|
|
Location: Contrarian Island | dissapointed with the 50.5 on the formula that goes just over 36 lbs??? here in lies the problem...so many times guys want their fish to be a 40 lber, because of all the guys before them throwing around the term 40 lber like it was simple to hit..well in reality it takes a lot more fish than most would think to hit 40 lbs on a scale....you got a fish just a hair over 50 in the boat that is a tanker, and it probably would go 36-37 lbs on a scale...for a 50 that is a toad...I would never be dissapointed with a 50.5 going over 35 lbs!!!
there are a lot longer fish that don't hit 35 lbs that guys want to call 40 and better...
I think this thread did highlight the fact that girths in the 22-26 range (as noted by some of the pics in this thread) are FAT fish, and girths over 26"...well they can be spotted a mile away....and are a lot more rare than pics on the net would lead us to believe... 
great fish JoMusky!
Edited by BNelson 12/14/2009 2:27 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 97
Location: Pickering, ON | Couldn't have said it better.
It takes a BIG, BIG fish (the likes of which most will never ever see) to cross 40lbs. By and large they have to be 53/54" and up, and carry girths of 24" or better. There's a few exceptions (the odd late fall mis-shaped 51X26 and the like) that might cross that mark, but they are very easy to spot. Contrary to popular belief/reporting, legit 40lb'ers are almost as rare as legit 50lb'ers. The just don't exist in more than a handful of waters. I would never be disappointed with any 50+" fish, be it 30lbs, 35lbs, or north of 40lbs. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1185
Location: Wishin I Was Fishin' | Yes I was disappointed because the 40# bar has been set. I have never thumped one and girthed only a few so the weight thing has only been a guess for me so far.
I am certainly not at all disappointed in the fish. It just throws a reality check to it. Now I really need to catch a 57" fatty, but the next one will mean a lot regardless of size, even a 26"er. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 723
| i personally havnt really girthed many fish at all. only a couple. so I cant argue what girths are what, only agree that fish that are slated to be 24 nxt to an actual 24 dont look like what they claim.
on the contrary, I have done the weighin the fish in the net with the scale, minus the net weight. seems simple enough, and has given us a ballpark figure to go by.
I cant see how you can mess up doing it that way enough to overshoot it unless you are bouncin up and down in 4 footers. so it seems like it works pretty good.
even pluggin them into the formulas, ones weve weighed, and taped LxG.
have seen 2 that hit the round 40 mark, and 1 that hit a 55lb mark.
take it for what its worth, take 5#'s on that fish, it was still a 50lbr.
id post pics, but its not my fish. all 3 were GB fish. plumb to the gills with shad, late fall or spring. poopin all over the boat. Ive never seen another fish anywhere else where ive fished, that carry girths like shad hoarders.
All I can say is that the 55 was huge, and both of us took the time to make sure things were right. ive argued with guys before about it, until they see the pic,
then things set home. it is what it is. a ginormous fish that Him and I will prolly never see again. that in itself is what keeps me going, knowing that they do exist.
I dont know why guys think they need to lie or inflate a number on a fish,
really, does it do you as a person any good knowing that its not what you say it is?
Ive called a 39.75 a 40, or a 40.75 a 40, usually dont need to get too technical on a quick measure in the water with a floating stick. I can see a bump board for those that want to pinch a tail and see that it could be bigger,
ive always come up a half inch short from what I prospect.
been stuck on a certain number for many many years, I'll know when that day comes, and most certainly will feel better knowing the truth, than havin to tell someone it is what it isnt.
I know that if i do legitimately hit a 60+ lb mark, it will be verified, signed, sealed and delivered, live if at all possible in a DNR truck tank.
with tons of footage, news line 9, and the pope there to swear it in.
Its sad thats what it takes to convince people nowadays.
On the other hand, pop the cloud above my head, fizzle the dream out,
and I will be just happy catching any size ski in general with the people I love to fish with.
Slimy handshakes and celebratory drinks for everybody!!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 203
Location: Alexandria, Minnesota | That photo looks huge and I would think it is all of 24 inch girth. The photo of the 25.5 inch girth above that Brad posted was caught in my boat by a good friend of mine. He is 6 foot 5 and weighs over 250.So the photo does not do that fish justice.
