|
|
Posts: 717
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | So, while admiring all the HUGE reproductions on the walls at the booths, I just started shaking my head. At Fittante's booth, I had 3 friends that were all picking up fish. A 56, a 57, and a 51.5"er. Now, my biggest is an even 50, and I remember it being a tank. A 51.5"er in my book is an awesome fish, and a 56 or 57 is the fish of a lifetime. But, seeing a 51.5"er next to all the other fish that were on the wall made it look way under "average". What is this world coming to when a 51.5"er doesn't look big anymore? It seems that everyone and their sister has caught a 50"er now. What a difference in the last 10 years of religious catch and release! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8781
| I said a few years back that 52 was the new 50 and you'd have thought I insulted everyones mother. I think 55 might be stretching it, but 50" is definitely not as rare as it was 5 or 10 years ago. I think the internet has a lot to do with it -- there's a lot more publicity surrounding big fish, and when someone catches one you pretty much hear about it right away.
There are more and bigger fish in more places than ever before. There are definitely a lot more opportunities at 50" fish than ever before, due to catch and release, genetic research, increased size limits, and the introduction of muskies (and muskie fishing) to places that nobody heard of 10 years ago.
That said? There are still a lot of places where a 50" fish is extremely rare, or even impossible. If you're fishing in those areas and ntrying to compare your results to what's coming out of of the top fisheries in North America? 50" won't mean much to you, even if the biggest fish that's ever come out of your area is 46" and 20#.
In my opinion, you HAVE TO consider where you are fishing when you judge how big your catches are. I go to Eagle Lake every year. My track record there would be a trmendous accomplishment down here on the Fox Chain. For Eagle Lake, however? Well, I've done okay, but it's nothing to brag about.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 717
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | Yes, I agree that there are not going to be 50's caught in every state. But I'm just looking at things in the whole muskie reagion as a whole. 10 yrs ago, it's my understanding that when a 50 was caught, it was blabbed across the nation. Now, it's an everyday occurance somewhere in the muskie world. |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | to some degree yes, there are some lakes a 50" doesn't turn too many heads....it's all relative to where you are fishing...but it use to be a 50" was a "fish of a lifetime" ....that number is quite a bit higher these days....with 55 being a realistic goal
Edited by BNelson 1/17/2011 7:18 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 348
| You guys are spoiled.and im jealous a 50s a monster where I fish.if I ever get the shot to take a trip to the big lakes out west anything 50 or bigger will go to lax.wish I had the water you boys have |
|
| |
|
Posts: 550
Location: So. Illinois | No. 50" is still a reasonable and easily identifiable benchmark. |
|
| |
|
Location: Grinnell, Iowa | The number of musky anglers who have yet to catch a 50 is still far greater than those who have been fortunate enough to land at least 1 over 50. And I am in the "yet to catch" catagory. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1245
Location: Madtown, WI | I think you almost need to qualify your fish these days...in MN...I think one could make a strong arguement that 55 is the new 50. In WI...fiddy is still a fiddy. If someone says they got a fiddy on vermillion...nice fish...someone says they got a fiddy out of say the fox chain, an Indy lake etc....I am more impressed as that is the tip of the pyramid....where not the case in MN. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 717
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | C.Painter - 1/17/2011 12:54 PM
I think you almost need to qualify your fish these days...in MN...I think one could make a strong arguement that 55 is the new 50. In WI...fiddy is still a fiddy. If someone says they got a fiddy on vermillion...nice fish...someone says they got a fiddy out of say the fox chain, an Indy lake etc....I am more impressed as that is the tip of the pyramid....where not the case in MN.
And what about Michigan? Just curious, as I live here. Would like to hear what someone outside MI would think... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4080
Location: Elko - Lake Vermilion | Yes.
A fifty five inch fish is the new fifty,... for me at least, but I spend 80% of my time muskie fishing Northern Minnesota and Big fish water....With that said I still almost wet my pants when I catch a 35" muskie during a Tournament......What a Blast !
