there is not a single serious reason that can justify a committee like this one.i think it's something like 80% us vs 20% can.i don't think a wr is more a wr if it's caught on the us side,or maybe the us pounds is just HEAVIER.one thing is sure lots of canadians me included have no interest into the mdmwrp and a committee like this one is not very unifying"
LR: Jano, I can't possibly imagine that you believe that there would be any "injustice' from this esteemed Committee, regardless of what the ratio of Canadians vs. those in the US is. But if it would make you happy, please submit the names, bio's and contact information of any Canadian you would like to see added to the Committee and I'll work on getting them added to improve the ratio that has you concerned. Perhaps then you will feel it is more "unifying".
Where a fish is caught is of no matter to the consideration of our Committee, I can't imagine what it is that you are thinking in this regard. Our only goal is to maintain a carefully verified Modern Day World Record, regardless of where caught, that everyone can believe in.
Dax: Anything you care to have clarified?
Larry Ramsell,
Committee Chairman |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1202
Location: Money, PA | Record Release = Oximoron!
I personally do not believe in "released" records....records are what they are; RECORDED record fish...released fish IMHO are NOT recorded or officially verified, bottom line. Do you think they would acknowledge a new world speed record in the 100 yrd. dash if some guy came to them and said "I just beat the 100 yrd dash world record yesterday, and have a picture & video of me running it."??? They'd look at the guy and laugh at him!
So if one plans on releasing a potential "world record" fish, one should plan on not looking for "world record" notoriety. That simple and to be respected either way.
My .02
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 4080
Location: Elko - Lake Vermilion | It's pretty simple guys,....A released State/world record muskie is just another big fish ! Congrats to the guy that had that once in a lifetime experience......
Its' ONLY a Record if it has been verified by the people who count.......AND it must be killed, in order to be certified and verified.
Common Sense must be dying at a faster rate, than first expected....
Jerome |
|
| |
|
Posts: 386
| Hey "shutup," I don't see this guy looking for any notoriety nor is he trying to establish this as a record . . . in fact, just the opposite.
I look forward to seeing this fish and congratulating and honoring the dude who had the heart to let it live another day. Bravo!
Edited by gopackgo 11/22/2013 11:56 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1202
Location: Money, PA | gopackgo - 11/22/2013 11:54 AM
Hey "shutup," I don't see this guy looking for any notoriety nor is he trying to establish this as a record . . . in fact, just the opposite.
I look forward to seeing this fish and congratulating and honoring the dude who had the heart to let it live another day. Bravo!
Did you see me directing the statement to "that guy"? If so, I wasn't....just sayin' in general.  peace bro
Edited by ShutUpNFish 11/22/2013 12:09 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 994
Location: Minnesota: where it's tough to be a sportsfan! | I am smiling, I sat at a table in the 70's in a Northern WI. cabin lit by a Coleman lantern drinking loudmouth soup debating the World Record Muskie. I was in another cabin in late fall, MN, in '85 where the debate flowed on the same subject. In the 90's I was at a gathering of great anglers and an actual high level conversation on the subject "erupted" (for lack of a better term) a few years ago I left the start of the same discussion. We all have dreams of the Big Girl, we all have Passion for our sport, and we all have beliefs of how it all goes into history. The fact that this all doesn't always blend smoothly in my mind seems natural. Doesn't matter if I agree with you or not. If you have the passion and truly believe what you are saying you are OK in my book. A great fish is a great fish, a memory for life and kudos to the lucky angler. Beyond that...the passion continues! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 415
| Man, I came on here hoping to see some bickering about the validity of this fish. Instead I see bickering about whether a "release record" is any type of "record" or not. Let's get back to griping about the subject at hand boys. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8866
| Ja Rule - 11/22/2013 1:15 PM
Man, I came on here hoping to see some bickering about the validity of this fish. Instead I see bickering about whether a "release record" is any type of "record" or not. Let's get back to griping about the subject at hand boys.
Well, without a picture, how can you possibly question it? The only thing that stands out for me as questionable is the 33" girth, and that's only because I had a 33" girth myself at one time, and I'm having a difficult time picturing that girth on a musky. We've all seen enough pictures of the biggest fish to go public in the last several years. Let's see the picture, and then we can have at it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 556
| Can't wait to see the pics of what sounds like 1 of the largest muskys ever caught. congrats to the Angler for a spectacular fish and want to hear the full story. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 456
Location: Kansas City BBQ Capitol of the world | Congratulations to the angler ( I think) who caught that behemoth!
