|
|
| Funny, lived here my whole life and wasn't aware that there was an american-side of Georgian Bay ! |
|
| |
|
| esox911 - 6/15/2010 6:23 AM
It is definately going to be a fish from BIG WATER such as the great lakes system---And I have to believe that it may have already been caught and released--- I have seen pics from an fishing partner of a 58 x 30 in his boat last year on the great lakes---fish was absolutely caught and released. I have to believe there have been others larger.
Pictures ?? |
|
| |
|
| Herb_b - 6/15/2010 12:04 PM
If by "world record", you mean the "official" record that was supposedly caught by Louis Spray? Realistically, few Muskies over 70 lbs ever existed and the odds of any one person contacting a fish of that size in their lifetime is very small.
Hi I disagree. Growth charts reflect that a musky has the potential to reach 85lbs. One has not been caught yet, but theoretically one or more could and probably exist.
Cordially,
SM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 556
| I am working on my buddy to let his pics of the 58x30 that was caught in his boat last year be shown--so far he is reluctant to do so---lots of haters out there who always secong guess these things--He is a member here and has seen and read many such posts before---Also there is a very distinct landmark in the backgound so he would have to photoshop that out of the picture. Still may get it up here and EVEN if it isn't 58 x 30 ( i wasn't there so I can only take his word) I can assure you it is AWESOME----Just like some of the other great lakes fish posted on this thread----There are some true giants out there on the great lakes and the st lawrence---a few have been caught and posted over the last couple seasons----Lots of guys don't want the B.S. and attention to what they believe is their WATER. I will keep working on it and I hope to get it for you---Giants are out there but are there 70LBer's????? I hope so!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 518
Location: Cave Run Lake KY. | GW - - Waus you there Charley, have you seen Spray's skin mount, may-be the phony graphite mount Mania had at the Chicago show. Anyway the next 70#er could come from any of the big Mn.. lakes and the Mississippi river stran lakes. All the great lakes and the waters that feed the great lakes. Go Fish |
|
| |
|
Posts: 43
| Doesn't really matter where it is caught, it will be discredited, by a bunch of SPORTSMEN, that are mad cause they weren't the ones to catch it.
Wouldn't suprise me if it hasn't been eclipsed many times over but the MEN who caught it but didn't publicize it cause they didn't want to be called liars, along with their friends, witnesses, partners and offspring.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 43
| Shoot2Kill - 6/16/2010 12:43 PM
esoxaddict - 6/16/2010 11:03 AM
I think I'd kill a 75 pound muskie. In fact, if I ever catch one, you can skip the interviews, and just print this statement:
"I don't care that I have a world record fish to my credit. It's a FISH. In the grand scheme of life, nobody cares. It's a FISH, did I mention that? Nobody is going to remember my name or my face. I may get a few bucks out of it if I play my cards right, maybe get my face in a magazine that only 1 in about 10,000 people have even heard of. But that's not why I killed it. I killed it because I've been muskiy fishing for a number of years, and in that time I've heard more whining and hemming and hawing over records and weights
Even though you killed it, was it caught legally? I heard you speared it from the bow of the boat when it was on your partners figure 8, a friend of my brothers kid said it was full of rocks when it was weighed even though it's been verified, Billy Bob said the scale it was weighed on was recently used to weigh slaughtered hogs on and said the scale was not verified, plus Jimmy Dean down the street said you measured it with your rake handle and then transferred the measurement to a yard stick held together with super glue.
hahaha. Just messin' with ya man, love your statement...I'll print it out and keep it in my bait box for future use when the WR ends up in my boat. haha. Fish on.
EXACTELY |
|
| |
|
| Buckeyemusky - 6/17/2010 12:16 AM
Doesn't really matter where it is caught, it will be discredited, by a bunch of SPORTSMEN, that are mad cause they weren't the ones to catch it.
Wouldn't suprise me if it hasn't been over but the MEN who caught it but didn't publicize it cause they didn't want to be called liars, along with their friends, witnesses, partners and offspring.
This is preposterous because the vast majority of fishermen have no clue about the musky record situation. The only people that are "mad" are the ones who support the phony records or think that people have "eclipsed many times" the 70pound mark. Seriously, a picture of an honest to goodness 70 pounder (or 58x30) would be noticeably bigger than anything we have ever seen before. Like somebody else said, there would be no hiding BIG!
There is no chance for a new world record IMHO. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | Sucker Minnow,
Growth charts are one thing. But there is no evidence that Muskies as large as 85 lbs have ever existed. There have been a couple of Muskies that "might" have been over 70 lbs, but that is a big "might" as none of them were weighed on certified scales.
The fact is that Muskies that hit the 60 lb mark are extremely rare and the odds of anyone, anywhere catching one that would weigh over 60 lbs this year is not very high. The odds of anyone, anywhere catching one this year over 70 lbs is very low. The proof is in the pudding. What we are seeing are Muskies maxing out in the mid to high 50 lb range with very few ever approaching the 60 lb mark.
