|
|
| Hiya -
Dr. Casselman's Ultimate Size at Age study is one of the most comprehensive ever done on muskie growth. Dr. Casselman is also one of the most respected biologists there is when it comes to muskie research.
I think if you suggested to them that his research held some kind of Ontario bias, most of the biologists I know (and I know quite a few) would laugh at you. A couple may take a swing at you 
If you want to argue that his research is suspect because it doesn't agree with what a bunch of fishermen on the internet think...yeah...good luck with that. Let me know how it works out for ya. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | Being an engineer and having a great deal of mathematical education, I think it all comes down to statistical analysys. Can something happen that has not been know to occur before? The answer is yes, but the chances are very slim. Based on logic, here are some basic criteria for a new WR to be caught:
1. The fish must exist. Whether or not it does is questionable. Lets say the odds of it existing now or in the near future are 50%.
2. Someone must fish where it lives. It is possible that if the fish exists, it is on a remote lake or in a part of a lake where no one fishes. As some have mentioned, the fish may stay much deeper or in open water when no one actually fishes. Lets say the odds of this are 50%.
3. A fisherperson must make contact with the fish when it is hungry AND must get the fish to eat their bait or lure offering. We all have to agree that the odds of this are very low. I will use 1% for sake of argument. Realistically, it may not be that high.
4. The fisherperson must have sufficent tackle, luck, and skill to land the fish. Odds of this are 50% at best.
5. The fisherperson must then kill the fish. How many Muskie fisherpeople might release it just because they have no interest in owning the WR and they would rather let it live? Odds of this seem to be around 50%.
6. The fisherperson must then get the fish to a certified scale before it dries out and loses significant weight. Considering that the fish may be caught in a a remote place, the odds of this seem to be around 50%.
7. The fish must then withstand the many nay-sayers, investigations, and attempts by people from the Hayward, WI area to discredit the fish just so they could keep their supposed WR. So, even if the fish is legit, it may somehow get discredited or just not accepted by one particular organization. Odds of this are 50%.
So, based on my very rough and inexact estimations, the odds of a new WR record Muskie being caught any time soon are (0.50x0.50x0.01x0.50x0.50x0.50x0.50) = 0.00015625 or 0.015625% or 1/6400.
Of course these chances are not exact. But no matter how you size up the chances of each individual criteria, the chances are very low that a +70 lb Muskie will be caught any time soon. Unless, of course, if I catch her tonight on Lake Minnetonka. Yeah, right! 
Edited by Herb_b 6/24/2010 8:15 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 221
Location: Detroint Lakes, MN |
I think the original question posed is what is the max size potential, not whether or not an angler would catch a record fish.
Those are completely different subjects.
I can think of several well known muskie anglers that have all lost the biggest fish they every had on. 2 of those accounts are of fish that are in the 60 inch class by anglers who know big fish. J. Bucher and J. Burns. Bucher actually changed his production 7 strand leaders from being crimped to being tied after his mechanical failure on the French River back in the late 90's.
Both fish in Ontario.
JS
|
|
| |
|
| John Skarie,
I recall an article in Musky Hunter magazine where a very well known and respected angler claimed to have lost a muskie that supposedly was 12" across the back. Do you believe this claim and if you do, what would you estimate the girth to be on this fish?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 7036
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | Pointerpride102 - 6/23/2010 4:26 PM
jonnysled - 6/23/2010 4:23 PM
Weary - mental fatigue ...
didn't think fish had brains?
This thread, and many others, makes me weary.
NUKE: Oh she may get wooly, women do get wooly, because of all the stress...
CRASH: Gimme that. I hate people who get the words wrong. It ain’t “woolly”, it’s “weary” and nobody’s got stress, they’re wearing a dress.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | JS,
You are correct in that many people have lost their biggest fish and some of those fish may have been over 60 inches. Criteria number 4 considers exactly that. And based on my own experience with really big Muskies and what others have reported, maybe 50% is way to high for that. Maybe something like 20% or even 10% would be more realistic. For me the odds are probably less than 5% that I would land a fish that large.
