|
|
Posts: 8782
| Hard to fudge bump board and girth measurements in a picture. And I guarantee you that if some of the pictures are questionable, the folks here will be on it like flies on #*#*. This, to me, is the best alternative to whacking the fish in the head, only to find out that not only is it a few pounds shy of any sort of record, but that the meat is worthless and a skin mount really isn't what you wanted. Total waste. Way too many egos on this sport to encourage folks to whack a legal fish to prove mine is bigger than yours. |
|
| |
|
| Trophyhunter1958 - 12/12/2015 8:17 PM
Larry I have the greatest respect for you and the work you have done ,,,But " IF YOU DON'T WEIGH IT YOU CAN'T SAY IT " starting this new record org just devalues everything that you have said over the years , There is too much chance of a record being given or taken by a popularity vote , you of all people should recognize this from the fiasco of the OBRIAN fish , I too have seen the video and talked to people who were there that were and are upstanding honorable men and at the time it was all good , so what now when you are gone like Powers and the rest that were there at the time will you be discredited , that would be a shame , It all boils down to one thing , if you want to be a Hero for the day Bonk it , weigh it and donate it to science like Frank states , if not let it go and we can all act like gentleman and say " NICE FISH " , Remember you can go from a zero to a hero and a hero to a zero in one day , it only lasts until the next monster is caught or someone with less integrity wants their name in lights ! Good work on the new formula but it still does not prove a thing
Respectfully well said. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2024
| ^^^That depends on how you view it. I said my comment in jest, I never thought it was 48 pounds. 45 was pushing it, but I know it was a big fish and is hopefully still swimming. The point of the new record was clearly stated, to recognize some amazing fish that were released to be hopefully caught another day. Not to replace the MDMWRP.
"The muskie community has spoken. It's time to confirm and recognize the giants released each year, and offer a record keeping organization for the anglers and fans of the sport interested in a release program.
I have been wishing for a consistent, workable, and safe-for-the-fish method to recognize some of the beasts caught every year. Larry performed the work to make this possible, and MuskieFIRST welcomes this program aboard."
People are going to gripe no matter what, and whether it was said respectfully, or not, the above post just proves it. It's a new and different record... A majority on this forum practice complete CPR. This new record is simply a way of rewarding some of the lucky anglers who catch some giant fish. As EA said, there are way too many egos in this sport. If you don't like it, don't read it or comment, or even participate in it. It's a release record, plain and simple. Geez... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 67
| AR , please don't take my post as a gripe , I support and promote CPR in the Muskie industry and have for years , but what is being created here is an elite record keeping program , which there already is , What about the young lad in the 14 foot tinny that doesn't have a gopro or a bump board , only a camera ,a measuring tape and his buddy to take his picture , does that make his fish less worthy , I don't believe so , my point is all the formulas in the world do not give you the true weight , so leave weight out of it , make it a live release record by length and leave the world record to true measured weight . And as far as fish getting Bonked and then the person is short by a pound ,,,,,,, don't believe it has happened since the MDMWRP's inception but I could be mistaken . |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Pointing out the extreme obvious:
1) This is a RELEASED category, and the weight will not be exact, or ever known, which has been said.
2) The 'kill' category is still firmly in place, and allowing for a release record in no way diminishes that fact or the organization.
Larry is quite meticulous about the standards and any one fish meeting them, and he has the final say. In the case of a fish where public input is worth considering, it will be, but think about this for a moment. If the fish qualifies for entry, there will be precious little to discuss.
Every young angler I know has a cell phone, and those things take pretty incredible video and still images, even when no cell signal exists. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 255
| gotta start somewhere. Thanks to Steve and Larry.
This first record fish should be very hard to beat, and all photos/video of future fish will have to look hugemongous to be considered. How many of these fish will be reviewed each year? Maybe 5. Shouldn't be too hard to tell.
Put up a poll each time and have a minimum of 200 replies by users that have belonged on here for over 5 years. Will easily prove fact or bullcrap. 55x30 is a great fish to start this thing. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 115
| I like it. Nice work. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Trophyhunter 1958 (Bill): I strongly disagree with what you are saying for the simple reason that as I have always maintained, all formulas are merely "estimates". This program does not change that.
The Modern Day weight record ("true record weight"), in my mind, will always rule since it is and will be documented in every way possible to assure accuracy. Of course there is the possibility that someone, some day will catch, release AND DOCUMENT (like the current release record) one that is unquestionably much bigger than the Modern record by weight, and will be accepted as the ultimate record, despite not knowing its "exact" weight. And that is not all bad what with today's angling ethics.
