|
|
Location: 31 | The decision whether to keep or release a potential state record is strictly a personal one for me. Whether or not I would become a "Muskie celebrity" would not be part of the equation. I think state records are like a personal best, nobody else is going to care much except you anyway.
I think AFCChief made a poignant observation; " Record fish provide us with data points that indicate how big a fish can actually get and provides validation regarding what waters can actually support these large fish". This was one of the basic premises behind the establishment of the WRMA. Unfortunately, there is little doubt that the Spray record(s) have adversely affected stocking, length limits and general perception.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | No doubt it would be thump!!!!!!!!!
Now let me tell you why. I've fished them for over 40 years and never caught a state record. I've let one hell of a lot a fish go in my lifetime. If I got the state record or world record I would want to be able to admire all my years worth of fishing from my recliner when I am unable to fish anymore.
Secondly if you keep it they can't doubt you and after all of that I have seen I would have no guilt about keeping it.
Third I feel if you no how to market it and yourself there is certainly some money to be made off of it.
Ans last I would not judge anyones choice if they keep it or let it go so I expect the same.
I was surprised to see the comments and surprised by some but thought all were good. May you have to make that choice soon.
Pfeiff |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3907
| "May you have to make that choice soon."
Excellent post. |
|
| |
|
| In my case if i were to catch a state record, as far as im concerned itd be a world record too considering both art lawton and dale mcnair's enormous fish, which i consider both to be #1 and #2. but honestly i dont know what id do till i got in tht situation. Adrenaline and other factors can do funny things to a guy. I dont think i would have the same reasoning right now if i had a state record fish in my hands, id like to say id let her swim |
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | I got to thinking about the Wisconsin state record a little more after Don's post and agree a Wisconsin state record would certainly have some sort of monetary value. Hypothetically speaking... what would someone do with a dead 68 pound muskie out of Green Bay then?
Edited by Jerry Newman 11/3/2009 12:22 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Jerry Newman - 11/3/2009 12:20 PM
... what would someone do with a dead 68 pound muskie out of Green Bay then?
Jesus fed 20,000....I imagine it'd go something like that. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 359
Location: Wauwatosa, Wisconsin | I'd have to let her go...the wife would never let me spend the big bux to get her mounted (the fish, not the wife; that's another whole discussion for a different site). |
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | Good one Pointer... and true because that's about all it would be worth monetarily speaking eh'! A hypothetical 70 pounder on the other hand would be worth $100,000 (just for starters) with the bounty from the Moccasin Bar. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | I've caught big fish and they all went back. No reason to kill one. There is always the chance that a fish could die and it is always possible one could catch a state record Muskie and then not be able to revive her. But, other than that, I'd let her go for sure. No "ifs", "ands" or "maybes". Wouldn't even think about it.
A state record wouldn't mean a thing to me. I have caught fish that were almost certain state records of several other species of fish and always turned them loose. (Except for a carp that was fed to the pigs on the farm.) 
A certain WR Muskie though? That I am not sure about. In order to kill a fish it would have to be a certain world record and not just a "maybe". But then one would have to deal with other issues such as:
- One would have to deal with all the nay-sayers even if the fish was proven to be the WR by the DNR. There would always be people saying the fish couldn't be that big or the fisherman is not that good or something negative.
- One would most likely be asked to speak at various shows and meetings. (As if one is a better fisherman than anyone else.)
- One would have to pay for the mount and that would be very expensive.
None of that sounds like fun to me. So, I'd probably just let her go and avoid all the hassle. Just take some pictures and maybe tell a few people that I could trust not to spread it around.
My two cents.
Edited by Herb_b 11/4/2009 11:06 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I guarantee you wouldn't have to pay for the mount. Who cares what negatives might be tossed around by the anonymous self appointed Muskie Cops, a World Record that is positively verified is what it is. personal decision, and that's how it should be IMO. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8823
| I think it would depend on a lot of factors, including what state the fish was actually caught in. The whole idea of muskie celebrity? Heheh. Pretty small audience there. I'd imagine of you played your cards right there would be some monetary value, but not a life-changing amount of money. The pictures and magazine articles would be nice to look back on some day when I am old. I will say this for certain. Where I caught that fish would weigh very heavily on my decision. Some of the places I fish? Back she goes. Not a word to anyone. You might see a picture of it, I may tell you the story of when and how I caught it. I might even tell you how big it was. |
|
| |
|
| $30,000 for your truck, $30,000 for that specific boat, $2,000 fishing gear,$300 in gas for both, Vacation time for that prime week. Countless hours away from the family on the water. Not wanting to get that fish of a life time mounted because its ''very expensive '' priceless! |
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | Esoxaddit: I agree with what you said on the which state,ect... Wisconsin being the wild card of course.
