|
|
Posts: 227
| I don't understand all the fuss. Here is the undisputed world record.
If you weren't sure it's easily (by 20lbs) the one on the left.
Attachments
----------------
 larry2.jpg (46KB - 2637 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8863
| All I know is I got a picture a week or so ago from a friend of mine who lives in Canada, of a 53.5"x30" fish he caught recently. After seeing that picture, and knowing he's not one to inflate measurements? Two things are pretty clear:
1. There's a lot of measurements and pictures out there floating around that just don't add up.
2. I don't care how good or bad the picture is, once you've seen what a (legitimate) 50 pound muskie looks like, the idea of a 70 pound world record muskie out there swimming around? Hmph. Let's just say that I hope it happens in my lifetime, but I'll be awfully surprised if it does! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 378
Location: Michigan | Jimbo - 10/20/2009 3:14 PM
I don't understand all the fuss. Here is the undisputed world record.
If you weren't sure it's easily (by 20lbs) the one on the left.
I feel like I have been sleeping... Who, what, where? Monster... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32955
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Skeptic,
You know who I am, and I know who you are. Every time you login under your user name, that data is stored in our database. No one else has ever logged in under that IP, so...anonymous you are not.
I know you are a strong proponent of CPR. I was looking for a clarification, which you provided, thanks.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 229
| esoxaddict - 10/20/2009 2:20 PM
All I know is I got a picture a week or so ago from a friend of mine who lives in Canada, of a 53.5"x30" fish he caught recently. After seeing that picture, and knowing he's not one to inflate measurements? Two things are pretty clear:
1. There's a lot of measurements and pictures out there floating around that just don't add up.
2. I don't care how good or bad the picture is, once you've seen what a (legitimate) 50 pound muskie looks like, the idea of a 70 pound world record muskie out there swimming around? Hmph. Let's just say that I hope it happens in my lifetime, but I'll be awfully surprised if it does!
Esoxaddict- Are you now saying some people report inflated measurements? Why can't you just congratulate them on the catch and just be happy for them? Who cares what it measured? Right? Does that sound familiar? Its very similar to what you type when someone says a reported 60 incher is not 60 inches. Have you finally realized that some people either don't know how to meaure a fish are are just plain liars?
John |
|
| |
|
| Of course the MI state record fits the standard G x G x L / 800 formula perfectly. This formula was developed from dead fish. Now let's see how it works on the IGFA world record which also had it's measurements taken after death. 33.5" x 33.5" x 60.25" / 800 = 84.52 lbs. This is a whopping 17.02 lb. discrepancy from it's reported weight of 67.5 lbs. Any comments?
L x G/25-10 was developed to justify the phony dimensions of the Hayward records. It understates the actual weight on fat fish and overstates it on skinny ones. It works fairly well on fish with average girth to length ratios but not at either extreme. IGFA world record...60.25" x 33.5" / 25-10 = 70.73 lbs. NFWFHF world record...63.5" x 31.25" / 25-10 = 69.375 lbs. Notice this formula fits the Spray fish almost exactly.
The standard 800 formula that we know has been proven gives the Spray fish a weight of 77.51 lbs. which didn't sit too well with the Spray supporters so a formula was developed to fit the reported dimensions.
Notice the formula L x G/25-10 gives a skinny 20" x 50" muskie a weight of 30 lbs. which you all know is impossible where as the formula G x G x L / 800 gives it a realistic weight of 25 lbs. Then at the other end of the spectrum you have what I showed you above. I'm not sure how much evidence it will take to bring down the phony current world records but at some point common sense will have to prevail. |
|
| |
|
Location: Twin Cities | Jimbo - 10/20/2009 2:14 PM
I don't understand all the fuss. Here is the undisputed world record.
If you weren't sure it's easily (by 20lbs) the one on the left.
Who's left, mine or the guys holding the fish?  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | Marc wrote : 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. end quote.
That statement is not true and has been debunked many times. The old michigan record taken from Thornapple lake was only 51 inches and had a 28 inch girth. I applied that in a formula using that fish and a 55 inch Musky could have a 30 inch girth. W e all know that even one inch of girth can produce a lot of pounds. I would think maximum girth could be as much as 5 inches over 1/2 of the length. Meaning a 60 inch Musky could attain a girth of 35 inches. Not likely but very possible.
