|
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Well, maybe not a "legal" fish, but very close as it was caught in April... I will also say that Mr. Dempsey is a fine angler to land that fish on that gear. It would be nice to know how much roe it contained.
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/printer-friendly.asp?t...
Incidentally, if you believe the measurements in that first post (I don't have any reason *not* to, mind you--I have just never spoken to either guy), here are the various weight estimates from my calculator program:
Wilkinson: 75.1 lbs
Standard: 78.6
Crawford: 65.0
Casselman: 70.5
Hannon: 62.7
Certainly that fish looks like it would go over 60 pounds, but who's to say for sure? How many of us actually get to SEE a fish of those proportions...we simply can't even judge it accurately. But Mike Donofrio (Lead Fish Biologist for the GB system) tells me that the earliest fish were stocked in '88 or '89, so it seems likely that its under 20 years in age. Who knows how big some of these fish will grow in another 4-5 years...
But on that note, I agree with you in that it's likely the biggest fish in Green Bay never see a lure, and may never even come close to the mouth of the Fox River. I think if you want them, you going to have to go find them out in the bay--and probably well up into the bay. With all that water, it's truly a needle in one HUGE haystack.
But I have a plan, lol... I have a plan!
TB
|
|
| |
|
| Great Fish, congrats to the angler but like I said take a look at the percentages. Maybe 1 in 10 fish over 50" hooked on walleye tackle actually gets landed. The other 9 have a 5" rapala stuck in its throat. What percentage of fish survive a 1-2 hour fight on spinning tackle?. I talked to a kayaker who saw 10 dead musky on the east side in one day last spring. It is what it is. I've got a lot of respect for the angler who let it go to give her a shot at survival.
|
|
| |
|
| i dont know why you are posting this fish weight estimate.the fish was caught,when the season is closed.btw if you remove all the eggs in that fat belly you will be surprise.this fish is far away from a record.to be honest i give no credit to this kind of fish............. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | ron f - 11/4/2007 1:20 PM
i dont know why you are posting this fish weight estimate.the fish was caught,when the season is closed.btw if you remove all the eggs in that fat belly you will be surprise.this fish is far away from a record.to be honest i give no credit to this kind of fish.............
Well Ron, the formulas that have been derived for estimating the weight of muskellunge are simply based upon the length & the girth of the fish. While I don't have all of the cleithra data, my guess is that there were fish containing spawn included in the data set. Thus how could you prove that the formulas *aren't* accurate?
In any event, in researching the derivations of each formula, I could not find anything that invalidated a fish "caught out of season." They are what they are...estimates. If the fish would have spawned, certainly it would have been much thinner--thus the weight estimations would have reflected that, and the values obtained would be less. But since the fish was released, we will never know just how accurate the formulas are in this particular case.
My purpose for posting this here is to try to shed some light on the true weight potential of a very large muskie--I feel it is larger than most guys seem to agree with. But whether you feel the fish is credible or not is another matter entirely, and you are entitled to your opinion. But I think most people would agree (or have agreed), it is truly a magnificent catch on such light tackle.
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 136
| Bob's fish was analyzed at 62-64 inches and 36 in girth. I don't believe that but the jackpot gives a good vantage point. A jackpot is 6.5 inches long plus hooks. That mouth dwarfs that bait. But that fish and her sisters live in 45 feet of water and eat 5 lb trout all day long. There are similar lakes that have similar fish I believe but a lot has to go right to get it in the boat. A fish like that will be caught in the next few years then all the debate will be over. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 162
Location: Bemidji, MN | You know what the most important thing I learned from taking statistics classes on the way to getting my fisheries managemnet Degree? Statistics are a bunch of BS that can be manipulated to suit the needs of the scientist. Getting a degree in science has taught me one other very important thing. DOUBT EVERYTHING. look for proof. When I SEE a 70 pound musky, then I will believe it! we can speculate on this all we want, and Dr Casselman and others can do all the equations they want, and I do not doubt that he is the one of the most KNOWLEGEABLE people out there, but we are playing with imaginary numbers here, there are way too many factors influencing the age and growth of a fish, and just because someone says, according to a calculation, there is a 70 pound fish out there, does not make it so. The von bertalanfy equation works better with more fish, it is easy to go to a lake and kill a couple hundred perch, or dare i say walleyes, to get a good idea of an age/growth relationship on a fish population. But the $%& would hit the fan if someone went out and chopped the heads off of a couple hundred muskies to get the cliethera out to come up with a better idea how big they can grow. My point is that I don't think we really have a good idea, there is till way too much to learn. Plus, I don't know if any of you have ever caught any REALLY old muskies or pike for that matter, but from my own experience, and from talking to several fish biologists, some really old fish can actually LOSE weight late in life for whatever reason. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 76
| Dempsey's fish, what a friggin monster. Would love to know what that fish actually weighed. Judging by the picture I would agree that fish could have easily exceeded 60lbs. Then again pictures are very deceiving as we all know.
Edited by IntroC 11/5/2007 5:53 PM
|
|
| |