I don't like coming across like a know it all, but I have had some very large fished released in my boat over the last few years and I have had only two other fish with 25 inch girths caught. It is just not a very common thing to see a fish carrying that much weight. But I constantly hear about fish on the lakes that I guide on that have 27 and 28 inch girths. When you finally see a picture of these fish they just don't look even close to those measurements. I don't think they a girthing their fishing wrong. I just think they are lying about the actual girths. I mean some of these fish are lucky to go 23. I know people will still be telling fish stories long after I am done Muskie fishing, but please don't post these fish on the internet and say something stupid like 61 by 28 when it is actually a 54 by 23. I personally would rather see pictures of some real monster like that one on Muskie First home page right now.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 380
Location: Michigan | This is an awesome thread... It really puts reality back in to what is a big fish... I know i have girthed a dozen 50 inch class fish, including a couple mid to upper 50 inchers. I have not seen a fish over 24... A few 23's, but all the fish around 50 have been 19-22. |
|
| |
|
| BNelson - 12/3/2009 2:40 PM Where do I get a good girth tape? the fat fish we have boated the last few years just can never seem to girth over 24.5". Guys are getting all these 25", 26", 27", 28", 29" girthed fish...is my tape measure reading wrong? now this one did go 27" ....that I will BUY... ;- ) a regular "fat" 50+ incher is between 23 and 25 in girth. So dont worry your tape is fine! There's is nothing wrong with a 24.5 in girth! those 29in girths.. are extremely rare. Some even argue (with valid points) that they dont exist. |
|
| |
|
| He was being sarcastic! |
|
| |
|
| ohh sarcasm... love sarcasm!  I'm surprised the thread remained clean of any McReferences. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 229
| There was a picture of a fish posted in the Wisconsin State Journal Outdoors section today- 12/17- that was reported as 47.75 X 28. I have to admit it is a very nice fish with a great photo. How does everyone feel about the girth of this fish? Did it make 28 or was it just an estimate?
John |
|
| |
|
| Here is a claimed 25" girth walleye. http://www.youtube.com/catsontheredcanada Truely an amazing fish regardless if it is 25" or not.
Edited by Baby Mallard 12/17/2009 11:24 AM
|
|
| |
|
| I was blessed to spend a bunch of time on a "Fathead Factory" (Mille Lacs) the last several years and only girthed a couple fish over that period of time, on the board and in the Kahuna.3 oddballs, one long fish and 2 ungodly fat fish. Just had to know. It gave us an idea of possible weight of the fish. I think of those fish now(all released) and it puts a smile on my face and I didn't even catch one of 'em. Memories not statistics.Just by catching such a creature means you've already "won". The focus needs shifting. |
|
| |
|
Location: Sun Prairie, WI | Wimuskyfisherman - 12/17/2009 10:15 AMThere was a picture of a fish posted in the Wisconsin State Journal Outdoors section today- 12/17- that was reported as 47.75 X 28. I have to admit it is a very nice fish with a great photo. How does everyone feel about the girth of this fish? Did it make 28 or was it just an estimate?John This may, and I reiterate MAY be one that some are challenging, altho I won't speak for others.EDIT: Regardless of the girth, I would have LOVED to caught it!! It was a very nice fish!
Edited by gtp888 12/17/2009 11:54 AM
|
|
| |
|
|
Fish must get bigger on camera too. They are saying 32" x 24" in the thread below. Some really nice pictures of that fish in there.
http://www.hotspotoutdoors.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/2098845/...
Edited by muskydeceiver 12/17/2009 11:51 AM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Northern Wisconsin | I agree with alot of what has been said. People even say 35 inch fish are 40 inches, 40 inch fish are 45, and so on, and these are the ones I dislike the most. I have only musky fished for 6 years and truly enjoy every muskie i catch. But after looking at all these internet fish that are largely exaggerated in size it really made my catches seem insignificant. I am completely satisfied catching a mid 30 inch musky. I know many of you are not, but why? is it because of all the large numbers you see online or in the magazines? Sure the bigger the better, but If i ever get the point (where many of you are at) where i need to lie to myself and say a musky is bigger to even enjoy catching it, then i know im not musky fishing for the right reason.
also, I caught a muskie that I thought was an absolute slob, it measured ONLY 46 inches. I was fishing by myself and I had never been happier or more excited in my life when I got it into the net. But when i found out it was only 46 inches it was almost a letdown because of all the HUGE numbers I see online and in the back of musky hunter.
Now, i really try not to compare my catches to others. I truly love and enjoy every musky i catch and hope i never get to the point where im disappointed to catch a smaller sized musky or need to exaggerate my measurements for the internet.
I have also noticed in many smaller baitshops the owners will report they are catching 53 inchers or 50 pounders regularly. For that reason, anytime i give a report to someone in person i only say it was a nice fish. If you think us musky fisherman are bad then talk to some baitshop owners or resort owners, they are the worst imo. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Glass houses, gentlemen, glass houses. Mind your business RE: girthing a fish, and those who give a rip what you think will mind theirs.
Until then, it's all academic, some images show the girth of a fish, some don't so well. Anyone...IMHO...who gets all crazy bent out of shape about a mis-measured or exaggerated fish needs to push their chair back and evaluate why that might be. The propensity to call the ball when it's really no call of ours to make has done far more damage than good...who really gives a hoot if a guy calls a 45" fish a 46?
