Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
| Moderators: Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : < ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 > Now viewing page 8 [30 messages per page] Muskie Fishing -> General Discussion -> What IS a TRUE Trophy Muskie? |
| Message Subject: What IS a TRUE Trophy Muskie? | |||
sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32880 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Many of you apparently don't talk to many newbie or interested anglers looking at the sport. Deer hunting HAS the bar set by P&Y and B&C. There's LOTS of not very positive talk about shows that are filmed on game farms or are not honest about the fact they are hunting prime trophy areas. Ted Barta is a very popular product of that interesting burp in the culture. Wait now, you are assuming that the limit set in Ontario at 54" was to set a bar on what is a trophy, and I submit your are incorrect there. I have been told the goal was and is to stop the overharvest of limited numbers of available muskies on those waters almost altogether(no stocking there, remember?), and the 54" limit was set at near the upper confidence limits on those bodies of water accomplishing just that. If 45" IS the low end and ??? is the upper end, why would anyone assume a minimum is more desirable than the maximum? And, if a system is not able to kick out fish much bigger than 45" at least fish from that water that make the 'book' will be recognized. Pointer, I believe you are talking about 'record class', not 'trophy class'. Not everyone can shoot a 125 class P&Y either, but at least the minimum is based in reality and most areas have at least a huntable population of 'upper end' bucks that would make the book. Sure, it's easier to make the book with a 130 class buck than a 150 class, why is that such a negative for you? It's a true and accepted representation of what a 'nice buck' really is. 45" is where it SEEMS most folks believe they have a Muskie in the net that is a darned nice fish. 46" might be closer, but not in some areas of the country where muskie angling is a growing sport and others where the fish have been forever but grow too fast and burn out pretty early. Professional sports...success there (to be a Jordan, for example) is based on personal athletic talent and the team's use of same, and isn't limited by the resource. To be a 'star' in muskie angling, all one has to do is be reasonably accomplished, hire a few guides and learn the best waters out there, and then fish where the big fish are and fish long and hard. Try being a 'star' in the muskie world fishing JUST the Madison Chain. Who catches the most fish out there on that water every year? What's his name? bn, it takes a hell of a 6 point buck to make P&Y. You are able to fish pretty much where you want, so your assessment on what the 'bar' should be is no surprise, you are obviously a 'trophy hunter' when it comes to muskies, and you've had some success there, I might add. Sled, what does wanting to catch big fish and not catch small fish have to do with what we are discussing here? I do the same thing, but if I GET a 45, I'm pretty happy. Happier than a 40, much happier than a 38, and way happier than a 32. And whooligan hit on what Mr. Weeks mentioned. Is a very heavy 46 that weighs 26# out of a 550 acre lake in NE WI that's 20 years old and at peak less a big fish than a 16 year old 50 that weighs 27# out of a 100000 plus acre lake in MN? This thread leads me to believe the paradigm shift from weight (therefore killed/kept) to length/girth(therefore released) is complete, at least with this crowd. | ||
| bn |
| ||
| just because I've caught some big fish the last few years I don't think has swayed me too much in my thinking...the first year or 2 I got into musky fishing was about 1993, I tangled with what turned out to be a 48"er (neighbor caught and thumped it that fall) on a small, private 200 acre lake that I'm able to still fish today. That fish to me then was HUGE, it made the 12' aluminum boat we were in look small, it was a trophy to me then, it still would be if I were able to catch a 48"er on that lake to this day, 15 yrs later...your relative success or how many years or fish you have under your belt shouldn't move the trophy bar too much.... I had about 5 fish under my belt when I lost that fish, now I have over 300 and I still think the way I thought then...for the most part... | |||
| brmusky |
| ||
