|
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | mrymar - 12/14/2015 12:20 PM
I think the pics need to be cleaner. Top view of the entire fish showing the nose on the board and the tail in one image. Then the same view for the girth.
Change the name from world to MuskieFirst.
MuskieFirst Record Release Program
Entries are submitted to the forum?
Fish must meet a minimum length of 55" or minimum girth of 30" to be eligible?
Standings are determined by formula?
You can have year-end standings or overall standings?
No on the name change, MuskieFIRST is hosting this, and is not the 'owner' of the program. Be patient on the rest. |
|
| |
|
Location: Sawyer County, WI | sworrall - 12/14/2015 4:58 PM
Then don't register your next 55X30.
Exactly.
It's really pretty simple. If you don't care for the rules you can either choose not to register it after you release it or kill the fish and enter one of the other world record programs. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 255
| I'm in support of a system for weighted whining.
Maybe a 1-100 scale because there is a lot of whining out there. Maybe it should be a score, not scale. Who knows? Girth may play a part, called the front bump board. Or beer gut bump.
Nice releases may help your score, so drop a bomb on video of a nice gastric release.
Can't believe I'm still reading discussion on this. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | That there is funny! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8782
| I don't understand the animosity. Someone with no skin in the game has taken the time to alter a commonly used formula to accurately reflect the approximate weights of a great number of giant fish with known length and girth measurements, so the 1 in 100 angler can release their giant fish and still have a good idea what it weighed without having to kill the fish.
And this is a BAD thing to some?
If you want to know what your fish weighed, WEIGH the GD thing. If you want a "legitimate" record, club the SOB with a tire iron and take it to the taxidermist. Make sure to collect the blood, eggs, and #*#* that spill out of it, along with anything it barfs up along the way so you can add that weight into the total.
For the rest of us, who want to release our fish and not have to guess within 4-5 # of what it actually weighed, this is a GOOD thing. If you don't like it? Bonk the next 58 pound musky you catch. For the "normal" musky angler, and even the accomplished musky anglers, that will be somewhere in the neighborhood of "not in your lifetime..."
This effort is the best I've seen in over a decade, as a way to document and verify the fish caught that are truly at the upper end of the spectrum, without having to kill those fish for no reason other than to prove your ^%$# is bigger than the next guy's. And if 'ya need to prove that, maybe musky fishing is not for you. Perhaps you should take up tennis, or basket weaving, or my "cat" hurts. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20219
Location: oswego, il | My water can beat up your water? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2024
| Larry or Steve, all kidding aside, and I don't want to be negative, what is formula for the average musky fisherman's ego? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 242
| I have to admit, I am a little surprised at some of the responses here. Guys are bashing the idea of a Catch and Release Record Keeping mechanism? I think this is a really good idea and I applaud Steve and Larry for putting this together. There is a little level on honesty involved here, but this is still a lot better than killing a fish to prove it's size.
I also think it's cool that Larry took the time to modify a formula to more accurately represent fish on the upper end of the scale size wise. It would be interesting to see a formula (or set of formulas) developed with this same physical database for all sized fish to the same level of accuracy.
ARmuskyaddict - 12/12/2015 2:37 PM
the question is, what company will be the first to make their bump boards with measurements for 16ths of an inch?
To add to that, which company will be the first to make a bump board that goes up to 65 or 70 inches (and there may be some out there, but I have only seen ones that went to 60 inches). If you caught a 62 inch fish, you would essentially lose those 2 inches off the formula, because that wouldn't be a properly documented 2 inches. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 5171
| ToddM - 12/12/2015 7:18 PM
Great program and a worthy fish to start with. That being said it would have been cool to start from scratch then I could go out and catch a 35"er and at least for a day, have a catch and release record! I agree ToddM. |
|
| |
|
Location: Sawyer County, WI | ARmuskyaddict - 12/15/2015 8:34 AM
Larry or Steve, all kidding aside, and I don't want to be negative, what is formula for the average musky fisherman's ego?
There isn't a bump board on the planet large enough to measure it and don't even begin to try and measure girth, especially on the expert trollers. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 200
Location: Minnesota | Pointerpride102 - 12/14/2015 4:37 PM
Further proof that musky anglers will literally complain about anything.
Especially when there's almost 6 months before the season reopens. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 29
Location: Gananoque Ontario | I had MuskyBumper make me a custom bumpboard 12" x 64" when I moved to Gananoque 5 years ago. I didn't want to have a tail hanging off of the board and not be able to get an exact measurement.