Marc you know as well as I do that stomach contents are the wild card. They always have been and always will be. My personal belief is that 60 to 70 pounds empty is about as far as they can go. I think 70 is almost impossible without a belly full of bait. Available forage and lack of pressure along with hitting that 25 year old mark are all needed. Greasy forage like whitefish, tulibee, Lake trout and shad all can produce this monster. KF |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | guest - 10/20/2009 4:42 PM
Of course the MI state record fits the standard G x G x L / 800 formula perfectly. This formula was developed from dead fish. Now let's see how it works on the IGFA world record which also had it's measurements taken after death. 33.5" x 33.5" x 60.25" / 800 = 84.52 lbs. This is a whopping 17.02 lb. discrepancy from it's reported weight of 67.5 lbs. Any comments?
L x G/25-10 was developed to justify the phony dimensions of the Hayward records. It understates the actual weight on fat fish and overstates it on skinny ones. It works fairly well on fish with average girth to length ratios but not at either extreme. IGFA world record...60.25" x 33.5" / 25-10 = 70.73 lbs. NFWFHF world record...63.5" x 31.25" / 25-10 = 69.375 lbs. Notice this formula fits the Spray fish almost exactly.
The standard 800 formula that we know has been proven gives the Spray fish a weight of 77.51 lbs. which didn't sit too well with the Spray supporters so a formula was developed to fit the reported dimensions.
Notice the formula L x G/25-10 gives a skinny 20" x 50" muskie a weight of 30 lbs. which you all know is impossible where as the formula G x G x L / 800 gives it a realistic weight of 25 lbs. Then at the other end of the spectrum you have what I showed you above. I'm not sure how much evidence it will take to bring down the phony current world records but at some point common sense will have to prevail.
I think Marc thorpe answered that one. Bloating or air can cause exagerated girths. I dont think anyone believes that Sprays fish was 77 pounds. It is my understanding that the Spray fish was weighed dead. With a weight taken after death why use a formula?
I see three gallon milk jugs . one is empty, one is half full of water and one is full of water. All have the same girth. One is heavier is it not?
I have yet to see any proof that any of the formulas are acruate every time.
If you are concerned about how much your fish weighs then carry a good scale on your boat. Weigh your fish alive then decide if its big enough to kill.
What I find really interesting is the fact that every fish including Obriens have been called lies by so called self proclaimed experts. How many liars are there now 30? Isnt it just possible that one or two of those old timers were telling the truth?
I have seen the Cal Johnson fish at the Chicago show. This is a skin mount correct? is it possible that they doctored that mount to make it bigger then it really was? I have always been told that they shrink with age and split. Why is that record in dispute? Seriously I dont know. Did someone prove that the skin was stretched or added to? KF
Edited by Kingfisher 10/20/2009 4:40 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8863
| Wimuskyfisherman - 10/20/2009 3:21 PM
esoxaddict - 10/20/2009 2:20 PM
All I know is I got a picture a week or so ago from a friend of mine who lives in Canada, of a 53.5"x30" fish he caught recently. After seeing that picture, and knowing he's not one to inflate measurements? Two things are pretty clear:
1. There's a lot of measurements and pictures out there floating around that just don't add up.
2. I don't care how good or bad the picture is, once you've seen what a (legitimate) 50 pound muskie looks like, the idea of a 70 pound world record muskie out there swimming around? Hmph. Let's just say that I hope it happens in my lifetime, but I'll be awfully surprised if it does!
Esoxaddict- Are you now saying some people report inflated measurements? Why can't you just congratulate them on the catch and just be happy for them? Who cares what it measured? Right? Does that sound familiar? Its very similar to what you type when someone says a reported 60 incher is not 60 inches. Have you finally realized that some people either don't know how to meaure a fish are are just plain liars?
John
OF COURSE people report inflated measurements. I know it, you know it, EVERYONE knows it -- it's obvious by looking at some of the pictures that a lot of the 50's aren't 50, a lot of the 26" girths are closer to 22"...
But that doesn't mean that every single picture of every single fish ought to be torn apart by the armchair brigade, who's biggest fish happens to be 35". There are a lot of fish out there caught by honest guys who really report the ACTUAL measurements, and it never fails -- some friggin yo-yo will get on here posting as a guest and bash the #*#* out of it anyway. Some day I am going to catch a jumbo. I fish enough in the right places where I'll get close to, or even break that 50 pound mark some day. When I do, it will be after (at least) 7 years chasing these stupid green fish. I've put in thousands of hours, and dozens of thousands of dollars into this crazy sport. Broken equipment, sore backs, cramps, cuts, bruises, soaking wet, can't feel your fingers, breaking ice off my guides, 35MPG wind, snowing sideways, 98 dergees and flat calm, you name it...
And when that day comes that I catch that giant fish? I'm going to put up that picture with a brief story about the catch, and I guarantee someone with all of 3 days under his belt is going to chime in and say it was no bigger than 45"...
