|
|
| I have to agree with the comment how a 41" in my eyes will never be considered a "trophy" even if it comes out of a lake that there are very few over 40"...I think for any body of water, a 4 footer or better is where the min "trophy" bar is set...maybe , maybe not..but I can't see getting overly jazzed up if I got a 41"er on a lake with 30"ers in it...? |
|
| |
|
| ..but I can't see getting overly jazzed up if I got a 41"er on a lake with 30"ers in it...?
i might, IF i down-sized my gear.
for example, if i was fishing TigerCat, i'd probably use lighter spinning rod/reel, line, etc. since you'll generally catch fish in the 26-32" range. catching a 40" fish on that water with that gear would be kinda cool and a decent challenge. not necessarily "trophy" cool, but matching your gear to the fish makes anything fun. mind you, i don't ever see myself targeting muskies on that lake (or any of the overstocked 28" minimum lakes), because i'd rather go somewhere with a shot at a "real" trophy.
i've got a 46" from my local 70 acre pond, i'm proud of it because it's one of the biggest fish in an overstocked lake full of 34-38" fish. it's rarity makes it cool for me, not necessarily how long it was. of course, there's a reason that this past year i spent more time on MN waters 8 hours from home than on this pond 5 blocks away...
|
|
| |
|
| yah ok that 46 you say was cool, as it was rare...but is that a trophy to you?
the question is what is a trophy to each one of us...where is that line set?
41" even on spinning gear sure is fun to catch, but is it a "trophy"?
not to me... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 97
| Here's a couple more thoughts. I believe each person's idea of trophy is unique, and it can change throughout their careers. I think it would help in answering this question by defining what a trophy means to someone. When I first started out, 50" was the magic number (it still is!!!), so that was where the bar was set for me. It had nothing to do with quality times spent with others, first fish, last fish, or even where that fish was caught. A few years ago I caught a 51" and decided to get a replica. After that fish I adjusted my sights a little bit, and decided that the next step up trophy wise would be 54". Since then I have caught 2 bigger than the one I have a replica of, but they weren't 54".....so my personal quest continues. Will I get there? Who knows, but I'll have fun trying.
Trust me, I value every fish I catch, whether it be sub legal or a 49 7/8", but I wouldn't go as far as to say a 42" fish for me is a trophy. Are these fish special? Yes. Trophy? Not for me anyway.
I remember the 1st "big" fish I caught like it was yesterday. It was a 42" out of northern Wisconsin, which I was (and am darn proud of), but at the time knowing what has been caught out of the area I wouldn't have said it was a trophy, just a nice fish that made for a great day on the water.
Like was said before, everyone is going to have their own idea of what "trophy" means to them, and I think that is what its all about. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | If one has a choice to try to catch the largest fish IN TigerCat, and does so regularly, is that not as much an accomplishment as catching the largest on ANY body of water regularly? What if TigerCat was your ONLY choice most days? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | I've got to agree with Mr. Nelson. I enjoy catching any musky that feels so inclined to hook itself on the baits I've thrown, but when it comes down to it we're all after the biggest fish we can get our hands on. If we only have access to a lake like Tiger Cat that mainly have stunted fish, sure we'll fish it and have fun but we know that the fish get bigger in other areas/body of waters. So I guess to me a 'true' trophy is a 50 incher or greater. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 97
| Would that person on Tiger Cat run to Lax and have a repo made?
Edited by 55esox 2/11/2008 2:15 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 431
| At 24 years old with not so many years of experience under my belt, my goal every year on LOTW is 50". I still haven't gotten there, though I did nail a 49.5 a few years ago. Living in Missouri, I realistically have a shot at a 50" fish only during the 7 days of the year I spend on LOTW. Every fish that I catch over 40" is a great fish. Instead of focusing on size, my new goal for this year is to catch a musky in 9 months out of the year. (I definitely will skip January & February, maybe december.) I think this is a much better test of my skill. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 41
| This is a good topic. Haven't been on the boards much or fishing too much lately, but everyone is different, and too each his own. A guy that can afford to do some traveling and fish trophy potential water... Will view big fish only as true trophies. However a guy that can't get out much, or can really only afford to fish his local body of water would have a completly different view, ESPECIALLY if those waters had limited trophy potential.
