|
|
Posts: 654
Location: MPLS, MN | BenR - 4/4/2006 3:29 AM
Not knowing the difference between a 40 to 50 to a 60lb fish is a bit crazy.
Well I have 2 buddies who I fish with who could easily mistake a 50 for a 60. Hell, one of them thinks every 30" pike is 15 lbs. In my opinion the benchmark should be 65lbs {O'Briens fish}. I think any fish killed for this under 65 lbs is a wasted fish. I think it's easily possible some occasional musky fisherman lucks into a 50 pounder and keeps it hoping it's a record. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 663
| Thanks for replying Larry. |
|
| |
|
| i'll concur with a lot of what you said steve, you have a way of making one see past the intitial reactions, which i admit, some of what i posted was an emotional response to.
but, i still say this opens the door to unwarranted fish kills if the recognized record is open for a knock at.
i'm sure you've weighted and looked at all angles Steve....you have a respectable history in this sport and your compadre's dossieux in the WRMA are respected names also.
but i think, as serious muskie anglers, our job still lies in the education and subversion of ignorance in our fellow "weekend, i catch whatever's biting" type fishing Joe.
i for one, probably will never see a 60lb fish, i hope, but god knows it's going to be that guy dragging a bass tube or some kid on a dock with a bobber and worm.
I wish you guys luck with this. maybe the internet is HURTING this one rather than helping it....kind of ironic in a whole if you look at it that way, especially when you consider that the internet has helped expedite some of these proceedings.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 5874
| Are these "Rules" set in stone? I have a few issues.
First. "1) Rod: Rod used to catch a potential record muskellunge must comply with accepted angling and sporting ethics and customs. Rod used must not give the angler an unfair advantage and precludes the use of an “unconventional” rod of inadequate length, including rods broken during the fight if there is less than adequate rod length left to allow a fair advantage to the fish. Final decision of this matter will be at the sole discretion of the committee. Photograph of the rod used in capture must accompany the application. If the rod was broken during the fight, the length of the remaining part of the rod attached to the reel must be stated from the broken end of the rod to the centerline of the reel."
Your are trying to tell me that a short rod gives the angler an advantage? Please explain why we got rid of all our pool sticks, and now do not own rods less than 6'9", and most are 7'6" and longer! If a rod breaks during the fight, I would say it is definately no advantage to the angler. If it is, please explain.
Also, what if I get that 60+ while handlining? This is an acceptable, and ethical form of angling, and has been around for many, many years. Why must one use a rod?
Next Point. "Anyone other than you the angler touches any part of the equipment or line from the time a fish strikes or takes the bait or lure, or while the you the angler is fighting the fish until it is landed, except as allowed for landing assistance under “Angling and Catch Rules and Regulations.”
Should a line become obstructed with an item that will not pass through the rod guides, assistance may be rendered by holding only the obstacle and cutting or otherwise removing it without touching the line. This includes planner boards. Only the angler may touch the line during this process.
It is the “intent” of this rule to insure that no unfair advantage is gained by the angler during the duration of the time spent fighting the fish."
It is the accepted method to hold the line while removing a planer board. In fact, it is recommended that the person removing the board hold the line, and the angler reel down to the point of the hold, to reduce the possibility of slack.
Does this give the angler an advantage? Sure, but that's the point of avoiding slack in the line. That's why we no longer use pool cues for rods. Tha't why we use treble hooks, with barbs. You want to eliminate unfair angler advatage, take away barbed hooks. Let's see how that flies.
Edited by Shep 4/4/2006 11:23 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 462
Location: Syracuse, Indiana | <p>The International Board of Directors of Muskies, Inc. endorsed the Modern Day Muskie Record Program as presented by Larry Ramsell. The vote was an overwhelming 96% in favor. Absent some reason to question the decision of the MI board, MI's involvement is over (except the MI logo on my shirt showing in the picture of me standing beside MY catch!). :)</p><p>David Cates</p> |
|
| |
|
Location: Athens, Ohio | from the MI bulletin board, topic about Spring Board motions:
Motion # 12…. Motion . Muskies, Inc will endorse and support the Modern Day Muskie Record Program as was presented on 4-01-06 by Larry Ramsell. Passed For 48 Against 2.
