|
|
| Am I the only one who is concerned about the rash of dead "record" fish in MN in the past two summers? We had two on Mille Lacs, one on White Bear and one on Miltona last year. All killed by anglers who thought they had some sort of record. I know the Miltona fish in the previous thread was not intentionally killed, but wow was that some horrible reporting! That fish was not a record in any sense of the word. The writer clearly insinuates, the fish would have been if not for the gov't shutdown. Last year the Star Tribune incorrectly reported, in a piece regarding the WBL fish, that the state record was 54" instead of 54 lbs. I am perfectly fine with an angler keeping a trophy size fish and, of course, there is always going to be some hooking mortality, but it seems like, with all the talk of record size fish in MN, more claims of record catches are popping up. There is not now, nor was there ever, a MN record for length. I'm not sure why we have to keep hearing about how "the fish was one inch longer than the current record." I know that I have some responsibility in the "Record Quest" but these are examples of irresponsible journalism by both the Star Tribune and The Grand Forks Herald. Let's get the word out about how records are kept and awarded. An article like the one in the Grand Forks Herald is misleading and could result in the needless death of more non-record giant fish. I have sent emails to both papers and both responded quickly. We can get this corrected if we keep an eye out and make a little noise.
Edited by Ben Olsen 7/13/2011 11:09 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 40
| Ben, I totally agree with you. Everyone thinks that a mid 50 inch summer fish is a record! Then they send it to the paper's and they publish it as a new state record if.... BTW every year the Tribune post multiple stories of multiple species being new state records! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 793
Location: Ames, Iowa | I think a big part of the problem is that more fisherman, given the success of state muskie programs and C and R- which naturally lead to big fish publicity- are targeting muskies without the proper equipment and experience. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 255
| Send the publication the verified correct information and ask that they read it and they will be educated for next time. Or they can write an update to the previous story. Education is a strong tool. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 994
Location: Minnesota: where it's tough to be a sportsfan! | I totally agree with this post. What Ben is saying if there is going to be a change of thought process' for the news media and thus the public we will have to carry this ball to the end zone. There are enough floaters in our waters w/o having fish needlessly slain because of a mistaken identity. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2089
| Bennie -O, right on Brotha. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 437
| I read the recent GF Herald article about the big fish "waiting record certification". For what? In no stretch did that fish meet any of the criteria of a record in MN. There are no length records for released fish, and this fish wasnt released. It was weighed at 50 or so pounds on an uncertified scale, sorry folks, they dont gain weight when they reach a certified one. So what in the world is the record? Dont get me wrong, its a tremendous fish and happy for the guy who caught it, but come on. I am not sure if the angler was pimping this as some sort of record or if it was the news publication so I am not going to flame the guy who caught it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 247
Location: Uxbridge Ontario | I personally have never been a big fan of the MNR policies stating that the fish must be killed in order to validate the record. Im not exactly sure how a certified record could be made without killing the fish either, as muskies are not the "catch and hold onto for extended periods of time" kind. I know when the Sturgeon records are looked into (at least live release) guy literally tie them off to a dock and wait for an MNR official to come take measurements and weight. This can take hours, but to my knowledge sturgeon are hardy enough to endure the pen treatment.
But all comments aside, a fish "these days" needs to be notably larger than and past record fish. The weight of old time record vs size/ girth IMO dont seem to measure up to new age fish weights vs size/girth. If you are even close to the same measurements as the record, it will not be as heavy. I'm just saying. |
|
| |
|
| StarTribune is atrocious when it comes to its reporting and editing. They laid off most of their editors a long time ago...not that it was stellar before that. |
|
| |
|
| You're definitely not the only one concerned Ben, I think we're seeing this boom in muskie fishing taking it's toll on the muskies themselves. I'm in season 23 of musky angling, I've seen a big shift in "the angler" and the way things are on the water and in peoples heads. Don't blame yourself for the record quest at all, you have taught those willing to listen, those willing to care for the fishery the way you do, all they need to know but it takes them to be able to apply it on the water. There are those of us who wouldn't keep the state record, what % of us that is who knows, but not every musky angler especially an old toot like me needs the limelight or a pat on the back, I used to get those after bailing hay for 14 hours a day. If the record drives you to fish them well have it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1901
Location: MN | I had posted on the Sallie fish the same sentiments regarding the poor reporting and total lack of understanding of what the record really is, but I would additionally pin that cluelessness not only on the papers/reporters, but on certain anglers themselves. Here was a guy who had fished for muskies "all his life" and had already mounted 3 fish, and he doesn't even know what he's talking about. Education is key. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 313
Location: Bemidji, Lake Vermilion | + 1 Ben. |
|
| |
|
| Kind of like this guy. He speared two monsters this last winter and thought both should be state records. Its pretty easy to see that fish isn't 53lbs by the pic.
http://www.petoskeynews.com/sports/null-fish-tale-brutus-man-lands-... |
|
| |
|
| it was weighted at 53 pounds maybe not on a certified scale but i hardly see ur case in disproving the guy |
|
| |
|
| Guest - 7/13/2011 6:14 PM
it was weighted at 53 pounds maybe not on a certified scale but i hardly see ur case in disproving the guy
Obviously we will never know for sure, but the picture combined with the length and girth measurements don't add up at all. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 697
Location: Minnetonka | Amen Mr. Olsen. The ill-informed find their way into almost everything, and some people just need an end to their means, I guess. It's really unfortunate that their "ends" have fallen short of the record in all cases. Please stop bonking 40 lb MN muskies. 
