|
|
Posts: 696
Location: Northern Illinois | I always thought the larger the body of water the larger the fish. That does not mean that a rare "freak" could not have grown to record size in a smaller body of water. I look at the Wisconsin state record walleye that is 18 lbs and was caught on High Lake! The lake combined with Fishtrap is just barely over 1000 acres. And then were talking about lakes as big as LOTW...seems like it would have a couple "freak" muskies swimming around somewhere in it. Whitefish Bay maybe? Just seems like it would be the case. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 661
Location: Roscoe IL | 123 - 8/23/2013 11:09 AM
Thought the 18lb catfish-eating musky was just another fabricated story? If memory serves, the musky supposedly came out of the water and shook the catfish violently while in it's jaws
And this is a true story as well. Muskynado!!
Attachments
----------------
 images.jpg (10KB - 303 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
| Brett Carroll - 8/23/2013 2:54 PM
seems like it would have a couple "freak" muskies swimming around somewhere in it.
I agree but so far the freaks have been topping out at around 57 inches. Another three inches on top of that is a lot. Hopefully someone gets one on a bump soon.
Geust 1, I would be interested to know how they can determine length from skull size. Genetics vary from fish to fish so I would think it would be hard to develop a scale that is accurate for that type of thing. |
|
| |
|
| "Geust 1, I would be interested to know how they can determine length from skull size. Genetics vary from fish to fish so I would think it would be hard to develop a scale that is accurate for that type of thing."
I would be interested to know how you or anyone else coud write off a set off jawbones that are large enough to have come from a 60 plus inch fish?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 59
Location: Minneapolis, MN | I'm curious... For those that have caught larger muskies in LOTW (54+) were they related to very deep water (40-50+) or are you still finding them in the shallow water areas (20-30 ft)? Would think the really big fish would be feeding more on open water ciscos/lake trout vs. the panfish, perch, walleyes in shallower water.
We had our first super tanker up numerous time this past month (1st time to LOTW) and she was within a couple hundred yards of 80+ ft.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2009
| there are not a lot of fish caught on LOTW over 54" a true legal is a very rare fish for sure.... Have had one in my boat and know of several others caught that were miles from 40' of water. 20-30 feet of water will still hold whitefish the entire year that far north. |
|
| |
|
Location: MN | FlyfishMN - 8/23/2013 4:48 Would think the really big fish would be feeding more on open water ciscos/lake trout vs. the panfish, perch, walleyes in shallower water.
Wouldn't those big fish follow the whitties and tullies up shallow in the fall when they spawn? |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | "very rare" Justin? seems dpearson and a few others get some legals per year.. and those are the ones we hear about.... not sure I'd say they are 'very rare' on lotw but def harder to come by... I know the guy I fish with had one up last year he guessed it at "I don't know big" and he has been in the boat with quite a few very very large fish... still doubt it was 60.
to put it in perspective. a 60" fish is 20% bigger than a 50". Think of a 40"er then a 48"er following you in. HUGE difference right. now take a 50" and then think of something 20% bigger.. I guess we all like to dream of the biggest thing that swims in hopes of catching it...but I just have to laugh when I hear all the sitings of 57-60" fish by guys who maybe have a few 50s and haven't had one in the boat 55"... but yet they think they can accurately guess a fish 10% bigger... not to be a Debbie downer but like Larry Ramsell pointed out, if they were out there with the sheer # of anglers and casts made, they would get caught. the biggest fish don't always get off ...they simply get bigger in our minds after they get off !  |
|
| |
|
| ldahlberg - 2/22/2013 7:26 AM
This post is pretty funny.
Ask yourself, has a 60" ever existed? The answer is yes, but not many.
(I have a published photo from Jim Peterson's Outdoor news from the early 1970's of a 60" fish caught in the Hayward area. Showed it in a seminar at the mn musky expo 3 years ago)
Next question, could it ever happen again? Duh...
But, I don't think the answer really matters. What matters is we HOPE they exist!
LD
it must be one of the sprays giant lol |
|
| |
|
Posts: 371
Location: Dixon, IL | 123 - 8/23/2013 1:09 PM
Thought the 18lb catfish-eating musky was just another fabricated story? If memory serves, the musky supposedly came out of the water and shook the catfish violently while in it's jaws, yet the puncture wounds on the soft underbelly of the catfish were oddly pristine. No tearing or shredding as one would expect having had such an encounter with a massive, furious musky. Seems like more folklore from an area full of it.
