|
|
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | If the fish is a clean 58" X32", it's a record, period. There's no doubt about it.
Pointer is taking the all or nothing tact. Fine, no worries, that's his personal ethic or belief, but to tell me I'm not a conservationist or a CPR advocate because a record may be harvested in my boat is somewhat oblique, or depending on one's perspective just plain not true.
Now for the record I wouldn't keep the fish, but if it's possible, I'd get it witnessed and confirmed. If I'm in Wisconsin, that's not hard to do. Fish stays in the net, I get someone there post haste. If I'm on Wabigoon, she goes back CPR'd immediately, that's the law because I fish a Conservation license; I'd have her on video and still images, and carefully showing all the measures, no one gets in my boat without understanding how to use the cameras on board just in case something cool happens, and don't worry, it happens fast.
BUT...what are we basing the CPR ethic upon? What is the end goal for many of the Muskie Anglers out there, if not the apex of any sport, the World Record? To suggest that a WORLD RECORD muskie 'has' to be released to push the conservation ethic forward that encourages all folks to release Muskies up TO that record fish is to say we are now going for a totally catch and release fishery no matter where we are and no matter what the size of the fish, and the World Record matters not. Which is it? Depends, again, on your personal beliefs.
I think the 54" limit on many waters in Canada was implemented to eliminate most harvest. On some waters, that will eliminate pretty much ALL harvest, 54" fish are so rare. I think that was the real goal for a few of us recently on Bay of Green Bay in an effort I signed on to, and all the other stuff aside, the motivation was to create a catch and release only fishery to 'guarantee' no one harvested a fish that might...MIGHT...get upwards of 58" or more. I think that many of the folks who opposed the moratorium resolution wanted us to know they 'saw through' the other information, which has value and was absolutely important to consider, but isn't the core issue with most true trophy Muskie anglers. Some have expressed to me they would have liked to have heard; "We want total CPR to see how big those fish can get, and to create one of the best trophy muskie fisheries in the world." The feeling is that platform would have been easier to support for a total CPR fishery there, at least during a moratorium period. I'd have loved to see it happen, and will accept a 54" limit if we collectively can get that done next year, but will also accept that the current 50" limit is more restrictive than the current limit on many trophy waters in the US today.
And 'selective harvest' as Pointer describes it in this case is a zero sum game VS total CPR for everyone here so far, and probably will be for the future. Real is real.
Just some associated rambling this afternoon.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8837
| I'm going to completely disagree with Steve here, but not on any particular point, or for any particular statement he has made above. My complete disagreement is simply to illustrate that you can indeed disagree with whomever you choose around here, including the owners and moderators of this site. And by God, if there's anything worth disagreeing over, it's what to do with a fish that nobody here has ever caught or even seen and likely never will.
So for the record, I officially disagree. Respectfully, of course.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 311
| 50+ pound fish are rare. I highly doubt I will ever catch a "LEGIT" 50 pounder, and if I do, I will let her go. Now, put a 60+ at the end of my line and I will have to think about it. |
|
| |
|
| More world record class musky have died of old age when compared to the number of true world records even seen by anglers. Keeping one that you happen to catch is no big thing.
Remember, we are chasing a fish and worrying about a fish that has the brain the size of a pea. If a "pea brained" fish has out smarted the best of the best and the worst of the worst for this long, then I would take it out on the world record that finally does let its guard down and make a mistake.
Can you say renewable resource? How many times do you think a world record fish has spawned? Is that world record fish even reproducing any longer?
Here is a thought....Could those world records be sterile? All of its energy spent on eating and getting bigger and nothing draining it of its fat reserves. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 229
| I can honestly say I would let her go, Id rather release her than have my name go in a stupid book. |
|
| |
|
| Pointer- "If you say you practice catch and release, then you need to do just that, practice it. If you say you would harvest a fish, then you practice selective harvest."
Are you stating that those of us who have no problem with one fish being harvested are thus promoting the killing of fish? I think quite a few of us would take issue with that statement. I practice catch & release, but that sure doesn't mean I'm supposed to bad-mouth and degrade those fishermen who decide they want to keep legally caught fish, entirely within their rights to harvest. Look at the figures on the first page, and you'll see that the majority of those voting have no problem with the scenario presented in this thread for discussion. You have your opinion, and I have mine, and let's just agree that we disagree on the subject. The Muskie world is big enough for the both of us.  |
|
| |
|
|
I haven't seen anyone badmouth or degrade the decision to kill a muskie here.
Pointer is correct, a C&R fishermen is different than a selective harvest, or whatever you want to call it fishermen.