The 'endorse' part I get, it is the 'support' part that got me. I'm glad the new Prez has spoken, and it's 'over'. Hope you do get one, Dave. m |
|
| |
|
| Yeti,
I just read this entire second page and have something for you to consider.
Your saying someone might mistake a 40lb for a 60lb and kill it because of the 60lb modern day mark .... AND this same person would not mistake a 40lb for a 70lb AND then return the 40lb to the water because he would know it was not a record at 70lb.
My guess would be if he couldn't tell a 40 from a 60 then he would not be able to tell a 40 from a 70 either.
Shep, I think some of the rules need to be adjusted too, let's give them some time to sort things out like SWorrall says. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 654
Location: MPLS, MN | It doesn't really matter, Like a good friend of mine said:
"Pretty stupid to kill something just to brag about it.. I see no point in trying to keep records like that..."
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 720
| Hi Mr. Cates,
I'm a MI. member and sit on the board for FRV chapter. While I like the idea of the new world record group I have to object to MI. endorsment of this for two reasons. First, this was not disscussed at all with membership. I saw nothing in the magazine, newsletter, and I don't remember any disscussions at last months board meeting. This was something that should have been tabled til the fall so everyone could have had a chance to look at the motion and form an opinion.
Secondly, and this to me is the more impotant of the two reasons. We have as an organization and musky anglers as a whole have for years spearheaded the catch and release movement. I am very proud of that. I think it sends out a very different messsage to the fishing masses to endorse an organization whose whole existence is based solely on killing huge fish. Please don't misunderstand me here I do think catching a world record would be great and honestly I peronally feel that everyone has the right to do what ever they want with their legal fish. But the manner in which this motion was pushed through without much disscussion on the local levels and MI.'s long standing policy on catch and release makes me feel a little uneasy.
Thanks
Dave |
|
| |
|
| I heard the TC Chapter still has a weight division in their International Tournament. If this is true, the leadership of M.I. has little to criticize about killing Muskies for personal gain. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1023
Location: Lafayette, IN | Wow, I actually read all of this thread! That should qualify for a WR since I find this historical dispute kind of boring. I'm just facinated by big fish. But, curiosity kept me reading anyway. I feel sorry for the poor mope that weighs a 59.75# fish hoping it's the new record in the new book. Eventually all the musky world will hear about it, argue about it and assign motives for why the fish was kept in the first place. Keep a legal monster if you choose. I'll be the first to post my congratulations. Hopefully it will smash the disputed WR's out there and we'll be done with all this. I'm still amazed by every 40 incher I see on this board. And speaking of this board (and the internet in general) - It surprised me how many people called my 47 incher a 30 pounder. We weighed it in a cradle and also ran her measurements through the different weight calculators. About 22 lbs tops. Don't figure on "busting my bubble" about her size either. She's a WR in my book!
 |
|
| |
|
| Hunter
the 2nd part of your post is mainly what i'm concerned about, but it encompasses a lot more too.
it's complicated, and probably going to be more unfortunate for some big fish than fortunate too.
it is an anglers right to keep a catch (by law at least), and that's something that should and needs to remain a sacred ordeal.
i've been almost complete catch and release fisherman for the last 16 years....save for a few mid sized smallies that my neighbor in need wants for dinner about once a year, and those days are few and far between cuz he's a proud man, and usually doesn't ask me to catch him dinner....which, i have no problem doing for the guy.
and, not that it matters, but....i can tell you without hesitation, if i thought i had a WR or a fish over 60"x28 or bigger, it would get videod, pictured and released.
and i would feel horrible if it was an unsuccessful release, just as most of you guys would.
maybe that way would be kind of an acceptable means to an end......an unsuccessful release on a monster fish that gets submitted and passes the said criteria. i wouldn't hope for it, but i'd hope for that b4 i'd hope for an intentional "60 pounder man, bonk her".
