|
|
Posts: 663
| Just curious since the season is past us and time to think about this stuff. Were any of the big fish caught this year submitted to the new organization? Anyplace to see the standings? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32958
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | None were in excess of 60 pounds and submitted that I am aware of. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 194
Location: Lincolnshire, IL | Who/What is the new record keeping group? Was 60 lbs. the minimum size for entry? If there is a prior thread for this I will search...Thanks. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 281
Location: Girdwood, Alaska | General Information:
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/articles/04.02.2006/1036/Modern.Day...
Info on Submitting your world record fish:
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/articles/04.02.2006/1037/Rules,.Reg...
Edited by A-ROZ 12/19/2006 4:40 PM
|
|
| |
|
| I believe not a single fish has been caught in the past 7 years that would have qualified for the new record keeping organization's requirements. |
|
| |
|
| there is 3-4 fish ever that would have qualified |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32958
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I believe that is the concept of 'record'. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1636
| sworrall - 12/19/2006 11:21 PM
I believe that is the concept of 'record'.
True.
Well,
now you know more fish will be killed just to get weighed on a certified scale. |
|
| |
|
| I volunteer to be in charge of the Illinois record keeping group......................I know where she lives, watched my friend put her in the boat on a lambulge.........now if we can only repeat the process in spring |
|
| |
|
| "now you know more fish will be killed just to get weighed on a certified scale." Give me a break.
There has been only 1 - 60 pounder caught ever because water was added to O'Brien's. That would only leave only 1 unless you want to count Spray, Johnson and the other 2 from Eagle Lake from the 1940's. Now consider that Williamson's 61 had 3-4 pounds of extra legal weight in the form of ruff fish it had eaten before being caught, if you deduct those ruff fish you'll can see how many other 60's will be killed. 70 pounds, odds say it will never happen! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32958
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | My sentiments exactly. If there is a fish killed that just misses the 60# mark, then that's the way it goes. There are plenty of good scales available, and getting the scale certified isn't a big deal.
I don't know if I'd whack a 60# fish. Maybe. If I do, so what? These are FISH, a renewable resource. CPR has been encouraged for near thirty years, and I'm old enough to remember why; the concept was put in place so that little muskies could GET to trophy size. There was no idea to create an atmosphere where a kept fish, especially a HUGE kept fish, would encourage anything but congratulations.
If you catch a 60# class fish on waters where that fish is legal to harvest, it's your personal decision to let her swim. If I catch one it's mine. I'll do everything I can to see to it that's how it remains. Sportsmanship goes along with reasonable and carefully considered conservation.
If a MNR, DNR, or any other fisheries outfit and the public agree that a fishery can support much larger fish and should be protected to CPR only, that's fine, it's then my choice to fish that water or not. (I would) According to Cassleman, there are precious few waters where one might expect to see a fish over 60#, much less over 70#.
I just hope that one gets caught, and the WR debate is ended. |
|
| |
|
| Agree Steve, It's interesting to consider that without that late Nov trip by Williamson or his musky having eaten that extra meal there might never have been a 60lber ever.
The modern day records program is not going to cause a rush of people choking 60lb fish simply because they are scarce as hens teeth. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1301
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | To answer the original question, no, there have been no entries submitted to the new record keeping program to date.
"Guest" your comment; "There has been only 1 - 60 pounder caught ever because water was added to O'Brien's." begs the question, DO YOU HAVE ANY PROOF THAT THIS IS TRUE?
If you do I would like to hear from you. You can email me at: [email protected]
If you do not, I would suggest you qualify your personal opinion as such.
Same question regarding the two 60 Eagle Lake fish you seem to be so quick to dismiss.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
www.larryramsell.com |
|
| |
