|
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | With all this talk about a new WR program, which sounds like a great idea, how about a WR/Trophy release program for those of us who would prefer to release the fish?
What I am proposing is a database similar to Pope and Young or Boone and Crockett of the hunting records where a database is kept of the largest fish ever released. Of course there would be a WR, but also all the largest fish ever caught would be kept in a database.
I would like to propose a Trophy release program where one would only need to do something like the following:
- Catch a big fish of some minimum size. Perhaps 55 inches?
- Take a 35 mm picture of the fish alongside a measuring tape or stick of some sort. Maybe take a picture of the girth measurement too?
- Send the pictures and negatives into the governing body along with the measuring device (to be returned after verification).
- Release the fish.
A database of the top 500 or so fish ever caught could be easily kept and published and everyone who catches a large fish would get some credit. A top-ten or even top-fifty ever fish would be awesome and much more easily achievable than a WR.
Other possible aspects of the program could be:
- Plaques mailed to new top-50 or maybe top-100 fish at the end of every year.
- An on-line web-site to publish the largest fish pictures and details.
I know Muskies, Inc keeps a database something like this, but that only applies to Muskies, Inc members. This would apply to everyone.
What does everyone think? Does this sound like a good idea?
|
|
| |
|
| Super idea !!!!!!!!!! |
|
| |
|
| Assuming this will be a non-profit, where would funding come from? Would it be membership-based, record application fee, fundraisers, etc.?
Would it be for Muskies only or, would it include the rest of the Esox family?
I like the concept...I've never been a big fan of the llunge log but, this I like. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | Not sure about all that. This is still in the idea phase. 
Yeah, there certainly would need to be a way to pay for the costs of the record keeping, postage for returned pictures and measuring devices, and end-of-year plaques. I wouldn't think it would cost a great deal - maybe something like $25 to cover the costs? At the very least, I would think no more than $50 would be required. An application fee might be best just to keep it simple.
As for the other Esox such as Pike and Tiger Muskie, it seems there certainly could be catagories for those fish. Also, there could be two catagories for measuring such as length and length/girth. That way fish could be recognized for being really heavy too.
Now, I hope the Walleye guys don't hear about this.  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 5874
| I think it could work, but, how to keep it honest. I suggest a healthy entry fee, and severe penalty for any false entry or information. What would the entry fee be? ANd where would that money end up? What would that penalty be for false information? Probably lifetinme ban from future submissions. Also, how are you going to verify for accuracy/credibility? Certainly, you cannot expect analysis of the WRMA type. And what of fish caught out of season?
Lots of issues here that would need to be sorted out.
Or, I guess all could belong to MI, and have it recognised as the Official Release Record keepers. If you want your fish to be recognised, you'd have to be a member.
Edited by Shep 4/4/2006 10:22 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | To be more clear:
- The fish would need to be measured along side a measuring device and photographed with a 35 camera. The pictures and negatives, along with the measuring device would be required for authentication. No digital cameras would be allowed to prevent "photoshop" type editing that could be used to enhance a fishes size.
- Only fish caught legally would be allowed. They would have to be caught in the open season for the water it was caught on and by using legal methods. In other words, no out of season fish, no snagged fish, etc, etc.
- The application fee would be small and only enough to cover the costs. This is not about profits.
- What if someone cheats? Well, its hard to cheat with a 35 mm camera and original negatives. Also, the measuring device would have to be along side the fish and clearly visable to validate the size. Of course, the fish would be disallowed if there was obvious cheating or lack of documentation.
- I suppose the measuring device would almost have to be some sort of commercial stick or tape to prevent someone from making a scaled down, home-made ruler of sorts and then sending in a different ruler to try get the fish authenticated.
I suppose eventually someone, somewhere, will try to cheat and call a 52 incher a 55 or something. I suppose it happens every year. Suppose they are mostly fooling themselves if they get away with it somehow.....
It seems the best way would be to come up with some basic requirements like these that must be met before the fish could be authenticated. The requirements have to be realistic though so people can take part without a lot of hassle. It seems if they are to strict, then no fish could ever be authenticated. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8
| I thought it was about fishing. umm.
rick |
|
| |
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | Thats my whole point - its about fishing.
The problem I see with the WR, as its been known, is to raise the bar so high that noone can realistically have a chance at official record status. Only one WR can be recognized by any governing body.
Having a CPR record keeping body that would keep a database would allow everyone who fishes for Muskies to take part. Having a difficult, but possible target like 55 inches or 45 lbs(using length/girth measurements), seems much more achieveable.
One thing I like about deer hunting is the fact that any moment a Boone and Crockett class buck could walk down the trail. It doesn't have to be a WR, just a really big buck and one can get in the record books with it. And everyone knows that a Boone and Crockett buck is an incredible accomplishment. Why not have a similar thing for Muskie fishing?
Wouldn't it be cool to be able to go fishing with the realistic chance of catching a fish and having it make the Record Books? Wouldn't it also be nice to be able to release that fish and then come back the next week, month, or year to try catch her again and have another entry in the Record Books? It would be like having your cake and eating it too.
Also, how much would a dead 60 lb Muskie be worth to a resort or a guide trying to advertise in comparision to a swimming 60 lber that is in the Record Books? I would think more people would be interested in going after a live fish than in looking at a dead one. They could still see a picture or replica of the live one and then go fishing for it. I think releasing a giant Muskie would be better for an economy than killing it. Good or bad, having some sort of official recognition would also serve to advertise the area it is caught along with the guide, resort, etc, etc.
I know this is a different concept, but what do you all think? |
|
| |