Pointing that fact out isn't judging anyone, or degrading anyone. It's just stating the difference.
The reasons I believe in C&R are such that if I did kill one than I would be a hypocrite to my beliefs now.
I firmly believe in releasing all muskies because there aren't enough for everyone to keep one. I also want as many people to catch a muskie as is possible.
If someone else caught a record size muskie that I released than it would make me very happy. I also hope that other anglers share that sentiment so I can have the opportunity to catch a fish they release.
So, I say I'm a C&R fishermen because I'll never kill one based on my reasons stated above.
The size of the fish doesn't change my beliefs about release.
JS |
|
| |
|
| John, I appreciate the efforts of c&r fishermen such as yourself, and I may have even caught a fish or two that YOU RELEASED. Like you, I also consider myself a c&r fisherman. The issue Pointer seems to have a problem with is anyone calling themself a c&r fisherman when they would in fact keep the record fish. I'd keep a fish I thought was possitively the world record, yet I still consider myself to be a catch & release advocate. I don't think it has to be "all or nothing". That is the only point I was trying to make. Sorry if I wasn't clear earlier. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 5
Location: Frost | John Skarie - 'I firmly believe in releasing all muskies because there aren't enough for everyone to keep one,' this is the perfect response John, the 38% of muskie fishermen that have selected Strongly Agree in the scenario above remains kind of disconcerting though |
|
| |
|
| The 38% are fishermen who have voted in reference to the scenario presented by the original poster. The question is not about whether we release all Muskies or not, but rather would we release the ONE we felt was the sure world record. I doubt that the 38% who selected Strongly Agree are against c&r in any fashion, or should be considered "fish killers" because of their reply. We seem to be getting off track a bit from the question asked in the original post. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 250
Location: Pittsburgh, PA | yeah i voted i would keep it doesnt mean i would keep everyone i caught im with Derrys. This all or nothing crap doesnt make sense any way no one can really know for sure what they would do in the situation unless it has happened to them
Edited by baldeaglefisherman 4/30/2008 7:17 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | And I might add it's fairly safe to insist one would release a WORLD record fish and take a lofty position when the actual chances that will happen are about zero.
I'll release every Muskie I catch from now until I leave this life, but that's me. I don't find the fact that most posting to the poll voted as they did either surprising OR distressing, the results are neither if looking at the total big picture of CPR of any muskie NOT a World Record with those same folks.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 431
| Probably the biggest regret I have from fishing is keeping a 7.5 pound largemouth I caught when I was 11. It was truly a great fish, and I haven't caught a bigger bass in Missouri since. It is hanging on my wall, but it makes me kind of sad every time I look at it. I caught a 27.5" rainbow and released it. It was caught and kept a week later by somebody else and I was sad and kind of pissed off. Watching a "record" musky swim away would be the proudest fishing experience of my life. I'm not an emotional guy, but that would be a fantastic experience. Think how ultimately at peace with the world each one of you would be as she waved her tail goodbye at you. So no, I would not keep it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1286
Location: Stevens Point, Wi. | I honestly don't know, so until it happens to me--no vote here. |
|
| |
|
| I haven't seen anyone badmouth or degrade...
true...and it's been nice to watch a touchy subject get discussed without angry posturing and with respectful dialog from all directions.
Pointer is correct, a C&R fishermen is different than a selective harvest, or whatever you want to call it fishermen...It's just stating the difference...The reasons I believe in C&R are such that if I did kill one than I would be a hypocrite to my beliefs now...I firmly believe in releasing all muskies because there aren't enough for everyone to keep one. I also want as many people to catch a muskie as is possible.
i think we get a bit bogged down in terminology at times when we use "extreme" examples for the purpose of these discussions.
what i mean by that is that the entirely theoretical question of whether or not someone would keep a world record simply isn't a good question to gauge whether or not someone believes in catch/release or selective harvest. it's such an unusual circumstance that it's not applicable to the normal decisions people make every time they catch a fish.
imho, someone's idea that they'd keep a world or state record fish doesn't put them into the selective harvest category because, let's face reality, it's never going to happen anyway.
what a person does on a normal basis, or with a more non-record trophy fish is a better gauge of whether they're all about release or ok with occasional harvest.
i'm a believer in releasing muskies, and i've never kept one...including one true giant of which i wasn't even able to get any pictures; i know some people would have kept that fish under those circumstances. that wouldn't make them bad, but i strongly believe harvest would be the wrong choice on that particular lake; and i'll gladly say so, politely, to anyone who would harvest a fish from there.
