|
|
Location: Contrarian Island | I girthed a couple fish this summer at about 22-23" in the water and out..interestingly they were the same in and out of the water..maybe the larger girths of these super giants in the 28"+ girth will be different in and out of the water?
regardless, great info Marc, I guess I am on the side of the fence that doesn't think we will ever see a 67+ lb musky ever caught and thumped....as Marc notes, to this day the heaviest that he feels is legit was 61 lbs. Yes it only takes a couple 4 lb whitefish to surpass that mark but the odds of that happening? it's like the perfect storm....I think there is a better chance to win the powerball lottery... 
Edited by BNelson 10/19/2009 5:37 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32955
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Skept, AKA J,
What? Please elaborate. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3920
| As of last month (9/27/09) MI has a new state record for a Great Lakes ski, 56.24" w/ 27" girth, weighed 50lbs+8ozs. And though it will bring tears of frustration to some people, that fish is going on the wall.
Hey Steve, your "Miskie Cops" are my "Muskie Police". Folks who demand that we adhere to their current standards of behavior. I almost quit my current muskiesinc chapter because of the muskie police zealots. But I'm gonna quietly stick by, pass on the BS and learn from the excellent members and their input.
Edited by Ranger 10/19/2009 6:20 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 39
Location: branchburg NJ | Is the measured weight of the MI state record fish similiar to the weight the formula for muskie weight spits out based on length and girth? Just curious to see what the difference will be. |
|
| |
|
| What I mean is it seems like a trend that these "Super Fish" are being caught so regularly last several seasons. No doubt that fishing is getting better but really? This guy got a 58 incher that guy got a 62. This fish is over 55 lbs, 60 lbs, whatever World record, state record, yada yada. None of these gargantuan beasts have real concrete proof of true weight to claim such a title or bragging rights as a record. Sorry for the bad picture time and time again just isn't cutting it when such claims are laid. Theyre as accurate as big foot yet they want to brag that they caught a musky that is of astronomical proportions for 10 seconds of fame. Instead all they get is worship from a group on their knees, and ridicule from a group laughing at it. bottom line is you better have big foot in the freezer before you tell people you caught him.
Sworral does that better explain what I mean? and what is akaj |
|
| |
|
Posts: 221
Location: Detroint Lakes, MN |
Unless the fish is dead, it's all blind faith.
Was the fish that big or wasn't it?? Did the guys screw up the measurements, or just not know what they were doing??
Are these guys liars or telling the truth??
We'll never know.
All we know is what we can verify in a dead fish.
And it seems some of our historic dead fish may be lies as well.
I guess I just go fishing and concentrate of my own catches. Doesn't seem to be any point or benefit in worrying about someone else's.
JS |
|
| |
|
Posts: 692
Location: Pelican Rapids, MN | I like many don't totally believe a lot of this monster business. Do these immense fish exist? Of course they do, but it seems in the past, we would hear about one every few years.
Ever since Linda Rice's 57 was given so much exposure and face time, the blitz has been on and it would seem that many musky fisherman want that same praise - And may stretch their tapes imagination to get it.
When Luke Ronnestrand and I get together we always seem to discuss fish dimensions. However, since Thorpe brought new ideas to light, now we can start our discussions over - or at least a new chapter.
I myself have caught some biggun's but never boated a musky 50 pounds or better - Have come close a couple times, but just have never reached that benchmark. Luke has put the number on the board a couple time's and he has seen GIANTS in many states and in Ontario. He and I agree that it would take an grotesquely huge fish, the likes no one has ever seen before to break the questionable world record size. Does it exist? Probably, that is why I seriously / jokingly had a 66" bump board made and have a International Game Fish annually certified 75# scale in my boat - Because I'm gonna land that pig!  And when I do I don't want any question! Not to mention, as much as I promote C&R if it was without a doubt a record - It would go home with me. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32955
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Skeptic,
That what I thought, you seemed to be somewhat accusatory. I'm mystified as to why you are so critical of released fish, you are one of the champions of CPR today, correct? In the case of the last couple fish that made the 'news', the anglers who actually boated the fish didn't say much at all, most of the speculation was from folks looking at the images and either disagreeing or agreeing with the 'claimed' size. I submit many of the folks you might be accusing by proxy at least made little attempt for any fame at all. Some have very clear images and good measurements and clearly caught a very big fish, so why even worry about it...the fish was released and can't hold any record of any kind anyway.
