|
|
Posts: 2427
Location: Ft. Wayne Indiana | So what is the main reason to keep such a fish?
Is it so your name is in the record book?
Is it to feel like you accomplished something great since you got to kill something so big, so rare?
Is it to remember it by?
What would be the reason you would kill it? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8837
| I wouldn't kill it, Mike. I'd feel guilty every time I looked at it. I have one skin mount, a fish I caught when I was a kid, and to this day I regret keeping that fish. But I can answer your questions anyway.
1. So what is the main reason to keep such a fish? To prove that it really was a record. You know how muskie guys are, you could even post a picture of a fish on a bump board and the weight shown on a certified scale, and nobody would believe it was legit.
2. Is it so your name is in the record book? That's probably part of it. Ego is huge in this sport. Having that record to wave around? "Look at me, I am better, I caught the biggest muskie EVER" Judging my the conversations you see around here, 10 minutes of fame and the ultimate "hey look at me" is pretty important to some guys.
3. Is it to feel like you accomplished something great since you got to kill something so big, so rare? Probably not about the "killing part" as much as the catching part, and being able to verify that you aren't lying about it.
4. Is it to remember it by? Probably some of that too, but not just to remember it, but to have it. Not a replica that could be fake or exaggerated, but THE actual fish. I caught it, and there it is, hanging over my bar.
5. What would be the reason you would kill it? Well, some probably for all the reasons listed above, and some other maybe for no other reason than "Because I CAN. It's legal, I caught it, it's MINE, and I can do what I want with it." Might not be a position we all agree with, but it IS true. I suspect a lot of it is entitlement -- "I've spent 30 years fishing for these, I've released hundeds of them and I'm keeping this one."
Now I doubt you'll find many people here at least who would be willing to admit to any of that, but they're all valid reasons.
I would add, Mike, that for someone like you none of those are probably good enough reasons. And I wouldn;t expect them to be. Your livelyhood depends on there being muskies. Big ones, and plenty of them, because who's going to hire you to fish for them if you can't catch them anymore? More and bigger muskies means more happy clients and more bookings for you. Not saying that's your only reason, I'm sure its not. But being a guide I would EXPECT you to release every musky no matter how big, both because you'd be shooting yourself in the foot by leeping them AND because you are one of the people who can teach people about C&R, and do it in front of them every day you are on the water guiding. Teaching that ethic is importnat, and because you guide professionally people are going to listen to what you say and watch what you do.
Edited by esoxaddict 5/1/2008 11:15 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 3508
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | Hi Mike,
If there was no way to release it safely after a transport for a certified weight to be taken, measured, witnessed etc. it would be (for me) 100% to put the controversy of the false/true muskie record to bed. Probably not going to happen, but if it did, that would be my only reason to keep it. Nothing to do with notoriety among other fishermen/women out there, nothing do to with my own feeling of needing to keep the fish. It would be about putting the controversy to bed once and for all. That's it, end of story, end of controversy..
The mount would not go in my own home...it would be at the IGFA or kept in a fireproof, climate controlled room somewhere where it is secure from being stolen, ruined etc. My name would probably have to be on it somehow, but it wouldn't need to be. I would have a replica made of it for my own home.
Steve |
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | John I was trying to point out that my scenario was extreme, but I do feel that people who would release a World Record are extreme, just as people who would release a dead fish are extreme, however many people labeled me as extreme, for pushing so hard for a 50” size limit on Pelican Lake, and people are still labeling us as extreme. It’s all relative and not necessarily a bad thing.
I have no problem with anyone who posted on this thread, I was trying to respond to what Pointerpride102 Said, in the following:
“Dont you think it would speak volumes to those that dont understand how important C&R is to musky fishing, if a die hard musky angler released a would be WR?
What is more important to the further preservation of our sport; pounding our chests saying that Spray's 'fraud' is no more, or proclaiming the importance of Catch and Release to the general public who just might not quite understand how important it is?”
I was trying to point out that “In My OPINION” the general public will not understand the importance of releasing a World Record Musky, especially considering many of the musky diehards on this site don’t see the benefits. I flat out don’t think there are any benefits to C&R by releasing a potential world record; however I have absolutely no problem with someone doing it. If I am fishing in Canada I would gladly do it as I only buy a conservation license, and depending on the Lake I am fishing here in the States I could possibly do it. It’s very unlikely ever to happen, but it really would be all situational. I really don’t see releasing of a world record as being “important to the further preservation of our sport.”
Again my experience working on raising size limits here in Wisconsin, has shown me that the general fishing public thinks were all nuts(musky fishermen) anyway. When people are in your face about C&R (NOT SAYING anyone has done that here, this has been a great discussion) it only makes it worse. Heck we had to avoid the term trophy because of the negative connotations the word can have to average sportsmen. I really don’t think those people would be affected by hearing a World Record musky was released. Most likely many of them would roll there eyes and say “Typical!”
