|
|
Posts: 413
Location: Madison WI | So I just got done reading the IFGA's document on what rules have to be followed in order to submit a record to them, however after reading the document I wasn't able to find anywhere that it actually said the fish had to be harvested to be considered for a record. So my question is simple: If you land a fish that you believe to be a new world record can't you simply call the DNR up and tell them to get out to you and bring a certified scale with since you don't want to harvest the fish?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 159
Location: Stevens Point, WI | I've wondered the same thing. That was the plan i came up with in my dreams.
Edited by 12gauge 12/6/2008 12:10 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 210
Location: VA | I dont know about IGFA, but here in VA the VDGIF certified a smallmouth bass as a "state record" and the fish was released. It was kept in a cooler until VDGIF got there if my memory serves? And the same fish was caught again a few weeks later by another angler! But it weighed less due to spawning times.
DR |
|
| |
|
| My question is, lets say you catch what you think to be a world record fish, its in the net, How would you hold the fish until the DNR arrives? would you simply just keep it in the net until they come? Im surious to see what others will say... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2024
| Or livewell if your boat has one. |
|
| |
|
| yah, I thought about that but the livewell I have is waaaayyyy to small for a muskie let alone a world record muskie, so that would be out of the question for me, I would think the only way I could pull it ooff is letting is wade in a net??? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 413
Location: Madison WI | If it was me I would keep it is the net so that as little stress was put on the fish as possible until the DNR arrived, sure the livewell is another place you could put the fish but I don't know about you but I wouldn't want to put a 70 lb fish in a box. Unless you have a 300 gallon livewell in your boat you run the risk of too much stress on the fish. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 392
Location: lake x...where the hell is it? | not everyone has a 80 gallon live well! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2089
| Sit like Buddah in 2' of water with the fish in the net. Hope it's not October/November. Steve |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1270
| Seriously guys, if it's truelly a world record who really cares if it's kept? A fish of that size has live it's life and is probably ready to die anyway.
Go ahead and flame away at me now! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 720
| Reelman,
I would absolutely agree with what your saying. Thump it and get it to a certified scale as fast as you can. Also would make sure there is plenty of quality wittness. DNR, police and or Larry. Because even if you do kill it and certify the weight and have witnesses. Your still going to questioned by everyone. Then IGAF or whatever organization will have their collective heads up your arse so far its not worth it. Not for the fisherman and certainly not for the fish. In short yes you have to kill it and for me that will never happen. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 81
Location: NEW | That's a fair opinion. That fish would have spread a lot of dna around over the years. I'd be afraid to keep it and have it not be a record though. I'd have to be certain before I let it die. No matter what you do, some one is going to believe it was wrong. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 413
Location: Madison WI | Why would you want to keep that fish, what would you do with a 70+ lb fish that you can't have done by putting it back. Replicas look better IMO and have been proven to last longer then regular mounts. Not to mention if I call the DNR and have them come weigh it on a certified scale then I have my witnesses for the IFGA, who is better then the DNR??
Edited by muskyhunter24 12/6/2008 3:23 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 61
Location: Sioux Lookout On Canada | Unfortunately, if you catch it on Lac Seul it has to go back anyway. the fine for keeping it is nothing to bat an eye at, and I don't think a guys reputation would be tarnished too bad. I don't know... I have mixed feelings about what I will do next time that I catch a monster on Lac Seul. The law says put it back.
Neil Michelin |
|
| |
|
Posts: 232
Location: Sun Prairie, WI | If it's in WI, the chances of the DNR coming out to you and with a certified scale is about as remote as Favre resigning with the Packers yet this season. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 413
Location: Madison WI | ESOXER - 12/6/2008 3:40 PM
If it's in WI, the chances of the DNR coming out to you and with a certified scale is about as remote as Favre resigning with the Packers yet this season.