I found out about it from Musky Hunter magazine about few years ago and I see photo of 18lbs catfish and large teeth marked on belly. They measured it to compare of I think 40 lbs so the marked is much bigger!
Edited by ILmuskie 8/23/2013 7:02 PM
|
|
| |
|
| one thing is sure,even if some really look like 60 inch long it's always hard to believe.for me the recent supposed 60 inch fish is not true.you don't caught and release a fish that long without a bumpboard pics.it's pretty easy to add a inch or two it will stay unnoticed even by the best size guesser.the thing is 2 or 3 extra inch to a 58 incher is gigantic.it's really not like adding 2 or 3 inch to a 40 inch fish.some guys seems to don't realize the growing rate slow down with age and size.i think lotw don't even produce a 50 lbs each year so i would be surprised to see a 60''.yeah it's a big lake but there is also a ton of anglers too. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 425
Location: Roseau | A ton of anglers on lotw??
That is funny, thousands of spots to fish and i maybe see 10 b oats tops a day out casting. Today saw 1 boat casting and fished for 7 hours. |
|
| |
|
| Some of the best anglers in the world, with best equipment cannot catch 60's on lotw, larry, ottawa, mn, does a 60 live, perhaps, but to think they are just out smarting people because they are elusive is silly. The 60 inch musky is like big foot, odds are probably not, but I would not be surprised if we found one. BR |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | Muskies inc is the largest data base in the world on released Muskies. Over a quarter million entries in the lunge log. Only one entry (CLAIMING) 60 inches. Not verifiable and not from Lake of the woods. I have to agree with Ryan Marlowe that since the advent of the Bump Board he truth is easy to verify. I would accept a picture on a Bump board. The fish would have to take up the entire board. 60 inches is 5 feet. So Michigan now has a verified 58 inch fish. She had little in her stomach and no egg mass. 58 inches, 58 pounds . No one will ever convince me she did not at some time weigh 65 or more.
To say Muskies can not get to 60 inches is foolish. It is also foolish to say that Muskies grow to 60 inches as none of us have ever verified one. I like Larry's statement, " Who knows what evil lurks there" I believe we have a verified 58 inch 58 pound fish. She most likely would have weighed more in April toting 5 to 7 pounds of eggs. Add in a couple 3 pound suckers and she is a unicorn. But we will never know how heavy she COULD have been. She's dead and she did not come from Lake of the Woods. She came from a lake that can not even be compared to Lake of the woods in size. In fact it is only the third or forth largest lake in this chain. I would not have guessed a 58 fish were possible from this lake and yet there it is. Larry's words ring again, who knows what evil lurks there? Also when we speak of Lac Seul remember you can not keep one of any size from there so that is bump board only and can never own the world record.
I am at the point now where I say why travel to Georgian bay or the St. Lawrence when I have world record producing waters 3 hours from my front door.
The truth is when we place absolutes on things like the size of fish or how big a White Tail buck can get or how fast a man can run? we are asking mother nature to prove us wrong. This world will keep surprising us with new records, new species and new stories. So Ill take a few words from Full metal Jacket and replace a few words.
These are great times we are living in bros, we're jolly green giants walking the earth " with Musky Rods"  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 64
| A lodge owner in the kenora area fished muskies hard on lotw in his younger years and fished them when they used to club them at the boat with a 2x4. He told me a about 2 fish he is positive were over near the 60 inch mark. One of them ate a nine inch suick and bit his Dacron above his 12 inch leader. He said they followed the fish as it jumped for 20 minutes trying to spit up the suick. The other they hit 6 times with a 2x4 and the fish eventually got off and swam away as if nothing had been done to it. These fish are certainly uncommon and a true dinosaurs. It gives us something to shoot for. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1290
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Interesting to see myths and passed on "stories" mixed with reality. I grew up believing in the lies of the late 30's; 40's and early 50's. Those have mostly all proven to be untrue. Interesting too, to see how so many "want" to believe the "stories"...catfish muskie and all. Most prone to same, call the bodies of water the stories come from their muskie water...coincidence?
Was just discussing this topic with a fishing partner last week. Of all of the historical "record" muskies, so far only Coleman's 60 pound 8 ounce fish from Eagle Lake seems to withstand logic and scrutiny, however documentation is slim. This was the first (and perhaps only?) "verified" 60 pound muskie ever caught...just barely over 60 pounds. And it wasn't 60 inches...
