|
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | MuskieFIRST - 2/11/2008 4:57 PM
Does catching alot of big fish make you a good angler?
it would make the guy a good "trophy" angler ...
if you want a "trophy" bass ... farm pond, guererro, fork, toledo bend, rayburn, okachobee ... right?
an 8# bass is not considered a "trophy" |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1023
| I find it really annoying when I see TV show hosts groan if a fish measures shy of fifty. I don't care where they are fishing. Having said that, muskie fishing is about chasing big fish - it is natural to focus on size. I have been fishing muskies in the Kawartha Lakes (Ontario) region for 3 years. For me casting up a 40+ incher is more exciting than trolling up a 50+ incher. But that's just me. My opinion may change over time. For now, all I can say is that tagging a 40" fish on a topwater or on a figure 8 is pretty darn awesome. I find myself shaking incidental hog largemouths off of the lure as though they were a nuisance - that may offend others. I just love to hear other people's fish stories - big or not! |
|
| |
|
| How many of those over 45" in the cap city were caught by one angler trolling one body of water for one week? not to diminish those fish at all, because I wouldn't shake them off either but is a 50" caught trolling with a guide, in his boat, with his stuff on his water as much of a trophy as the guy that does it with all his own stuff on a spot nobody showed him? just another angle to think about.... |
|
| |
|
Location: The Yahara Chain | sworrall - 2/10/2008 9:13 AM
I got to thinking about that. Most anglers don't have much opportunity to travel to the Muskie hot spots across the country, and are fishing muskies locally for the most part. Those who live in the meccas of the sport....well, they are pretty lucky. Point is, if you want to catch really big muskies, you need to fish where there are really big muskies.
But what about waters where the fish cannot reach that somewhat sky pie-ish mark of 50" or more?
Dr. Casselman said it best in his Symposium presentation. In a nutshell, he stated that on lakes where the fish reach 45" max, that fish is a true, unquestionable trophy.
Steve I agree with you 100%. You cannot put one number (50) for a trophy on every body of water. I fish muskies a lot for a guy that is married and has two children at home but I don't get to travel to the trophy destinations very often. I have fished a total of 5.5 days in Canada and 2.5 days in Minnesota. I have been fishing muskies for twenty years, the last ten I have been pretty serious about it. 95% of my time on the water is spent here in the Madison area. I haven't caught a 50 inch fish, but you know what nobody has caught a 50 in Madison. A realistic trophy class fish for me is a 45" fish. IMO a 46" fish in Madison is equal to a 50" fish in Minnesota. A 48" fish is equal to a 53-54" and a 50" fish would be equal to a 56-57".
I consider all of my PB's on the chain to be trophy fish.
Monona 47.75x23,
Waubesa 46.5x22
Wingra 44.5xfat.
There aren't very many anglers who have caught bigger fish on those lakes. There are a lot of very good anglers out there, putting a lot more hours into it than I can.
Is a 50" fish a trophy on Mille Lacs or Green Bay? IMO it isn't, not when countless fish are caught each year that are far bigger. If the upper confidence is 55", then the fish needs to be in that ballpark to be a trophy.
And yes if I caught a 41" on the Tiger Cat Flowage, I would consider that a trophy. Although that will never happen because I would never waste a limited traveling opportunity in that body of water. |
|
| |
|
Location: The Yahara Chain | bn - 2/11/2008 5:39 PM
How many of those over 45" in the cap city were caught by one angler trolling one body of water for one week? not to diminish those fish at all, because I wouldn't shake them off either but is a 50" caught trolling with a guide, in his boat, with his stuff on his water as much of a trophy as the guy that does it with all his own stuff on a spot nobody showed him? just another angle to think about....
Brad you are thinking of the wrong year. Lambeau referred to 2007 not 2006. The two anglers that he is referring two are Bill B. and Adam O. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2089
| Wow, can't believe some of the stuff I've just read. Longtime muskie fishermen feel diminished in some way because people in another state are catching big fish. Unreal. Why????? Jealousy? This will be my 33rd season chasing these fish and each and every one is special. To say that a 50" fish from Mille Lacs or anywhere else for that matter, isn't a trophy, is the absolute craziest thing I've ever read on the internet.Unreal.Man, I hope newcomers pass this thread by. Steve |
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | "What REALLY is a true trophy? From Spider lake in Oneida County, it's this fish...and deserves as much WOW factor as a 56 off of Eagle." Although I can clearly see where your logic is heading here Steve, the low 40" is never going to get the recognition of a 56" from Eagle... or a 56" from any body water for that matter. That is, at least from the vast majority of muskie fishermen... to quote a famous Clint Eastwood movie line; "deserves got nothing to do with it".