Edited by Hammskie 7/14/2011 10:01 AM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Sawyer County, WI |
Who "certifies" fish in MN when the state government is shut down ? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 264
| Ben Olsen - 7/13/2011 11:07 AM
Am I the only one who is concerned about the rash of dead "record" fish in MN in the past two summers? We had two on Mille Lacs, one on White Bear and one on Miltona last year. All killed by anglers who thought they had some sort of record. I know the Miltona fish in the previous thread was not intentionally killed, but wow was that some horrible reporting! That fish was not a record in any sense of the word. The writer clearly insinuates, the fish would have been if not for the gov't shutdown. Last year the Star Tribune incorrectly reported, in a piece regarding the WBL fish, that the state record was 54" instead of 54 lbs. I am perfectly fine with an angler keeping a trophy size fish and, of course, there is always going to be some hooking mortality, but it seems like, with all the talk of record size fish in MN, more claims of record catches are popping up. There is not now, nor was there ever, a MN record for length. I'm not sure why we have to keep hearing about how "the fish was one inch longer than the current record." I know that I have some responsibility in the "Record Quest" but these are examples of irresponsible journalism by both the Star Tribune and The Grand Forks Herald. Let's get the word out about how records are kept and awarded. An article like the one in the Grand Forks Herald is misleading and could result in the needless death of more non-record giant fish. I have sent emails to both papers and both responded quickly. We can get this corrected if we keep an eye out and make a little noise.
Ben, I looked for the star tribune article on the WBL fish, and found it does say 54 lbs, not inches...is this the one your talking about?
http://www.startribune.com/sports/outdoors/100942674.html |
|
| |
|
| 619-No, that story is in response to the original write-up.(may have been online) The story had a pic of the fish and, I believe, it was written by a woman. It said that the 53" caught on WBL was one inch short of the 54" state record. She did, however, note that the actual record had an unusually large girth(paraphrase). P.S. The non-record fish from Sallie has continued to get press. Both the Star Tribune and WCCO TV news covered the story from a similarly flawed perspective. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 18
| Why would the press change the way they report. Sensationalism sells! |
|
| |
|
| The St. Paul Pioneer Press has also jumped on the B.S. bandwagon. The Sallie fish is now somwhere in the 54.5 to 55lb. range. That fish just keeps adding weight. Funny stuff for sure. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | I clicked on here thinking it was a football thread ... sorry. Just in-case there is record confusion, there are Zero Superbowl Championships in Minnesota. |
|
| |
|
| After reading the story on the Sallie fish I have now come to the conclusion that a number of us have released the Minnesota state record, a few of us several times and we just didn't have the smarts to thump it at tell all the papers the story.  |
|
| |
|
| Guest - 7/15/2011 7:41 AM The St. Paul Pioneer Press has also jumped on the B.S. bandwagon. The Sallie fish is now somwhere in the 54.5 to 55lb. range. That fish just keeps adding weight. Funny stuff for sure. a couple pounds shy? nothing a throat full of water hose wouldn't cure...  and Sled...it's not nice to pick on Grimace. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 203
Location: Alexandria, Minnesota | I think we should all make a trip to lake Sallie to track this kid down. We should bring a Knipex, Long Pliers, Jaw Spreaders, Extra Hooks, a Frabill and Muskies Inc membership for the kid, so maybe someday he will realize that keeping 1 fish in your lifetime might be O.K. but to be 22 years old and now have 5 dead fish on your wall is just a slap into to face to all of us that have practiced CPR for all of these years. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 264
| Dave Williamson - 7/15/2011 5:46 PM
I think we should all make a trip to lake Sallie to track this kid down. We should bring a Knipex, Long Pliers, Jaw Spreaders, Extra Hooks, a Frabill and Muskies Inc membership for the kid, so maybe someday he will realize that keeping 1 fish in your lifetime might be O.K. but to be 22 years old and now have 5 dead fish on your wall is just a slap into to face to all of us that have practiced CPR for all of these years.
http://blogs.twincities.com/outdoors/2011/07/was-lake-sallie-muskie...
ya this kid had no clue how to release that fish, if he even wanted too... |
|
| |
|
| They interviewed this kid on the radio and he said as soon as he caught it he rushed it to the dnr office which is basically on the lake but he does not mention that in the story above. I'm confused as to shy this story keeps changing everytime I hear it. |
|
| |
|
| Now you know how those of us who live/fish in the Lower Bay of Green feel. If we had a size limit to protect this caliber of fish, we'd still have some. You've joined the ranks of places people come to "break the record" and/or "get one for the wall."
Welcome to the club. Let us know when 2 large kept fish on a lake turns into dozens..... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32944
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Glass houses, gentlemen.
We all learned conservation from someone, hope this angler learns it from us. I'm pretty sure a baseball bat isn't the best delivery tool. |
|
| |
|
| "The writer clearly insinuates, the fish would have been <a record> if not for the gov't shutdown."
Just more proof we can get by with less government. |
|
| |
