|
|
Posts: 25
| Check out this old article I came across today: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1123434/...
Of course, exaggeration is the underpinning of all fishing stories, and the muskie is the subject of more exaggeration than most fish. On May 1, 1902, The Minocqua ( Wis.) Times printed a front-page photograph—eight columns wide—of what the accompanying headline called THE LARGEST MUSKELLUNGE EVER CAPTURED! It was netted by none other than a superintendent of the State Fish Hatchery, and it weighed 102 pounds. Obviously, it couldn't qualify as a world record, having been netted, but considering who caught this monster, it would seem that the weight was authentic. Except that 102 pounds is an unbelievable figure. There are other, even wilder tales. In 1884 it was reported that a 110-pound muskie had been taken from the waters of Lake Court Oreilles near Hayward, and in 1886 it was said that one had been caught in Lake Michigan off Michigan's Sleeping Bear Dunes. It supposedly weighed 162 pounds and stretched more than seven feet from tail to snout. The skull of this brute still exists in Glen Arbor, Mich.—13" long and 20" around. Experts who have studied it guess that even though it once was attached to one hell of a big fish, the muskellunge's weight was probably closer to 62 pounds than 162. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 365
| --- muskies dont get over 60"s long ---- |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20278
Location: oswego, il | I heard Ramsell went and interviewed the superintendant after it happened is this true?:-) |
|
| |
|
Posts: 45
| I belive Larry has coverd all of these in his compendiums. He should see this and offer option.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1916
Location: Greenfield, WI | Are there any pictures? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | No mention of the one from wissota? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 483
Location: NE PA | it was an entertaining read.... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1300
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | OLD "news".... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 25
| Wasn't necessarily meant to be "news" but rather to provide an interesting read from 1980. I found it entertaining to be sure.
|
|
| |
|
| Actually they do grow as large as 60", they have been documented on several occasions. Very, very, very rare but they do exist. The St.Lawrence River produces 60" plus fish every couple years.
Bill Craig 1997, 62.25" x 27.50" estimated 57lbs caught out of the Ottawa River, one of many documented 60" + muskies caught. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1283
| Pretty good read! Thanks for sharing.
I think there is a big fish out there and its part of the fun dreaming/hoping you'll get lucky someday. If we all knew the biggest ever was caught, why not give up searching for him. Don't get me wrong I don't think there is anything near 100#s but for sure 70+ in the fall. Maybe even bigger........................................
BTW the story is awesome and sad at the same time. Good read!
Edited by achotrod 1/23/2014 9:29 PM
|
|
| |
|
| NGE - 1/23/2014 7:02 PM
Actually they do grow as large as 60", they have been documented on several occasions. Very, very, very rare but they do exist. The St.Lawrence River produces 60" plus fish every couple years.
Bill Craig 1997, 62.25" x 27.50" estimated 57lbs caught out of the Ottawa River, one of many documented 60" + muskies caught.
do you really believe the craig's fish?it sound bizar when the only available pics was just a half fish.concerning the st-lawrence 60 inch+fis, the only one that look big i've heard of was not even pictured near the bump board so it's hard to tell.imo there is not EVEN A SINGLE documented 60 inch fish |
|
| |
|
Posts: 129
| As a means of comparison, the world record striper caught on rod and reel has been 78lbs for 30 years. It was just broken twice in the last few years. Most recently in 2012 by Greg Myerson at 81.88 lbs. However, the largest striped bass ever recorded was caught by commercial netters off the coast of NC and registered in at 125 lbs.!!!
Therefore, to say that these 70-80 lb muskie dont exist is opinion and not a known fact. I would not doubt that there could be a few giants somewhere in LOTW, St Lawrence and in another 10 years maybe St. Clair or other waters that may blow our current world records away. To me the unknown of what lies beneath the waters surface is part of what makes fishing great. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 239
Location: Elroy, Wisconsin | Well put Mike D. The self appointed experts, self taught, are not reliable. Size of a population like muskies almost mandate there is a 65" 70 lb. specimen somewhere.
Mudpuppy |
|
| |
|
Posts: 11
| Take it as you wish....I have fished Georgian Bay/Ont. opener for Pike the last 20 years.At this time of year they are netting Musky to milk eggs.I always pull up to the guys checking nets and gab...- 2 years ago they tell me they have netted a fish over 65 lbs.
And that's NOT the biggest they have seen...
Also had a buddy (charter captain)lose a monster on Lake St. Clair...Biggest he has seen...
They are out there guys...But dam hard to land.imo....
Keep the faith....Go BIG
SO- -I believe she and others are swimming out there SOMEWHWERE.. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1300
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | The key to your claim is they are netting for eggs...Prior to season. Per research, a female muskellunge can weigh up to 20% of body weight more when full of eggs. Therefore the fish you refer to would weigh far less during the open season.
As for Lake St. Clair, who knows, but there has never been a legitimate one from there anywhere near record weight.