I am not saying that is impossible for a Muskie with the perfect growing conditions and unusual genetics to reach 70 lbs. But the odds of that occuring AND someone managing to catch that fish are extremely low.
All that said, Mile Lacs may have the perfect environment right now to grow a fish like that. The incredible amount of high-quality forage, fish nearing their maximum size, and extremely difficult fishing conditions may, and I repeat may, allow some Muskies to reach their maximum size. And maybe, one of those fish will grow to unprecented size and just maybe someone will catch it. Maybe.
If it does happen, I expect it will be a serious Muskie fishermen who has put in their time. Someone like Luke R, Gregg T, Jason H, Steve J, Steve S, or one of their clients or friends. It sure won't be me. 
Herb |
|
| |
|
| ChinWhiskers,
I have seen Spray's skin mount, have you? The replica's actually look MORE like what a real 31.25" x 63.5" muskie should look like than the skin mount. As I said, this enhanced skin mount has a head to total length ratio unlike ANY living muskie. This ALONE should be more than enough proof that the actual fish never existed in the claimed dimensions. It was a very stupid move to add additional length behind the head of a muskie obviously in the low 50" range. There was never a need for the photogrammetry as the head to toal length ratio is absolute proof in itself. |
|
| |
|
| Herb_b - 6/17/2010 10:57 AM
Sucker Minnow,
Growth charts are one thing. But there is no evidence that Muskies as large as 85 lbs have ever existed. Herb
Hello Herb,
There is evidence that muskies can grow up to 85lb. The longest known musky was 66-inches, unfortunately it's girth was small, i.e. a skinny musky. The evidence is a musky can grow to 66-inches, if coupled with a large girth, many have been caught, it could weigh in as an 85lb musky.
Cordially,
SM |
|
| |
|
| Sucker Minnow - 6/17/2010 12:17 PM
There is evidence that muskies can grow up to 85lb. The longest known musky was 66-inches, unfortunately it's girth was small, i.e. a skinny musky. The evidence is a musky can grow to 66-inches, if coupled with a large girth, many have been caught, it could weigh in as an 85lb musky.
SM
SM, did you read Ramsell's latest compendium? That 66" Muskie was admitted to have been "overstated" by Roger Halverson himself. I don't think there has ever been an empty musky that weighed 60lbls without something in its stomach (natural or otherwise). I have no idea how you can justify 85lbs? What evidence?
|
|
| |
|
| Chinwhiskers, the replica should look proportional to the skin mount and the skin mount should look proportional to the real fish if everything is on the up and up. I haven't seen the skin mount like GW, but I have seen the replica. It was constructed using the dimensions the fish supposedly was and it sure looks like a cross between a musky and a tuna to me. LOL!
Years ago a friend of mine ordered one of those Spray replicas to hang in a prominent place in his cabin, he said he knew there was a problem with the size the instant he picked up the replica and is still ashamed that he got one of those outlandish things, the replica is now "dethroned", and resides in the corner of the garage now.
I would like to see somebody Spray's height standing next to one of those replicas. Heck, that should be proof enough just how phony that thing is in and of itself! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | SM,
You mention a hoax as evidence? A fish that was discredited by the person who caught it? That is only evidence that some people lie about the size of their fish and then later admit it. Maybe you didn't know that was a hoax, eh?
When even the liars haven't lied about an 85 lb Muskie (or even a 75 lb Muskie for that matter), it is extremely difficult to believe an 85 lb Muskie is possible.
I doubt a new WR will happen any time soon because the factual evidence indicates that Muskies that large may have never existed. It is possible that no Muskie has ever grown as large as the WR claimed by Louis Spray. Not in WI, MN, Canada, the St. Lawrance - not anywhere. It may have never, ever happened and may never happen. It is highly likely that every Muskie reported over 65 lbs was either a hoax, incorrectly weighed or both.
I truly hope someone can catch a +70 lb Muskie and put this whole WR thing to rest. But I am not going to hold my breath.
Edited by Herb_b 6/17/2010 1:24 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Herb_b - 6/17/2010 1:10 PM
I doubt a new WR will happen any time soon because the factual evidence indicates that Muskies that large may have never existed. It is possible that no Muskie has ever grown as large as the WR claimed by Louis Spray.
Opinions are like noses, we all have one. What is Herb's opinion on how large a Muskellunge can grow: Weight, Length and Girth?
Cordially,
SM |
|
| |
|
| Herb_b - 6/17/2010 10:57 If it does happen, I expect it will be a serious Muskie fishermen who has put in their time. Someone like Luke R, Gregg T, Jason H, Steve J, Steve S, or one of their clients or friends. It sure won't be me. Herb It will be kind've hard for them to catch a fish out of Mille Lacs if they are not fishing there. Steve S. is probably the only one who still fishes there regularly. Better start learning to troll open water in a 132,000 acre lake. You might have a chance at a state record fish out of Mille Lacs. World record not a chance, just my opinion though. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 619
| Herb_b should probably quit on this subject while hes still ahead and hold on to those thoughts, sound pretty suspect, LOL
Edited by Slow Rollin 6/17/2010 2:57 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | I just base my opinion on what I have seen myself and what has actually been caught. The fact is that there has not been one single uncontested Muskie ever weighed to be over 65 lbs. Not one. Not ever. Even Ken Obriens 65 lber has been questioned by some.
