Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
| Moderators: Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 > Now viewing page 4 [30 messages per page] Muskie Fishing -> General Discussion -> What IS a TRUE Trophy Muskie? |
| Message Subject: What IS a TRUE Trophy Muskie? | |||
bn |
| ||
| I'm not sure what the real question or topic of this thread is either ....ok we probably all agree, to the 12 yr old that catches his 1st musky at 38" that is a "trophy" to him. Heck my first 40" probably was to me, but the word trophy is being using lots of ways in this thread. I think the trophy bar at a minimum is 48"...why? just because a 4 foot fish is great. Are Bytors 45-47 inch fish trophies to him, sure, but I would say by the majority of the musky world no, they are not. Just because not many 47"ers are caught on the mad chain does not make that a trophy imo. I've caught some that big on the chain and they are big, nice fish but a "trophy"? no, not to me. I would also agree that if a guy is only fishing a lake where the big fish in it are 45" and he's good at catching them that big, he is a good angler and should feel proud but he should try his skills on big fish waters once in a while and see how he does...in every sport there are bench marks, pinnacles, levels to attain. Trophy will always mean something different to each one of us but as a whole, I don't think it's all that bad to have that mark be 48 or 50"? Are some of us a bit too sensitive as to what others think about us? probably so... | |||
| jonnysled |
| ||
Posts: 13688 Location: minocqua, wi. | you got a 12 year old nellie? ... my 13 year old laughs at the "feel-good" trophies they give out in wrestling for 4th place in a 4-man round robin. he'd prefer to win the dam thing ... lol | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32880 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | '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 question is what IS a trophy on the lake where the muskie is very big at 41". The extension of that question is, should we as a group set expectations of reality to the point that it's simply expected that 41" lake SHOULD provide 50" fish and that it's basically not worth fishing if it doesn't? What if we arrive 'there'..if you were a fisheries manager on that water and it was obvious that that water wasn't going to be fished for muskies much anymore because it will never produce a 50 pound fish and the public turns up it's collective nose at 20# muskies, what would you think about that, and how would you manage that lake and appropriate the limited funds available into the future? And what if across that street, and in fact across that region, a big fish is simply mid 40" class? And, and... you get my point. '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' No animosity from this quarter; anyone who can travel to the meccas should, and catching a big fish there should be exactly what it is... exciting and noteworthy. But if bn catches a 47 on his favorite Madison water, that's VERY noteworthy too; and something to watch. What happens when the Mad Chain or any water in transition reaches full potential, and 50s are more common? Will the request be set THEN to protect those fish, or are we watching it now and looking to the future? Remember, much of the management on any water is a result of what the public 'wants'. And I find it noteworthy several folks here are comparing the sport's top big fish expectations to a competition; is it, really? I know it is when I'm competing in League or a tournament, but my expectations are not set at 50" most times then either. But when I'm not competing, should I only be 'happy' if I'm fishing lakes with 50" plus potential? Is the 'bar' set there to indicate who 'won' or is it set there to indicate what the top potential of the fish are in some areas of the Muskie's Range? Think about it, I'm saying that for quite a few of us it IS a daily competition with everyone and no one, or there wouldn't be the discussions about this fellow or that fellow not paying dues, or shortcutting, or whatever. And at least a small portion of this diatribe from my frozen noggin is to point out that if this is a competition in many's mind, that those folks need to remember that there IS a 'handicap' that has to be extended to those who are NOT fishing the best waters in the world everyday. Some of those folks could probably hit YOUR pitch clean out of the park on any given day. | ||
| Will Schultz |
| ||
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | How about this... If we took Casselman's research a step further and made age the determining factor would that be a simple solution? No I'm not condoning that all fish be harvested to collect a cleithrum bone! Could we as anglers accept a "trophy" based on the age of the fish? Could we as anglers then accept that a 43" 18 year old fish is more of an accomplishment than the 12 year old 52" fish? Edited by Will Schultz 2/12/2008 8:56 AM | ||