It's great to dream Mike D, I did so for over 50 years, but the fact remains that there has never been a legitimate muskie hung on a scale that exceeded anything known and verified. When you get over the low 60 pound range, things get real sketchy fast!
But hey, dreaming the dream definitely IS part of the game! |
|
| |
|
| jano - 1/24/2014 5:16 AM
NGE - 1/23/2014 7:02 PM
Actually they do grow as large as 60", they have been documented on several occasions. Very, very, very rare but they do exist. The St.Lawrence River produces 60" plus fish every couple years.
Bill Craig 1997, 62.25" x 27.50" estimated 57lbs caught out of the Ottawa River, one of many documented 60" + muskies caught.
do you really believe the craig's fish?it sound bizar when the only available pics was just a half fish.concerning the st-lawrence 60 inch+fis, the only one that look big i've heard of was not even pictured near the bump board so it's hard to tell.imo there is not EVEN A SINGLE documented 60 inch fish
Like I said, there is MANY DOCUMENTED 60" FISH, Daniel Polniak Jr. and Rich Clarke a few years back, 60? x 29.5? . Clear photo's and documented. Just do your research and you'll find lots. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 426
Location: Perryville, MO | If not before, it's surely now official...welcome to "winternet" on the muskie boards! Old "news", un-proven "facts", speculation, uneducated hypotheses, and respected historians and lifetime professionals denied. It's gonna be a bit bland without the guests. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 358
| 102 and 110 pound Muskies ? My neighbor told me he saw a Coyote bigger than my 142 pound German Shepherd, just don't think either gets that big. I can't be makin and givin Apple Pie to the neighbor  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 67
| Never seen a picture of Rich Clarke's CLIENT's fish anywhere near a bump board , funny how you hear of them but never see the proof , there have been several caught in the last 2 years that i would believe , the others ,,,, not so much |
|
| |
|
Posts: 455
| Looking at Rich Clarke`s big fish they all look to be about what he claims they are. Pictures of clients holding big fish are a lot nicer than fish laying on a board. I mean he has to prove it to you why? I don`t think you will ever see a true 70lb. fish but I think todays guides are at least for the most part honest about what they are catching. I don`t recall any modern guides claiming to have caught a 60lb. fish confirmed so whats the problem? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2754
Location: Mauston, Wisconsin | LOL- The Winternet debate rages like a midwest blizzard. I thought it was a fun read, and pretty darn insightful, e.g., much like Bill Gardner's "Time on the Water"...
Have fun!
Al |
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | Lay a big fish on a board or take a soft sewing tape and wrap it over the top of the fish tell me if you get the same measurement. Any fish not on a board or a scale is just a really nice fish.
Edited by horsehunter 1/26/2014 8:13 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32957
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | When and if an over 60" over 60# record fish is confirmed, there will be a confirmed record fish that large. None so far have been.
Is it likely a fish of the size we seek is going to be caught during the season when they are legal to fish for? I don't know. I do know what was said at the last International Muskie Symposium by the top biologists in the world. Even they disagreed when, and where one might be caught.
There are more muskie anglers now equipped like they never have been hitting waters that were historically not fished.
A fish that is not bump board measured and photographed over 60" is not a confirmed 60" fish.
We'll see. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 358
| I personally believe Rich Clarke, Dale McNair, and Julie Cashaback on the size of there fish caught . I take their word as proof, to me its not life or death, confirmed or not it really doesn't matter all that much to me. Really fishing should be fun and if you have to get sworn affidavits, certified confirmations and really if a fish caught and is bump board measured and photographed someone will want even more certification on the bump board, the camera, the picture, a certified witness, etc. This to me takes the fun out of the sport and if everyone is scrutinized on a picture and size of a fish they caught and released is it worth sharing and being ridiculed. I congratulate the person and thank them for their submission, unless it so far fetched it is unbelievable or without a picture, like my neighbor's 142 lbs. plus Coyote he saw, now I didn't believe that. This is my opinion on the matter. I would like to thank everyone for submitting pics of their catch and releasing them back to catch another day. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 365
| "A fish that is not bump board measured and photographed over 60" is not a confirmed 60" fish." ----- Amen Steve Worrall ----- jimjimjim
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 455
| Whos to say they didn`t bump board the fish? Just because they didn`t post a picture of the fish on the board. I mean the guy has witnesses and is letting them go. I`ts not like they are applying for some record or prize. As posted before there are certain people I know go to lengths to makes sure they measure the fish properly and I`m happy to see the pictures and trust what they are saying. I`m not sure why every big fish needs internet certification. Can`t say I have ever seen 60" 60lbs. but is it that hard to believe a fish a half inch longer and a few pounds heavier than what is confirmed is possible? Yea 70lbs no way but 60lb is just a matter of time. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| "Yea 70lbs no way but 60lb is just a matter of time."