Amen to that, I know it would be hard to get the DNR out which is why over the years I have gotten personal cell #'s for certain DNR agents. Hopefully the thought of a record fish would get them to get out to you but obviously there aren't any guarentees these days. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 802
| reelman, while stating it bluntly, voiced the opinion of quite a few people i spoke with since the 'monster' was caught. i applaud dale for his incredible catch AND release- it was an act that deserves to be treated as one of our sports greatest moments because it was! i emailed him and told him that his feat was both amazing an admirable.but readers might be suprised how many would keep a fish like that, altho i'd think very few would be brave enough to speak honestly and face the wrath of the masses. now don't label me as a troublemaker, not trying to start anything, but many would've kep that fish. would i have? probably. why? because i'd like to end the crap once and for all. i find the entire issue a very sad joke. i'd love to end the spray/malo/o'brien/hall of fame/etc. controversy and wipe the slate clean. better yet, let my boat partner catch it and allow me to bear witness to the entire glorious event- i can think of nothing better! no asterisks, no whispered accusations- just a properly documented, witnessed, weighed and legitimately registered fish. period. the fact that a fish like this comes around soooo rarely, really puts the odds of catching that same behemoth AGAIN into the bazillions. now i'm not talking of keeping any fish- i've only kept 1, and that was my first (39") back in the 70's as a high schooler. but keeping a special fish is ones right, whatever that criteria may be. and a 57" x 33" would be that special fish to me...
btw, someone spoke of a giant musky being able to carry on with the reproduction of it's super-genetics- but i've also heard that when a fish get's that old/large, it's like a post menopausal woman, unable to reproduce. any biologists out there to clear up this notion and give the facts?
and muskyhunter24, i would donate the actual fish to the hall of fame, and then have a replica for myself, both done by joe fittante. you're right, replicas are better...
Edited by esox69 12/6/2008 4:04 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Twin Cities | I've always heard being able to breed or not is a function of age, not size. (please correct me if that is wrong) There's no telling the exact age of any of these fish, it's speculation on both sides if they will still breed or not. Figure that fish out of mille lacs, green bay or vermillion are 18 years old, give or take a few and reaching these dimensions. But then that O'brien fish was over 30 years old and a similar size.
I'd really like to know what was in the belly of that fish, but to me it's not worth killing it. What if it is all spawn? Then those genetics would be all gone for good.
Edited by JRedig 12/6/2008 4:11 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1767
Location: Lake Country, Wisconsin | As far as why keep the fish, I personally can't think of any lakes where I fish that an "On-Call" DNR officer would be ready to come out with a scale. Plus, while the net is a good SHORT term device for keeping a fish in water, I would hardly say it is a good tool for 30-60-80 mins....
With that being said, I personally think it would be VERY cool to be the undisputed record holder of the largest musky ever caught. There are plenty of guys who would thump a fish like that, whether they want to admit it or not. I can't say for sure what I would do one way or the other ( not like this will ever happen anyways), but I can say that keeping it would possibly be an option if it was a world record... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 86
Location: University of Hartford | I would love to be in that position, but the fish would either be thumped, or returned with only a picture (that would never end up on the internet).
I applaud the people that do post pictures of their giants but if it was near that size i would not post it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 341
Location: Passaic, NJ - Upper French River, ON | " remote as Favre resigning with the Packers yet this season"
The Jets management hate him. You'll have to wait for the comeback kid until next season.
Edited by gimo 12/6/2008 4:28 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 392
Location: lake x...where the hell is it? | by now most of you have seen the musky that Dale MacNair CPR. it is a wonderful and amazing fish and the fact that he released it is even more amazing. it was easly the next world record, i used every weight calculator formula i could find and the lowest one was still about 5lb more then the current world record of 69lb 11oz.
i wish he would have havested it! why? cause it would end the almost 60 years of b.s. over Sprays musky. i belive sprays musky is a fake after seeing many pics of musky that really are 60lb or more. it needs to fall to a true giant musky like Dales musky. it will be a SAD day when a giant musky is havested to take down sprays musky. but it will be worth it to have a TRUE fish of a lifetime and all our dreams as the next WORLD RECORD.i think we owe it to the might fish that we all chase and to be honest with ourselves on the size of every fish we release.
would you have kept Dales musky? i think i would have but cant say for sure either way till i am in that spot. just my 2 cents, whats yours? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 413
Location: Madison WI | esox50 - 12/6/2008 4:35 PM
muskyhunter24 - 12/6/2008 1:33 PM
If it was me I would keep it is the net so that as little stress was put on the fish as possible until the DNR arrived, sure the livewell is another place you could put the fish but I don't know about you but I wouldn't want to put a 70 lb fish in a box. Unless you have a 300 gallon livewell in your boat you run the risk of too much stress on the fish.
Why then would you put a 70lb fish in a NET? Even the Big Kahuna is going to feel like a souvenir bag to a world record muskie.
