|
|
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Hush? Where is there a 'hush' on 100% cpr advocates, Hoop?
lambeau,
A great read, but an admitted historical compendium. Is that book going to parallel B&C, P&Y, and Safari Club? Will that read decide for us what the true definition of a big muskie is, or tell us what it has been... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 97
| So the question is....what is a big muskie? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 282
Location: north west wisconsin | mike,
Is not the smaller fish caught by the new angler a true trophy?? Or a even a legal fish for someone who has fished exclusivly for muskie for years without catching one??? there are just to many variables to set a "trophy standard"
do I think there should be a "book" of sorts say like p+y or b+c, that could make things very interesting but don't muskies inc already have something like that?? if one was going to create a book i would say that 50" would be the magic number. Now i am not saying that a 49,48 or even a 40 is not a trophy because a trophy is a special catch,
take for say some people pride themselves on "trophy wifes" well not everyones taste is different ive seen alot of ugly women in my day (grew up in central wi) and all those women are someones trophy. I could see setting a number for the books but to say if it isnt in the book it is not a trophy is not right.
sry if im hard to understand i skipped way to much school to go fishing mainly english class.. LOL
p.s. much respect to you for your past catches!!
so that |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | And does that definition then define 'trophy'? And does that define only those top end fish in a continually fluid North American fishery/ And all the other questions asked here by everyone.
Ahhh, there we have it. Should the definition of 'trophy' and 'big fish' be left to the folks who have the money, time, and opportunity to pursue the largest specimens out there to the ends of the Muskie's range? And should a small number of lakes in a tiny section of the Muskie range cause a paradigm shift for the ENTIRETY?
I submit we have been leaving the entire process to promotional and marketing efforts, to the exact folks we love to hate. Our only WR record keepers can't even agree or get it right on what REALLY IS a record, hence the forming of the original WRMA.
Our sport has grown to the proportion where some think it would be truly beneficial to have a book style record kept...not a pay to play group either...that would start the bar of 'making the book' WAY below 70 pounds. Realistic expectations by region would become obvious, and comments like " That's a MONSTER for that area" would be far more acceptable to all. Regional trends would become obvious, biologists and scientists could have a great reference tool for the status of big fish in the region they work. The benefits far outweigh the difficulties in organization, IMHO. Pro anglers would showup alot, and great anglers who are NOT pros would too.
So what IS the standard? Is it length, is it girth and length, is it weight, or is it all or none of the above? Since the answers here have ALL been length related, is that truly the standard? |
|
| |
|
| Steve,
If somebody put up a picture of a trophy fish that was intentionally killed, and I or anybody else who questioned why they killed the fish would get taken to task.
The PETA comments or the "well then you should never wet another line...." bs- comments will ALWAYS follow.
I am not directing this toward you or the moderators, just taking a pot-shot at those out there who think killing a fish for it's skin is perfectly acceptable practice.
Editiors Note:
There obviously still is wide disagreement about intentional and even incidental harvest of muskies of any size. Because one disagrees either way doesn't make them right or wrong, it just indicates disagreement. Hoop, many times when a 100% CPR advocate posts here, the tendency is to go rude and angry very fast, and that is the reason they get shouted down many times. They can be right as rain, but if they come off as a jerk, the message is they come off as a jerk, not why 100% CPR is a good idea. Just an editorial observation.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2427
Location: Ft. Wayne Indiana | If you read my post again, it will say, "yes a 40 caught by a kid, beginner, etc... can be a trophy" BUT the question was, what is a TRUE TROPHY, not what is a trophy to a kid, a beginner, somebody who hasn't caught one, etc...
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Hoop, Off the track here, but isn't that part and parcel of any discussion? It isn't what is said most times, it's how it's said.
Less harvest and more CPR is reality right now, and will be every day into the future. Is it where it 'should' be? Who defines THAT? there you have it...