Look at the guides on webster for instance. The guys no doubt know their stuff and consistently put fish in the boat year after year. Hopefully one of them will see this and can let us know how many 50+ inch fish he or clients have put in the boat. And if the answer is zero or 1, does that make them any less of a fishermen? I only know of a couple 50's out of that lake, and for the pressure it recieves, there should be tons of them if they are there. I personally believe anything over 47" that comes out of that lake is a trophy... but that's just me.
Edited by JZDANK1 2/11/2008 2:21 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2089
| I had the opportunity to work the Milwaukee Show with the Lax boys. The trophy deal is up to a lot of interpretation. Believe me, Rick does a lot of replicas that are nowhere near 50" or 48 for that matter. "True" trophy? In my opinion, it's the fish that is special to you for whatever reason no matter how big it is/was. Where you fish and how long you've been doing it are certainly 2 variables in the equation. My "brother from another Mother" ordered a replica this weekend of a very special fish, even though he has caught bigger. Can't wait to see that one! The Kid will be smiling down. Steve |
|
| |
|
Posts: 250
Location: Pittsburgh, PA | thats a good question on where on fish the 2 biggest muskies ive heard that have been caught are 48 and 47.5 by the same guy but there might be some bigger but around here any thing over 45in is huge |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1247
Location: On the Niagara River in Buffalo, NY | Every fishermens prospective of what size of a fish is a Trophy is in the eye of the Holder! A 57" Musky may be a Trophy to me,but someone starting out may get just as exited with catching and releasing a 40" Musky. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 97
| Ok, heres something else to think about. I live in downtown Chicago and have only a handful of options within an hour or so. My boat is stored up in northern Wisconsin, so that limits my choices even further.
I have fished the Fox river below the Chain of Lakes and have caught fish up to 44" while wading. Granted there are some bigger fish taken out of the river, but the majority of fish I caught have been mid 30's. I would think that a mid 40" fish would be in the upper % of larger fish for that system. Me personally, I wouldn't consider that fish a trophy.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 897
| I have to disagree with any statement about a fish needing to be a certain length to be a trophy. Check out this fish my buddy caught.
http://outdoorsweekly.com/assets/readers_07_aug_export/images/bob_f...
I don't think that anyone would disagree that this fish is a trophy fish and it was only 46". I think that people focus too much on length instead of the overall quality of the fish.
-Chris |
|
| |
|
Posts: 457
| I have to agree with the majority of jpine's response, being a native Nebraskan. However, having the opportunity to fish some of the "top trophy waters", I've been lucky.
In my humble opinion you really can break it down t every lake, every body of water has its own trophy class. I fish a couple bodies of water (with regularity) that a 40" fish is a giant. Sure, there are other lakes that I fish that would dwarf that trophy, but it's a trophy none the less.
Breaking it down to the lake, would sometimes be meaningless to the rest of the musky world, as well, because they may not have a grasp of what that body of water is, doesn't make it any less a trophy does it?
Then, there will still be the segment of the population that says if it isn't 50" it isn't even a fish. That's fine too, because those with any knowledge of biology will debate, and clarify, that each body of water has its own limits.
Great topic, IMO, and very good answers. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8772
| Fish that would be a "trophy" to me:
45" Tiger
48" Madison fish
46" Fox Chain fish
52" from Lac Seul, Eagle, LOTW, etc.
Anything over 45 pounds
Not that I'd be any less excited catching a 50" fish anywhere out there, but catching one where nobody has ever caught one before is a lot different than catching one where it's the third one this month.
Something ELSE to think about:
Granted, pictures don't always tell the story, but which if these two fish would you consider more of a trophy? 
Attachments
----------------
 47.bmp (132KB - 168 downloads)
50.jpg (26KB - 180 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | All,
I didn't necessarily ask what YOU consider a trophy. I asked what IS a true trophy considering each body of water, local bodies of water, and out to regions in the Muskie world. I was and am making the point that if someone is consistently catching Muskies that are about as large as they can get on any water body, that person is catching that SYSTEM's 'trophy' potential fish. If that angler doesn't have the time or cash some do to run up to LOTW or MN or (God forbid) NE Ontario, then is he/she to be in despair that he hasn't the 'talent' you have?