One reason that I wanted a formula that would be very close to actual weight of these giant released muskies was to end the misguided use of the standard formula (G X G X L/800). If the standard formula was used as IGFA uses it (G X G X FL-fork length/800) it would be much closer to the new Modified Crawford formula (L X G/25 -8), but trying to get muskie anglers to use fork length instead of total length is an exercise in futility!
So at any rate Bill, if you or others wish to keep that ultimate fish for absolute proof, that is your choice, and I for one would not have a problem with it and will welcome it if it is over 58 pounds! Hopefully, you will WEIGH her first before you administer the coup de grace' and follow the MDMWRP rules to get her certified.
Bill, as I have noted in a previous post, muskie anglers just will NOT "leave weight out of it", hence, we are using the best "weight estimate" possible. Using just length for the release WR just doesn't cut it and using a point system for length and girth, too, just gets us back to applying various weight formulas to it anyway to get an "estimate". A vicious circle don't ya think?
Best of luck to all in pursuit of either the release world record or the weight world record!
Edited by Larry Ramsell 12/13/2015 7:09 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 67
| Thank you Larry for the response ,i do respect the work you have done establishing this new record , but understand that i deal with these questions from clients and others daily and i just feel we should stick with what we already have with the IGFA and the MDMWRP , I have been very fortunate to have not knowingly killed any of the Big Muskies that have come into my boat and have no intentions of Bonking any muskie that does not exceed 65 lbs and yes i do carry 100lb certified scales. This is just my opinion and not meant to ruffel any feathers , I do wish you success with your endevours and best of luck to you in the last few days of the season , maybe you will be fishing beside me and i can watch as you make the decision ,PS I still like if you don't weigh it ,,, you can't say it
Edited by Trophyhunter1958 12/13/2015 10:53 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Bill: I like it too, but now if you say it with this program, you have to say "estimate"!
I'm done for the year, but hope the last few days treat you well. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 251
| Trophyhunter1958 - 12/12/2015 10:14 PM
AR , please don't take my post as a gripe , I support and promote CPR in the Muskie industry and have for years , but what is being created here is an elite record keeping program , which there already is , What about the young lad in the 14 foot tinny that doesn't have a gopro or a bump board , only a camera ,a measuring tape and his buddy to take his picture , does that make his fish less worthy , I don't believe so , my point is all the formulas in the world do not give you the true weight , so leave weight out of it , make it a live release record by length and leave the world record to true measured weight . And as far as fish getting Bonked and then the person is short by a pound ,,,,,,, don't believe it has happened since the MDMWRP's inception but I could be mistaken .
I understand now more than I did with your first comments but I will disagree. I, personally, think Larry's way is better than just doing length. To me and most people out there weight is what we think of when we are looking the for the "biggest" fish. It may not be exact but to me it is more valuable then just ranking length. I fully support this effort. It will be interesting to see how the list starts to fill out. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 24
| Great idea thanks Larry |
|
| |
|
Posts: 95
| I don't want to sound negative but not one serious muskie fisherman I know is going to care about any of this. The fish these guys caught is unbelievable what a giant but a world record of any sort it is not. Dale Mcnairs fish was significantly bigger I don't know if there is a bump board pic with girth but I think common sense is enough to answer that question. I think the majority of muskie fisherman know Louie sprays record is not legit we all look at it as a joke. I look at this release record the same way because bigger fish have been released so what is the point.
Edited by esoxriebe 12/14/2015 8:57 AM
|
|
| |
|
| Riebe, common sense was all I was looking for with my original post on the queen thread! I was just pointing out that we (I think I'm a serious muskie fisherman) could determine what's what without killing fish! Everybody wants to take the high road and claim they don't care about records but, I bet if they caught a 59 x 31 they would change their tune! I care about records...maybe I'm egotistical and petty... but I'm honest. #Lancelife! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1901
Location: MN | esoxriebe - 12/14/2015 8:55 AM
I don't want to sound negative but not one serious muskie fisherman I know is going to care about any of this. The fish these guys caught is unbelievable what a giant but a world record of any sort it is not. Dale Mcnairs fish was significantly bigger I don't know if there is a bump board pic with girth but I think common sense is enough to answer that question. I think the majority of muskie fisherman know Louie sprays record is not legit we all look at it as a joke. I look at this release record the same way because bigger fish have been released so what is the point.
The point is you have to start somewhere |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | esoxriebe - 12/14/2015 8:55 AM
I don't want to sound negative but
you sound negative ...
any chance i can get a Mcnair fish coffee mug before Christmas? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 95
| Ben, I definitely agree with you I think we should have a release record in place and this is a good thing I'm just pointing out who actually takes this seriously with out a weight I know a lot of guys who have certified scales in there boats in the fall. There is a safe way to weigh these fish in the boat and have a scale certified. That's the way it should be done in my opinion I have never caught a fish over 40-45 pounds so it does not matter much to me to weigh them. An 8 pound carp in the belly does not equate into the formula and a stomach full of forage is what really makes a big difference in the weight of these fish. Just my two cents |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Apparently, quite a few muskie anglers will 'take this seriously'.
