|
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | Has there ever been a test done on Cal Johnsons skin mount?
Marc, now we see a 51 by 29 . I showed you a 51 by 28. 51 by 29 is a solid 3 inches over half of her length.
Marc, you said a 55 could not get bigger then 29 correct? How is it that a 51 (now two 51 inch fish could get girths of 28 and 29? Im not debating you on this (you made the statement) the proof is in your court. I have shown you 1 -51 incher that defies your statement and now we see a 51 by 29 that also defies your statement. In the water or out . If a 51 inch fish can get a 29 inch girth I have to believe that a 55 can get one more inch. If you apply the formula of the 51 by 29( 25.5 plus 3.5) to a 55 inch fish you get 27.5 plus 3.5 = 31 inches . I dont care if the measurement is in or out of the water.
Are you saying that a 55 inch fish can not be proportioned as obese as that 51 by 29? Im not buying it Marc. Certain lakes that are packed with greasy forage can produce freaks that defy anyones formulas. The only proof I see is that fish can grow girths at least 3.5 inches bigger then one half of their length. KF |
|
| |
|
| With all this discussion of girths and fish not being able to attain certain girths.....
Where does this fish fit into the equation? Anyone know more about this fish? From an old thread, supposedly 48x32... I wouldn't question it.... I also probably wouldn't have believed the measurements had I not seen a photo of it
Edited by Esox1850 10/21/2009 12:40 PM
Attachments
----------------
 48x32.jpg (12KB - 244 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
| Kingfisher,
Do you think anyone could get permission to do a test on Cal Johnson's skin mount? Do you feel the photo's of the actual fish show a girth anywhere near 33.5"? Do you feel the fish was decomposing therefore "bloated" at the time the girth was measured? It certainly doesn't appear bloated in any of the photo's. With a girth of 33.5" and a length of 60.25" this fish should appear very similar to a 55" fish with a 30.5" girth. Why doesn't it?
|
|
| |
|
| KF,if that fish is 51 x 29
I suspect there is a discrepancy in the girth measurement or the picture is not relevant to the fishes actual size.
Generally that fish should have ribs rippling in her under belly,that one does not display that
Could it be possible that it was 51x27 in the water?
Then its plausible
Kf,generally the longer they get,the more they seem to lose at the back end
,which means they are not carrying all their weight all across,like the Michigan fish.
KF,like I said,my views are based on what has been caught and scientific information.
The swim bladder only collapse after a certain period or its pierced,not all fish have have excess air in their swim bladders,generally its a current thing or depth issue.
Some fish are just plain full 
Will S,Possibly like you say forage maybe other factors also
Tks for the info
Steve W,Even Dr Casselman agrees the species has its limitation,really no one knows in exception of what has been captured.
The other pic with the crease, That one is funny looking
Something is not right with that pics ,might be the hold
Definitively an abnormally
Ginormous for sure
makes you wonder what the life expectancy of that one would be
I am not saying I am right,I answered as informatively as I could to the question in the thread tittle
There will always be unique fish that are caught,great big ones at that
Will we ever see a Williamson fish?
That has yet to be seen
Its been a good discussion,hopefully something has been learned
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32955
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | If I remember correctly, the upper confidence limit on the St Lawrence by some consensus at the Muskie Symposium was the heaviest out there in the 'trophy waters' of North America. Just over 70#, I believe. If, when, maybe...part of the chase for sure. |
|
| |
|
| Marc Thorpe,
Cal Johnson's fish is said to be 60.25". If what you say is true why does this fish carry it's weight all the way across? It certainly is not lacking thickness at the back end. Either this fish is a hoax or your theory is blown right out of the water.
The swim bladder would also have been completely collapsed on this fish as it was measured dead by the taxidermist. The girth was claimed to be 33.5". This means the girth would have been GREATER than 33.5" if measured IN the water because there would have been some air in the swim bladder at that time as opposed to none after it was dead. Keep in mind this fish is carrying this immense girth the full length of the fish and yet it only weighs 67.5 lbs. The swim bladder certainly doesn't contribute to the tremendous thickness of the rear section of this fish.
I agree with you Marc, hopefully something has been learned from this discussion.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 719
| Well the fins are in the wrong place on the Johnson fish as well.......what theory would that involve ??? |
|
| |
|
| That theory is the same as it was with the Spray record. The fins were removed during the mounting process and then re-attached in the wrong location. There seems to be an excuse for everything when it comes to these records even though most of the excuses defy common sense. |
|
| |
|
| I also find it hilarious that the "upper confidence limit" is just over 70 lbs. which is just enough to break the current world record. |
|
| |
|
| Guest,the swim bladder has nothing to do with all fish just certain fish that either live in current or caught from deep water.
Thats what I have observed,their are other instances when a fish can be shallow and have the same issue in non current water.