Posts: 335 Location: Minnesota | The Pope & Young example should still be looked at like an apples to oranges comparison IMO. The principle is the same but just to keep things in perspective - that club set a benchmark at what size animal harvested is a trophy. Nobody here is suggesting that we set a number at when musky gets harvested but I have some degree of concern that may be one unintended consequence. Maybe we need to use a different word than "Trophy". After all a trophy is something that you have as a momento of an accomplishment. By the true definition of the word a trophy musky is only reduced to trophy status if you kill it and bring it to a taxidermist to have put on your wall. The "trophy" is the momento you have of the accomplishment such as a picture or a replica but the musky itself is not a trophy unless it is reduced to such! There are some cool ideas out there already like Master Angler programs that recognize big fish caught in certain regions. | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32880 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Noting in defining what is a 'big muskie' defines whether it is released or kept; the parallel is not harvest, it's a standard set that we all can accept defining what a nice 'animal'/fish is. Hopefully, the DNR and MNR's of the world set the minumum bar on that issue, and us conservationists shame 'em all out of keeping any. Look at the Lax Contest...replica, right? Encouraging release of all muskies, right? Separate issues, big time. | ||
| floydss |
| ||
 Posts: 282 Location: north west wisconsin | well said brmusky i agree that if a book does get made it should not be called the trophy book, more so it should be called.... a record book maybe when i think of p+y or b+c i think of record books not trophy books my 2 cents | ||
| Jerry Newman |
| ||
Location: 31 | I must say I'm in agreement with nearly everything in these latest responses, stimulating comments to help combat the old Man Winter blues. Edited by Jerry Newman 2/14/2008 10:04 PM | ||
| esoxaddict |
| ||
Posts: 8772 | sworrall - 2/14/2008 3:07 PM ...Try being a 'star' in the muskie world fishing JUST the Madison Chain. Who catches the most fish out there on that water every year? What's his name? That would be Jeff Hanson. The guy is a machine.  And it's interesting that you mention the Lax contest. I neglected to enter my 47"er from Eagle in the contest, because I don't consider that particular fish from that particular place to be a trophy. It was a darn nice fish, my biggest ever. But not one that I ever considered worthy of a replica on the wall. Now maybe that makes me stupid for not taking the chance at getting a replica I don't have to pay for, I don't know. But I feel that 47" is a nice fish on the way to the one that I will get a replica of and call a trophy, and I also feel like I've got a pretty good shot at making that happen. Edited by esoxaddict 2/14/2008 3:47 PM | ||
| J_WEEKS |
| ||
Posts: 31 | Steve, Maybe we could get those active on this board to list length and girth (estimated or measured) from fish they caught (lets say the five longest fish from last year). I'll use the weight calculator on this site to estimate weight. Also, indicate where the fish was caught (state will do). Once compiled, I could calculate some relative weights and possibly answer this discussion scientifically based on state. Steve, could you compile that data and get a spreadsheet to me? Any interest guys??? Jordan Edited by J_WEEKS 2/14/2008 3:37 PM | ||
| Pointerpride102 |
| ||
Posts: 16632 Location: The desert | I said nothing about deer hunting. I'm not a deer hunter and couldnt tell you what qualifies a trophy buck. I just look at the antlers, if there are a lot I assume its a trophy, if there arent so many I say cool they got a buck, good for them. I do something similar with fish, if it is really long and has a big belly, I say WOW! And I get the itch to get out and chase one. If I see a 45, I say "Awesome, great fish." I still get the itch to go chase one. If I see someone with a 32, I say "Great job, congrats on the catch." In no way does that take away from any angler. I'm with you, if I catch a 45 I'm exstatic, snap a pic and send it back! If I catch a 40 I'm still pertty exstatic, snap a photo and send it back! If I catch a 27.5 I'm happy, have a good laugh, thank the fish for the fun and send it back. I have to agree with Ulbian that I'm getting the feeling we need to make sure everyone can say they have that 'trophy'. And I would agree with the sentiment of the goat milking participation ribbon or the everyone who plays T Ball gets a trophy, so no one feels like they mean less to the sport. I understand the point that the perception is being made that a ton of 50+ get caught when in reality it is how publicised these fish are, and how very few anglers are actually catching them. But shouldnt