|
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | t t t t t t today junia! hehehehehe, Sabatooo, Tallyhoo hoo.
Good story EA, and what it is all about for you, me, and many. Not saying we are 'right', but the graduations in our individual pursuits for big fish still need realistic boundaries, and they aren't limitless. Many here consider our/themselves priveledged for having been able to spend time on, even getting to be one of the first to explore some of the up and coming......now peaked and overfished...hehehe..LOL...hehehe..... Musky fisheries. While we haven't seen the best in many places, a time could come, possible near future on many waters, where we all step back and look at RIGHT NOW, as the good ole days of Musky fishing.
Very unique and special times in the now, and I just cannot wait till I am 77 with one grandkid on my artificial knee and the other fetching me cold ones and beef sticks, telling them how things 'used to be'.... so there!
Edited by Reef Hawg 9/26/2007 3:35 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 350
Location: WESTERN WI | None of this matters when you catch one. It only has to meet your own approval. If thats 50 inches, 50 lbs, 36 inches, or the fact its a musky. It does not matter. All that matters, is that you approve it's a worthy fish, and you get to decide what that is!
And remember, there is always a bigger fish.
Edited by Got Esox? 9/26/2007 9:33 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Somedays its better to catch 1 then none
No matter what the size is
So you caught a great big fish,is it a life altering moment?
I dont think so |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2427
Location: Ft. Wayne Indiana | Most people don't have a LEGIT 30 pounder, very very very few have 40 pounders.....legit 50 pounders....very hard to come by.
But I am talking about LEGIT 30, 40 and 50 pounders.... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 697
Location: Minnetonka | These have been some interesting posts. esoxaddict... holy smokes. Tell me you were on the clock when you did that. 
I'd just like to throw a HUGE thanks to all you guys who DON'T club 40# fish... because you make the 50# fish possible.
For me... 50" will always be the "magic number", but releasing a 50# fish is the ultimate goal. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2754
Location: Mauston, Wisconsin | ROFLMAO- I like EA's & Reef Hawg's persepective. How loud is loud? It's really all about envy. Is it 50" or 50#? A +50" is easier to prove. Just take a picture of her laying on the bump board. This is like asking if the various length girth formulae are 100% accurate! However, if this is really an issue for you, I think you're in the hunt for the wrong reasons.
Want to know what a 50# fish feels like? Go to the feed mill or pet store & pick up a 50# bag of dog food/feed. Now hold it out in front of you like you would a muskie for a photo! Want to know what holding a world record class ~70lb muskie would be like? Have friend put a 20# bag on top of that one!
EA- great story!
Have fun!
Al |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2089
| 50 is not an easy number anywhere.50" is still the Holy Grail no matter where they swim in my opinion. 50 pounds???? That's a whole different class of fish. 54X30 made 53X25 look anorexic. Steve |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Good write up there EA......I agree with you completely. Last night I went out on my own for the full moon. I had high hopes of catching a nice fish, I do every time I go out. But after the first hour of not seeing anything my hopes kind of sunk a bit, but hey I was out fishing so I didnt really mind, I was just happy standing in the river. Surprisingly there was no one else out there so it was quite peaceful, that is until a fish hammered my topraider about 15 ft. from me. I burried the hooks into her and she dug down into the current. I couldnt tell how big it was, but I didnt think it was the monster I was hoping for. Eventually I got her over in shallower water and saw that it was around 37 inches, just an ocular estimate, I didnt even bring a tape. I got the hooks out, brought her back out to deeper water and she took right off. Was this the biggest fish of my life, far from it. But I was still shaking like a leaf in a hurricane, thats what it is all about. If I never catch a 50 inch fish, I'll be ok with that. Its all about being on the water. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 97
| Alot depend on the circumstances I believe. I have been lucky enough to catch 2-51's and a 52. I'd be the first to admit my first 51" was blind luck, catching him on the first day on a new water, but you know what, I'll take it. The other 51" was on a spot that has produced really well over the years for big fish, so that was pretty cool also. The 52 was a fish we had raised for 3 days, and was able to finally get her to eat. All 3 fish we caught under different circumstances and all were cool in my book.
