|
|
| Just a guess but I would say Pierce Lake in Illinois. |
|
| |
|
| What do you mean by the NEXT world record muskie? KenK hit the nail on the head. The current records are nothing but "myths" and until they are rightfully disqualified there's no point in this discussion.
The mount of the 1949 Spray world record has a head to total length ratio unlike any living muskie. It's a crime that biologists have failed to point this out to the NFWFHoF.
The latest shenanigan by the NFWFHoF has been to reinstate the Mabry Harper walleye which their former regime rightfully disqualified. Former Minnesota fisheries biologist Dick Sternberg convinced the former regime the fish was bogus and the story was in Outdoor Life magazine in 1996. Now, because of John Dettloff, we are again stuck with a bogus record walleye.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 785
| There's only one thing I know for certain... it's gunna be somewhere I'm not! lol |
|
| |
|
| My vote goes to Crow lake by a lake trout fisherman. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | pepsiboy - 6/14/2010 10:20 AM
Kingfisher - 6/13/2010 11:51 PM
The McNair fish was close, Obrien fish Close, Bristow fish Close, Lac suel has put out a bunch of fish over 50 pounds. It just takes one of those 60 pounders to eat a 10 pound Pike and you got her done eh? St Lawrence. Kingfisher
would be more smart
More smart? Ironic someone suggesting a smarter way to do something comes up with this statement. LOL! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 157
| The records are the records, Get over it and stop peeing and moaning about how they should be DQ'd.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 214
Location: Beaver County, Pennsylvania | good ole Pennsylvania on the allegheny reservoir |
|
| |
|
Posts: 556
| It is definately going to be a fish from BIG WATER such as the great lakes system---And I have to believe that it may have already been caught and released--- I have seen pics from an fishing partner of a 58 x 30 in his boat last year on the great lakes---fish was absolutely caught and released. I have to believe there have been others larger. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 247
Location: Uxbridge Ontario | I am going to have to say the Canadian side of Georgian bay (French or Moon river delta) or St. Lawrence. These areas have the most "in-question" potential world record fish in the last 5 years. Hard to argue this... ??? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1425
Location: St. Lawrence River | esox911 - 6/15/2010 7:23 AM
It is definately going to be a fish from BIG WATER such as the great lakes system---And I have to believe that it may have already been caught and released--- I have seen pics from an fishing partner of a 58 x 30 in his boat last year on the great lakes---fish was absolutely caught and released. I have to believe there have been others larger.
dang man! any chance you could share that picture with us? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | If by "world record", you mean the "official" record that was supposedly caught by Louis Spray?
Realistically, few Muskies over 70 lbs ever existed and the odds of any one person contacting a fish of that size in their lifetime is very small. Having seen some very large Muskies that may have pushed over the 50 lb mark, I cannot honestly imagine a fish that would weigh 70 lbs. I have seen one that may reach the 60 lb mark, but that is a really big "maybe". I imagine a few others may have seen a 70 lb class fish, but I never have.
That said, the obvious choice would be Mille Lacs. Historically, the Muskie population in Mille Lacs is now in a very unusual situation that might, and I repeat might, eventually result in a record fish.
Mille Lacs is a relatively new fishery and the first time stocked Muskies are now reaching their maximum size. Just due to the timing of the fishery, the Muskie population in Mille Lacs now contains an unusually high percentage of very large Muskies. At the same time, there are unusually high tullipee and perch populations which have left the Muskies fat, happy, and very difficult to catch. The current conditions should allow the Muskie population to grow at a maximum rate. At some point in the future, (days, months, or years), the baitfish populations should go back to more normal levels and the Muskie fishing on Mille Lacs should improve. (That is a "should" and not for sure.) With these conditions, it is possible that some of those Muskies could obtain unusually large dimensions. And it is possible that someone just might get lucky and catch one of those really big fish.
No matter how you cut it, the odds of a record Muskie (+70 lbs) getting caught is very low on any body of water. Realistically, on most waters the odds are zero because fish that large do not exist there.
All that said, the odds of catching a Muskie that is larger than the true size of the Spray fish (low 40 lb range) is actually pretty good on many waters these days. Many fish larger than that fish are caught every year. Gosh, even I did that. Just look at the fish by my login name. And if I can do it, then most any experienced Muskie fisherman can.
I hope someone manages to catch a +70 lber soon so this entire WR topic comes to a rest.  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 214
Location: Beaver County, Pennsylvania | never get tired of looking at these. howard wagner is the man!!
52.5 x 28: 52lbs allegheny river:
52.5 x 28.5 53lb 9oz lake erie:
Edited by adudeuknow 6/15/2010 1:30 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | Truly huge fish! And to think how much larger than those it would take to get a 70 lb Muskie. Kind of mind boggling. Eh?
Not sure which side of the boat I'd run to if I ever saw a 70 lb Muskie. Maybe to the side with the port-a-potty? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 214
Location: Beaver County, Pennsylvania | mind boggling indeed! 70lbs woud scare the bejeezus out of me... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1425
Location: St. Lawrence River | its been said on other threads before but if you check out Rich clarke out of thousand islands website..thats why my vote stays here on the slr for the next world record. that guy has a nack for catching the big girls. also somewhat recently the mcnair fish.. i agree with others when i say i wish someone would stumble upon a true freak of nature musky and put the controversy of the "world record" 6 feet under.. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 214
Location: Beaver County, Pennsylvania | how would everyone feel if someone caught a 75lb musky and killed it to get the record? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1425
Location: St. Lawrence River | i dont know how id feel. but i can say that it wouldnt be up to me to decide whether it was right or wrong to kill the fish. as long as the individual was doing it legally. i do believe in cpr but i wouldnt push it on anyone or make anyone feel guilty about a personal choice. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 203
Location: Alexandria, Minnesota | Sugar lake near Saint Cloud, Mn. Heard there were some monsters in there. Ha, Ha |
|
| |
|
| "how would everyone feel if someone caught a 75lb musky and killed it to get the record?" Pretty ridiculous question, a 75lb musky is as likely as Louie catching three world records in 10 years based on what we already know about musky. Bottom line is, they do not get that big, never have, never will.