Back to the original questions. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 97
| sworrall - 2/13/2008 12:33 PM
"Our sport has grown to the proportion where some think it would be truly beneficial to have a book style record kept...not a pay to play group either...that would start the bar of 'making the book' WAY below 70 pounds. Realistic expectations by region would become obvious, and comments like " That's a MONSTER for that area" would be far more acceptable to all. Regional trends would become obvious, biologists and scientists could have a great reference tool for the status of big fish in the region they work."
Isn't that what state records do now? I would assume that is about as practical as a regional recognition would get. If you break it down and use say Virginia (I picked this because I assume not many have any preconcieved notions about this state) as an example, an area not really known for its musky fishing, and was surprised to find out that the state record is actually 45.5# caught out of the New River. So wouldn't that be the local bar to set the Virginia standard too? So in that case I think an angler (if they even want to) would be able to stack up his/her catches around that number, instead of a fish caught from places elsewhere.
Something else I found interesting when looking up the info on Virginia was the following quote. Apparantly Virginia took it upon themselves to set some sort of "trophy" (citations) recognition program.
"The muskie is the largest game fish found in the New River. They are stocked throughout the entire New River from North Carolina to West Virginia. The current Virginia state record, a 45 lbs 8 oz trophy, was caught in the lower New River in June 2007. From 1997 through 2003, 190 citation size muskie (15 pounds or 40 inches) were registered in Virginia. In fact, from 1990 through 2003, 45% of all muskie citations registered in the state were caught in the New River.
So there you have it, catch yourself a 40" from Virginia and you get yourself a pat on the back.
There are alot of examples like this. I do believe the Vilas County Musky Marathon will actually give you a certificate for any fish entered. Illinois used to give out deer and turkey pins for successful sportsman. Illinois also has what they call the BBRP (Big Buck Regognition Program) for anything over 115" I think. Heck, look no further than the Lakeland Times if you want recognition.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | You miss the point, 55. it isn't just about recognition, one might be internalizing there, I fear. Why is it some want to immediately assume it's personal recognition that is the only benefit? That simply is not true at all. Sure, the 'pat on the back' is nice, why else would you post a picture here, for example? It's also cool to tell your friends about the fish, tell your peers the story resulting in getting it published right here or on another web property, in a hard copy pub, etc....Why is that suddenly to be considered a negative, since our reality is LITERALLY BASED on images and stories placed here and elsewhere willy nilly?
I don't think that is what the State 'records' do now. The very word should tell you why. yes, there are lots of fragmented attempts on a local level to get good data, but nothing that sets the bar anywhere, really. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | So are you looking for some sort of County wide record system? So anglers could compare a catch to some of the county fish? Maybe I'm missing the boat again? I tend to do that often, its why I wear waders  |
|
| |
|
| OK then, I'll stay on point.
this is entirely a subjective opinion as to what people feel is a trophy.
catching a 40" out of a lake full of 30"s is a nice personal accomplishment. But in no way does it constitute a trophy, particularly when comparing it to 53"s caught out of Mille Lacs, regardless of how many 50+ Mille Lacs spits out.
In the days before the phone and internet is some remote town, I can see where catching a 40" might have been a big deal. But here we are in 2008, chatting on an interent board littered with pictures of HUGE fish with guys from IL, IN, MN, WI, IA, Canada, etc... a 40" fish is not a trophy. Possibly a personal best, but not a trophy.
It is not meant to be demeaning to the angler who caught the 40", but come on, they caugth the largest midget, nothing more. If it's a kid, great, I'd give him 5 and a pat on the back. If it were an adult, I'd only wish to be in a bar with a dozen guys throwing a few back trading fish stories, to here I say....did I ever tell you about the 40" I got on Spider?? LOL I would hope that I didn't have liquid in my mouth because I might spit it up with laughter. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8772
| I might add that a record is just that, A RECORD. It tells nothing about whether fish are being caught regularly that are close to that, or not within a mile, nor does it accurately reflect what is going on in that fishery or that state as of today, especially if that record is 30 years old.