The blatent liars, who inflate the measurements of everything they catch to the point of being ridiculous? They deserve to be called out and humiliated. The guys out there who just caught a big fish and are proud enough of their accomplishment to want to tell everyone deserve to be left the hell alone. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Kingfisher - 10/20/2009 4:32 PM
I see three gallon milk jugs . one is empty, one is half full of water and one is full of water. All have the same girth. One is heavier is it not?
Why would you fill milk jugs with water? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8863
| Pointerpride102 - 10/20/2009 4:58 PM
Kingfisher - 10/20/2009 4:32 PM
I see three gallon milk jugs . one is empty, one is half full of water and one is full of water. All have the same girth. One is heavier is it not?
Why would you fill milk jugs with water?
If you leave them empty, they blow away or tip over before you have a chance to shoot them. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 692
Location: Pelican Rapids, MN | milk jugs with water? So is that what Spray stuffed down the throat of his fish? I always thought it was a sandbag? |
|
| |
|
| Isn't that why they had that big "study" on the chip for? They anted to find that elusive sand eating muskie for their genetics. 
Dan Crooms 54 |
|
| |
|
| Kingfisher,you are by all rights entitled to your beliefs
When the information I shared from my opinion is absorbed you will understand why 60 inchers cannot support a 35 inch girth
The species has its limitations
The Thornapple fish if I am not mistaken is a first generation fish,its is somewhat common first generation fish have un-usual girth,I shared that in my post
Maybe Will S can correct me if I am wrong
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 at 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
Question: Not sure about the leech lake populations growth,they do grow big
Generally,if growth is rapid.it correlates with average seasonal water temps
You have know the growth rate of fingerlings within their first 3-5 years
Find out at what age they reach sexual maturity and what length for the region(it can vary)
Find out the average age of a 48 and 50 plus inch fish
Possibly see how the growth rates change through out the course of the fishes growth life
Cleitrhums offer allot of information to understanding of an individual,this info may be available
Hopefully be able to asses the potential life expectancy it might give you somewhat of an idea,keep in mind ,there are no absolutes
Growth varies from one individual to another
The DNr may already have that information
The fish may grow fast at a younger age and generally from what I understand the growth diminishes at a varied rate
nice fatty posted
Has she got a rump
|
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | marc thorpe - 10/20/2009 7:47 PM The species has its limitations The Thornapple fish if I am not mistaken is a first generation fish,its is somewhat common first generation fish have un-usual girth,I shared that in my post Maybe Will S can correct me if I am wrong If by first gen you mean the first stocking in that lake then no, the first stocking was back in the mid-60's. She was from a mid-80's plant and caught in 2000. For some reason all the big females in the fall of 2000 carried a lot of extra weight in that lake I haven't seen them that heavy before or after. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 596
Location: WI | Louie must have lifted a few sandbags in his days b/c he must have been one ripped SOB to support 69lbs like that. Seeing all these big fish caught lately and the struggle they seem to be having in the photos. Not Louie, things darn near over his head. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | marc thorpe - 10/20/2009 7:47 PM
Kingfisher,you are by all rights entitled to your beliefs
When the information I shared from my opinion is absorbed you will understand why 60 inchers cannot support a 35 inch girth
The species has its limitations
The Thornapple fish if I am not mistaken is a first generation fish,its is somewhat common first generation fish have un-usual girth,I shared that in my post
Maybe Will S can correct me if I am wrong
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 at 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
Question: Not sure about the leech lake populations growth,they do grow big
Generally,if growth is rapid.it correlates with average seasonal water temps
You have know the growth rate of fingerlings within their first 3-5 years
Find out at what age they reach sexual maturity and what length for the region(it can vary)
Find out the average age of a 48 and 50 plus inch fish
Possibly see how the growth rates change through out the course of the fishes growth life
Cleitrhums offer allot of information to understanding of an individual,this info may be available
Hopefully be able to asses the potential life expectancy it might give you somewhat of an idea,keep in mind ,there are no absolutes
Growth varies from one individual to another
The DNr may already have that information
The fish may grow fast at a younger age and generally from what I understand the growth diminishes at a varied rate
nice fatty posted
Has she got a rump
The Thornapple fish was a brute for her length. She was caught in a small river system lake. With all of the data to support that big water produces bigger fish then I must assume that she could have had a 30 inch girth if she were eating tulibee or whitefish. Your statement was that a 55 inch fish could not support a 30 inch girth (28 to 29 at the most) That statement is not correct. Its not my belief its a fact. I didnt even have to look outside my own state to find that one. Will S. knows the details on the Thornapple fish and its true we have not seen another like her since that fish. But she "was" caught and she "was" bigger then she should have been. And thats my point. If it can happen here in little Thornapple lake then it can happen in the Larry, the Ottawa, Georgian bay and and anywhere else that the forage exists to feed one like her.