we strive to catch a fish like the one's they are getting on the big fish water? Maybe that will require budgeting some money to get to a big fish water. Save up for a few trips to big fish water and try and make the best of it. If a newbie feels he or she needs to catch a fish equal to the caliber of those being caught on the Trophy waters, I think that just shows that they are newbies. If they get into the sport and become serious about it they will understand that some lakes just dont produce those sized fish. There is nothing wrong with catching a smaller fish, I dont think one person has said that in this thread. One point JS brought up was if we are lowering the standard of a trophy for given water bodies, we are going against the idea of higher size limits. No not all lakes can support those higher size limits. But if we say a 45 is a trophy for an area, and someone new catches one and considers it a trophy there is a chance that fish gets whacked, it never has a chance to get bigger, possibly reach that 50 inch mark. Maybe that is the reason some places dont produce fish in the 50 inch caliber, because those smaller fish are viewed as trophies and become skin mounts. I think in todays day and age some people need to develop a bit thicker skin, to bounce off some of the comments of people who try to diminish their catch. Fishing shouldnt be about comparing yourself to what some guy is doing up on Mille Lacs, enjoy what you catch, have fun. You dont need to land a 50 inch fish to have fun. I had a blast with 27.5 inch fish out in Utah. Sorno and I were out with a guy who couldnt even cast a baitcaster at the beginning of the day, at the end of the day he had a 42 inch tiger to his name. Do I now feel cheated because he is in a league well above me because of the 42? Heck no. I think I'm rambling here now, so I'll just stop. Just have fun fishing, thats all a newbie needs to know. | ||
| brmusky |
| ||
Posts: 335 Location: Minnesota | There is no way that fish was that big! LOL Well, as scientific as it could be in February with a bunch of guys waiting for the ice to melt! | ||
| bmaxey |
| ||
| Very longwinded, not getting anywhere thread. Just because its your PB does not make it a trophy. maybe like Hulbert said its "special" but a trophy, no. IMO, a 50 is still the mark i go for. IT drives me to a decision on where i spend my time fishing. IF i want action i will fish for bass. otherwise i am hunting for a pig. not a 34 or 36 or even a 40 incher. If i catch one, great. but 45 and plus is what gets me going and 50 is the trophy for me no matter where i am. If i took a vacation to a place that never kicked out big fish then that is my choice, not an excuse. So for those of you who look down at MN 50+inchers and think that anything short of that is a trophy than keep fishing where you fish and leave the REAL big ones for those of us who want them. But to those saying a 41 or even a 45 is the same as a 50 or 52 on Mille Lacs or vermillion, not even close. If they were, vacationers would stay in their respective areas. IF you are hunting for smaller fish,or fish on a body of water that does not pump out some biggies, do not wait for people to pat you on the back and say "nice Trophy" This is all we need now. 44 x 20, but I caught it from a small wisco lake. 52 x 23, but HE got it from Mille Lacs. | |||
| Bytor |
| ||
Location: The Yahara Chain | sworrall - 2/14/2008 3:07 PM To be a 'star' in muskie angling, all one has to do is be reasonably accomplished, hire a few guides and learn the best waters out there, and then fish where the big fish are and fish long and hard. Try being a 'star' in the muskie world fishing JUST the Madison Chain. Who catches the most fish out there on that water every year? What's his name? His name is Jeff Hanson and he is one of the finest angler's anywhere. He has caught one 49" fish out there. I may be wrong but I think that is his only fish over 47 in Madison. He has caught more 45-46" fish out there than anybody else. If he lived near "trophy" waters everybody would know his name. All of the "trophy" talk has diluted the original thought of the thread in my opinion. Mr. Hanson's 49" fish is a major accomplishment, many here would not consider it a trophy but on the Yahara Chain it most definitely is. We have a number of excellent anglers in our club but Mr. Hanson is the best. | ||
| bn |
| ||
| He's the best on the madison chain..but the best angler? does he do as well if you put him on Mille Lacs next season as say Lee ? doubt it...great angler ..but calling anyone the best is a bit subjective in musky fishing..and once you put anyone on a pedestal you set yourself up for never attaining that same level of success...imo. he's the best over the course of the season..but are there days where some boats on the water catch bigger and more..you bet...but over the course of the season we all know he puts in more hours than anyone and boats more fish.... | |||
