|
|
Posts: 568
| I've put lot's of thought the last couple days into how to bring this topic up w/o turning it into a free for all, and here is the best way i've come up with -- I want to ask all the muskiefirst'ers what percentage of fish called 50 or above are not stretched one to three or even more inches to come up with the final "call" on how big a fish was? I politely ask DON"T NAME any individuals . Don't even write comments w/o naming a person that can identify the pic in question , for example "oh yeah the big 51 from big deer lake was only a 48" . My guess is 50 % have that mystery inch or 3 added on. I can see the replies already -- you mean fisherman lie ??? DUH ...... BUT why add inches to a great catch ? lots of these are already GREAT catches ! I just don't understand , maybe I'm wrong let me know. ManitouDan |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | I'm thinking that 95-100% of all the fish posted here, Musky Hunter, Musky Nut, 101 and The Fix are legit 50". No disrespect to Lake-Link, but I believe fish pics do tend to get stretched there. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 459
Location: New Baden IL | I agree with GMG, the guys who frequent this board are pretty honest. At least all of the people I have had dealings with (bait sales, trades, etc.)
Here's my take on this subject: Say you catch a thick healthy 49". Now when you lie and call it a 50, what happens when you do catch one that hits the mark right on 50?
Now you have to lie about that fish too, and that 50 becomes a 51, or a 52...
Besides, what is wrong with a thick 48" or a 49"???
I would love to catch a 48" fish tomorrow and put a picture of it up here.
Here's what happens to me usully: we get a biggie in the boat, and in a rush to get a quick picture and release the fish unharmed, I rush through the measurment and when I get the pictures back I wonder was it really a 46, or was it bigger?
I dont think I've ever called a fish bigger than what it really was, why cheapen the experience?
Rod LaCaze |
|
| |
|
| Hey Dan, I would suggest that you just go out and catch one...no worries then. Photos can be unclear bases on angle, size of person and such. I would just take it for how big people say they are. No harm. About 6 or 7 years ago I got a 51 on the fox chain and choose not to show it as even before I got the film developed I was receiving a hard time. Post like these limit the amount of fish people will choose to post. I like seeing the pictures, so I choose not to give people a hard time...good luck and hopefully we will see a picture of you and a 50 in the new future...Ben |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32959
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I could care less how big any of the fish I catch are unless one is HUGE. I like looking at the pictures, that's for sure, and don't worry one bit how long someone says a fish is. It's personal, anyway. I've always felt 45" is the first mark of a true trophy, and anything over that is a nicer trophy.
Here's a couple examples of how the hold and camera angle efects the perceived length of a fish. Which fish is actually 42" and which a taped 45? Which fish is in the release shot?
Attachments
----------------
 Worrall40s2.jpg (19KB - 164 downloads)
DSC_0120.JPG (46KB - 157 downloads)
DSC_0122.JPG (42KB - 153 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 44
Location: ashland wi | I agree that most of these pic's are honest.
Pic's can be very decieving both ways,i just caught a nice 46 incher the other day and when i got home to look at the pic i would swear it was about 38 to 40in and i've seen 40inchers look like 50's,the pics you see here are cause people are proud of their catch,when we take a pic it's not about catching the true size on film or digital,it's about preserving the memory of that beautiful musky caught and released. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 367
Location: Chicago | I am honest as I see no reason to try and impress anyone but myself. Here is agood example of a 36" fish I caught and had my father hold for the first picture. I guess size of the guy matters.....................
Attachments
----------------
Cnv0066.jpg (38KB - 158 downloads)
Cnv0067.jpg (42KB - 155 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 921
Location: Apollo, PA | We all know the people in our OWN areas that stretch their fish's length to further their reputations, atleast in their own minds. It seems some of these people ONLY catch get 50"ers and fish over 30#'s. Pictures, as we all know, can be manipulated and deceiving.
At this stage in my life, it doesn't bother me as much as it used to years ago. I just kinda laugh and say to myself "There he goes again....." It's really kinda sad when you think about it.
People should enjoy the thrill of the hunt, friendship, and of course mother nature, instead of trying to be "the man".
Sorry to preach, tightlines, PS
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 568
| Ben -you state "go out and catch one" one what ? a ski , caught 6 last week -- me catching a 60 incher would not change this post 1 % . Thanks for everyone's honest opinion w/o turning this into mudslinging -- Steve those pic's of the 2 fish really made me think also Thanks for posting them -- I honest'ly can't tell with certainty but I'd guess the 42 is the top pic ? I want everyone catching fish -- it just seems to cheapen that magical 50 inch mark when so many look short of that get called 50's. No one has agreed with me yet -- but that's cool, That's why I posted, to get opinions. 50's for all ManitouDan
Edited by ManitouDan 7/17/2005 5:37 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1430
Location: Eastern Ontario | Nothing wrong with a 48 or 49, the 49 we got yesterday was nicer and fater then the 51.5 we got the day before. Only problem is that 1 inch cost me $100 tip. 
