|
|
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | So if that fish was a 40, would you have told him they don't get much bigger in that water? Just the same question....
If you have that 50" goal, why are you fishing water where 40" is a big fish?
Same question, just a different perspective for the asking.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | sworrall - 2/12/2008 11:05 PM
So if that fish was a 40, would you have told him they don't get much bigger in that water? Just the same question....
If you have that 50" goal, why are you fishing water where 40" is a big fish?
Same question, just a different perspective for the asking.
Some days I scrap the 50 inch goal and want some action, just for the fun of it. I felt I could take my boss there and get him his first fish. I also enjoy days of just going out and catching fish, and I was reasonably confident we could go out and at least see a handfull of fish if not catch a few. We had action all day long.
Had he caught a 40 inch fish, yes I would have told him they dont get much bigger in this water, and that he caught a good fish. But the fish grow bigger, and I wouldnt suggest he rush out to get a replica of a 40 inch fish. I would have said, nice fish, great job. I would have been happy as can be. But I would have also told him, they get bigger and I want to put you on bigger. But I think getting him experience handling a musky was also valuable.
So if my goal is for a 50 inch fish I cant fish waters that have smaller fish just for the fun of fishing? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I asked a question that had an obvious answer. You fished that water because that is where you could take your boss, right? That is a large part of the entire point of this thread, you appreciate the fishery, and go there because it works for you. You understand the potential, accept it and even embrace that potential, figured out that water and are able to regularly catch fish there. If your chosen field of employment is any indication, you are going to run into a brick wall with any other assessment, right?
Who said anything about a replica? I asked if you would have told him that was a good fish for that water. You said yes, and didn't need to add the 'replica' comment, that goes without saying. But what if he ASKED where he could get a replica, didn't think he'd be headed to Bay of Green Bay soon, and probably wouldn't ever catch a larger fish? I bet he doesn't hang out with a bunch of Muskie freaks, so anyone HE has over would probably think a 40" fish is a giant.
Didn't you just say the definition of a 'trophy' is going to be pretty personal? I bet Lax HAS a 40" replica available.
You are describing YOUR personal preference for a fish for which you would get a replica made. That's not the original question, but your answer is PART of the 'place' I'm trying to get to. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Yes I accept the potential of that water. I dont go hoping for something big. Somedays are just days where seeing a bunch of little guys go gonzo over a bucktail is a blast. But I dont consider that water trophy water, and you are correct that is MY opinion. And yes the definition of 'trophy' is personal. I think that has been a common theme among the past 5 pages.
Had he asked where he could get a replica you bet I would have told him where. But I also would have said he should hold off for a while and we would try for a bigger one, as I'm reasonably certain I know other places to get bigger fish. In my mind 'trophy' water. Yeah, to him a 40 inch fish would be a giant. Hell the 32 to him was a giant! And to be honest that 32 inch fish had me shaking more than either of the 50's I stumbled into did and I took nothing away from him catching his first.
Again, in my eyes a 50 is a trophy. Perhaps in the eyes of the old timer crappie angler who sifts through hundreds of thousands of 14 inch crappies in his lifetime and in his last years comes upon a 35 incher that was hungry for a crappie minnow, that could be his trophy. Great for him, I wont take anything away from him, even if he keeps it to hang on his wall.
A trophy is personal, we can go around in circles all day long about the guy who can only fish a lake that only kicks out a few 40 inch fish and to him that is a fish of a lifetime versus others who fish big fish waters and feel that 50+ is a trophy and a 40 is a dink. I'll be happy for either angler. Rick or Joe have replicas for both anglers. But the fact is we're going around in circles. As said several times in this thread, a trophy is in the eye of the beholder. I'm not sure what more can be said?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Read the entire thread, and you'll begin to see what I'm getting at. One heck of alot more was said than just what you got out of this so far.
You listen to the Casselman presentation yet? If not, do it, it's a nice piece and will help explain where I'm trying to go with all of this.