| lambeau |
| ||
| the DNR and other groups have surveyed anglers about what they consider to be the size of a "trophy" muskie. if i recall correctly, the results were 50". a pretty common discussion is whether or not someone has caught a 50" fish. it's a generally accepted trophy goal regardless of location, even if your location doesn't produce as many of them as some other place. the Lax contest's entry point minimum is 45" and the database is chock full of big fish from places all across the muskie's range. it's full of big fish, not all of which would or should be considered "trophy" class, imho. Jason Hammernick, famous guide and MMTT tournament Angler of the Year registered 150 fish with Muskies Inc in 2007: 53 fish were over 45". 16 of those fish were over 50". that's 35% over 45", and 10% over 50". of those 150 fish, 19 were from Webster Lake, IN. only 1 of them was over 45". one of the world's top anglers manages only 5% over 45" on those waters. obviously, most of his large fish were primarily caught from Mille Lacs and Vermilion in MN. almost 40% of his MN fish were over 45"! (Mike, do your IN vs MN numbers approximate Jason's?) clearly, there's a very very significant distinction between what's possible between those different lakes and areas. however, grading on the curve doesn't help anyone, and in the long run it hurts everyone. it "dumbs down" the truly special accomplishments by the few who have the means and ability to seek out those truly special fish. i can't fish those MN waters as often as people who live nearby them, but i sure don't resent them their opportunities, i'm happy for them! when i fish in southern WI i simply accept the reality that it's essentially impossible that i'm going to catch what i consider a trophy fish (50"+), because i'm not fishing on trophy waters. that doesn't diminish the fish i catch in any way, it's just reality. currently there is no P&Y or B&C group for muskie fishing. no one is the arbiter of what is and what isn't a trophy fish. if someone, for whatever reason, feels the need to quantify the term "trophy", setting it at 45" (or wherever) won't stop the comparisons to bigger fish. a certain minimum standard is meaningless without ACTION to celebrate achieving it. (for example getting a certificate from a record organization.) as a community here on MuskieFirst, i think we do a pretty good job of taking the time to congratulate and celebrate special, non-trophy catches whenever someone posts a picture or tells a story. i believe we do take action in that way. | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32880 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Setting a reasonable level where one can expect respectability doesn't negate or diminish any exceptional fish and isn't a 'grade'; on the contrary. To suggest it might is nothing short of absolute proof we make our -what-is-a-trophy decisions based on nothing at all, and everything at the same time. If a 45 JUST makes the 'book', a 46" is bigger, and a 56 is WAY bigger. bn indicates I am not all that far off the mark describing this dichotomy as well. | ||
| john skarie |
| ||
| What exactly is the point of setting a "reasonable level where one can expect respectability"? None of the anglers I know or fish with care about being respected by the masses, or about being judged on thier catches. They just care about doing what they love to do. JS | |||
| Don Pfeiffer |
| ||
Posts: 929 Location: Rhinelander. | For the guy that can spend over 150 days on the water a trophy may be different then a guy who spends 10. Its important to look at it from everyones shoes. For those of you that get the 150 days plus I should hope you get a few 50's. Time on the water equals more fish caught, even for a less experienced angler. I think with some of the expectations set here by others are are a bit extreme. Chill pills need to be handed out. Pfeiff | ||
| Don Pfeiffer |
| ||
Posts: 929 Location: Rhinelander. | Did someone say they shake off 100's of 40's every year? Lord give me strength. Thats just way too funny!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 Pfeiff | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32880 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | John, I bet you'd watch the database, though... | ||
| MikeHulbert |
| ||