Sorry guys, I just don't believe there are 70 pound muskies out there. But hey, prove me wrong! Again, who knows what evil (or wonder) lurks out there! 60 inchers, I do believe in and know of a few that were legit; some of them weighing far from what one would think they would/should weigh. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2
| If a little lake like lake bemidji can produce a 57" Muskie, than I am sure lake of the woods has some bigger then that. You have to remember alot of spots on lotw hardly get touched and such a huge body of water the odds of u being at the right moment at the right time are next to nothing. The fish is that big for a reason, it's not stupid. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2009
| A size of a lake does not have always have a direct correlation between how big each species will ultimately grow. LOTW has largemouth too, doubt there are any 12 pounders in there.
A muskie can get just as big in 6000 acres as in 600,000...IMO you just need the right conditions and you need to let them grow...Leechers obviously grow long and Bemidji is full of big whitefish. Whats crazy is there are some tiny (under a 1000 ac) lakes in MN that have kicked out 56"+ fish. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1901
Location: MN | Uh, yea they are kind of stupid. They'll eat a 2 x 4 with hooks. Are you now attributing their rarity of getting caught to intelligence? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | I would say and believe that larger fish in smaller bodies that have been repeatedly caught and released get conditioned and smarter if you can call it that. I dont think fish get smarter with age but get conditioned to artificial lures. Big fish are harder to catch for the simple reason there are fewer of them . Add in some conditioning , pressure and ample natural forage they become harder to catch. This is why double tens are already slowing down on Lake st. Clair as the top big fish producers. The fish have seen thousands of them and been hooked enough times to shy away now. I dont buy into fish being intelligent but do believe they get conditioned to certain artificial lures, sounds and tactics. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | As for 70 pounds, we can all believe in 58 pounds. In the old research forum we talked in depth about stomach contents and egg mass. This 58 pound fish had neither. So she was 58 in September with no eggs and the backbone of 13 inch small mouth bass in her belly. One two pound bass and she is 60 pounds. One 5 pound pike and she is 63 pounds. Add in mature eggs? Who knows what evil lurks there ha ha ha . Ill say this , the best chance you have at catching something bigger then this 58 pound fish on hook and line is either early spring before the spawn or Late fall just before ice up. You have go after them when they are at their peak weight. I do not believe this Michigan fish was at her peak weight.
I have heard two reports now of two different guys having what they thought were Browns taken off their lines by something off White Lake in Lake Michigan this past spring. The guys were trolling plugs for Browns behind planer boards. Both cases involved fish that were smaller being reeled in and wham the rod doubles over drag rips and the fish is gone. Muskies or Big Pike are the consensus here. A Musky in Lake Michigan in March could be in her prime weight. For the next three seasons I will be targeting early spring(sucker run and trout runs) and late fall(Whitefish spawn) in Lake Michigan around three drowned river mouths, Muskegon, White and Manistee. I am also fishing the Antrim Chain as many times as I can get up there. Mike |
|
| |
|
| "A mid 50 inch fish can have a HUGE head and the stories begin from there.""
Can a mid 50 inch fish have the same size head as a low 60" fish? Specifically which species of fish have head sizes that vary greatly? In most organisms, growth ceases at maturity but fish continue to grow throughout their life and the head grows along with the body.
Apparently some people "want" to believe a huge skull or jaw bone could not have belonged to a 60 plus inch muskie that may have been a world record. If a skull or jaw bone is indeed large enough, I feel its more likely than not that the fish was much longer than a mid 50 inch fish.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | More likely than not?
Catch one. Then it's real. Until then, it's another story, and a LOT of stories come from over that direction. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 720
| As a friend once said "I know there is legacy somewhere in here. I just can't find it through all the bull---t". Lake of the woods has giants. No doubt about it. But Steve's right catch a one and its real. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | Catch one ,verify it (PROPERLY) and its real. Lots of people say they catch them and said they caught them but were they real? 58 inches and 58 pounds is real. I am betting this new 58 pound world record is going to fall several times in the next 10 years. I am also betting we end up pretty close to the 65 pound mark. I am also betting the next one comes from the great lakes area. Mike |
|
| |
|
| "More likely than not?
Catch one. Then it's real. Until then, it's another story, and a LOT of stories come from over that direction."
Are you implying that a skull or jawbone that EXISTS and is large enough to have belonged to a 60 plus inch muskie is nothing more than a story? Apparently to you the bones from dinosaurs are also meaningless because you haven't seen a living dinosaur.
Prove the huge skulls or jaw bones are from muskies much shorter than their size indicates. Until then they should not be written off.
|
|
| |
