|
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Lovin:
Good question that I'll have to defer to the experts. Thank you for your input.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
|
|
| |
|
| Right now Nikon is the only company who has a digital storage format that is accepted in court. The way I understand it is that each image is stored with a digital fingerprint if you will that allows the image to be restored to it's original state - even if someone modifys it. I'm drawing a blank on the name of their technology right now.
- John Weber |
|
| |
|
| Actually, I think it's Canon that has that technology. I frequent a Nikon website, and they knew nothing about it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2753
Location: Mauston, Wisconsin | Larry- I guess I'm really confused by the level of detail applied to the length of the fish. The number 1 qualifier is the certified weight, i.e., that's the prime criteria for qualification as the world record. Why are the rules so stringent about the length measurement. A piece of string is acceptable for girth. Lastly the fish has to be examined by both a committee member & a biologist before and during any opening of the fish. It seems this step alone will rule out any hanky panky.
Al |
|
| |
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | Have any of you checked out my idea about a WR/Trophy release database? Then one could catch a WR on C&R lakes too. Not only that, but it would encourage people to release large fish rather than kill them.
I think the entire idea of having to kill a fish to call it a record is a little old-fashioned. So, you have a dead fish? What good is that? Can't fish for it any more.  |
|
| |
|
| As bad as it sounds, I think the only way you'd be able to remove all doubt, would be to kill the fish. I just can't see how you'd be able to satisfy everyone with a photo and measurement. Most people don't have a certified scale with them on the water. I'm all for CPR, but there will always be doubt in someone's mind without the actual fish present to be seen in person, or without enough different people there to verify it. Hope someone gets a big one this year, regardless. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | So, why should only the "World Record" count?
Its not like that with deer hunting. One can have a trophy recognized by B&C or Pope and Young even though it is far from world record size. Why not do the same for Muskie fishing? Why not recognize Muskies 54 or 55 inches and larger for the trophies they are?
I really don't think its that hard to prove a fish is as long as reported. It seems that a 35 mm picture with a measuring device alongside the fish should be enough.
The way it is with only one "record" and having to kill the fish, does WR keeping really affect anyone? What are the odds of any one person catching a +60 lb fish? What are the odds a person will ever even see a fish that big in a lifetime of Muskie fishing? But many of us fish on waters with large Muskies that reach the mid-50 inch range. Then a person would have a chance. 
I think a record-keeping body similar to Boone and Crockett or Pope and Young for C&R Muskies would help stir up interest in Trophy fishing. And by making it C&R, we would be encouraging people to release the big fish to keep the gene pool going and that may provide more large fish in the future.
I know its a new and different idea, but what do you all think?
|
|
| |
|
| I was a member of B.A.S.S. for many years, and they have a top 25 Bass of all time list. I've seen it quite a few times. One fish on the list was thought to be the World Record. They then found a two pound diving weight inside the fish's stomache. After the weight was removed, the fish still weighed enough to be in the top ten, and even with all the controversy, is still there.
I think the Modern Day Record Program is good, and will work. As far as killing fish is concerned, I personally asked Larry Ramsell about this, and he told me that the last fish landed that would have qualified for this new program was caught in 2000. It will not be "Killing a bunch of fish", as someone posted.
And regarding the Catch & Release World Record, I'm sure a photo of a fish alongside a measuring stick would more than satisfy a bunch of people. Others, it would not. Then you're back to all the "Controversy" again.
It seems to me, that you need to have a program that would satisfy the majority of skeptics, remove the most chances of falsification, and preserve the species as much as could be reasonably expected. In my opinion, the Modern Day World Record Organization comes the closest to doing that.
Good fishing everybody. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | Had to read this all twice as I was not sure I had it right. I agree I don't think it will mean that many fish being killed. Remember it does not have to be a 60lber to be a record. Line class records could be much smaller. I also have said many times here that the musky is a renewable resource and the few that will be kept will do nothing but promote musky fishing. This type of publicity is all good.
I have 1 question, who would not keep a fish if you really thought it was a new world record?
I won't lie, I have no doubt I would and think most of you would.