And what about generational changes ? W e have seen declines in average sizes of Salmon planted in Lake Michigan. After reintroducing eggs from Washington they got big again. Could it be possible that the big fish of the past had better genetics then the ones of today? Does a stocked fish have a better chance of reaching super tanker size then a 40th or so generation natural reproducing fish? Did Spray, Lawton, Johnson and others have a better genetic strain in thier days? KF
Edited by Kingfisher 10/20/2009 10:02 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32955
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | No, they didn't. That much has been indicated by Dr. Sloss's genetics work on Lac Court Oreilles. |
|
| |
|
| marc thorpe - 10/20/2009 6:47 PM
When the information I shared from my opinion is absorbed you will understand why 60 inchers cannot support a 35 inch girth
The species has its limitations
The Thornapple fish if I am not mistaken is a first generation fish,its is somewhat common first generation fish have un-usual girth,I shared that in my post
Maybe Will S can correct me if I am wrong
Seems to be the case as with many of the 1st gen fish on Mille Lacs.
http://www.muskiebreath.com/media/articleimages/article1.jpg
I can only imagine what this fish looks like today, 5 years later. 51x29. |
|
| |
|
| Tks Will,seems from what you are saying the fish stocked in the 60's may have not taken off or hold adequately for what ever reason
You should have experienced quality in the 80's and 90's
Possibly the fish stocked in the 80's may have taken hold adequately thus possibly somewhat being the first generation to take hold which would explain that years classes good growth rate.
Kingfisher,dude I am not interested in arguing with you
Like I said you are entitled to your beliefs |
|
| |
|
| Kingfisher mind showing us the facts that a 55 inch muskie with a 30 inch girth in water measurement exists? that would make it 32 or 33 inches out of water! |
|
| |
|
| 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 expedition 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.
|
|
| |
|
| JR,Jason fish is 51x29,I suspect out of water measurement
A great big fish
now if we factor in water measurement,it would mean 51 x 27,which fits directly withing my calculations of first generation great growth rate and length to girth ratio,that fish is at the pinnacle of its growth cycle in life.
Which would mean it will or may possibly get longer but probabilities are it may not support such a girth but a more ratio oriented girth in its continued length growth rate.
At some point in its aging the length and girth ration will decrease
A monster none the less |
|
| |
|
| Jimbo - 10/20/2009 2:14 PM
I don't understand all the fuss. Here is the undisputed world record.
If you weren't sure it's easily (by 20lbs) the one on the left.
LOL. Ken O'Brien's fish is the record. No doubt about it. Heck, with all of the pigs caught recently, Spray's fish looks middle of the pack in comparison. |
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | marc thorpe - 10/21/2009 5:22 AM Tks Will,seems from what you are saying the fish stocked in the 60's may have not taken off or hold adequately for what ever reason You should have experienced quality in the 80's and 90's Possibly the fish stocked in the 80's may have taken hold adequately thus possibly somewhat being the first generation to take hold which would explain that years classes good growth rate. The fishery is completely maintained by stocking and the density hasn't changed much over the years. The growth rates have been the same since the DNR started to keep track of age/length. The year 2000 was just something special and had to be weather/forage related and didn't have anything to do with growth rates for a particular year class. We put one in the boat a that was a mid-40# fish that fall too that was the heaviest fall fish I've seen. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 153
Location: Storm Lake, IA | any body have the picture of the thornapple fish? |
|
| |
|
| Marc Thorpe answered that one? Hardly. When a fish dies the swim bladder collapses. Both the Spray fish and the Johnson fish should have fit the formula very closely. As I said the formula G x G x L / 800 was developed from dead fish with collapsed air bladders.
Are you trying to convince people that both the Spray and Johnson fish were rotting at the time the measurements were taken?
By the way, I believe Marc Thorpe is absolutely correct in his beliefs about the maximum growth potential of muskies.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32955
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I'll go with Casselman's spoken stance on the St Lawrence from the Muskie Symposium. If it's going to happen, that place could make is so.
Marc has it right for the most part, IMO. If there IS a 70# fish swimming out there, it's eluded capture and recording for a very very long time. If it's caught and recorded, that will end this speculation...which might be a little bit unfortunate. |
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | Doonan - 10/21/2009 10:17 AM any body have the picture of the thornapple fish? 
|
|
| |