Also Steve, i know you're a pretty thorough guy when it comes to this stuff. what would a fish have to be close to age wise to be reaching this size, on average that is.....i know there aren't many benchmarks for this, but is there any way to tell, or even estimate?
I also find huge fish fascinating as someone else just stated.
Edited by The Yeti 4/4/2006 10:37 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 384
Location: Eagle River, Alaska | Marv....enjoy having this discussion around everyone else. I've always said Perry was the smartest to get an improbable record certified. No photo (not required at the time) took it home and ate it....very few witnesses, etc.. Statistically speaking the odds of him catching a largemouth bass that was 30% larger than any other in the area.....and since in Georgia.....is just difficult to believe. The only bass recognized by Bassmaster Top 25 that are even close (aside from California fish) are two bass that were 20 and 19 lbs in Florida both over 60 years ago and the state of Florida does not recognize either as a record. The only other fish is a 19 lber. from Japan. Of the top 25, the other 22 are from Southern Cal...where I grew up and fished extensively for largemouth. Look how many fish bigger than anywhere else have been caught in Cal just to approach the record. The big bass recently released looked to be of world record size...I have no doubt the record will be broken down there. BUT it is an artificial, and unnatural enviornment for the Florida strain largemouth. It does prove if you stuff them in a confined area and force feed them rainbow trout they can get bigger than in their native distribution....but they are radically the exception. The Cal bass on a length to girth ratio and in a category completely different than anywhere else in the country. Will that diminish the record when it falls....not in my mind....like the Spray record it will be nice to see another fabricated record disappear (again, just my opinion). Tell me of any other existing record for any fish where not just the top fish but most of largest historically reported have been debunked as exaggerated?
Marv....if you truly can look at the Spray photo and believe....you are in a distinct minority. Why doesn't the Hall get a list eminent musky fishermen who will support and back the record? Because they just can't do it.......
Brian |
|
| |
|
| Brian - - As I said before if you look at all the facts about the Spray fish you can not prove it wrong . I have had the good fortune to have seen the 3 fish mounts that they displayed at the Milwaukee sport show in 1952 and many times after that in northern wisc. and I can tell you that the Spray fish was bigger then Cal Johnsons fish that is still on display in Hayward Wisc. Sprays 2nd world record 61-13 was somewhat smaller than Johnsons 67-8 LB, Fish which you can go look at any time you wish. Having a home on spider lake in the 1960's I got to see the Johnson fish all the time. I was in the navy in 1959 and when I was home on leave for Christmas I found out about the fire and the loss of those great fish it was a sad monent for me. You may think your having fun trashing some 50 yr old records but I don't. This is the last time I will post on this as I can see you have you own agenda. Marv. |
|
| |
|
| IL, IN, KY...they all have records that are achiveable at this point. However how many fish each year are kept that are thought to be a record, that fall short of the record? Not many, if this problem does not exsist on a state level where catching a 40lb fish is very possible, why would it be a problem on a 60lb fish, that is really unlikely to be caught. I really do not see how there is an issue here...It is all dramatics for the most part. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1060
Location: Palm Coast, FL | Exactly Ben! This shouldn't be an issue at all. If I ever kept one it would most definitely exceed the 60 lb mark. Have I ever seen a 70lb. fish? NO. Have I ever seen a 60 lb. fish? NO. Have I ever seen a 50lb. fish? Maybe but probably not. Answer this...If a 60lb fish is caught and kept, how much longer does that fish have to live? From reports that I have read most of the record fish are about 30+ years old. I highly doubt that they would live more than 5 years after that point if they were released...and doubt even more that they would be caught again.
As far as the fish here in Indiana...I always promote catch and release! My comment to clients is that if you want to keep it...you have to swim to shore with it. AND if you think you are that good...you also have to dodge the lures that I will be throwing at you.lol We are fortunate enough to have a certified scale on Webster Lake. Yes, it can be used and has been used successfully. Jeff Kachmann caught a 51.5" beast, put it in his livewell, had it weighed, pictures taken, and put back into Webster Lake. The fish was around 37-38#.