Don Pfeiffer |
|
| |
|
| I killed the first big Muskie I caught. A 51 incher in 1976. I killed it because the 'experts' at the time said they top out a 52" and then went downhill. When I finally figured out that was a misconception (or outright lie) I decided I would not kill anymore. I have since caught & released 34 Muskies over 48 inches. At a 10% mortality rate that is 3.4 dead Muskies over 48". At a 20% mortality rate it comes to 6.8 dead Muskies over 48 inches. At the least I have killed about 5. At worst I have killed about 8 over 48 inches and the number less than 48' I will probably never know. I will mount any Muskie (regardless of size) that I can not revive. If I can not afford to mount these Muskies I will quit fishing. If I catch a WR class fish I will fork out the bucks for a replica and be happy. I wish you could too. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | 2000? That is the last time anyone has caught a muskie big enough to even count towards the new record program? OK, so what is all the fuss about? We're talking about maybe one or two fish each decade? Why even bother? I mean, whats the point? It doesn't hardly affect anyone, does it? Good gosh, the odds of anyone who fishes even the best trophy waters ever seeing a 60 lber in their lifetime is so remote that its hardly worth a thought.
The question I ask again is why should just the world record count? Why not the top 25, 50 or even 100 largest Muskies? Why not recognize a massive fish, like something in the 55 inch range or larger for the trophy it is - just like with B&C? Why not extend the entire thing to include all really big fish? Why not? There would still be a world record of course......
I guess maybe Muskies, Inc is the only way to do this with their database. |
|
| |
|
| My thoughts exactly, Herb. What's the big deal? You should see the talk on the Muskies Inc. message board about this subject. People are threatening to quit, and resorting to name-calling. For what? Like you say, this isn't a program that would kill a lot of fish. I don't see why people are getting so upset about it.
As for MI doing the record keeping, I doubt that will happen. I think they plan on staying far from the record keeping business. They have a lot of info in their database, but that would only be for MI members fish. I think you'd like a program for all fish, right? It would probably take someone to start yet another program, and you'll need funding and time and so forth. Who knows, maybe it will happen?
Good fishing. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | Brad, Thanks for your input. I agree that Muskies, Inc would most likely want to stay far away from the record keeping business.
I would definitely like to make this avaliable to all fishermen including those who catch a big Muskie while fishing for something else. I'd like to keep the requirements simple too. Just enough to verify the length of the fish. Not going to worry about line type or if someone else touches the line or anything like that. If its a legally caught fish during open season and it is released, then it would qualify. For instance: If the fish was hooked by a seven year old girl while Bass fishing and her Dad needed to help her land it, then it should still count in the record book.
Edited by Herb_b 4/10/2006 9:40 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| Chinwhiskers - 4/4/2006 8:13 AM
Brian - - How can you say you dont belive in Perry's fish and then say it will be broken, in fact it was broken this last year and is in the process of being certified now . But that's not a discussion for this board. Anyway if you don't belive the photos of Spray's fish , the sworn statments, the weighing of the fish on a post office scale. The fish mount itself that was on display for years, than theres no one now that will change your mind so go ahead and come up with new ones, doesn't matter just make some up. Marv.
I will quote you CW rather than quote the guy you refer to, since to make his argument he rejects a documented record size fish that has been proven many times to be concievable and possible where it was caught. It is hard to dismiss genetic capabilities to exceed a certain size, especially when the record is not even the maximum of the species recorded and PHOTOGRAPHED WITNESSED AND RELEASED BACK INTO THE WILD. The Perry record is probably one of the furthest out, but most believable records on the books. California is just the proving ground for the genetics that are in the fish. To complain that those waters are an artificial environment is also a bunch of ##, they are not aquariums and these fish are not planted as adults and then hand fed, they are in essence wild fish which happen to be at the top of the food chain in the lakes they live in, lakes which have a great forage base and even more important, spectacular water quality.
I do not want another group climbing up and claiming records authority on musky. I think it is a bad thing in the process of happening. The IGFA is fine by me and there is no vested interest in that group. I would be in favor of that group continuing to keep the records, since I perceive them as basically non biased and having no specific iron in this fire. Any quick survey of the names on this committee makes the prejudicial aspect of this new record keeping group ring out loud and clear. Evidently this is their final answer to the FWFHOF's response to their initial attempt to eradicate the old record, and rather than settling for the Hall's judgement, which is what I understood they would do, they have decided to once again reject it, take their ball and start a new game on a different court. As has been pointed out, the hall really shouldn't be in the record keeping business anyway and I am not quite sure how that function was allotted to them. Don't want to allot that function to this group either. Would rather continue to have the records kept by impartial, non biased group. IMO there is...ahem...a tiny, but identifiable, slim tendril of jealousy, distrust and animosity in the group trying to establish themselves as the new record keeping society, and also IMO any record endorsed by this group will become suspect because of the very same qualities I just listed.
