|
|
| Steve, point taken but I would be curious to know if those fish are included in his database and not in his lakes that he feels have the best potential. He was obviously aware of them when he was compiling the database and probably a lot depends on when he was compiling it. As I recall this was prior to the symposium in 05 and there was no proof that the WRs were so bad. |
|
| |
|
| O'Brien's fish supposedly measured 58" total length with a fork length of 56.5". How could Larry Ramsell possibly have gotten a total length measurement of 54" which is SHORTER than the fork length measurement originally reported? Larry's measurement of 54" indicates a fork length of only 52.5". How could a muskie with a fork length of 52.5" possibly have a total length of 58"?
Likewise, how could Larry have weighed the fish at 56 lbs (confirmed by two separate scales) when the fish was originally reported to weigh 65 lbs?
Here we have the canadian record losing 4" in length and 9 lbs. in weight when checked by one of the worlds most respected authorities on muskies. I'd like to hear a logical explanation for all of this?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 221
Location: Detroint Lakes, MN |
Dr. Casselman's studies used fish that he could personally inspect.
All this speculation of fish what fish weighed with "empty" stomaches, etc. That is meaningless as fish don't go completely empty like a gas tank in a car and then "fill up". They have a fairly constant weight and don't wait to eat until they are "empty".
Art Barefoot's 59" fish weighed 59 lbs. in June after it had spawned. That fish was not near the end of it's life as determined by age models and was not a "freak", meaning had no sex organs or some other deformity that made it grow to an unusual size.
For those of of you that think muskies can only get as big as the one's we've caught, why? That makes no sense at all.
If several muskies can obtain a size of 60 lbs., than what logical reason would there be to say that they can't get bigger than that?
JS |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | His confidence limit data was compiled from his study of the cleithrums, I believe. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| Now they're snappin! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 580
| First off, I don't know or really care too much whether muskies can get to 70lbs or not. I'm personally content to catch a 45-50lber. 
When we are talking about water systems as large as Georgian Bay, the St. Lawrence, Lake of the Woods, etc., I don't think it's completely logical to assume that the largest of large fish swimming in those waters have been caught. In other words, to presume that a 70# fish doesn't exist solely on the basis that a 70# fish hasn't been officially caught and weighed, involves just as much speculation and conjecture as the opposing viewpoint. You're assuming that an angler was lucky enough to stumble into the biggest fish in a 1 million acre lake. That's quite a leap of faith.
On the other hand, the world's foremost scientist and researcher on the topic of big muskies, Dr. Casselman, thinks that existence of fish of this size is "probable", i.e., it's more likely than not.
Obviously no one knows for certain. But since we have verifiable examples of captured fish weighing into the 60's, and we have a reputed scientist (whose life work includes researching the topic of growth and maximum size) saying that the existence of a 70lb fish is "probable", I don't see what's so hard to believe.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | One thing is for certain - none of us knows for sure if a +70 lb Muskie exists or not. And our belief system does not really affect whether or not a WR Muskie exists either. Either it does or it doesn't. Not?
Either way its always fun to think about catching a giant Muskie every time we get on the water. Isn't it?
Edited by Herb_b 6/22/2010 4:30 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Every time I pull a rare stint at a show booth, someone tells me an incredible story of a seven or eight foot muskie.
Straight up- After filming these fish underwater for quite a few years now, always in The Great lakes system,( where the biggest supposedly live) and seeing a lot of fish, I don't think I've seen one over five. I see a lot of 2-1/2 to 3-1/2. You see a few around four feet. I think I've only seen three fish that I would say were over four and a half feet long. That's after hundreds of dives going back to 1997.
Now, just because I haven't seen it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. But i can tell you this, a four and a half is a rare fish indeed. I would guess the very top is around 5. Call me a doubter, but I'd have to see bigger to believe it.
Good luck on the water- Jim |
|
| |
|
| That's a pretty sobering testimonial! It pretty much sums up our "slim to none" chances on even catching a 60-60 from some of the worlds best waters. From my seat here, I think you can remove the "slim" portion from my above statement for virtually all of our inland lakes due to pollution, fishing pressure, strain, ect.