After reading through the well thought out responses... I'm still of the same opinion from my first page post that the body of water cannot rightfully be used as the gauge for what a trophy really is. I maintain that an anglers experience or situation dictates what a true trophy is much more than any given body of water does - no disrespect intended to anyone who feels differently.
It seems pretty obvious to me that Cassleman was speaking from a biologist point of view and not an anglers when he made that statement. That doesn't mean what he said lacks value, it's just not delivered (or received) from an anglers perspective IMHO.
Case in point, you show a perch fishermen a 30" muskie and he's going to think it's a huge trophy... I've caught plenty of mid 40" fish from tail waters below dams and adjacent small lakes, although I certainly appreciated and understood the significance of those catches based on what was available in the system... I never considered them to be a "true trophy". Frankly, I think saying a 41" is of trophy caliber diminishes the value of what a real trophy is. Significant catch yes... trophy no... maybe it's just me?
I honestly think you would have found the majority of the people you polled at your seminar were fairly new to muskie fishing, or just casual muskie anglers - nothing wrong with that! And yes I get perturbed with the internet sniping too, and I'm not trying to diminish the value of a 41" muskie... but I think most old salt muskellunge veterans would not consider having a reproduction made of a 41" from a creek... but might consider a 54" from anywhere else.
To reiterate, to me the defining difference is when you fish a lake without "true trophy potential" you must have a lower expectation level based on what is known to exist elsewhere. It most certainly doesn't diminish the anglers skill or decrease the "significance" of the to catch, it just doesn't make a 41" into a true trophy no matter what Cassleman has said. |
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | Good post Steve... I agree 99%... the -1% is because I think new muskie fishermen should read it so what they're getting themselves into!
Yeah, I'm a little bored tonight... the cold and snow around here is also getting to me. You don't dare go out of house lately without snow shovel  |
|
| |
|
| amen Steve Jonesi... Boone and crocket and Pope and Young set standards, those organizations could care less where the animal was shot from. To some, a little 6 point buck may be a trophy, but Boone and Crocket will not consider it a trophy... I think it is funny that some have diminished a 50" fish from Mille Lacs or Green Bay.. |
|
| |
|
Location: The Yahara Chain | SJ, the point that I am trying to make is that you can't put one number as a trophy for every body of water. Everybody likes to throw 50" out there. Some lakes don't produce 50" fish and some lakes(not very many), like the one that you fish on, put out an extraordinary amount of them.
IMO to be a trophy a fish needs to be at or near the top end of the largest fish in that particular body of water. I believe that Mille Lacs and Green Bay have the potential to produce fish that are as large or larger than anywhere in the world right now. I don't think that a 50" fish falls into that category in those two bodies of water. It doesn't mean that I wouldn't greatly appreciate a 50 from there. I will be fishing on Green Bay a couple of times this year and I do hope that I am lucky enough to get a 50, but this thread is about true trophies and I would have to catch a 53 plus on the Bay to consider it a true trophy. |
|
| |
|
|
I'm getting a little confused about what this thread is actually about
Are we asking the question "What is a trophy Muskie", or are we asking the question "What is a trophy muskie to each individual, based on lake, tactic, time in history, angler experience etc. etc."
Seriously, what is the point here?
What's next, giving handicaps to lakes so we can compare catches?
Are we next going to ridicule guys who spend all their time on big fish lakes, and make them feel like they have to go to a "small" fish lake and catch a 40"er to be respected?
If you are willing to do whatever it takes to get a 50"er, or bigger than a 40"er doesn't make the trophy standard, that is what seperates "trophy" angers from those that just fish for what is available.
JS
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | All,
I didn't necessarily ask what YOU consider a trophy. I asked what IS a true trophy considering each body of water, local bodies of water, and out to regions in the Muskie world. I was and am making the point that if someone is consistently catching Muskies that are about as large as they can get on any water body, that person is catching that SYSTEM's 'trophy' potential fish. If that angler doesn't have the time or cash some do to run up to LOTW or MN or (God forbid) NE Ontario, then is he/she to be in despair that he hasn't the 'talent' you have?