Deer hunters understand what I'm trying to say. Trophy potential for a specie of deer is largely dependent on environment and food, subspecies, harvest each season, genetics and overall population. Sound familiar? Yet I clearly understand if I take a low end Pope and Young buck in the area of Oneida County in which I hunt, I truly have accomplished as much as someone in Alberta's Whitetail paradise has taking a mid quality B&C. You better believe I am mounting a 145 class whitetail from Oneida county, but would not even consider it if I was hunting Alberta. No one expects the whitetails to be equally impressive between Arkansas and Ontario, why would they? A big buck for one area is a MONSTER elsewhere, and an average deer in yet another location. But if I am consistently taking bucks with as large a rack as can be expected here, am I less of a hunter or have I accomplished less than a fellow shooting 170 or better class animals in paradise? Give me that week in Alberta...and send that fellow to Oneida County for the same week. When folks who regularly hunt the big whitetails in exotic locations visit my house and look at my mounts, they ask, " Did you get those bucks around HERE? Nice animals, man!" Would that same question arise if I had a 43" repro from TigerCat on the wall?
I'm talking to the 'trophy' bar being set at an unattainable point for many because fish of that size do not exist in the waters they are able to fish. Many very accomplished lifetime muskie anglers feel like they are diminished standing in the shadows of anglers here who have fished Mille Lacs for all of a few years. I'm saying a 43" fish from a creek in Virginia is as impressive to me as a 56" fish from Eagle. I'm saying that expectations like we see now in this culture plant unrealistic goals in many minds what Muskies in THEIR waters should look like and be, raising hell with local fisheries managers who have to try to explain the obvious to someone not very willing to hear that truth, and disappointing many who post their personal best here only to have some Schmoo rudely point out that fish is small in comparison to what is caught in their back yard..... And, I guess I'm saying I feel that is a serious problem in this sport.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 897
| Exactly how I think defining a trophy should be approached. Well said Steve.
-Chris |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8772
| sworrall - 2/11/2008 3:40 PM
...I'm saying that expectations like we see now in this culture plant unrealistic goals in many minds what Muskies in THEIR waters should look like and be, raising hell with local fisheries managers who have to try to explain the obvious to someone not very willing to hear that truth, and disappointing many who post their personal best here only to have some Schmoo rudely point out that fish is small in comparison to what is caught in their back yard..... And, I guess I'm saying I feel that is a serious problem in this sport.
If we are expecting things from our fisheries and the DNR that are not biologically attainable, than YES, that IS a problem.
But if what some faceless internet screen name types on a message board diminishes your accomplishment for you, than I say it's YOU who might have a problem.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 5
| I think big is big. For deer it's either in the book or not, doesn't matter where it came from. There is no WI P & Y or TX B & C, you make the cut or you don’t. Personally I think the books are a good arbiter of trophy animals.
I passed 50" last year and now 40lb's is the goal. I know it won’t come out of Mille Lacs because I don’t like to fish there. But it won’t matter to me whether I catch it on eagle or green bay or luck into one in Vilas co. 40lbs is a big, rare fish...Trophy fish
I think a true trophy animal or fish might represent a specimen that only 2 to 5% of the people who regularly pursue that species are able to harvest or C and R.
I'll try and post a Rhinelander buck for you Steve that will go up well against anything Alberta has to offer.
Attachments
----------------
rhinelander14.jpg (10KB - 158 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | You have missed my point entirely. Of course the exception to the rule will show up now and again, but that buck is past even that for this area. Sort of like this fish for the lake it came from...