If we are to learn anything from our musky history, it's that people tend to exaggerate, and that virtually all of the fish over 60lbs were nothing more than 40lb lies. I would love to hold onto the dream of a 70lber too, but I'm afraid I fall into the same category of, please show me one.
I suspect plotting a 70lber on a bell curve would help put things into perspective. |
|
| |
|
| No offense to the guy going under water but don't you think that something weird in the setting, meaning you underwater, might cause a large fish to stay away. It got big for a reason |
|
| |
|
| John Skarie,
Your statement, "... fish don't go completely empty like a gas tank in a car and then "fill up". They have a fairly constant weight and don't wait to eat until they are "empty"."
Fish certainly do go completely empty as any taxidermist or anyone that has opened up a lot of fish will tell you. The weight that is fairly constant is their "empty" weight.
Where did you get the idea that SEVERAL muskies have obtained 60 lbs.? There has NEVER been a muskie caught, or found dead that was confirmed to weigh 60 lbs. with an empty stomach.
|
|
| |
|
| Guest - 6/23/2010 10:11 AM
No offense to the guy going under water but don't you think that something weird in the setting, meaning you underwater, might cause a large fish to stay away. It got big for a reason
Saying that some proverbial giant fish is staying away from the diver for whatever reason while these other (stupid?) fish do not is pretty absurd. The bottom line on how they "got big for a reason" is not that they are more wary or extra smart, it's that they have the right genes and eat more. Case in point is that the biggest fish in a pond or aquarium are the more aggressive eaters. Basically just the opposite of being wary. it would make more sense to just say that they do not exist, or are so rare that the diver just hasn't seen one yet. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 221
Location: Detroint Lakes, MN | The stomach may not have contents in it, but the fish has absorbed that weight or it's in the intestines.
A fish doesn't eat a 5 lb sucker, and then not eat again until it's lost 5 lbs.
The weight of fish is fairly constant, just like us. When they start eating more frequently they start to gain weight.
Never said anything about whether or not fish had contents in stomach that weighed 60 lbs. I said there have been several fish around 60 lbs., so IMHO the maximum size of a muskie should be well over that.
Edited by john skarie 6/23/2010 12:53 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | i would imagine then that it would stand to reason that the big fish that are avoiding divers are losing weight by the extra exercise it takes to run away and hide ... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | Hmmm. I think there are lots of factors in determining how heavy a Muskie can get. For instance, I have noticed that the Muskies are much fatter on Lake Minnetonka as one gets closer to Maynards and thinner as one goes away. They get fatter again near Lord Fletchers, but, once again, get thinner as one goes away.
Maybe its all that grease in the air from cooking those hamburgers the two restuarants serve?  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | Wow you guys never get enough I just go back to Michigans old record from Thornapple Lake. 51 inches /28 inch girth and 49 pounds. She was a young fish and had many years of growth left. If you use a percentage based formula and enlarge her to 60 inches she is well over 70 pounds. No one will ever convince me that there are not fish of 60 pounds empty roaming the great lakes and St. Lawrence. For me stomach contents are and always will be the deciding factor in whether or not a fish reaches a bonified 70 pounds. But anything is possible with these fish. The Green bay fish, McNairs fish, Williamsons, Obriens and many others that have reached 50 to 60 pounds show us that these fish can get big.
