|
|
Posts: 2691
Location: Pewaukee, Wisconsin | Good post Mike.
My point was that if your views of a good fish were that high then most of the fish you catch down there are dinks in your mind. That would get old to me. I always expect to tangle with a good one when I am out. If I get a 40" I am happy with it. Maybe that makes me average. Im ok with that.
Seeing the smiles and happyness on peoples faces when they score fish is great, thats what drives me to guide. I have had clients catch shortys and just legals and they were over joyed. Not even a good fish by most standards but Special to them.
Everyone is different. If I guide hard cores I expect to boat 40's and up with them. If they score a high 40's or a 50" then that could be a Special or Trophy to them on my waters. Fiftys only come to very few around here. I hear about 5 a year, maybe up to 10 caught and released. You never hear about all of them.
True HUGE Trophys are very rare around here. A clients 53-incher was a True Trophy here to me and to him. My best is 52.5" here and that ranks up there with my monster caught our East in my book. I still say Trophys are different depending on the waters you fish.
A 52-incher would be a True Trophy on Webster wouldn't it?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 5874
| Yea, I know. You guys can get up off the floor. I'll say it again. I agreed with Hulbert on something! hehehe |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2427
Location: Ft. Wayne Indiana | The question is:
What is a TRUE TROPHY??
Not what is a trophy on Webster, or What is a trophy on Mille Lacs, or What is a trophy on Green Bay...
The question is: What is a TRUE TROPHY????
Yes, a 52 on Webster would be a REALLY BIG fish in Indiana...the longest EVER caught, but there have been a zillion 52 inchers caught around Musky Country. So is it a TRUE TROPHY??? No. For Webster, yes...HELL YES...but again, the question is, WHAT IS A TRUE TROPHY?
You can't pick and choose what lakes you are talking about or the region you are talking about...but you are asking what a TRUE TROPHY IS....
Again, a TRUE TROPHY is something VERY special, something that hasn't been caught by 50% of the musky community, something that most musky waters don't even have.... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 282
Location: north west wisconsin | mike i understand what you are saying and if you look at the question "what is a true trophy"
well i think the answer is in the definitian of the word
1 A prize or memento, such as a cup or plaque, received as a symbol of victory, especially in sports.
2 A specimen or part, such as a lion's head, preserved as a token of a successful hunt.
3 A memento, as of one's personal achievements.
4 The spoils of war, dedicated in classical antiquity with an inscription to a deity and set up as a temporary monument on or near a battlefield, placed in an existing temple, or housed in a permanent, new structure.
the third one sums up what a true trophy is.
a 52 in fish would be a replica in my book but to some others it would have to be 54
so it seems a trophy is in the eye of the beholder
tony knuteson |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 50%? Then a true trophy is probably closer to 42".
And you still are missing the point even though you have MADE that point several times. You said it yourself, one cannot pick and choose; apply that to those who can't spend the summers fishing where ever there are big fish.
ONE question; does it make sense the 'setting the bar' on what is a true trophy should be by those who are all over the Muskie range looking for that next sweet spot, and making a portion of their living at it in the process? Or is that the standard in US sports these days, and it has spilled into a sport where the very concept is upside down? Isn't the 'bar' set in other sports largely set by athletic ability? Is the sport of muskie fishing so that big fish define who is a 'star'? Answer to that one is obvious, and it's WHY those who want to 'do this' travel to the next big fish location and are usually there early.
Then one has the situation where someone who lives in the area where the current sweet bite is becoming a 'personality' because of large fish caught from large fish water...not a bad thing, but what sort of measure is that to enforce on those not that fortunate?
Mike, I know you don't hunt, but a great example of how to better describe what a 'trophy class' fish might be would be the CONCEPT of P&Y and B&C. Let's the lower end might be set at 45"", and let the upper end be what it really is where ever one might have the delight to fish muskies. Why can't we describe a good fish by what is real, not what a tiny segment (more describing 'record')of folks have actually done? Perhaps that will adjust the norms out there to be more in line with reality, like Bass angling, where if one is adept at catching the best bass in any one system, they can be pretty hot stuff: AND, there's a trophy bass sub-culture there that focuses on HUGE fish, trophy hunters if you will, who have a completely different place in the social structure of the sport.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8772
| MikeHulbert - 2/14/2008 11:37 AM
...but there have been a zillion 52 inchers caught around Musky Country. So is it a TRUE TROPHY??? No. <...> a TRUE TROPHY is something VERY special, something that hasn't been caught by 50% of the musky community, something that most musky waters don't even have....