Herb: anyone who catches a proverbial 70 pound muskie would not recieve any measurable flak regarding its size IMHO. Why do I say this? Obviously, the fish would have to be killed, and like the new Michigan record, there would be tons of verifiable pictures and "legitimate" witnesses.
Now, take a look at that Michigan record again and try to imagine something 20 pounds heavier. It would seriously boggle your mind to look at the pictures of it because it would utterly dwarf every muskie before it... EVER!
Who has doubted the size of the Michigan record? The pictures of that monster obviously coincides with the claim so nobody has any difficulty believing. The same thing would apply to a "hypothetical" 70, the lucky person would be fishing royalty and embraced by the muskie community. Even in today's economy there would be significant endorsement offers... and don't forget that $100,000 offered from the Moccasin Bar.
|
|
| |
|
| dcmusky - 11/1/2009 6:41 PM
Stste records were released on Mille lacs & Vermilion and this brings allot of out of stste anglers to MN. Why do you think this site has so many Vermilion outings, they surely don't go to number lakes. I think thumping them would have adverse affects on tourism but thats my oppinion. Why don't more people carry certified scales with them then just get witnesses and GOOD photos then let her go.
Dan Crooms 54
Because a certfied scale is useless in a boat. You will have to transport the fish to shore anyway to get an acurate weight. This will increase the chance for delayed mortality. You can't have it both ways. Keep it and be sure, or let it go and convinve yourself you released a record. Sadly until there is a cpr record to be had, this is how it is. For me, if I get one that I am SURE is a record fish, I'm going to kill it.
If you consider how many "records" have been released, you have to think that quite a few "records" went to the frying pan already too.
It's a fish.... A big fish has spawned many years already, producing a few million eggs each time, and even at a 1% survival rate, probably has a whole bunch of offspring that will make it to maturity. Plus, if you take the fish out of the system, you will be removing all the built up mercury and other pollutants along with it. Harvesting a fish is not always bad, especially a really old one. |
|
| |
|
| So if all the biggies on Mille lacs that were cought in recent years were kept for the wall would as many people come to Mille lacs as have? I think not it's becouse they were let go that the masses came. It's your desition of what to do if you are lucky & skilled enough to get a fish like that in the boat, I'm just saying it might not be in the best interest of a local economy.
Dan Crooms 54 |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8823
| Dan, that all depends on whether or not the local economy is based on tourism, and fishing as a significant component of that. A world record fish caught from some areas could be a goldmine for the local economy. If your "economy" consists of bars, restaraunts, a couple guides, two tackle shops, and a handful of resorts? A world record fish is going to bring money into your town. On an even smaller scale, think about some of the resorts on Eagle Lake for example, like Andy Myers Lodge... Not that Steve is hurting for business, quite the opposite and for good reason! Now, imagnine that one of Herbie's clients catches a world record class fish. You don't think that all the internet hype, and the magazine articles and the newspaper articles, the pictures and muskie shows, the conversations at club meetings, etc. are going to bring people to AML that wouldn't have normally gone, or even heard about it? You don't think that for a handful of years at least there would be a lot of people heading there for a chance and a world record class fish?