Also known as j. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 43
| I've been told this fish had a 28.5" girth out of the water and a 30" girth in the water, of course the water was 39 degrees when taken and that may or may not of played a roll in the larger size.
Attachments
----------------
 girth-a-saurus.jpg (144KB - 2112 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 378
Location: Michigan | I read a book a few years ago, and it presented a very interesting and compelling theory. My memory is poor, and I could never convey the theory with the clarity and complexity that was presented in the book, so I will summarize very briefly... Man is driven by the ego... The ego drives EVERYTHING WE DO.
I think the stereotypical personality associated with muskie fishing is even more centered around the ego. It’s not necessarily bad, rather just a statement. It explains why all this matters to "us".
I think that as we progress up the ladder with the size of our catches, we feel proud or special as a result of the accomplishment. The bigger the fish, the bigger our perception of the accomplishment. Some of the catches are luck based, some are skill based. Regardless, our ego craves recognition. To be a muskie fisherman, you must be passionate about the fish. If you are not, you are not a muskie fisherman. The difficulty of catching the species requires the passion.
Our egos demand that we define our place, and our "rank" within the muskie community. When we catch a large fish, we compare ourselves and our fish to the rest of the community.
Where we get in trouble and the emotions fly is when we have handled or observed first hand a certain size specimen and are able to establish a strong point of reference. Once we get there, it becomes easier (in our mind) to judge fish of similar size. The ego forces us to compare, to further define our position or rank within the muskie community. i.e. I caught a 55 x 24 and there is no way "that fish" has the same girth mine did...
So where am I going with this... In the end, there are very few people, if anyone, who has enough time or money to be able to spend the hours needed to observe and experience all of the areas that have catchable populations of record quality fish.
Because of this, in my opinion, there will be "experts" from different regions or bodies of water who can speak very credibly about that region. For example, Marc Thorpe and his network have a very credible perspective on the Eastern Region. (Because of Marc's passion, experience, involvement with Muskies Canada, and general interest in the fish for so many years, I think he offers an above average and broader perspective on the species...) There are other areas such as Georgian Bay, Western Larry, Eagle, Select areas of the great lakes, etc, which will also have people (mentioned earlier by Kingfisher) who have spent more time in their respective region/lake than anyone else who can speak credibly about that particular body.
But I don't think anyone, including the scientists have the view of all bodies of water and ultimate potential for length or girth. Statistics and science may suggest a theoretical possibility, but that probably will not account for the genetic freak.
There will be continued speculation of what is, and what is not possible based on our experiences, education, exposure to data, etc. In the end, the only way the controversy will quiet down is when a legal, verified, witnessed giant is harvested.
I personaly hope it happens to a musky fisherman on one of the top lakes mentioned within this post. I hope there is no way it can be disputed.
Until then, the discussions are fun, educational, interesting, and it all adds to the mistique of the muskie. Keep the discussions alive... Our ego craves it!
Edited by Chadster 10/20/2009 5:51 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32955
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Chadster, that is a great post. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3920
| The Michigan fish I described above is on the cover of Woods-n-Water News, and the stats I quoted are from the article. November 2009 issue, check it out yourself.
"Our egos demand that we define our place, and our "rank" within the muskie community. When we catch a large fish, we compare ourselves and our fish to the rest of the community."
Well written post, but not for me, Chadster. I'll die content if I never caught another muskie. Fishing is fun but my best shines elsewhere.
Edited by Ranger 10/19/2009 9:17 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 3920
| In the long-run, for some of us, our CPR values will likely evolve into not hooking the fish in the first place. Yea yea, call me PETA, whatever, but that's where I see it headed and I said it years ago.
Wouldn't it be more fair, and much more exciting, to meet a 50# muskie under water, nose to nose, and then take the pic as you wonder if you will be chomped on as you retreat? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 692
Location: Pelican Rapids, MN | Holy cow giroux! How long was that pig! That's what I'm looking for! That had to be pushing 50 pounds!