Lost in all these record disputes is the Malo fish, which probably more than any other is deserving of some kind of official recognition, but through the many manipulations of he says vs he says, that fish, freakish though it may be, has been ignored.
We can claim all kinds of things but the facts of the matter is that this is a fish that was a valid catch whose weight exceeds any of the record keeping groups theories on what the record musky really is.
Record fish are all freaks and I don't even suppose I have any knowledge of the size limit on freaks. They have all gone so far out of the norm, and the comparitive population is so limited and rare, we do not have a reference for these fish, or when and where they might exist. That is how it is.
I would suggest that this committee hammer out what might be the details of their recording process and then put a moratorium on any further action for a period of 5 years, if they still feel at that time they want to start into the future with 3 separate record keeping societies holding and claiming to be the "official" record keepers for the world record musky, then go ahead.
And then of course, I guess we can hope that some fish comes along and unifies the "belt".
Another thing to think about, once you create any kind of committe of beaurocratic organization, there are always meetings, and meetings always seem to need to generate some action(to justify the meeting of course)and how long before this committee decides that there should indeed be categories for different methods used to take musky? Even though that might not be on the horizon for current committee members, it makes me nervous to have that kind of potential crap on the horizon.
Edited by firstsixfeet 4/10/2006 6:31 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 384
Location: Eagle River, Alaska | "I will quote you CW rather than quote the guy you refer to, since to make his argument he rejects a documented record size fish that has been proven many times to be concievable and possible where it was caught. It is hard to dismiss genetic capabilities to exceed a certain size, especially when the record is not even the maximum of the species recorded and PHOTOGRAPHED WITNESSED AND RELEASED BACK INTO THE WILD. The Perry record is probably one of the furthest out, but most believable records on the books. California is just the proving ground for the genetics that are in the fish. To complain that those waters are an artificial environment is also a bunch of ##, they are not aquariums and these fish are not planted as adults and then hand fed, they are in essence wild fish which happen to be at the top of the food chain in the lakes they live in, lakes which have a great forage base and even more important, spectacular water quality."
I'm wondering how Hartman, Lawton, et al, felt when their "documented record size fish" were dismissed and debunked......
FSF....you obviously have difficulty in actually reading what I wrote.....and I certainly have no "iron" in the pot for anything related to largemouth bass....by todays standards Perry's bass would hardly have a chance at recognition. Any understanding of population genetics for fish would have you understand that phenotypic expression of genotype is always dependent upon enviornmental conditions. Simply put....show me any documented evidence of a largemouth remotely the size of Perry's having been captured which is close to its weight in the southern states?????? Just because the genetic capactiy for size has been realized in southern california has absolutely NO relation to the basses size in its native enviornment.....the Perry fish could have existed, I don't know....statiscally the odds are astronomically against it. How come you can't seem to address the huge proportion difference between Florida's in the native range and in California? The length to girth ratios are totally different. WHY? Obviously because the enviornment is signifcantly different then their native range......the diet and forage base is completely different....this is not rocket science....but it is fish science. If you would like I can cite some in depth incidences of population genetics and their effect of fish size. Address the totally different length to girth ratios of SoCal bass with those in the south and then maybe you'll have a logical argument.
Okay....now that the fire has cooled. You're okay with two organizations recognizing different musky.....but three is too much? What is all this "jealousy" and "envy" crap you guys are always talking about? Musky purists can't be altruistically motivated to recognize the world record musky? All you guys all so petty? I don't think so....and this group seems to have the most interest in pursuing an honest record for the species despite all the furor. I really respect the IGFA but they have no particular love for musky and weeding out this mess.....we won't even address the FWHOF lack of honesty in approaching the subject. Again, only 6 world records still exist before Spray's 1949 fish.....three of these are trout with absolutely no argument from anyone....one is the perch (any perch naysayers out there?).....the other two are tiger musky (shock.....anyother strange musky quirk) and who else, but Mr. Perry's bass. Kind of astounding when you think about it....we always assume and read fishing was so much better "way back when".....guess statistics don't really bear that out. The range of the musky is greater today then it probably ever was historically......why haven't we approached the high 60's in weight??? You figure it out.....these guys are at least trying to do something up front about the fish they love. Me....honestly don't really care....I love lots of different fish....musky is just one.
