|
|
Posts: 378
Location: Michigan | Kermits magnets are awesome baits! Built the old fashoned way, one at a time... Even before this fish, the wait can be months to get your order, but its worth it. Kermit is a great guy, making a great mess of baits. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | Kermit just called me to tell me about the fish. He is so excited, and I am for him. Only trouble is the longer wait I'll have for his baits now...hehehe. Great fish!! Big ones sure have been going lately. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 295
Location: Southern Ontario, Detroit River and Lake StClair | JKahler - 9/29/2009 11:15 PM
Awesome fish!
The fish looks massive in the vertical hold picture. Back in 49' they would have called it an 80lber for sure.
ROFLMAO.................Truely and amazing fishing. Congradualtions
Tim
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 7
| Can someone please let me know how i can get in touch with kermit for picking a magnet up? I have been trying to find one of his cranks for a couple months now.
Thanks Matt |
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | Kermit Good - (810) 706-1728 |
|
| |
|
Posts: 153
Location: Storm Lake, IA | That fish right there is why we fish countless hours and days without catching a thing!! Im ready to go fishing!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | Kermits email addy: [email protected] |
|
| |
|
Posts: 96
| Awsome fish - hopefully Beckman or someone sends him a new net. I noticed the cheap old blue net in the boat. I had one of those years ago and it's REAL tough to land and release anything over mid-40's with it. A bigger net seemed to help me with cleaner releases. Not that I'm complaining...sounds like he did an excellent job! Again congrats! |
|
| |
|
| WOW! Does anybody know if there are any pics of the fish when it was alive like in the net or something? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | Here are two pictures of the same fish. Note how the pic with the D.N.R. guy holding it makes it look like real fat 48 incher? Now look at the pic with both guys holding it dead. Looks like a 60 incher in that picture. I have always said that pictures can not show true dimensions and always allow for speculation and doubt. Every argument over true size of (released) fish stems from this fact. Some pictures make the fish look bigger then they are and some that make them look smaller then they are. Most pictures do not do the fish justice. Kyle had lots of pictures to document this fish because it was dead. They flared the gills, used verticle holds and horizontal holds, in the cooler, on the scales etc. Released pictures do not get those oppertunities. This was a tagged fish documented and weighed on certified scale. there is no controversy no doubts . But many could argue that the D.N.R. fish was not the same if all you had were the pictures. The D.N.R. picture was taken in April and the catch was in September. The D.N.R. weighed her at around 54 pounds and she weighed in at 50 after being caught. She was bigger in the D.N.R. PICTURE but looks smaller.The tag tells the tale and proves that pictures are not reliable as proof of length and girth. It still boils down to the anglers word or killing the fish. Whitnesses and or pictures prove nothing in catch and release fishing. I guess we all have to live with the challenges to our word. If anything this new Michigan record should show us all the truth about how pictures do not tell the real story . Kingfisher
Edited by Kingfisher 10/3/2009 12:40 PM
Attachments
----------------
 new state record.jpg (27KB - 284 downloads)
2muskie.jpg (40KB - 5579 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | I would like to add that this is the reason many anglers will not post pictures anymore. The arguments over length and girth, weights and claims are simply not worth the hassle . Formulas ,pictures, stories? all subject to speculation and controversy. I decided to never again claim any size or weight estimate of anything I catch. Much simpler to just say it was a good fish. Kingfisher |
|
| |
|
| If you look at page 5 in the field and stream link it says he was trolling 3 rods. From my understanding, Michigan regulations state you can only troll 3 lines if you are targeting salmon or trout in the Great Lakes, otherwise the limit is 2 rods. Can anyone verify this? |
|
| |
|
| The law changed to 3 lines in April 2009.. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | Guest - 10/3/2009 3:36 PM
The law changed to 3 lines in April 2009..