On a side note, my most memorable fish (well, other than the 52) was a 49 1/2" I caught under brutal weather conditions. I couldn't care less that that fish wasn't 50.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 324
Location: Bloomington, Illinois | EA...Good story...That really captures the whole deal...I've felt that on a 40 inch fish...Admittedly my PB...I can't imagine the feeling of an upper 40 or bigger one...I hope I get to find out before the end of the season |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1430
Location: Eastern Ontario | Take it from someone fortunate enough to have handled more then my share of big fish that 24 inch girths are rare and those bigger even more rare.
I still think 50 inch will be the benchmark unless you have become one of the few true trophy muskie hunters where you're after 40+ pounders. Sure 50's might still be nice but there are fish over 54 to be had.
Me and my client just discussed this yesterday, you see he just released the fish of a lifetime ( this guy lives on one of WI premier lakes and caught his first 50 with me 2 years ago after 28 year of fishing muskies ) when he asked me was that only a 25 inch girth? This fish was a pig @ 55 x 25 and yes it looked real fat but that's what it measured. I actually told him that he now knows that most reported 24+ inch girths are ether estimates, errors or lies. The best part is the guy isn't spoiled as I came home today with a check for when he comes back next month to fill a cancellation I just had 2 days ago.
I loved reading the story about the 47, we just had a great experience 2 weeks ago with a fish snapping 6 times at a jackpot before actually eating the bait. It was a nice 44 and no where near the 50 inch benchmark but will forever be a memorable fish.
I've always said the day I stop getting the shakes when a client boats a trophy I'll quit guiding. No it doesn't need to be a 45+ pound fish or even a 50 iincher, depending on the situation the definition of a trophy can change.
And no I don't think 50 pounds will ever be the benchmark. The last couple of years have produced some 50 pounders but I can remember just a few years before where none were caught. |
|
| |
|
| I guess it all breaks down to what an individual feels is their best fish. My brother's longest is a 53 inch fish, but I bet if you asked him what his best catch ever was, he'd say a 49x26. He's caught a few dozen 50's, but I think he still considers that the biggest overall fish he's put in the net. Depending on which L x L x G formula you go by, I think that fish was right at 40lbs. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | A true 50 inch fish is a great fish on any water. I can't believe that any muskie angler would not consider it so. When you say all the 50 inch fish being caught I can only think one thing. Probably only half of them are really 50 inches. I've seen way too many photos of fish that were said to be 50 inches or 30 or 40 lbs and I'm sorry but there is no way that they are that big. So now if you disregard half of the fish that are said to be 50 inches its makes the legit ones just abit more impressive.
For 50lbs being the next 50. Wow I just don't expect to see many of them as that is really a pig.
Pfeiff |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1300
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Please allow me to redirect this post/question a bit. Richard (Trophymuskie) made the following comment:
"Take it from someone fortunate enough to have handled more then my share of big fish that 24 inch girths are rare and those bigger even more rare."
Guys and gals I've got to tell ya that the vast majority of "reported" girth measurements being posted on message boards these days are beyond "normal reason". Especially summer fish (with some exceptions of course).
I have been at this game for over 50 years and have caught my share of big muskies (once I got out of Wisconsin where 98% of my muskie fishing has been done and 2 1/2% of my 50 inchers have been caught-1/39). Only a couple of the giants I have caught had girths that exceeded 24 inches!
In 1988 I caught a 52 x 25 (taxidermist said 26 girth-after all the guts had settled) at the end of September that weighed 44-4. I could not believe the size of the girth on that fish as I was playing it and afterwards. Since then I have caught and released 4 over 55-inches to 57 inches; all were summer fish with modest girths (didn't measure) likely not exceeding 23. I also caught and released a very late fall/early winter muskie that was only 52 inches (didn't measure girth) that weighed "nearly" 50 pounds (ok, so it was closer to 48).
