|
|
Posts: 236
| is it valid? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4266
| Who cares!
Go fishing and don't worry about it.
Personally, I don't care. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 459
Location: New Baden IL | I think Malo's fish would have beaten it.
I hope the record falls and is smashed to put this dog to bed.
Rod |
|
| |
|
Posts: 236
| Why wouldn't you care? If you care about genetics and growth rates i'd say it's pretty darn important. As an avid musky angler I have no intention/chance of breaking the record but to not want to know what the largest muskie ever caught is in my opinion is detrimental to our sport.
Edited by MuskieBum 8/1/2004 9:08 PM
|
|
| |
|
| The "record" is NOT truthfully valid and "the record" will likely fall very soon....... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32924
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I don't care either, not a whit.
Muskie angling back then was pretty much steeped in lore and story. The men who fished muskies regularly were subjects of legend, and an awful lot of what one read and heard was a result of that atmosphere of the day.
Any gene pool that was in play in the 40's, 50's and even 60's in many US waters has been forever altered by stocking by now anyway, so what matters to me now is what is being caught NOW. Keep in mind many of the stories we see from back then also were not from Canada as much of that water was still almost untouched.
The record will fall, it's just a matter of time. When it does, so will the controversy. Suits me fine!
I don't think Beav was saying he doesn't 'want to know', I think he was saying the controversy and sometimes VERY nasty surrounding arguments about the 'record' detract from the sport more than any one angler's desire to know. If he wasn't, I am. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| MuskieBum - 8/1/2004 9:05 PM
Why wouldn't you care? If you care about genetics and growth rates i'd say it's pretty darn important. As an avid musky angler I have no intention/chance of breaking the record but to not want to know what the largest muskie ever caught is in my opinion is detrimental to our sport.
Speaking as an avid musky fisherman I would say this is one of the most nonsensical posts on the record I have ever seen. Are you trying to start an argument? Not wanting to know the record is detrimental to our sport? Is that really what you meant to say?
I am sure that you can get a good argument going on this, of course they swim alot better in winter when nobody is fishing, and it will probably get cut off on this board, but... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4266
| Right now I think that my time is better spent promoting CPR and other things that effect muskie fishing in a positive way TODAY and for the future.
Go ahead and beat a dead dog.
I pity the next guy to catch a world record....unless he's the Pope.
He better have it on video with a jury sitting in his boat, or somebody somewhere will call him a liar.
I don't care about the world record. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | With how popular musky fishing has gotten in the last 10 years, I dont see the new record coming from an inland lake...my guess it's going to be from a Great Lake.
I think we're due for a new record to stop the bickering....but will the new record stop it or ignite more of it....especially if it was trolled up. Will guys want an asterik next to a record fish that was caught by other means than casting?? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 146
Location: Wayzata, MN | I kind of like all the stories and controversy... without the personal attacks. Emotions kick in whenever someone appears to be attacking
something you love. Besides, it's somthing to read and mull over during the off season, right? A guy can only sharpen hooks for so long...
I to, think the record(s) will fall. That pig on Mille Lacs was probably the MN State record [If I recall, the weight given was just an estimate]
so there's evidence right there of BIG healthy fish swimming around our waters.
If I were to catch the world record, you all would have some interesting reading [short story, tho it may be;]... And potentially a little
embarrassing for me [sniff]...
And, you're right about needing the Pope on board... maybe a coupl'a DNR guys too...
Hey, anybody carrying a certified scale with'em? Just in case... that's all I'm say'in...... [grin]
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 148
| whew! had to check the calendar- I thought it was December already!  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 188
Location: Chicago | This record will probably be broken as soon as we see the pics of the 71 inch muskie caught a few weeks
ago! Where is that pic? LMAO!
This one time at band camp...
Rob |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1137
Location: Holly, MI | No one cares.. Ha ha, that is why there is almost 400 views and over 40 votes.
Who is Louis Spray to todays modern fishing methods, equipment, and attitudes? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 236
| Geez, I didn't think people would get so hostile about this. I'm just trying to start a discussion about big muskies and if it's possible to catch a 70lb fish in Wisconsin.
"Speaking as an avid musky fisherman I would say this is one of the most nonsensical posts on the record I have ever seen. Are you trying to start an argument? Not wanting to know the record is detrimental to our sport? Is that really what you meant to say?"
I'm not trying to start a fight. If I called myself an Avid Musky angler I would think that genetics, growthrates, stocking, and different strains of fish would be important to myself. Maybe you just show up on a lake and throw a bucktail and call yourself an Avid musky fisherman, but some people care about the biology behind it. Hopefully our fisheries biologist don't have the same attitudes as some people on this board or it will be deterimental to the size and health of the fish in our systems.