Steve, what you're asking for is sort of a proverbial Lunge Log for the masses, right? Something to catalog what is really being caught where and when, by whom, how big, and how often. One of the benefits would be sort of a "ruler" for which to see of your 36.75" x 16" musky is a trophy or not, (tongue planted firmly in cheek there) but more importantly a tool for the DNR biologists to assess the REAL state of our fisheries. I know of no such thing, and I'm not sure there will ever be one. Who would do it? How would you verify whether the information was not fabricated? If as I suspect many of the "best" catches are swept under the rug, how to you guarantee that what you'd have went beyond the scope of what's already out there?
About the only way I see to make something like that happen is at the level of the DNR, tied through the licensing department. Each license holder would be given permission at the end of the season to log onto an online datebase with their license #, and enter their catches for the season. It would have to be broken down in such a way to make entry a simple process, idoit prooof, and of course with no incentive to lie and no possible ramifications for entering your big fishes caught from your lake X's...
That data could then be extrapolated into graphs by region, showing average size and number of catches per angler hour. Other than the possibility of everyone using that data to choose where to fish (or not) being seen by some as a bad thing, it could have tremendous benefit... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 282
Location: north west wisconsin | pointer you got an extra pair cause i think i fell out too!
sounds to me like you want every muskie over "X" inches to be registered? |
|
| |
|
| as for the county record book keeping.
I could see this benefit the countys that have big fish recorded in terms of tourism.
I can't really see somebody plan a fishing trip to a particular county with a history of 42" monsters. They would likely drive straight thru it to the county with 50s on the book. |
|
| |
|
| About the only way I see to make something like that happen is at the level of the DNR...
or the Muskies Inc Lunge Log.
you don't need ALL the data, just enough to be representative, and MI's data does a relatively good job of that.
here's the data for Spider Lake in Vilas Co., WI
size/# released/# kept
30-34.75 14 0
35-39.75 21 1
40-44.75 09 1
largest fish registered was 44" caught by Chuck Johnson in 1997.
not a lot of fish registered, but it's enough to give you a clear indication that anything over 40" is a pretty good fish from that lake, and 43"+ is rare indeed, a "special" fish, if not a trophy.
here's South Twin in Vilas Co., WI
size/# released/# kept
30-34.75 105 1
35-39.75 123 0
40-44.75 028 1
45-49.75 007 0
50-54.75 001 0
largest fish registered was a 51" caught and released by Tom Gelb in 2007.
this paints a picture of a very different lake. good solid spread of fair sized fish, with a shot at something that could be considered a trophy.
here is Vermilion in St.Louis Co, MN
30-34.75 201 0
35-39.75 526 0
40-44.75 1040 0
45-49.75 737 3
50-54.75 297 5
55-59.75 6 0
largest is a 56.6" fish caught/released by Jon Olstadt in 2007.
here's a lake with lots and lots of registered fish, strong numbers in the mid-40s, and a real population of extremely big fish.
this information helps you set your goals for the lake you're choosing to fish.
most every lake in the muskies' range has enough data in the Lunge Log to give you an idea of what you might expect from that body of water...the size structure curve is even represented in a cool bar graph.
Other than the possibility of everyone using that data to choose where to fish (or not) being seen by some as a bad thing, it could have tremendous benefit...
my friends and i do this all the time. when planning a trip to a certain region we'll research stocking data and review Muskies Inc log information to decide on whether or not to try a new lake. it's helpful in matching lake choice to what we're looking for: action, shot at a big fish, etc.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 282
Location: north west wisconsin | as for the county record book keeping.
I could see this benefit the countys that have big fish recorded in terms of tourism.
I can't really see somebody plan a fishing trip to a particular county with a history of 42" monsters. They would likely drive straight thru it to the county with 50s on the book.
