|
|
Posts: 2024
| We are all reminded of Bob's giant every week... I am not saying 60 inchers are not around though, as I think they are. Does a TV add 10 pounds to a musky too? |
|
| |
|
| I would be mighty surprised if a 60" did not exist in any one 10 or 12 best waters, but it sounds to me if someone catches a 60" musky he or she will immediately be called a liar. As for me if I ever catch a 60" musky, I am going to keep the genetic freak, whose already made a full contribution to the gene pool. Call me a musky butcher if you want, but by God I'm going ton enjoy the "I told you so."
Let all the nay sayers discredit old records, there has to be a 60" musky somewhere, its only three inchs longer than the several proven 57 inchers documented and acccepted.
I'm an eternal optomist, its what keeps me coming back for 45 years.
Mudpuppy |
|
| |
|
| I love these conversations that can go nowhere, but keep on going. I've been into musky fishin for over 20 years, just a weekender at it, but this conversation reminds me of being 20 again and wondering if that big fish will ever be caught. Hasn't yet, but there are some big ones every year up to 55 or 57 or 58, but not a 60. Could there be, yes. Do the odds favor it being caught? No. Have fun and do your serious talking come spring.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | Name: (I left his name out)
City: I left his address out.
State:
Zip:
Angler Class: Male
Fish Information:
Date Caught: 10/04/2007
Time: 5 pm
Length: 60.00 Inches
Weight: Not Specified
Girth: 28.50 Inches
Fish Depth: 2 Feet
Lake Depth: 12 Feet
Kept/Release: Released
Species: True Muskellunge
I grabbed this off muskies INC lunge Log. It is one of the only fish listed over 60 inches by Muskies inc. Hundreds of thousands of fish listed and just a couple at or over 60 inches. Of course this is not verifiable but it does show how rare they are reported. Ill see if there is one listed from Lake of the woods. This one was from Lac Seul.
Edited by Kingfisher 3/2/2013 3:50 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan |
Date Caught: 09/04/1981
Time: 6 pm
Length: 57.00 Inches
Weight: 46.00 Pounds
Girth: Not Specified
Fish Depth: 3 Feet
Lake Depth: Not Specified
Kept/Release: Kept
Species: True Muskellunge
Weather Information:
Sky: Partly Cloudy
Wind Direction: North West
Wind Speed: Moderate
Lake Information:
Lake Name: Lake Of The Woods
County: Ontario
State: Ontario
Lake Bottom: Rocks (small)
Structure: Junk Weeds
Lure Information: This is the largest fish listed by Muskies inc from Lake of the woods. Mike |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | I only found one fish listed in Muskies inc at 60 inches even. Not a lot of people claiming them there. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 536
| not lotw but sign man charters in new york has a 60 x 29.5 on his website! take a look at that pic and tell me it aint! he has lots of photos of giants on there! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | let me help you out.
http://www.1000islandsfishing.com/muskie.htm
He has several real slobs on that page. I have never hear anyone say Clarke was a Liar. Everything I have heard about him has been outstanding. |
|
| |
|
| Nearly 1,000,000 acres of water. 65,000 miles of shoreline. 14,500 islands. there is a 60" fish somewhere on LOTW. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | Maybe there is but until someone catches and confirm it? It is just speculation. I would accept a picture on a 60 inch bump board would you? I mean how friggin hard is it to get a picture of the measurement? My bump board is 60 inches long that would mean the fish would be touching its nose to the bump end and hit the end of the 60 inch mark. One guy holds it the other takes the picture. Yet no one has done this to my Knowledge. Big fish look big so pictures with out a measuring device dont really do it do they. I think Clarke's clients fish looks like it could be 60 or a 57 or 58 or even a 59. Hell, it might have been a 61 for all I know. No pic on the bump board no proof. Mike |
|
| |
|
| IAJustin - 2/22/2013 12:07 PM
Actually that was one of the few I believed was 60" +, she is long ..Ottawa River fish correct? What's the story horsehunter?
Well, Bill is maybe 5'8"on good day. The fish is in front of him. Its head is NOT at the top of Bill's. The tail is not in the picture.
Do math.
Not to mention, a couple years before this was "claimed" as the record. One of the original pictures hung in a small "Reel to Reel" repair and tackle shop just out side Ottawa. Written IN INK was 58.5 inches. The picture was taken back by Bill or his Brother? Then a short while later it was this 62 inch record...HUH?
I also happen to know the gentleman who was with him that day and took that picture. Grew up a block away from and attended the same school. He wont talk about that fish if you bring it with him....HUH? Wonder Why?
I am not saying that isn't big fish, it certainly is. But if you came from around here (Ottawa) you would understand why it is hard to believe anything from Bill Craig. I have heard the same(more or less) "we lost the world record story" so many times on different days. Not the same story... different people involved....but the same story if you catch my drift. Seriously the world record has been hooked and lost in that man's boat more times than you can shake a stick at. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8772
| There's a guy in our club who claims to have seen a 100" muskie. Now.... I'd be inclined to believe 60" on some waters, coming from the right source who I'd trust has seen enough big fish. But in my ten minutes of interaction with this guy, who is old enough to be my father, there were at least 6-7 times where I thought "aw bullsh*t. How %^&$ STUPID do you think we ARE, man? You see this gray hair? I was born at night dude, but it wasn't yesterday!"