Brian
PS: BTW where in blazes did you arrive at "spectacular water quality" in SoCal lake impoundments? I grew up there for 30 years and even back then we wouldn't eat bass out of most of those lakes.....no one would call it spectacular.....no one that lives there anyway. You want great water quality come up here to Alaska and we'll show you lots of it.....but I wouldn't chance it in Southern Cal.
Edited by DocEsox 4/11/2006 12:05 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| Doc, only you could keep arguing points disproven by the current population of bass, and well recognized, recorded fish from that population, fish which have basically come from the same genetic base as the Perry fish. I will let you continue to claim that a 22 lb. and change fish could not exist when bigger fish have been clearly documented up to what now, 25 lbs.? We will let you demonstrate scientifically how all these fish do not exist. You can also make your case how fish not being edible demonstrates poor water quality(personally I never felt any bass over 2 lbs were culinary delights, but go ahead and connect those dots for us as to how taste denotes water quality!). Water quality that I am talking about would be alkalinity, purity, temperature and oxygenation, waters suitable for trout. FL waters tend to be heavy on the organics, oxygen challenged at times, shallow, heated in the summer. Forage bases are mixed and include both high quality and low quality forage in quantity. It only takes one fish exceeding the norm by 10-15% to make a startling new record, but as I stated, records are freaks. You keep trying to bolster your arguments by deviation from the norm, but any examination of record fish usually shows a large deviation from the norm, and in many cases so large it is difficult to fathom. The Perry fish certainly had abundant forage and only has to be deviant within the population perhaps for growth, or appetite or maybe it had a sterility issue, don't know, don't worry about it either. When the fish have been shown to be capable of growing to greater than the record size(and the recent fish was in the face of fairly sophisticated and heavy fishing pressure)in lakes today, without genetic enhancement, it becomes pretty clear that the material is there to build a fish that large. Your girth to length argument has no bearing on the existence of one fish either. I fished in the south for many years, and fished one lake where I caught Largemouth that were 27-28 inches in length and yet never got one that weighed 9 lbs. Those fish faced awful water quality periods through the summers, and clearly could not have expressed their total genetic capability simply due to environmental factors. Perry's fish was in a fairly complicated ecosystem and probably had an environment where genetic capability could be expressed. Go ahead though and keep making the argument that a 22 lb something fish did not exist when fish that size, and significantly larger fish are currently being caught. Frankly if a guy shows me a 25 lb largemouth, and then someone else tries to tell me a 22lb + fish couldn't have existed, hey I don't think his argument is going to hold much water. As you say it is not rocket science.
If you will reread my post you will see that I note that there is some question as to how the FWFHOF got into the record keeping business in the first place and that I am not disagreeing with those folks that point it out. The IGFA holding "no love" for musky, imo, is a good thing. You and others can continue to make claims about honesty of the hall if you want, but that is just a bunch of talk too. Your claim about records existing before 1949 is one that has no bearing, or logical connection to much of anything. Much as you want to tote the significance, many lakes were not fished hard, and many fisherman were not fishing for records in the early 1900s. That is a fact that cannot be disputed. People did not worry about that large fish they caught, they ate the sucker and enjoyed it. Even up to 25 years ago there were still many records that could have and probably have been by now, broken by a fairly modest concerted effort to do it. Big deal. The record thing goes much more to the history of fishing, its perception and its pursuit, than it does to the vagaries of fish growth.
