|
|
| Donnie, I think Larry Ramsell is the guy heading that up now, no fish (min 60lbs) have been entered after one year. There was a lot of people concerned that people were going to be clubbing fish left and right because of it. Guess those fears were unfounded...it was formed because the FWFHoF didn't do their job.
The rightful WI record will be caught out of Green Bay in the next couple years, what a sham.
BTW, I'm of the opinion that ALL the 60lb muskys that have even been caught have been kept so far...both of them:) |
|
| |
|
| Richard,
I agree to a certain extent with your observation. What I think this "useless" poll did, was see where peoples "opinion" of where it will come are. I know the Ottawa, St. Lawrence, AND Georgian Bay are awesome bodies of water. Keep in mind though, that as of late, Green Bay has been putting up some HUGE fish! And, the fact that a good number of people on this board are from Wisconsin, probably gives a few more votes than normal. A poll is opinion....NOT FACT!
Now, why did I vote for Eagle? There are only 3% of all those who checked a box voted for it! Did you know that "factual" records, that have stood the test of all the witch hunt's, have Eagle with 12 muskies over 50 pounds, and two over 60? The reason for this point is simple....Eagle has put up as many as any body of water, and if you look at it's size, (very small in comparison to many of these other trophy producing bodies of water) it has produced some jumbinos.
Everyone has their opinion. Daily we try to convince people of OUR opinion. I spend 10-12 hours a day selling big trucks...Peterbilts, Volvo, Kenworth, etc. I am always trying to "convince" people we have the best trucks. But a poll is just that! It is an "opinion."
When can I come and catch a hawg with you? I want to make a weekend run with the boys your way!!
Donnie  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Hey Donnie:
Check the articles section of this site on the Home page early last year. Couple there on the new WR Program.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
www.larryramsell.com |
|
| |
|
| I've seen a Tiger Musky in very shallow water that leisurely swam around in the summer sun shine with complete disregard for my 20ft extra wide canoe. And he actually ended up gliding directly under the center of the canoe ( how his belly didn't drag on the rocks is beyond me). The canoe was 3 ft wide.
As his monstrously, plated head passed the one side (which was almost 2ft in itself), I estimated there to be 3ft still out the other side. That would put him at a length of 7ft +. His tiger bands were beautiful and very prominant and had a nice dark green coloring to him.
We actually had enough time watching him to cast our tiny bass lures at and around him with totally zero reaction from him (as if our equipment would've lasted more than 15 seconds before it went---tink). I had enough time to put the rod down and draw my handgun. I saw him approaching perpendicular to the stern side of the center of the canoe and waited on the port with the barrel directly above the water surface and watched as his skull approached. The round would've easily penetrated his skull platelets at less than 24" depth. As his skull passed, I looked on the other side of the canoe and saw a good yard sticks worth of fish left.
I've spent 9 years thinking about him and trying to catch him. I gear up bigger and better every year. I never looked at the river the same way since. Because I never thought that a fish that monstously huge could be in it.
Obviously, you realize that I never did pull the trigger. And it totally changed me as a fisherman ever since. That fish would've made a million dollar mantle piece. He makes these normal 50# muskies look like palamino trout.
I'm sure everyone is wondering where...........
Point is that it's not any body of water on your poll list. |
|
| |
|
| Trophymuskie - 5/1/2007 6:45 PM
There's just no way a fish can hide from 40lbs to 65+lbs. As well a fish will have to be released a few times over 50lbs to grow to 65 +.
Absolutely there is!!!! In water that isn't properly fished (or even recognized) for fish of that size.
And who says that fish of extreme size and age aren't selective in their food or eating habits?????
How many people do you know that troll with live 18" carp? |
|
| |
|
| Here's my two cents. If the world record were to come out of Lotw or Eagle it would have been caught allready. The St Lawrence or Ottawa could produce it but the weights dont make up for their length, not taking anything away from those giants! So I believe it's going to come from the Double GG's Green Bay or Georgian Bay!! GB is on the verge and Georgian bay is so close! GB has verified 50lbers Georgian B has verified 60 lbers and the pressure is just not there like the other bodies of water so the shamu's get a chance to grow grow, and grow.