Of course, a +60 inch Muskie may still weigh less than 50 lbs. Just because a fish is unusually long doesn't mean it will be unusually heavy too. So, it is very possible that none of those reported lost +60 inch Muskies ever approached WR status and it is possible that none of them would have even weighed over or even approached 60 lbs. It seems one has to catch them to find out. Correct?
Edited by Herb_b 6/24/2010 11:44 AM
|
|
| |
|
| Ever wonder why all the well-known and respected anglers have lost the biggest fish they ever had on? Wouldn't you think at least one of them would have landed the largest fish they ever encountered?
A well respected angler will not lose his or her respect by delivering a "story" that cannot be disproven. |
|
| |
|
| John, to my knowledge neither of those anglers has caught a 50lb musky so these larger ones they lost were not necessarily 70lbs, or even 60" for that matter.
The whole line of reasoning that supports a 70lber is based on sheer conjecture, whether it's from a well respected biologist (who might have used input from the current records in his database) or fishermen, it is still just that.
The reality of the situation is that the largest musky ever caught was barely 60lbs, maybe we should start with justifying a real 65lber first. After all, this is easily still 10% bigger than the largest one ever captured without stomach contents. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | guess 65lbs,
I totally agree.
I think sometimes fish get larger in our minds as time goes on and lost fish are rarely as large as we think. They are just the ones we think about the most.
Nothing wrong with big fish stories though. Sometimes that is all one gets and sometimes we're lucky to get those. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 221
Location: Detroint Lakes, MN |
So the point is that a person is incapable of accurately estimating the size of a "record" class fish if they haven't already caught one?
To most anglers knowledge J Burns hasn't caught a 50 lber, he's never weighed one and keeps the vast majority of his big catches secret.
You can believe who or what you want to. Doesn't matter a bit to me.
I'm not going to argue or speculate about what they saw, I just have faith in some people's opinions.
JS |
|
| |
|
| Larry Ramsell - 6/24/2010 7:25 AM
MuskyJim:
What color are your rose colored glasses? And what left wing muskie world are you living in? Enjoy your naitivity... And, just what did you research??? Seems you missed a LOT of truth's!
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Muskellunge Historian
www.larryramsell.com (where the truth can be found)
Larry,
I don't want to fight with you on this issue, because I respect you as a musky fisherman and historian. I am entitled to my opinion and my beliefs aren't I?
I just can't see how Spray's 1949 fish was a fake. It wasn't full of rocks and sand, people actually witnessed him catching Chin Whisker Charlie (beside Ted Haag and Geo. Quentmeyer). Hugh Lackley didn't tamper with it to make the mount longer.
The only things that are questionable about the fish in my opinion, is Louie claiming he caught it off of Fleming's instead of the Church Island area. The other thing is the Martin motors advertising ad - the fish looks much smaller than it it did in the original photo. As far as the original photo of Louie with Chin Whisker hanging on that oar or whatever it was I think is a represntation of how big the fish actually is. Louie was about 6' and I can clearly see the fish is most definatley 5'2-5'3 as Louie said it was.
I don't by the fact that people make that Louie had someone else catch it or had and indian spear it for him. I know I will never change your opinion on Louie, but its like Don Johnson said in THE OLD MASTERS OF MUSKY HUNTING, which you appear on to, that "LOUIE WAS ONE HELL OF A MUSKY FISHERMAN AND YOU CAN'T TAKE THAT AWAY FROM HIM."
(FYI - I am not, never have and and never will be a member of any left wing - whether it is politics or musky fishing worlds. I took great offense to your left wing comment - other than that, I didn't have an issue with your post.)
Happy Fishing,
Musky Jim
Musky Jim |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | isn't the current world record just shy of 70 lbs. now? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | JS,
My point is that, yes, they may have overestimated the fish. How can anyone realistically estimate a fish that big when no one is ever lucky enough to see more than one or two in a lifetime? It just isn't possible to "accurately" estimate a fish that big until one puts a measuring stick next to it.