My moral? While I'm not suggesting that anglers are lying about all these giant girths we hear about, I submit that in "most" cases, an inaccurate measurement is being hurriedly made on a fish with a water/air bloated girth. That is why reducing girth by 1" for live releases before using weight formulae to "ESTIMATE" weight is recommended. Like Richard said, 24 inch and over girths are RARE!
Edited by Larry Ramsell 9/28/2007 4:29 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32955
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Richard, well said. I have quite a few 50's from Wisconsin, and none were over 24". Only two I have boated were for certain; both were from Wabigoon and both were very memorable fish. |
|
| |
|
| the difference between a 24" girth and a 26" girth is only 2 inches, right?
wrong.
in reality it's over 8% difference.
expressing the difference in inches makes it seem somehow like a small amount.
that's the same percentage as turning a 50" fish into a 54.15" fish!
when you compound it in the lxgxg/800 formula, a 52"x24" fish is 37.44lbs, whereas a 52"x26" fish is 43.94lbs.
but that's only a 6lbs difference, right?
wrong.
the difference between 43.9lbs and 37.4 lbs is 17%.
those are big differences, not small inches.
at times i've been accused of being overly optimistic when assuming misrepresented sizes are not done on purpose, but rather are the result of poor measurement techniques, etc. i've always maintained that it just isn't that common for people to knowingly lie about a fish in that way.
however, after some of the picture shenanigans i've seen, the Muskies Inc data showing how few 49.5" fish are caught and how many 50" fish are caught (it's just a 1/2", right?) and the things people are willing to do to get anonymous praise for something online, i'm changing my opinion and believe more and more that the inflation of sizes is in fact purposeful by many people.
imho, it'll always happen as long as discussions such as "is 50# the new 50 inches" create false standards for personal success. i'm going fishing tonight, but it's not to try and meet some internet gold standard. i'm going to have fun and hopefully catch something.
|
|
| |
|
| buy a chatillion weigh scale and there is no need for this girth x length stuff....weigh the fish in the net and then subtract the net weight......then let the fish go....takes not even 10 seconds to hook the scale to the net and lift it up....no more guessing.. |
|
| |
|
| Larry write's " That is why reducing girth by 1" for live releases before using weight formulae to "ESTIMATE" weight is recommended." I have a hard time believing that subtracting an inch actually works. Why not subtract 2" or 3". There is no way to no how dense a fish is with out wieghing it. One fish could be full of air and another full of shad or cisco's, you just never no until you put them on a scale. The length/girth formula is a good tool to get a good estimate nothing more or less in my opinion. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1300
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Guest:
My comment was referring to obtaining a closer or more reasonable "estimate" of weight. Your method is of course, foolproof, quick, likely easier on the fish and less subjected to scruitny. But let's not start weighing every fish we catch either, just as we don't need to know to the 1/4 of an inch how long that mid 30 inch fish is! |
|
| |
|
| I can understand the reduction of 1 inch on the girth.... Makes perfect sense. When a fish is out of water, the pressure acting on it's body due to normal air pressure is less than what it is in the water. Case in point...go get a pair of hip boots or waders, put them on and wade in...you will immediately feel the extra pressure from the water.
In the end of it all, I look at every fish being special to me...it's better than not catching one at all, and in the overall grand scheme, just being on the water is what its all about.
Enjoy the hunt, watch and enjoy the call of the loons... gaze at the sunset...the fog rising off the lake on an early morning hunt....a deer coming to drink some water at the edge....enjoy the freedom of watching an eagle soar with the air thermals, an osprey hit the water full steam for a meal...
Catch a fish...savor the fight...enjoy the beauty of the fish and the environment he/she came from, Say a word of thanks for all you are blessed with and put-em back for another day...