And Grow...
Mr Musky
(what is the life span of the Great lakes spotted musky?) |
|
| |
|
| It will come from somewhere and I have seen giant fish in places known and unknown, and so have a few others who like to explore, they just don't talk about it online. Fish caught last year that would make your head spin and never will be shown. Muskies bigger than you can imagine exist in needle in a haystack proportions and most of them will never see a lure. One of us will be lucky enought to cross paths with a 60 pounder soon, it will happen and in a few years new places will be putting up serious contenders in the 50 and 60 pound class. The good old days of musky fishing are NOW and IN THE FUTURE! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 366
| A record fish is a genetic FREAK, not just a luckily caught specimen of the largest sampling of muskies in a given body of water! Having a large percentage of #50 fish come out of a lake means nothing in terms of catching one that is #70, unless someone is doing genetic research and altering of fish in said lake. The tallest human being on record was 8'11", but his dad was 5'11". Most documented research on record size beings shows that true extremes come from gland abnormalities that result in unusual growth. That being said, with the time and chance opportunity a freak could happen anywhere. Having lots of #50 fish only means that you have a better chance at catching a #50 fish, because a #70 fish is just as likely to be born from a fish that tops out at #35 than #50. The "holy grails" are a factor of our society that although are only stories at least they keep things interesting.
|
|
| |
|
| I am very suspicious of people who say they have seen numerous giant muskies because they just do not exist in reasonable numbers.
Now, I'm not so sure it would have to be that much of a freak *IF* there were as many 60" muskys as are reported lately. Reason is the girth of an average 60" should be 27", and that's just an average for all seasons and would be more in the fall. So really, we're not talking about a freak at all, just an above average 60", or well proportioned fall 60" musky.
Frankly, I don't think most of the fish we think are 50lb releases are really 50lbs either. I'm not trying to start something here, but take a good hard look a Tom Gelb's 51lber again because that's what a 50 should look like. I'm not faulting the angler for keeping it, or anyone else for releasing theirs....or even us for believing. It's just that the 50lb mark has been thrown around so much lately it's diluted the event.
Using Tom Gelb's 50lb 53X28" extreme girth musky as an example, it would just be a normal girth for it's length if it was 60" in the fall, and be darn close to a record. My point is that if 60" fish existed in any numbers then we would have had at least a couple legitimate 60X30" on the books.
There has never been a picture of musky that I've seen that comes close to the recorded dimensions of those 2 Hayward records of 63 1/2 X 31 1/4" and 60 1/4 X 33 1/2"....anyone with eyeballs can see they are only of average girth mid- low 50" class fish.
Unfortunately, a 55 inch musky with an extreme girth is not going to cut the mustard, however, if you do the math on what just a well proportioned 60" would be, that should be enough. Do they exist....they haven't so far!
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 697
Location: Minnetonka | Good post. I haven't seen a great number of insane freak muskies myself, but I have seen results from a guide who consistently flirts with the length and girth required for a world record fish. The link below is pretty much what I based my vote on. Anyone else know of someone CONSISTENTLY coming closer than this guy???
http://www.1000islandsfishing.com/muskie.htm |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32890
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | May be this season someone will pop a new record...  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 203
| CAPTAIN CLARK IS DEFINITLY THE FRONT RUNNER FOR THE NEXT WR!
THAT GUY JUST PUTS THE IE OR Y IN MUSKIE/MUSKY.
BRET |
|
| |
|
| "The ability to host fishing pressure is a double-edged sword: you need low(er) pressure to make big, dumb fish, BUT, you need lots of lines in the water for the Law of Averages and chances at them."
Now that was smart...
|
|
| |
|
| Clark is tops, but he not good enough to beat the Louie fish! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32890
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | The fish has to be there to get caught, unlike the old records that were....well.... |
|
| |
|
| Shot |
|
| |
|
| ...from a bridge?  |
|
| |
|
| Cal Johnson's record musky fish was beached and not shot from a bridge like Louie Spray was known to have done. Not that Cal's record is any more believable because he said his July fish had a 33 1/2" girth. If you believe that's possible, then you also have to believe his musky fish would have a 36" to 38" girth in the fall........... |
|
| |