What happens when what so many here insist is a 'personal decision' becomes a paradigm (broad definition)? What happens when that paradigm shifts to an unattainable place for a very large portion of the muskie water out there? And who DID that, if not you and I?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | sworrall - 2/12/2008 10:33 PM
You didn't answer a single question I asked.
I disagree with the 'selfish hunter' statement. I bet overall hunting ethics are not alot different now than 25 years ago. This year I hunted 600 yards from a young man (mebbe 16) who hiked in a 45 minute walk in the dark each morning from the other direction who passed as many as I did the first four days of season this year. Great kid, good hunter, and had realistic expectations. That, Sled, to me is about right.
I'm talking about giving enough real and accurate information to our kids, and for that matter, ANY new angler or sportsman so they can truly understand what they have locally and understand and APPRECIATE what a big fish/squirrel/rabbit/grouse/muskie in that area really is.
How is that different than your post?
the "difference" is that i wasn't arguing. not sure why but all your responses on the 5 pages of this post seem (i said seem) outwardly to be a counter to an argument.
what i have "seen" imo in the northwoods and most public hunting land is that if it's got horns (spikes to whatever) ... it gets shot. that's a lack of discipline or understanding of the sport.
when i see a bull-doe (my own description) with a nose 5' long (an exaggeration) with 2 years worth of young following it around (not an exaggeration) ... i know there is a selective harvest problem.
spikes, 4 and 6 tiny baskets shot and registered and highlighted in the paper ... it's no wonder you make the comment that "in this area" what is a trophy. the herd is lead by a 4 or 5 year old doe ... and bucks are lucky to live to be 2-year olds.
the kid you met is great to hear about ... but he's a small percentage of what comes up to buy a tag and go shooting.
that's my comment. the comment is not meant to be argumentative ... if you'd like to argue with me ... have fun. looks like you've got a long list you're trying to fix ...
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Sled,
I read your posts, and it seems your list is a bit longer than mine. Someone has to TRY to do it, right? Your kids are only kids one time, I get that. Mine were too, been there and did that, all the way, and I'm pretty happy with the results so far.
My hope is to get folks to think about this, and some may reach a conclusion that might just fix a problem or two in the future, at least for them and those they influence. Some may find this subject to hit too close to the bone and react a bit too angrily for such a simple question. Mabe that person will think a bit before reacting in a condescending or untoward manner to a newbie's 43" from the Fox Chain. Maybe that person will actually look into the why's and wherefores of all of this...maybe not.
Some will read this and wonder what all the fuss is about. Some have to work with the very implications that have been indicated here every day, and find it increasingly difficult.
Some will read two posts and bail out. That's fine too.
One thing for certain, it only takes one time to drive many folks out of the sport. Many are pretty young and it's been a while since we've had a good shot at involving a good number of young anglers. Those are the folks you are railing about...right? Wouldn't it be a more positive thing to draw them into this sport and make sure they enter with reasonable expectations, learn a little from us all, and feel welcomeat least here no matter what is their PB? That's just a small segment of the overall picture, but the overall picture...yours, mine, Pointers, Addicts, lambeaus, and more will define our impact on this sport now and into the future, each in our own little sphere of influence but all with inexorable impact on the whole. If you question that, you have failed to see the full possible impact of instant information exchange..... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | not commenting on the fox chain ... but i my (our) area often times that newbie clubs the 43" fish in waters where it should get a chance to grow, not unlike the little johny deer scenario and therein lies much of the stress to our populations that could measure up to true trophies but often-times never get the chance because we celebrate a mistake made for little johny instead of teaching him the right way to do it in the first place.
