Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
| Moderators: Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : 1 Now viewing page 1 [30 messages per page] Muskie Fishing -> General Discussion -> Tiger Muskie Weight? |
| Message Subject: Tiger Muskie Weight? | |||
| Don In Denver |
| ||
Posts: 2 | A friend's wife caught this tiger muskie this morning. Any ideas on what it weighed? It was 43.5" and, as you can see from the pictures, it had a healthy girth. He said it easily bottomed his 25 lb. scale. I would appreciate your educated estimates. Thanks. Attachments ---------------- In-Boat.jpg (71KB - 150 downloads) Nice-Job-Mrs-Coot.jpg (67KB - 196 downloads) | ||
| chico |
| ||
Posts: 502 Location: Lincoln UK | Not sure if this is any help but I'll try, if it was a pike of that length you are looking at a fish of anywhere between 21.5lb and 36.5 lb with an average of 29lb, as it is a hybrid I would expect it to be a little lighter than the average so around 27lb, I have no Muskie experience but as a Pike man I would say 26-27lb is a fair guess. | ||
| chico |
| ||
Posts: 502 Location: Lincoln UK | Almost forgot to mention it but better late than never: what a very nice fish, beautifully marked and in great condition from the looks of it, very well done. | ||
| ToddM |
| ||
Posts: 20273 Location: oswego, il | Nice fish indeed. I would say it's around 25lbs though, not too much heavier. If i may ask, what lake was it caught in? I thought the better musky lakes in that area were in the flatter country. Are they worth targeting exclusivley? | ||
| Don In Denver |
| ||
Posts: 2 | This fish was caught in Pineview in Utah. I've never fished it, but I do know there are lots of good fish in it. | ||
| muskyboy |
| ||
| A fish that size is about 25 pounds on average, and don't trust a scale that bottoms out. A great looking, girthy tiger that might go 26 or 27 pounds. Congratulations! I hope to catch a giant tiger one day so I can get a digital replica of one! | |||
| mijo |
| ||
| Dont want to burst your bubble but a more likely weight for that fish is 18 to 23lbs.Caught many likt it with out belaboring the subject. | |||
| sorenson |
| ||
Posts: 1764 Location: Ogden, Ut | I fish Pineview a lot and that is a pretty typical fish (w/ respect to length/girth). It is certainly a great fish, but probably not over 25lbs. Our state record (Utah) stands at just over 31 lbs and was a fat 48 incher (our c & r record is over 53 inches). Fish weight estimators based on length make nice coffee shop conversation, but are really not much more useful than that as far as accuracy is concerned. There are far too many variables (even within the same body of water) that make fish weigh more or less to make accurate weight estimates depending on their length alone. Please understand that I am not trying to diminish the significance of this catch in any way - it is truly a fantastic fish; I am more trying to downplay the importance of trying to figure out a weight in a post-hoc fashion. I contend that it really doesn't matter how much it weighed. It was 43.5" long, was a great battle, was caught in an area not known for it's trophy muskies (by any stretch of the imagination - who really thinks of Utah when they are thinking muskies? Kent Edited by sorenson 7/6/2004 3:02 PM | ||
| muskiekid |
| ||
Posts: 585 Location: Gaithersburg, Maryland | Here's an 18 1/2 pound, 42" fish for comparison | ||
| Beaver |
| ||
Posts: 4266 | I don't care what it weighed! Beautiful fish and it was obviously handled with great care. I wouldn't venture to guess, and don't care. It's big and healthy and swimming. It's like your first girlfriend....who cares what it weighs as long as it looks good Beav | ||
| Mauser |
| ||
Posts: 724 Location: Southern W.Va. | Wouldn't guess on a bet but will say that you've caught a beauty. Nice job and keep on castin'. Mauser | ||
| physicsguy |
| ||
| There are 2 standard formulas that you can use for a best guess L= Length and G=Girth 1) L*L*L / 3500 = 23.51 lbs. 2) L * G*G / 800 = Assuming a 20" Girth 21.75 lbs. 22" Girth 26.32 lbs. Measure the girth next time and you will be able to get a better idea of the weight. Musky Hunter magazine had a great article about a study done and they concluded that LGG/800 was the most accurate. | |||
| chico |
| ||
Posts: 502 Location: Lincoln UK | Not a 100% on my facts here but I posted my estimate on the basis that Pike weight for length is heavier than Musky weight for length. Tigers are a hybrid and seem to be more pike shaped than Muskie so it seemed a sound idea to go closer to pike weights. Am I right or wrong here? I suppose looking back I may have guessed a little high and accepted the scales bottoming out easily but then you can't just assume they were a little out of calibration. I also readily accept that the girth measurement is very important too. So in reality do hybrids weght/length compare more favourably to Pike or Muskie? I am very pleased that so many people have commented on what a nice fish she is though; she is a beaut.. | ||
| Jump to page : 1 Now viewing page 1 [30 messages per page] |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |


Copyright © 2026 OutdoorsFIRST Media |