How many times has most everyone hooked at a Muskie thinking it was longer than it was? We've all done it many times.
Musky Jim, Do you still believe in the tooth fairy too? Just curious..... |
|
| |
|
| John Skarie,
Why have you avoided my question? Your statement, "I just have faith in some peoples opinions." Do you have faith that a muskie could actually exist that was 12" across the back and if so, what do you feel the girth would be on such a fish?
I'm not looking for an arguement, just your opinion.
Considering the experience of the fishermen reporting these stories and their equipment, don't you feel that some of these supposed 60+" fish should have been landed? Consider that Ken O'Brien caught the canadian record without even using muskie equipment!
Your opinions on these things would be greatly appreciated.
|
|
| |
|
| Yes, the current world record that is recognized by the National Freshwater Fishing Hall Of Fame is 69lbs 11oz. The International Game Fish Association (IGFA) doesn't recognize fish that were shot to land, so Cal Johnson's 67lb 8oz musky is theirs.
There have been attempts to disqualify the 69lb 11oz fish, but as of right now, the NFWFHF in Hayward recognizes that as both the state and worlds record. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 661
Location: Roscoe IL | Just a matter of time before a new WR is captured... But it sure as hell ain't commin out of the chip. I'll bet a dollar to your dime on that MJ! Not trying to start anything, I'm just saying no chance in hell IMOP.
Sure hope it's this year, just to put it to bed! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 183
Location: Grand Forks ND | Nothing adds weight (or length) to a fish faster than getting off the hook before it's landed. I don't care who you are...it's nothing more than human nature. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 221
Location: Detroint Lakes, MN |
JD;
Wasn't avoiding anything, just really don't have an answer.
I don't know about the reported fish that was 12" across the back. Have no idea who claimed that or if any fish that has ever lived was 12" across the back. I have no way to put that into perspective.
Why some fish don't get landed and some do is part of the draw of fishing. You just never know what's going to happen until it's in the net.
Quite plainly for me there are people I'd believe who say they saw a record class fish (at the very least I'd believe they thought they did), and others that I wouldn't.
Personally I have no reason not to believe that the science and testimonial evidence point in the direction of muskies hitting the 70 lb. mark.
That's probably more than enough posting for me on this topic.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Musky Jim:
You certainly are entitled to your opinion, but your post was written as FACT, which of course it isn't. Have you read the Spray section of my newest "Compendium"? If not, it is available free on my website. I think the vast amount of information there should help change your mind about the Spray (bogus) record and correct some of the incorrect information you are trying to put forth as fact...such as other "people actually witnessed him catching Chin Whisker Charlie"...they did not.
As for Hugh Lackey not tampering with the mount, I beg to differ. The WRMA's photogrammetry analysis proves clearly that the mount is much larger than the fresh fish!
And, Louie was 5' 11" tall, not 6'2" as Dettloff originally had him or even 6' as you state. Your analysis of the fish being "definatelely (sp) 5/2-5'3 as Louie said it was"...if considerably wrong! The science of photogrammetry has proven otherwise.
I don't disagree with Don Johnson's opinion about Louie, he just never caught anything near what he claimed (or bought them that big either)!
Sorry to offend you with the "left-wing" comment...it was written "tongue in cheek".
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Muskellunge Historian for ALL of North America
www.larryramsell.com
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 51
| A fish 12" across the back would have a 37.7" girth based on the circumference of a circle being 2*pi*r. Considering that a fish is deeper than wide this would underestimate the true girth. Sounds like a load of bull to me. I'll just have to bonk a new WR to put this to rest... |
|
| |
|
| This is a very interesting topic, I don't know if anyone here has ever fished the Ottawa River. Thee is one guide that I have spoken to, Bill Craig. He has landed two fish over 60 inches and both were released, one was considered the longest catch and release at the time. I am not aware if he still holds that title. I spoke with him at length this past spring and he told me of a fish that in his opinion was easily over the seventy pound mark that one of his clients lost at the boat. Hard too believe I know but this man puts in a number of 40lb plus fish in his boat every year and as I wrote earlier he ha landed some very large muskie. |
|
| |
|
| I have heard that same "story" from Bill many times, on different days with different clients. Man has the worst luck, record fish that clients lose, or broken camera's, dead batteries etc.....I fish the same water as him, see him frequency and take a grain of salt while chatting with him.