Edited by Jsondag 10/19/2009 9:24 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Sworral do I know you?? you talk like you know me? I do prctice catch and release but the internet and this site promote exaggerations that should be prepared to be commented on. Aka Sammy |
|
| |
|
Posts: 692
Location: Pelican Rapids, MN | Ranger - 10/19/2009 9:04 PM
In the long-run, for some of us, our CPR values will likely evolve into not hooking the fish in the first place. Yea yea, call me PETA, whatever, but that's where I see it headed and I said it years ago.
Wouldn't it be more fair, and much more exciting, to meet a 50# muskie under water, nose to nose, and then take the pic as you wonder if you will be chomped on as you retreat?
Not quite 50 pounds but neat none the less!
Attachments
----------------
mug.jpg (22KB - 441 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 717
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | Well said, Chad! I never knew you were such an talented writer! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1220
| I've seen pictures of four or five fish in the last year that I believe could be held and photographed in a way that would make most folks believe they WERE the world record fish. I think the current world's record is a lot like some of the really big breasts you see at the beach--there's a clear matter of enhancement that a natural beauty should not have to be compared with. Marty Forman |
|
| |
|
Posts: 304
Location: Lino Lakes, MN | Funny I just saw that pic the other day. It was a short fish but my gosh what a girth That fish was caught by a member of the Arrowhead MI chapeter a few years back.... One of the most impressive fish over the last fiver or so years even if she doesn't push 55 or 60" .
Awsome fish J and congrats on catching and releasing that pig. What a memory.
May she visit your boat again very soon!!!!
Steve |
|
| |
|
| The intent and purpose of my post was not to give credibility or diss-credit any of the recent captures.
If anyone would like to discuss some of the recent captures on ANOTHER THREAD,I will gladly share my observations on the physical features of those captures and explain why those fish are of certain weights in my opinion and why they have attained maximum growth rate at the pinnacle of their evolutionary growth rate in their life.
Many of the explanation are within my post,The evolutionary growth in length and in girth were mathematically calculated and based on my observations throughout the years and considering many of the recent captures.
Along with information on many of the fish that are un-known to be caught but were weighed with measurements taken.
The numbers seem to indicate my beliefs
the purpose of the post is to give folks some idea of the limitation and potentials that trully exist in the growth of muskies.
Unlike humans,animals generally cease eating when they are full
Digestion can take up to 3 days during summer months given the high metabolism and surrounding water temps and every 5 days or more during cold water periods.
Feeding periods is generally an individualistic thing,they do not all feed at once and may not feed for days on end,maybe even weeks,weather does not trigger all fish to eat,but I suspect as they attained a certain size or age,they individually feed according to individual physical and metabolic needs.
Mutation or altered genetics generally do not occur naturally causing excessive growth but more so abnormalities in physical features of most animals: 3 toes,2 arms,stub arms,stub legs and so on
Gigantism is disease which affects growth hormones from functioning adequately,generally associated to humans and very few other mammals
Acceleration of growth rates generally leads to shorter life expectancy in most living animal
Utilization of air in the swim bladder is mostly used for laying on the bottom or laying on the bottom in fast current.
I have witnessed on several occasions muskies coming up to the surface to take a Gulp of air and have witnessed and experienced air in-trapped in fish while fishing high current areas including the 1000 islands region.
The Williamson fish display the very specific characteristics and physical features I described.
Obrien fish like someone mention was a small guy and the picture we see,the fish head was cut so separating it from the body gives the allusion of a giant head.
It was also take with a wide angles lens thus distorting the actual size of the subject.
A great big fish
some of the recent captures that attained 60 inches,did not surpass 54 pounds or mid 50 pounds,some were harvested and weighed.