in our area i've always considered the realistic expectations of trying to catch a fish over 45" each year and a fish over 50" in a lifetime ... i consider the 50" plus the trophy tying it into the trophy-class for the species and consider the 45" a nice fish. if any of my kids wants a replica of a trophy it doesn't come easy here or there but if he wants that ... he's coming with me to eagle and even there they don't jump in the boat and you have to earn them with good boatside skills ... if he wanted to get a replica of a 43 or 45 i'd talk him out of it and show him what a real trophy is ... as far as harvest i've taught them that in some areas due to stocking that there are needs for regulations that might cull out some smaller males and allow the system to stratify and grow (slots) ... beyond that i've taught them that there is as much or more enjoyment releasing as in catching and the we will release ... they've learned that it's wrong to take prime egg-producers whether it be muskies, pike, walleyes or bass ... and that the best fish to eat are the pike we pull through the ice ... but one thing is for sure ... they've learned what a trophy really is and haven't waited for santa clause to come down a hole nobody could fit through ... it's easier to tell them the truth to begin with, that way you don't come off a liar and have to explain it to them later. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Sled,
We are not and never were talking about harvesting a muskie, so I'd appreciate it if that problem stays out of this one.
Santa Claus is a 50" fish in an awful lot of muskie waters across the country.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | we were talking about little johny harvesting a little buck and calling it a trophy .... there is a correllation between that and fishing as it relates to the misnomer of "trophy" for little johny so that we don't hurt his feelings. it wasn't meant to be a keep or not thing ... i thought we were on the subject of teaching kids who are the future of our sports. was just answering questions asked. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | ' but i my (our) area often times that newbie clubs the 43" fish in waters where it should get a chance to grow, not unlike the little johny deer scenario'
I never said a 2.5 year old six is a trophy. I did say there are areas of this country where that may be a pretty desirable animal if one intends to shoot a deer at all. That's reality. If you think the entire Wisconsin deer herd should be managed for 3.5 year old bucks and up, by all means lobby the DNR and insurance companies, etc. to limit harvest to nothing under 8 points. I'd support that idea, but won't hold my breath waiting for it to pass.
There is already 'earn a buck' in place in many counties, so that's forcing the harvest of does.
And we were talking about teaching kids, and others, too. I'm suggesting actual reality is a good place to start that process. So are you, looks to me.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1290
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Interesting question and many great replies both ways. I agree with Steve's (and Casselman's) point, but also see merit in Jerry's statement...lowered expectations.
I think "expectations" were wrongly fostered during the heyday of the resort years (most now condoing out) when resorters gave folks "false hope" that they could catch a new world record from the lake they were on.
This subject comes up often when I present my historical slides show on histories biggest muskies and where I think the next record will come from. My one constant answer to those wondering if the lake they fish has the potential is always the same: "If the lake record is 33 pounds, you have NO CHANCE of catching a world record there."
As has been said, if you want BIG fish, you MUST fish where they are.
Posted after I read only the first page. Steve's comment: "I'm talking about giving enough real and accurate information to our kids, and for that matter, ANY new angler or sportsman so they can truly understand what they have locally and understand and APPRECIATE what a big fish/squirrel/rabbit/grouse/muskie in that area really is." is right on target.
Perhaps the term "BIG FISH" for a particular body of water where maximum size is less than the maximum attainable in other waters is the better term to use there. In those waters where they are able to attain 50 inches and more the term "TROPHY" could be used. But then, as has been said several times, "trophy" is in the eye of the beholder. I know I am happy for my clients when they get a 40 incher and think of it as "their" triphy and I get as excited as they do...or more!
Edited by Larry Ramsell 2/13/2008 11:18 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 580
| Steve, I think I might be grasping what you are getting at. I'll try to rephrase what I am understanding you saying: By our labeling a "trophy" fish at a certain or specific size that is an unattainable goal for most anglers in most geographic regions, are we possibly hurting the growth of the sport by creating expectations and goals that can't be met by the average angler? Then by doing so, are we setting anglers up to be unreasonably disappointed, despite their good catches, and likewise potentially turning people off or away from the sport? Shouldn't we therefore recognize "trophy" fish in certain bodies of water at a size that truly is a "trophy" for that specific body of water, e.g., a 41" from the Tiger Cat Flowage?
Please correct me if I am wrong in my understanding.
My personal opinion is that this "problem" (whether real or perceived) is being approached slightly wrong. First, I think that you're implying or assuming that a signficant segment of muskie anglers are concerned about what others are catching, and are comparing their catches to see whether they "measure up", and further, this goal-setting and "measuring up" to their peers is part of the motivation to be a muskie angler. That is probably true, but I don't know. I guess you'd know better than me. But if the assumption is correct, that's where I see the real problem (again, whether it's real or perceived....I'm not saying either way).