Posts: 2427 Location: Ft. Wayne Indiana | AGAIN, THE QUESTION IS "WHAT IS A TRUE TROPHY?" The answer shouldn't matter if you fish 10 days a year or 250 days a year. When you put the word "TRUE" in there, then you throw out all other variables. | ||
| john skarie |
| ||
| Honestly, I don't do much data-base searching, even with the Lunge Log. That's probably because I already have a handle on what's happening where I'm fishing. I tend to get info directly when I do need it. Data-bases do have a lot of info to offer, and can be very useful. I still just don't see why you need to combine them with contests, or rewards. But that's just me. One thing about expectations. Guys like Mike H and others don't have "unrealistic" expectations. They know the possibilities, and go after them. Expectations are only unreal if you don't have the means to follow them through. JS | |||
| internet police |
| ||
| every one of you are under arrest and suspended from posting from one year! | |||
| lambeau |
| ||
every one of you are under arrest and suspended from posting from one year! sweet freedom. | |||
| lambeau |
| ||
AGAIN, THE QUESTION IS "WHAT IS A TRUE TROPHY?" The answer shouldn't matter if you fish 10 days a year or 250 days a year. When you put the word "TRUE" in there, then you throw out all other variables. as i've said before, i agree with Mike on this and "true" trophy, irregardless of place or time is somewhere in the low-mid 50" range in my opinion. it is also worth recognizing the accomplishments of anglers on waters that simply don't produce monster fish. call it "trophy", call it "special"...whatever...catching the biggest fish in the pond is hard to do and worth celebrating. so perhaps a more focused question would be something like, "what is a noteworthy muskie in your area?" how would you answer that? where i fish in/around Madison, i'd say 46"+ where i fish in northern WI, i'd say 47"+ where i fish in Minnesota, i'd say 51"+ i based my ideas on these sizes on the thought that a "local trophy" fish shouldn't be something that most anglers do on those waters every year. it small enough to be possible on those waters, but big enough to make it a special fish. | |||
| Larry Ramsell |
| ||
Posts: 1290 Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Several interesting comments that I have combined and wish to comment on: Fishboy19 said: "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." Larry: While this is indeed true for the Muskellunge “species”, there are MANY populations of muskies throughout North America where it is not true, almost all in landlocked or southern part of the range situations where northern pike are absent. Whoolligan said: "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?" Larry: Even in waters where 60” + growth is “possible” very few ever attain that size. Whoolligan makes a very valid point with his weight comment. After all, the “Holy Grail” of our sport is the World Record (whichever one you choose to accept) and that is determined soley by weight. Muskellunge catch and release has basically created a whole new ball game…one measured only by length (at this point). brmusky said: "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!" Larry: Herein lies possibly the TRUE defination of what really is a TRUE TROPHY. It may be that the ULTIMATE muskie is the truest trophy in the “big picture” but everyone has their own personal idea of what a trophy is to them. Whether it be the World Record by weight or one of those rare specimen’s that grow to a length over 57 inches or indeed the even rarer 60 inches. Pointerpride102 said: "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?" Larry: I tend to agree here IF the entire muskie range is included overall, however, as has been said several times, any one PERSON’S “trophy” is in the eyes of the beholder regardless of where they are able to fish. Jordan Weeks said: "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." Larry: Initially I had thought that comparisons to deer rack records was off the mark, but if only the “release” measurements were considered, it could be a fair comparison. Catch and release has created a whole new set of things to think about when weight is not normally obtained (note: there is currently new thinking that a quick weight with the fish in the net and reduced handling without trying to take length and girth measurements and lots of out of the water photos, may help to reduce post release mortality). As Jordan noted, HIS personal opinion about a trophy is sometimes based on fish weight and not length. His length vs. weight corelation could indeed put all waters on a more even playing field with regard to comparisons, but that won’t change perceptions of what is an ultimate trophy, whether it be length or weight. Ulbian said: "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." Larry: The WDNR has found this 50” benchmark to also be what the majority of anglers consider a trophy muskie and Ulbian’s comment supports my previous statement of the majority of anglers PERCEPTION is in this regard, waterbody capability notwithstanding. To address what I believe Mr. Worrall has been trying to relate to all, if I intrepret it correctly, is just because “perception” indicates that 50” may be the trophy benchmark, it certainly does not diminish ANY SIZE MUSKIE that is in the upper confidence limits of the waterbody that it was caught from. Edited by Larry Ramsell 2/15/2008 8:39 AM | ||