| bn |
| ||
| I'm gonna say no to pretty much all those questions Will. Is a 8 yr old buck whose rack is not nearly what it was 4 yrs prior a bigger accomplishment than that same buck at 4.5 yrs old with a monstrous rack and body to go with it? Age in musky fishing I don't think will ever be looked at as the standard for what a trophy is....in musky fishing, like it or not it's all about size!!!! | |||
| jonnysled |
| ||
Posts: 13688 Location: minocqua, wi. | my business partner is a trophy whitetail hunter ... he runs land in northwestern minnesota and in northern indiana. he has 4 children who hunt with him. the kids know how an old doe can protect a herd and the importance to take them out ... they also know the importance of letting young bucks go ... they know the definition of a true trophy and what it takes to let them grow so that they can become one. so, no ... i think a small 6 point taken by a young hunter could be a lesson of what not to do as a hunter or you could just placate him and make him feel good. kids that learn sports need to learn too .... little johny with the right instruction can understand the importance of any sport and the difference between playing it and excelling at it at the highest level. i've got 4 kids ... know a little about parenting. they are capable of more than many give them credit for ... Edited by jonnysled 2/12/2008 9:19 AM | ||
| Hoop |
| ||
| What is wrong with an action lake? You cannot pick up a single musky magazine w/o reading about the effects of delayed mortality. Statistics differ, but the fact remain, no matter how careful and stress free you try to make it for the fish, delayed mortality cannot be ignored. Having said that, delayed mortality will take a toll w/o the need of an active harvest. I will not tell anyone to take food of their table if that is what they are after, but condoning the killing of fish to increase size in light of the growth of the sport is a bit short sided. All it takes is one "trophy" out of these lakes and pressure increases. | |||
| Guest |
| ||
| "anyone who can travel to the meccas should, and catching a big fish there should be exactly what it is... " It appears that most feel you can make a trip to Mille Lacs, throw on a DCG, make a couple casts and catch 50"er's like panfish.. I'd love to hear some of the guys speak up about the long trip to a broken dream. Make a trip all the way over to Mille Lacs to have 20-25 mph winds all week. How about this fall, some big fish where caught, but you had to work your butt off to get one bite.. Its not that simple to consistantly put 50" fish in the boat and only a handful of anglers are doing it.. To say that catching a 41" fish on smaller waters is the same as catching a 50" fish on Mille Lacs or GB is 100% wrong. Those 41" fish are less pressured and probably pretty stupid, the 50" fish on Mille Lacs are highly pressured and you need to know what you are doing to catch them. Kinda like saying a 170 southern Michigan buck is the same as a 8 point basket rack northern WI buck. Maybe the hunters are the sameskill level, but one is a trophy and other is not... | |||
| Jerry Newman |
| ||
Location: 31 | I think that's a great idea Will, you should start fishing for the old ones... I'll stick with those long skinny young ones:) Seriously, if that's the benchmark then Tom Gelb really kicked our butts this past year with his 30-year-old 48 pounder eh'. I got it Steve and understand what you're trying to say. I guess I'd recommend it be managed as a put and take fishery so long as the demand is there. Another consideration would be to redirect those stocking efforts into other nearby systems that can produce the larger fish that most muskie addicts seek. Some lakes and areas will never be able to produce a four footer, but that doesn't mean they can't be managed properly. Hey, don't get the wrong idea about me here because I enjoy catching all types of fish just for the fun of it, and they don't all have to be 50" before I'm satisfied. There's something about standing on the rocks below a da m muskie fishing at 4 a.m. that I really enjoy, spray your face (and no, not the kind with a capital S), water whipping past... when bang, suddenly your bowed up on a scrappy 34" right at your feet... any size will do. | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32880 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Sled, What if a big buck for the area in which that young person is hunting is a 2.5 year old 6 because of whatever factors press that? You make one of my points for me, it's nice to have the area and herd for a QDM, but the VAST majority of the deer hunters out there have to scratch out a good hunting experience on public land. If that young hunter passes that 6 out there, he may not see another for a very long time. Should expectations be equal, or should expectations match reality? Should folks tell the youngster who harvested a 15" 8 off public land