I would also be one of the first to congratulate someone that caught and kept a fish over 60#. That is a very rare fish and the angler should without a doubt be willing to keep it and not be criticized about it. |
|
| |
|
| Chinwhiskers, you said: "I have had the good fortune to have seen the 3 fish mounts that they displayed at the Milwaukee sport show in 1952 and many times after that in northern wisc. and I can tell you that the Spray fish was bigger then Cal Johnsons fish that is still on display in Hayward Wisc"
First I'm amazed you can remember that it was 1952? But you need to know the Louie mounts were "doctored" to look bigger than they actually were when caught. This was 100% proven by the WRMA experts, sorry CW, you were just a fake out. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Several posts to respond to, a few not directed at me, but will share my information.
Vince, great post!
Yeti: I "have" held a muskie over 60 pounds...O'Briens. As for the age of a fish over 60 pounds, it can vary. Williamson's 61-4 was aged at 18 if memory is correct. It was a fish that was not spawning and put all its energy into growth. Conversely, O'Brien's 65 pounder was aged at 29 +/- 1.
Muskie! nut (Hunter4): The International Board of Muskie's, Inc. was not voting on the rules, and the vote to "endorse and support" this new program had no affect on current MI by-laws, and therefore no need to go to the chapters. Those present that had read the rules were in support and I suspect that the balance of the 96% that voted overwhelmingly to "endorse and support" placed their faith in them as well as the credible folks on the Reord Committee, which includes several members of the MI Intl. Board.
Shep: A rod too short becomes quite similar to handlining, which is not considered a "sporting manner" and not allowable either.
As for planner board removal, folks will have to adjust. I use planner boards, and while it may be more convient for the anglers partner to hold the line and remove the board, it is certainly not impossible for the angler to hold the line (tight) while the partner removes the board. Having said that, I will note your concern and ask that the committee revisit this rule.
I won't address barbed hooks, at this point that is a personal choice.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 720
| Hi Larry,
First let me say thank you for your efforts you and others have put toward our great sport. While I applaud the formation of the new record commitee I just felt that MI international board should have tabled any official vote on this matter until people have a chance to see where this was going so they could make an educated judgement on wheather or not they wanted to support a third record keeping commitee. I'm not saying the commitee is good or bad but I sure would have liked the oppurtunity to form my own opinion. Again larry your time and efforts are greatly appreciated by many folks and myself included. I'm just not real clear on why MI. needed to move on this so quickly.
Dave |
|
| |
|
| I think the idea that this program would be responsible for killing a bunch of fish is ridiculous. It seems there hasn't even been a fish caught in the last 6 years that would even have qualified to be registered into this new system. I was at the Spring Board meeting for MI, and I had some questions about this program. I aksed Larry Ramsell about a couple things, and he gave me the answers I was loking for. I have total confidence in the people involved with this new program, as I've seen who they are, met some of them, and trust them.
We all have different opinions, and are all entitled to them. I do though, still believe in Majority Rule, and obviously the majority of the people in the room at the Spring Board meeting thought this was a good idea.
Brad Waldera, ALD. Muskies Inc. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Please keep in mind this group is not in the business of proving/disproving the current historical records, that is up to the FHOF and IGFA to decide.