| jonnysled |
| ||
Posts: 13688 Location: minocqua, wi. | steve ... the answer to your question. i thought that a question of tactical fishing as a pattern and a strategy (for larger fish) was relevant. a high percentage of musky fishermen bypass altogether fishing areas and using tactics that might otherwise catch bigger fish and that those that do put these times, locations and presentations to use show results very different than the average angler. the first piece of evidence i would throw out there is the most recent badfish outdoors muskie madness III video. people i've learned from and shared this view with include ... agrimm, bn, jlong, johannes, joey rozanski, gordie hastreter (sp?), mark lijewski, mike hulbert, kevin cochran, cal ritchie ... i believe this list of people and you could add many more ... fish differently than most, show consistent results on varieties of waters they fish and target the <5% fish in the pool and catch them successfully year in and year out. the discussion of this thread has been around what is a true trophy. i'm suggesting that as there are distinctions of true trophy fish ... there is also a distinction in the tactics and goals of true trophy fishermen. so, based on the above ... i thought it might be relevent to the discussion. | ||
| Coincedance? |
| ||
| "people i've learned from and shared this view with include ... agrimm, bn, jlong, johannes, joey rozanski, gordie hastreter (sp?), mark lijewski, mike hulbert, kevin cochran, cal ritchie ... " But isn't there some coincidence that these people seem to fish trophy waters as their destinations (Jlong, agrimm, Johannes, agrimm) where they live and guide (Kevin, Cal) or where they go for their summer seasons of guiding (Mike H)? That isnt to say that these aren't skilled "sticks" in their own rights, but the trophy fish they catch, they catch seem to catch on openly identified "tophy waters"? Again, that isnt to say they arent accomplished anglers, but to say that they catch these great fish soley because they fish in some different, higher, way makes them trohphy fisherman, discounts that they are catching these fish on waters where trophies exist. | |||
| MikeHulbert |
| ||
Posts: 2427 Location: Ft. Wayne Indiana | Coinedance... Maybe a little, but where I do most of my fishing the general public catches a lot of 28-38 inchers. I don't even want to catch those fish. I try and target the bigger fish. When you can carry an avg. of over 40 inches in Indiana, you are definately catching alot of big fish for Indiana (45-48 inchers) I'm not saying that I am simply the best...but I have yet to see as many big fish photos from Indiana, which is home of the 28-38 incher. | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32880 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Sled, what you are saying is that those anglers...and you...are 'trophy hunters'. I get that...but that segment of the sport is NOT a 'high percentage'. If it was, the waters your group targets would be quite a bit more crowded. Larry, thanks. I'm also saying that IF there was a free to use, incentive based , solid database for released muskies out there the what is considered a big fish in many areas (let's say it's done by watershed) could be different than the perception might be today. | ||
| MRoberts |
| ||