he got a NICE buck for that area or say, well, if you were hunting the QDM WE hunt that would be a dink...and if that youngster learns the inside stuff about whitetails and is able to scout heavily pressured land and find the sweet spot no one else yet has found and manages to find the biggest bucks available there on average, is that youngster not now a 'master' hunter? No, the bucks upper average won't make the book, but transfer that talent to Alberta, adapt to that situation, and let's see what happens. I submit that the 'highest level' in hunting and fishing can be attained anywhere one fishes or hunts, on each waterbody or woodlot or field, and that 'success' might be measured by the ability to do so, and do so consistently. That a 44" fish from Spider should be understood by that youngster as one of the largest fish in the lake and respect should be mutual, so to speak. And I submit that a culture that insists one has 'lost' or at the least 'not yet won' unless one is able to GET to the areas where there ARE pinnacle animals or fish diminishes not only the sport, but the very backbone of what supports the sport locally. But that's my opinion this morning... | ||
| Will Schultz |
| ||
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | Jerry Newman - 2/12/2008 10:25 AM I think that's a great idea Will, you should start fishing for the old ones... I'll stick with those long skinny young ones:) Seriously, if that's the benchmark then Tom Gelb really kicked our butts this past year with his 30-year-old 48 pounder eh'. Yes, I would say he kicked everyones butt this year including the over 50# fish that I know about. No, not because the fish was older but because that fish was indeed a special for for his area and not one of a handful caught that size each year. Hey wait... I'm the one that fishes for the long skinny young ones not you. | ||
| esoxaddict |
| ||
Posts: 8772 | I think what Steve is getting at is pretty simple. You are a product of the waters you fish. Trying to establish some "standard" of what is or isn't a trophy fish, a great catch, worthy of calling an accomplishment, etc. without taking into account the characteristics of the system which it was taken from is difficult if not impossible. What IS a trophy? 4 pages of commentary on the subject leads me to believe that nobody knows that answer. It's purely subjective, based on where you caught it. Is it lengh, age, or weight? Did you catch it casting, or trolling, and was it your boat? Did you pick the lure or the spot? Which way was the wind blowing? All of that would be fine, if it weren't for a few things: 1. We are often creating unrealistic expectations for many of our fisheries, and blaming the DNR for not doing their jobs. As Steve mentioned, this leaves the "numbers lakes" in a precarious position -- if nobody is going to fish them for muskies because you can't catch a 50" there, what's the incentive to manage them for muskies? 2. We are perpetuating this mindset that if you're not catching 50" fish, you just aren't any good at fishing, you may as well not post your pictures or talk about your catch. What is that doing for our sport? The people just starting out, what sort of expectations are they walking around with? And when they go out thinking big muskies are going to find their way to the net regularly, and that doesn't happen, then what? I found my way into muskie fishing and these websites about 4 years ago, and like many, I saw the same things as everyone else -- pictures upon pictures of big muskies, 50" here, 53" there, magazines, TV shows, more pictures, more stories... "I wanna catch one of those!" My first time muskie fishing I didn't catch a muskie. My second time muskie fishing I caught a 30"er. Some dozen guide trips my first season, and nothing to show for it but a handful of fish under 40"... "What am I doing wrong??!" I got frustrated, MAD, I remember driving home after fishless day #12 or so cursing everything under the sun. It got to the point where it wasn't even fun anymore, too much pressure to catch fish, when clearly everyone else was catching 50"ers every other day... My point here is that the picture we paint is NOT reality. I learned that the hard way, and my unrealistic expectations of what muskie fishing is like in most places nearly drove me right out of the sport. Luckily, I realized that these stupid things are NOT easy to catch. Some guys fish their whole lives and never see a 50" fish. I'll say it again, you are a product of the waters that you fish. Understanding those ecosystems, and what the profile of those fisheries is, will paint a much more accurate picture of what size or qualtity of fish would be a measure of success. | ||
| Mikes Extreme |
| ||
