|
|
Posts: 169
Location: Houlton, WI | as big as you want them to be |
|
| |
|
| >>>jonnysled - 6/21/2010 11:44 AM
what is going to be the winning powerball lotery number for july 27th?
Ha ha well said. its pretty much up to things we can't control... unless you rig the lottry.>>>>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Umm--hmm. Just like how big a Musky might get is. (Unless you rig the mount--I mean fish; whatever.) Besides, the more interesting (yet, totally uninteresting) question is, "How long can a thread like this get???" Whoops! Forgot to sign in. Makes me just another guest with another dumb opinion. |
|
| |
|
| What has to be considered is that a rapid growth rate such as the Williamson fish had isn't associated with a long lifespan. This fish was likely near the end of it's life at only 17 years of age. It's fun to think a muskie somewhere will have both a very rapid growth rate throughout it's life as well as a very long lifespan but from what is known this isn't very realistic.
|
|
| |
|
| What has to be considered is that a rapid growth rate such as the Williamson fish had isn't associated with a long lifespan. This fish was likely near the end of it's life at only 17 years of age. It's fun to think a muskie somewhere will have both a very rapid growth rate throughout it's life as well as a very long lifespan but from what is known this isn't very realistic.
|
|
| |
|
| No one is saying much about Robert Malo's fish, isn't that one unofficially accepted as a 70lbs musky? |
|
| |
|
| JS,no just cut and paste from old post
Yes muskies can attain 50 inches at 12 to 15 years old but rapid growth leads to short lifes span
Regular growth which generally is in areas /or parallel where life's span are maximized
JS ,I just look at what animals cold blooded or warm blooded realities are
I leave chasing the white elephant for others,quite content catching/boating what we do |
|
| |
|
Posts: 221
Location: Detroint Lakes, MN |
I'd be pretty content with what visits your boat as well Marc.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 580
| Before O'Brien's fish, wasn't the Ontario record a 60lb+ muskie from Eagle Lake? For some reason, I thought that I read somewhere that Eagle Lake had 2 documented 60lb+ muskies. Is that right? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 518
Location: Cave Run Lake KY. | Yes, 61-9 LB. Eagle Lake ON., --- 61-8 lb Eagle Lake ON. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | Well , Ill say it again. The 51 by 28 from Thornapple lake in Michigan proves beyond any doubt that a Musky can and they do achieve girths over half of thier length. If a 51 inch musky under 20 years of age can reach 28 at the girth and 50 pounds(49.8) then a 57 or 58 inch Musky can reach 31 inches in girth and weigh 70 pounds. The Williamson fish sounds like just such a brute. 17 years old and over 60 pounds.
When I grew the michigan fish I was not saying that that fish could have grown 13% bigger. I was saying that if a 51 can have a 28 inch girth that a 57 or 58 could go 31 or even 32 inches at girth. The Muskies inc formula was dead nuts on the old Michigan record so Why would it not be as acurate on a bigger one. Mike |
|
| |
|
| Matt, those 2 Eagle Lake fish were "documented" the same way as Spray & Johnson were in 1949. I think they were both caught from the same camp during the era of big prizes for new records too, they got cash prizes (ect) for the biggest of the year and a car if you broke the record. |
|
| |
|
| Once again, just because a 51 inch muskie can acheive a girth over half it's length does NOT guarantee a muskie of 57 or 58 inches is capable of doing the same. The older, longer fish are nearing the end of their lifespan and their weight is normally deteriorating.
The Williamson fish was NOT old, and was NOT 57 or 58 inches. Muskies with a rapid growth rate such as this fish normally die before reaching these lengths.
The Muskies Inc. formula would probably be dead nuts on if such a fish existed. However, don't fool yourself into thinking these examples of younger muskies acheiving girths of over half their length PROVE that older, longer muskies can do the same.
|
|
| |
|
| 1939 John J. Coleman 60-8 31.5" x 58.5"
1940 Edward Walden 61-9 31" x 59"
Both of these fish have reported girths of well over half of their length which is obviously not true. If this were true they would appear strikingly similar to Tom Gelb's recent catch.