Posts: 714 Location: Rhinelander, WI | WOW!!! I read this entire thread last night and my BRAIN still hurts. I did it right before I went to bed big mistake. I think some of my thoughts on the subject are finally straight. First I think it’s important to read Steve’s first post entirely this topic isn’t only about “What IS a TRUE Trophy Muskie”, there is lots more to that first questions. I think Jordan summed it up best with his two way to look at it. 1) Biological Trophy – Very much geographicly determined. 2) Social Trophy – Very much media driven, and very dependent on HOW much the Angler knows about the sport. Fundamentally I think the above is the main reason why Fishermen and Biologist have a hard time getting on the same page. Most fishermen don’t want to hear about biological reasons they care more about the social implications, and vice versa. This makes the politics very difficult. Socially tophy still can be all over the map. Think of Grandpa Joe spending all his time on one lake, only reading the local paper. Gramps may have caught 1000 muskies in his life time, depending on the lake maybe he has one fish over 41 inches, what do you think a trophy is to him? This is the same analogy Steve used when talking about Spider Lake. In the big pictures that 44 inchers isn’t really a trophy, but when you put a local group of anglers that know the water well they can appreciated it for what it is a special fish, which can constitute a trophy to the guy who caught it. Who is someone who doesn’t fish the area to say it’s not a trophy. It’s completely social and VERY subjective. It also is what it is a Great fish, but not what most would consider a trophy when looking at the big picture. That doesn’t make it any less of a fish, just like Gramps 41+ incher. At the very beginning Dougj the GURU!, I think summed it up. As to what should be a socially acceptable trophy: dougj - 2/10/2008 5:04 PM On the LOTWs I always think anything 48" or better is a true thophy. There are many caught every year that are this big or bigger, but a 48"er from the LOTWs is a true trophy. Lots of people who have fished LOTWs for years are still looking for their first one. Doug Johnson Here is a guy who has spent a life time fishing “Trophy” water and he says a 48” is a trophy. When Doug speaks I listen! I have spent most of my time and energy learning about Wisconsin fisheries and I would lower that bar just a little bit to 47”. Why, because I think a 47” is very rare, but attainable. Look at the southern Wi., look at In., look at Ill, look at Mi. Personally I think a 45 incher is a little to attainable, I probably catch one every 3 years or so from my home water. If I fished more I would get more. 47s are just a little harder to come by. The BAR used to be set at 30 pounds, now because of C&R we have to use length. But I think 30 pounds is still pretty accurate for the majority of anglers out there. And remember you can have a 46” 30 pound musky just as you can have a 52” 30 pound musky. It still is all relative. O-yea there is one other point I didn’t see brought up. There is the fact that as these fish get bigger they do get harder to land after they are hooked up. I think that first big jump is at 30 pounds. It’s much harder to land a 30 pounder, than it is to land a 20 pounder. The fish usually needs to be fought completely different. You can’t just horse it in, or you will loose more than you catch. That should be a factor in this conversation to some extent. I haven’t hooked into a 40 pounder YET, but I bet that’s an even harder fight to win. The more weight the fish has the more advantage it has, I don’t think length factors in much to the fight, at lest when you are talking 5 to 6 inches. A 30 pound 50 incher will fight much the same as a 30 pound 55 incher. But add an extra 10 pounds to that 55 incher and a real battle is on. If your going to start a book I would have entry start at 46-47 inches, but my social experience is limited to Wisconsin, Michigan, Minn. and LOTW. By the way I think a Mi Master Angler award for musky is 46 inches. There I got to say my piece even if it is on Page 8. Also regarding Jeff Hanson, there is no doubt if he fished Mille Lacs like he fishes the Madison Chain EVERYONE would know his name not just Muskie Inc. members. He catches big fish EVERY place he goes. I am pretty sure he has got a Biological Trophy from every body of water where he has fished at least a week. I think he has at least 3 over 47 from Madison, a couple of 50s from Eagle, Multiple 50s from St. Clair, I think some upper 40s from LOTW, and a number of 30pound class fish from Northern Wisconsin. When he travels he travels well. Jeff has and does fish with some awesome anglers, but from what I have seen he is very adept at learning from these guys and making them and himself better. Jeff is my younger Cousin and when I started fishing these fish hard 15 years or so ago, I learned almost everything from him, and the way I approach fishing “Trophy” fish is still the way he taught me. In fact many times I need to sit back and say “What would Jeff do in this situation.” That has caught me lots of fish. Nail A Pig! Mike | ||
| Jump to page : < ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 > Now viewing page 8 [30 messages per page] |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Copyright © 2024 OutdoorsFIRST Media |