|
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Working on it, Doug, and I think I have the answer. I'll speak with Larry over the next few days and see what he thinks. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 62
| Here's an idea . . . start with the formula and related picture documentation as has been proposed. However, as has been pointed out, the formula is only an estimate, and it will likely result in estimates very close to each other dependent on length vs. girth. Therefore, for estimates very close to the record (e.g., +\- 3-5%), put the decision to a vote of 100+ "knowledgeable" muskie fishermen, where the majority rules. The larger the voting pool, the more reliable the outcome.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 574
Location: Elk Grove Village, IL & Phillips, WI | I honestly think that we should leave anyone's opinion out of it and stick to the weight estimate and use it as the fishes score. This isn't a beauty contest, votes shouldn't matter. Why can't there be a tie while waiting for the next Queen?
Just my opinion and I'll probably never ever catch a fish of this class anyway. My home water doesn't make fish like that! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8782
| The bar has been at at 58#. Most guys fish their entire lives without even SEEING a fish that could push the 50# mark. The number of fish that will be caught in a given season that actually contend with this fish will likely be counted on one hand with a few fingers missing.
We have a criteria for entry where there is no margin for error. And we have ONE fish that meets it. ONE. You can argue about it until the cows come home, but until you get one that can contend with the single entry? Well? Shut up. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 108
| That sounds GREAT Steve! Looking forward to seeing your program.
I have had a #50+ muskie in my boat...I hope that qualifies me to have an opinion EA?!
Brett Waldera |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | LuchyCraftMan: I have no doubt we will have issues to deal with in the future, human nature is in play. We will deal with each situation on its merits and come to an acceptable conclusion.
Dougj: And I like your idea for State and Provincial records AND yearly records, especially since I personally believe that fish the size of our current record is getting very close to the maximum size for the species and "beats" will be few and far between, as we are seeing with the MDMWRP.
Since with this program the fish need not be kept, I foresee the potential to get a lot more entries, and data, going this route as well as the "World Record". So, I am willing to do the duty for same. So, our current "World Record Release" will also be the State of Minnesota record release AND slightly smaller fish from MN can still be a yearly winner in future years.
This means that all other States and Provinces categories are "OPEN" with the same rules requirements, but the fish need not be 58 pounds or over to qualify! Let's not get ridiculous here, but I'll consider any fish of substantial size (hybrids included). Not all States and Province waters are created equal and not all can produce giant super fish. And of course, some States have only Hybrid Tiger muskies.
Also Brett, it is a given that all record fish will be listed for posterity.
Great ideas guys, LOVE IT!
NOTE: I posted this before I saw Worrall's post above. I suspect that we are on the same page, but if there are any changes, I shall let you know.
Edited by Larry Ramsell 12/17/2015 11:15 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | Brett Waldera - 12/17/2015 4:34 PM
For the record, I am a competitor...I like to WIN...I don't agree with society and their "participation" ribbons...but in this case...would it make more sense to have a Catch & Release Hall of Fame, and have entries over 58lbs go into this Hall of Fame Program rather than an individual holding the World Record title? Is that less of an accomplishment for the angler to be in a Hall of Fame with his/her peers with fish of amazing caliber?
Brett Waldera
What he said. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | esoxaddict - 12/17/2015 9:05 PM
The bar has been at at 58#. Most guys fish their entire lives without even SEEING a fish that could push the 50# mark. The number of fish that will be caught in a given season that actually contend with this fish will likely be counted on one hand with a few fingers missing.
We have a criteria for entry where there is no margin for error. And we have ONE fish that meets it. ONE. You can argue about it until the cows come home, but until you get one that can contend with the single entry? Well? Shut up.
Wanna Get Away ... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 251
| I too like DougJ's idea. I would like to see this as a list or database of sort. So one can look and see what the top 10 from MN waters are (for instance) then click to see the pictures. People should be submitting any fish that meets the general criteria so we can start to build the list, not just adding on if it is bigger than the former biggest. That is I what I envision this as. It would be inspiring to see the pictures of all the biggest CPR Fish in one place.
I have Faith that Larry and Steve will make this into a great program. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 833
| Thanks to Larry and Steve for putting this together.
I hope guys on here will not scuttle the whole thing in search of a level of perfection that just isn't possible with type of record. I'm sure that the system proposed by Steve and Larry will go through some growing pains, anything like this does, but that is what it takes to create something.
I salute you both for your efforts. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 69
| esoxaddict - 12/17/2015 9:05 PM
The bar has been at at 58#. Most guys fish their entire lives without even SEEING a fish that could push the 50# mark. The number of fish that will be caught in a given season that actually contend with this fish will likely be counted on one hand with a few fingers missing.
We have a criteria for entry where there is no margin for error. And we have ONE fish that meets it. ONE. You can argue about it until the cows come home, but until you get one that can contend with the single entry? Well? Shut up.
Exactly...^^^ This IMO does not need to be picked with a fine tooth comb all winter arguing or debating other fish for no reason other than boredom because most of us cannot be on the water. Larry put his time in, has the rules set - they're very clear. A legit contender will be easily seen and there will be little use for further discussion on if it qualifies to take the reign. There are always blown up girths in the fall, but seemingly they never have an honest pic with the measurements to prove certainty of their claims. Weird. Happened this year as well, more than once.