Attachments
----------------
IMAG0004.JPG (82KB - 186 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
| I'm talking to the 'trophy' bar being set at an unattainable point for many because fish of that size do not exist in the waters they are able to fish. Many very accomplished lifetime muskie anglers feel like they are diminished standing in the shadows of anglers here who have fished Mille Lacs for all of a few years...And, I guess I'm saying I feel that is a serious problem in this sport.
imho, yes and no.
if someone is made fun of, or otherwise berated by others for celebrating a smaller fish, that's a serious problem. obviously, it's something we work very hard to prevent here on MuskieFirst, but it happens and it's a shame when someone feels the need to anonymously snipe at something about which someone else is rightfully proud.
if someone questions their own accomplishments, it's important (as you point out) to recognize the possibility of the water they fish for a more accurate comparison.
at the same time, i think there's real value in recognizing and setting a bar for true trophy accomplishment across the entirety of the species range. that's what the new modern world records organization is all about. knowing what's realistically possible in the right waters and circumstances helps everyone to measure their own accomplishments, and more importantly to DREAM about. there's a mystique that's important: i know i grew up looking at big fish pictures and thinking, "some day i might catch a fish that big!" it usually involved thinking about a great trip to some far off waters where the fish grew to that size.
that last bit is important: knowing what's possible in the ecology of your home waters protects you from the deflation of comparison, and the wild craziness of "strain speculation"; but it's also good to know about the true possibilities of the species in the right waters where we might dream of traveling to some day.
in the 1st or 2nd issue of Esox Angler, there's an article by Tony Rizzo about fish weight's and the weight formula. he essentially says that because the formula is imprecise and may inflate fish weights, that it diminishes the accomplishments of anglers who have verified (weighed) "trophy" fish. he used as examples a number of released fish which had estimated weights heavier than the verified weights of some of his bigger fish, and he didn't like it.
if we can recognize the value of smaller, water-specific trophies, avoid the petulance of "you're diminishing my fish", and also celebrate the truly great trophies across all of muskie-dom, then i think we're in a very good place.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'if we can recognize the value of smaller, water-specific trophies, avoid the petulance of "you're diminishing my fish", and also celebrate the truly great trophies across all of muskie-dom, then i think we're in a very good place.'
Dr. Casselman's point exactly, and mine. Repeatedly, in case you somehow missed it.
What does a world record have to do with the outside potential of a stream in Virginia? Absolutely nothing. I wouldn't expect to catch one there, but if I did catch a fish as large as any ever caught there, I'd feel pretty accomplished. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 5
| "You have missed my point entirely."
I do that often, just ask my long suffering wife.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 618
Location: Seymour, WI | This is an interesting topic.
I get to fish the best waters in WI each yr from Green Bay to Sawyer Co, to Vilas Co etc. I consider myself a serious musky fisherman. I probably musky fish about 20 days each season. I've been targeting primarily musky for over 10 yrs. I've got all the best tackle, read every musky publication I can get my hands on & I've fished with a few guides and some really accomplished musky fisherman along the way.
All that being said. My largest musky casting is still only 38". I've caught a handful of fish from 40"-45" on quick strikes, but nothing over 38" casting.
I've spent a good deal of time on these boards looking at pictures of giant fish being caught all over the country. Big fish being caught by small children & old grandmas wondering "When's it gonna be my turn at a big fish"?
With all that being said I still love musky fishing and spend all my time thinking about my next chance to fish. While any fish over 40" would be considered a trophy to me, I think any fish from WI 48" or larger would be considered a trophy fish from what I've seen here.
Grass, |
|
| |
|
| for perspective, of the 1080 muskies registered in 2007 by the Capital City (Madison) Muskies Inc chapter, only 69 fish over 45" were registered by 30 different anglers. 2 anglers accounted for 20 of these fish, the majority caught only 1.
that means only 6.3% of the fish registered in our chapter were over 45", and the Madison club is one that has many fishermen who are willing to do a lot of traveling to try and catch big muskies.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Excellent point, Mike, and I'd add the Madison Chapter sports some pretty impressive resumes and talent... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 5
| Mike, how many or what percentage of those fish were over 50"? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1996
Location: Pelican Lake/Three Lakes Chain | happy hooker - 2/11/2008 12:14 PM
here in Minn I think its 52'
Well that rules me out on Minnesota. I could never handle a 52 footer! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 507
| Does catching alot of big fish make you a good angler? I know a guy that catches a ton of big walleyes ... on Lake Erie in April. What about the muskie guy who spends the majority of his time trolling around on big fish water or hopping in boats with other guys who are experts on the water they are fishing? Is his 52 incher more valid or important than the other guy's small-water 45 incher just because of its length? |
|
| |