Is there a 70# probably, GB or St.Lawrence with out a doubt. It 's obvious, they are the two best places in the world for HUGE muskies...not big....HUGE!!
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 546
Location: MN | jonnysled - 6/21/2010 11:44 AM
what is going to be the winning powerball lotery number for july 27th?
Ha ha well said. its pretty much up to things we can't control... unless you rig the lottry. |
|
| |
|
| Previously posted on another hread
Allow me to share my thoughts which have led me to believe there is a maximum potential.
Its is from observation,reading studies on cold blooded animals and fish in particular that have led me to form this opinion.
I have spoken with DR Casselman about his maximum growth chart,even he admits it is a speculated calculated growth chart,there are many variables which are not factored.Like all species in which growth charts are calculate for.
He also does not have the information on many of years past great big fish
We must understand that in most regions growth does not occur all season,it occurs during the months of June to September in length and October to December for girth,the retention and building of fat and egg development.These factors can be somewhat slowed or increased depending of yearly and seasonal water temps and weather conditions.
Keep in mind fish do not gain weight during the course of the summer due to high metabolism in accordance average summer water temps. Un seasonal cool summers will allow the fish to retain a certain amount of weight but generally they stabilize in weight according to their physical features and make up ,which is somewhat below maximum girth growth potential.
Also given the cylindrical physical make up and feature of the fish ,a 55 inch fish would support IN WATER a girth slightly more than have its length which would equate to 27.5 inches in girth,yes there are the exceptions of 28 and possibly 29.
Williamson s fish which supported a 31 inch girth measured laying flat and out of the water according to my information was above normal.
Allow me to speculate that if the girth was taken in the water ,it would have supported a 29 inch girth which would placed it in the maximum norm.
Some fish display great length but slender back ends,the heaviest fish seem to display uniformity from head to tail.
The fish that display uniformity could be at maximum health period during their growth years/life cycle while fish displaying great length but slender tail sections or back end may have exceeded or surpassed their maximum health and growth life period in their lives
We must also factor in angling pressure,many fish have shown signs of sulking and ceased feeding for a period after being angled and displayed avoidance afterward.
I suspect that this experience of angling may impact fish feeding behavior which would equate to lack of growth.
From my observation on the Big O and Big Flo and many other regions of fish pictures I have observed,this is a important factor and determining factor which is an addition to all other variables which would allow for maximum growth
I do believe and from my observations and measuring from in water to out of water girth measurement there is a discrepancy of 1,5 to 3 inches from in water girth measurement to out of water girth measurements.I suspect many of the big girths we are seeing are out of water measurement.
This has led many to weigh there fish instead of girthing them,some do girth also their fish along with weighing them,its seems their weight and measurements seem to correlate with my thinking.
I seldom girth and do not weigh fish anymore,simply due to limiting my presence and pressure but most of all out of water and human contact to the fish
One must stare the ennemy in the eye if he wishes minimize his impact on the fish
For one,we must break down each region which is producing great big fish and the physical make up and build of the fish.Each region shows variables in physical build and characteristics.
There are many regions which posses and have produced great big fish of 50 pounds or mid to 58 pounds or so.
Most if not all those fish were at peak growth and weight gain in their life cyle period.
The question all ask is : The fish bite again,what says it wont eat more.
My reasoning is : Did the fish eat the lure cause it was eating or did it hit the lure because it was invading its space of peace and tranquility.
I do not believe fish hit lures because they are eating all the time,I suspect many times they hit lures simply because it disturbs them in there resting area, whether it be shallow or deep.
For those that fish above the norm,they will understand my next thinking.
Ever notice you catch fish all summer them the fish somewhat disappear then show up gain and they are big!
Maybe we are catching them when they are not eating!