Reed Findlan
Attachments
----------------
 IMG_1003-crop.JPG (380KB - 395 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
| R Findlan - 12/15/2015 4:04 PM
I had MuskyBumper make me a custom bumpboard 12" x 64" when I moved to Gananoque 5 years ago. I didn't want to have a tail hanging off of the board and not be able to get an exact measurement.
Reed Findlan
I hope it was worth it and put to use Beyond a normal bump?  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 95
| sworrall - 3/6/2014 4:23 PM Larry comments: In December of 2013, Ed Barbossa caught and released a giant that weighed "at least" 58-pounds on an IGFA certified scale. Due to the fact that Seeberger's 58-pounder was under review for record, Ed decided to release this massive fish that 54.75-inches long and had a massive girth of 30.50-inches.
So does this fish weighed on a certified scale not qualify as the new release record? Just curious
Attachments
----------------
image.jpg (205KB - 403 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I would say no. The program did not exist at the time, so the fish, of course, was not presented for review as a result.
All the rest is speculative, other than a reported 'at least' weight.
And no, there will be no 'MuskieFIRST bumpboard'. Unless you haven't noticed, we have never tried to get into your pockets, and have no intention to. All this is free, and people still whine.
Larry?
|
|
| |
|
Location: Sawyer County, WI | Does it meet all of the criteria that Larry mentioned in an earlier post regarding photos and photos of measurements including one on a commercially produced bump board ? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | AR wrote: "Larry or Steve, all kidding aside, and I don't want to be negative, what is formula for the average musky fisherman's ego?"
Larry: AR, that formula would be HUGE X HUGE X HUMONGUS divided by NOTHING!
Reed: Nice move!! I see a new trend coming and bump board makers should take notice...in fact, there may even be a MuskieFIRST bump board in the near future, stay tuned!
Esoxriebe (sworral): Correct. There is no photo of the fish on a bump board or of the girth measurement, which the new program requires so it doesn't qualify. In addition, the scale reading (in the dark, in the boat, on the water) was "at least 58 pounds" with no weight delineation above that readable...as was the case with the Seeberger Modern Day World Record. I know length was taken on a commercial bump board and the girth done with a soft commercial tape, but it was not documented. Had that been done, the new modified formula would have put the fish at 58.80 pounds, likely very close to what she weighed.
Edited by Larry Ramsell 12/15/2015 8:19 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Two days in and Larry has it down to a science. Good work, Larry! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Correction: Barbossa's fish was caught December 2012, not 2013. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1144
Location: Minnesota. | muskidiem - 12/14/2015 5:55 PM
Can't believe I'm still reading discussion on this.
Same here. Then again it's i'net....
Larry, thanks for all the effort you and others have put into this. It IS very appreciated -- by most.
There, I said it! I'm out!
Jeremy. |
|
| |
|
| I see no bashing. I really don't get where that comes from constantly. If anyone has a question or suggestion its bashing? I dont think so. A bit overly sensitive I would say.
I have never felt the rewards for smacking one over the head just get your name in the books was good thing. Any program that promotes CPR, as Gil Hamm had dreamed, IS good!
It would also be nice to see a list of fish that fit this category for all to see but, maybe this is the first. Its too hard to for most of us, especially new anglers, to find and remember these catches.
Maybe someday. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 431
| I think this sounds awesome. After a while, It will be like a CPR hall of fame for notable fish caught. Ive always wished I could go to a website and see great pictures of the 10 or more most notable fish caught and released for different states or areas. Whos was the biggest by a couple ounces wouldn't really matter, in fact its fun to debate. this sounds like it will be an awesome resource for us to see excellent data and photos about awesome fish!
Thanks to everyone's work on this!
Edited by tackleaddict 12/17/2015 7:52 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 108
| First I would like to say that I am all for a Catch & Release World Record Program and I applaud Larry Ramsell for taking on this challenge. I guess what has been bothering me is that I see this program as being "subjective" to a degree.
The top fish in this program is determined by an "estimate" based on a formula to derive the results. So...here is my hang up:
Which is a bigger muskie?
57.25" x 29" girth or a 56" x 29.5" girth? Based on LxG/25-8 we have 58.41 lbs vs 58.08 less than 1/2 lb difference on an estimated scale. Which one does the public perceive as the larger muskie? My opinion for what it is worth... is the 57.25" fish is the greater fish. Based on the build of the fish and how it carries the weight...the 57.25" fish could very easily actually be heavier than the 56" fish. If the fish is not weighed...how do you start splitting hairs?