Posts: 2691 Location: Pewaukee, Wisconsin | WOW, lots of good views here. I believe the Trophy term is in the eye of the person who shoots it or catches it. For deer I have a tract of land that can produce some huge deer. MY kids (Mike-15 and Krystina-18) have not shot a deer with a rack because they know what is possible. They both have had chances at bucks up to small 8's. My son was going to shoot an 8 last year but he didn't have a good shot. Atta boy for not shooting. My daughter will not shoot a small buck because she wantas a big one. If we shoot in our small woods it will effect all of us. So we all trophy hunt by choice. Food is doe's. That takes place on public land where they would shoot a small 8 or 6-pointer because it is harder to get a good buck there. Where you hunt makes a differance. Trophy is where you hunt. Now for fishing I have to believe a Trophy is also where you fish. Mad town, Pewaukee, Okauchee have good fish but a 48-incher is big and I consider a Trophy out of these lakes. A 50 or bigger and you stepped into the higher class of that was very cool. I only hope to do that again some time. Now the Big Pond. That can't be conpared with other metro lakes. I know it gets hammered. I am there for a week every year and we pound it hard. We also catch 50's up to 53-inches in that week and have chances at bigger and more over 50-inches. This lake is huge and can have ton of boats hammering it. Tough fishing? Hell ya, wind, bugs, other anglers, big baits all day and night kick your ass. BUT to say it is harder to catch TROPHYS is not true. I fish some tough waters, numbers waters with a small chance to stick a fiddy. I believe a TROPHY is a four footer around here and on the big fish waters like THE POND, THE V, out East, LOTW, etc it is 53 or more. Anyway you look at it, the chances to catch a big fish need to come into play. Just like deer hunting. Some land is just hard to hunt and get bucks, you better shoot what you can or the other guys will. Other land if you wait it out and keep it peacefull you might get a TROPHY of a lifetime. True Trophy to me is a mid fiftys. Is that possible down here in SouthEastern Wisconsin? I sure hope so because thats my True Trophy of a lifetime around here. Now my True Trophy of a lifetime was a 57 x 27 that went over 50lbs and two days earler I got a 53 x 26.5 that pushed 50lbs. That will be hard for me to break unless I spend lots of time on big fish waters in the Fall. Big fish waters = Trophy fish to most Average fish waters = Trophy fish to the average muskie fishermen To say that a nice fat 48 or 49-inch fish from average waters is NOT a TROPHY is just crazy. I can't relate to that being a guide and seeing what average big fish do to the average fishermen. If your one of the few (will not mention names) and say all fish under 50 are not Trophys your in the upper 10% of the muskie world I believe. I agree with you as far as a TRUE TROPHY but disagree when it comes to the average joe catching a metro fish and seeing it as a TROPHY FISH. It's all in where you fish and how much you get to fish. That is the most important variable when it comes to "What is a TRUE Trophy Muskie". | ||
| Mikes Extreme |
| ||
Posts: 2691 Location: Pewaukee, Wisconsin | The 47-incher out of Mad Town Lakes is a TROPHY. A bunch of low 50's in MN is great but not a TRUE TROPHY in my eyes because of the waters fished. Now if they were in the mid fiftys thats another story. It's all in where you fish and the time you get to fish on what waters that makes TROPHY fish to me. | ||
| Musky Brian |
| ||
Posts: 1767 Location: Lake Country, Wisconsin | I don't really think the word trophy should have different standards on different lakes.. If you are fishing a lake that can't put out a fish above 48", then I just don't feel the lake is trophy caliber. Can you go out there, catch fish, and have a great time? Sure, but that doesn't mean you start giving out trophy medals, i.m.o. On the same token, I definetely don't agree with raising the bar to mid 50's. You mentioned LOTW Mike, while many guys go out there and catch 10-15 fish per week, a 50" fish is still a hell of an accomplishmnet out there, raising that bar to 53" is definetely extreme in my book. I sometimes feel that some project when you launch your boat on Vermilion and Mille Lacs that 50" fish literally start jumping in the boat. While there are some great success stories from guys on this board and guides, there are still plenty of people who go out there and get their tails handed to them. It is not the easy accomplishment that it might appear to be... | ||
| floydss |
| ||
 Posts: 282 Location: north west wisconsin | Well a trophy to me is the next fish! We don't know how long we are going to be here and we could be gone at any moment, so to me a trophy muskie is going to be the next one I catch I am not doing this to impress anyone, Yes I would love to catch a "50", but I am happy just to catch one. There are people in this world who will never experince the thrill of a boatside strike after 12 hours of casting!! I personally thank God for this great sport, and am happy to share it with as many people as possible, I think we all need to step back and just look what we have become: does not catching big fish all the time make you any less of an angler??? I would much rather get in the boat with someone who puts fish in the boat every time out rather than someone who puts one in every 10th time out! just my 2 cents take it or leave it your choice tony Edited by floydss 2/12/2008 11:42 AM | ||