But catching them when they are being disturbed.
I have observed the behavior of fish and its feeding tendency,I suspect a fish that hits a lure from the head or mid body is feeding but a fish that hits coming from behind,I suspect it hit from disturbing the fish.Many times those fish are slight hooked from the inside of the mouth but many times its from the outside in which would indicate an aggressive behavior towards the intruding lure.
We are living in the era of the best muskie fishing in history and the era of educated anglers,If there were 60 pounders,we would be catching them on a regular basis
There are many of today's guides and anglers which specialize in great big fish,They are not catching them.
In all exclusion of the NFWHF
First lets understand that in most cold water regions 50 is attained generally between 18 to 24 years.Muskies are speculated to live until 30 years of age.
When we factor that most living animals live out their lives to 80% of life expectancy,we can somewhat speculate that most muskies reach the pinnacle of there lives somewhere between 24 and 27 years old.Some do live out to 30 years old.
They do not continue growth all there lives, some just like all animals cease growth at 48,50,53 and the magical few will attain 58 inches or so.
Most cold blooded animals seem to show lack of weight gain in the last year or 2 of there lives. Which would indicate that for a fish to be at its maximum potential the fish generally would be aged somewhere between 18 and 24 years of age.
Georgian bay has produced most probably the only 60 pounder ,speculation of Obrien's fish still abound but Williamson fish is un-disputably 61 pounds,It was aged at 17 years old ,which from all indication was a fast growth but maybe not according to Casselman growth chart which indicates some muskies attine 50 inches a young as 15 years of age.Now to make clear the gonads were never verified to my understanding and information, so the speculation that this fish was sterile is un-founded.
Georgian bay has produced many 50 pound to mid 50 pound muskies but like many regions it faces some environmental issues and the importance of all ,the diminishing of its forage base. The instability of weather which has direct effect on the feeding behavior of fish and most importantly the stability of water levels and temperature.
Although it has produced many 50 pound fish,the length or maximum length do not seem to be common,fish in excess of 55 inches.
I still believe that Georgian bay given its vastness could produce a fish slightly bigger than any other area. But not 70 pounds and I would be surprised at 65.
Green Bay posses the possibility of producing such a big fish also if the angling pressure does not override and cease the potential maximum growth rate.
It has produced a few 50 pound fish but once again at its early stage in evolution, maximum length seems to be somewhat of a small minority of fish.
It was also stocked some 20 years ago or so which many of the first generation of fish can and will attain maximum growth rate,the second and third generations seem to display a slower and lesser growth rate. What I have not quite understood yet about the Big Green is average water temps and growth rate speed,its seems from my understanding and information that the growth rate is accelerated which would indicate that these fish may not live to full expectancy but this is not yet understood
MN has produced some giant fish also,again 1st generation and fishing pressure seems to have created a form of avoidance in some areas.Once again the average maximum length seems to fall short somewhat.Although some giant are caught year to year,I do believe that methods of girthing maybe the variable that we are not looking at.
The recent 58 incher and Jonenesi and Dahms fish are example of giants that do exist but once again we are looking at mid 50 pound fish which seem to display the peak of their life and physical being (Not 60 pounds),The only variable which needs clarifying is whether girths were taken in water or out of water which would give a true approximation of their weight .
Great big fish none the less
The Big O and the Big flo have displayed length but due to specific fishing pressure and current factors these fish display different physical features and make up.
The Big O fish have had specific angling pressure which has led to avoidance and somewhat ceased weight gains during the fall months.
I have personally observed 3 individual of 58 inches,2 of those were approx 45 to 47 pounds,I do not believe these 2 females posses the the physical make up of attaining 58 pounds or better,There is 1 female which her physical make up and characteristics does meet the needed make to attain possibly 58 pounds,Finding her during the prime maximum weight gain period is like looking for a needle in a hay stack.I suspect avoidance and possibly angling experience may hamper her feeding ability or willing to bite.