A zillion 52 inchers, Mike? 50% of the musky community??
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 97
| I guess I don't really see the harm in calling a fish what it actually is size-wise anyway.
Is a 42" a nice fish? Yes. Is it a giant? No. And that has nothing to do with who caught that fish and what their opinion of what a trophy is.
Is a 32" small? Yes it is.
Is a 48" a big? Maybe to some people yes, to others no.
Here is something else to think about. Tiger Cat was brought up on occasion, and outside me knowing it was somewhere in Wisconsin, I had no idea if it was a trophy lake, or a numbers lake, or had really stunted fish. So if someone did post a picture of a 43" fish out of there, I don't think many people would really know if its a big fish for that area or not. What people DO know is in the grand scheme of things, a 43" fish is NOT a large fish, when they can grow 3x that size (weight not length).
What about if someone posts a picture of a 48" from lake x? Is it a trophy now?
Point is they all the fish above can be trophies to different people, but I see no harm in stating that a 42" fish is a solid fish, with the potential to grow into something bigger.
I have read several times through out this thread that it is common on these boards to hear people belittle someones catch, whether it be 40", 48" or whatever, and quite frankly I haven't seen that. I'm not saying that there isn't a random "guest" who throws pot shots out just to be a jag, but for the majority of people that post here I feel everyone is very supportive in offering congratulations. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2427
Location: Ft. Wayne Indiana | Yes a zillion... do you have any idea how many 52 incher are caught out of St. Clair alone???
Then add in ALL of canada...
Then add in the HUGE rivers systems...
Then add in MN
Then WI
Yes, a zillion 52 inchers have been caught. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'Is a 48" a big? Maybe to some people yes, to others no. '
There you have it.
Should those to whom a 48" fish is not a big fish set that bar, or should the reality of how many and where there ARE 48" fish available? Media focuses on NEWS, and this place is no different; you, our visitor, report the 'news' every day. NEWS is a 54" fish, because that's cool and huige and everyone imagines themselves catching one some day. But a 48" fish out of Spider would be BIG news locally, and that needs to be accepted and understood by the rest of the 'muskie culture' or the very fabric of what made this sport so popular over the last few years might just start tearing. |
|
| |
|
|
I would venture a guess that less than 5% of the muskie fishermen in the world have caught a legit 52"er.
I know for a fact in my MI club over 50% of our members have at least one 50-51"er, but above that the numbers go down real fast.
Anyway, this is getting silly on some levels.
JS
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Lax Contest:
650 total big fish entries and 31585.1 total inches (2,632.08 feet) of muskie in this database
48.5" average
About 136 anglers have registered a fish over 50" since the database began
36 have registered 5 fish or more
Trophymuskie has the largest overall average of those who have registered 5 fish or more at 51.5
Considering the number of anglers, number of fish caught and entered, and areas from which those fish came, I'd say a TRUE trophy class fish starts at 46" and runs to 57" for a MONSTER.
Maybe that beginning 'big fish status' set at 45" is dead on? It appears that most of those entering more than one fish had an average over 46.
Last fall at the FLW Chamopionship, Mr. Lindner told me he thinks the Lax Contest images represent one of the largest databases of large fish pictures out there. I'd tend to agree. Is that to be used to set any 'bar'? Probably too small a statistical base at this point, but it shows what's being caught out there.
I don't think this discussion is 'silly', and would encourage anyone who does to look at the numbers. I'd say with 4200 views on a thread that's a couple days old and nearly three times that many page views SOMEONE is interested. Going back a few pages, the busiest but now off the front threads are:
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=39...
And:
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=39...
See the link to this discussion?
|
|
| |
|
| I would 100% agree with JS ...less than 5% maybe even 1 or 2% of the musky fishing population have legit 52's.
I have to disagree with you there Htrain...do you yourself have one over 52"? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2427
Location: Ft. Wayne Indiana | I am not talking about the percentage of people with fish over 52.
I am talking about the NUMBER of 52's caught.
There is a pretty big difference. |
|
| |
|
| I agree, there, though not quite with the zillions number..what is a zillion anyway?
there are a lot over 52 caught yes, but it's by a very small number of guides/top fishermen across the musky land
there are plenty of guys that take multiple trips to those "easy" waters you speak of each year and never ever come home with one over 50"
to some degree the media, even sites like this make it seem easy to go there and get a 50. but how many of us really do?????