LOL!! It's been "just a matter of time" for a looong looong time!  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 455
| Well people just let them go because the old record was bogus. You could be rite but in doing some research I`m convinced 58lb. have been caught but until I get one myself I can`t be sure. What is Larry`s feeling on the largest confirmed fish so far? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2754
Location: Mauston, Wisconsin | I think Larry R. has expressed his opinion in multiple threads on MF and other web sites and publication's over the years, including in his own books. I believe Larry dreams, just like we all do.... But he's not stupid enough to say it can't happen. My all time favorite fish picture is Larry in the water with that muskie, it says a lot about Larry R.!
Have fun!
Al |
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | I think it may have been released on the Larry this past Sept.....But now we will never know.... claim was 59x34 |
|
| |
|
Posts: 455
| Well he said low sixties on this thread so I`m guessing he is open to the idea they get 60#. That's what makes it fun the speculation. To troll the St. Lawrence area and just soak up the sites while dreaming of a record fish. It really is just a wonderful experience in life. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 67
| sworrall - 1/26/2014 9:59 AM
When and if an over 60" over 60# record fish is confirmed, there will be a confirmed record fish that large. None so far have been.
A fish that is not bump board measured and photographed over 60" is not a confirmed 60" fish.
We'll see.
well said Steve , or as Larry say's " if you don't weigh it , you can't say it "
The Muskie community is very skeptical about claims to fame , nobody has to prove anything to anybody , but if you are going to be telling people , having magazine artical's and newspaper write ups you should really be prepared for the scrutiny that you will be under and be prepared to back it up with solid evidence or otherwise,,,,,,, Nice fish ! and congratulations and Ps : if you are reading this thread ,,,YOU CARE |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32957
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | muskyrat - 1/26/2014 2:30 PM
Whos to say they didn`t bump board the fish? Just because they didn`t post a picture of the fish on the board. I mean the guy has witnesses and is letting them go. I`ts not like they are applying for some record or prize. As posted before there are certain people I know go to lengths to makes sure they measure the fish properly and I`m happy to see the pictures and trust what they are saying. I`m not sure why every big fish needs internet certification. Can`t say I have ever seen 60" 60lbs. but is it that hard to believe a fish a half inch longer and a few pounds heavier than what is confirmed is possible? Yea 70lbs no way but 60lb is just a matter of time.
I'm not sure what you are talking about.
If the fish is presented to be a certain size and weight, it needs to be confirmed as such or the claim should probably not be made, and if the fish was bumped for a length, I'd wager a picture was taken. If one wasn't, then it's another nice CPR'd fish, and that's it.
Not that that's a bad thing, as the fish is still swimming.
By the way, I'm not talking about 'internet certification'. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 455
| All I`m saying is it is ok to say this is how big I measured it to be and here is a picture for you to look at. It`s ok for people to be skeptical as well of coarse. Just don`t know why every big fish that is released needs to be proven if no record is claimed. I do agree that only officially measured and proven fish should qualify for an award. I guess I do see your point though. As guide he putting his claims out there. |
|
| |
|
Location: Lake Tomahawk, WI | jacklink - 1/22/2014 3:26 PM
Check out this old article I came across today: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1123434/...
Of course, exaggeration is the underpinning of all fishing stories, and the muskie is the subject of more exaggeration than most fish. On May 1, 1902, The Minocqua ( Wis. ) Times printed a front-page photograph—eight columns wide—of what the accompanying headline called THE LARGEST MUSKELLUNGE EVER CAPTURED! It was netted by none other than a superintendent of the State Fish Hatchery, and it weighed 102 pounds. Obviously, it couldn't qualify as a world record, having been netted, but considering who caught this monster, it would seem that the weight was authentic.
I remember my Uncle, Ray Kennedy, talking about this fish when I was a kid, and again in the Old Masters of Musky Hunting video. After he caught his 50+lb'r, he told his Dad, Jim, that there was 'No way in hell that that fish (from 1902) was over 100 lbs'. Jim simply replied "Well, they had a lot better whiskey in those days."
JS
|
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | That's as good an explanation as any |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1283
| horsehunter - 1/26/2014 5:37 PM
I think it may have been released on the Larry this past Sept.....But now we will never know.... claim was 59x34
Did the pic ever come out of this fish yet? |
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | Members of the Ottawa chapter of Muskies Canada have apparently seen the pictures.
The in water pictures that appeared in the Release Journal could have just as easily been a Labrador Retriever or a pig.
Edited by horsehunter 1/27/2014 11:56 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1283
| Well that sucks. |
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | I know the anglers involved and have no reason to doubt what they say and I can't fault them for doing what I always said I would do.
However I think this MAY have been the fish to put a lot of issues to rest. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1283
| I just wish there was a good pic out there for everyone to see. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 455
| I know it sounds easy but when one of our club members Russ got his big fish all he ended up with was a crappy picture. Why? Big waves, rain, he is old and the fish is heavy. With the size of those charter boats I would rather see them hold the fish in a fish thanks until someone from the state can certify the fish. If you try to take a picture on the board the fish can flop around and loose slime. |
|
| |
THE LARGEST MUSKELLUNGE EVER CAPTURED!