Deer hunters understand what I'm trying to say. Trophy potential for a specie of deer is largely dependent on environment and food, subspecies, harvest each season, genetics and overall population. Sound familiar? Yet I clearly understand if I take a low end Pope and Young buck from public hunting grounds in the area of Oneida County in which I hunt, I truly have accomplished as much as someone in Alberta's Whitetail paradise has taking a mid quality B&C. You better believe I am mounting a 145 class whitetail from Oneida county, but would not even consider it if I was hunting Alberta. No one expects the whitetails to be equally impressive between Arkansas and Ontario, why would they? A big buck for one area is a MONSTER elsewhere, and an average deer in yet another location. But if I am consistently taking bucks with as large a rack as can be expected here, am I less of a hunter or have I accomplished less than a fellow shooting 170 or better class animals in paradise? Give me that week in Alberta...and send that fellow to Oneida County for the same week. When folks who regularly hunt the big whitetails in exotic locations visit my house and look at my mounts, they ask, " Did you get those bucks around HERE? Nice animals, man!" Would that same question arise if I had a 43" repro from TigerCat on the wall?
I'm talking to the 'trophy' bar being set at an unattainable point for many because fish of that size do not exist in the waters they are able to fish. Many very accomplished lifetime muskie anglers feel like they are diminished standing in the shadows of anglers here who have fished Mille Lacs for all of a few years. I'm saying a 43" fish from a creek in Virginia is as impressive to me as a 56" fish from Eagle. I'm saying that expectations like we see now in this culture plant unrealistic goals in many minds what Muskies in THEIR waters should look like and be, raising hell with local fisheries managers who have to try to explain the obvious to someone not very willing to hear that truth, and disappointing many who post their personal best here only to have some Schmoo rudely point out that fish is small in comparison to what is caught in their back yard..... And, I guess I'm saying I feel that is a serious problem in this sport. |
|
| |
|
| True Trophy: every single one my wife catches.
(Steve - I know, I know, not exactly what you're asking, but this is the answer that kept coming to me as I read thru this thread.)
ErieBoy75 |
|
| |
|
|
I guess I really don't see a problem in our sport.
If people are feeling thier catches are being diminised, who is really to blame?
Muskie fishermen killed fish for years.
Big fish were uncommon because they were being killed, plain and simple.
Catching a 50"er in the old days was a big deal. On any body of water.
Instead of feeling sorry for oneself on past catches, either go out and fish, or feel good about the fact that people have made the effort to improve our fisheries for all to enjoy, old and new anglers. This seems like nothing more than an envy problem to me.
I really don't see a difference in muskie anglers and deer hunters. Most guys I know who muskie fish also deer hunt.
JS
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | So are you saying it is a somewhat diminished (wasted??) effort to fish where there are no 50" fish? What are the anglers who live in areas like that to do, dismiss the waters where an average fish might be 43" but a really BIG fish is 48 as substandard?
Lakes and rivers where there are no 50" fish are ummmm....not worth a second look?
Should one dismiss the talent and hard work it takes to catch the largest fish available from waters and entire regions where the benchmark fish are simply so rare as to be unattainable?
Are you saying that only a certain size, say 50" or 55" can be used to determine a skill level? That in order to get any attention form one's Muskie angling peers, one has to go where the big fish are? Literally, that's what it takes to catch big fish...be where they are and have a reasonable skill level...so if one leaves an area where a big fish is 45" to fish where a big fish is 55" WHAT DOES THAT PROVE?? Simple...that there's big fish there.
Should we, as the influential information source to a fair share of new Muskie anglers, then intentionally (or unintentionally) announce that ALL muskie waters should put out 50" fish, or they are of no value? And should we press forward announcing that unless any given angler has CAUGHT AND RELEASED a 50 to 55" fish, that any fish he/she has caught to date from home waters where those monster muskies do not exist is somehow not worthy of some WOW factor?
'Wow, can't believe some of the stuff I've just read. Longtime muskie fishermen feel diminished in some way because people in another state are catching big fish. Unreal. Why????? Jealousy? This will be my 33rd season chasing these fish and each and every one is special. To say that a 50" fish from Mille Lacs or anywhere else for that matter, isn't a trophy, is the absolute craziest thing I've ever read on the internet.Unreal.Man, I hope newcomers pass this thread by. Steve'
Ahhh, draw out the emotion, and one get's to the core of this. Steve is saying the same thing I am, really, he has just made the same observation from a different perspective. Saying a 45" fish from MOST places isn't a trophy is just as crazy.
I hope NO ONE passes this thread by, it is directly indicative of what causes this sport to be looked at somewhat 'askance' by so many other sportsmen and women. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | JS
So if you see a picture from a Utah reservoir of a 40" fish are you impressed? I sure am. If the guy catches a bunch that size, I'm REALLY impressed. A guy catches a 50 from Mille Lacs; cool, great fish, but a more worthy accomplishment than the Utah angler's?