I would agree with SWorrall that the lax contest is an awesome big fish data base...i'm fortunate and lucky to have ... a few in it..
|
|
| |
|
|
People should be proud of their accomplishments, and everyone was proud to catch a 40"er at one point, or at many points in their muskie fishing careers.
But to sit and argue about what constitutes a trophy is an argument that will never end, because no one answer is right.
Tell you what, if we didn't raise the bar on trophy status, would we see higher size limits in Canada, and now MN?
There are many, many positives to raising the bar on what contitutes a trophy muskie, and those are being overlooked here.
I don't see deer hunting "coming apart at the seams" because all the hunting shows depict killing deer that most hunters will never be able to kill themselves.
Just like in muskie fishing, these shows glorify places that most can't go to, and show deer most can't get a chance to kill.
I don't see the deer hunters needing a self-help group to overcome this problem.
The perception of trophy, and what it means isn't any different in the muskie world than in other areas of game and fish.
I just don't see this doomsday scenario that is being potrayed.
Sorry.
JS
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 298
| MikeHulbert - 2/12/2008 6:41 AM
I don't think a 41 incher is every a trophy...no matter where it came from.
Anything over 45 is a nice fish.
But a trophy is a "TROPHY"...which means it is BIG...not NICE...45 is nice, 50+ is a trophy, anything over 53 is a really really nice trophy.
This is the best statement on this thread. Any veteran of this sport on this board should be in complete agreement with it. Trophy proportions are based on a species maximum growth potential, not where you caught. These fish can grow to 60+ inches, which is a 1/3 longer than a 40" fish, and likely would weigh 3X the amount of that 40 incher.
I love every size muskie, but 50" is the magic number for this species. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | so ... what constitutes a rat then ... for me it's anything under like 45" ... yep, they're fun to catch but a disappointment based on what i'm trying to catch unless of-course it's in competition.
that's why you'll see me fishing where and how i do ... lots of people fishing the middle of the lake on deeper structure go nuts fishing with me and after casting what they think is the dead sea abyss want desperately to get to a weed edge or shorline to cast visually at something. my usual partner Andy Grimm ... likes to fish the same way i do and because of that we don't put as many numbers in the boat but when we do get a shot it's usually what we want to get a picture of.
so, as another side of this trophy discussion ... are you fishing to "fish" or are you out there trying to find the biggest fish? ... on many waters ... there is a distinct difference.
to me ... i'd rather come away with nothing and have a shot at something big than catch a few small fish ... but, that's my preference ... what's yours? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 457
| Fishboy19 - 2/14/2008 1:44 PM
MikeHulbert - 2/12/2008 6:41 AM
I don't think a 41 incher is every a trophy...no matter where it came from.
Anything over 45 is a nice fish.
But a trophy is a "TROPHY"...which means it is BIG...not NICE...45 is nice, 50+ is a trophy, anything over 53 is a really really nice trophy.
This is the best statement on this thread. Any veteran of this sport on this board should be in complete agreement with it. Trophy proportions are based on a species maximum growth potential, not where you caught. These fish can grow to 60+ inches, which is a 1/3 longer than a 40" fish, and likely would weigh 3X the amount of that 40 incher.
I love every size muskie, but 50" is the magic number for this species.
And I disagree. Not all of them can grow to 60"+. Very few will. They are limited reginally, by genetics, and by the quality of the water they are in.
I think, as I stated previously, that a true trophy is attached to the water it came from.
As well, I've seen 46" fish that were heavier than many of the 50" fish I've seen. Let's call oranges oranges here. Because that 46" fish isn't 4 inches longer, it isn't a tophy? That's crap. Given that it has more girth, and is heavier than many of it's 50" counterparts.
IMO, the point of this thread is lost on some. Not being spiteful or snide, but you keep arguing against the point that you continually prove. There are several in here that continue down that same path.
|
|
| |
|
| I totally disagree whooligan..just like in big buck hunting they have P&Y and B&C minimums to be met for your buck to be considered as a "trophy" buck in those ...a 46" fish regardless of where it came from just isn't a trophy...sure it can be a special fish, a great fish, and yes even big, but a trophy? just because it came from waters where 46" is at the highest end of the spectrum? no way...
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 335
Location: Minnesota | Thank You JS! AMEN!