We did capture her last year at 58x26 (in water girth measurement) last year due to unseasonably cool waters,the year previous she was 58x25
For all others I suspect angling pressure has affected there feeding ability or willingness.
The barbosa fish after many discussion with Mike Lazarus the fish may have been 55 to 57 pounds and the Lapointe fish somewhere around 58 pounds(that fish is now dead from old age)
The Big Flo has produced many big fish but the one thing many do not understand is the current things.Many fish that lay in current use there swim bladders to rest upon the bottom to allow themselves to lunge upwards to feed,These fish although show some very nice girth,most have air trapped in their swim bladders which leads to abnormal girths not supported by weight due to the dimension of the fish.
Again the methods of girthing whether in water or out of water may lead to discrepancies in the girth of the fish.
Lac Seul ,Nippising and LOTW seem to show signs of similar issues as the Ottawa
When you factor all these regional variables and add environmental issues + weather + water conditions + angling pressure+ maximum life expectancy + maximum life period growth = limited possibilities of a fish exceeding 65 pounds or better
C&R is great resource management tool and solutions but it is not the end all of end all,
Post Mortality is a big factor and more an individual gets captured year after year or several times a years,Higher are the odds that post mortal release will ensue.Minimizing out of water experience and handling is the key solution.
I do believe state records can and will be broken if harvested
I suspect we may have seen the biggest fish ever captured in Williamson fish
There is a possibility that one slightly bigger may exist but unless harvested we will never know
In hopes this further clarifies my views on the matter,Although I am not a biologist,I am an enthusiast of the species and understanding its life evolution and behavior.
At this point in my evolution of muskie fishing,its goes beyond the great big fish,its about the great big fish
The intent and purpose of my post was not to give credibility or diss-credit any of the recent captures.
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.
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,many 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 and most importantly spawning.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 and physical make up of fish
The purpose and intent is to give some understanding ,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.
I dont intend to debate with anyone
I formed my opinion on the matter and shared why I came to these conclusion
Its educational information on the aspect and evolution of the species
For me it was educational,like all I though a 60 pounder or 70 pounder existed
I now have my doubts
No question some great big fish have been caught and released,kudos to all
We are living in the era of the pinnacle of the species
So far since Williamson,no one has caught and weight a legitimate 60 pounder
Even less a 70 pounder
Could it exist,maybe
I have my doubts and so far history follows by beliefs
Muskies are 1 species that evolved according to its geographical location
The only variable that exists within the muskie populations across North America is whether the population has co existed with pike or has not
There are no super genetics,there are no mutant freak muskies
The fish in GBay,Ottawa,St Lawrence ,Mile Lacs,Michigan are all the same.
Dr Crossman theory of one species still holds true today in exception of the shoepac muskie
The only evolutionary variable within muskies is co existence with pike which seems to indicate and have a correlation with spawning tendencies,whether they spawn once or twice in the spring.Those that co exist with pike tend to or seem to get bigger,that may be a evolutionary survival and dominance factor within apex predators of different species. They also tend to spawn twice in 2 different locations,I would suspect this is a evolutionary survival adaptation.
I am not saying I am right,I answered as informatively as I could to the question in the thread tittle
There will always be unique fish that are caught,great big ones at that
The Growth chart that that Dr Casselman used for ultimate growth is theoretical.
It does not mean its plausible and it does not mean it cant be attained,its un-known.
It is an indicator of true growth potential with limitations
There will always be anomalies and fish that display fast growth or various physical appearances,you cannot expect such an individual to attained full life expectancy
I have read a st Lawrence report on Update of the Strategic Plan for
Management of the St. Lawrence River Muskellunge Population and Sportfishery
One thing that stood out which I overlooked was,some individuals can attain 50 inches at 15 years old, which may alter the pinacle years in the life period of the individual(I suspect between 18 and 24).It may even alter maximum life expectancy.
Keep in mind these fish were sampled through cleithra bones and those netted
I did notice data that was not accurate due to the missing a data
Mentioned the oldest fish sampled in the Ottawa was 21 years old,I do know of a 24 year old 54 incher that was not included and many other fish.