The theory of some giant 60lb eating a 10 pound fish to make a 70lb is pretty far-fetched too because first you have to assume that a musky can weigh 60lbs empty. Williamson's 61lb fish was not empty, O'Brien's65lb fish was not empty, and there is a fair amount of controversy surrounding the weight of that fish. as I recall Williamson's giant had eaten 3 good sized fish already and it just managed to tickle 60lbs.
Speculating on some of these other released fish weighing "x", is just shear speculation. It's still neat to dream about one and fun to speculate, but reality is that anything over 55lb is about as big as they get and there will be no "next WR".
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2089
| Jody Dahm's 54 X 30 from Mille Lacs was caught the beginning of October, way before the cisco spawn. By the various formulas, that fish was close to 60#. A good meal from .............? Did Jody catch the biggest fish in the lake that evening? I highly doubt it. They do exist, fact not fiction, East and West. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | so, if a 60# fish is holding a 10# fish in it's mouth when caught ... is the fish 60# or 70#? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1425
Location: St. Lawrence River | jonnysled - 6/16/2010 11:49 AM
so, if a 60# fish is holding a 10# fish in it's mouth when caught ... is the fish 60# or 70#?
thats a good question |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8775
| I think I'd kill a 75 pound muskie. In fact, if I ever catch one, you can skip the interviews, and just print this statement:
"I don't care that I have a world record fish to my credit. It's a FISH. In the grand scheme of life, nobody cares. It's a FISH, did I mention that? Nobody is going to remember my name or my face. I may get a few bucks out of it if I play my cards right, maybe get my face in a magazine that only 1 in about 10,000 people have even heard of. But that's not why I killed it. I killed it because I've been muskiy fishing for a number of years, and in that time I've heard more whining and hemming and hawing over records and weights and who lied about what and when than you can ever IMAGINE. And now? That's all over -- here it is. The biggest muskie EVER. And it's dead. I'm a conservationist, let me just state that for the record. I'd much prefer to release all my fish, and I'd like to see others do the same, because catch and release works. It's why we have the great fishing we do today. So you're going to ask me again why I killed this fish. As I said earlier, I've been hearing all this record nonsense for years. People have literally dedicated their lives to researching and trying to prove or disprove this and that record. Lifelong friendships have been destroyed, it's actually come to physical violence. Yes, over a fish. Now?? 10,000 muskie anglers can forget all this nonsense and get back to fishing. That's worth way more than a single fish ever will be."
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1764
Location: Ogden, Ut | Jeff,
You forgot to thank the Academy...
S. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Addict,
The only issue with your public statement is the 10K number, that isn't even close. Way more than that these days...the sport is growing, despite the economy. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | I doubt even 10,000 muskie fishermen care about the records, that's why they continue to be records. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 158
| esoxaddict - 6/16/2010 11:03 AM
I think I'd kill a 75 pound muskie. In fact, if I ever catch one, you can skip the interviews, and just print this statement:
"I don't care that I have a world record fish to my credit. It's a FISH. In the grand scheme of life, nobody cares. It's a FISH, did I mention that? Nobody is going to remember my name or my face. I may get a few bucks out of it if I play my cards right, maybe get my face in a magazine that only 1 in about 10,000 people have even heard of. But that's not why I killed it. I killed it because I've been muskiy fishing for a number of years, and in that time I've heard more whining and hemming and hawing over records and weights and who lied about what and when than you can ever IMAGINE. And now? That's all over -- here it is. The biggest muskie EVER. And it's dead. I'm a conservationist, let me just state that for the record. I'd much prefer to release all my fish, and I'd like to see others do the same, because catch and release works. It's why we have the great fishing we do today. So you're going to ask me again why I killed this fish. As I said earlier, I've been hearing all this record nonsense for years. People have literally dedicated their lives to researching and trying to prove or disprove this and that record. Lifelong friendships have been destroyed, it's actually come to physical violence. Yes, over a fish. Now?? 10,000 muskie anglers can forget all this nonsense and get back to fishing. That's worth way more than a single fish ever will be."
Even though you killed it, was it caught legally? I heard you speared it from the bow of the boat when it was on your partners figure 8, a friend of my brothers kid said it was full of rocks when it was weighed even though it's been verified, Billy Bob said the scale it was weighed on was recently used to weigh slaughtered hogs on and said the scale was not verified, plus Jimmy Dean down the street said you measured it with your rake handle and then transferred the measurement to a yard stick held together with super glue.
hahaha. Just messin' with ya man, love your statement...I'll print it out and keep it in my bait box for future use when the WR ends up in my boat. haha. Fish on.
Dangit....3 more hours till I get out of here and hop in the truck headed to Lake X!
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8775
| I forgot to answer the original question!
I suspect the world record will come from a river system, somewhere in Northwest Ontario.
I also suspect it will be caught by a walleye angler, on a jig/red tail chub, behind a beetle spin, on 6# test, by someone who has never been muskie fishing in their life.  |
|
| |
|
| Allegheny reservoir(?), PA!
Brian |
|
| |
|
Posts: 214
Location: Beaver County, Pennsylvania | hahahahaha...while i do believe their are some bigguns in there it was meant to be a joke.
Edited by adudeuknow 6/16/2010 2:36 PM
|
|
| |