If you are considering a "book" for people to register trophies and are going to set a limit, be careful what you ask for because you may get it. If you set the trophy level too low, the perception will be that we as musky anglers are happy with fish over that size. Not all will agree and some may even say who are the poor, average Joe's out there to define what a trophy is? (Just the opposite of the big name guides, media personalities, etc...). I have big dreams of a 60 incher and someday I hope to catch one of those 57 inchers that was released and grew some more. Don't sell yourself or us as the musky angling public short!
I am not saying that you might not have a good idea here but need to know more specifics about your preconceived ideas to comment specifically on them.
I look at the posts of the big fish pictures for the same reason I look at the cover of Bowhunter Magazine. Entertainment. When I see a picture of a big buck I say to myself, "man I am gonna get me one of those someday". Same thing with a big fish picture. I don't dream about catching a 45 incher most of the time. I normally have dreams about something over 55 inches (some call them nightmares) LOL. I don't expect to catch a 50 everytime I go out and I am pumped about catching a 45 inch fish but I am concerned that you may be looking to set a limit for something that people may not even want. If your dreams are totally based on reality I pity you. A man who has no dreams has nothing - I think I heard that somewhere once. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2323
Location: Stevens Point, WI | bn - 2/14/2008 2:02 PM
I totally disagree whooligan..just like in big buck hunting they have P&Y and B&C minimums to be met for your buck to be considered as a "trophy" buck in those ...a 46" fish regardless of where it came from just isn't a trophy...sure it can be a special fish, a great fish, and yes even big, but a trophy? just because it came from waters where 46" is at the highest end of the spectrum? no way...
BN, then what is a trophy to you? I think Whooligan is onto something. Yes, P&Y and B&C have minimums. For P&Y, that is 125 inches to qualify for the books, B&C is 170 I think. So what size muskie would be equal or relevant to a P&Y buck? Heck, a 125 P&Y buck has got to be like a 45 incher or even less maybe.
Edited by Merckid 2/14/2008 2:10 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Why does a trophy need to be a size that everyone has a chance to obtain? Shouldnt a trophy be something rare and something that isnt always the easiest thing to catch? Sure some will get lucky and get into one early. Take me for example, I have a 50 and a 51 to my name. I feel very fortunate to have caught them. Am I now a great angler? Heck no, far from it. One can be a successful fisherman without having a trophy to his or her name.
A trophy is something not all can achieve. Take a look at the NFL, every team competes for the Vince Lombardi Trophy, not every team has a Vince Lombardi Trophy to hang there hat on, take a look at the Vikings But should we now rearrange the system so every team can get a trophy so no one feels bad. What about the fans, dont they deserve to see there team win a trophy? Arent we all out on the water competing for that one fish? Some just have better access to bigger fish, just as some teams have better access to better players.
Now I realize that comparing musky fishing to the NFL is like comparing Pineapples to Kumquats but in my head the principle is there....maybe I'm wrong and should put my waders back on as I missed the boat and they took the dock out...who knows 
|
|
| |
|
| P&Y buck like a 45" or less...that's a stretch...but i see your point regardless...a trophy is just that..it's not a special fish, a noteworthy fish, a big fish, a nice fish, it's a trophy...like JS said, if the trophy bar hadn't been set high would places like Lac Seul , Eagle, and others with C&R or 54" size limits be the fisheries they are today?
48" at a very min is a trophy to me, most likely I think trophy in the world of muskies should be 50" and higher... the trophy bar should be set high and it should not matter what body of water we are talking about...so a small 6 pt buck is a trophy because it came from a county where that is big? get real. no way. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8772
| Mike, you say there are a lot of 52" fish being caught... Not tryin to be a dick, but compared to WHAT? How many fisheries in how many states are capable of producing a 52" fish, or have done so more than one or two times?
How many anglers are actually catching those fish?
Part of the "problem" that Steve is trying to illustrate here is this perception that 52" fish are common. They might be common in 5 or 10 systems, but if you look at the total range of muskies it paints a different picture.
If you look at the number of muskie anglers vs the number who have caught a 52" muskie, or the number of muskie lakes compared to the number of lakes where 52" muskies have been caught it becomes pretty clear that a 52" muskie is pretty rare.
Take the St Clair, Eagle, Lac Seul, Vermillion, etc. lakes out, take the top 10 muskie destinations out of the mix, and how many 52" Muskies are left?