I haven't been at this game forever, Dan. But I've been at it long enough to know that anywhere there are big muskies will attract muskie anglers. Lots of them, from far and wide... Mille Lacs, Vermillion, Eagle, Lac Seul, Georgian Bay, Lake of the Woods, Green Bay, The St Lawrence... Everyone readling this thread knows those places, because that's where the biggest muskies are, and anyone serious about chasing these stupid green fish has probably fished at least one of those. And when we go there we stay at some resort or motel, we drink in the bars, we eat in the restaurants, we buy suckers at the bait shop. It doesn't mean diddly squat around the urban fisheries, but in resort town a world record muskie can actually put you on the map.
|
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | I think dc is right in that if ALL of the big fish had been kept in Minnesota, muskie fishing tourism would have dropped off more quickly. However, I still think there would have been a spike because of the publicity. Keep in mind that we are only talking about 1 kept fish here (a state record) and not all the big fish being kept like the old days. Here's where the equation might get a little tricky... if somebody caught and kept a state record lately do you think muskie fishing tourism would spike? I do. I also think that plenty of big fish were in fact kept and publicized (case in point, some guy with a houseboat) and that additional publicity also brought increased muskie fishing tourism.
I personally do not think that the Minnesota state record was broken nearly as often as some people might think. I will not get into nitpicking this fish or that fish. However, using the standard 800 formula on a live released fish as an example… For starters, the formula itself is composed of dead fish with completely collapsed air bladders. A live fish does not have a collapsed air bladder, therefore a larger live girth… all air too.
Let's speculate for a second that the new Michigan record had been successfully released and the dimensions reported were like 56 x 28”. In fact, that’s actually very close to what the dimensions would have been. Now, let's enter Tom Gelb’s certified 53 x 28.5” / 51.125 lb. fish into the mix. If the 56 x 28” was compared to Gelb’s 53 x 28.5” there would have been speculation on how much more the longer fish with almost the same girth would have weighed. I'm pretty sure you would have seen about 55 lbs get kicked around here on Muskie 1st… when in fact it’s certified weight was actually slightly less than Gelb’s.
IMHO, most people do not understand how critical a proper girth measurement is if you want to know the accurate weight of a released muskie… 1” is huge and will significantly alter perceived weight. Just as important as a good measurement is you will need to reduce the girth of your released fish (using the 800 formula) to compensate for the expanded air bladder. How much? Good question… we are still researching it but 1" seems reasonable on truly giant fish of this caliber. In phone conversations with Tom Gelb he told me that he “loosely” measured the girth at 30” inches. Don't believe it? Do a quick check with that 800 formula with the above certified fish and you will see that the formula weight is very close to the actual weight.
As an aside; we've been playing around with a new formula for large fish lately and determined that it takes a very special fish to obtain a 50% girth to length ratio. An example of exactly 50% would be 50” x 25”… doesn't sound like much nowadays eh'? The bottom line is that any released muskie that is claimed to have a 50% G/L should have a pronounced belly like the new Michigan record (it’s not quite 50% by the way). Or how about Tom Gelb’s rare beast with a near 54% G/L… crazy fat and a very-very special rare fish indeed!
Edited by Jerry Newman 11/5/2009 4:47 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Me personally I could care less about fishing the body of water Gelb cought his fish on becouse I won't get the mounted fish on his wall to bite & niether will you or anybody else. I wonder how many went to the Larry this year with wide eyed excitement just to hope they could get Mcnairs fish just to follow? You do know that if you remove a fiffty five pound fish out of the system it dosn't necessarily mean that another one will take it's place. It's more likely that nitch will be taken up by several smaller fish, if you don't beleive me look at WI.
Dan Crooms 54 |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | That's not necessarily the issue in 'Wisconsin'; IMO too broad a brush stroke there, Dan. Not many waters in this state can produce 50# fish (see the research forum under the 'it's the fish' debate), but we are fighting for 50" limits on those that will and have actually accomplished it on a few. Harvest isn't helping Minnesota, either, hopefully the State can stay ahead of the issue and can increase the limits to where harvest isn't likely, similar to what Ontario has done on the Trophy water there.
|
|
| |
|
| I agree but you guys do have allot of waters over there that do have the potential and historicly have produced 50# fish but don't any more. IMHO single hook sucker fishing and stocking too many fish also is a problem along with genetics but I by no means am a fisheries biologist so it's just speculation on my part. Believe me we are working very hard to keep the positive direction going here in MN. Next years state wide 48" min. is a huge step in the right direction and hopefully we can keep moving forward. Most of our harvest is incedental catches and personally I would love to see a muskie stamp but who knows if it will ever happen.
