|
|
Location: ontario | Which body of water holds the biggest fish ? Anyone have some sort of stats to go off? Some say st. lawrence others say geo bay some say lotw but is there any statistics that can prove which body of water has the highest potential of producing a next world record fish?
Edited by Dan111 12/12/2017 9:36 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 133
| I wish this thread was titled "next world record" I got excited for no reason. Haha |
|
| |
|
Location: ontario | true lol |
|
| |
|
Posts: 17
Location: Tampa, Florida | Thuawk - 12/12/2017 9:31 PM
I wish this thread was titled "next world record" I got excited for no reason. Haha
Hahaha! Me too.  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Dan111: There are a number of ways one could look at this question when formulating answers. To me, the most obvious would be "Where did the current, legitimate, world record come from?". The answer to that question is, in most minds, Bellaire Lake, Michigan. Does this mean that the next world record will come from there too? Actually, no. It only proves that the genetics there were/are(?) capable of producing a world class fish.
You mentioned the St. Lawrence River, Georgian Bay and Lake of the Woods. These bodies of water all certainly have the potential to produce a world record fish and may have in the past produced one or more that exceeds the Michigan record fish of 58 pounds and the first two have been consistent producers of giant muskies right up to the current day. However, since the beginning of the current Modern Day Muskellunge World Record Program, which began about 10 years ago, only the Michigan fish has been completely verified at its record weight. Historical muskellunge over 58 pounds cannot be certified to today's high angler standards and may or may not have weighed what was claimed. Many of those historical muskies have been proven scientifically to not be nearly as large as claimed.
As for "statistics" to support world record potential claims, I probably have as large a data base as anyone and it would support the first two waters you mentioned far above the last mentioned and most others. Are there other waters that could "do the deed"? Absolutely...we cannot rule out Eagle Lake, Ontario; other Great Lakes waters besides Georgian Bay and more. Water like Lac Suel, Ontario, which "may" have record potential, must be discounted due to its catch and release only policy...absolute verification, according to MDMWRP rules would be impossible.
Edited by Larry Ramsell 12/13/2017 5:43 AM
|
|
| |
|
Location: ontario | I am a believer of big water = big fish, however what are the odds of catching a world record fish in a huge body of water such as georgian bay or lotw? Georgian bay is approximately 3712000 acres. I am not sure the ratio of muskies per acre is but lets say if the number was around .1/acre that would equal 371200 muskies in all of georgian bay or 1 muskie per 10 acres. And out of all those muskies how many are world record in size? Maybe 1-10? Now from my understanding is that a muskie grows every year that it is alive but slower as it gets older. So assuming that the biggest fish are at the last year or two of their natural lives that gives you approx 1.5 years to cover 3712000 acers to try and catch 1-10 fish out of 371200. In other words i think you would have a better chance of winning lottery. That being said maybe the next world record fish will be caught in a smaller lake with fish maybe not as big as the ones in georgian bay, but fish that have a higher chance of being caught |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8844
| Personally, I think the only way we're going to see a new world record is if we find a lake like the others mentioned above with no current population of muskies and stock a ton of fish in it. Those first few year classes would have tremendous potential. Only bad thing is most of us here would be too old to fish by the time it really gets going. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 333
Location: SE Wisc | I don’t think we’ll ever see a fish that beats those old records of the past( especially if they weren’t legitimate) These fish seem to max out near 60 pounds even in the best environments. I read a study on Wisconsin’s Cisco and inland lake whitefish populations and that they were in decline. If these baitfish were to decline on some of the potentially record holding waters, for whatever reason( global warming, invasives, etc), it would certainly make it even less likely let alone impossible to grow giant fish. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 333
Location: SE Wisc | We may only have a few decades left to see record class muskies |
|
| |
|
Location: ontario | Food sources and also habitat are huge factors. Decreasing water levels and shore line construction destroy prime spawning areas for muskies. Simply put the less spawning areas the fish have the less they will spawn. So if food source and habitat is depleted then we can put aside the fact that a new world record fish will be caught in the future. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32935
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Awful lot of doom and gloom considering muskie fishing overall is better now than ever, 50's are fairly common, and muskies are available in more waters now than ever. The future looks bright, management in most states where the muskie is considered an important game fish is excellent, and CPR the standard.
NW Ontario protected their fisheries with a 54" limit, and a large volume of lakes capable of kicking out really big fish now have much larger size limits than just 15 years ago across the range. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 333
Location: SE Wisc | Not trying to be Debbie Downer. Numbers wise it is better than ever, but that doesn’t mean we’re going to see a new world record caught. Just trying to give food for thought, usually in evolution creatures get smaller. |
|
| |
|
| Maybe the muskies in Green Bay will develop a taste for gobies, which have caused the perch population to crash. White fish have surprisingly started to feed on them and are now a major sport fishing species there. Don't know if gobies are good enough forage for muskies to grow big but it seems like they are very plentiful. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32935
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Ciscokid82 - 12/13/2017 9:37 PM
Not trying to be Debbie Downer. Numbers wise it is better than ever, but that doesn’t mean we’re going to see a new world record caught. Just trying to give food for thought, usually in evolution creatures get smaller.
Not in a few decades. I think we are good, but keeping an eye on management and water quality where needs be isn't a bad idea. |
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | North of 8 - 12/13/2017 10:42 PM
Maybe the muskies in Green Bay will develop a taste for gobies, which have caused the perch population to crash. White fish have surprisingly started to feed on them and are now a major sport fishing species there. Don't know if gobies are good enough forage for muskies to grow big but it seems like they are very plentiful.