at the same time, i'd never say never across the board, as there's some overstocked waters that could potentially benefit from somehow removing some of the muskies. progressive regulations and attitudes that are water-specific would actually help those fisheries. my back-yard pond here in town is a good example: too many stunted muskies and they keep piling them in there.
i frequently and openly spread the word about the value of releasing all muskies, it's only in deeper discussions like this that i even mention a more complicated viewpoint.
and that's my point: these things aren't black and white, they're complex and what works in one place doesn't automatically work everywhere. releasing muskies is why we have the fisheries we have today, we should spread that word in a way that grows the sport without arguing over a 1 in 10 billion situation.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 6
| Are you serious??? Most of the guys on here couldn't run fast enough to a
fitst class taxidermist to have it recored and mounted IF it truely was a record.
I released a 43 pounder in Wisconsin and believe me---it makes you think!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3508
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | For me, the only way I would keep it is if I was 100% sure it was a new world record. Then, I would submit it to the IGFA and be done with it.
If there was a way to legally and safely transport it to a certified scale, get witnesses from DNR, unbiased people, etc. then release it, I would do that in a heartbeat. Probably not going to happen to me, but the IF is always there...
Steve |
|
| |
|
|
I don't think it's taking a lofty position to say you would release any muskie you caught.
It's just stating the truth.
I also don't think the people here saying they would release a record fish are lying, any more than I think that the people who say they would only kill a record would actually kill one that wasn't.
John |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20
| Wow! Thats heavy stuff, I hope I get the chance to make that decision someday.
I had a couple really make my heart pound while filming underwater footage.
It is a great question even though it seems unrealistic, you just really never know until it happens.
Don
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'I would not harvest a World Record Muskie if/when I catch one'
That's a lofty position given the chances of achieving that lofty goal, my opinion, and a position I personally take now that reproductions are so well done..
I don't see anyone saying those who claim they would release a WR muskie are not being truthful, I sure didn't intend to insinuate anything of the sort. John would let her go, and so would I. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2754
Location: Mauston, Wisconsin | Wow! easy choice-> at 58" 32" girth, she'd swim. Now if she was + 60" & 32" girth "Bonk", bonk, bonk!. That's exactly why I don't get the conservation license, i.e., it's then my choice. I also haven't knowingly killed one yet, but someday I might!
Have fun!
Al |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | lambeau - 4/30/2008 8:09 PM
i frequently and openly spread the word about the value of releasing all muskies, it's only in deeper discussions like this that i even mention a more complicated viewpoint.
and that's my point: these things aren't black and white, they're complex and what works in one place doesn't automatically work everywhere. releasing muskies is why we have the fisheries we have today, we should spread that word in a way that grows the sport without arguing over a 1 in 10 billion situation.
These are good points lambeau. My stance on the situation is just that, where I stand. I dont really care if people do/dont agree. Everyone is entiltled to their opinion and I will NEVER criticize someone for their opinion.
I brought up the C&R vs. Selective Harvest statement simply to bring to light of how it could possibly be percieved by an outsider as hypocritical to say one practices C&R yet keeps a record fish. Perhaps I should have explained that a bit better. I'm not saying the 54 people that voted they would keep it are doing the sport a disservice. That was not my intent.
I will, however, stand by my original statement in saying that if a would be record fish were to be released it could speak volumes for the importance and maybe make an impression on a handfull of 'weekend warriors' or pan fisherman to let that 36 incher go instead of keeping it for the wall.
Also, I do not feel it is a 'lofty goal' to say that I WILL release every fish I catch, no matter the size. No, I havent had a 43 pound fish in my hands. But I was lucky enough to land a 52 incher. Never once did the thought cross my mind to keep it. It was by far the biggest fish I've ever caught. The only thought I had was to get a few quick photos and get it back in the water. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 284
| I hate to say it... I would want to keep it. That being said I'd release it as there is no way in hell I could afford to mount a fish like that. That being said I probably could in the future and a repo can be done anytime. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | The question is would you release a World record. Catching and releasing a World Record isn't a lofty goal? Look the term up for a definition... |
|
| |
|
| A somewhat famous Muskie fisherman told me he now keeps a certified scale in his boat in case of a scenario like this. Would any record keeping organization allow that, and how many witnesses would be required? Some say the MN State record may fall this year, possibly by someone using the new number 13 bucktails. A DNR officer pretty much told me that to get that record the fish would almost assuredly have to be killed. Does that mean they wouldn't allow someone to bring the fish to shore to be weighed on a certified scale and then released? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 311
| ghitierman - 5/1/2008 3:57 AM
I hate to say it... I would want to keep it. That being said I'd release it as there is no way in hell I could afford to mount a fish like that. That being said I probably could in the future and a repo can be done anytime.