But that will also increase the fishing pressure on certin lakes? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8772
| Mike, I agree, and I like the LL for the same reasons. But that's only a database of what Muskies Inc members are doing. It paints a fair picture of whats being caught where, but not everybody can oarticipate or use it. That limits it to what Steve eluded to earlier - a pay to play database. What I'm talking about could be used by everyone, for all species. Not just a tool for muskie anglers, but for ALL anglers. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | What I am suggesting is that we remove the data source as to what is a big fish and what is not from those who propagate an existence from the largest there are and to the angling public. read ALL the posts here and you will see that it is totally subjective to where the Hulbets, Grants, Jonesi's, and other guides, pros, and influential folks are fishing. they follow to big fish wherever they are found, and artificially inflate reality based on the fact the big fish THEY catch are what makes NEWS.
Musky Hunter, Esox Angler, all the TV and radio and internet put together...the media is deciding for us based upon input from the very few what is and what is not a 'big fish'. Hoop slapped that nail right on.
Around these parts, Hoop, there are hundreds of little managed muskie lakes. Some are absolute jewels, others are great numbers lakes, etc. If I was in a bar talking to Dave Jonesi or Lee Bastain or Roger Sabota, and asked if they had guided Spider lately, the conversation would move forward nicely. If I said Keith got a 44 and a 42 out of Spider, the eyebrows would raise and the questions about what he got 'em on would ensue. If we were talking Moen, and it was 48" fish, same deal. Pelican a 50, maybe. At that point I don't much give a hoot what was caught on LOTW that day, and it has no bearing on what was caught around these parts. But if I get on the message boards an say what was caught on Spider, some folks won't appreciate it because they live in a different reality, and as I said, I think that's a sad deal. Doesn't make you right, or Spider Lake Muskies wrong, it is what it is, and they are what they are.
But I digress. |
|
| |
|
|
I would disagree that the media is deciding the viewopoint of the very few on what is a big fish.
Who doesn't agree that a big fish is 50"?
Nobody.
Who doesn't agree that a 40" is a big fish?
A lot more.
Big fish are big fish.
Making little fish into an accomplishment based on lake capability does not make them big fish, just something to be proud of in thier own right.
JS |
|
| |
|
|
MI lunge log info is for MI members only.
Please keep that in mind.
JS |
|
| |
|
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | After reading all the post I got to thinking about when I started musky fishing and what it it meant to me at that time. I think now that way to much of a what a trophy is and catching one is the main goal. I can see where some people feel we have become e-----t. I think a trophy is whatever the one that bags it wants it to be. We all have different views on it. To someone who catches alot of muskies a 40 incher is not a trophy. To someone that fishes muskies once a year and has caught only a few it is a trophy I think it is wrong for anyone to to look down at someone for keeping what he considerd a trophy. That where the E-word comes into play. Could it be we all need to relax a bit and take fishing for what it is----fun!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Do we have to measure and gauge everyones success by the size of the fish they catch. I think the success of some has giuded them to think that the standards they go by should be the standard for all and thats wrong to me.
I'll bet that most of you thought you had a trophy when you caught that first 40 incher.
On the water in 7 weeks and counting!!!!!!!!!
Pfeiff
Edited by Don Pfeiffer 2/13/2008 8:59 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2691
Location: Pewaukee, Wisconsin | The original question "What IS a TRUE Trophy Muskie?"
"Huge fish" to who?
I agree that a huge fish is over 50, but that is because I have stuck and released a hand full of them and expect to catch that size every year. BUT if someone catches a 40'' class fish and that is now their personal best it "IS a TRUE Trophy Muskie" to them. Anyway you look at it that fish is a trophy to them. Not to some but to them.
Mike, you see the joy of people catching fish while you guide. You can't tell me you don't give them a high five or atta boy when they stick a 40" out of Webster. Why would you even guide down there if you look at fish under 40" like it was a shaker or waits of time fish. How many 50's does your local waters kick out? Why guide there if their is no chance to get a TRUE Trophy Muskie?
