|
|
Posts: 29
| Just wondering where everyone one thinks where the new world record will come out of.I think it would come out of either some canadian lakes or Millacs or some of the St.Lawrence river or St.Clair |
|
| |
|
Posts: 103
Location: Miller time Wisconsin. | Probably will never be broke, but if it did; Green bay or Georgian bay. No way would it come from any "inland" lakes. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 305
Location: Illinois | Never say no way. There are plenty of deep, clear lakes that could possibly produce a giant. In fact, I think the next record will come from an deep, clear, inland lake that has few fish and cisco. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 103
Location: Miller time Wisconsin. | How many 40#s do we hear about every year? A small handfull. How many 50#,60#?How about? anything even remotely close to 70#s? |
|
| |
|
| Um, fish deeper. Are you guys so arrogant enough to think the the probes of anglers are displaying lures to even 10% of the largest fish in existence? I think not, when most guys are lobbing up inthe weedbeds. Sure it will be a caught, and some guy trolling for walleye or lake trout [once again] or a really brave, deep water structure angler [ahem...my money's on the Spoonpluggers] is going to nail that mother. Guys, how many catfish over a hundred pounds have been caught? Not many. But how many stories have you heard of divers going to work on the dams and vowing never to go down again because of leviathans the size of small volkswagons. These fish DO exist. The genetic potential still exists, and there are still areas still remote enough, both in depth, breadth, and physical geography, to house numbers of these fish. Frankly, my theory...in a lake like Leech or another hawg factory, and guys are seeing lots of 50's in the shallows, consider the foodchain. What do you think is chasing those guys up on the tops of hte structure?...Perhaps they're not as big as we think. But, yes, in short, this is no romantic notion. There are bigger fish out there than 70 pounds. It won't be caught inthe south, and probably not inthe Mid-west, though I'm sure some exist in both arenas. There are fish out there bigger than 80 pounds. Men have hooked these fish inthe not so distant past. If there's any credibility to Bill Sandy's stories [and in a large, fertile, and relatively shallow lake like Lake of the Woods, it's entirely possible] there are fish like this in surprising numbers in some areas of hte world. All it takes it some time, patience, and a willingness to go down after them where they are a good 95% of the t ime...in the deepest, most stabile area they can find in a body of water, dormant in their old age. It wo'nt be easy, but it WILL be caught...more than once. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 224
Location: Madison | Tubakka - 10/17/2004 11:38 AM
Um, fish deeper. Are you guys so arrogant enough to think the the probes of anglers are displaying lures to even 10% of the largest fish in existence? I think not, when most guys are lobbing up inthe weedbeds. Sure it will be a caught, and some guy trolling for walleye or lake trout [once again] or a really brave, deep water structure angler [ahem...my money's on the Spoonpluggers] is going to nail that mother. Guys, how many catfish over a hundred pounds have been caught? Not many. But how many stories have you heard of divers going to work on the dams and vowing never to go down again because of leviathans the size of small volkswagons. These fish DO exist. The genetic potential still exists, and there are still areas still remote enough, both in depth, breadth, and physical geography, to house numbers of these fish. Frankly, my theory...in a lake like Leech or another hawg factory, and guys are seeing lots of 50's in the shallows, consider the foodchain. What do you think is chasing those guys up on the tops of hte structure?...Perhaps they're not as big as we think. But, yes, in short, this is no romantic notion. There are bigger fish out there than 70 pounds. It won't be caught inthe south, and probably not inthe Mid-west, though I'm sure some exist in both arenas. There are fish out there bigger than 80 pounds. Men have hooked these fish inthe not so distant past. If there's any credibility to Bill Sandy's stories [and in a large, fertile, and relatively shallow lake like Lake of the Woods, it's entirely possible] there are fish like this in surprising numbers in some areas of hte world. All it takes it some time, patience, and a willingness to go down after them where they are a good 95% of the t ime...in the deepest, most stabile area they can find in a body of water, dormant in their old age. It wo'nt be easy, but it WILL be caught...more than once.
I agree with a lot of this. Look at the O'Brien fish - it was one meal shy of the world record, and it wasn't that old of a fish. No doubt in my mind those fish are out there, but they don't contact anglers very often, and even less so when they're in the mood to eat. And even if someone ran across one AND it was ready to eat, you'd need everything to go right - get the hook in the mouth, no terminal tackle failure, drag doesn't seize up, you have a net big enough to boat it and your netman doesn't knock the lure out - EVERYTHING has to go right for any fish, but especially one that big.