Dan Crooms 54 |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Actually, we don't have 'alot' we have a few, and are doing everything collectively 'we' can to get the limits up to 50" or better on those lakes. There's nothing at all indicating there's any problems with the genetics of the Wisconsin muskies (study underway). LCO, for example, exhibits the same genetics it did in the 1950's according to Dr. Sloss's work. The issue there is harvest coupled with water quality and habitat issues it seems; I believe the limit was changed to 50" not too long ago but the treaty harvest continues. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16
| Jerry Newman - 11/1/2009 11:22 PM
The decision whether to keep or release a potential state record is strictly a personal one for me.
I would put the fish in a FISH ThANK.
http://www.team-fishigan.com/TANK/FISH_ThANK_1.jpg
http://www.team-fishigan.com/TANK/FISH_ThANK_2.jpg
http://www.team-fishigan.com/TANK/FISH_ThANK_3.jpg
Transport it to a cert scale. Weigh it with two bystanding witnesses. And then I would let it go back in the lake.
Edited by mrymar 11/5/2009 8:10 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Twin Cities | Jerry Newman - 11/5/2009 4:41 PM For starters, the formula itself is composed of dead fish with completely collapsed air bladders. A live fish does not have a collapsed air bladder, therefore a larger live girth… all air too. IMHO, most people do not understand how critical a proper girth measurement is if you want to know the accurate weight of a released muskie… 1” is huge and will significantly alter perceived weight. Isn't the bottom line here that girth isn't really the deciding factor on weight, but rather that stomach content is? A fish with a 28 inch girth doesn't necessarily have a full belly...
|
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | I guess the “bottom line” or point that I was trying to make is how to rightfully apply the 800 formula to live versus dead muskies. The girth of a live fish should be reduced accordingly if you do not want “inflated” results from the air bladder.
“Isn't the bottom line here that girth isn't really the deciding factor on weight, but rather that stomach content is?” Good question JRedig! My answer is that an accurate girth measurement is more of a deciding factor on obtaining a close formula weight.
Without getting too complicated here, any reasonable stomach contents are going to increase the girth of the fish proportionately and the 800 formula will still basically work the same. An exception might be stomachs containing some type of oversized prey expanding the girth disproportionately. Foreign materials added to the stomach will adversely skew the results too.
Any fish is going to be heavier with a full stomach versus an empty stomach of course. However, the stomach contents will still be reasonably accounted for with an expanded girth. Hope this makes sense to you?
You can also perform a little experiment at home and measure your own girth before and after Thanksgiving dinner
Edited by Jerry Newman 11/6/2009 10:09 AM
|
|
| |
|
| "Isn't the bottom line here that girth isn't really the deciding factor on weight, but rather that stomach content is? A fish with a 28 inch girth doesn't necessarily have a full belly..."
A fish with a 28 inch girth with an empty stomach wouldn't have a 28" girth with a full belly and you can take that to the bank.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Jerry basically just said that. Is it January already? |
|
| |
|
| Just thought I'd sum the whole thing up with one sentence. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | Everyone is entitled to what they wish for it. They caught it, its the fish of a lifetime for any of us. All I can say besides my above post is this. Anyone that would bash someone for keeping a world record of any fish needs a reality check. I cannot see where anyone gets off doing that. And your right. Wife would not me spend money for a mount. Trust me she would when you tell her what you can make off it.
Edited by Don Pfeiffer 11/7/2009 11:25 PM
|
|
| |
|
| I really feel the Spray and Johnson fish should have been released. By removing these two genetic freaks we really don't have any idea how large their ultimate size might have been. Apparently they never contributed any of their genetics to where they were captured as there's never been any fish caught from there that were anywhere near those sizes. This points to those two fish as being sterile. Kind of reminds me of the Williamson fish which was also speculated as being sterile and contributing all of its energy towards growth and not reproduction. These sterile females supposedly re-absorb their egg mass giving them a massive amount of additional protein causing an exceptionally rapid growth rate. As far as I'm concerned this tests my "upper confidence limit" on what to believe.
|
|
| |
|
| That's actually sort of humorous, Guest. I'm thinking that was your intent.
Neither of the fish you mention look anything at all like the Williamson fish. Neither were genetic freaks, either. So how would they be as big as they were claimed? Obvious answer to that one.
|
|
| |