| IAJustin |
| ||
Posts: 2008 | 60 Lbs + .....and I am killin every one I catch! | ||
| Pointerpride102 |
| ||
Posts: 16632 Location: The desert | Musky Brian - 2/12/2008 10:53 AM I don't really think the word trophy should have different standards on different lakes.. If you are fishing a lake that can't put out a fish above 48", then I just don't feel the lake is trophy caliber. Can you go out there, catch fish, and have a great time? Sure, but that doesn't mean you start giving out trophy medals, i.m.o. On the same token, I definetely don't agree with raising the bar to mid 50's. You mentioned LOTW Mike, while many guys go out there and catch 10-15 fish per week, a 50" fish is still a hell of an accomplishmnet out there, raising that bar to 53" is definetely extreme in my book. I sometimes feel that some project when you launch your boat on Vermilion and Mille Lacs that 50" fish literally start jumping in the boat. While there are some great success stories from guys on this board and guides, there are still plenty of people who go out there and get their tails handed to them. It is not the easy accomplishment that it might appear to be... Bingo. | ||
| brmusky |
| ||
Posts: 335 Location: Minnesota | Why do we have to all agree on how "Trophy" is defined? Are we that insecure in ourselves that we can't decide for ourself what is a trophy and what is not? I certainly don't need someone else to tell me if the fish I caught was a trophy or not. Seriously, if we want to have an intelligent thread about trophies (I suspect you are more interested in trophy management and that is a different discussion) on a continental level, there is no way to gain a consensus. You would have to remove the emotion and personal opinions from the conversation and strictly look at the numbers to decide what a trophy is. Maybe it is the largest 10% of all of the muskies ever caught that are trophies. Maybe it is something else. The bottom line is there will never be a trophy designation that everyone from across the musky world will agree on. It appears that you are searching for ways to discuss musky management and that can only be effectively communicated and delivered at the local level and not on a non-specific continental level. Study the lake and find out what the size range of fish is on that lake and manage that lake for those fish if it is managed for muskies. You can't manage every lake as a trophy musky lake just as you can't manage every lake as a walleye lake. Some just aren't meant to be. When some people talk about lakes having a maximum size musky of 40 inches, I say that is not a trophy lake and doesn't have trophy fish. I would still fish that lake by choice and be fully aware that I am not going to catch a 50 incher out of it and believe it or not I will still have fun if I catch a 36 incher. Are we that euphorian to believe that everyone should have a realistic shot at a trophy regardless of the water they choose to fish? What if I don't live in an area that has large antlered deer? Should I be contacting the Boone & Crockett club to see if there is any way that for my area they can consider a 120 inch buck a trophy? I will continue to be happy just to get out and fish, regardless of what lake I am on or if I have a legitimate shot at a fifty. To be facetious, what if I catch a musky on light tackle? Or what if I catch a musky on a fly? What next, do we look at what lures were used and have an individual handicap rating like in golf but use income, vacation time, and days on the water as our score? | ||
| Matt DeVos |
| ||
Posts: 580 | Why must we try to figure this all out again? I understand that we are trying to recognize angling accomplishments for what they truly are....(sure, catching a 41" from the Tiger Cat is a fine accomplishment). But why? Are we trying to make newcoming anglers who fish action waters feel better about themselves? Are we trying to make non-MN anglers and guides feel better about themselves and their sub-50" catches? What's the dire consequence to the sport if some anglers are not getting the "recognition" and personal accolades they so deserve? Fact is, "trophy" is purely subjective. And in my opinion, it should be. There is no objective measure to what is a "trophy". Fishing for and catching muskies should be fun. Period. Energy should be focused on the pure enjoyment of muskie fishing, rather than worrying about who is better than who, and trying to figure out whether a 41” fish from the Tiger Cat Flowage is “better than", or "equal to" a 47” fish from the Madison Chain, or is “better than" or "equal to" a 50” fish from Mille Lacs, or whatever. Frankly, I