A 60# fish is pretty exceptional, a very rare thing indeed. If one decides to release that fish, so be it. If one decides to harvest it for ANY reason, so be it. This isn't an 'endorsement' of anything but a modern day record keeping organization. I must ask this, what IS the point of CPR if NO fish are EVER to be harvested, even a record? Where are we trying to go with this ideal, total forced CPR on ALL waters? How about just certain trophy waters? If that is what is best for the water, I understand why one might do that under a management plan for a time, but to legislate or demand TOTAL CPR based only on elitist emotion, IMHO is bad for the sport. Canadian waters at 54" allow for a true monster to be taken, but very very very few are kept because of the current CPR ethic. That ethic is a result of 25 years of education, not forced command. The idea is to protect a trophy based fishery, not eliminate selective harvest altogether. These are not 2 year old children, they are fish, and a renewable resource at that. Let them all go, that's fine, a personal decision. Harvest a trophy, that too is personal. Catch a new world record and let it go, again, personal. Keep it, that too is a personal decision. Be careful, gents, pushing an obviously elitist and exclusionist agenda, it costs us participation, growth in the sport, and the resulting portion of each DNR budget that actually goes to muskie management can be at risk as a result. Drive folks away from the sport and you DIMINISH education and conservationist ideals, which are NOT well accepted when 'forced'. I have given a variation of that statement to MI clubs across the country, and with a few exceptions in the crowd, I get applause, not jeers. Just my humble opinion. By the way, if I ever DO get a fish I feel is over 65#, you'll hear the thump in Atlanta. Or, maybe not, depends on how i feel that day. The point is that is my choice and I object to having that choice taken away based only on emotion, not biology, management, or for that matter, even sound trophy management in most cases. If the DNR decided to place a lake I like as CPR only as part of a management plan, no problem. The Goon was CPR only for years. I still fished there. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | From antoher thread, a question from esox Maniac:
Wow- This definitely sets a new standard. Finding certified scales is probably not a major obstacle. But what about this one?
"1) Length: The fish must be measured “only” lying down upon a flat surface. Measurement shall be taken ALONG THE FLAT SURFACE, from the tip of the longest jaw to the farthest tip of either lobe of the tail, USING ONLY AN ACCURATE MEASURING DEVICE ACCEPTABLE FOR BUSINESS OR TRADE USE. "
Where the heck do we get one of these? I can't think of any place that has a certified calibrated measuring device that is ~ 60" to 70" long. Do I take it to the local Wal-Mart craft/sewing section and have it measured as if it were a bolt of linen?
At the local Home Depot & other hardware stores they use standard yard sticks and/or tape measures for trade & business use. Are these accepable?
What about the camera thing? How's digital any worse than 35mm?
Al
Al
-----
Al Warner
"All Water is Zalt Water"
http://www.zaltnad.com
|
|
| |
|
| There are other record keeping organizations, but in my opinion, this new one would be the most fail-safe. There are always going to be scenarios out there regarding the potential World Record Muskie. I talked to Larry about some of the issues, and he brought up one that had not crossed my mind. What if you're out on Lac Seul this summer and catch a 65lb fish? If I'm correct on this, there's no way that fish could be certified to be a record under ANY organization.
I feel this is the best program we've got right now, and I'm planning on supporting it all the way.
Brad Waldera, ALD. Muskies Inc. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 28
| I would imagine that any measuring tape would do.(Stanley,etc.) I think the digital camera thing is because of the ability to easily doctor photos by computer when a digital camera is used.If you use a regular 35 mm camera the original film can easily be checked to make sure the pictures aren't altered in any way. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Al's questions were answered by muskymike, but allow me to add the official word.
While lots of anglers today have the round, floating 60 inch measuring sticks, these are not acceptable for "official measurement." They are printed on plastic that is subject to shrinkage or expansion with heat or cold or stretching while merely being placed on the stick. My suggestion would to be to go the hardware store and get a six foot steel carpenter's rule if you are a serious trophy hunter. Being thin and flat, they can easily be placed out of the way in your boat. Flexible steel "good quality" tape measures such as used by professional carpenters too are acceptable. I would stay away from "cheap" flexible tape measures and wooden yard stick type measuing devices.
As for the camera/film; We realize that many folks today prefer digital cameras, but as mike so well put it, photo's from them are easily "photoshopped" on a computer. We have allowed for this in our rules, but I recommend that you get a "film" camera (throw away types will suffice just fine) to use, again, if you are a serious trophy hunter and wish to keep any credibility. Even some fairly inexpensive film cameras are waterproof or come in a waterproof case (I got one for around $35).
