|
|
| I know in the past we have seen discussions on here about the actually size a musky is able to grow to. I seem to remember there being a fair number of people thinking that there is no way a musky could get to the size of the current "world record." I personally think they can get that big, and perhaps quite a bit bigger. Just curious what opinions have changed in light of Rich's Catch out east. The fish was a potential world record, and if it wasn't quite there yet it definitely could potentially be. I know that Rich mentioned in one of his interviews that this fish had abnormally large everything, ranging from the head to the fins. I know that Rich has caught fight up to 59 inches previously so in my opinion to say that everything on this fish was larger than it should be, says that maybe this was a young fish that still had potential. Hopefully we havent seen the last of this fish. Sure like to see it appear in my net in two or three years.
As I said before just curious if people's opinions have changed as to how large these fish can really get given prime conditions (large water, bait fish. ect).
Jim |
|
| |
|
Posts: 992
| it depends on the water where they are...you look at places like green bay and the st larry and they have a couple things in common...huge area, lots of food, but COOLER water. They grow slower in the cooler water but with the ability to grow larger than other places. A lot of the inland lakes they tend to show a general trend of fish "burning out" around the 50 inch range (thats not to say these inland lakes cant produce behemoths) and that could be a result of several things like pressured systems and stocking-the stocking can really mess up the gene pool of a system with native fish and stocked fish. But back to your question I definitely think there are bigger ones in those systems or any of the systems tied to the great lakes but those are ooooold fish probably right around there max age limit but i would assume there are others that have survived that long as well and I would bet there are fish in the upper 60-possibly even 70" range |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1530
| having chased slimey fish since 1956 here on st cllair, its definatly habitat, forage and natural fish. cpr has proven time and again for us to achieve big fish. while st clair wont achieve a record, 50lbs will be broken.
not bad for a lake that was written off in the 1960,s. |
|
| |
|
| BIG |
|
| |
|
Posts: 321
| I would guess around 60" with all the anglers out there and resources it would seem we are hitting the top range. Obviously they could be fatter and skinnier ones, but not sure they get much longer. H |
|
| |
|
Location: Hayward WI | Here's a rehash from years past of how this will go..............
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=59... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 697
Location: Minnetonka | This big.
Attachments
----------------
 obrien.jpg (168KB - 852 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 531
Location: Hugo, MN | I tend to believe that under normal circumstances you'll see fish top out around 60" or so. I think they could grow quite a bit larger in a controlled setting, but all fisheries experience ups and downs as it relates to forage populations, water temp and quality, etc., making it difficult to grow maximally every year of a fish's life. Keep in mind that a fish's growth is largely determined by its environment. I think we're seeing the biggest fish Mother Nature has to offer in places like the St. Lawrence.
Having said that, I think there can absolutely be fish that defy our beliefs. As George Wahl once told me, "There are guys like me, and then there are guys like Shaquille O'Neal." |
|
| |
|
| How big can a human being get? 7'2"? Sure. But how many 7 footers are there? The giants of any species are not the norm--they are way beyond the norm, and rare. It's not like all muskies keep growing until they reach 50". Any fish of more than 48" is rare. |
|
| |
|
| The fact is we can find 7'2" human beings walking around today but there is currently no proof that 60" muskies even exist. Nobody should be claiming that they are capable of reaching lengths of 60" and beyond or weights of 60 lbs. or more unless there were examples proven to be of these lengths and weights. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 910
Location: South-Central VA | Just like growing whitetails it takes age, food, and genetics. And, just like whitetails, you're bound to have a few that buck the local trends (wherever that may be) and grow exceptionally large for the area. How big can they get? Well, how big can whitetails get? How big can a largemouth grow? I'm not sure you're asking something that can be answered outside of an opinion. Obviously they can't grow infinitely larger but I'm sure we'll continue to see bigger fish caught as the years go by.
jeremy |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2089
| Much bigger than people think and bigger than has ever been caught. Freaks. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1767
Location: Lake Country, Wisconsin | I think it's time to admit that as much as we love our Musky fishing here in the Midwest and up through Canada that the real big monsters reside out East and seemingly are in a different class of size potential.... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 572
Location: Maplewood, MN | Guest - 12/16/2011 12:34 PM
The fact is we can find 7'2" human beings walking around today but there is currently no proof that 60" muskies even exist. Nobody should be claiming that they are capable of reaching lengths of 60" and beyond or weights of 60 lbs. or more unless there were examples proven to be of these lengths and weights.
a 60"er was found floating dead this summer with a big carp in his mouth on a central MN lake... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1086
| Guest - 12/16/2011 12:34 PM
The fact is we can find 7'2" human beings walking around today but there is currently no proof that 60" muskies even exist. Nobody should be claiming that they are capable of reaching lengths of 60" and beyond or weights of 60 lbs. or more unless there were examples proven to be of these lengths and weights.