I am with the guys who say a True Trophy is a Huge Fish. But I still believe that a 40" fish is a True Trophy to some on waters it is hard to catch. Like Lambeau posted earler, it's where you fish. If I was to look to better my personal best of 57-inches I would only fish out East, The V, The Pond, and Greem Bay till I beat it. There is very little reason to fish other waters where it is harder to achieve.
No disrespect to anyone, a Big Huge fish(53+) is a TRUE Trophy Muskie, a Big fish(48) is also to others, and a Trophy fish(44) is to some. Anyway you look at it the term TROPHY FISH is in the eye of the one who catches it. Not someone who reads about it or look at it on the internet. Looking at threads like this only belittles the average big fish to some.
Years ago a big fish was in the high 40's or maybe 50". Now with the internet a guy is not going to post his personal best of mid 40's because of all the guys who catch HUGE fish and post them. I believe that if a guy catches a Huge fish in his mind we as fellow fishermen should reconize that send a personal atta boy to him. Who are we to judge what is big to who?
Anyway you look at it a "TRUE Trophy Muskie" s in the eye of the one who catches it.
Everyones "bar" is set at a different level. As you reach that level it goes higher. Everyone starts low and works up. Lots of Trophys in ones life as a fishermen or outdoorsman. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | And, I'd add that the skew in reality is based on veeeeeeeeeery few fish out of VEEEERY limited areas when considering the total of all muskies caught in a year, 5 years, or a decade. And Mike is dead on, it's driven by instant information exchange and the rest of the Media that is about muskie.
And, just an observation,Mr. Hulbert doesn't backpedal. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2427
Location: Ft. Wayne Indiana | Mike,
A 40 incher is not a trophy. No way. And yes, I do shake off a TON of 40 inchers every year.
Why do I guide here...because that's where I live...
I didn't know the "What is a TRUE TROPHY?" question really meant, "Hulbert why do you guide in Indiana?"
I will type it ONE more time....maybe the 3rd time people read it they might understand what I am saying....
A 40 INCHER CAN BE SPECIAL...IT CAUGHT BY THE RIGHT PERSON OR UNDER THE RIGHT CONDITIONS. PLEASE NOTE THAT I USED THE WORD "SPECIAL" NOT "TROPHY".... BUT A TROPHY IS A TROPHY....SOMETHING REALLY REALLY BIG. SOMETHING NOT EVERYBODY HAS CAUGHT. SOMETHING NOT EVERY BODY OF WATER HAS. THE WORD "SPECIAL" AND "TROPHY" MEAN TWO TOTALLY DIFFERENT THINGS.
And Mike, yes if somebody catches a 40 incher here in Indiana with me, I do give them a high five....tell them good job. I don't jump up and down, yelling and screaming.... a 40 incher is exactally that....a 40 incher....one of hundreds in my boat. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 457
| Interesting point, Steve, that the reality of what is considered a trophy regardless of where it is taken is skewed greatly by the written media. Would you consider, then, that M1 is written media and adds to that skewing of thought?
I think I follow the general trend of thought that you are undergoing, and can appreciate it genuinely.
I'm sort of tired of a lot of the attitude that prevails, someone pops a 45" fish on waters that it would be a giant, and people snub it. I won't ever begin to understand that.... They are limited by their environment and genetics, a trophy depends on the fishery that they are coming out of.
I guess those that say fish of that class are piddly, ought to spend less time on the waters they inhabit, and fish only BoGB, or Sab, or NW Angle. Go somewhere and target your 50" trophy, I'll target what trophy I can on each individual body of water I can. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2691
Location: Pewaukee, Wisconsin | MikeHulbert - 2/14/2008 9:55 AM
Mike,
A 40 incher is not a trophy. No way. And yes, I do shake off a TON of 40 inchers every year.
Why do I guide here...because that's where I live...
I didn't know the "What is a TRUE TROPHY?" question really meant, "Hulbert why do you guide in Indiana?"
My point was that you don't give a 40-incher any respect. Spending all them hours fish every day you can only to be unimpressed with every fish you boat has got to be depressing as a fishermen and guide. That is why I ask "why". Money I guess. Love for the fish and sport? Thats hard to swallow with your views on what a big fish is.