What is it about muskie fishing that creates the need to compete and compare? People who love fishing truly for the sake of fishing don't give a darn about whether their personal catches stack up with the self-proclaimed experts. They fish because it's fun.
I grew up fishing for bass every Saturday morning with my dad. As a 7 year old, I didn't care whether the 12" bass I caught was correctly labeled a "trophy" or a "dink". I just enjoyed being with my dad and catching a fish. I took my 25 year old sister fishing this past fall, and she caught her first muskie, a 34"er, and not long after caught another one at 34". She was so excited about catching those fish. She really didn't care how a 34" fish stacked up or compared with others. Why should she? She was beside herself with excitement over catching these fish. She is now interested in buying some muskie gear and has expressed interest in fishing with me in the future. Obviously, she had lots of fun catching that fish.
In Pointer's example with his boss catching the 32", the boss probably didn't need to know whether the 32" was a "dink". Why did Pointer feel the need to label it as such? Did that label probably diminish the catch for his boss a bit? I’d guess that the answer is yes. Why be a joy stealer? I'm not picking on Pointer, but it's an example of what I think is an over-emphasis on equating the size of a catch with the joy of fishing.
To be completely honest, this topic and the responses to this thread exemplifies an issue that I do believe will turn people off to muskie fishing. And maybe I am coming full circle now to your point, Steve. Those who say that a true trophy has to be at least 48”, or 54” or 60lbs, or whatever, could be perceived as implicitly telling others that their "trophy" catches don’t stack up.
If I diminished my sister's catch by telling her it was a "dink" and therefore insignificant, or if others told her that her catch was not in anyway noteworthy, would she still be just as excited about muskie fishing? Maybe, maybe not. But again, the simple fact that some feel the need to label her catch as a "trophy" vs. a "non-trophy" is perhaps the real problem.
But trying to figure out what size fish is a true trophy from what waters, and then extend appropriate recognition, congratulations and respect, probably isn’t feasible in this day in age. Instead, to truly get at this “problem” you’ll need to change the competitive and comparative mindset that pervades the sport at the top end.
Anyways, I'm rambling. But that's my $0.02.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2427
Location: Ft. Wayne Indiana | This has got to be the longest post about absolutely NOTHING ever.
A trophy is a BIG fish, not a 40 incher in a lake full of 32 inchers...
A trophy is a BIG fish....and no matter how you look at it, 40 isn't big.
|
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | MikeHulbert - 2/13/2008 11:04 AM This has got to be the longest post about absolutely NOTHING ever. A trophy is a BIG fish, not a 40 incher in a lake full of 32 inchers... A trophy is a BIG fish....and no matter how you look at it, 40 isn't big. Isn't is relative though? Is a 50" fish in Webster is as much or maybe more of a trophy as a 54" fish in Vermillion/Mille Lacs/Ottawa/etc? Heck for that matter maybe even a 48" fish in Webster since 54"ers in Vermillion/Mille Lacs/Ottawa/etc are more common than 50" fish in Webster. I think Steve is correct though, we do paint a picture in the muskie world that 50"ers grow on trees and many people will never see a 50 let alone catch one.
Edited by Will Schultz 2/13/2008 10:23 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2427
Location: Ft. Wayne Indiana | Right, which is why a trophy is a special fish.
BIG is BIG, trophies are BIG.
40-47 inch fish aren't trophies, no matter where you catch them.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'This has got to be the longest post about absolutely NOTHING ever.
A trophy is a BIG fish, not a 40 incher in a lake full of 32 inchers...
A trophy is a BIG fish....and no matter how you look at it, 40 isn't big.'
Mike, thanks for that. You just posted an example of a PORTION of what I am referring to.