think figuring out the answers to those questions is kind of an exercise in futility. But that's just me. | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32880 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I submit that the 'highest level' in hunting and fishing can be attained anywhere one fishes or hunts, on each waterbody or woodlot or field, and that 'success' might be measured by the ability to do so, and do so consistently. That a 44" fish from Spider should be understood by that youngster (or anyone) as one of the largest fish in the lake and respect should be mutual, so to speak. And I submit that a culture that insists one has 'lost' or at the least 'not yet won' unless one is able to GET to the areas where there ARE pinnacle animals or fish diminishes not only the sport, but the very backbone of what supports the sport locally. But that's my opinion this morning... 'Are we that euphorian to believe that everyone should have a realistic shot at a trophy regardless of the water they choose to fish? What if I don't live in an area that has large antlered deer? Should I be contacting the Boone & Crockett club to see if there is any way that for my area they can consider a 120 inch buck a trophy?' Is there a difference between 'records' like B&C and P&Y and the definition of 'trophy'? Are there not many 'trophy' bucks hanging in living rooms across the country that are not B&C? 'It appears that you are searching for ways to discuss musky management and that can only be effectively communicated and delivered at the local level and not on a non-specific continental level.' Actually, no, I am indicating the inevitable 'unreasonable expectations' fallout that muskie fisheries management folks have to deal with because of our 'standards'. it's a component of the problem, not the problem itself. 'You can't manage every lake as a trophy musky lake just as you can't manage every lake as a walleye lake. Some just aren't meant to be.' Yes, exactly my point. And some 'natural' muskie lakes will never kick out 50" fish no matter what, and are not stocked at all. Are there not many Rick Lax 'trophies' hanging on walls around the country that are no where NEAR a record fish? Is the trophy status on Bay of Green Bay in flux right now, perhaps relegating a true 50" fish there to 'not-even-legal- and -as-a-result-not-impressive-to- many status? Would that water then set the bar for the rest of the Muskie range an additional couple inches higher? That is a large part of the problem, IMHO, a 50" fish should be considered a darned big fish anywhere. A 48" fish is pretty impressive to MOST muskie anglers. I remember clearly the debate that the word should not be defined by fish less than 48". Now could it be creeping up to it 52"? Next possibly even more if a couple...COUPLE waters peak at 56 to 58"? And yes, I DO feel kudos are in order for an angler who consistently catches a 47" upper average where the peak is 47". WHO will define what a trophy is for that water, and that angler? And if it isn't a trophy to 'us', will we turn away and mumble something like 'Well, come here and fish, and I'll show you a real big muskie..." because some pretty well known Muskie anglers do exactly that. Tell me it doesn't happen, right here on this board nearly every week of the open water season. And tell me some folks don't express disdain for us telling a 2 year muskie angling veteran a 40" Eastern State Stream fish or an Oneida County 47" fish is a 'beauty'. Really, Addict said it pretty well. 'To be facetious, what if I catch a musky on light tackle? Or what if I catch a musky on a fly? What next, do we look at what lures were used and have an individual handicap rating like in golf but use income, vacation time, and days on the water as our score?' 'We' already are..... Matt, define 'feel better about'. I'm not talking about those anglers who already know they have beaten the system on the water they fish, I'm talking about the general publics perception. I'm out in the fishing public alot, and hear what new and perspective muskie anglers, and some with a couple years under their belt think about this subject. I'm not saying we need to mollycoddle those folks, I'm asking what reality will offer them for the most part. | ||
| ShaneW |
| ||
Posts: 619 Location: Verona, WI | I think the issue is the difference between what is a trophy fish and what is a big accomplishment - there is a difference. To me catching a 50" fish out of the Madison chain would be a bigger accomplishment than pulling a 54" out of Mille Lacs. I just pulled the Muskies Inc. data for Mille Lacs and it shows 439 muskies registered by MI members with 18% of those being 50+ inches long. The Madison chain had 720 muskies with none 50” or above. A 50" in Madison is just harder to come by. Now if I had to pick a replica for the wall – a 50” from the Madison Chain or a 54” from Mille Lacs….the MN fish is on the wall. Shane Edited by ShaneW 2/12/2008 5:26 PM | ||