I can't tell you about the picture of big fish from this year as most were taken with a semi vertical hold making it impossible to see the size.
BTW Steve it's the 45 is in the release photo and also the horizontal held fish.
Here's a picture of a small guy with a large fish.
Edited by Trophymuskie 7/17/2005 6:57 PM
(06-23-2005Walter54X23Zz.jpg)
Attachments
----------------
06-23-2005Walter54X23Zz.jpg (53KB - 155 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
| Sorry to upset ya Dan, I was refering to a 50's not muskies...Ben |
|
| |
|
Location: Athens, Ohio | Dang, Richard, look at the head on that monster! Very nice. I've heard that when the holder's hand / arm is in the photo as much as this one it makes that part of the fish look smaller, your photo is perhaps a good example of that and also a good example of proper support for the fish to prevent damage. What are water temps up your way now? m |
|
| |
|
Posts: 148
Location: DES MOINES, IOWA |  Dan,we've all chuckled over the pictures sent in to certain magazines of fish that were obviously stretched up to 5-6 inches.However,most of the serious Musky guys, I believe are pretty accurate with their measurements on the big fish,because we really are fishing against our selves.I'm trying to beat my top fish,and it doesn't make any sense to lie about it.Also,most of us fish with others,and a certain amount of bragging rights are involved there, to have a fairly accurate measurement.Photos are misleading.I'm looking at an 8x10 of a 48 of my sons in front me on the wall, that looks bigger than the 51 above it. |
|
| |
|
| Getting an accurate measurement is tough without throwing the fish down on a board. Water mearsurements, stretching out a tape mearsure, or using marks on the side of a boat just aren't that accurate.
Personally I don't care if someone says he boated a 50 or 51, I see the picture and it doesn't appear close to 50 or 51. Better yet, you fish with a guy that says he's caught 15 fish over 50"'s yet when you boat a 45" and he's freaking out what a monster fish it is.
The only time I'm concerned about accuracy is during a tournament. Thats it. I put the measuring stick to a fish this weekend and I was short by 1.5" in my guess. When fish are fat they look bigger and longer. A skinny fish looks smaller and shorter until you put it on a board. My point is if my fish would have been a fat 49"er I would have guessed it at 50.5. The only way to be dead on accurate is using a board and it really doesn't matter unless you fishing a tournament. I like to see pictures because they tell the story. The 4' waves in the back ground, the color of the fish, the markings, the size of the head, the fat belly, the expressions on the faces, the parka and freezing rain. Now, thats what make pictures fun not trying to determine whether the measurement was accurate or not. Sense most don't use a board anyways...what's the point?
Most of the measurements you hear are best guesses. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8865
| Hey, Trophy Muskie
I think I know that guy! Do you know if he spends his winters in Ft. Myers Beach?
Jeff |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1430
Location: Eastern Ontario | Mikie the temps are around 77, we see up to 80 late afternoons with the couple of weeks of 90-100 degree weather we've been having. Good thing is the fish are snapping, we got a nice 52 today, it was this guy's first muskie.
The guy in the picture is from NY and his last name is Fedun. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 568
| Ben -- no problem at all , hope you are having a great year catching fish. I'll never forget talking to one of the pro's at the first muskie show I ever attended -- think it was chicago in 1999 or 2000 -- we were talking in a group of people about everyone's personal best-- I said 48 and my bro said 49.5 -- the pro said "the most honest muskie fisherman alive is the guy who own's up to that 49 1/2 not being a true 50" . Since then I've caught 3 48's and last week got a 49 that my bro and I are 90% sure we shorted 1 to 1.5 inches but I'm still sticking with 49 inch call. (we were fishing against 14 other friends in a week long tourney) But I love nature and would'nt trade those fish for 1 53 incher or many of the other beautiful sights I see while fishing . Hope to see all you guys at a muskie first outing one of these days. ManitouDan |
|
| |
|
Posts: 108
Location: IN | There are alot more things that go into making a trophy fish than just size. I know 2 guys that are avid musky fishermen and have never boated a 40" fish. The one has musky fished for atleast 12 yrs that I know of. He has caught a ton of fish but hasn't been able to break a mark that most of us take foregranted. It isn't for a lack of technique or time on the water, it just hasn't happened. For him a 40" fish holds the same fascination for him that a 50" holds for most of us. If a guy can hold back from calling a 39.5" a 40" under these circumstances, then I can wait for a true 50 to come along. I'm not trying to take away from the guys add a little extra, but I really think they are taking away from themselves. Pretty soon you start to believe the exaggerations and you start breaking marks that you really haven't reached yet. |
|
| |
|
| Very interesting post.....