Again I see nothing harmful in this thread other than what could be perceived as snide comments such as;
“…kill it just to get your name in a book.”
“I'd rather be the guy who known for releasing a fish worthy of the record, then the guy who felt the need to kill it for the books.”
“…not an individual angler's shot at glory camoflauged as a way to end the controversy over the current record.”
“…Id rather release her than have my name go in a stupid book.”
“Is it to feel like you accomplished something great since you got to kill something so big, so rare?”
Mike if I decided to keep a World Record Musky it would be because it’s a WORLD RECORD, the pinnacle of our sport, many people would be very interested in that fish and the many circumstances of it’s existence, since I decided to keep it I could find no good reason to release it, and most important, it just a fish. O-yea and it would prove that I am a “BIG MAN”!
Nail A Pig!
Mike
Edited by MRoberts 5/1/2008 1:02 PM
|
|
| |
|
|
There are many more fishermen in this world that understand C&R than don't.
That is a fact. There are more 100% C&R trout fishermen than all the muskie fisherman combined.
The vast majority of waters in Europe are no kill waters.
There are many resorts in Canada now that have no kill policies if you are a guest there.
There are many muskie guides that will not allow a client to keep a fish.
Some would say that 100% C&R on Lac Suel is extreme. I would say it's a very intelligent decision made with a lot of foresight.
To say the the "general" public, or most fishermen don't understand C&R is not accurate.
To say that they are unable, or unwilling to understand it is also not accurate IMHO.
100% C&R for sportfish is not a new concept. It's not something that the minority of anglers in this world embrace.
It isn't reserved for elitists and extremists.
To hundreds of thousands of anglers and biologists worldwide it's a very sensible idea.
JS
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1769
Location: Algonquin, ILL | The only way to resolve debates such as this would be to go out and actually catch one, then whatever your descision is so be it and let the chips fall where they may
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2024
| john skarie - 5/1/2008 11:38 AM
There are many more fishermen in this world that understand C&R than don't.
That is a fact. There are more 100% C&R trout fishermen than all the muskie fisherman combined.
The vast majority of waters in Europe are no kill waters.
There are many resorts in Canada now that have no kill policies if you are a guest there.
There are many muskie guides that will not allow a client to keep a fish.
Some would say that 100% C&R on Lac Suel is extreme. I would say it's a very intelligent decision made with a lot of foresight.
To say the the "general" public, or most fishermen don't understand C&R is not accurate.
To say that they are unable, or unwilling to understand it is also not accurate IMHO.
100% C&R for sportfish is not a new concept. It's not something that the minority of anglers in this world embrace.
It isn't reserved for elitists and extremists.
To hundreds of thousands of anglers and biologists worldwide it's a very sensible idea.
JS
So what would commercial fishermen think about C&R????? As long as your addressing "anglers worldwide", why not include this group? |
|
| |
|
|
We are talking about "sportfish", right?
What is your point regarding commercial fishermen?
I see no relevance to the discussion there.
JS |
|
| |
|
| i imagine commercial fisherman would feel about the same as everyone else, some would support releasing sportfish and some wouldn't. they're probably in favor of harvesting the food fish that they collect...
so yes, sportfish, and yes, let's stay on target.
in my experience it's generally the non-muskie fishermen who have the least understanding of the value of releasing muskies. someone who primarily fishes panfish or walleyes and eats them isn't exposed to the same sorts of issues and discussions as fishermen targeting fish solely for the sport of it such as muskies, bass, and trout.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8837
| We are a tiny segment of the overall fishing population, fishing for a fish that most anglers have never seen, know nothing about, and wouldn't be able to identify if one swam up and bit them on the Jeff Lietz. I think any assumptions we make about "average anglers" embracing C&R are a result our judgement being clouded, based on living in our own little muskie world. Don't get me wrong, I like it here in our little world, but its been my experience that most anglers fish to catch fish to eat. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2024
| john skarie - 5/1/2008 12:20 PM
We are talking about "sportfish", right?
Point taken. Thought you were talking about the concept of C&R for ALL fish. My blood pressure hit the roof for a second. I stand corrected.
I will add my (more productive) 0.02 cents to this discussion and touch on something Mr. Skarie did in a previous post. Most people are willing to partake in and hear the argument for catch-and-release. Whether it be from a completely moral or biological standpoint.