Hopefully this clears up those two items.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell, Chairman
Modern Day Muskie Record committee |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Al's questions were answered by muskymike, but allow me to add the official word.
While lots of anglers today have the round, floating 60 inch measuring sticks, these are not acceptable for "official measurement." They are printed on plastic that is subject to shrinkage or expansion with heat or cold or stretching while merely being placed on the stick. My suggestion would to be to go the hardware store and get a six foot steel carpenter's rule if you are a serious trophy hunter. Being thin and flat, they can easily be placed out of the way in your boat. Flexible steel "good quality" tape measures such as used by professional carpenters too are acceptable. I would stay away from "cheap" flexible tape measures and wooden yard stick type measuing devices.
As for the camera/film; We realize that many folks today prefer digital cameras, but as mike so well put it, photo's from them are easily "photoshopped" on a computer. We have allowed for this in our rules, but I recommend that you get a "film" camera (throw away types will suffice just fine) to use, again, if you are a serious trophy hunter and wish to keep any credibility. Even some fairly inexpensive film cameras are waterproof or come in a waterproof case (I got one for around $35).
Hopefully this clears up those two items.
Brett and Brad, thank you for your kind and sage comments.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell, Chairman
Modern Day Muskie Record committee |
|
| |
|
Posts: 5874
| Larry,
Gotta disagree with you on a rod too short is like handlining. It would be nothing like handlining. But please explain the advantage of a short or busted rod. Have we all made a mistake by retiring our 4 foot pool cues, for the longer, more limber rods of today? Doesn't graphite work to the anglers advantage over fiberglass? Isn't all our technology of today used for the very reason you want to disqualify short rods? Angler advantage?
And, in who's opinion is handlining not sporting. I'd be willing to bet there aren't 4 people on your board who have even actually handlined. With that lack of knowledge on it, how can anyone declare it nonsporting? I believe I'm probably the first to actually try it for muskies, and will expand on that further this year.
I just think this whole short rod, nobody can touch the line for any reason, is going a little overboard. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Shep:
It certainly is your right to disagree, and I shall look forward to your expansion regarding handlining later on. You will not however, be the first to try it...that was the method most often used in the 1800's!
To further elaborate on broken rod reasoning, reference to a past In-Fisherman show is in order. When a rod broke, another man in the boat grabbed the broken off part and helped the original angler fight and land the fish, which would disqualify it for record purpose under a different rule. I had a similar thing happen to a client. It was hilarious to watch, and we did get the fish, but it would still have disqualified it under all record keepers rules.
However, having said the above, I shall add your concern to the list I am compiling off of various message board of well meaning, well intentioned and well thoughtout concerns, and down the road a bit, the full committee will revisit those with merit. We may even reverse our position on handling "where legal." So please stay tuned. As a result of comments to date, I have already clarified the leader rule.
As for the "not sporting" aspect, that was my call and I may be wrong. Please keep me aprised of your "handlining experiment" this season. Perhaps I'll even want to try it (gotta check the regs first though).
Your comment: "I just think this whole short rod, nobody can touch the line for any reason, is going a little overboard" may have merit. The full committee will decide and let you know.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell, Chairman
Modern Day World Record Committee
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 5874
| Larry,
That's all a person can ask for. Thanks for addressing not only my concerns, but the others as well.
I look forward to developing the handlining for muskies pattern. When I get it figured out, you'll be the first one I invite to share it. |
|
| |
|
| Larry:
If the angler provided your team the original file from their digital camera is there a way to verify that it is the original and not manipulated? If so, I have another idea for you to add to your list. I bet it will be very difficult if not impossible to read the numbers on a small contractor's tape measure in a picture where the entire 60"+ fish shows up in the picutre. I'm sure you don't want a photo with a closeup of the tail pinch at 61" where you can't see where the other end of the fish is in relationship to the end of the tape measure. If you had a digital image that same photo could be zoomed in tight enough to read the numbers on the tape measure. |
|
| |
