|
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | I think it may have been released on the Larry this past Sept.....But now we will never know.... claim was 59x34 |
|
| |
|
Posts: 455
| Well he said low sixties on this thread so I`m guessing he is open to the idea they get 60#. That's what makes it fun the speculation. To troll the St. Lawrence area and just soak up the sites while dreaming of a record fish. It really is just a wonderful experience in life. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 67
| sworrall - 1/26/2014 9:59 AM
When and if an over 60" over 60# record fish is confirmed, there will be a confirmed record fish that large. None so far have been.
A fish that is not bump board measured and photographed over 60" is not a confirmed 60" fish.
We'll see.
well said Steve , or as Larry say's " if you don't weigh it , you can't say it "
The Muskie community is very skeptical about claims to fame , nobody has to prove anything to anybody , but if you are going to be telling people , having magazine artical's and newspaper write ups you should really be prepared for the scrutiny that you will be under and be prepared to back it up with solid evidence or otherwise,,,,,,, Nice fish ! and congratulations and Ps : if you are reading this thread ,,,YOU CARE |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32957
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | muskyrat - 1/26/2014 2:30 PM
Whos to say they didn`t bump board the fish? Just because they didn`t post a picture of the fish on the board. I mean the guy has witnesses and is letting them go. I`ts not like they are applying for some record or prize. As posted before there are certain people I know go to lengths to makes sure they measure the fish properly and I`m happy to see the pictures and trust what they are saying. I`m not sure why every big fish needs internet certification. Can`t say I have ever seen 60" 60lbs. but is it that hard to believe a fish a half inch longer and a few pounds heavier than what is confirmed is possible? Yea 70lbs no way but 60lb is just a matter of time.
I'm not sure what you are talking about.
If the fish is presented to be a certain size and weight, it needs to be confirmed as such or the claim should probably not be made, and if the fish was bumped for a length, I'd wager a picture was taken. If one wasn't, then it's another nice CPR'd fish, and that's it.
Not that that's a bad thing, as the fish is still swimming.
By the way, I'm not talking about 'internet certification'. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 455
| All I`m saying is it is ok to say this is how big I measured it to be and here is a picture for you to look at. It`s ok for people to be skeptical as well of coarse. Just don`t know why every big fish that is released needs to be proven if no record is claimed. I do agree that only officially measured and proven fish should qualify for an award. I guess I do see your point though. As guide he putting his claims out there. |
|
| |
|
Location: Lake Tomahawk, WI | jacklink - 1/22/2014 3:26 PM
Check out this old article I came across today: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1123434/...
Of course, exaggeration is the underpinning of all fishing stories, and the muskie is the subject of more exaggeration than most fish. On May 1, 1902, The Minocqua ( Wis. ) Times printed a front-page photograph—eight columns wide—of what the accompanying headline called THE LARGEST MUSKELLUNGE EVER CAPTURED! It was netted by none other than a superintendent of the State Fish Hatchery, and it weighed 102 pounds. Obviously, it couldn't qualify as a world record, having been netted, but considering who caught this monster, it would seem that the weight was authentic.
I remember my Uncle, Ray Kennedy, talking about this fish when I was a kid, and again in the Old Masters of Musky Hunting video. After he caught his 50+lb'r, he told his Dad, Jim, that there was 'No way in hell that that fish (from 1902) was over 100 lbs'. Jim simply replied "Well, they had a lot better whiskey in those days."
JS
|
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | That's as good an explanation as any |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1283
| horsehunter - 1/26/2014 5:37 PM
I think it may have been released on the Larry this past Sept.....But now we will never know.... claim was 59x34
Did the pic ever come out of this fish yet? |
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | Members of the Ottawa chapter of Muskies Canada have apparently seen the pictures.
The in water pictures that appeared in the Release Journal could have just as easily been a Labrador Retriever or a pig.
Edited by horsehunter 1/27/2014 11:56 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1283
| Well that sucks. |
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | I know the anglers involved and have no reason to doubt what they say and I can't fault them for doing what I always said I would do.
However I think this MAY have been the fish to put a lot of issues to rest. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1283
| I just wish there was a good pic out there for everyone to see. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 455
| I know it sounds easy but when one of our club members Russ got his big fish all he ended up with was a crappy picture. Why? Big waves, rain, he is old and the fish is heavy. With the size of those charter boats I would rather see them hold the fish in a fish thanks until someone from the state can certify the fish. If you try to take a picture on the board the fish can flop around and loose slime. |
|
| |