I just can't see spending all those hours every day you can on the water only to come up with non trophy fish. I see a mid 40's as a good fish and I hope always will. The day I shake off 40's is the day fishing will only be a numbers game for me and the love will be lost. I like to fish for the sport and joy, numbers are just that.
I do agree with your views of a HUGE fish but not a TROPHY. Not all Trophys are the same size. Just like fish, some Special fish are Trophys to some if not most average fishermen.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2427
Location: Ft. Wayne Indiana | Extreme,
You said it yourself, "A mid-40's is a nice fish" FOR SURE IT IS, I never said it wasn't. All I am saying is it isn't a TROPHY.
I love catching muskies and I do it for the love of fishing, for the love of watching people catch their first, the most, their biggest, etc... I enjoy catching them all. But I don't need to hold up a 43 incher for a photo...been there done that. How many 36-43 inchers do I need photos of???
I would never say that our waters are "trophy" waters in Indiana. Do we have nice fish, YOU BET WE DO, but true TROPHY MUSKIES??? Not very many.....
I spend all those days on the water chasing muskies because I love to fish for muskies and love guiding for muskies. The love of the sport has no determination if a fish is a trophy or not.
And if I catch 40 inchers all day, I am not depressed, not at all. I am very happy. I wouldn't say, "We are really tearing up the trophies today!!!!" I would say, "Man, we are having an awesome day on the water!!! Lots of really nice fish!!!!!"
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | What if you have never caught a mid 40" fish...
Then it's a 'new PB' because it can't be a 'big fish' or a trophy by a standard that, by the responses from this thread is a 'yeah, but' bar. Get there, it's great, catch a 'big fish' that's what, 3INCHES short, and it's a 'yeah, but'. Hmmm. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 5874
| To equate this to deer, a 160 is the minumum score to submit to the B&C.
Would most agree that a 160 class buck is a True Trophy?
The current world record is scored at 213 5/8. 160 is about 75% of that. It doesn't matter where the deer was bagged, only that it was fair chase.
Now, the current world record, (I know, some will argue this is the real world record) is 70 lbs. 75% of that is about a 52 lber. That's a really big fish, and a size not frequently caught. Perhaps no more than once or twice a year, for the past few years, and less frequently prior to that. I suspect about the same number of 160+ class deer are bagged per year than 52 lbers are caught, per hunter/angler capita.
Is 52 lbs. an unreasonably high number? I don't think so. For me, I think it would be about the same odds of me catching a fish that size, than to shoot a 160 class deer. I've been deer hunting a lot longer than muskie hunting. I got a 150 class buck, and have only had 1 chance at a 160+ class deer. I've got 1 40 lb. fish to my credit, and have had a chance at a 50+ lber. To me, about the same deal.
Location, location, location. It is everything. Where I now hunt, there's probably little chance of me getting an opportunity for a 160+ class deer. But, I could spend the dollars, and go on a hunt where my odds are better. I now fish waters that provide a very reasonable chance to catch a 50+ lber. Much better than where I used to live and fish.
My biggest fish on Pewaukee was 47 1/2". I felt real proud of that fish. My biggest on GB is 50 1/2", and I was very pleased with that fish. I did not have a replica made of either, as I have my own minimum size for to have one made.
For the record, I did get the 150 class deer mounted. Much cheaper than a fish replica, and it was a cool rack.
When I was young, I recall my Dad and Uncle talking about 4 footers. They fished the Bago Chain, and that was what they considered a Trophy back then(60's). Things have changed a bit since then, I believe, and mostly in the past 5 years. IMHO.
So, I quess I have to agree with Hulbert on this one. A good fish is a good fsh, and may be special to someone. But a BIG fish is still a very BIG fish, and that would be a TRUE TROPHY.
All that said, I thank EVERY fish that comes to visit me in the boat.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Whooligan, yes, and we are going to do something about it. |
|
| |