What reasons,I really dont know,evidently its using air for a reason
Fish from less than lets say 25 feet,generally don't display an inflated swim bladder
I think some are crossing over 2 different points in what I wrote
Not all fish display an inflated bladder
the heaviest fish seem to carry their weight from the neck all the way back
They all have various physical features which will make a well built fish as big as a long swarthy fish or a long bellied fish that is slender at the back end.
Guest,I suspect the Johnson fish has discrepancies in the measurements
The picture of the fish represents to me a healthy fish with proportional weight displacement and a great looking 45-48 pounder
Thats my view,I may not be right,I dont think its 67 pounds
My point is not to shred any of the captures,discrepancies do exist for various reasons
But the fish is well built throughout its entire length,a healthy specimen
Guest learning about the species is much more fascinating
Remember they catch you
You don't catch them |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32955
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | guest,
Why is that 'hilarious'? The upper confidence limit on the St Lawrence is what it is, and wasn't estimated by the fisheries folks up there (some pretty smart folks, too) because of or in response to anything other than what Muskies might be able to achieve for Max Weight. That stat has nothing whatsoever to do with the current WR. I believe Georgian Bay was in the 60's, Waboigoon in the 50's, and so on.
I also might point out that most of the discussion on the current WR at the symposium was to encourage leaving it alone; social issues more than anything from what I could gather.
If you are trying to convince a majority of the folks here the current WR is a little shaky at best, and the rest of the WI fish in the 60 to 70 pound range are as well, you don't need to do a heck of alot of convincing. Execute a search on the research forum and site wide, there have been multiple conversations on the WR over the years here. |
|
| |
|
| Gee Steve I wonder how those size projections were determined? Evidentally you forgot about the former WR held by Art Lawton from the St. Lawrence that was only TWO OUNCES SHORT of the "just over 70 lbs." "upper confidence limit"!
Then we have Georgian Bay where the 65 lb. O'Brien fish came from that has an "upper confidence limit" in the 60's.
Wabigoon's largest fish was reportedly in the 50's and this is where the upper confidence limit is set there. Don't even try to convince me that the size of the phony WR has nothing to do with the upper confidence limit on the St. Lawrence.
The upper confidence limit on the St. Lawrence was set to give anglers hope that the current world record may someday be broken which common sense should tell you will never happen.
|
|
| |
|
Location: Twin Cities | guest - 10/23/2009 11:55 AM
Gee Steve I wonder how those size projections were determined? Evidentally you forgot about the former WR held by Art Lawton from the St. Lawrence that was only TWO OUNCES SHORT of the "just over 70 lbs." "upper confidence limit"!
You mean the one they filled with wet sand and later admitted they had done so? Boy, yeah...good example....  |
|
| |
|
| Thanks Marc for your honest opinion of the Cal Johnson record. Keep one thing in mind, you can't learn much about the size limit of a species if the maximum size of that species is falsly represented. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32955
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I didn't 'forget' about anything. You need to do what Marc and others who are interested in the science behind determinations as to what a body of water can kick out have done and actually talk to the scientists...at length...to determine why and how upper confidence limits are determined. How big was the Lawton fish...really?
Fisheries mangers and scientists do not 'create' hope by 'making up' current important management data from a single individual fish reported decades ago. From their point of view, water chemistry, predator/prey relationships, the average maximum age a muskie can attain, creel, netting, and many other factors go into determining how big they estimate a fish in that system can get. Green Bay, for example, has an estimated upper confidence limit SMALLLER than some of the reported fish. When the current study is completed, I'd bet that will be revisited.
'Never' is a long time. I don't feel a new world record over 70# is likely, but that's me. |
|
| |
|
| JRedig,
For your information, nobody admitted that Art Lawton's record was filled with wet sand. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32955
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | guest, you are coming off as either overly aggressive, or just plain rude; which I doubt is your intent. I don't think the majority of the folks here disagree with you on the current WR, and your protestations won't convince the rest if the WRMA couldn't. Ease up a little, please. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | I have learned many things in my life:
1. Never say never.
2. There is little that is not possible.
3. Two of the certain things in life are taxes and death. Few other things are.
4. Science is always changing.
5. Weather is no more predictable than when the fish will bite.
Being an engineer and a scientist, all this talk about science seems very strange to me. Science rarely stays the same for long. That is because science is nothing more than determinations/opinions based on the best available information at the time. For instance, many species of fish that were thought to be extinct have now been discovered to be thriving. The science about many species of fish has changed greatly over the years and will continue to change. The science that now indicates the maximum growth of Muskies and other species will almost certainly change in time. It may increase or decrease depending on the new data.