When we read these studies,we must keep in mind that Biologist and Scientist form theoretical gatherings from the data and information collected.
The data and information that is un-known to them can and will alter these findings.
We only have ourselves to blame for the discrepancy and inaccuracies that exist
Science is a continuously evolving learning process which ideas and ideals continuously change through the gathering of data
something to consider
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 221
Location: Detroint Lakes, MN |
Have a little case of insomnia last night Marc??
If there is a 70 lber out there, I hope we never find out.
The mystique of not knowing how big that one could be is part of the draw.
JS |
|
| |
|
| What I find interesting is that Ken O'Brien's canadian record was determined to have been over 30 years old and yet was measured by Larry Ramsell at only 54".
Larry also weighed the fish on two different scales and found the weight to be only 56 lbs.
Something definately isn't right here. A 4" discrepancy in length and a nine pound discrepency in weight is ludicrous. There simply isn't a rational explanation for this.
Attaining a length of only 54" at over 30 years of age is also a VERY slow growth rate and hardly a testimonial for the growth potential of Georgian Bay.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | JD,
Georgian Bay has produced other large fish besides the O'Brien fish. It seems the largest Muskies in Georgian Bay, much like many other places, top out in the mid to upper 50 lb class. While it is a little disappointing to learn that O'Brien's fish was not 65 lbs as widely reported, it does help confirm the maximum Muskie size. That is still a very large Muskie in anyones book and maybe all the larger they get.
|
|
| |
|
| Herb_b,
The weight appears to top out in the mid to upper 50 lb. class while the length appears to top out in the mid 50" range in Georgian Bay.
I thought the length of the O'Brien fish of only 54" at over 30 years of age is extremely significant. As we all know, length is a product of age and I haven't heard of a muskie confirmed as being older than this fish.
I would think a muskie living to the ripe old age of over 30 years would attain the maximum possible length the fish is capable of acheiving in these waters.
As far as I'm concerned, my "upper confidence limit" for Georgian Bay is a weight of possibly 60 lbs. with stomach contents and a length in the mid 50" bracket. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 123
| A few years ago a DNR employee who's in my Muskies Inc. Chapter found a floater that was 50-52 inches. He cut out the jawbone and tested it and it was either 12 or 15 years old, I can't recall for sure. I wouldn't assume a 50 inch fish to automatically be 25-30 years old though as some seem to think. I know they tested a Bass in New York state a while back that was 24 years old and weighed less than 7lbs. That fish could hit that weight in just a few years in warmer water with a good food source available. I think it's always going to be an unknown as far as the largest muskie. For example, say you catch a 60 incher out of LOTW with a huge girth that could be a possible world record. How many muskies are in LOTW and what are the odds that you caught the single largest one swimming there? I suspect you'd win multiple Powerball jackpots before accomplishing that feat. Anyway, I don't think they ever actually determined how many licks it takes to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop after all these years, so I don't think we'll solve this mystery here either. Good fishing. |
|
| |
|
| Lens Creep - 6/25/2010 4:57 PM
A few years ago a DNR employee who's in my Muskies Inc. Chapter found a floater that was 50-52 inches. He cut out the jawbone and tested it and it was either 12 or 15 years old, I can't recall for sure. I wouldn't assume a 50 inch fish to automatically be 25-30 years old though as some seem to think. I know they tested a Bass in New York state a while back that was 24 years old and weighed less than 7lbs. That fish could hit that weight in just a few years in warmer water with a good food source available. I think it's always going to be an unknown as far as the largest muskie. For example, say you catch a 60 incher out of LOTW with a huge girth that could be a possible world record. How many muskies are in LOTW and what are the odds that you caught the single largest one swimming there? I suspect you'd win multiple Powerball jackpots before accomplishing that feat. Anyway, I don't think they ever actually determined how many licks it takes to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop after all these years, so I don't think we'll solve this mystery here either. Good fishing. :)
As I recall the Williams fish was 15 years old.
http://www.muskie-fishing.ca/world_record_muskellunge.asp
|
|
| |