Someone help me get over my mental block so I can sleep at night.
Again, I am not trying to discredit this program...but I am having some difficulty wrapping my head around it...and would appreciate some clarification
Thanks,
Brett Waldera |
|
| |
|
Posts: 242
| Brett Waldera - 12/17/2015 8:46 AM
First I would like to say that I am all for a Catch & Release World Record Program and I applaud Larry Ramsell for taking on this challenge. I guess what has been bothering me is that I see this program as being "subjective" to a degree.
The top fish in this program is determined by an "estimate" based on a formula to derive the results. So...here is my hang up:
Which is a bigger muskie?
57.25" x 29" girth or a 56" x 29.5" girth? Based on LxG/25-8 we have 58.41 lbs vs 58.08 less than 1/2 lb difference on an estimated scale. Which one does the public perceive as the larger muskie? My opinion for what it is worth... is the 57.25" fish is the greater fish. Based on the build of the fish and how it carries the weight...the 57.25" fish could very easily actually be heavier than the 56" fish. If the fish is not weighed...how do you start splitting hairs?
Someone help me get over my mental block so I can sleep at night.
Again, I am not trying to discredit this program...but I am having some difficulty wrapping my head around it...and would appreciate some clarification
Thanks,
Brett Waldera
Larry and Steve could probably answer this question better than I can, but this goes back to the answer of you'll never know the true weight unless you kill those fish. What I like about this program is even though this isn't an exact science, it is also not subjective. All fish measurements get put into the same formula that Larry developed(i.e., eliminating the subjectiveness as to which formula maybe the best). This is the officially accepted formula for this program and as far as spliiting hair, if both of those measurements go into this formula, then the one that yields the higher value is your heavier fished based on the paradigm set. Your argument should be more on whether this formula is accurate or not or how trustworthy will fisherman be in their measurements. Since this formula was developed using empirical data of actual fish catches that were weighted on certified scales, I would be willing to accept it as the most accurate one we have to date. As far as the trustworthiness of fishermen, well, even under the old system of keeping and killing the fish, there were still those who tried to be dishonest, so you will never eliminate the ethical factor in anything you do.
Edited by Lucky Craft Man 12/17/2015 9:06 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8782
| I see what Brett is saying, and when two fish come in at near equal weights according to the formulas, I'd say the length would be the deciding factor in which fish was "bigger". To me, weight gives a much better indicator of the actual size of the fish, though. A skinny 51"er, while over the magical 50" mark, to me is not as big as a really fat 4 footer. I'd take the fat 4 footer every time, but that's just me. |
|
| |
|
Location: Sawyer County, WI | A question for Larry - are there any C&R record requirements regarding disclosure of where the fish was caught and what it was caught on ? Just wondering if there will be any "Lake X" records in our future... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Brett: I "feel" your dilemma and I would say that the "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". With two fish that close, it is a personal decision on what "you" believe to be the bigger fish. As for the program, the formula is the deciding factor.
Dfkiii: Good question, since it hasn't been discussed. I'm going rule that "where" the fish was caught IS required. Lure caught on is another matter and up to the angler if he wishes to disclose same. No "Lake X" records! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 108
| Larry,
Thanks for your clarification! I do agree 100% that the beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
For the record, I am a competitor...I like to WIN...I don't agree with society and their "participation" ribbons...but in this case...would it make more sense to have a Catch & Release Hall of Fame, and have entries over 58lbs go into this Hall of Fame Program rather than an individual holding the World Record title? Is that less of an accomplishment for the angler to be in a Hall of Fame with his/her peers with fish of amazing caliber?
Just a my opinion for what it is worth. Again, I thank you for your efforts in taking on the task of developing this C&R program!
Brett Waldera |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Actually, we are planning to set up a program that will 'rank' each entry based upon Larry's criteria. It will be a ways off due to a complete OFM site redesign Zach is working on, but I bet you will like the results.. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 906
Location: Warroad, Mn | I like the concept! Any thoughts to expanding this to state and provincial records or to a yearly record? It will take a very big fish to displace the current record and with such a record to over come there will be very few entries and interest may be lost or forgotten. This could be a very interesting record keeping concept that I think would be followed by many if there where more opportunities to enter. Perhaps a little more work than what you may want, but there may be people who would be willing to help. Doug Johnson |
|
| |