I have read here before that a fish can not exceed half its length in girth and watched that theory blown out of the water 5 times. Michigans old record of 28 girth and 51 length are living proof or dead proof that Muskies can exceed half of their length in girth.. Gentleman, this is why they are records. They are supposed to be next to impossible to achieve. I cant speculate on the Spray fish, the Johnson fisah or the Obrien fish as I was not standing there when they were measured and weighed and none of you were either. Larry Ramsell told me in Chicago that he thought Obriens fish should be the record. Well, he nodded when I asked him if it should be the record. 65 pounds to 70 pounds is not that much of a difference in my opinion. It Proven that they have reached lengths of over 60 inches. if one grows like the Michigan fish that I have presented then its over 70 pounds. Miles of waters never fished in Georgian bay. Dangerous rocks and wrecked boats , Its like Pirates story. ARG YE MATES SHE LIVES OUT PAST THEM THAR ROCKS. She eats full grown Salmon and terrorizes trout fishermen. I love it!!!! I will stand and applaude the day 70 pounds is reached and verified. Kingfisher |
|
| |
|
| You can rest assured there are are still giants here on the Big Chip. Too many trustworthy anglers have had them on or seen them for it not to be true. Even Tony Burmek had one on for 2 hours that he estimated to be #80. There is even hard supporting evidence with these huge jawbones if you don't want to believe in Louie's World Record. I think the ancestors of those super fish have just moved off structure due to fishing pressure and boat traffic, one day soon a lucky angler will shock the world. |
|
| |
|
| John Skarie,
A fish doesn't eat a 5 lb. sucker and then weigh the same as before it ate the sucker. The fish will GAIN 5 lbs immediately after consuming the meal. This weight gain will then diminish as the sucker is being digested.
Keep in mind that the 5 lb. sucker will NOT be converted into a 5 lb. weight gain AFTER it is digested. The weight of the fish "empty" is maintained by the fish consuming an adequate amount of food.
I repeat, there has NEVER been a muske that was confirmed to weigh 60 lbs. with an empty stomach therefore it would seem highly unlikely one could ever weigh much more than that.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | Now here is some math science for you. I took the Michigan old record which was a young fish . Her measurements were 51 by 28. First I grew her by 10% she was now 56.1x30.8 and by Muskies inc formula would weigh 66.52 pounds.
11% puts her at 56.61 x 31.08 and 68.35 pounds.
13% she goes 57.63 x 31.64 and weighs in at 72.11599206 pounds.
Now this is science. I used a known fish which was young when killed and grew her only 13% .
This fish is considered by many to be freak because her girth was so huge in comparison to her length. If she grew proportionately just 12% she would make 70 pounds.
But then again, formulas. Who can trust them? Take her weight of 49.75 pounds and increase it by 13% and she only weighs in at 56.22 . So does one trust the girth and the formula or the known weight and the 13% ha ha ha ha . I love this stuff.
Our new record is more the normal fish like Marc and others tout over and over. Average for the species. 55 by 27 and 50 pounds. This fish was 4 inches longer and only beat the thorn fish by less than a pound.
No one is going to convince me that there are not freak 70 pound Muskies in at least 4 places in this world. What really sucks for me is that I dont live anywhere near any of those places.
If I did? I would hang her from my yard arm ha ha ha . Kingfisher
Edited by Kingfisher 6/23/2010 2:16 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Kingfisher, 13% is a mile and a half! If you don't believe that then please explain why the MI record is 51lbs, MN record is 54lbs, WI record (should be) low 50lbs. Did it ever occurred to you that the these fish you are attaching 13% too are actually the the fish that already have the proverbial 13% already attached? How do you know either fish do not already reached its maximum length? Seriously, and I know you can't be convinced but, between the three states we do not have a single fish over 55lbs, while Canada has only one fish over 60lbs. It boggles my mind that Larry Ramsell would endorse a claimed 65lb-58" fish that he measured himself at 56lb-54". |
|
| |
|
| That is NOT science, it's speculation. You can't just assume that the fish would grow proportionally as it ages or if that particular fish would ever gain much more in length. There have been MANY short, extemely fat, muskies but how about extremely fat muskies of extreme length? Extremely long muskies are very old fish nearing the end of their life span and it would be highly unlikely for them to be carrying an extreme girth.