I am just glad I have never been put in that situation. You fish your whole life and lucky enough, one time you get "the one". The one to end all arguments, the one to begin a new chapter and in that moment of certainty or uncertainty you make your choice. I wonder if the choice made will be haunting for years of sleepless nights and what if's?
I understand not everyone thinks like that and some guys would be ok with it, but I also know many wouldn't and it would eat them up for trying to do what they thought was the right thing at that time.
In Muskies the fight dosn't come on the water, but after the fight is over.
To know it you have to show it.
Ron
Edited by rjhyland 11/22/2013 9:25 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1901
Location: MN | I disagree. There is no right or wrong. I certainly wouldn't kill it just to satisfy others' curiosity about how big these fish can get or whether it's some sort of record to be had. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4080
Location: Elko - Lake Vermilion | So if someone would keep a potential (legal) World Record Muskie,...IN your mind they would be considered a Loser......? Wow.
Edited by Top H2O 11/23/2013 9:30 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 7123
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | esoxaddict - 11/22/2013 2:41 PM
The only thing that stands out for me as questionable is the 33" girth, and that's only because I had a 33" girth myself at one time, and I'm having a difficult time picturing that girth on a musky. .
85-134lb muskies I believe...you once had a 33" waist (or were you going with leg girth?)? I'm calling B*LL#*#* on that one. Sorry. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 97
| I don't think you would be a loser for keeping a world record. Only in musky fishing do we have this mentality. I understand everyonese passion and strive for a better fishery. If this fish had a girth like this in September, theres a great chance that it is not going to drop her eggs. I have had the pleasure to have numerous 50lb fish in my boat. They have been weighed by certified scales. I have released them all without question. If I do decide to keep a record, that's my priority. I'll tell you right now I would. I'm not going to BS you. I enjoy fishing areas with large fish and low density. It makes the hair on my neck stand up. I don't fish anywhere I don't have a shot at a super fish. Theres just something about it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 216
| I wouldn't care if it dropped eggs or not if it looks healthy,keeps eating and getting bigger then that's all I want. There'll be plenty of others to reproduce. That fish won't deprive me of enough smallies or walleyes to give a #*#* about.all im saying is maybe he did catch a record and let her go. Thats awesome i thank him.i dont think we should be so quick to call bullsh*t on him.if you woulda whacked it in the head then good for you,but im glad you didnt catch it.maybe he thought it was a border line record fish and wants it to get a little bigger so theres no doubt about it.cuz dont get me wrong if I pull a 60" by 34"ish musky out of the water that I think will break 70lb then it's not goin back. It's comin home record or not. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 97
| I've talked to people who have seen this fish. yes, it seems to be as claimed. A reputable source from a picture at the meeting. It's from a picture and that's all it will ever be. These formulas are estimates of previous fish. Was the weight carried throughout the tail and so on. Who cares. Everyone on this board can agree on one thing. Incredible super fish. I have not bashed anyone for releasing a fish. I know this gentleman didn't want the publicity. I'm sure he wishes he never showed it to the club already. This is what happens on the internet. If you want it quite. It doesnt leave your boat. I think he is a gentleman from what other sources are telling me. If you don't have a certified scale in your boat, you don't care about records anyway. Will I ever bash anyone for a live release. Absolutely not. Ive never kept one. I would like to see the record fall though. If you've seen some of the fish we've released you might understand I'm not that person, but I would've kept that one. Once again being honest -- |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4080
Location: Elko - Lake Vermilion | 88,
I re-read all of the posts, and cant' find anybody bashing or talking trash about the Lucky angler that caught this huge fish,......Some question the girth, of 34" (even with no pics) but no one is talking trash about the angler.......Dude Relax. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8866
