|
|
| ??  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 572
Location: Maplewood, MN | not trying to be a smart*** but what is the max size a human can grow? its the same principal, we don't know. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 29
| I wish I could answer that question |
|
| |
|
Posts: 443
Location: Duluth, MN | 69lb 15oz |
|
| |
|
Posts: 335
Location: Minnesota | 72 inches is the longest they can possibly grow - unless they are living near a nuclear power plant, then all bets are off. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | The maximum size of a particular Muskie will vary depending on many factors including but not limited to genetics, forage base, and fishing pressure. Many lakes cannot produce large Muskies simply because the genetics and/or forage is not there. With other bodies of water, the fish may be able to reach the maximum size potential - whatever that is.
The fact is the maximum potential size is unknown. All we know is the largest Muskies ever caught and/or found and many of those fish are disputed. The largest undisputed Muskies are in the low to mid 60 lb range and low 60 inch range. Beyond that, no one knows. There are many educated "guesses", but that is it. Fact is, your guess is probably as good as anyone elses.
Do +70 lb Muskies actually exist? Maybe, but we really don't know. While there is no evidence to prove they do, there is also no evidence to prove they don't. You can't prove something that has not ever been found or prove a negative.
In my opinion, the many unknowns about Muskies is part of what makes Muskie fishing so much fun. What the largest size Muskie is/could be is one of many unknowns. Just buying a lure is an unknown because you never know if it will work on your lake. There are no sure-fire fishing trips, techniques, or tackle. Its all a guessing game to some extent. But all that makes it fun, eh? 
Good luck fishing.
Edited by Herb_b 6/21/2010 10:03 AM
|
|
| |
|
| The max obtainable size should always be the largest known size or weight. Nice reply Herb, but there I think it's pretty safe to say there is no dispute on the record fish from Hayward, based on sound research, they are 100% phony. That pretty much leaves us with the Canada 60s of O'Brian and Williams. Last I heard, the WRMA guys are still working to find the answer, should be interesting. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 123
| I doubt the largest muskie that ever lived was ever caught by an angler. There's no way to know how big the largest one ever was. I heard the DNR netted a 108 pound fish once, although I can't recall where. There's no way I would agree that the maximum obtainable size for any fish should be simply based on the largest one caught. The odds would be astronomical in my opinion. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | what is going to be the winning powerball lotery number for july 27th? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8773
| I don't think the biggest fish in the system typically hang around where we fish. I think they're out in the main lake basins, in deep water, feeding on whitefish or some forage that's more than twice the size of our lures. I think it's rare that anyone even gets a glimpse of the biggest 5% of the fish in any given system. You may get one chasing a walleye up from 30 feet every so often, but as far as seeing them follow baits or catching them using the methods we use? Not likely in my opinion. I believe 70# is possible. I'd believe a length in the mid 60" range is possible. But much over that? Until I see one myself, I call those "fish stories".
If you listen to to the "legends" of muskie fishing, most of them have had at least one encounter with a muskie that they are confident would go close to 60" and is well over 50#. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| Hmm, so far 4 bites. Maybe the school will come in and they'll really start snappin! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | Lens Creep,
I have also "heard" a lot of stories and I believe none of them. While talk is fun, it is also cheap.
Determining the largest possible Muskie is similar to determining the largest Great White shark. While the largest known White Sharks have reached about 23 ft, there have been reports of sightings as large as 30 ft. (I repeat reports, or just talk.) There are fossils that indicate that a pre-histroric shark very similar to the Great White may have approached 50 ft or more. Do these 50 ft giants still exist? Do +25 ft Great Whites exist? Maybe, but probably not. Here is a link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_white_shark
Now, imagine having one of those monsters swim up behind your Muskie bait. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8773
| The real answer:
It all depends on who you ask! |
|
| |
|
| 108lbs? How can anyone straight faced say something is almost twice as big as anything ever know and to exist? I think there's also mention of a 162lb musky too, we all need a bigger boats!
Seriously, all of our scientific and biological research indicates that these fish top out at around 60 pounds. This cannot be 100% disproven, but then again, how could you disprove something like that. The onus of proof that something exists falls on the shoulders of the people who make these these wild claims. Kind of like Bigfoot dude, we got the footprints, video and eyewitnesses, heck, that's even more evidence than a 70 pound musky is out there! |
|
| |
|
| It's interesting that in the 80s we all thought that there were about (guess) 30 60lbers and 70lbs obtainable. Now with Spray and Johnson gone I think we are down to 2 60s, and O'Brian's is pretty suspicious IMHO. When the dust settles we could be down to William's 61?lber. |
|
| |
|
| Lens Creep - 6/21/2010 11:24 AM
There's no way to know how big the largest one ever was. I heard the DNR netted a 108 pound fish once, although I can't recall where.
I thought Ramsell book debunked the 108 myth
Funky Chicken |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | At the MI Symposium in Indiana, Dr.Casselman said he felt a 70# fish could come from the St. Lawrence. Since he's the best of the best up that way, I'll go with his appraisal.
