|
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | here is 56 inch 50 pound fish and the fish grown to 70 pounds by mathematical formula. As you can see its not really that much bigger. My Photo sho[ is not as easy as my old one. I cant seem to put the bigger fish back in his hands. This fish is huge even at 50 pounds. But really doesnt grow that much bigger to gain the extra 20 pounds
Edited by Kingfisher 2/11/2011 4:40 PM
(muskie-new-michigan-state-record-225x300.jpg)
Attachments
----------------
 muskie-new-michigan-state-record-225x300.jpg (30KB - 488 downloads)
70lbsa.jpg (15KB - 203 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | 4 inches in length and three inches in girth all done by % with known starting point. But again this is just speculation. This what I would think a 70 pound fish would look like.
One way to really see how little difference they really are would be to look at a 60 by 30 next to a 56 by 27 replicas. They just dont look that different.
Mike
Edited by Kingfisher 2/11/2011 4:49 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | CS/George wrote: "Yes I have and it got bigger after it was out of the water awhile just like the O"Brien fish."
LR: Well, I don't know what photos you are looking at or when, but your rose colored glasses are misleading you. And how about the photos that are showing the fish held in a manner that doesn't exhibit max. girth. I suppose those just look to you like the ones you catch?
CS/George continued: "What exactly do you feel caused the abdominal area to be so bloated if it wasn't full of eggs? From my recollection, all the stomach contained was a 15" whitefish and two 10" herring. Casselman wasn't fooled the way you are. He knew that the fish could not be that heavy unless it had a very large egg mass.
LR: Gee, I wonder if the forage fish just disappeared after they were swallowed. Have any idea George, how much a 15 inch whitefish weighs; or two 10" herring?
No, "Dr" (out of respect) Casselman "wasn't fooled", he made his comments before the determination of just what was in that fish had been made. But I'm sure you're right that forage just couldn't replace missing egg mass. And of course, the fish couldn't possibly have had layers of fat in its stomach either, like all other females do, dispite the fact it was sterile...nah, not possible George, you "must" be correct...yet again...NOT!
CS/George continued: "Furthermore, this fish was caught in Nov. of 2000 and reported to be 53.5. This fish would NOT have been legal if caught in 2001 because the length limit was increased to 54" total length."
LR: Again George, you are SADLY mistaken. When Martin Williamson brought his fish to the Muskie's Canada Oddessy in the spring of 2001, I asked him how the fish had been measured. That is when he said that it had been a fork length measurement...the following years length regulation change had ZERO bearing on anything. The fish WAS legal when caught, even had its TOTAL length been 53.5, which it wasn't. From that point, since Martin brought the mounted fish with him, it was a simple matter to measure the distance between the fork and the tip of the tail to determine the additional two inches of TOTAL LENGTH! George, you simply need to get more facts before you, 'er, try to convince folks of anything.
CS/George continued: "Then in 2001 the 53.5" length mysteriously became a 'fork length' measurement. This was never mentioned in 2000."
LR: SEE ABOVE
CS/George cont.: "And don't try and claim that Williamson didn't know the proper way to measure a muskie."
LR: OK George, I'm sure you know just exactly when Mr. Williamson knew and what he didn't know. Pardon me for doubting your absurdity.
CS/George continued: "When I said before that Williamson was an avid muskie fisherman you said "yes but for how long?" A little research shows that a large slice of his angling efforts over the past 31 years has been pursueing muskies with 10 over 40 lbs. including a 42 pounder which earned him the live-release honors back in the days when Molson Brewery sposored a popular and highly successful fishing contest."
LR: Glad to see you finally did a little research. No let's see if you have done or can do more. What method of length measurement did the Molson Contest use the year Martin caught his 42 pounder? I know, but let's see if you do or can find out.
CS/George ended: "I'm planning on becoming the new 'world record muskie advisor' at the NFWFHoF."
LR (and I suspect I speak for many others): That's GREAT! You deserve each other. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | I guess what Im saying is that a 70 pounder isnt as big an aircraft carrier. It 4 inches longer and 3 inches of girth bigger then this 50 pounder. Mike |
|
| |
|
| Does anyone know the stomach contents of that fish? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | Guest - 2/11/2011 7:08 PM
Does anyone know the stomach contents of that fish?
I was told it was empty. Mike |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | CS/George: All the other BS aside, since you seem to conviently ignore what you cannot answer or come up with some off the wall stuff, you seem to forget that I have copies of the work you did AGAINST the Spray and Johnson muskies. Strange you now ignore your own work and join the "other team". As I said before, "GREAT". It truly is a match made in heaven.
Don't expect any further debate from me, you just aren't worth anymore of my time, since like JD, you pick and choose what suits your purpose and ignore the rest. Enjoy working with the Hall, although I can't imagine what they need you for since they don't maintain a list of valid 60-pound muskies, have their "local favorites" in place. Everyone here knows what a sham "their" current all-tackle records are. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Larry,
He's not worth arguing with at all, because he has the distinct advantage of being disassociated with reality. |
|
| |