Jerome |
|
| |
|
Posts: 366
| 55" is a highly unrealistic goal on +99% of the muskie water out there. If you spend all or most of your time on that less than 1%, then yes it is realistic to hope to catch a fish that big in one's fishing career. If otherwise, then no. This forum has enough +54" fish posted every season, that the "just 50" fish don't get the attention or respect they deserve.
Ryan
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 692
Location: Pelican Rapids, MN | A legit fifty will always turn my head no matter where. Not gonna lie though, had a few tanks the last few seasons that I thought were gonna stretch that tape to 55 and I was obviously disappointed when they "only" hit 53. It's a sad commentary on todays musky mentality - myself included. |
|
| |
|
| I don't think it's a sad commentary I think it's a positive commentary to the current state of musky fishing in MN. And kudo's to all the guys on the ground that did all the work getting lakes stocked and to the MN DNR for their fw and progressive size limits. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 909
| lehighmuskies - 1/17/2011 12:11 PM
You guys are spoiled.and im jealous a 50s a monster where I fish.if I ever get the shot to take a trip to the big lakes out west anything 50 or bigger will go to lax.wish I had the water you boys have
Amen Brother! If I had the water you guys have I could/would be dangerous!
Brian 
Edited by muskie24/7 1/18/2011 8:17 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 3147
| I would much rather catch a 50' tiger then a 55-56 purestrain we have many Tiger lakes here in the twin cities and thats my goal. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 291
Location: Minneapolis | Good goal, Happy. Ambitious, too. On the metro tiger lakes I fish, 40" is a rare critter. My goal is a 45" tiger, and I haven't come close. Biggest I've even seen was about 43". Any idea why they hit about 38" and disappear? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1080
| I would much rather up my annual boated muskie average from my current average of 30 fish per year (I fish very low/limited hours per year) to 50 fish per year vs. boating a single 50 inch muskie. That's not what is important to me. Granted...sure...I'm out there to catch the biggest fish possible within the lake systems I fish. But the lake systems I fish don't spit out too many 50+ inch fish per year. Sure. There's 50 inchers in our lakes...just not a ton of them. I'm still highly impressed and have a blast with FAT 43 inchers that I catch in the Fall.
I'd rather boat more fish, even if they're of a lesser length, than boat fewer fish that are of longer length.
I'd also rather boat more quality fish, even if they're of a lesser length but fatter/healthier, than boat a long, skinny, unhealthy lookin' 50 incher.
I just enjoy my extremely limited time on water. Boating fish is just an added bonus. It's still the thrill of the hunt for me.
|
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | I think it all depends on your perspective. IMHO, the main ingredient will always be the water you fish and some luck. Going back 20-30 years, 55 has definitely become the new 50 for me. I think that 50 is still the over-all gold standard... however, 55 is now my platinum standard. I certainly enjoy catching any muskie, but at this stage in my career, the real challenge is searching out a single giant. I have not caught 55"... I've seen them, hooked them and even touched them. But that elusive "double nickel" still eludes me personally. All things considered (the water I fish) this is pretty much a testimonial as to how rare a genuine 55" is.
Maybe this year... with a 30" girth please! |
|
| |
|
| I would have to disagree that a 55"er is highly unreaslistic on the majority of waters, at least here in MN.
I can name many lakes where people have caught and still catch 55" fish.
They are not unrealistic, they are one cast away.
I wouldn't hestitate to go out on a limb and say more muskie lakes in MN have a 55"er swimming in them right not than don't.
JS |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8781
| Guest - 1/18/2011 12:18 PM
I would have to disagree that a 55"er is highly unreaslistic on the majority of waters, at least here in MN.
I can name many lakes where people have caught and still catch 55" fish.
They are not unrealistic, they are one cast away.
I wouldn't hestitate to go out on a limb and say more muskie lakes in MN have a 55"er swimming in them right not than don't.