-d
p.s. Can you imagine? Netman snags the front treble too early and the hook comes out? Oh man. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 333
Location: menasha wi 54952 | Will it ever be broke? Sure it will.........and it will be legit!!!!!
I know that not every 40, 50 or 60lber is reported. Its only a matter of time 
MR |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1462
Location: Davenport, IA | I'm not so sure muskies get to 70 lbs. I just wish they would start over. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1310
Location: Washington, PA | Stream X. Starting over sounds good, but that could = alot of dead fish.
Edited by tomyv 10/20/2004 9:10 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1769
Location: Algonquin, ILL | Starting over sounds good to me, we can start the list with the fish I got @ the Sabaskong outing last year and add on from there, the way my luck has been going that's the only way I'll get my name on any record list 
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | The world record will come out of Fox River system (trib that dumps into Bay O Green) by a Walleye angler snap jigging a Zip Lure.....HOLY COW, GET THE FRABILL
Edited by Gander Mt Guide 10/20/2004 9:20 AM
|
|
| |
|
| if you go far enough into the Heart of Darkness, you'll find King Solomon's mines in the lost City of Zinj?
it's like Loch Ness...there's a world record "out there somewhere" if you just keep looking long enough and hard enough --- or want to believe in it bad enough.
and that's the beauty of muskie fishing, isn't it? the mystery.
it's not nearly as fun to talk about the science and genetics and reality that there is an actual, factual maximum size that a muskie can grow to. it's more fun to talk about the ethereal white whale slowly cruising the undiscovered depths of some shield lake.
as for me, i choose the mystery. it's why i keep casting for the next one... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2
| EAGLE LAKE'S WEST ARM.....has produced some very large fish, that could someday be considered WR.
|
|
| |
|
| Georgian Bay, Green Bay, LOTW, Lac Seul, Eagle, the St. Lawrence River, the Ottawa River, or a dozen other places. Big Bertha might never be caught, but she is out there and might never ever be scene!  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 393
Location: Kawarthas, Ontario | <p>My guess would still need to be Georgian Bay, but apparently there's a new rumour of a 70 lber from Quebec. My guess is it's just a rumour, but the Ottawa River can produce big fish.</p><p>Here's the link to the rumour that I read...</p><p><a href="http://www.ontariofishing.net/cgi/messageboard/data/18838.shtml">http://www.ontariofishing.net/cgi/messageboard/data/18838.shtml</a></p> |
|
| |
|
Posts: 938
Location: NeverNever Lake | My guess would be a small farm pond somewhere in Ohio. You heard me! Raised from a hatchling, fed only the finest forage. Fat juicy rainbow trout, carp sniblets, shad rockerfeller, and crawdaddy suprise for snacks. She would be hooked up to a continous IV with growth hormones and steroids along with seal's milk....................
Hell, it works on the pumpkins.................. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 64
Location: Genoa City, WI | I'm thinking if it's an inland lake.... Cass, Vermillion, LOTW or Flambeau Lake. There are plenty of others also but those come to mind.
Rob |
|
| |
|
Posts: 103
Location: Miller time Wisconsin. | I don't want to sound pesimistic here, but I'm thinking that the next world record muskie will be a 50#er that eats a 20# block of lead, imediatly prior to being caught.
" A man who give in when he's wrong, is wise. A man who gives in when he's right, is married."
Edited by Eyesore 10/21/2004 12:52 AM
|
|
| |
|
| That is for sure how they did it last century!  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 814
| I WOULD HAVE TO SAY I THINK THE WORLD RECORD COULD COME FROM EAGLE LAKE, GEORGIAN BAY, ROWAN ,OR EVEN LAC COURTE ORIELLES(CAL JOHNSON'S RECORD OF 67#1/4 OUNCE CAME FROME COUDERAY VERY CLEAR LAKE WITH CISCO BEING THE MAIN FORAGE!!!! PLUS SIZE LIMIT IS NOW 50 INCHES)!!!! |
|
| |
|
| There are many really BIG muskies in those gin clear trout lakes. Trouble is, they are down 60 feet or more and usually don't survive when brought from that depth. In over fifty years of muskie fishing on LOTW, Crow, Kishkutena, Kay, etc. I have only seen two fish that were 60" or better. One was on LOTW and the other on Kay. Neither was on the end of a fishing line unfortunately. Some really large muskies have been taken by lake trout fishermen on Crow but didn't survive the process. That's why I don't target muskies in really deep water. It would not surprise me if some Lake Trout fisherman winds up with the record. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 484
Location: St. Louis, MO., Marco Is., FL, Nestor Falls, ON | Sorry, I forgot to log on before posting the above reply. |
|
| |