Correct. Three lines statewide any species. KF |
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | Kingfisher - 10/3/2009 1:27 PM The D.N.R. weighed her at around 54 pounds and she weighed in at 50 after being caught. She was bigger in the D.N.R. PICTURE but looks smaller. Her spring weight was only estimated, she wasn't actually weighed. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 155
| Can someone post a picture of the lure.Never heard of it..Thanks |
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | Perfect Drift - 10/6/2009 12:05 PM Can someone post a picture of the lure.Never heard of it..Thanks There is a pic of the lure in the F&S story. |
|
| |
|
| Anytime a fish is held in front of the angler the size of the fish will be exaggerated. This is a fact because the fish is closer to the camera than the angler. No photo will ever make the fish appear smaller than what it really is unless the angler is closer to the camera than the fish. Notice the first photo shows the fish being held tight to the body of the person holding it making it APPEAR smaller than it does in the second photo. The second photo has the fish being held out a considerable distance from the anglers making it APPEAR much larger.. Also notice how the size of the head APPEARS larger in relationship to the rest of the fish in the first photo. This is because the head of the fish is closer to the camera than the rest of it. |
|
| |
|
| Hmmm.... Never really thought of it that way. They should come up with a word for this thing about closer things looking bigger.... I know. I'll call it "perspective". Maybe you can do the same thing with objects like buildings. Then you could call it.... ummmm.... vanishing point. |
|
| |
|
| The point that people have to understand is there is no such thing as a photo that doesn't do a fish justice unless the angler is closer to the camera than the fish. The second example Kingfisher used shows how easy it is to make a fish APPEAR to be in the 60" class when in reality the fish is a full 5" less. Whenever you see a photo of a released supposed 60" fish, look closely to see how close the fish is to the camera compared to the person holding it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32935
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | That is not exactly a revelation to most everyone here, guest. |
|
| |
|
| Maybe not to most but there are obviously some that need to be straightened out and that was the purpose of the post. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32935
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Seriously, you are preaching to the choir on this one. There are dozens (AND DOZENS) of threads discussing photos of muskies onsite, and even a link to the WRMA study on the WR photo. |
|
| |
|
| I think you should go back and read post #403025. Obviously this is not a member of the choir you spoke of. A quote from that post..."Most pictures do not do the fish justice".
Are we to believe most pictures are taken with the fish behind the angler?
Being there are dozens (AND DOZENS) of threads discussing photos of muskies onsite, why do some people continue to push this nonsense?
I checked out that WRMA link you spoke of about the world record and found it very interesting. Illustrates my point very well and also shows that the size of a fish CAN be determined by a photo using the science of photogrammetry and yet there are still people out there that say you can't. This is downright hilarious! Photogrammetrists make a living from determining measurements from photographs and yet the world record muskie is still considered controversial. How low can you go! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 158
| I think this is fitting here....hahaha....love this one!
Edited by Shoot2Kill 10/9/2009 1:54 PM
(Someone_Is_Wrong_On_The_Internet.jpg)
Attachments
----------------
Someone_Is_Wrong_On_The_Internet.jpg (84KB - 182 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Brilliant! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2323
Location: Stevens Point, WI | Awesome! haha |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1061
Location: Medford, WI | Hahah...great. Thank you for that!!!
-Jake |
|
| |
|
| That fish looks like at ate Spray's fish. And so do most. What a giant!!!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | Pretty cool huh? Very few times do we get two photos of the same fish taken just months apart. One released and one dead. The dead one proves the size and weight. The live release by the D.N.R. could be argued by most that it is not the same fish. Color size head etc. If not for the fact that this fish was killed how many of you could have really guessed that these two pictures were the same fish? My point is still valid. Most pictures do not represent the true size either way. You can use all the tricks and science in the world and its still speculation, guess work and circumstantial evidence. No one But Louie will ever know if he lied or not. No one who has ever released a fish and claimed a size will ever be able to prove it. Weight formulas fail, thats why there are more then one lol hahahaha . Photos are doctored, etc. I once thought I could release a world record and I know today I would never claim anything of the sort. Ill let the so called experts fight it out in flame war after flame war. After reading Ramsells book I am convinced that there is a true 70 pounder out there. I hope someone whacks it, kills it and ends the battle once and for all but most of all I hope it comes on one of my baits ha ha ha ha ha ha . Kingfisher |
|
| |