One of most applicable scientific theories may be the Chaos Theory. The Chaos theory basically indicates that, due to small initial influences, things completely out of the normal sphere of expectations can happen. Mathematically, few things can be completely deterministic and virtually all things have some sort of chaotic influences. Applying this to any species of animal or fish would mean that we cannot always determine the end result because we do not know all the initial influences or the results of those influences. For instance, what might be the influence of new invasive species to the maximum size of Muskies in a given body of water? What affect might changing water levels or water clarity have? What influence might certain forms of pollution have over time? What influence might increased or decreased solar radiation have over time? So many things that we do not and cannot possibly know.
All that said, there appears to be no reason to rule out a new World record Muskie at some point in the future. But then there is also little reason to expect that to happen by any specific time either. It is all a big maybe and all we can do is speculate. It is possible that someday a 75 lb Muskie may be caught somewhere. It is also possible that someday the Chicago Cubs may win the world series or the Vikings may win two Super Bowls in a row. The WR Muskie may be more likely though.
Good fishing. |
|
| |
|
| The Chicago Cubs or the Vikings accomplishing what you said is much more likely in my opinion. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32955
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Herb_b,
The fisheries folks at the recent symposium didn't reject the idea a new record could be caught and in fact added data to allow speculation WHERE that fish should come from when one IS caught, using current data and what is known about growth rates, longevity, etc. on the trophy Waters of North America. It seems us armchair biologists are the ones making a case for a 70# plus fish being impossible. I take the stance it's entirely possible because the finest minds in the world of muskie management believe it is.
Wimuskyfisherman, none of the WRMA folks behaved on MuskieFIRST like our guest currently is, go to the research forum and read up.
I believe it just isn't likely to happen soon based only upon the fact I believe it never has, although Dales fish might have been close..... |
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | John:
The WRMA "A little too pushy"? Please show me one instance of this because to my knowledge the WRMA has been very quiet on the Internet for the last two years. I have personally answered a couple of questions on Muskie 1st lately... even added a relevant post to this thread.
We cannot control the actions of people on the Internet anymore than you and it's certainly unfair for you to lump the WRMA in with these anonymous posters. As a matter of fact, I would greatly appreciate it if they would simply stop as well.
|
|
| |
|
| Of course the fisheries people at the recent symposium didn't reject the idea of a new worlds record. How could they? They want people to believe the current records can be broken instead of supporting their disqualification like they should.
What is this nonsense about "when" one is caught. "IF" one is caught would make a lot more sense.
These fisheries people have NOTHING to support their claim that a 70+ lb. muskie is possible out of the St. Lawrence River or anywhere else. I wonder what the "upper confidence limit" is in the Chippewa Flowage or Lac Court Oreilles? It should definately be higher than the St. Lawrence River! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8863
| guest - 10/23/2009 4:17 PM
Of course the fisheries people at the recent symposium didn't reject the idea of a new worlds record. How could they? They want people to believe the current records can be broken instead of supporting their disqualification like they should.
What is this nonsense about "when" one is caught. "IF" one is caught would make a lot more sense.
These fisheries people have NOTHING to support their claim that a 70+ lb. muskie is possible out of the St. Lawrence River or anywhere else. I wonder what the "upper confidence limit" is in the Chippewa Flowage or Lac Court Oreilles? It should definately be higher than the St. Lawrence River!
What?? What possible vested interest would a bunch of fisheries biologists have in making people believe that a 70# muskie is possible? So everyone would yell and scream at them (when there isn't one caught) for not doing their jobs well?
There is NOTHING to support the claim that a 70 pound muskie is possible? Have you read any of Cassleman's work?
And this:
"I wonder what the "upper confidence limit" is in the Chippewa Flowage or Lac Court Oreilles? It should definately be higher than the St. Lawrence River!"
That runs contrary to what most anglers who fish those areas would tell you, and I'd bet quite a few folks actually laughed out loud upon reading that statement. Do you have anything to support your claim?
Edited by esoxaddict 10/23/2009 5:33 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32955
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | You seem to not understand what I was attempting to convey, fisheries professionals don't 'support' anything the Hayward Hall of Fame might do, nor do they NOT support what is done there. I was speaking to the general tone at the Symposium, perhaps because of the 'lore' involved. Don't read any conspiracy theory crap into that comment.
Speechless.
'These fisheries people'??
Wow.
Never heard Dr. Casselman referred to in that manner. Ever hear of due respect?
And no, the Chip should NOT have a higher expectation than the St. Lawrence. Nor should LCO. |
|
| |
|
Location: Twin Cities | guest - 10/23/2009 4:17 PM
It should definately be higher than the St. Lawrence River!
Why?
And to the other guest: re wet sand, meh so I mixed the old lies (i think some would put "records" in here) up. Oh well, it's still all bull#*#* any way you slice it.
Edited by JRedig 10/23/2009 4:30 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32955
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Thanks for the clarification, Jerry, good to hear from you.
