|
|
Posts: 154
| For every species of fish there seems to be a certain mark that makes it a trophy, walleye 30”, pike 40”, muskie 50”...etc what about tiger muskies? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2313
Location: Chisholm, MN | For Northern Minnesota I'd say about 43-44 but really it's up to the angler to decide. It's rare to have a large natural Tiger in MN. I've only been a part of 3 tiger catches in 22 years. Biggest was 43.5 if I remember right. All 3 were natural hybrids, not stocked. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 22
Location: Gods Country | 52 X 23 Natural Tiger Musky. Vilas County Wi.
Attachments
----------------
 52X23 Tiger Musky.jpg (106KB - 4417 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 154
| I have watched that video of you catching that giant multiple times! Congrats, though I don’t think I’ll ever get one that big, that’s just a mega giant. And yea I figured it might be different depending on if there natural or stocked. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2003
| Trophy is a personal thing, for example I personally don't see a 40" pike as a trophy, I've caught over 500 that size..only 4 pike over 45" so to me thats where the trophy line is (again personal)..is a 45" tiger rare in most parts? for sure, but as we see in the thread already well below what they "can" grow to ... then again 135" whitetails are rare in many parts of their range, in Iowa don't even stand up to look at them in the treestand anymore  ...I'd get a replica of a 50" tiger, doubt I ever get it but I don't have the wall space for many more "trophies" anyway - Ha!
Edited by IAJustin 8/25/2020 10:34 AM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | another guy might have 400 Pike over 45" and still consider 45" the benchmark.. I have lots of 50s and still consider a 50"er the benchmark to hit... for a tiger musky I guess it depends.. a 40" tiger in a lake like Merwin might be 'easy'... I'd consider 45" or so to be the benchmark for a tiger.... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 164
Location: Cedarburg, WI. | 43" Blind in the 8, i will never forget it. May never get another and it's a trophy to me.
Attachments
----------------
Tiger.jpg (137KB - 587 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2003
| Even the word "trophy" can be expanded , trophy by lake, by region, by personal accomplishment? For me I tend "to raise the bar" based on experiences, I got a 41" pike when I was 18 years old, #*^@ right that was a trophy then.. IMO a "trophy" should be rare... if i can go to a lake and know 100% I can catch X size fish in any given week, to me that's not a trophy. it could still be a big fish, just not a "trophy". Just like whitetails, their are guys that let every 160" they see walk..however some would probably give their pinky finger for a 160" typical .. for some a 50" muskie isn't a trophy..again eye of the beholder |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20211
Location: oswego, il | Easy answer 46 13/64" |
|
| |
|
Posts: 455
| Id say every natural tiger you catch is a trophy. Pretty rare biologically speaking. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 390
| All natural tigers are a trophy! Stocked are cool but it just doesn't feel the same.
Biggest natural tiger Ive caught was a 45" but I witnessed a giant 50" fishing/talking by a now retired guide, Dennis Radloff. Both on the bay of GB so definitely a nature.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1253
| For me it ended up being a 45" tiger. Caught her about 15 years ago, and thought at the time that some day that may the tiger I get a mount of, as I may not catch another one that size. I've done a lot of fishing on stocked tiger lakes since then, and held out hoping to maybe catch a bigger one. Came close a few times, but a bigger one never happened, so last year I had a mount made. Beautiful mount. Glad I did it because if I waited a whole lot longer, may not have ever had much time to enjoy it, and isn't that the point of having a mount? So for me, 45" is a trophy tiger. Of course now, I'll probably catch a 50" tiger next year! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20211
Location: oswego, il | Tigers are special. My first two muskies were tigers out of shabbona as a kid. I have gotten some naturals in northern Wisconsin, you can't beat those colors. LSC is starting to pump them out got my biggest tiger from there a 45.5"er. Someday I will hit that magical 46 13/64 mark. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 17
| I saw one once on lake Johanna about 20 years ago. Took a swipe at an orange spinnerbait off the pier. I will be absolutely ecstatic if I ever catch one. I fish the metro lakes a lot, so hopefully it will happen! Heard my chances are much higher if I fish them at night. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 154
| Me and my buddy have caught 10 total this year from metro lakes. Biggest being 41”, two 38” and a 37”. Have not had any of them eat at night. They are Definitely easier to catch than regular muskies in stocked waters at least. Trolling seems to work really well as well. Good luck |
|
| |
|
Posts: 343
| I've been fortunate to fish for stocked tigers quite a bit and fish 45" or bigger aren't that common. Counting all tigers, I've caught a little under 400 fish. Probably a dozen or so have been 45" or bigger all caught wading, with my largest 2, 50" or bigger. I consider 45" to be a trophy on almost all waters. Pineview Reservoir in Utah (site of both my 50's) might take a 48" along with a few of the better Washington lakes. Natural tigers maybe smaller, 42", 43". Just my opinion. |
|
| |