Envy? I don't get that, not even in the same ballpark of what I'm trying to point out. And where in the world are you getting the rest of that post from......no one is challenging CPR here. Simple fact is, even if CPR is cooking along, there are entire portions of the range of the Muskie where a 50" fish is going to be always a rare commodity. A Really good muskie angler in those areas might not break 48" but for once or twice.....is he to be 'envious' of the MN anglers who have Mille Lacs and Vermilion? Sure,but because of LOCATION, not because he is to be considered not as talented by the anglers in MN, or on Bay of Green Bay, or the St Lawrence, or..... Does the water one chooses to fish HAVE to contain 50, or 53, or 54 inch fish to be 'worthy' of fishing? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1185
Location: Iowa | This may not be a muskie but here is a true trophy flathead I caught today...53" long and 52 pounds...man was it cold today...5 degree air temp with a wind chill of -15 degrees...only lasted about 2 hours...fish was released safely to fight another day...
Big Perc
Edited by Big Perc 2/11/2008 9:03 PM
Attachments
----------------
 52a.JPG (128KB - 156 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2089
| Meooooooooow!!!!!!!!!!!!! Nice fish matt! Steve |
|
| |
|
Location: The Yahara Chain | Congrats Perc, that thing had to fight a lot harder than any muskie could.
You are hard core to be noodling out in that weather...LOL. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | i'm gonna guess that's a "trophy" .... nice fish! |
|
| |
|
|
This isn't about what impresses me, but the feelings of anglers whose accomplishments are diminished because of others success.
That is called Jealousy.
It's a personal problem, not a "sport" problem.
If someone can't realize thier own accoplishments, than that is a personal issue.
I know many, many more anglers that realize lakes and areas are all different, and "trophy" status is up to the indivudual, than anglers that feel slighted because of the success of others.
I never implied I'm not impressed by the catches of others.
I've also never implied I care about what other feel about my catches.
JS
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'This isn't about what impresses me, but the feelings of anglers whose accomplishments are diminished because of others success.
That is called Jealousy.'
Not if the very 'created' atmosphere we breath propagates dismissal of real and impressive accomplishment because of geography, and as a result diminish the true values of hundreds of managed Muskie fisheries across the range of the Muskie..Then it's a 'sport' problem. There are waters in the East and West not yet come into their own, in the South that have no chance to get there because of a number of issues, in the South West that are 'new' hybrid fisheries; all have some very good fishermen and women putting some impressive fish (for that water) in the net. Lots of other examples, just look around. You will even find a few in MN and Ontario, not all waters in those areas kick out big fish.
As another point:
It wasn't all that long ago a select few were catching muskies in the 45" range from Mille Lacs, and it seemed almost no one else even cared the muskies were there. Vermilion is also a 'new' fishery...should we dismiss those waters across the country on the way to that possible stature just because they are not yet there? Wouldn't attention to those waters by the posters in this thread and the strong conservation ethic brought with that attention be important? Would that not possibly have been the catalyst to get something done on Bay of Green Bay BEFORE we reached the point we have arrived to? But you see, the multiple 45" fish a few anglers were boating weren't 'impressive' enough.......
The rest fits my post above, and if you read more carefully, I'm not pointing to those who might look diminished to the rest of us as much as I might those who find it uplifting to diminish......again, you will find we are saying much the same thing from a different perspective.
I'd say that flathead is a PIG. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1184
Location: Iowa Great Lakes | Great cat but assuming that was taken from the Des Moines river, its a nice fish but not throphy standerds that that river is capable of. I think this is what Steves trying to get everyone to see.
I have friends that live on the Des Moines in the summer and boat many fish in the 50-60 even a few 70# class fish I have heard tales and belive them of fish pulling them upstream during flood stage, while this 52 pound fish to me or anyone reading this is a true trophy the river system does have much larger fish in it and in all honesty this is more middle to upper mid sized fish for this system.
Now put that fish in the upper end of the MN river and you'll be the talk of the town for sure.
Again not taking away form his great catch just making a point. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1286
Location: WI | I just want to catch any muskie I can. I broke the 50" mark last September and to me that was definately a trophy fish! But I fish a tiny lake with muskies in it and was pretty happy to catch even a 34.5 in it last season. I know they don't get huge in that lake, but I'm going to keep going back just to see...settle my own curiosity on how big of a fish I can pull out of it.