'Ontario waters hold some of the world's largest muskie. The provincial record is a 65-pound (29.5-kg) giant taken by Ken O'Brien of Toronto from Georgian Bay's Blackstone Harbour. It was only a few pounds smaller than the 67.5-pound (30.61 kg) world record from Wisconsin. Will Ontario produce an even larger fish?
Dr. John Casselman, a Ministry of Natural Resources researcher and a world authority on pike and muskie, says it's probable. His data show the waters that have the best chance of producing the next record. Casselman ages pike and muskie and determines their growth rate by examining cleithrums, bony structures just behind their gill-plates. There are several different types of muskie waters in the province, in which ultimate maximum fish size differs appreciably. Using his age and growth techniques, Casselman can predict the approximate maximum size for most of Ontario's muskie waters.
He suggests the next world record will be a female, at least 30 and perhaps 35 years of age, about 60 inches in length (152.4 cm), and will come from one of seven Ontario waters: the St. Lawrence River; Lake of the Woods; Wabigoon Lake; Eagle Lake; Lac Seul; Georgian Bay; or the Ottawa River. '
http://207.5.76.16/articles/default.cfm?ID=377 |
|
| |
|
Posts: 123
| I didn't say I believed the story of the 108lb fish, I was just stating it was out there and it looks like a few others here are aware of that story. There are other stories as well regarding fish that were speared, netted or found dead that may have been past the 70lb mark and had they been caught legitimately would have been declared the world record. That's why I don't feel that the current world record (whatever it is) was the largest muskie that has ever existed. I bet there have been and are 75lb fish out there somewhere. They may just be in areas fishermen aren't targetting, such as very deep water or lakes people can't get to. Fish records are broken every year, so how can someone say the current record for any fish species is as big as that species can ever get. That makes absolutely no sense, which was the point I was trying to make earlier. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | But that is still just an educated guess, maybe some wishful thinking and perhaps just a touch of Ontario promotion?  Dr. Casselman is an expert, but there are also a lot of experts who believe Big Foot exists and how many Big Foots have been found?
Even if a 70 lb Muskie exists, someone will have to find it, get it to eat, land it, and then get it to a certified scale before it dries out and loses to much weight. The odds of that happening are not very high.
The way I look at it, Muskies have been around a long time, people have been fishing for them for quite a while and there still are no 70 lb Muskies to show for it. Not caught, not washed up on shore, not hit by a boat, not killed when blasting the St. Lawrence Seaway, not at all. There is still no proof that a 70 lb Muskie ever existed. None. Zip. Nodda.
A new WR is a nice thought and fun to think and talk about. Its always fun to dream though and who knows, maybe someday when one of us least expects it, a WR will jump right in the boat with us.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Dr. Casselman is a scientist, and isn't much interested in fairy tales. He's talking about upper confidence limits, and isn't speculating when or IF one will be caught. There's no other science to refer to I can locate, so there...
It is. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 123
| "There is still no proof that a 70 lb Muskie ever existed. None. Zip. Nodda." Exactly. But does that prove that the current record was the largest muskie that has ever swam? Nope. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2024
| Herb_b - 6/21/2010 5:30 PM
But that is still just an educated guess, maybe some wishful thinking and perhaps just a touch of Ontario promotion? Dr. Casselman is an expert, but there are also a lot of experts who believe Big Foot exists and how many Big Foots have been found?
With some 465 samples used to make his determinations, I'll say Dr. Casselman's "educated guess" is quite educated. His has much more merit than anyone else's, in my opinion. As for the Ontario promotion part, if you truly believe MN or WI or wherever has the potential to kick out world record class fish, then start sending cleithrums to Dr. Casselman. Muskies Canada has helped greatly in providing the cleithrum, with apparently fewer samples coming from the States. He can't make a science-based conclusion without the evidence, and the evidence points strongly to the giants that roam the St. Lawrence. You can remove them from dead fish or talk to your local taxidermist (http://projectnoblebeast.blogspot.com/2009/10/cleithrum-removal.html; http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/LetsFish/2ColumnSubPage/STEL02...).
For those interested, here's the abstract to Dr. Casselman's paper that discusses ultimate length: http://afsjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1577/1548-8675(1999)019%3C0271:GAULOM%3E2.0.CO%3B2 |
|
| |
|
| Yeah I definitely agree that musky have been around for a longggg time. I don't agree with the fact that people have been fishing for them more than a tiny percentage of that time. Of that tiny percentage of time, it is even a smaller portion that people have been measuring and keeping records of the fish caught.
Think about it, we've probably explored between 3-5% of the worlds oceans. Granted that lakes don't make up even a fraction of the water that oceans do, and I don't have an exact percntage, there is still an enormous amount of water that has never been examined. I don't know how people can think that there might not be a 70 or 80 lb musky in these waters.
As people have said these fish probably inhabit water that few humans will ever have access too. Whose to say there are not giant fish that follow schools of trout or salmon around in the great lakes? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 433
Location: Cedarburg, Wisconsin | Certainly Wisconsin can grow a new world record. The waters of Green Bay have just recently been stocked and should be near their maximum size potential right now. Everything I've ever read about fish indicates that the first few generations of a relatively newly stocked water have almost an unlimited growth potential compared to waters where the population is old and established. Now all someone needs to do is be in the right place at the right time and be lucky beyond belief.