Matt,
Sure, you have a portion of what I'm trying to say nailed. Now take it further, and install those expectations as a paradigm. Reinforce those expectations by creating an atmosphere where no matter where a person CAN fish, no muskie is 'worthy' of sharing with us...the experience and the image and the story...unless it's a 'big fish'. We try very hard here to encourage the opposite, and we hope we are successful. lambeau said it in the 'my watch' reference.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One gets comments like , "I was fishing on my little lake here in (state or province) and had a great day. I caught three fish, the largest was only 46 though."
WHAT?? ONLY??
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now create an atmosphere where the understanding of how 50" muskies get to BE 50" becomes secondary to demand and expectations, add that misconceptions can be exploited on the web, and you have another issue that fisheries managers across the country are trying hard to deal with. And encourage by proxy that harvest should be limited to that fish, that 50" fish, or one larger and you have another issue; we insist that big fish need to be released, but by proxy, offer that if one IS to harvest a Muskie, it should BE a big fish. Thank goodness for replicas hitting the mark...now IMHO we need to let folks know what the chances of actually CATCHING a 50 really are, and how much fun the sometimes lifelong trip to catching that fish can and should be.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How does one create a reputation in the Muskie world? Does catching big fish define talent, and if so, why? If one is to catch a big fish, it has been said, one must fish where there ARE big fish. Is it the largest fish on the planet that define talent? If that's so, is it any wonder that new 'trophy' opportunities across North America see the same folks getting there and working it for the big girl? And is it any wonder those folks, who are the backbone of the promotional Muskie world, draw others to what have been pronounced as the new and only cool places to fish? And is it any wonder those same folks will be the first to complain about increasing pressure, leaving the locals to look askance at the whole deal, and the first to move on to the next hot waters? And is it any wonder those who cannot go to those waters and have little chance at a fish in the mid 50" class appear to the rest of us like they have accomplished less than what is a GREAT day when they have a 3 fish day with 2 over 40 and 1 over 45?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Should BIG muskies define the entire experience, the entire sport? And should the definition of BIG be strictly the largest out there at the time? I don't think so, not once one gets involved and from many reactions here that's not even close to the reality, but from a few feet away, what is the appearance?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If one is a pretty accomplished angler but has very limited time or resources, that 'broken dream' reference mentioned before comes into play unless one fishes where there are LOTS of big fish, and has a good trip to boot. If not, a quote like the following can ensue...
"I went to Mille Lacs, fished with a well known Guide and didn't even SEE a big fish..."
Of course that happens, that is reality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why are the paradigms so different in the Walleye and Bass worlds?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not just talking about anyone actually abusing a fellow because a report or story about a 'dink' seems important to him. I'm talking about the very real perception that one shouldn't even offer the story for FEAR of that happening...AND EVEN WORSE... some very good anglers won't talk about a really nice fish experience because of the inevitable "is that fish as big as it is reported to be' stuff. That is a little sad, I think. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 282
Location: north west wisconsin | This has got to be the longest post about absolutely NOTHING ever.
A trophy is a BIG fish, not a 40 incher in a lake full of 32 inchers...
A trophy is a BIG fish....and no matter how you look at it, 40 isn't big.
you just lost 3 potential clients just for that remark
if I brought my son on a trip with you and caught a 40" that would be a real trophy to him no matter what you say and for you to say its not in public is just wrong,
you said it yourself a "trophy is a special fish" I would like to add to that regardless of how big it is.
sorry but to tell you the truth I was just looking at your web page to book a guide for this coming season and now it looks like i will have to look elsewhere
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Matt DeVos - 2/13/2008 10:00 AM
In Pointer's example with his boss catching the 32", the boss probably didn't need to know whether the 32" was a "dink". Why did Pointer feel the need to label it as such? Did that label probably diminish the catch for his boss a bit? I’d guess that the answer is yes. Why be a joy stealer? I'm not picking on Pointer, but it's an example of what I think is an over-emphasis on equating the size of a catch with the joy of fishing.