The lake Ontario smallmouth are turning int pigs that look like footballs......but maybe not because everyone keeps telling me that muskies feed up that would mean that suckers, bullheads, walleye, and gobies should be safe
Edited by horsehunter 12/14/2017 6:02 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2385
Location: Chisholm, MN | There is no reason to believe that Mille Lacs or another body couldn't put out a world record. They grow to almost 60" and get FAT. That's world record material. It's not likely that one of us will catch it, but it is possible. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 431
| I always wondered why no record class fish come from st Claire. The gizzard shad are so thick at times they form a false bottom and you cant fish around them. Ive ice fished in spots where you cant see bottom for minutes at a time as schools of big old football size gizzards swim through by the thousand. Are gizzard shad an inferior food source to cisco for getting muskies huge? |
|
| |
|
Location: ontario | The shad population is tremendous. Even up to lake ontario in bay of quinte in the early summer when walleye fishing you can hear the schools of shad surfacing the water making you think it’s raining.
Edited by Dan111 12/14/2017 12:25 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1220
| I’d say it is going to be Pewaukee Lake. People at the boat ramps there have told me of countless fish they have seen exceeding the current records. And , I choose to believe them! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Kirby: Could absolutely happen in Mille Lacs...in fact did! The MuskieFirst RELEASE world record was caught there 2 years ago and its calculated (new formula) weight was 58 pounds, same as the MDMWRP verified Kept record! Lake Vermilion too has put out fish of giant size. I know of at least one 59 incher and one 60 incher from there...Lots of places it could happen! Combine good genetics with good forage and hang on! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 318
| tackleaddict - 12/14/2017 8:37 AM
I always wondered why no record class fish come from st Claire. The gizzard shad are so thick at times they form a false bottom and you cant fish around them. Ive ice fished in spots where you cant see bottom for minutes at a time as schools of big old football size gizzards swim through by the thousand. Are gizzard shad an inferior food source to cisco for getting muskies huge?
I have wondered the same thing. Huge body of water. Lots of forage. How come you dont see fish coming out of St Claire that resemble the fish coming out of other bodies of water like Mille Lacs or Georgian Bay? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2385
Location: Chisholm, MN | Larry Ramsell - 12/14/2017 12:46 PM
Kirby: Could absolutely happen in Mille Lacs...in fact did! The MuskieFirst RELEASE world record was caught there 2 years ago and its calculated (new formula) weight was 58 pounds, same as the MDMWRP verified Kept record! Lake Vermilion too has put out fish of giant size. I know of at least one 59 incher and one 60 incher from there...Lots of places it could happen! Combine good genetics with good forage and hang on!
Right, I could rephrase that and say it could put out "another" world record. |
|
| |
|
Location: ontario | lake st clair is a numbers lake for sure. Although big fish do come out of there, maybe the competition for food keeps em under the 60lb class ?? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1425
Location: St. Lawrence River | The current world record is in Lake Ontario, pelagic in nature. |
|
| |
|
Location: ontario | JakeStCroixSkis - 12/14/2017 5:12 PM
The current world record is in Lake Ontario, pelagic in nature.
I’ve heard of muskies coming out of lake ontario but is the population great enough to target them ? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 333
Location: SE Wisc | I don’t think anyone doubts that the muskies first release wr or the MDMWR can/will be broken. I’m talking about the IGFA record (Johnson?) and the Spray fish. I’m skeptical that we’ll ever get those washed from the books or catch a larger fish( which we all are hoping for |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8844
| 70# probably happens, but that likely would be a big pre-spawn female, which would require fishing out of season to actually catch.
You never know, though. I know a few guys with multiple mid to upper 50" fish who claim to have seen one unlike all the others. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32935
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Ciscokid82 - 12/14/2017 6:17 PM
I don’t think anyone doubts that the muskies first release wr or the MDMWR can/will be broken. I’m talking about the IGFA record (Johnson?) and the Spray fish. I’m skeptical that we’ll ever get those washed from the books or catch a larger fish( which we all are hoping for
A little advice, don't go there. Way to early in the Winter to start that one up again.
Those records are story and lore, and not much else. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1000
| I think quite a few fisheries currently contain or will produce world record fish (LOTW, Vermillion, ML, Green Bay, St Lawrence, Canada, etc). That said, for it to be a WR it has to be caught, so my guess it will be a Leech or Great Lakes strain fish out of MN, GB, LSC, or the St Lawrence. If I had to put my money somewhere, I'd say the St Lawrence. |
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | A potential world record fish could live in Lake Ontario and enter the St Lawrence River in late Dec or Jan after the season closes spawn and leave the river and enter the lake in May or early June and live out her life without ever encountering a fisherman. This years high water temperatures meant there were not as many lake fish in the upper river as normal. If the bait dosen't enter the river the muskies won't follow. There is always a resident population in the upper river but I believe the Queen resides out in the lake following the same bait fish schools that are producing fat salmon and trout. Last year we were fishing the river and Hoser got a text from a friend on Georgian Bay who caught two big muskies about an hour apart downrigging for salmon 90 feet down. Who knows what monsters are out there.And who knows how global warming will affect their movements.
Edit: the lake fish I have encountered usually have an really heavy slime coat I don't know if this indicates they were from deep cold water or were feeding on fat forage
Edited by horsehunter 12/14/2017 8:08 PM
|
|
| |