It's fun to think these fish are capable of reaching 70 lbs. but it's painfully obvious this is just a dream.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | Ha Ha Ha , I didnt say they could get that big. I said if one grew proportionately from the size of Michigans old record from Thornapple which was a young fish. 51 by 28 . Just a little longer and the same proportions would be an easy 70 pounds. By formula. Not speculation at all. Simple math. What were the claimed measurements of Dale Mc Nairs fish? By formula I showed a 57.6 by 31.6 would exceed 70 pounds. This is more science then the words you used (I guess) ??? Im not guessing. Im taking a known young fish and growing her by percentage. Its math. Maybe unrealistic but still math. Its my contention that if a 51 inch Musky can attain a 28 inch girth that a 57.6 can attain a 31.6 inch girth thats all. Mike
That formula was dead nuts on the Old Michigan fish at 49 pounds plus. Why would it not work on a bigger one? The old fish was certified 51 by 28 and that flies in the face of everything you have been saying. They do on occasion exceed half of their length in girth and in some cases by a lot. This fish proves to me that a 57 by 31 is very possible. By formula that is a 70 pound fish. Mike |
|
| |
|
| California Musky,
I would have to completely disagree with. Those fish dont become huge by eating a million times a day. They get huge by eating large high protein fish. I seriously doubt these fish are constantly hanging around in the shallows munching on pannies all day. I think that probably are more likely to stay very deep until they're hungry and then come up, eat a large meal, and then go back down.
Why is it crazy to think a fish would be weary of something strange in its enviroment? Isn't a large mature whitetailed deer weary of people? Being weary and cautious is how these animals get big.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Guest 3 - 6/23/2010 4:13 PM
California Musky,
I would have to completely disagree with. Those fish dont become huge by eating a million times a day. They get huge by eating large high protein fish. I seriously doubt these fish are constantly hanging around in the shallows munching on pannies all day. I think that probably are more likely to stay very deep until they're hungry and then come up, eat a large meal, and then go back down.
Why is it crazy to think a fish would be weary of something strange in its enviroment? Isn't a large mature whitetailed deer weary of people? Being weary and cautious is how these animals get big.
Ever been diving? The fish are hardly weary and cautious. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | Weary - mental fatigue ...
didn't think fish had brains? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | jonnysled - 6/23/2010 4:23 PM
Weary - mental fatigue ...
didn't think fish had brains?
This thread, and many others, makes me weary. |
|
| |
|
| http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/watch.asp?id=1084
We see, and get close to big fish. Getting to within a foot of these things (sometimes) was a thing that had to be learned by trial and error. Even if this super fish was cautious, I think I would see her at a six foot distance. Or, maybe I just am not where she lives.
A musky is average as far as approachability. Each individual fish has it's own attitude. I find the bigger they get, the less they care about us on average.
In the St Lawrence, big fish may live very deep. In lakes, however, I would doubt a giant fish would use really deep water frequently. The cool water below the thermocline might slow metabolism. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 123
| I'd have expected this thread in December or January but isn't the muskie fishing season open about everywhere now? And to somewhat disagree with the poster that says a 4 and a half footer is extremely rare, a close relative of mine has put 3 in the boat that size in the past 12-13 months. I've seen quite a few 56 inch fish in the past few years being caught from many Minnesota and Canadian waters. (Not so much in WI, Sorry). |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'Being weary and cautious is how these animals get big. '
Nope.
Weary, maybe. Wary, no. |
|
| |
|
| Guest - 6/21/2010 11:05 AM
I think it's pretty safe to say there is no dispute on the record fish from Hayward, based on sound research, they are 100% phony. .
Spray's fish was not a phony. There isn't enough evidence to disprove it. No matter who you talk to, someone is going to try to dispute it. People have done research to dispute it, but the evidence wouldn't hold a candle.
I honestly believe that Spray's is legitimate because there is not enough evidence to disprove it. The only thing Louie lied about was catching it off of Fleming's Bar when he caught it off of Church Island on the Chippewa Flowage. A few people saw him fighting the the fish and others saw it afterwards.
Hugh Lackley the taxidermist who mounted it had never met Louie before in his life until he brought the musky in the next day. Lackley said after he skinned the fish, he did a thourough examination of it and its insides and there was now lead or rocks or sand in it to make it weigh more. Nothing.
The only thing I've heard about Cal Johnson's fish is that it looked like was caught from another lake and not Lac Court Oreilles like he and his son and their friend said it was. Apparently the fish caught from LCO are barred and this was plain green. Has anyone ever thought that there could've been a few muskies that wasn't like the rest of them in the lake. Brings us back to the whole genetics thing.
Spray's is legitimate and I know this because I have researched it. |
|
| |