I personally think the trophy label is something personal, it's a personal goal whether it's your PB, a state record, or whatever. To compare against other fish, other waters, etc is pretty unfair and a dishonor to the fish itself.
I'll stick with 50 inches as my definition of a trophy, but catching one is not the focal point of my season, it's the overall experience. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1168
| sworrall - 2/11/2008 8:38 PM
I didn't necessarily ask what YOU consider a trophy. I asked what IS a true trophy
I am unable to answer this question simply because of the statement quoted above. I thought I knew what the word "is" meant, but thanks to a fellow born in Hope, Arkansas I am still searching for the meaning of that word.
Edited by ulbian 2/12/2008 1:22 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | I agree with steve that the body of water does mean something. A lake not known for big fish and someone gets a 45 on it has a right to call it a trophy from that lake. I think a point missed here is that a trophy does not have to be huge to be considered a trophy. A fish caught by someone that would have a special meaning to them could be considerd a trophy regardless of size. My dad for example only got to muskie fish with me several times. His best a is a 40. Because it was my dad and his best to me and him that is a trophy fish. Its not a trophy to the angler that thinks it has to be 5o inches to be considerd one. I guess its in the the eye of the angler and what they consider a trophy. I ts like deer hunting in some ways. A young man shoots his first buck. A nice 6 pointer. To that young man that deer is a trophy and it should be. I certainly would not tell him otherwise.
Pfeiff |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2427
Location: Ft. Wayne Indiana | I don't think a 41 incher is every a trophy...no matter where it came from.
Anything over 45 is a nice fish.
But a trophy is a "TROPHY"...which means it is BIG...not NICE...45 is nice, 50+ is a trophy, anything over 53 is a really really nice trophy.
|
|
| |
|
|
Are we talking about anglers personally feeling like their catches are being diminished by the big fish of others, or about other anglers making them feel that way?
There is a difference there.
In every sport you have ego monsters who will try to make themselves look better than others with their accomplishments.
You're also going to have guys that try to minimize the accomplishments of others by saying "everbody catches a 50"er on Mille Lacs", etc.
If these things are indeed problems, what is the proposed solution?
JS
|
|
| |
|
| Mike, how many or what percentage of those fish were over 50"?
20 fish out of 1080 by Cap City were 50"+
just under 2% of all fish caught.
i assume that some of the MN chapters might have a slightly higher percentage based on local waters that hold bigger fish (the Madison Chain has never produced a confirmed 50" fish), but i'd be surprised if any group of people maintains an average of much over 2% of fish caught being over 50".
i know that there were a number of people at our awards ceremony last night who were very very happy to tell the story of their 45" trophy. Dawn's 45"er drew a lot of oohs and ahhs from people who've caught many fish over 50"...it's not always just the length of the fish, but where it was caught, whether it's a personal accomplishment and the circumstances involved.
|
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | I'm still trying to define what this thread is really about too I guess. It seems to have drifted more into an anglers accomplishments on a given body of water than what is really a true trophy on any given body of water. I still say a true trophy is more of a personal thing like you say Mike "whether it's a personal accomplishment and the circumstances involved" than a lake thing and just because a fish can only reach a max of 41" still doesn't make it a trophy... on any lake. After all what if you could walk across the street and have a legitimate shot at a 50"... is the 41" still considered a trophy then?
The fact that some people catch 50-70 50+" in northeast Ontario may not impress some people here as much as a guy catching 10-15 48" in northern Wisconsin. However, it doesn't diminish the fact that every one of those northeaster's are trophies in the purest sense of the word even though they can get 58+". This is because muskie fishermen have established the bar at 48-50"... and it's not my standard.
If the guy fishing only on the 41" lake wants to catch a true trophy he's going to need to switch lakes, or be known as a "numbers guy". Frankly if a guy catches 20 of those 41" fish from that small fish system... it's very impressive. Or... this thread should probably be morphed into an anglers accomplishments on a given body of water.
Using the same 41" example... I think most would considered it to be false advertising if you said "true trophy muskie fishing" in an ad promoting the 41" maximum size lake, and that's my main point. Most old salts would certainly have a lowered expectation level on that lake.
I suppose I would agree that a trophy could be defined more by state or region like we have with the state or provincial records. Honestly, there seems to be some animosity present here when someone is able to take a shortcut to the top and get a 56 in his first year or two among muskie fishermen so to speak... they didn't pay their dues or something.
I say who cares.. and good for them, it certainly won't effect me one way or the other and absolutely does not diminish my 25+ years of effort one bit... "that's muskie fishing". |
|
| |