| It's a personal choice. On one hand you have to listen to the naysayers, who will always say the fish was nowhere near the size you claim it to be. I can't see letting other people's opinions affect my decision to release a fish or not. It would be nice to have it verified once and for all, but then we'd all have to find something else to argue about all winter. Personally, I think I'd have to release it. Sure, it may be at the end of its life, it may not be breeding anymore, it may have spawned for 20 years... But knowing that you just bonked the biggest fish you will likely ever see in your life? Nah. I'd rather go back and try to catch it again next year. Some guys would whack it. That's fine, too. I guess if you were a resort owner or a guide or something it would be good business to have a verified record under your belt. It's too bad it's illegal to transport live fish from lake to lake. If that were legal, a lot of my fish would get transplanted! |
|
| |
|
| Brozz88 - 11/23/2013 7:49 AM
Propster - 11/22/2013 9:34 PM
I disagree. There is no right or wrong. I certainly wouldn't kill it just to satisfy others' curiosity about how big these fish can get or whether it's some sort of record to be had. . Yup I agree with this guy. The man who caught it knew he had a truly monster fish that would be questioned if released,and it sounds like he was willing to take on all the nay Sayers.he obviously could care less about what everyone else thinks or about someone else's record. He knows what he caught and has a new personal best to beat. The easiest way I know,and he knows,how to beat my personal best is to,LET IT GO SO IT CAN GROW. Only he knows the where abouts that fish lives.therefore he's Probly got the best shot at catching it again when it's even bigger.possibly shattering the record the next time. If he cares about this record that everyone has an opinion on what is really the record. I would do the same thing and released it.im glad he caught it and not one of the losers that woulda kept it,cuz now I've got a shot at catching that monster. Love the hype tho. Would like to see a pic of the pig.
anyway in both way jealous guys will question your move.hey if i was you i would keep her ,or hey if i was you i would let her live,you know what i mean |
|
| |
|
Posts: 216
| Top H2O - 11/23/2013 12:30 PM
88,
I re-read all of the posts, and cant' find anybody bashing or talking trash about the Lucky angler that caught this huge fish,......Some question the girth, of 34" (even with no pics) but no one is talking trash about the angler.......Dude Relax. . ^^ your right there not really bashing or trash talking,just kinda sayin if he was right or wrong for releasing it I guess,and there intitled to there own opinions too just like you and I. Sorry maybe I did get a little carried away. Talk of a 70lber will do that I guess. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1301
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Here is one that was publicized, but this photo has never been published. It was 55 x 30.5 and weighed 58 pounds on an IGFA certified scale. It was released and it was a Canadian water fish caught last December. These gentlemen back up their claim with photo's but know it cannot be certified since it was released. It was a choice they made based on the fact that it likely wouldn't beat the new Modern Day record caught a month earlier. Therefore they decided not to go thru the rigorous process to verify. But no one can deny that it was indeed a true giant of the species!
(55 x 30.5 IGFA Certified scale weighed 58 pounds.jpg)
Attachments
----------------
 55 x 30.5 IGFA Certified scale weighed 58 pounds.jpg (108KB - 363 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 182
| musky1969 - 11/20/2013 7:32 AM
There is a new fish on the other musky website board 57" x 28"
There is another muskie web site?? LOL. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 358
| I can't say I blame the person for keeping the catch private. Congrats to the person ! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 82
| I really don't like the direction this sport has been taking the last couple of years. Seems to me that we are taking steps backwards in order to please egos. So what is supposed to please all of you "Internet experts "? Should someone take pics from every angle on a bumpboard the a few more with a girth tape from several spots and have a five to ten minuet photo session and almost guaranty delayed mortality? I really hate this bass fishing mentality that seems to be entering this sport. Thanks to the guys for releasing this fish for others to enjoy! That's what's important. |
|
| |
|
| lazarus average fish |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | Larry, that fish is a pig. What fat belly. Its hard to Imagine anything getting bigger. I am of the mind set and always will be that a 58 pound fish like that one could be one or two meals away from replacing all the old records once and for all. I tip my hat to the man who released that fish. I tip my Hat to Dale McNair who released a similar one and to his gal Julie for her 57 by 28. Gentlemen, we are seeing some awesome catches made. Released or not I am so excited to be fishing for these beasts today. I have confirmed world class water to my north. Michigan just took the first steps into turning Lake Michigan into another world class Musky fishery. W e stocked three lakes Right here in Muskegon County. Mona, White and Muskegon. I need to live another 22 years so I can catch her in my back yard. Cheers to all you crazy Musky Nuts. My wife and I love you all. Mike And Good luck to everyone in 2014.
|
|
| |
