|
|
| Obviously this is a catch and release species, but is there ever a time you would keep a muskie? What if you had a record fish? Let's hear your opinion. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 55
| I'd never keep one. |
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | A 60 inch St Lawrence fish with a good girth has it's mouth and anus duct taped and is on it's way to a scale. ( If I was convinced it would put the O'Brien issue to rest )
Edited by horsehunter 3/9/2014 7:44 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 140
Location: Northern Illinois | Would probably have to keep a fish if it was state record class. Gotta say though,
after seeing the replica fish at the Milwaukee show, I was really shocked at how
great those look. Get some good pictures & a girth measurement & let em go. I
haven't come close to any records yet.....but there's always a chance. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | they'd all go back in ... |
|
| |
|
| This has been a question a few fishing partners and myself have been tossing around. We have no reason to keep a musky otherwise and respect the catch and release attitude and what it does for the sport.. So far this poll is right on par with our discussions... torn between never keeping a musky(unless cannot revive) and keeping if its a state record. Personally, I like replicas better as I believe they will last longer and look just as good when done by a pro.. but how would they get a blank made for a record class fish? I'd probably work with one of the bigger taxidermists..have a replica made for me and have them let the dnr take whatever samples and measurements from the real one then auction it off with proceeds going to a good cause or something.. On the other hand, I'd probably release regardless.. hard to say. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 310
Location: Lake St.Clair | Keep none!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 541
| haven't kept one yet but often wonder if I caught a real big tiger in a lake where there not stocked and if it is at that age where it isn't gonna live much longer as they only live to be around 12 I think. If its at its max age around there and it obvouisly isn't reproducing and its already in a regular musky lake then I dont see what good its putting back to the fishery then yah I might think about keeping it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1082
Location: Aurora | FishFinder87 - 3/9/2014 6:55 PM
Obviously this is a catch and release species, but is there ever a time you would keep a muskie? What if you had a record fish? Let's hear your opinion.
You need to add "If you were facing starvation and no other protein was available" |
|
| |
|
Posts: 35
| For those that would never keep a state record, what is your reasoning? Most, if not all, state record caliber fish are so old they probably only have 5 years at best left to live. Maybe another angler will catch it again, maybe not. I guess I just don't get it. They only live 20-25 yrs. It's gonna be dead soon anyway. Why not keep it?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 54
Location: Minnesota | If it was with out a doubt the record for the state and the fact I would be shaking so bad I wouldn't get good pics nor would be able to get the hooks out in a timely manner. The poor thing would have expired with all the pics, measurements, and the kisses I would have given it!!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 618
Location: Michigan | bcram555 - 3/9/2014 9:34 PM
For those that would never keep a state record, what is your reasoning? Most, if not all, state record caliber fish are so old they probably only have 5 years at best left to live. Maybe another angler will catch it again, maybe not. I guess I just don't get it. They only live 20-25 yrs. It's gonna be dead soon anyway. Why not keep it?
What is your reasoning for keeping it? And just because they are so big doesn't mean they are that old. The past couple Michigan giants haven't been that old at all and still would have been able to spawn for 5-10 years. Wouldn't you want those genes in the spawning pool for as long as you can?? Even if the fish spawn only once more it would be worth it in my opinion to let them go. Also, replicas look better and last longer than an actual mount so no need to kill the fish. There really isn't going to be a huge fame and fortune element into either; there will be some articles and videos about a new state record, but you're not going to be rolling in cash all of a sudden just because you caught a 50-60lb muskie. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 38
| I'm with Frank. The only fish I would consider keeping would be one I was pretty darn sure was THE FISH. A fish that when verified would end any debate about the WR. It would have value as a biological specimen and there is no mold that big.Then again if she got a little squirrely when I was holding her for a pic and made it over the side going away strong I know there would be no regrets. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 35
| The idea that letting it go will allow it to spawn and pass it's genes along for several more years is a good argument. I think it would be cool to be the state record holder, and for me, that would outweigh the idea of letting it go to spread it's genes a few more yrs. The spawning reason is the only logical one I could think of. I suppose another argument is that you want someone else to catch it and have that amazing experience. I'm just asking the question. I really want to know why people would release a 60-70 pounder! Is it out of respect for the fish? Or maybe you don't want to deal with the publicity it would bring? Just asking, no reason to get all bent out of shape. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2686
Location: Hayward, WI | I guess we never really know untill it happens, but I don't think I'd keep one unless I knew it was THE one, a 70 pounder. Maybe if I had one of mount worty size that went belly up I'd bring it home with me and have it mounted. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 618
Location: Michigan | bcram555 - 3/9/2014 10:08 PM
The idea that letting it go will allow it to spawn and pass it's genes along for several more years is a good argument. I think it would be cool to be the state record holder, and for me, that would outweigh the idea of letting it go to spread it's genes a few more yrs. The spawning reason is the only logical one I could think of. I suppose another argument is that you want someone else to catch it and have that amazing experience. I'm just asking the question. I really want to know why people would release a 60-70 pounder! Is it out of respect for the fish? Or maybe you don't want to deal with the publicity it would bring? Just asking, no reason to get all bent out of shape.