We have a good system in place that should be able to make sure there are no falsifications should someone want to enter. If not, you have the option to bonk it & get it weighed. It's that simple.
I also like the ideas of other potential options like Doug & Brett proposed. This is just starting & I expect Larry will be working to make sure every avenue and all other options have been looked at to make program appealing to anyone that may want to participate.
The bar is set, good luck everyone! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 519
Location: Bloomington, IL | Still don't understand why, if a fish can be documented (like the Mil Lacs Queen) and weighed on a truly certified scale in a cradle with credible witnesses....certifying it with subtracting out the weight of the cradle, that a world record with a live release is not possible?
I understand most out there will not be equipped to do this, but there are some who put in the time/hours who are equipped to do this should they encounter such a beast. If a fish weighs 63 lbs. in a cradle and cradle weighs 3 lbs. 63-3 = 60 lbs. If properly equipped, really just a matter of simple math is it not? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Two different programs. Accept that, look at the rules for both, and there you go. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 37
| Larry, you are a brave man to take this on! I have a comment and a question:
It occurs to me that almost all of the fish that might qualify would be late fall muskies where the water temperature is low; therefore, a lot less stress on the released giants vs summertime when the water temperature could be in the high 70's or even higher on a few occasions. Hence there is a much better chance any qualifying fish could survive.
My question is, how long would the potential candidate muskie be out of the water to satisfy the documentation requirements? I realize there are a lot of variables to the question. Just an estimate would be appreciated |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | muskyhawk66: I would venture to say that someone fairly experienced in handling muskies on a regular basis and has their act together, could accomplish the task very quickly (60 to 90 seconds). The key is being prepared with the necessary equipment.
I believe you are correct that most will be fall fish and they certainly do respond well to handling in the colder water. Board and tape and camera ready, fish in the net in the water and...Go!
Having a Go Pro or some such type of camera going to can record the entire event without even touching it once going. It isn't rocket science, just preparation. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8782
| Brett Waldera - 12/17/2015 9:24 PM
That sounds GREAT Steve! Looking forward to seeing your program.
I have had a #50+ muskie in my boat...I hope that qualifies me to have an opinion EA?!
Brett Waldera
You're welcome to your opinions, Brett, and my intent was not to shoot them down. But let's look at this from a realistic standpoint. Your scenario of two fish with similar lengths and girths coming close enough where there would be an issue determining who is the "winner" and which fish is bigger? How often is that likely to happen? A lot of guys fish for 20 years and never break 50", much less 50#. That caliber of fish does not even exist in a vast majority of waters where we all fish. Look at the state records for IL, IN, KY, TN, etc... There are only a few bodies of water out there capable of producing a 58# fish, and there are thousands of guys fishing them every year who won't likely ever even get a glimpse of one that big. I get that you want to "win" but what are you winning? There's no prize money. Might get your face in a magazine article and a few "atta boy's" from your fellow anglers, maybe a brief write up here and there on the websites and such.
But at the end of the day what we have here is a way to document the largest fish in the fairest way possible, with the same standards applied to all, and still be able to release the fish quickly and easily instead of taking it out of the system.
I'm just amazed that anyone could try to find fault with something that benefits everyone including the fish. |
|
| |
|
| Gotta throw this out there....any chance on a fly division? Fly records have always been kept separately.
P.S. The Hawkins fish would probably not qualify...the go pro was running but there is no clear image of the girth tape. It gets pixelated when zoomed... I'll get you another qualifier next fall;) |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Ben: Always a possibility, so we'll see, although you fella's did indeed prove that super fish can be taken with a fly rod (not that many doubted it). I was present for a 51 X 26 Tiger muskie on a fly rod last fall. So stay tuned. |
|
| |
|
| Wow 51x26 tiger!?! That will be tough to beat!!! |
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | I’m glad that Muskie 1st has picked this up, and although all of contest details have not been worked out yet… a very solid start and very worthy first entry . Although there are many different record keeping organizations, with some “pet” records that only fool the uninformed, this new release record, as well as the modern-day kept record are the real standard IMHO. I feel that eventually M1 will have the most robust database of properly authenticated giants, and although we might not know an exact weight, it should still be of great benefit to the scientific community moving forward. I think it's also important to note that nobody has questioned the size of Dean and Dominic’s fish, and that properly authenticated future entries can rest assured that they will be similarly received. Hopefully, this will help to encourage those of you who have been reluctant to share in the past? I'm “all in” with this new program, and really looking forward to drooling on the future entries, along with what appears to be the vast majority here. Hopefully, my boat can get lucky enough to contribute a fish or two as well… for scientific purposes only of course  Happy holidays |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Ben and all...the "wind whippers" (fly rodders) are in! Got the following response from sworrall:
"Larry, I like the concept. I see more anglers trying fly fishing for muskies every year, and this can help grow that sport. I'm in!"
So Ben, if you can enhance that video to read the girth measurement...otherwise the category will be "open". |
|
| |
|
| I'll see what I can do!! If anyone else with more tech savvy wants to take a crack at it...feel free! The video is on the Bob Mitchell's Fly Shop webpage. |
|
| |