I have spent the last three months living in a small fishing community in the Caribbean and when I first told the locals here I release all the fish I catch they simply burst out laughing. Then I told them a little more about my "philosophy" and the "joy" I get from watching a 50"er swim away under her own power to be caught another day at a bigger size. Some of them could understand my viewpoint, some could not. Then when I told them a little about the biology of the muskie - their low population numbers, reproductive strategies, importance within an ecosystem - they listened intently. Most of these guys fish for small fish that reproduce quickly and numerously, have relatively short lifespans, and mature at an early age. When I contrasted that with the muskie's basic life history they could understand. I am in the process of looking at possible recommendations for the endangered Nassau grouper and plan to use a similar argument to convey to the community that there are necessary precautions needed to be taken to ensure the sustainability of this fishery.
Sorry if I jumped the gun earlier.
Edited by esox50 5/1/2008 1:13 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | John I think my point is being missed, most likely I am not making it clearly.
I am NOT trying to say the "general" public, or most fishermen don't understand C&R or that they are unable, or unwilling to understand it.
What I was trying to say is that the general public would most likely not see the relationship between releasing a world record and it supposed positive impacts on future C&R promotion.
In fact an opposite argument could be made, something like, through the actions and efforts of C&R, catching of a world record is more likely.
As the bar is raised you most likely loose more people, unless there is good sound biological reasoning behind the rule, Lac Suel for example. Green Bay for another, here many people are yet to be convinced.
I hope that makes more sense, I will try and edit my previous post with emphasis on what I was trying to say, regarding releasing a world record, not catch and release in general.
And what Lambeau said!
Nail A Pig!
Mike
Edited by MRoberts 5/1/2008 2:14 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | It's 'arrogant' to say I would release a fish that in all probability I will never catch? I said it's a lofty goal and probably not likely to be attained by any of us here; and a lofty position to take for that reason alone. It's also one I take so I guess by your definition I'm 'arrogant' in that regard, I plead completely guilty on that count. Better chance of winning the Power Ball lottery, and I've seen LOTS of 'lofty' claims as to what folks would do with the money. None of them have won yet.
I'd let her go. Conservation license for that very reason. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 5874
| But we are not talking about 50-60# fish. We're talking about a 70+ pound fish. And that would be exactly the first one, ever!
Man, I'm like two pages behind, here
Edited by Shep 5/1/2008 3:08 PM
|
|
| |
|
|
And I might add it's fairly safe to insist one would release a WORLD record fish and take a lofty position when the actual chances that will happen are about zero.
I'm not sure how to interpret that statement any other way than that people who are saying they would release the record are taking a "lofty" postition above those who say they would kill it.
It's not a "lofty" position, it's just different.
I really don't think the guys who are posting here feel superior to those that would kill the fish. Why are they made out to be that way?
A few days ago somebody made the comment about "release police" and how "those guys" would be more worried about hurting a muskie than their own kids.
Why are people constantly made out to be like that in these conversations?
JS
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8837
| John, its because nobody likes being told what they should or shouldn't do, espeically in America. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 639
Location: Hudson, WI | Guest - 5/1/2008 3:45 PM
I really don't think the guys who are posting here feel superior to those that would kill the fish. Why are they made out to be that way?
A few days ago somebody made the comment about "release police" and how "those guys" would be more worried about hurting a muskie than their own kids.
Why are people constantly made out to be like that in these conversations?
JS
John,
I wasn't trying to be a jerk when I wrote that, just came out that way. Sorry if I offended you. That said, I personally don't feel like anyone who claims whole-heartedly that ALL fish should be released and have an opinion on this thread are getting made out to be anything worse than someone who say they would keep a fish. I think history would say that people who claim to keep fish are made out to be a lot worse.
I've never kept a fish or knowingly killed one, but yes, I would keep a 59X33 and still consider myself a 100% catch and release fisherman. If I've released 50+ 40 inch muskies, i shouldn't be looked at as a "selective harvest" fisherman because I kept THE one in my lifetime. Just my opinion. Not like that 59X33 is going to come around anytime soon (I should say never...but maybe this next cast... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I really don't think the guys who are posting here feel superior to those that would kill the fish. Why are they made out to be that way?
'A few days ago somebody made the comment about "release police" and how "those guys" would be more worried about hurting a muskie than their own kids.
Why are people constantly made out to be like that in these conversations?
JS '
I've been on the receiving end of abuse from a group of Muskie anglers that identifies themselves as such by action and word. I don't think I've even met some of them; they know me not at all, but because we encourage debate like this one and the fact I will take a Devil's Advocate position to further same they've branded me many things, all of them not very nice. You have seen this sort of thing in your long Muskie angling experience. Unfortunately, by proxy those who talk a bit like that or take stances that appear at rudimentary glance to be as radical can be mistakenly identified as 'with' those folks. Common problem, but the risk is the 'extreme' message will unfairly taint the 'dedicated/passionate' message in any issue like this one. I think you are dedicated and passionate, and I bet most others feel the same, but the fact those 'guys' are out there and very vocal is undeniable. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1185
Location: Wishin I Was Fishin' | If I knew I had a 70+ pounder I would thump it if I couldn't get it on a certified scale and verified by the right people (like Ramsell or someone from the new Record Group). Good thing I have a cell phone with many numbers in it.