I hope my post didn't come off as bashing you as it wasn't meant to be at all. I can definitely see wanting to keep it and having the title of 'state record holder', but I would just rather have the fish live and get a replica. No offense, but I think it's more logical to let the animal go then to kill it for a title. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 216
| Yup out of respect for the fish and maybe my son, a friend or I might be able to catch it again and see this beast when it's even bigger.if it was a 60x32" giant that rolled over on its side upon release because maybe she is just a little too old and maybe a little battle worn from the fight maybe I might think about it. But she'd be in the water while I was thinking, and Probly begging my fishing partner, and if she took right off so be it. I'd Probly feel better if she did.Lax makes some beautiful replicas that look better than skin mounts especially over time. Some ppl just don't care about records or being in the public spotlight.My fishing bud has caught Lazarus sized fish that you'll never see pics of, and he'd Probly make me swim back to the boat launch with the world record if I decided to keep it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 572
| I only voted once, but I assume anyone voting to keep a state record would also keep a world record.
As for Missouri's state record, it is many years old, caught by a bass fisherman in a lake that isn't stocked with muskies. I'd like to see the record coming from a lake where muskies are stocked.
I guess recent state records in a state where muskies are stocked help say the muskie program is working and improving. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2754
Location: Mauston, Wisconsin | FishFinder87 - 3/9/2014 6:55 PM
Obviously this is a catch and release species, but is there ever a time you would keep a muskie? What if you had a record fish? Let's hear your opinion.
Not to be a naysayer, but you live in a delusional world if you believe this is catch & release only species. Even sasquatch is not a catch & release species to some folks! Its only catch & release on a very select venue! Record fish? Get a life, 30" fish are killed on a regular basis. Some other species fisherman kill every one they catch and put them back into the water as turtle or crawdad food........
What are you saving with a world record class fish? The species? Your ego? Post your world record C&R photo's on the internet & see what happens! I'll be first to say nice big fish, but you better have some irrefutable evidence.............
Bonk!
Al
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | You didnt have my answer listed. One over 70 pounds or it goes back. So Ill never keep one right? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32955
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Actually, it is not obvious Muskies are a catch and release species. That is encouraged, but currently I don't see many regulations requiring only C&R, and there are plenty of Muskies well under any record of any kind at all harvested every year. I like the trend to larger length limits, and hope it continues where appropriate, but NOT where it is not.
And Al's right, if one catches a 'record' and releases it, it's not a 'record', it's just another big fish released.
Now if we're discussing length only, and a C&R record that was bumped and witnessed, that's a different description of 'record'.
As for me, I'd let her go. Not for 'genetics' reasons, those who use that answer about releasing a single large fish need to study genetics more carefully. I'd let her go because of my personal C&R ethic, not reportable or to be explained to anyone else at all.
If someone else chooses to harvest and register a new record, I will celebrate the catch, accomplishment, and new record with ZERO reservations.
It's not my place to make that decision for anyone else, and there are World Records out there for a reason...to be broken.
If it's over 70 pounds, I'd probably drink too much beer that evening in celebration, but as Kingfisher said...
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 162
Location: Metro, MN | 100 inches or 100 pounds...maybe |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8863
| I can think of two instances where I'd keep a legal musky.
1. It died
2. I needed to eat
Personally, I couldn't see killing a fish just because it was state or even a world record. Even with a WR musky under my belt, I'd still just be some guy nobody has ever heard of. I know from experience that killing a fish to hang on the wall as some sort of accomplishment does not diminish the loss of knowing that the big SOB isn't out there anymore, and it would be if you had let it go instead of killing it. I'd get more enjoyment releasing it and knowing that next year it might be bigger, that some day I might see it again, that someone else might encounter it and it may become the stuff of legend.
That all goes out the window if I need to eat. If it's made out of food? It's food. It's the same agreement I have with every other animal on the planet, even the dog. Most of them would eat me if it came right down to it, and turnabout is fair play. Might not be the happiest meal of my life, but if it was musky or nothing, we'd be eating musky sandwich. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 455
| Some states have records that are almost as questionable as the Louis spray record. For that reason I would kill a state record just to give us a fish that's proven legit. We have no reproduction and since I have donated lots of time and money over 20 years improving the fishery I would not feel bad about keeping a record. True or Tiger. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 216
| I don't like this point of "I put some much time and money into this sport so I don't care someone owes me something and I've paid enough to kill my fish already".Whatever get out then sell all your #*#* on the bst forum get your money back and nobody owes you anything especially that fish you killed.just the way I see it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2389
Location: Chisholm, MN | I'd be scared of being crucified if I kept a state record fish! They all go back  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1425
Location: St. Lawrence River | If I had a nice fish that was flat out dead in the water, tits up, no doubt about it, I would keep it.. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1220
| I have not kept a musky since 1976, but I'd keep a 70 pounder....cept I don't believe they get that big! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 909
Location: South-Central VA | I don't think I'd ever keep one. The only exception would be if it died on me.
jeremy |
|
| |
|
Posts: 304
Location: Lino Lakes, MN | Back in the day a 52" fish was almost at the end of it's life cycle.............
Now a 57" fish is at the end of its life cycle.......
An honest to goodness no doubter for a MN or World Record would put some crap to rest.
However I would probably let her go.
Good topic- its been a long winter here in MN
Steve |
|
| |