The documentation of this fish was exactly what was needed to launch the program, and many more will be caught and registered. The idea is for the average guy to be able to register a fish with a good camera (cell phone these days), a good bump board, and a cloth tape. If the fish has an 8 pound carp in it, that girth will reflect that.
The formula applies to all fish equally as an ESTIMATE. If you want a real weight and the fish certified as a new World Record Kept, that program is already in place. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Esoxriebe: I do not wish to be negative either, nor am I casting aspersions, but to my knowledge, there are no photos of McNair's fish either on a bump board or having the girth measured. There are however, some pictures that were taken that McNair and Rotolo refused to share/show me...and I was in McNair's home shortly after the fish was caught. Make of that what you will. NO question that it was a giant, but just how big we will never know for sure. This is just another reason our new program requires absolute photo documentation.
So, for you to say bigger fish have been caught and released, is at this point, un-provable. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 66
| I see this as sort of like college football rankings.... nobody knows for sure who is truly number 1 but it generates a heck of a lot of "buzz" or debate about it. To me this just creates another system where people will never agree or be satisfied with the results. Heck, most of the time when someone has a fish on a bump board people criticize the authenticity of it. |
|
| |
|
| I think the point is that "beyond reasonable doubt" may not be possible but "preponderance of evidence" is possible. Again, my original post stated "if the fish had been weighed on a certified scale". The IGFA recognizes weight on a private certified scale. I would have no problem with weight being part of this program but I like the formula too! The reason is this: Why is weight the determining factor in records? What's more rare; a 53 with an 8# carp in its belly or a 58 x 25? Even if they weigh exactly the same the 58 is a FAR more rare and important specimen! I never liked the weight = biggest. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1247
Location: Walker, MN | We should be using water displacement LoL!
This is easy for me to wrap my head around since I have never carried a scale on my boat and probably never will. I don't trust scales. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16
| I think the pics need to be cleaner. Top view of the entire fish showing the nose on the board and the tail in one image. Then the same view for the girth.
Change the name from world to MuskieFirst.
MuskieFirst Record Release Program
Entries are submitted to the forum?
Fish must meet a minimum length of 55" or minimum girth of 30" to be eligible?
Standings are determined by formula?
You can have year-end standings or overall standings?
Attachments
----------------
 Capture.JPG (76KB - 430 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | myrmar: Yes, entries are submitted to this forum or to me directly ([email protected]).
There is no minimum length or girth required, however the "estimated" weight must exceed 58.00 pounds using the formula (L X G/25 -8) which does
determine "standings".
|
|
| |
|
| Would you please get off the weight deal? Call it score or whatever you want but stop with the guesstimated pounds bs.
Released fish should be scored, not weighed. 55 x 30 equals 1650. Its fast, easy and doesn't leave someone with the misconceived notion that we actually know a weight.
McNairs was 57 x 33 for a score of 1881.
I really don't get these goofy weight formulas and its about time to quit this nonsense and get down to a score. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | NO.
This has all been covered in the previous posts. Please read them. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Further proof that musky anglers will literally complain about anything. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | jamesb - 12/14/2015 11:17 AM
I see this as sort of like college football rankings.... nobody knows for sure who is truly number 1 but it generates a heck of a lot of "buzz" or debate about it. To me this just creates another system where people will never agree or be satisfied with the results. Heck, most of the time when someone has a fish on a bump board people criticize the authenticity of it.
Then don't register your next 55X30.
Your 'complaints' were all covered, read the thread.
The system is in place, and will remain. I am personally really happy it's there.
Anyone who whines about a good bump board measurement image is either jealous or just rude because they think it's cool or something.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 20219
Location: oswego, il | Larry is in a no win situation with some people. Rap has an east coast west coast thing, now I see musky fishing having a st Lawrence mill lacs feud.
Edited by ToddM 12/14/2015 5:03 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 4amuskie - 12/14/2015 3:28 PM
Would you please get off the weight deal? Call it score or whatever you want but stop with the guesstimated pounds bs.
Released fish should be scored, not weighed. 55 x 30 equals 1650. Its fast, easy and doesn't leave someone with the misconceived notion that we actually know a weight.
McNairs was 57 x 33 for a score of 1881.
I really don't get these goofy weight formulas and its about time to quit this nonsense and get down to a score.
Are you serious? It IS a 'formula', which will provide an estimated weight that will be consistent.
That is a 'score' by your own definition. |
|
| |