I'm open to disagreements as long as we can agree to respectfully disagree. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32924
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | MuskieBum,
I think the 'disagreement' started with the comment about not caring about the validity of the current world record being detrimental to the sport. I have to side with FSF in general and Beav in specifics, for several reasons, not the least of which is my experiences with some of the 'old timers' of Muskie angling.
The 'biology' factor doesn't even enter into the discussion when talking about the 'old' records, as stocking and introduction of fish from other systems, changing ecosystems due to building, farming, damming, and other changes brought to the table by Man has forever changed the 'original' genetics and waters in which those fish swam before management programs and strategies began. The whole debate about the strain of fish in the Chip is, will be, and has been a serious bunch of hype. There's no magic there, none at all. If there was any magic at all, the fish would be quite a bit bigger than what one sees getting registered from that water, I would wager. Is the Chip a good body of water? Sure. Is it the home of HERE AND NOW multiple world records? I don't know. I do doubt that, for obvious reasons. Heck, I think there is as good a chance of a record coming from Pelican as there is from the Chip. But that's my opinion, and that doesn't stand for much when the average guy hits the water, which is exactly the point.
The World Record origin won't effect many of the Management programs for the fisheries managers on any of the waters I fish. It isn't just genetics that make a single fish huge, it's dozens of factors that contribute. Growth rates, now that is even more a fuzzy picture entwined in many, many variables.
In other words, a single big fish doesn't mean all that much. Multiple big fish, in the class approaching the record, that get's my attention. That's why I vacation where I do. Everything is 'right' there, so maybe someday...
Your passion for the issue is admirable. However:
I am pretty sure neither Beav nor FSF meant anything personal, it's just they have been around the block a few times with this issue as have I, and have every right to their opinions. I can tell you NO ONE I know has more passion for the Sport and belief in conservation, management, and CPR than Beav. He just has, from my experience spending time in the boat with the gentleman, a very low tolerance for issues that are difficult to impossible to resolve, and are little more than a good excuse to argue ( I believe Beav calls that stuff BS). I can't speak for FSF, but WILL eventually get to fish with that guy; he is, by reputation, one hell of a good stick, and I get a kick out of his sense of humor. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4266
| Thanks again for proving your superior intellegence Steve.
You're right. Call it what you will, I call it as I see 'em.
Maybe I'm getting to be a grumpy old man, but I don't think that anything can be gained by rehashing things that have been hashed over too much already.
I repeat, my sense of what I can do to benefit the sport is to make it better for the present and the future, not squabble over the past.
In this day and age where we can't even get reasonable size limits, and have to deal with spearing in the winter and spring while we preach catch and release, this whole matter is BS to me and I just don't care.
We need to get in the boat Steve. There's so much other BS that needs to be discussed.
I can hardly wait for the first poll about who you are going to vote for in November 
Beav |
|
| |
|
Posts: 358
| You know, someone, somewhere should start an orgainzation with the sole purpose of determining if those fish of yesteryear were really as big as those folks back then claimed. Maybe this organization could recruit donors to help fund this investigation...............oh wait, never mind. (LOL.)
I could care less, every muskie I have released is potentially the next world record, so in my eyes boys & girls, its already been caught!
Its lunch time here at the salt mine, time to go!!!!
|
|
| |
|
| Your High School Sweetheart that broke your heart. "Hanging Chad", The one you lost at the side of the boat. Muskie people, do you see a pattern here? It's ancient history. Get Over it. Move on. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | I have to admit it, but if there was'nt controversy over this issue, odds are most people (other than die hard musky guys/gals) would'nt even know what the record was or where it was caught.... How many of us know what the World Record Walleye is and where/when it was caught? If the record was in dispute, everybody would know. I have to say that this arguement helps put alot of fuel in fishermen's bellys to get out and break it....it's good for the sport. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 129
| I have to admit, that I am not a believer, but that does not mean that it was not a big fish. I had the previledge of seeing a photo of a fish caught in the 70's by a guide on the Moon River. We put Ken O'brien's fish next to it and man this fish is for sure 10-15 lbs heavier. This fish was over 60"'s and the gut on it was gross. The man who caught it runs a launch still on the Moon. He doesn't fish much anymore (age) and he really didn't care even if that was a record. With the way things are going this year, the dispute will be over and the champions belt will be north of the border where she belongs lol! I predict a fish around 71-75 lbs coming this year.
Musk. |
|
| |
|
| So my question is this..I can't keep straight which musky "records" were thrown out or DQ'd...what IS the current recognized record..and what is the record EACH of you recognizes????
I heard O'Briens might have been falsified or DQ'd in some way, truth?
|
|
| |
|
| The world record Walleye was caught in Tennessee in the early 60's. It was an even 25 pounds I believe. The record caught a few years back (something like 50 lbs)was disqualified because the angler was fishing in salt water. Im a geek, I admit it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 87
| I thought this argument was for the winter months.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32924
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Been some cool nights this month, Mn. |
|
| |