Scientific evaluation of known samples will predict with certainty the limits of the average known fish. It cannot predict the freaks that can occur in any water at any time. All it takes is one genetic freak to be created and left alone long enough and the world record will fall, just a matter of time. Scientific results are usually based on the 96% certainty principle, meaning the data must yield results that can be repeated 96 times out of 100 to be valid. So that leaves 4% of the time something unexpected can happen. Not much of a chance for the creation of a super fish, but enough to allow it to happen. It's better odds than winning the lottery.
Just as certain is the fact that as soon as the next record is caught it will also be discredited. Someone will know something that will disprove the catch. Someone will not like the picture. Someone else will know a friend who talked to a person that had a brother that saw the fish and it wasn't that big. Somebody will say it was bought or that it was found floating in the lake and not caught with a rod and reel. Remember, muskies can't get that big because I haven't caught one! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1220
| You know, I have tried to listen and read carefully to the stuff Tom Gelb has said and written about big fish. One of the things I have taken note of is his idea that when a really big fish is caught, it is the VERY first time it was EVER caught. If that's true, and you pair that fact with the fact that very few guys (probably nobody) fully employs the techniques that Tom uses to catch the monsters that he catches, well...then I believe there (just might) could be a 70 pounder somewhere. Unfortunately, they probably can't get that big, and we are all chasing after a record that does not deserve to be where it is listed. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if it turned out that one of Tom's fish is the real record. Marty Forman |
|
| |
|
| As impressive as the man and his accomplishments are, I don't know that Tom Gelb's fish is big enough to be the WR. However, it wouldn't surprise me if Martin Williamson "captured" the real WR on the last day of the season with about 5lbs of previous meals still in its stomach. While you guys speculate about the possibility of 70lbs, you should also be open to the very real possibility that the maximum empty weight that has been caught so far is between 55-60lbs. Although I greatly respect Dr. Casselman's opinion, I would venture to guess that he included the current records as part of his database. After all Steve, why wouldn't he? IMHO, I don't think men of science should be speculating, even with 96% accuracy. It's also my understanding that Dr. Cassleman's opinion is that the current records should be left alone. With all due respect, this position seems curious for a man of science. it's also my understanding that he thinks the currently recognized WRs are "laughable".
Interesting subject!
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 221
Location: Detroint Lakes, MN |
I don't for one second believe in the WI records, but to assume that a 70 lb fish hasn't or doesn't exist because those are false really doesn't make any sense.
Dr. Casselman's data is based on known fish, not records that he didn't have a chance to examine. His findings are widely accepted among the world's top fisheries biologists and to compare his opinion to that of someone who believes in bigfoot shows a total lack of understanding of science.
If men of science didn't "speculate" using statistics and probabilities then science wouldn't exist.
It makes no sense not to assume that the maximum size a muskie can reach isn't going to be at least somewhat significantly greater than what we have seen in the past,which is right around 60 lbs. With several fish reaching that mark how can anyone think that 70 lbs is unobtainable?
JS
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | John,
I, for one, would love to see a +70 lb Muskie caught, verified, and be made the new world record. And I would be very happy if you caught that fish. But not Steve W. He fishes way to much.
I am not one to believe in something until it happens or at least there is evidence that it could. And there is absolutely no evidence that 70 lb Muskies exist today, ever have, or ever will. There is nothing but speculation that would ever indicate that is possible.
So, put me down as one who does not believe 70 lb Muskies are attainable. However, I hope that a 70 lb Muskie does get caught some day. I truly do. But I just don't believe it will ever happen. For me there is "hope", but no "belief" - if that makes sense?
Now, what would be really funny is if, having publicly stated that, the Good Lord in heaven looked down and allowed me to catch the first 70 lb Muskie. (After all, that is what it would take for me to catch a fish like that.) I would never live it down.
Good luck all. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'Although I greatly respect Dr. Casselman's opinion, I would venture to guess that he included the current records as part of his database. After all Steve, why wouldn't he? '
The current World record is from Hayward. I don't see that water listed in his WR water bodies. |
|
| |
|
| John, I think part of our understanding is that 70lbs has been attainable because of the bogus records of yesteryear. Without a doubt 70lbs has been ingrained into our beliefs ever since we could cast a bucktail and it's hard to let go of that number, at least it is for me anyway. With that said, let's assume (right or wrong) that Williamson's fish had about 5 pounds of forage in its stomach, thereby making the empty weight 56lbs. Seems reasonable that the handful of other legitimate super fish like his (over 55lbs) had something in their stomach too. Therefore, it seems just as likely to me that they top out at about 55 empty and the magical 70lb mark is unobtainable without a full stomach and loaded with spawn like Williamson.
BTW, I'm of the opinion that about 10lbs was added to O'Brien's fish based on what Larry Ramsell found when he inspected the fish, 54" - 56lbs. |
|
| |