The photos of these fish also have the fish well out in front of the anglers distorting their apparent length. I feel these fish are about 8% shorter than what they appear. |
|
| |
|
| here is a 53x29
http://www.niagarasportfishing.ca/Portals/0/Musky/Roger_Beauregard_... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| JD - 6/28/2010 10:55 AM
The older, longer fish are nearing the end of their lifespan and their weight is normally deteriorating.
The Williamson fish was NOT old, and was NOT 57 or 58 inches. Muskies with a rapid growth rate such as this fish normally die before reaching these lengths.
You are really stating a lot of conjecture here. I haven't seen any facts to back this up. It would probably be best not to make such declaritive statements when dealing with theory, though you might respect their source. I am of the opinion that southern fish die young(and research bears out that they seem to), because they don't have a dormant period.
I don't think anyone has come up with much as to why northern fish that grow fast, would neccessarily die young(and they do exhibit fast growth in the north, and it is an unequal progress in a population). And regardless of what the general population is doing, we are obviously talking about the odd individual, when considering a record, not the norm, so claiming this and that about the general population probably does not relate to the consequences of a record fish.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | pepsiboy - 6/28/2010 1:54 PM
here is a 53x29
http://www.niagarasportfishing.ca/Portals/0/Musky/Roger_Beauregard_...
There you go ha ha ha , lets see some more pics of fish that defy the normal. They are there and they are caught and released and then torn apart by the guys who dont believe because they have not caught one. 53 by 29 awesome !!! . Must be a lie right? It could only have had a 26.5 inch girth right? So we now have a 51 by 28 and a 53 by 29 someone please post a 56 by 30. They do get this big and it happens more than anyone here is willing to admit. So now we have two examples of fish that had girths of up to 3 inches over half of their length and these fish were caught on hook and line. So much for the ( I guess theory ) . Mike
55.71 pounds for the 53 by 29 by muskies inc formula Edited by Kingfisher 6/28/2010 2:12 PM
|
|
| |
|
| When did I say mid fifty or shorter fish cannot acheive girths that are OVER half of their length? There have been a number of fish killed that CONFIRMED this was true.
Posting pictures of muskies that are CLAIMED to have girths of over half their length is meaningless. Please inform me of a 57" or larger muskie that was killed and the measurements CONFIRMED before you make statements such as, "They do get this big and it happens more than anyone here is willing to admit."
|
|
| |
|
| firstsixfeet,
Please inform me of any fish 57" or over that was ever CONFIRMED as being a "young" fish?
It seems as though you are trying to defend the Spray and Johnson records that obviously don't possess girths that are over half of their lengths. |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
Posts: 123
| I can post a picture of a guaranteed 49x26 if that does anything for anyone?  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| JD - 6/28/2010 3:56 PM
firstsixfeet,
Please inform me of any fish 57" or over that was ever CONFIRMED as being a "young" fish?
It seems as though you are trying to defend the Spray and Johnson records that obviously don't possess girths that are over half of their lengths. Well, lets look at some of your quotes, "What I find interesting is that Ken O'Brien's canadian record was determined to have been over 30 years old and yet was measured by Larry Ramsell at only 54".
Attaining a length of only 54" at over 30 years of age is also a VERY slow growth rate and hardly a testimonial for the growth potential of Georgian Bay. 30 years of age, and obviously in very good condition, extremely heavy for the length, but not indicative of the species length topped out, nor it's individual potential lifespan.
"I thought the length of the O'Brien fish of only 54" at over 30 years of age is extremely significant. As we all know, length is a product of age and I haven't heard of a muskie confirmed as being older than this fish.
I would think a muskie living to the ripe old age of over 30 years would attain the maximum possible length the fish is capable of acheiving in these waters.
As far as I'm concerned, my "upper confidence limit" for Georgian Bay is a weight of possibly 60 lbs. with stomach contents and a length in the mid 50" bracket. | |
What has to be considered is that a rapid growth rate such as the Williamson fish had isn't associated with a long lifespan. This fish was likely near the end of it's life at only 17 years of age. How do you determine that this fish is near the end of its life, when you have an example of a fish that has existed 30 years, and is evidently quite fit in an evolutionary kind of way, and heavy? All you need is to find the fish that has a genetic upper limit of length that carries this same fitness and you evidently have your record contender.