I think that if a fisherman wants to give himself a false sense of accomplishment, that is his own perogative.  Anyway, I know I've rounded alot of 47.75" fish up to 48"....or a 39.5" to 40" for Muskies Inc. reasons. BUT, I have never EVER rounded up a 49.5"....it is some type of unwritten law in the muskie fishing world I think....taboo to do!
Just my 2 cents worth.....how do you upload photos??
Donnie |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | Donnie...become a member first. Then when you make a posting, you'll be prompted to wether or not you want to add a picture after the post. It'll be at the bottom of the screen, you check a box and you'll be taken to another screen where you'll upload pics.
If you have "oversized" pics, please feel free to email them to me and I can reduce them in Photoshop. |
|
| |
|
| I keep trying to sign on; I am already an MF member....I can't remember my password....  I'm such a goof! Anyway, what size can the pics be?
Donnie |
|
| |
|
| Thanks....with your help, I figured it out!! Now, can anyone tell me how big this fish is? It is probably one of the heaviest fish my son, Weston Hunt, has ever caught! Sorry for the vertical hold....things have changed in 5 years, and I've learned ALOT!!
Sincerely,
Donnie
www.muskytrollingsecrets.com
Edited by Donnie3737 7/20/2005 11:55 AM
Attachments
----------------
Weston.JPG (87KB - 162 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 7115
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | I would say 46", just guessing from the title of the pic. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3242
Location: Racine, Wi | I would say "edited by tuffdaddy to hide the size.". But don't give me too much credit, as it says 46 on the bottom of the pic. Then again, maybe... wait, I am a dummy, and the "Edited by tuffdaddy to hide the size" really stands for the temp of the water. Okay, I will go back to work now.
Edited by tuffy1 7/20/2005 12:59 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Boy, I think a lot of people exaggerate fish size. I think muskie fisherman in general, are a very competitive group and I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that 50% or more of these catches are exaggerated at least a little. I'm always surprised at peoples lack of honesty, and I think it's naive to think your average fisherman doesn't exaggerate a little. I think the holding of fish out in front of ones body is a symptom of that sort of thing. I hate those holds because you can't get an accurate idea of a fishes size.
A horizontal hold, close to the body is the only way to go. |
|
| |
|
| I am such a butthead...I can't believe I posted it with the size....it was truly a HUGE fish though. Andrew and Muskie Nut...please edit your posts...LOL I am such a schmuck! As far as holding the fish away from the body, You can see this fish is not being help out....how can a 10 year old boy, weighing in at 105 lbs., hold out a 35-38 pound fish...LOL...he was about to have a coronary it was so heavy....the video is pretty cool!
How big do you think the one of my water release is here? Obviously not being held away from my body....truly a heavy Eagle Lake pig!!
Hang a hawg all,
Donnie
Edited by Donnie3737 7/20/2005 12:27 PM
Attachments
----------------
Heavy.bmp (91KB - 168 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
| Donnie,
The fish looks massive! It's impossible to tell the length from the picture but based on the girth??.....Hell, I have no idea. You don't look like a small guy either so I'm thinking this is a mid-50" class fish? How big was it?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1245
Location: Madtown, WI | I have seen the video of Westons fish in the pic....that is no normal fish....I have NEVER, EVER, seen a fish of that length be SO thick and fat....it was a freak.
Donnies fish is a 34 incher...camera angles help out a little.
Thats my favorite pic by the way Donnie!
Cory |
|
| |
|
Posts: 59
Location: St. Cloud, MN | Many have posted here that they look back at old pics and wonder if they shorted or lengthed a measurement. I've thought this at times but as Mr. Worrall pointed out angles can make pics look very different. From my standpoint if I can't be sure of the measure from my pics how could I second guess anyone elses measurement. What does it really matter anyways, you know what you've caught and what you haven't. The one exception to me would be a truly HUGE fish. In this instance some effort must be made to give a scale in a photo.
Steve my guess is the top pic is the 45" and both of the lower pics are the 42".
Q |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1245
Location: Madtown, WI | I second the Scale factor on big fish. We all know how to hold, photo graph fish to make them look larger....but give me scale to look at. Donnies pic above is a good example as is the one I stole from another post.
Cory
Attachments
----------------
Giant Ski[1].jpg (188KB - 153 downloads)
|
|
| |