It will be interesting if this group prevails and becomes active, and then someone with somewhat of a shady rep or somebody disliked by most of the members then comes up with a record fish. Wonder how easy it will be to get that one on the books? With the IGFA, the good thing is that they are not connected to the sport in an emotional way. There is a lot to be said for impartiality when things are being judged. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | To "guest" that was misinformed about the TC Tournament:
http://www.twincitiesmuskiesinc.org/tournyrules.php |
|
| |
|
| So is there a weight division or not? I read the whole thing and it only says rules about the release division? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 384
Location: Eagle River, Alaska | FSF...you sound like Detloff's broken record bantering backing the Spray record. Your first statement about the California fish coming from the same genetic base as Perry's may or may not be true....I don't know where the first Florida's were obtained for California....but I assumed it was Florida. But genetic possibility has DONE NOTHING to increase sizes in the south where fish records have stayed essentially the same for decades. But the new enviornment in Cal suits the genetics better as far as maximum size....but this means nothing in their home range....this is a very basic concept to population genetics. It isn't really credible for me to discuss the bass issue with you as any effort to understand your lack of knowledge, of population genetics and enviornments effect on genetics and expression aren't even acknowledged in your reply.....and who didn't say ignorance wasn't bliss? Second your reading comprehension seems to be low as I never stated Perry's fish couldn't have existed....statistically it is just unlikely. How come you seem unable to understand the simple fish science involved here....what is the largest fish in Georgia....ever...outside the Perry fish, of course. Closest I could find was less than 18 pounds...which puts Perrys' fish at 25% greater than that weight....better redo your thinking on the 10-15% issue. Records are rarely "freaks" and generally have scores of fish leading up to the record.....UNLIKE Perry's fish. Heck even the old musky fakers understood that principle as they crept the record up year by year....no one made a quantum leap like Perry. Where are all the intermediate fish anywhere in the Southern states? They still don't exist....yet in SoCal there are 20 to 30 fish leading up to what eventually will be a new world record. There isn't any "quantum" leap here but a gradual progression of size increase due to forced feeding with trout. Does the SoCal enviornment agree with Florida bass....obviously better than their native enviornment.
FSF....just answer this one question.....where is the increase in size or any intermediate fish which would show the probability of Perry's record? Please elucidate this for me. Not only before but since it's capture? The native enviornment obviously does not allow for the maximum expression of "size" capable by the genetic makeup....FURTHER proving the unlikeness of Perry's record. What somehow there was a microcosm of enviormental suitability on Montgomery Lake just around that one bass for several years leading up to its capture in '32??? If conditions were optimal then, just as in California, there would be mutlipe large bass near the record size. Your arguments about clarity, pH, etc.. only further prove the unlikeness of Perry's fish as those conditions DO NOT EXIST, by your own admission, in their native enviornment...about as simple as it can get.
What are you worried for anyway FSF.....soon Perry's record will be no more and in a few years his name wil be just an afterthought. And ironically, the largemouth bass record will never return to its native range. Interesting read last night on a Bassmaster site....seems one of the guys associated with Bassmaster recently purchased a bunch of historical papers he found on eBay from the lure manufacturing of Perry's lure (Creek Chub???). He was fascinated to find correspondence in there between Perry and the company. Perry wrote them apologizing for the "not good" picture of the WR bass he sent them but saying he had another much clearer picture of it and would they like a copy to use for advertising in return for some lures. The company readily agreed....yet we have no evidence of any photo now......I just found it an interesting read.....they are authenticating the papers now but no one even suggests they aren't authentic from what I read.
Brian
Edited by DocEsox 4/11/2006 11:13 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| Doc Esox, You seem unable to grasp the idea that a record fish deviates from the norm and that is why it is a record. There is absolutely no rule in place that says records are incrementally broken. In fact there is no reason they should be incrementally broken in a mature stable population. You could just as well encounter the megabass in fish #1 as in fish #107, sheer chance. You know as well as anyone on this forum, or any scientist, that there is no logical reason to expect a record to be incrementally broken UNLESS it is a growing pioneer population which would age each year, and each year increase the probability of a larger fish than existed before. That is the only reason you would expect incremental increases in a record. Chance predicts that it will take more casts to find the one fish that weighs 10 lbs, than the 5 fish that weigh 8 lbs, but there is no reason that the 10 lb. fish could not be caught on the very first cast in the mature population. There is also no reason that the genetic improbability resulting in one large freak fish would neccessarily result in several large fish. If you consider large fish to be freaks to start with, what would one freak have to do with another? 20 lb fish in Fl is only a couple and some pounds and a state line from a Georgia fish of similar or larger proportion. The 20 lb fish in FL is just an indicator and does not neccessarily predict the maximum size attainable. The record bass, as I said was caught in a complex ecosystem. I made no comment that it was a stressful environment. I think I stated it was the type of environment that could maximize the size and comfort of a large fish. My comments about FL ecosystems were indeed about most of the shallow water FL ecosystems. I am also curious as to what is the rate of alligator predation on extremely large bass?