Once again, just because a 51 inch muskie can acheive a girth over half it's length does NOT guarantee a muskie of 57 or 58 inches is capable of doing the same. The older, longer fish are nearing the end of their lifespan and their weight is normally deteriorating.
The Williamson fish was NOT old, and was NOT 57 or 58 inches. Muskies with a rapid growth rate such as this fish normally die before reaching these lengths. Wait! How can this be?? How can one fish be fit and prime at the age of 30, and another near death at 17. How can a fish near the end of its lifespan be YOUNG??? I would think the end of its lifespan would denote old age? Seems like if a fish can be big and prime and fit at 30 heading toward an unknown maximum life span, then that fish, at 17 would have only been a halfling. So put a 58-62 inch maximum length genetic fish into that potential age slot and it becomes interesting indeed. While these arguments are time passers, you really can't pull things out of your, uhm... imagination, and claim them as fact. We can argue all day, but the population norm is not ever going to be the record fish, nor are the top 10 % going to be that record fish. You are talking about an abnormal set of genetics and prime healthy living conditions. It is hard to make a point about the abnormal by basing it on the norm, and you can't just pick and choose your fantasy reality to fit whatever argument you are trying to make at the time.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | JD - 6/28/2010 4:43 PM
When did I say mid fifty or shorter fish cannot acheive girths that are OVER half of their length? There have been a number of fish killed that CONFIRMED this was true.
Posting pictures of muskies that are CLAIMED to have girths of over half their length is meaningless. Please inform me of a 57" or larger muskie that was killed and the measurements CONFIRMED before you make statements such as, "They do get this big and it happens more than anyone here is willing to admit."
I dont even know that I was addressing you in particular. Other in past arguments about this subject seem to think that Muskies cant achieve more then half of thier length in Girth. What stated is true. It happens all the time. It happens much more then the people sitting on top of this industry want to admit. Catch and release fishermen have been releasing fish of world record size for many years now. They are simply discredited and called liars every time one steps up.
I got a good one for you. Fact and this is a fact. The so called world record group claims all the old fish are faked. In fact almost every claim at a fish over 60 pounds has been called a liar and there are over 20 men who have claimed this record and yet ? not one is held credible. Sour apples? I think so. What were the claimed measurements on Dale McNairs fish? What did Dale and Sal say this fish measured out at? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'I got a good one for you. Fact and this is a fact. The so called world record group claims all the old fish are faked. In fact almost every claim at a fish over 60 pounds has been called a liar and there are over 20 men who have claimed this record and yet ? not one is held credible. Sour apples? I think so'
I don't have the time or patience to get the facts listed on the actions by the WRMA to date AGAIN here, Kingfisher, but before you accuse, you need to have your stuff straight. The WRMA has questioned/commissioned study on two fish, and that's it. And both of those were horse hockey.
The goal isn't to 'disprove', it's to study the fish and have the results prove it out either way. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | 57 by 33 or 77 pounds by formula. Even if Dale was off by an inch he still has a 72 pound fish and if he was off by two inches he had a 68 pound fish. I did not follow this when it was hot. Was Dale called a Liar? Was he discredited by Jealous competitors?
Now here is a case where a possible 70 pound fish was caught and released. This fish was huge and again it flies in the face of what has been argued here by people who dont think they can get this big. It seems anyone who even tries to put a fish forward gets slammed by jealous &^%$heads who by using so called scientific methods can disprove them all. Well I for one am not going to be fooled by these sour people who are just Jealous of the accomplishments of others. The fact is they cant all be liars. Johnson, Lawton, Spray, Obrien, McNair and the list goes on. There must be 50 guys in Larrys book alone who claimed to catch fish of world record size and they are all called liars. Yes in deed, They get that big. I dont think Dale was lying his fish was friggin huge. I dont support any of the records but I do not support calling them all liars either. I think if Dale had killed his fish and got it on a certified scale immediately he would be sitting on top of this argument and my guess is he would still be called a Liar. Sour apples people thats what all of this is. Jealousy pure and simple. Kingfisher OUT! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | sworrall - 6/28/2010 8:08 PM
'I got a good one for you. Fact and this is a fact. The so called world record group claims all the old fish are faked. In fact almost every claim at a fish over 60 pounds has been called a liar and there are over 20 men who have claimed this record and yet ? not one is held credible. Sour apples? I think so'
I don't have the time or patience to get the facts listed on the actions by the WRMA to date AGAIN here, Kingfisher, but before you accuse, you need to have your stuff straight. The WRMA has questioned/commissioned study on two fish, and that's it. And both of those were horse hockey.