You know many of the people who say they would let it go would probably also say the fish didn't weigh what you say too. A thump and no one can dispute it. Unfortunate but true.
The guy I admire would be the one to just catch it, know how big it is, take a picture, let it go and just tell his friends. Bigger man than I. One thing to say you'd do it and another to do it.
Edited by Jomusky 5/1/2008 9:47 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 5
Location: Frost | well since my commentary has already been labeled as 'snide' there's no reason to hold anything back and I might as well just say the only explanation I can see for why someone would kill such a fish is pure selfishness, you say you want to end the world record controversy and yet you're all stumbling over one another to be the next Louis Spray, and how can you say you're 100% C&R if you keep one fish? I guess you must just be rounding up |
|
| |
|
Posts: 639
Location: Hudson, WI | After reading Mr. Ramsell's extremely interesting perspective on this, no one is scrambling to forge a record or do anything to put themselves in that category. And yes, as of now, I am 100% C and R. If I catch a 70 pounder, you can read the record books and always remember how I killed a beautiful fish and didn't respect the fishery that "the true advocates of catch and release" built and I tore down. My years of releasing fish would mean nothing, am I right? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 214
Location: Beaver County, Pennsylvania | I wonder why Milo Hansen decided to shoot his world record typical whitetail instead of letting it go about its business and continue to spread its genes. I would never harass anyone for catching and harvesting a world record fish. Especially with the rediculous efforts put forth these days to maintain healthy musky fisheries. I bet you their are, at this very moment quite a few new world records swimming around. I'd also be willing to say that a few of them have never been caught or even seen. |
|
| |
|
|
Point taken Steve;
I know you didn't mean to intentionally insult anyone. Some days my skin isn't a thick as others.
Playing Devil's advocate does bring out a point of view that can be enlightening at times to all people.
JS |
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Hey all great thought provoking discussion as always. I'm off to Pelican Lake for a weekend of walleye fishing in the snow and rain. Water temps probably still in the mid 40s if they are like Boom Lake when I got my boat running yesterday.
Should I catch a world record walleye, crappie, white bass, or rock bass, I'll be sure to post it here. How would you all feel if I KILL a 30 Pack of Bottle Bass? No catch and release of those babies, unless you count praying to the porcelain god the next morning.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Mike, Give me a call, I have something for you to try out there. Walleyes galore... |
|
| |
|
| Mike actually brings up a good point. As dedicated as most Muskie fishermen are to catch &release, I think we sometimes forget, or maybe don't even realize that there are fishermen just as dedicated to protecting Bass, Crappie, Trout, Walleyes, Pike, and other species as well. How many of us who would never dream of harvesting a Muskie, regularly keep our limits of those species? I know someone will reply with a comment about Muskies not being as predominant of species as those others, but we're still killing fish that others believe wholeheartedly in protecting.
Just thought I'd give you all a different perspective. 
Hope you have a successful trip Mike. |
|
| |
|
|
How to best protect and manage a fishery is completely dependant on the species.
Plain and simple, what works for trout is different than walleyes. What works for small mouth is different than muskies. etc. etc.
The exact same debate we have going on here happens among anglers of all species.
Because one of us may eat a perch doesn't mean you're a hypocrite for taking a position of not killing a muskie.
Those circumstances and situations are completely different from one another which I think even those that bring up that argument know that fact.
If you were to ask the Ministry in Canada why Lac Suel isn't C&R only for walleyes as well muskies, what do you think the answer would be?
JS
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8837
| Well John, once they stopped laughing they'd probably tell you its because the fishery is managed for some degree of harvest, and that "protecting" a particular species of fish, is only warranted when it's actually necessary for the future of the fishery.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 57
| I really doubt a fish that big is going to be landed unless it is older and not very healthy. About 3 summers ago there was a fish that was hooked that spooled a man's reel and then broke it as the line came to the end. It was the resort owner's story he told me. Same man told of a pair that were netted in the spring that were way beyond the record weight. This was by MNR people. They got the length and girth numbers. Now some may say this is just wishful thinking and this man is trying to drum up business for his lodge. He would like the record fish to come out of his area for sure. I really feel that a healthy fish wont be landed unless you go out with ocean trolling equipment with lotsa line... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 897
| I don't mean to be a putz, but I am wondering if I am the only one who thinks this whole thread is an exercise in futility?!? Odds are the world record will be caught by someone fishing for crappies or walleyes anyway! 
Good thing there is only another month until season is open just about everywhere!
-Chris |
|
| |