JS
If you take MN (and Ontario) out of the picture and look at muskie fishing as a whole? I'd venture to say that a 55" muskie is something you'd likely never encounter in a lifetime of fishing. |
|
| |
|
| no big fish in Green Bay EA? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3147
| rpike
dont know why other then its not because of lake size,,I know of 2- 49's caught from a 80 acre discontinued lake on the east side in the last couple years,my biggest tiger is 43 but lost about a 47 three years back. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8781
| Green Bay is only one fishery out of Hundreds in WI. And let's not forget that there are muskies in Alabama, Colorado Georgia, Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New York, North carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tenessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and probably a few other places. The truth is that there are only a dozen or so out of thousands of muskie fisheries that are capable of producing a 55" fish. Look at the state records for the states listed above. If you're out there in one of those states looking for a 55"er because that's what you see in magazines and on the internet? Well, good luck. |
|
| |
|
| a dozen EA? Wow. you really don't know much. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8781
| OR SO. Can you read?
Look at WI -- over 700 muskie lakes. How many of those produce 55" fish? One or two?
How many 55" fish are caught in IL every year?
What about Indiana?
Tenessee?
Even if you could name 50 fisheries where 55" muskies are caught every season, There are THOUSANDS of muskie fisheries across the nation that have not, do not, and will not ever grow muskies that are 55". I'd be willing to bet that out of every lake and river in North America that has a fishable population of muskies, less than 2% of those will EVER turn out a 55" fish. Again, look at WI. You've got a few lakes out of over 700 known muskie fisheries where a 55" fish might be caught. That's less than 1/2 of one percent.
Look at the lakes we all know -- Eagle lake for example. You know Andy Myers Lodge, right? I belive the biggest fish caught in camp all season last year was 53.5". And that's probably the most popular camp, on one of best muskie fisheries in the world!
Take off the MN blinders and look at muskie fishing as a whole. Outside of a handful of places, anybody who tells you that they are catching and seeing 55" fish is either full of crap or they broke the first 3" off their ruler.
Edited by esoxaddict 1/18/2011 1:47 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 366
| JS,
Well, I guess if you feel that going out and setting the goal to catch one of the absolute largest fish in any given lake or system is realistic then you are certainly on a whole other plane than I am. I’ve caught some fish in my life, which is obviously nothing compared to you or a few of the other guys regularly on here have, but I can only speak about my opinions on the subject. I can’t say I don’t hope to catch the biggest fish possible every time out, but it isn’t the goal that I’d set for myself or anyone else I know over a week, month, season, or even a lifetime. Unless disappointment is the ultimate goal. Now that this debate has spiraled into the realm of semantics over what defines a “goal” and what is “realistic” I’d say that if you want to make a list of all the muskie waters in the world and of those waters how many have produced multiple +54” in the past hundred years I’d say the percentages are still pretty slim. And, that has absolutely nothing to do with the other huge factor of the goal setting which is as much about the individual anglers as anything. The average muskie angler could fish Vermillion the rest of his life and still not put a muskie that size in the boat. And I don’t mean that he could move there and fish everyday of the season until he's too old to hold a rod, because he’d no longer be an average muskie angler. One of the things that brings me into debates like this is when guys often think that the little world they live in is an perfect represention of the entire world out there. While I'm faulty of doing that in plenty of the discussions on here as well, but sometimes not.
Ryan
|
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | Ryan, I live in WI and travel to MN about 20 days on the water per season..not a ton of time compared to those that live closer or in MN...I've had 4 at 54 or better in the boat the last 2 seasons...with shots at others 54s the seasons before..I'm not trying to brag but imo everytime I back the boat in to any of the 8 to 10 lakes I fish in MN each year my goal is to catch the biggest fish and as many of them as I can...55's are realistic...I know I had one going around and around on the figure 8 last year that I plan to put a hook into...or my boat partner  If I don't get a 54 or better on a trip am I dissapointed and feel like I failed? of course not..to say the odds are slim is a stretch..unless I'm just lucky....without confidence you might as well stay home.
Edited by BNelson 1/18/2011 1:37 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8781
| Brad, how many 55" fish have you encountered in WI? How many lakes have you fished in WI? And how many days do you think you've spent fishing on WI waters? |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | apples and oranges EA, I fish WI for 45 or better fish...I fish in MN for 50 or better fish...different set of goals and expectations based on where I'm fishing....there are at least a dozen lakes in MN with 55 inchers tho....
Edited by BNelson 1/18/2011 2:22 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8781
| So 55" is the new 50", but only in Minnesota. |
|
| |