Labeling that fish a 'dink' didnt diminish any of the joy or fun we had that day. I've shown him this website. He enjoy's scrolling through the Lax reproduction contest photos. He isnt sheltered, he can see that they do in fact grow bigger. When I showed him the suckers we were going to be fishing with, he stated that he would be happy just bringing those in at the end of the day as they were bigger than most things he catches. So the label 'dink' didnt diminish anything. In my opinion it instills a feeling of "Man if this thing was this fun as a dink, imagine what a 36 incher is like, or a 40, or bigger" So it puts hope of a bigger one in his head, and I told him we would get out and chase bigger fish, in waters that had bigger fish.
I know you arent picking on me, I just felt I had to comment a bit more on what happened that day.
Is size being emphasized too much in this sport? Maybe. However, dont we all go out and strive to catch the biggest fish we can? Yes, and for some that might only be a 40 inch fish. I mentioned the Lax Reproduction contest. If we are concerned about turning people away from the sport, isnt that excluding people that fish in waters that dont produce fish that reach the size needed to enter a fish? Do you need to catch a 'trophy' to be a good angler or to have a good time? |
|
| |
|
| How exactly are you supposed to get people to realize that trophies are relative to said body of water when all that is promoted in the "industry" are 50"+ers?
When is that last time you saw a TV show, or magazine, guide, or lure manufacturer talk about fishing for smaller fish?
Now don't take that the wrong way, there is no reason they should do that.
Point being, muskie fishing is just like any other type of fishing.
The biggest Bass in the world are in California. Bass anglers know this, but millions of guys fish for them all over the US and have a blast catching them.
I think people are a lot smarter then they are given credit for.
JS
|
|
| |
|
| Right, which is why a trophy is a special fish.
BIG is BIG, trophies are BIG.
40-47 inch fish aren't trophies, no matter where you catch them.
in a lot of ways, i agree with this...blunt as a baseball bat (as usual, Mike), but the point is right. 
i also agree with the message Steve is belabouring, his point is right too.
it's a bit semantic, but there is a meaningful difference between whether a fish is "special" or a "trophy".
it's simply true that certain waters are not capable of producing trophy fish.
they are still very capable of producing special fish, in comparison to that lake's own ultimate potential, but the term trophy might best be reserved as a standard for comparison to a muskies' ultimate potential regardless of water.
imho, we can encourage people to enjoy their catches by making note of the fact that certain fish are special and rare relative to the waters they were caught in, or even the circumstances of the catch that made it special. doing this will help grow the sport, share the joy, celebrate the pictures, etc.
i don't think that having a different sport-wide recognition of "trophy" diminishes our ability to celebrate special catches on non-trophy waters.
i think it's GOOD to have a lofty trophy ideal, something that's difficult to achieve, perhaps even impossible on certain waters. this helps all of us, young and old, to dream about someday, oneday, hooking into that monster fish. my own anticipation for certain trips to trophy waters gets me through the winter, and so does looking forward to a shot at a non-trophy special fish on local lakes.
spitting in each others' eyes over this is silly, because it is possible to do both: recognize and celebrate special fish based on the waters that produced them, while also recognizing true trophies as a measure of what muskies' can achieve when the place and conditions are right.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1767
Location: Lake Country, Wisconsin | I guess I really don't understand why some of you guys have a problem with those who hold themselves to a high standard? I keep hearing references about ego, making you feel like a man, beating the catches of others...Well, to some, it's not really about that. I try and hold myself to a high standard in all walks of life, why should musky fishing be any different then? There's nothing wrong with being goal oriented and shooting for the sky. If you don't agree with that, and you are content catching a 41" fish and calling it a trophy, that is fine. But don't call people out who don't agree with that, we all have different things that make us tick, for me, it is the opportunity to catch BIG, TROPHY fish. ( I didn't use to be that way until I started seeing/catching bigger fish!) Again, just as I don't see the harm in people enjoying catching mid-size muskies, I certainly do not see the harm in those who enjoy the pursuit of monster fish?? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2427
Location: Ft. Wayne Indiana | Floydss,
The question asked is what is a trophy, and my thought is a trophy is a very large fish, ones that are hard to come by.