If I am wrong, please list all the certified and uncontested Muskies ever caught or, for that matter, found dead that weighed over 65 lbs. Please?
If Muskies did grow to 70 lbs, wouldn't a few certifiable fish that size have been caught by now or at the least a few approaching that size? Either they don't exist or they are very rare.
I hope that I am wrong and someone reading this thread catches a +70 lb Muskie and sets a new, certified WR.
About Mille Lacs: I know few people are fishing Mille Lacs now. But that is because the Muskies aren't biting and not because the fish aren't there. When the fishing improves on Mille Lacs, as it almost certainly will at some point in the future, the landings will once again be full and every spot will have boats on it 24/7. All this time the fish are still growing and the greatly reduced fishing pressure may actually help the fish get larger. The fish simply aren't stressed. That lack of stress should help the fish grow and reach their maximum potential size. And there is a chance, however small, that Mille Lacs could someday produce an enormous fish or two as a result.
If one looks hard enough, sometimes there is an opportunity where one least expects it. 
I have to admit that there is nothing wrong with believing there is a WR in the lake you fish. It probably makes fishing more fun, eh?
Good luck all. May the force be with you and may you all catch a WR.
Edited by Herb_b 6/18/2010 12:05 AM
|
|
| |
|
| Sup everybody. Brand new to this site. Looks like a thread on the location of the next world record has turned into a dispute on the current world record. I don't doubt that the weight was exaggerated, but that fish was 63.5 inches, right? That alone should make it the world record, but for some reason they go by weight. I know I'd rather have a 20 lb 50" than a 25 lb 45". In any case, props to whoever said LCO and Big Chip. I'm sure there's probably one swimmin' around in Sturgeon Bay or wherever they are in the Great Lakes, but I've seen a ********in' monster in couderay (at least 5 feet) and have heard of evidence of one in the Chippewa Flowage. Thing is though I don't know if the one I saw was actually catchable as I was getting several follows on a spot, took a cast, and this super-smart MONSTER just came up and looked at me (it did not follow my bait). It's a fishin' story though so I won't take it personal upon those who don't believe me. The less people fishin' couderay the better. Rock on all muskie fisherman. Peace.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 247
Location: Uxbridge Ontario | I cant believe how bent some of you guys get on this subject. Just because a fish of certain category has not yet been, recorded, killed or weighed and a WR does not mean that one does not exist or for that matter ever been caught. There was even a article in (what i thing was) Musky Hunter a few years ago of a muskie skull found on the shore of a Lake (no idea which one... but lets call it Lake Reallybig) where the estimated length of the fish was pushing 65". Not length does not really estimate length without a girth number, but that is a big fish. If a 55" fish can weight 50'lbs+... when what could a 60" fish weight. We all know, 60" fish are possible, but weather that are still in their prime is another story. I certainly beleive there are freak fish out there. There has to be. Look at some of these gigantic humans. And let me tell you (to the people that say all muskie need to looks the same) some of these people do not fit the typical mold of proportions. I think going out on a limb and saying there is "evidence" that there cannot be fish over the current WR is ludicrous. There is more unfilled water out there than there is fished. There is more unknown about some of these lakes than there is known, and there is larger fish out there than anyone can even anticipate.... my opinion. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 692
Location: Pelican Rapids, MN | Unfortunately, if you do ever beat ol' Louis Spray's record,it will have to be well over 70 LBS to do so. Unfortunately, the fish has to be deceased, weighed on dry land on a certified scale, by a certified weighmaster within 30 days of the catch and witnessed by two other bystanders. A fish can lose a lot of weight after it croaks, unless you have a freezer aboard your boat it may drop several pounds once belly up. The IGFA has a laundry list of rules for achieving an official world record.
Junior records can be released though - let the kid take the rod! But don't hand it off, it negates any legal catch in the IGFA rules.
IMO there will never be a 70# musky legitimately captured - ever. An absolutely legit 60#, chances are slim, but maybe. If so, it will definitely be captured in a place closely fed by the sea. Like many others my vote is for the Larry. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 126
| The hulk - 6/17/2010 1:01 PM
Steamboat - 6/16/2010 3:42 PM
Funny, lived here my whole life and wasn't aware that there was an american-side of Georgian Bay !
Thats some funny chit.
As for dadson catching the big one. That's even funnier.
And why is that funny?? I'd say he as as good or better chance than anyone out there of catching her. Why not??
Attachments
----------------
 my fish 027 resize.JPG (115KB - 824 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1168
| HomeTime - 6/18/2010 8:08 AM
I certainly beleive there are freak fish out there. There has to be. Look at some of these gigantic humans. And let me tell you (to the people that say all muskie need to looks the same) some of these people do not fit the typical mold of proportions.
True...you increase your chances of witnessing this type of thing in human female form when you hang out at Forest and Langlade County bars around bar time. |
|
| |
