|
|
Location: Contrarian Island | to me it's not about where..it's about anywhere and everywhere....what is the "Fish of a Lifetime"....PERIOD.
doesn't need to be "Fish of a Lifetime" with an asterick attached..... makes sense to me..just my take on this thread...use to be a 50"er was the fish of dreams...that is a common thing when you are smart enough to know where/when and how to catch them........  is it quite 55 ...maybe not but I'd say it's 54 for sure.
Edited by BNelson 1/18/2011 2:58 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1245
Location: Madtown, WI | I think we would be suprised at the number of lakes in Wi that currently house a 55 inch fish... I have personally SEEN one that was at least 55 (and I have experience with seeing mid 50 inch fish in the water, and in the net...and the guy that was with me and saw the fish as well has caught a WI 55). They are out there...Unlike MN though where there are multiple 55 inch fish in a given body of water...that I would guess is not the case in WI 
I think "fish of a life time" is different then a "trophy". I think that is what Brad is getting at... He and I have had the discussion around this before, and there are some lakes we fish where a 48 would be a true trophy out of that lake...and for us that would be our goal. "fish of a life time"....speaks for itself.
man...all this talk makes me want to get out and cast!
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 431
| I hope 55 isn't the new 50. I can't even catch a 50. But I have caught one of those magical and elusive 49 7/8. I really think that's a bigger accomplishment than a lot of 50s. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1202
Location: Money, PA | I personally have nearly 10 over 50" fish in the 20+ years I've been at it....its NOT much easier today than it was then to get 'em. Chances are greater, thanks to C&R efforts, but its still not that much easier to get one to the net.
50" is and always will be a trophy fish. And I wish the records were determined by a weight/length determination, NOT just weight!
And NO, Minnesota isn't THAT special.
Edited by ShutUpNFish 1/19/2011 10:33 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8781
| momuskies - 1/19/2011 10:23 AM
I hope 55 isn't the new 50. I can't even catch a 50. But I have caught one of those magical and elusive 49 7/8. I really think that's a bigger accomplishment than a lot of 50s.
Sure does seem like there are more fish caught in every other size than 49". I wonder why that is? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 159
| As one who grew up fishing Musky in northern WI I can say for sure 55 is not the new 50. The WI strain fish simply do not grow that long. Any 50 in WI is a news worthy fish.
The Leech lake spotted strain in MN indeed is a longer fish. And the pictures and reports bear out the legitimacy of catch and release with many mid 50 inch fish reported in MN each summer---It seems the number is growing each year. Including super long fish 55 to 59.
Its funny just as a footnote---Our dads and grandpas used to measure a trophy fish more by weight than by length---that seems to be changing.
To me a really heavy 45-49 is more of a trophy than a really thin or even average 50-55.
Am I that old to be the only one who still believes that?
The new bench mark seems to be much more geared toward length. To be sure some of those mid 50s are really heavy also-----Hoping that trend continues.
The writer has not yet caught a 50----But will take a fat 55 for the first one anyday!
And yes---For those of you who have caught 49s and report them as a 49---You are men of integrity---Good work---I have always said---A 49 reported as a 49 perhaps is the most important trophy of all.
Edited by Storm Strike 1/19/2011 10:45 AM
|
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | Momuskies, don't you hate it? I'd guess your answer is probably the same as mine... no, not really... it is what it is. Salute!
This past summer I had three fish in my boat between 49 and 50, and the 49 3/4 was only a "slight" disappointment for me personally. My philosophy is that, unless it's some gigantic beast nobody cares except the guy who caught it anyway. The people who are willing to cheat a couple of inches are only cheating themselves.
I can remember when I was after my 1st 50" (this was back when C&R was a fairly new concept and a 50" release was really something, definitely the gold standard). Anyway, I had caught several upper 40" before finally breaking through. I can still basically remember every detail of that wonderful experience 20+ years later.
I also agree with just lowering expectation levels while fishing small inland (Wisconsin) waters to around 45". With the amount of pressure/availability I still find that catching anything over 40" is challenging enough for me. As a matter of fact my longest inland Wisconsin muskie is 47". Maybe someday I'll bag a double nickel? Either way, I'm okay with it and certainly don't feel like 55" belongs on my bucket list.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 431
| I was darn excited to catch the 49 7/8. It bested my previous best by 3/8 of an inch. I know, I must be magic, right, because I have caught both a 49.5 and 49.875, but I digress. I saw that fish coming in the whole way, I said she's gonna eat, 2 turns on the 8 and bam, all heck broke loose. Loved every second of it. That was on LOTW last year. When I see a fish over 48 on Kinkaid-which is where I spend most of my time, I'll let you know. So for me, no, 55 is not the new 50. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | I live and fish in MN. Not sure how fortunate that makes me otherwise, but the Muskie fishing is good.
As far as truly large fish, I look more at weight - just like with pizza. For instance, a deep-dish 14 inch pizza may weigh twice as much as a thin crust 16 inch pizza. In the same way, a thick 50 incher may be much heavier than a skinny 55 incher. So, which is actually larger? I'd say the thick 50 incher.
My opinion is that any Muskie pushing 50 lbs, no matter how long, is a giant. And any Muskie over 40 lbs is a true trophy.
Got to stop writing before lunch.....
Edited by Herb_b 1/19/2011 11:42 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 360
Location: Algonac, MI | Jim
I do not think 55" is the new 50" in Michigan either. We have caught lots of 50's over the years trolling. Anything over 48" is still a trophy in my book. Even shorter can be a trophy, if they carry some girth.
Caught a 46" two Octobers back with a 25" girth..was very impressive looking.
But each inch, heck each 1/2 inch, you go up in length, the more rare they are.
I have only caught one over 55, and less than 5 over 54 inches in 30 years fishing St Clair.
Edited by Contender 1/19/2011 8:41 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 73
| Not for Muskies…but for people, yes! |
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | Good one Jim... LOL!
|
|
| |