As for my "bantering", "lack of knowledge", "ignorance" and my "low reading comprehension", gee, those are the kind of smoke screen statements used when a person doesn't really have a good argument to go forward with, attempt to insult and degrade the other participant. C'mon.
And this really has nothing to do with muskys, nor with the record keeping committee newly formed.
It is, I suppose, part of your tangential proof of your claim that the record could not be what it is purported to be, but ...there is always the Malo fish that flies in the face of that particular claim of yours also. A fish that you have conveniently left out of the continuing discussion. Just as Malo's fish is a freak, Perry's fish may have been a freak, but it is interesting that he would pick a weight so far advanced over the current record of the day for what you claim was a probable bogus claim, or at least unbelievable to a gifted scientific mind like your own.
Isn't it odd that he would pick a weight like that, and then years later it becomes evident that indeed, LM bass can and do grow to and beyond those sizes? Very odd coincidence if your version of the fish were to be true. Don't believe it was a fake myself though, and wonder how many fish were trapped, speared, netted and/or just caught and butchered, that were in the high weight range for the species but just unremarkable during the times?
Edited by firstsixfeet 4/11/2006 10:00 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Gentlemen,
It doesn't matter what the old records might be, at least not to this organization. Future records of the day will start in the realm of reality, and go from there. Let's keep things civil, or I'll have to get you both in the boat at one time ( I bet you'd actually get along, similar sennse of humor here) and ruin a perfectly good weekend for you both not catching fish on Pelican Lake. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 384
Location: Eagle River, Alaska | What a party pooper, Steve. FSF...we've really blown it....Steve has taken us off the main board and relegated us to one of the "other" boards in hopes that our circular discussion will dissipate.
No reason to keep going in circles. I did take some extensive college work in population genetics.....your argument isn't valid on more than a few points BUT in the interest of not be "cast out" to the deleted post category by the all seeing powers that be on MuskieFirst....this will be my last post on the subject......unless..........naw... 
Brian |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| DocEsox - 4/11/2006 9:39 PM
What a party pooper, Steve. FSF...we've really blown it....Steve has taken us off the main board and relegated us to one of the "other" boards in hopes that our circular discussion will dissipate.
No reason to keep going in circles. I did take some extensive college work in population genetics.....your argument isn't valid on more than a few points BUT in the interest of not be "cast out" to the deleted post category by the all seeing powers that be on MuskieFirst....this will be my last post on the subject......unless..........naw...
Brian
Well, see how similar our backgrounds are? Since you recognize that validity of my argument on a few points and I only made a few points, I will certainly take that as a gracious concession. I too studied genetics in college, specifically Holstein genetics, and also did some extensive fieldwork with the male excrements of the breed, and I sure recognize what you are bringing to the table here Doc.
Edited by firstsixfeet 4/11/2006 10:26 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 384
Location: Eagle River, Alaska | Touche
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 43
Location: S. Wisconsin | George Washington Perry was just another poor farmboy cheating in a fishing contest during the Depression.
I have photographic evidence that he CHEATED in a later Field & Stream Fishing Contest. Yep...had everybody fooled for decades...Montgomery lake was a Mudhole...It's a bluegill hole today...ever see the photo of Perry's Bass? Reminds me of Louie's 1st record...some OTHER GUY is holding a big 27-29 inch bass with a 25-26 girth (reported 32.5Lx28.5G)...huge, but a few inches and at least 4 pounds too small...IF that was really Perry's fish....IF...nice 17-18 pounder...
As far as muskies go...56.75 pounds(No stomach contents) and 58.5 inches is the end. a 60 incher has NEVER been caught. 60lbs. will be tough to get...may take a few decades...or lifetimes...but not impossible...
Scott Hayes.
|
|
| |
