|
|
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Modern Day Muskellunge World Record EstablishedThe International Committee of the Modern Day Muskellunge World Record Program (MDMWRP) is pleased to announce the acceptance of a recent muskellunge catch as its officail world record. The capture of a 58-pound "muskie" by Joe Seeberger of Portage, Michigan on the 13th of October, 2012 from Lake Bellaire, Michigan has set the new modern standard for the World's muskie anglers. Read More.
(Seeberger muskie 2 Lash photo (Copy).JPG)
Attachments
----------------
 Seeberger muskie 2 Lash photo (Copy).JPG (115KB - 335 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I suggest you look at the lengthy discussion on the Research board about this and other fish that didn't stand up to close scutiny, please. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | If you have a poor understanding of the facts, we cannot have any sort of intelligent discussion. Please read the lengthy discussions regarding this matter and direct your questions to Larry |
|
| |
|
Location: The Yahara Chain | The Williamson fish was never weighed on a certified scale so it can't be considered. |
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | As Bytor said, it has to be certified. The fish must meet these requirements:
http://www.modernmuskierecords.org/index.php?option=com_content&vie...
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Thanks gents.
He still needs to read the entire discussion. I've asked he do so via PM as well. Hopefully this will accurately answer his questions.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1247
Location: On the Niagara River in Buffalo, NY | I'm glad the MDMWRP finally set a mark to start at,look for a bigger muskie coming the fall of 2013. |
|
| |
|
Location: Minneapolis | Will the IGFA ever follow suit? |
|
| |
|
| What a great fish, the catch story on the web site was nothing short of amazing.
|
|
| |
|
Location: Sawyer County, WI | From the press release:
"The length of time that had passed with no fish entered in our program, indicated the real rarity of the species attaining such size. Our committee voted unanimously to slightly reduce the minimum weight requirement and begin the authentication process of the 58-pound Seeberger muskie."
muskyhunter47 - 2/2/2013 2:21 PM
i thought the fish had to be 60 pounds .This fish is a true monster but 2 pounds shy did the ruls change? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 42
Location: Ontario | Why this fish when the Barbosa fish beats that by a 1/2 pnd? |
|
| |
|
| keithtrophyfishn.com - 2/2/2013 2:48 PM
Why this fish when the Barbosa fish beats that by a 1/2 pnd?
the Barbosa fish was never weighed on certified scales and was 58x28.5
the Seeberger fish was 59x29 |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Actually guys the Barbosa fish was not a confirmed "beat". BOTH fish were OVER 58-pounds, but the closest readable scale weight graduation (by rule) was 58-pounds for both, hence the 58 "even" weight for the Seeberger fish. Both fish were weighed on certified scales, but the Barbosa fish did not meet rules requirements as it was weighed on a hand scale in the boat. Since it was released, it could not comply with additional MDMWRP rules either.
Another great fish, and kudo's to Mr. Barbosa for releasing it.
Edited by Larry Ramsell 2/2/2013 4:55 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Oh, forgot...The Seeberger muskie is "officially" 58 x 29 and 2012 Barbosa's fish was 54 3/4 x 30.5.
It was the 1994 Barbosa fish that was 58 x 28.5 and wasn't weighed. |
|
| |
|
| I would guess the 60# rule is gone based on the idea, they really don't get that big. BR |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Ben, that's right. From the release:
'After seven years with no entries, several of our committee members got together and recommended that we consider the Seeberger fish, after the fact. The length of time that had passed with no fish entered in our program, indicated the real rarity of the species attaining such size.'
I voted yes. I believe I was correct to do so considering the fact that none had hit 60# in 7 years, and this one was really a special fish. I hope one does break 60# some day. |
|
| |
|
| Not trying to be a smartace, honestly wondering if you think any of Hsmernick's.fish recently would have pushed this mark. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | rulesdummy: There is no way we'll ever know...they weren't weighed. They were dandy big fish to be sure, but judging weight by formula just doesn't work, so, once again:
'If you want to say it, you have to weigh it" or "If you don't weigh it, you shouldn't say it". |
|
| |
|
Posts: 556
| I like it--glad there is now a mark for others to shoot for--AND maybe a better understanding of what it takes to prove the weight of the fish. I am sure others may have been larger-- either unofficially weighed or many that were just released---but there is a 58lber on the books that is LEGIT !!!! A --60 will definately come someday. |
|
| |
|
| Congrats to the committee it is good to have a bar to target and set rules.