I think you need to look at it in terms of the big picture. Let's say 100 52" muskies are caught in a year. (Is it even that many?) That's a LOT. One could look at that and believe they are common. But of the total number of muskies caught in a year is 20,000, you're looking at .05% of all catches that are over 52". I'd say the top half of one percent is worthy of being called a 'trophy' no matter who you are or where you fish. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2323
Location: Stevens Point, WI | Totally agree EA, good post! |
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | Merckid - 2/14/2008 3:08 PM bn - 2/14/2008 2:02 PM I totally disagree whooligan..just like in big buck hunting they have P&Y and B&C minimums to be met for your buck to be considered as a "trophy" buck in those ...a 46" fish regardless of where it came from just isn't a trophy...sure it can be a special fish, a great fish, and yes even big, but a trophy? just because it came from waters where 46" is at the highest end of the spectrum? no way... BN, then what is a trophy to you? I think Whooligan is onto something. Yes, P&Y and B&C have minimums. For P&Y, that is 125 inches to qualify for the books, B&C is 170 I think. So what size muskie would be equal or relevant to a P&Y buck? Heck, a 125 P&Y buck has got to be like a 45 incher or even less maybe. Pointerpride102 - 2/14/2008 3:11 PM Why does a trophy need to be a size that everyone has a chance to obtain? Shouldnt a trophy be something rare and something that isnt always the easiest thing to catch? I hope this doesn't loose the non-hunters... The P&Y analogy is a good one. They have purposely set a number as "trophy" that is attainable nearly all across the range of a species. Sure there are some areas that it is easier to shoot a 125" buck, some people are even going to pass that 125" buck and some areas might never grow a 125" buck. This is exactly what setting a "trophy" size in muskie fishing would have to be and it probably comes in somewhere arounf 45-47". IMO setting 50" as a trophy would be like setting the P&Y minimum at 180". I think we're confusing "trophy" with Holy Grail. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 31
| Guys,
This is one of the most intersting and thought provoking discussions I've seen yet.
I think of trophy's two ways:
1-biological
2-social
Biologically, a trophy could be measured much like P & Y or B & C. In fisheries we use a metric called condition (Length vs. weight correlation) to measure the relative fitness of an individual fish compared to others in the same lake, region, state, etc...This is a quantifiable number (100 is considered good-over 100 is considered robust (fat) and under 100 is considered poor). What if we measured a trophy based on relative weight of the upper 95th percentile of all fish caught. This type of "scoring" system puts empahsis on more than one variable (not just on one like length)-creating a level playing field for all. SO, a fish that is 46 and FAT may actually have a better "score" than a 52 that looks like a hose.
Socially, a trophy is based on personal opinion. Mine may be different from yours-and yes sometimes it is based on the body of water I fish. My "trophy" fish is more about weight than length.
Jordan |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1168
| Perhaps the WRMA should send out participation ribbons to anyone who submits a pic of them with a muskie. Similar to a kid getting a ribbon for playing t-ball, soccer, or milking a goat at a county fair. Ever see a 3 year old milk a goat? To that kid it can be the thrill of a lifetime, however by reading this thread and alot of other nonsensical bickering around here I'm sure that kid would get lambasted for holding the goat's teat the wrong way, squeezing it too hard, or not getting enough milk out.
For the past 2+ years I've conducted informal surveys at boat landings of non-muskie anglers. A majority of which stated that 50 inches is what they considered a trophy muskie. I came to the conclusion that 50 inches isn't as much of a trophy as it is a benchmark of what is perceived to be the golden ring that all wish to acheive. This is useful when considering size limit changes in that most non muskie anglers consider 50 to be an extraordinary fish. Using this as a benchmark we don't have to convince them of what a nice fish is since this perception already exists.
Some water provides a better shot at a 50 but this does not make it an automatic. With 50 being the benchmark that we all have set from the first time we got obsessed with muskies it is a great day when that is reached. Doesn't matter where it happens, you are excited about it. Then to read or hear of guys downplaying a personal accomplishment like this, especially by someone who hasn't sniffed that rung on the ladder himself is beyond me. To me those are guys suffering from a severe case of little man's disease who need to stroke their own fractured egos.
..it's a good thing I have some fresh goat cheese to eat. The stuff is pretty darn tasty and I'll enjoy it, but not as much as the 3 year old kid enjoyed milking the goat to get the milk to make the goat cheese.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8772
| We're not going to all ever agree, but what we can try to do is find a place where half of us are above and half are below...
Judging by the responses to this thread so far, I'd say around 54" is what we all universally agree is a trophy no matter where you go, right?
And, let's say 46" for the minimum of what could be considered a trophy fish in a lot of areas?
Halfway in between that is?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 31
| MILKING GOATS!!!!!!
That's halarious!
|
|
| |