And I disagree COMPLETELY about livewells putting undue stress on a fish. Explain how a net is better, please. Livewells keep the water flowing and providing constant oxygen in a dark container. This type of "black box" environment has been SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN to reduce heightened physiological parameters (for example, heart rate ) back to baseline values. It is the accepted method for obtaining many different types of physiological data in the scientific community, especially for fish. Ever feel anxious or nervous about something? What is the first thing people tell you to do? Usually it's BREATHE. Providing oxygen to the body calms it, and being in a dark room further helps.
If you keep lifting the lid of the livewell though, you will likely spook the fish and get their heart rates up again just like if you are trying to relax in a dark room and all of a sudden someone flips on the lights or turns a flashlight on in your face. The fight or flight response kicks in immediately and for fish generally it's flight, but either way your internal physiology is going to change.
I don't know about you but to put that muskie in the livewell it has to be taken out of the net, which is going to stress the fish, and I have seen everyone talking about not holding the muskie vertically but come on a fish that size its impossible to take it out of the net horizontly unless your in the water rather then in your boat, or your using a cradle. So now you have taken this huge fish out of the net vertically, walked it over to your livewell and then put it in a box where the fish may have at maximum 3 inches on either side of it. Use us as humans as an example, would you rather be in a net or in a coffin. The livewell itself I don't see as putting a huge amount of stress on the fish but getting that fish to the livewell will put stress on it anyway you look at it. Everyone that is ethical seems to talk about trying to do whats best for the fish and if that is the case why take that fish out of the net to put in the livewell? |
|
| |
|
Location: Twin Cities | You can't use the weight calculators on fish like that, the formula's don't take odd shaped fish into account. Let alone the fact that it was developed on dead fish...
A comment on another thread or site was to the effect also that a couple HUGE fish have been reported recently and the pictures were taken with the person sitting down with hte fish in their lap. Big fish like that aren't gonna get held up the same way as "the rest".
Edited by JRedig 12/6/2008 4:47 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 4053
Location: Land of the Musky | I thought an X-Ray was required on world record fish also? I may be wrong but I know the next world record bass has a $1 million price on its head and I bet Bass Pro will not give that out without a fish in hand... I may be wrong on the x-ray???? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2865
Location: Brookfield, WI | It's a no brainer.
I would keep it to assure my glory. When the verification requirements were met I would fillet it and donate the meat to a food pantry. It is not unusual for the diets of the less fortunate to be lacking in the mercury, pcbs, and other various chemicals that can be found in abundance in the tasty flesh of long lived predatory game fish.
I would not want a replica made. I'd much rather have a photo of me holding my world record expanded into one of those huge bigger than life posters. I fancy one laminated and hinged in several places, approximately 8' x 16', and permanently attached to my garage door. I like the idea of the elitist fly/trout fisherman across the street seeing it every day when he leaves his house, and again when he comes home.
Me rich and famous, the hungry provided with much needed chemicals and rare metals, and my snooty neighbor completely faced. Triple sweet!
I need to fish more next year and make this happen.
Kevin
How about that? A new Plan.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1270
| Speaking for myslef I would have kept that fish in an instant and offered no appologies. I would have had it mounted as I do not care for replicas. I realize that they are done great now but to me they are nothing more than fake, an artist rendering if you will. If you like them that's fine but to me it's not what I want on my wall. I would prefer to have a good 8x10 photo on the wall.
For Dale to release it took a lot more will power than I have.
Jredig, You say that if the fish was killed all the genetics would be lost and that is just untrue. We can presume that this fish has spawned many times already in it's life nad those genes were passed on the first time it and everytime that is spawned. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'I would love to be in that position, but the fish would either be thumped, or returned with only a picture (that would never end up on the internet). '
He said as he posted that opinion...on the internet.  |
|
| |
|
| glory for a musky wr?are you serious? |
|
| |
|
| The IGFA is just an org that has its own rules & regs. The state dnr has jurisdiction, the IGFA cannot enforce laws, nor make them. If your that vain & just must have your name in the books, you could follow thier guidelines. You could have what you need to tie up a musky & wait out the officer to get to you to verify the catch ? There are options if you dont wanna kill it. You can have your cake & eat it too. As the system is set now, it is not very friendly to cpr anglers, but what really can be done ? Taking it upon yourself to be prepared for a monster is one thing, having it happen is another. Alot of fishing occurs in places that are pretty isolated & may not have cellular reception, so a radio, or sat phone is in order to communicate. Having the right phone #`s to call also. Knowing your location ? GPS. Know that your catch is legit. Nothing worse than crying wolf & looking like an ass. If your heart says dont kill it, then dont. There is a way. |
|
| |