| lambeau |
| ||
And tell me some folks don't express disdain for us telling a 2 year muskie angling veteran a 40" Eastern State Stream fish or an Oneida County 47" fish is a 'beauty'. and who cares if they're disdainful? not me. they're irrelevant, a small minority of self-absorbed people who have to re-assure themselves every day by comparing themselves in some favorable way to others. the vast majority of US are just people who enjoy sharing each others' fun catching fish without all the ego. i'll continue to say "that's a beauty" to anyone and everyone who's willing to share the picture of their catch. i like seeing fish pics: big fish, small fish, trophy fish. i couldn't give a #*^@ what people think about it if i congratulate someone on catching a fish that wouldn't make their "book". those who would look down their noses at it are into this for all the wrong reasons. so that person doesn't recognize a "smaller" fish from a smaller lake as a trophy? so what? the sport's as popular as ever, and growing because people are getting out and enjoying catching those same "smaller" fish. as long as it's on my watch, we'll help them to celebrate those catches here on MuskieFirst. it's true that catching one of the biggest fish in a lake (even if that isn't all that big) is a signal accomplishment and should be celebrated. it's also true that people should recognize and feel fine in celebrating the capability of their local waters without unrealistic comparison to waters that can produce bigger fish. at the same time, it's just fine to recognize that across the muskies' range there is a point at which a fish moves from "nice" and becomes something truly special, becomes a trophy by anyone's definition. the really cool thing about doing so is that it helps us to better appreciate the fact that the opportunities to catch truly trophy sized fish are increasing every year. | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32880 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Fishing license sales have fallen every year for a long time. Most Muskie anglers began in the sport fishing other species. Many join the sport of Muskie angling for the challenge. Some for the social aspects. Some for both. Would it not be a more positive thing to see that challenge and the goals one might set better defined---- closer to the reality most will encounter? After all, attaining a goal in this sport or any other makes the challenge worth the effort. Half the fun is sharing the news for many of us. If one doesn't even realize when one HAS accomplished a difficult task...... | ||
| jimkinner |
| ||
Posts: 83 | To me, how the fish was caught enters into it. If I caught a fish trolling in somone else's boat, it wouldn't mean near as much as if I was casting, or flyfishing for it. | ||
| floydss |
| ||
Posts: 282 Location: north west wisconsin | if there was a set "trophy" size then i think the number of the fish would decline,, the new people that come in would keep the "trophy" fish more because they hit that magic number! I belive one should set there own goals and not worry about what the other guy is doing. Granted there is some very big fish being caught now days and I give respect to those who are catching them. For me personally I will just be happy to catch another one. A trophy fish to me in Canada is the sixth legal of the day! A trophy in U.S. is the forth legal of the day! If there happens to be a 48-50 in there that is a bonus. When I first started muskie fishing the bar was set at 50. so if one had to define a trophy i would say 50 my vote count it twice if you want tony knuteson | ||
| jonnysled |
| ||
Posts: 13688 Location: minocqua, wi. | sworrall - 2/12/2008 9:39 AM Sled, What if a big buck for the area in which that young person is hunting is a 2.5 year old 6 because of whatever factors press that? You make one of my points for me, it's nice to have the area and herd for a QDM, but the VAST majority of the deer hunters out there have to scratch out a good hunting experience on public land. If that young hunter passes that 6 out there, he may not see another for a very long time. Should expectations be equal, or should expectations match reality? Should folks tell the youngster who harvested a 15" 8 off public land he got a NICE buck for that area or say, well, if you were hunting the QDM WE hunt that would be a dink...and if that youngster learns the inside stuff about whitetails and is able to scout heavily pressured land and find the sweet spot no one else yet has found and manages to find the biggest bucks available there on average, is that youngster not now a 'master' hunter? No, the bucks upper average won't make the book, but transfer that talent to Alberta, adapt to that situation, and let's see what happens. I submit that the 'highest level' in hunting and fishing can be attained anywhere one fishes or hunts, on each waterbody or woodlot or field, and that 'success' might be measured