Steve |
|
| |
|
| VMS writes
"I can understand the reduction of 1 inch on the girth.... Makes perfect sense. When a fish is out of water, the pressure acting on it's body due to normal air pressure is less than what it is in the water. Case in point...go get a pair of hip boots or waders, put them on and wade in...you will immediately feel the extra pressure from the water. "
With your pencil legs in the hip boots or waders that makes sense BUT put the same hip boots or waders on Andrey the giant and there is no decrease because there full of MEAT, actually there would be an increase because his legs are so much larger than yours.
Pressure won't effect a fishes girth when it's packed full of MEAT, on second thought, out ward pressure would be effected. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3511
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | Physics 101 and anatomy 101 my friend who cannot sign in for some reason...
If pressure is reduced, an object will expand. Water pressure is higher than air pressure, and the fish has a body that is designed to be supported by the extra pressure the water exerts... Doesn't matter if it's andre the giant or a flamingo leg. The larger the body, the more it can compress... Plus...with an air bladder and a body cavity that is NOT all muscle it will expand quite easilly. If girth were measured around the head or tail, then you would be correct...
Steve
Edited by VMS 9/28/2007 1:38 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1245
Location: Madtown, WI | Not to rock the boat here....but the only thing that will really compress under the pressures (or lack of pressure) we are talking about is the air bladder. Water does not compress (98% of tissue is made up of water).
I have seen a process that uses 6 X the pressure of the deepest part of the ocean (Mariana Trench) to pasturize products. It is done using water pressure. You will only see deformation of what ever you put in the equipment if it has air in it. If you put a muscle in this equipment under those pressures...it comes out looking exactly the same....(you should see how cool a styrofoam cup looks though!!).
So what I am saying, if a muscle isn't compressed under these high of water pressures, then it sure isn't going to make any difference whether the fish is in the water or out, even with an air bladder. What you DO get is a reproportioning of the mass when the fish is in the water versus out.
There is your science class for the day :-))
Cory
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 170
| Back to the original question....geeze, I hope 50# is not the next benchmark. I think ALOT of people would be setting themseleves up for a real let down. |
|
| |
|
| Thanks for the lesson C
Let's not mess with a formula that works for ESTIMATING wieght.
Here's a perfect example why there is no need to subtract an inch off of the girth.
http://www.tonyzappia.com/archive.php?start=30&end=1
The formula allready under estimates this fish.
|
|
| |
|
|
This is an interesting topic, one that I think has a different answer for different fishermen.
For some, I think the 50" mark is not enough any more. Now that doesn't mean they don't love to catch those "small" fish under 50", but the goal isn't just to get a 50".
I think there are several reasons for this, one, many anglers have go 50"s, or numerous 50"s.
The logical next step is to up the ante, shoot for 52", or 54" etc. Deer hunters love to shoot those 10 Pointers, but after you've got a few, your out there for the King!
I also think there are those that have done well on the new, stocked lakes in MN, and now they are looking for the challenge of 50"s in lower density, native waters.
Or to catch 50"ers a certain way, like topwaters or home-made lures.
Personally, I feel most satisfied, or proud of my 52" out of Leech, even though that isn't my biggest fish.
Trophy is relative to the individual, and we've all got different experiences an expectations.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1300
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Guest:
Your Tony Zappia "link" example is off base. That is a DEAD musky. The girth reduction recommendation is for using the formula to calculate an ESTIMATE of weight for a LIVE muskie. |
|
| |
|
| Larry
So your going to tell me a dead Musky wieghs more than a live musky?
How about if I put this dead Musky back in the water and girth it, would I add an inch because it's dead or would I subtract an inch because it's in the water? Or would the dead musky's girth be...
Leave it alone, it aint broke. |
|
| |
|
| so I have only spent 20 + years trying to catch the elusive 50 incher and this september I have boated two and just becuase I did not girth them or they are not over 45 lbs makes them less of a fish, huh , guess I will just keep castin ' <'{{{{><
|
|
| |
|
| Personally, I'd say a 54" is the new magical fish..... Just my opinion...
Girth................ Well I thought every fish had a 26" girth or better??????
Edited by jclymer 9/29/2007 10:01 PM
|
|
| |