Classic. The closed and narrow minded speaketh from behindeth thy keyboard...
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=69... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1753
Location: Mt. Zion, IL | Guest - 12/16/2011 12:34 PM
The fact is we can find 7'2" human beings walking around today but there is currently no proof that 60" muskies even exist. Nobody should be claiming that they are capable of reaching lengths of 60" and beyond or weights of 60 lbs. or more unless there were examples proven to be of these lengths and weights.
maybe you should check out Signman Charter's website. 60"x29.5". He has some real hogs on there. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1086
| There's an echo in here....  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 177
| I think we are just starting to see how big they really can get with cpr.25 years ago those 45-50 inch fish had there pictures taken at the dock.you never heard of 55-60 inch fish. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1425
Location: St. Lawrence River | 97in 84lb. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Dr. Casselman's presentation at the last Muskie Symposium was pretty specific what upper confidence limits were on a host of waters. If memory serves me, he said the St Lawrence offered the highest at near 70 pounds. I think we have the numbers here somewhere.
Darned few 60" fish have been caught, and even fewer over that mark by even a fraction of an inch. Anything at or a bit over that mark with exceptional girth would be as big as anything caught in the last 50 years. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2089
| I think the biggest fish are the "ocean run" variety from out East. I'd go there..........trollin', trollin', trollin'........ |
|
| |
|
| "Dr. Casselman's presentation at the last Muskie Symposium was pretty specific what upper confidence limits were on a host of waters. If memory serves me, he said the St Lawrence offered the highest at near 70 pounds. I think we have the numbers here somewhere.
Darned few 60" fish have been caught, and even fewer over that mark by even a fraction of an inch. Anything at or a bit over that mark with exceptional girth would be as big as anything caught in the last 50 years."
Dr. Casselman's presentation was nothing more than speculation.
There is currently no proof of a 60" or larger muskie being found or taken EVER.
The hoaxes from 50 years ago should be completely dismissed.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 440
| Seems to me someone out East maybe on the Ottawa released a 62.25". |
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | Measurement of released fish can be unintentionaly iffy. Any fish over 54 inches is a great accomplishment. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1286
Location: Stevens Point, Wi. | Just like the eternal question; how many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Roll Pop?, we may never know! |
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | In the publication Managing Muskies ( American Fisheries Society Special Publication #15) Dr. John Cassleman states that " the est. max. ultimate length is 173 cm ( 68 inches ) However this is a rather artificial projection because it is based on estimations from several individuals from different populations growing at the maximum rate for the lifespan of the species. It is unlikely that any one fish could maintain this excessively rapid growth rate for its entire life. Nevertheless, this theoretical ultimate length is actually 5.6% longer than the current world weight record."
I have growth charts fo various waterbodies sent to me years ago by Dr Cassleman If I can locate a computer with a floppy drive and a usb port I will post them tomorrow.
Edited by horsehunter 12/17/2011 5:56 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 519
Location: Bloomington, IL | Really 'Guest'??
Click on this one from the Larry:
http://1000islandsfishing.com/muskie.htm
And well, enough said. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/statconf.html
This is just so you can see the complexity of the concept.
A bit more than pure speculation. Unless you are a scientist and have read the supporting documents and have a published opposing position, you are just spouting.
The Chip doesn't even come close, so that one is out.
The question is not what past fish actually weighed, the question is, as posed, what the upper confidence limit is, or spoken more simply, what maximum size do the top scientists on this planet on that subject think a muskie might grow.
horsehead, somewhere on the research board those are published.
Wow, what an original idea...the WR might not be real. Color me amazed.
Winternet. |
|
| |
|
| "Really 'Guest'??
Click on this one from the Larry:
http://1000islandsfishing.com/muskie.htm
And well, enough said."
Enough said? All I see is a large muskie being held a considerable distance in front of the angler which makes the fish appear larger than it actually is. There is absolutely no proof this fish is 60". Furthermore, I'd like to see this same angler hold a 60 lb. bag of sand that far out from his body. |
|
| |
|
| "A bit more than pure speculation. Unless you are a scientist and have read the supporting documents and have a published opposing position, you are just spouting.
The Chip doesn't even come close, so that one is out.
The question is not what past fish actually weighed, the question is, as posed, what the upper confidence limit is, or spoken more simply, what maximum size do the top scientists on this planet on that subject think a muskie might grow."
A person does not have to be a scientist and have a published opposing position to have a valid arguement. My position is supported by the FACT that there is no existing proof that these fish can attain these sizes.
The position taken by the top scientists of how big the fish MIGHT grow has no proven examples to support it. If anyone is spouting it's the scientists! The supporting documents for the scientists beliefs are not nearly as powerful as the fact that there are no proven examples to support the scientists theory. |
|
| |