by the ability to do so, and do so consistently. That a 44" fish from Spider should be understood by that youngster as one of the largest fish in the lake and respect should be mutual, so to speak. And I submit that a culture that insists one has 'lost' or at the least 'not yet won' unless one is able to GET to the areas where there ARE pinnacle animals or fish diminishes not only the sport, but the very backbone of what supports the sport locally. But that's my opinion this morning... sorry so late in response ... been on the road. my answer of-course outside of genetic limitations is that there are two ways to hunt and fish ... to manage harvest and selection based on establishing a potential for trophies or taking the opportunistic harvest mentality and pretending it's alright. a bunch of dads gratifying a bunch of kids on the harvest for little johny can destroy a herd or a lake pretty quick. little johny is capable of learning to leave a yearling or a two year old to walk past him ... my friend john's son told me this year that he didn't take a deer ... could have but chose to do the right thing. i'll try to post his buck that he took last year ... the kid learned the right way and will be a strong asset for the whitetail hunting of the future .... i say that we can choose to do the right thing to promote and protect true trophy herds and fisheries and call foul to even the little johny's of the world if we choose to do the right thing. a father promoting the shooting of small horns is hurting the herd ... same as the father that keeps the first trophy for reasons like not wanting to hurt little johny's feelings. if i raised my kids to make sure i didn't hurt their feelings i couldn't imagine what i'd have on my hands ... oh, wait ... yes i can ... i'd have a spoiled punk kid like so many are becoming ... fat on mcdonalds and no exercise and not willing to work because they are "entitled" to something better. if more are taught to pass on the 6 ... over generations they would solve their own problem. problem is ... it's a selfish hunter today vs. what it was generations ago ... and the same goes with fishing in some areas. the results show the effect which comes from the cause ... you might have to read that three times ... it even confused me. | ||
| Don Pfeiffer |
| ||
Posts: 929 Location: Rhinelander. | as said b4, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Thats about all that has to be said about it. A trophy muskie is different to everyone. I know of a guy that had a 10 inch perch mounted. It was a trophy to him as it netted him $25,000. You going to tel him thats not a trophy? Pfeiff | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32880 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | You didn't answer a single question I asked. I disagree with the 'selfish hunter' statement. I bet overall hunting ethics are not alot different now than 25 years ago. This year I hunted 600 yards from a young man (mebbe 16) who hiked in a 45 minute walk in the dark each morning from the other direction who passed as many as I did the first four days of season this year. Great kid, good hunter, and had realistic expectations. That, Sled, to me is about right. I'm talking about giving enough real and accurate information to our kids, and for that matter, ANY new angler or sportsman so they can truly understand what they have locally and understand and APPRECIATE what a big fish/squirrel/rabbit/grouse/muskie in that area really is. How is that different than your post? | ||
| Pointerpride102 |
| ||
Posts: 16632 Location: The desert | The definition of Trophy from dictionary.com: A momento, as of one's personal achievements. A trophy is completely personal, and everyone has there own opinion, there will clearly be no right or wrong answer to the posed question. To me a trophy is a 50 incher, and I'll do what I need to do to try and get another one. Nothing wrong with the ones short of that mark, they are great and I'll gladly catch them or congradulate everyone for there catches, but to me the mark to shoot for is a 50 incher. Case in point, I put my boss from Cousin's Subs on his first ever fish, a 32 incher. He was afraid to hold it, saying it was the biggest fish he's ever had in front of him. I was very happy for him, but I said it was a dink, although the place we got the fish out of isnt known to produce big fish, a 32 incher on that lake is pretty typical, a 40 is getting to the upper reaches of size. He asks me, so that thing is a dink? I said yep, for this lake its pretty good, but I'll take you other places and look for bigger ones. Was he dissapointed because I called it a dink? No. Did he appreciate it, heck yeah. You can appreciate smaller fish without calling them trophies. | ||
| Jump to page : < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 > Now viewing page 4 [30 messages per page] |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Copyright © 2024 OutdoorsFIRST Media |