That said, there's no good reason to call a 45 a 46 other than being afraid the Muskie Cops will denigrate because it's a 'small fish and shouldn't be measured or girthed'.
Quickly and efficiently measuring and girthing a personal trophy is a personal call, thank God. If you think it's 'your's' (speaking about us all, here), I won't listen anyway. |
|
| |
|
| Sue caught a pike and I lost a nice one on a weagle. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | who really gives a hoot if a guy calls a 45" fish a 46?
The WRMA.
As long as no one is trying to make a profit by promoting themselves and their accomplishment by exaggerating lengths, it shouldn't matter. They are the ones who have to look at themselves in the mirror. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | The WRMA is worried only about World record fish. Weak attempt at humor there, if that's what it was.
The guest comment makes absolutely no sense.
It's officially winter here on MuskieFIRST! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 697
Location: Minnetonka | Check this out...
Walleye with a 25" girth... next to a muskie with a 25" girth.
Attachments
----------------
 mckay_33x25.jpg (266KB - 187 downloads)
hoyer_52x25.jpg (151KB - 193 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | I guess our generation is so cynical now we have to question everything. I think our muskie guides/educators/role models might have some part in that. I look up to darn near every one of the notables in the WRMA, and I'm not the only one who does. |
|
| |
|
| I guess our generation is so cynical now we have to question everything.
motivation is important.
no one likes it when every fish is questioned in a way that suggests it's someone just being a jerk or whatever. at the same time, it is (or should be) okay to call a spade a spade, especially when the people doing so have firsthand experience with those kinds of fish.
the simple fact is that it DOES diminish all of our catches when fish are exaggerated.
and isn't that essentially what the WRMA is doing in a formal way? trying to inject a dose of reality into the claims about those record fish?
what would happen if the cold scientific eye of photogrammetry was applied to some of the fish pictures that show up here each week?
picture #1: Joel Michel with the rarest of rare of fish. 49.5" long x 23" girth (not 50" and not 27"!). this fish is an early-spring pre-spawn pig...and the one thing i don't recall Joel saying was that he was "disappointed" in this fish! when people claim 27" girth on mid-summer 50"ers? it's an insult to a great fish like this one.
picture #2: the latest entry in the Big Fish contest. this fish is 45"? not only does a claim like this diminish other entries in the contest, but what if it was drawn as the winner? lying matters.
Attachments
----------------
495x23.jpg (65KB - 240 downloads)
45xLie.jpg (260KB - 208 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
| Give the guy a break pictures are hard to judge.....maybe he is 8 ft tall? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 457
Location: Minneconia | Maybe they use different forms of measurement in Utah. The big fish contest is getting out of control, I'm gonna start taking pics of every 34" and entering em!
Edited by Dirt Esox 12/18/2009 3:45 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8772
| So I could enter this one as 50, then right?
Pictures don't always tell the whole story, but...
If someone said this was 45, who would actually believe it?
Attachments
----------------
is it 45.jpg (93KB - 192 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | you can enter and call any fish you want as any length or girth you want...fact. you can call all your fish 50"ers and 28" girths if you want... but then nobody will ever believe you when you actually do catch a 50...if you ever do....
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2427
Location: Ft. Wayne Indiana | I have never really understood the whole "GIRTH" thing... I have boated and have had clients boat ALOT of really fat fish. Who cares what they weigh??? They are all going back anyways. In my opinion there are 3 different types of muskies out there...Skinny..Normal and Fat. No reason to girth a fish in my opinion. What will come next...measure the jaw spread, measure the fork in the tail, measure the diameter of the bung hole... Muskies are muskies...skinny, normal or fat....besides that I don't really care if a fish has a 20 inch girth or a 25 inch girth....fat is fat, skinny is skinny and normal is normal.
Edited by MikeHulbert 12/18/2009 5:07 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 283
| The latest big fish entry looks like it's 32inches |
|
| |
|
| Dude. People measure girths for the same reason you measure lengths. Becuz they want to know. Same with weight. To each their own right??? |
|
| |
|
| the only fish that could measure 33"x25" would be a 25lbs carp not a 12lbs walleye!! Don't know why people exaggerate measurements but they do! The Washinton state record walleye from the Columbia river was i believe 33.75"x22.25" and it is an official 19.3lbs. I've personnally seen a lot of 12lbs-15lbs late nov-early january Bay of Quinte walleye and never seen one with a true girth over 20". The walleye in the pic is a nice one but no way in the world is it's girth anywhere near 25". Very close to the camera at arms length makes for nice pics but come on!! |
|
| |