If you caught the "world record", I know of a certain taxidermist that would do the mount free of charge. |
|
| |
|
|
There is a difference in saying that catching a world record is a lofty goal (which it is), and saying people who say they will release a world record are taking a lofty position.
One describes the goal, the other describes the person. One describes the "height" of the goal, the other describes the "arrogance" of the person.
JS
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Thanks all great discussion, I am really glad I posted this poll. Helps pass the time as we wait for the season to open. Hoop said and others agreed “I'd rather be the guy who known for releasing a fish worthy of the record, then the guy who felt the need to kill it for the books.” That’s all well and good, but this specific lake is managed as a record class musky fishery, hence the 54” limit. The Managers WANT someone to keep a record. And there is good that can come from a record fish. Number one in my book is it proves that management philosophy WORKS. Many people outside the musky C&R inner circle flat out don’t care about clams of released record class fish, because they can’t be verified. Really unless you look at lots of pictures of big fish you don’t appreciate it as much as the people in that circle. And additionally half the people in that circle wouldn’t believe you anyway and you wouldn’t be know as a guy who releases a world record class fish you would be know as the guy who CLAIMED to have released a world record fish….”but did you see the pictures it really didn’t look that big.” You would know, but it still doesn’t feel very good having, people talk and speculate behind your back. I have been there in a similar musky situation and it starts to really rub you the wrong way. Someone said: “I don’t fish for records” Well I don’t think anyone does, if they do it seems pretty silly. I didn’t play football for records or run track for records, but it sure feels good when you get them. Lets face it if you’re a musky fisherman you are probably pretty competitive, it’s mostly about competing with the fish, because that’s the true battle. But look at the number of people who spend thousands of dollars a year fishing tournaments. Ulbian Said: “If it does happen to die on me that thing will first pay a visit to a fishery biologist. Alot more could be learned from a fish like that than it would immediately going to get a mount done.” I would like to make the comment that everything biological could be learned after it first goes to the taxidermist. I would rather have the taxidermist remove the skin and prep the fish for mounting than have the biologist dissect the important parts, because the taxidermist understands the art of taxidermy, my experience is biologist could care less about the “ART” and rightly so. None of the biological data would be affected by the taxidermist, where as cutting the fish in the wrong spot may mess up the mounting process. Just my opinion, and I agree, everything possible would have to be learned from a fish like this. Pointerpride102 Said: “Hard for me to say I practice C&R if I plan on whacking 'The' big one.” In my opinion Catch and Release is a philosophy not a religion. If someone practices C&R 90% of the time, in my opinion they are catch and release fishermen. I truly believe that an extreme C&R attitudes does far more to harm the philosophy and turn people off than someone keeping an occasional fish, or having a fish die and for sure keeping a record fish. It all effects how we as a group are perceived. I had to battle that perception when lobbying for the 50” size limit on Pelican Lake. Look at the topic we had earlier in the winter, some people are willing to take C&R so far that they would rather release a dead fish than be known as someone who kept one. Either way the fish is still dead. Lambeau said: “…the entirely theoretical question of whether or not someone would keep a world record simply isn't a good question to gauge whether or not someone believes in catch/release or selective harvest.” You are correct it’s not a good question to gauge C&R believes, however it does show the extreme example and how people feel about that. And I believe it does tell us a lot about the people who frequent this board. I for one am very glad there is 54% of people responding that really don’t have a problem with the scenario, and another 31% who don’t much care. It restores my faith that the majority of the extremely passionate musky fishermen who frequent this site have not gone over the deep end. Remember the people reading this are probably the top 10% of crazies to begin with, myself included. Nail A Pig! Mike |
|
| |
|
| There is nothing "extreme" about people that don't ever intend to kill a muskie no matter how big it is.
There are many, many fisheries throughout the world that are C&R only. Europe, Canada, US, S. America. New Zealand.
This notion that 100% C&R is a harmful perception is completely off base.
What I see here are people saying they wouldn't kill a record and telling why.
What is harmful in that? Take it or leave it. Nobody is forcing any opinions on anyone else. Nobody has insinuated the those who would kill it are bad people or are below people that wouldn't kill them.
JS |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3508
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | I agree John.
I think this thread has stood well. This topic really could have gone downhill fast..it has not done that. People have "kept their heads" about it..
It has been a very interesting read and everyone is being cordial about it. It's a breath of fresh air!!
Mike...very good response with the quotes.. Great summary of many of the big points in the thread. Thanks
Steve
|
|
| |