Jredig,
You said what I was trying to say with one word. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | esoxaddict - 10/23/2009 5:24 PM
guest - 10/23/2009 4:17 PM
Of course the fisheries people at the recent symposium didn't reject the idea of a new worlds record. How could they? They want people to believe the current records can be broken instead of supporting their disqualification like they should.
What is this nonsense about "when" one is caught. "IF" one is caught would make a lot more sense.
These fisheries people have NOTHING to support their claim that a 70+ lb. muskie is possible out of the St. Lawrence River or anywhere else. I wonder what the "upper confidence limit" is in the Chippewa Flowage or Lac Court Oreilles? It should definately be higher than the St. Lawrence River!
What?? What possible vested interest would a bunch of fisheries biologists have in making people believe that a 70# muskie is possible? So everyone would yell and scream at them (when there isn't one caught ) for not doing their jobs well?
There is NOTHING to support the claim that a 70 pound muskie is possible? Have you read any of Cassleman's work?
And this:
"I wonder what the "upper confidence limit" is in the Chippewa Flowage or Lac Court Oreilles? It should definately be higher than the St. Lawrence River!"
That runs contrary to what most anglers who fish those areas would tell you, and I'd bet quite a few folks actually laughed out loud upon reading that statement. Do you have anything to support your claim?
;- )
I agree there is nothng to prove that a 70 pound Musky is possible. I also agree that there is nothing to prove one is not possible. This has been my point all along. There is not one shred of real evidence that points to a limit on how long or how heavy a Musky can get. Today self proclaimed experts claim that every sinlge one of the old records are lies. That means that everyone who claimed world record fish were liars. To call them all liars is pretty strong stuff.
I dont hold up any one fish, not Sprays, not Johnsons, Lawtons or any other. I believe that a true 70 is out there and will be caught. Of all the big fish of that last 20 years I believe that Obriens 65 pounder is legitimate. So to me 5 more pounds is a pike in the belly of Obriens fish. I think McNairs fish was over 60 pounds as well. I for one am Glad that the record is not 60 pounds. If it was there would be a bunch of 61,62 63 and bigger fish killed to beat it. A world record should not be in reach of hundreds of men but a once in a lifetime fish of true gigantic proportions. I dont care what any so called experts have to say any more. To me the goal is 70 pounds. I like it there. Teetering on the brink of the impossible where it should be. Good luck all. Im off to try again to catch one over 50 pounds. KF |
|
| |
|
Location: Twin Cities | Reading back through this thread, it's really an interesting discussion, one of the better threads, thanks to marc and others for sharing some great and insightful information/opinion. I think and underlying theme that is not well stated is that these upper limits are a size that would be considered to be reached on a more common basis than just maybe a genetic freak that's a monster, which would be the true needle in a haystack. Maybe that's not how they're intended, but that's my take on them. The odds that there are quite a few fish out there between 60 and 70 pounds are probably pretty good, but as covered repeatedly over the years, they will be very difficult to find and they are fish that probably don't frequent "structure" that is targeted. Just looking at the miles and miles of extremely huge water with great depth and forage out east, it's hard to think it wouldn't exist. Too bad some tissue or something wasn't kept from the McNair fish to try and age it or something...gotta be a way to tell...c'mon science! To many of the guests, just think for a second about what an "upper confidence limit" means. It's not an end all stating, "i'm an expert and this is it", it's a frame of reference based on a lot of experience stating that based on XYZ information, here's what i'm confident in stating. As herb_b mentioned, science is only relevant to the information currently available. It can and certainly does change. KF, you can put me in the camp of doubting all the old records in muskie fishing, but i don't doubt the size of the fish in terms of length in most cases, only weight/girth and location caught. Although the fin placement is puzzling. You'd think that some genetic sampling would be able to be done to prove where those fish came from....
Edited by JRedig 10/24/2009 10:40 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | I just find find it very hard to believe that every single one of those men were lying. Even Obriens dead (weighed) fish is challenged. I never knew any of thes men. Never met one there fore I have no opinion of them. Larry Ramsels book has over 30 Fish that could have been the world record. According to todays self proclaimed experts they are all liars. When a true 70 pounder is caught it will be challenged and thrown out by the same group who want to throw out every fish but the Williamson fish. Its my hope that a true 70 pounder is caught. I have seen formula after formula fail to prove anything. I doubt there are very many fish over 70 pounds out there. Maybe a couple in each area and most likely in a spot that does not get pounded. Again good luck to all who seek her. KF |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | Esox1850 - 10/21/2009 1:38 PM
With all this discussion of girths and fish not being able to attain certain girths.....
Where does this fish fit into the equation? Anyone know more about this fish? From an old thread, supposedly 48x32... I wouldn't question it.... I also probably wouldn't have believed the measurements had I not seen a photo of it
Here is yet another slob that defies every formula. This pig proves that anything can happen in fat retention ha ha ha ha ha ha . Kf |
|
| |