The goal isn't to 'disprove', it's to study the fish and have the results prove it out either way.
Sorry, sworral. Im getting a little heated about this. Maybe not the world record club but I am correct that all of the old records have been called liars by many people over and over again. Faked mounts, skin stretching, rocks, weight added and every other bash that could be thrown. I am surprised that anyone would even post a picture of a big fish and make a claim of its size anymore. Know what I mean? Mike |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I sure as hell didn't call Dale anything but on the phone for the first published interview about catching that monster.
Big fish. Anyone who says otherwise is nuts.
Was it a record? No idea. He released it. And I applaud him for that. Who doesn't?
Posting a really big fish here for the rest of us to enjoy isn't an issue. Worrying about any anonymous stupid post or jealous garbage from the peanut gallery is. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | Yea, what I should have said was many guys have used what the World record group published about the Spray fish to try and shoot down every other fish out there. Funny how some people became experts on Photo analysis soon after the study was done.
If Dale was telling the truth( and I think he was) and his fish measured 57 by 33 it was a world record according to the Muskies inc formula. Even if he was off on the girth by an inch and it was 32 it still comes out at 72 pounds. This post was about how big can they get. I say they get as big as Dales fish . 57 by 33 .
So 51 by 28 was killed, confirmed and was for a time the Michigan record. The fish proved beyond any doubt that a fish can exceed half its length in girth by up to 3 inches. A claimed 53 by 29 was posted. Again over half of its length in girth. Not confirmed but the picture speaks for itself. And then Dales 57 by 33 . Half of 57 is 28.5 so his fish at 33 is 4.5 inches over half. I think all of these and many more prove that these fish can be heavy for their length and they are being caught almost every year. They are just released and there fore cant be counted as records but in my opinion they prove that they do get that big. Mike |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Max Age of a Muskie? Depends on the average seasonal temps, forage, water body, chemistry of the system, and a lot more. MuskieFIRST interviewed several Muskie fisheries managers over the years from Wisconsin, Kentucky, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Ohio, Ontario, and Utah, and found the life expectancy of a Muskie can vary WIDELY depending on the above variables from 12 years or less to 26 years and more. Kingfisher, I hear ya, some folks just don't know when to refrain from keyboard activity. others, like J, add the debate by challenging concepts and calling out the shallow arguments...not at all a bad thing.
Does a new World Record Muskie exist? Yes. And the guy who catches it, kills it, and makes it so will catch hell from a contingent of The Official Self Appointed Muskie Agents From the Federal Bureau of Muskie EVERY FREAKING THING who have a tendency to ruin it all for many Muskie angers with their self centered bull#*#*. Ignore them.
If that fish ends up in my net by some miracle, it'll swim away and no one will ever be sure...just like Dale's fish and many more. We scream CPR, then bitch about it...
Interesting dichotomy, yes? |
|
| |
|
| i am also one of the guy who dont believe musky can reach 70 lbs
btw i think marc t,is the kind of guy who know what he is talking about...... |
|
| |
|
| LensC,its not muskies cannot surpass half their length in girth by 1 or 2 inches "in water measurement" its when they surpass 3 inches or more thats not common for "In water measurements"
generally from my observations fish over 55 inches,especially 57-58 seems to be uniform
depending on how you hold em well protrude the belly or not
Most of those fish are at the end of their life's"Peak period"
They are in good health ,they just dont max out and girth out as much as when they were shorter
And believe or not,they do regress in length and size a couple years prior to dying
Like most of all living matter on this planet |
|
| |