Michigan once again has the world record. If Wisconsin does not like it, they can go out and cacth a 60 pounder and measure it according to the rules. I think we will see this fall next couple years as now people have a recognized target in the muskie community.
|
|
| |
|
Location: Sawyer County, WI | It is indeed a good thing to see a world record that can be believed. The "records" that came from my neck of the woods are clearly fairy tales.
I can't speak for all of "Wisconsin", but I don't give a rat's @$$ where the world record is caught. I highly doubt it will be in Wisconsin, and all the better. The last thing I'd want to see is the lakes I fish turn into the zoo that LSC and the other "hot bite" spots have turned into.
Enjoy your 15 minutes Michigan. It's only a matter of time before some Canadian walleye fisherman breaks the "record".
Todd Booth - 2/3/2013 12:34 PM
Congrats to the committee it is good to have a bar to target and set rules.
Michigan once again has the world record. If Wisconsin does not like it, they can go out and cacth a 60 pounder and measure it according to the rules. I think we will see this fall next couple years as now people have a recognized target in the muskie community.
Edited by dfkiii 2/3/2013 12:56 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Chain Gang - 2/3/2013 11:46 AM
So just because it hasn't happened in seven years means it can't? What Pete rose did at the plate was astonishing but by the looks if this ruling it will be forgotten and untrue because it hasnt happened in seven years.... Get real
I think that's the point for the modern record, its 100% real! I don't really see why anyone is puttin up a stink over reducing the requirement by 2 lbs. It's not like they asked someone to kill a musky,and anyone who keeps one that size was likely already predisposed do do so anyway. Is 60 lbs attainable? I think so,and that seems to be the million dollar question being asked lately. Pete Rose? I think a better comparison is that cheat Lance Armstrong. Now they are asking us to to forget those records the same as we should be forgetting Spray,Johnson,O'Brien,and all the those other BS records. I think a fish like Williamsons gives us hope for a real 60 and I like the fact that if and when it happens we have these guys to make sure it's the real McCoy this time. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1901
Location: MN | Or Rich Clarke |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Please watch the tone here everyone, I'd prefer to keep this one out of the Recycle Bin. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 12
| sprays fish will always be the record to me. unless someone catches one bigger than 69lb 11ounces. which is unlikely. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2324
Location: Chisholm, MN | I hope this will truly become the standard and is recognized by the entire musky community at least. I think that this record can be broken easily now if someone decides to keep the big musky that they were so fortunate to have caught.
Maybe I shouldn't "easily broken" but definitely do-able.
Edited by Kirby Budrow 2/3/2013 8:23 PM
|
|
| |
|
| There has never been a 60lb to date, plenty mid-50lb fish, but never a 60. It will be interesting to see how long it stands. BR |
|
| |
|
Location: The Yahara Chain | The Williamson fish appears to be a legit 61 pounder , they just didn't get it weighed on a certified scale.
Speculation on my part is that he didn't take the time to find a certified scale because he thought he was 4 pounds short of the now proven to be bogus Canadian record.
Thinking that every musky angler in Wisconsin cares where the record came from is ridicules. Most of us don't care.
A record fish could come out of Green Bay. |
|
| |
|
| Doesn't matter, this is the record! BEAT IT! |
|
| |
|
| Kirby Budrow - 2/3/2013 8:21 PM
I hope this will truly become the standard and is recognized by the entire musky community at least. I think that this record can be broken easily now if someone decides to keep the big musky that they were so fortunate to have caught.
Maybe I shouldn't "easily broken" but definitely do-able.
x2 I think it already is and Larry said it best in the catch story with a record we can rally around, this is as true as it gets. thanks to all who made it possible. |
|
| |