The question was not, what is a trophy for somebody new to the sport, or what is a trophy for a kid, or what is a trophy for a beginner, the question was, "What is a TRUE TROPHY" and a true trophy is something very large...something that not all lakes have...something that not all people have caught...a trophy is something special.... I am not saying that if your kid catches a fish that it isn't "special" as it would be. But a TROPHY is the main question here. And a trophy musky is a BIG, LARGE fish.
If the question was, "Can a 40 incher be a trophy to any of you?" or "Can a 40 incher be a trophy to somebody under the right circumstances or situation?" Then the answer would be yes. But the question is, "What is a TRUE TROPHY?" A true trophy is a very large fish that some people might fish their lifetimes for. A TRUE TROPHY is a fish that only certain lakes have. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | And should the word 'trophy' be confused with the word 'record'? Is that not why B&C and P&Y and Safari Club exist in the world of hunting? To redefine what a truly large animal IS, and yet allow hunters to socially accept that a buck not quite to the absolute max might still be a hell of a buck?
Why is it we only recognize STATE and WORLD record muskies, but recognize and celebrate 'book' quality bucks? Is muskie hunting, adding of course CPR, not parallel to other forms of big game hunting?
Starting to gel now.... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8772
| Brian, I think we all hold ourselves to pretty high standards. But we can also set ourselves up for some pretty big dissapointments if our expectations are beyond the maximum capabilities of our fisheries. Even more important than that are the people who are new to the sport, who because of the standards WE set and they accept, are starting out doomed to fail.
If you're out there fishing thinking you haven't arrived until you break 50", and there's not a 50" fish within 400 miles of you, that doesn't make your chances of "accomplishing" anything very good, now does it?
Nobody is saying that chasing big fish is bad, it's why I will go to Eagle again this year. And to be honest, I WILL be dissapointed if I don't at least see one that size once during the week. But even that is a bit lofty in terms of reality.
If we have guys out there in pick-your-state/region who are holding themselves to the same standards as someone fishing in the trophy fisheries, because that's the expectation WE have created for them, that's a bad thing. |
|
| |
|
| "Gee, Mike, thanks for that. You just posted an example of a PORTION of what I am referring to."
Gee Steve, just another example that when someone has a different opinion than you, you feel the need to put them down. In fact, this thread is full of those examples from you.
Oh no, someone questioned you, better delete fast... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Not at all, Guest, Mike and I can fire away at each other with plenty of mutual respect left at the end of the day...and I'd fish with Mike anywhere anytime, he's a good fisherman.
And he DID post an example of what I am trying to get to. Notice most of my comments are formed as questions...and notice the answers are flowing and the questions have hit nerves from all sides of this. That wasn't unanticipated, sir. My goal isn't to have folks agree with me, much the contrary, it's to settle on a reality that borders truth in situation.
TALKING STRICTLY MUSKIES...You see, one's reality is usually based on one's perspective, which in this case can be seriously skewed by something as simple as what lakes are next door. Your 'reality' may be the direct opposite of mine, and the 'reality' that becomes paradigm nowhere near either. That's just plain crazy, IMHO.
Is this an editorial stance I am indicating? Yup.
And Pointer, that's why we have the Lax contest start at 45". Nice fish anywhere, and most folks are able to reach waters in a day trip that can produce a 45. Put it at 50, and a huge portion of that contest entry content goes away. We had people complain it WASN'T set at 50, believe mne. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 97
| Ok, not to be a smart @%$, but what exactly is the question.
I've read through this, and its either been answered, or the question needs to be defined better (or Steve is trying to stir the pot).
Or....I'm just dumb and can't figure it out, which is a distinct possibility. |
|
| |
|
| Why is it we only recognize STATE and WORLD record muskies, but recognize and celebrate 'book' quality bucks? Is muskie hunting, adding of course CPR, not parallel to other forms of big game hunting?
ummm, there is a book that lists big, non-record muskies...
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=39...
(Compendium Volmume II.jpg)
Attachments
----------------
 Compendium Volmume II.jpg (40KB - 153 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
| with the growth of this sport and the "hush" put on 100% CPR advocates, 40" fish will one day be the trophys. |
|
| |