The original measurement were inaccurate also
Like I said,may of the great big fish captured in this decade may have had discrepancies in the methods of measuring the girth
Most muskies come within proximity of structure and can be captured.Muskies are lazy by nature and will come withing close proximity to areas where they can be captured,they generally just don't hover in the water,simply because this physical effort consumes energy,most living matter on earth conserves energy for feeding and traveling/migratory purposes.Most migratory fish tend to utilize allot of the energy that would allow for more fat retention and weight gain,thus migratory fish would generally show characteristics of being lean.
each region posses varied densities
The purpose an intent is to give some understanding and potentials and limitations to the species
the main factors to retain are evolutionary growth periods and evolution life growth cycles and physical features and make up of the species from various regions
the secondary factor is whether the fish was girth ed In Water or Out of Water which in my observations has shown discrepancies in the accuracy of weight speculation for Out of Water measured fish.
Fish girth ed in the water seem to display a closer proximity in weight to generally guest estimate calculations.
Tks for the comments and I am glad that this may be informative in the limitations and potentials regarding the species
Chad great post
|
|
| |
|
| BNelson,your observations are correct
My post is reflective of fall fish
Summer fish seem not to show much variance due to their lean summer physical characteristics
marc thorpe |
|
| |
|
| Mark
Do leech lake fish grow to quickly to live past 20 years or better yet when do you feel they stop growing? 10, 13, 18 ... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 198
| giroux - 10/19/2009 8:36 PM
I've been told this fish had a 28.5" girth out of the water and a 30" girth in the water, of course the water was 39 degrees when taken and that may or may not of played a roll in the larger size.
I caught this fish and it had a 28 1/2 inch girth on the board, measured twice. It was never measured in the water so whomever told you that is mistaken...
Jim Roerig |
|
| |
|
Posts: 198
| Jsondag - 10/19/2009 9:15 PM
Holy cow giroux! How long was that pig! That's what I'm looking for! That had to be pushing 50 pounds!
52 1/2 inches. Standard formula put it at 53.3 lbs. When I held it it was full of fish, full belly. I'm not sure the air bladder had anything to do with girth on this fish. It was simply huge...
Funny when pics of this fish hit the internet no one diputed the length, girth. How things have changed. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 378
Location: Michigan | Silver Scale - 10/20/2009 9:58 AM
Jsondag - 10/19/2009 9:15 PM
Holy cow giroux! How long was that pig! That's what I'm looking for! That had to be pushing 50 pounds!
52 1/2 inches. Standard formula put it at 53.3 lbs. When I held it it was full of fish, full belly. I'm not sure the air bladder had anything to do with girth on this fish. It was simply huge...
Funny when pics of this fish hit the internet no one diputed the length, girth. How things have changed.
How could you dispute the measurements... That fish looks like what you state or bigger.... What a slob...
This would be in contrast to a fish that was recently posted as 59 x 29, which didn't show the total length of the fish, and clearly did not support the girth that was stated. It wasn't even close (imoho)... If stated 59 x 25, perhaps you could assess and say ok, possibly 25. But 29"??? 29 is freakish and the fish should look freakish. That one did not. Yours does. |
|
| |
|
| Great fish. I would have been laughing at that one. |
|
| |
|
| The MI state record was officially 27" x 56.125" and weighed 50.5 lbs. The standard weight formula girth x girth x length / 800 gives it a weight of 51.14 lbs. which is very close to the actual weight. As can be seen this formula is very accurate when dimensions are properly taken on dead fish. |
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | muskyyaker - 10/19/2009 7:51 PM Is the measured weight of the MI state record fish similiar to the weight the formula for muskie weight spits out based on length and girth? Just curious to see what the difference will be. That fish fits the formulas perfectly, her actual length is 55" w/ 27" girth not sure where the article Ranger mentioned got it's info but it's not a correct length (maybe measuerd hanging w/ a flexible tape). They used the same measurement in the record entry but the official measurement at the DNR research station was 55". For that fish the LxGxG = 50.12# if you use LxG/25-10 you get 49.4#
Edited by Will Schultz 10/20/2009 11:51 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | My gosh has this been a thread. My brain hurts now. Formulas, genetics. I was afraid someone was going to mention the law of relativity. You know, that law that your relatives will show up when you least expect them.
Got another question for you: If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there, does it make any sound?
Edited by Herb_b 10/20/2009 12:43 PM
|
|
| |
|
| You must factor in elevation to be really accurate. |
|
| |