Just because its in the Lunge Log doesn't mean it's legitimate.. I'd bet this guys entries are inflated regularly by at least 6".
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 7
| There are tons of 60" Muskies in LOTW!!!!
...just ask any cabin owner around Kenora. Everyone has one under their dock! 
Honestly, besides a couple odd balls on LOTW, the top end is 55".
BUT! Bill Sandy got 56.5 last year... so they are out there.
Edited by DarcyCox 3/5/2013 8:32 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
Location: Pewaukee WI | Fish position themselves in feeding locations based on thier size, a 60" fish would have access to the best forage and would be the hardest to catch |
|
| |
|
| Musky_Slayer - 3/18/2013 9:26 PM
Fish position themselves in feeding locations based on thier size, a 60" fish would have access to the best forage and would be the hardest to catch
How does a fish know how big it is? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8772
| Ben, it doesn't, obviously. But a fish of that caliber would likely not be inhabiting the areas that we fish. And there's nothing we cast or troll what would be a worthwhile target for such a fish. I'd be willing to bet that somewhere out there, there IS a 60" muskie. But fishing how and where we fish, and with what? We ain't never gonna see it my friend. The largest fish we encounter would need to have a full belly to reach 60#.
A fish doesn't know how big it is, but biology tells it what volume of foold it needs to eat and what amount of energy is worth expending to eat such volume of food. That pretty much rules out us catching the largest fish in the system with the lures we throw. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | where do they live and what do they eat then? you got a bowl for this roach? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8772
| Jon, I think they are largely out in deep water. They are feeding on ciscoes, redhorse, whitefish, etc. Their food is forage that is larger than what our lures represent, and typically deeper than we fish them. When they want to eat, they eat. And they don't move up onto the structure we usually target in order to do it.
It's similar to late fall fishing - you can always find a few small agressive hungry fish shallow on "traditional" structure. You can catch those fish casting your joe run-of-the-mill glider, or rubber bait, etc. But if you want a BIG fish, you're going to be out fishing live bait, close to bottom, in the areas where the big fish are likely to congregate. And you'll likely sit there for 4-6 hours waiting for that one feeding window that lasts for 20 minutes if you're lucky...
Catching the largest fish in the system, in my opinion, is a similar game. There's just not many of them. There might be ONE. There might be TWO, depending on that particular ecosystem. But those fish GOT big and GOT old by not acting like other fish, and NOT feeding like other fish.
I'd venture to say that the biggest fish we are catching today are the biggest fish we are ever going to be catching, short of the absolute freak of nature fish caught under the absolute rarest of rare conditions, in the best of the best waters.
And there are so few guys out there willing to put in the time hours and effort and fishless hours and days to catch "that one freak fish", that it's likely to stay that way.
I say that 60" and/or 60# is possible. And we might just see one over the next 5 years. But it's NEVER going to become common. |
|
| |
|
| Wow i cant believe i read threw most of this junk. Owning Figure 8 Baits and having some of the best true info and access to many pictures on bumpboards, its easy to say there sure is alot of dreamers.
Id fish eagle hands down for bigger fish. Ever since iv brought and sold hundreds of bumpboards the b.s. size has went down in inches and has kept anglers more truthful. Id love to run a contest where the biggest fish of the month gets a wicked prize package to keep em honest.
U guys are starting to sound like the "dainty" bass anglers that in prefish have these magical bags or giant bass, and when comes to the scale its all excuses.
|
|
| |
|
| people catch 50"s on LOTW all the time, 53"s are caught by the dozens every year, a 55" is pretty rare yet caught every year, verified 57" fish have been caught, and 58 and 59 inch fish have been reported on LOTW and VERIFIED on other lakes. is it possible that doug johnson, dick pearson, and the mighty muskie tackle shop owner on the most northern section of the lake just have not caught one yet?
since they get to be 58-59 inches and only a few that size have been reported in the entire world what makes you think a 60" fish does not exist? common sense will tell you it is possible. having a normal brain will tell you they exist and they exist on LOTW too. do anglers cover every inch of LOTW every second of the day throughout the entire year on every single square foot of water? not a chance.
the majority of you guys seem think eagle has more bigger fish than LOTW. are you out of your mind? do you have a better shot on eagle? probably. but most of you that have gone have had the privileged of having guys who spend their life on that lake give you tons of spots on an already smaller body of water than LOTW with far fewer potential big fish spots and throw double tens. i'm surprised you don't read more thank yous about how guys like herbie have shared such valuable info with you all. i would like to thank him and guides on other lakes for making them seem like they put out 56 inch fish like there is no tomorrow and giving ,y favorite lake a reputation for not being big fish lakes because guys like him have not posted a FEW pictures of fish over 55 inches online. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 208
Location: Northern Wisc. | If i recall, in the sportsman connections book for Oneida county in Wisconsin, Reported a 60" specimen coming out of Sweeny lake. Sweeny lake is 191 acres max depth 18ft. Granted it was only one fish and there probably isn't another fish in there over 50, but a 60" none the less. If one can be in a 191 acre lake then they can be anywhere. They are out there, just have to find a dumb one thats never seen a lure before....lol |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2009
| esoxaddict - 3/18/2013 10:10 PM
Ben, it doesn't, obviously. But a fish of that caliber would likely not be inhabiting the areas that we fish. And there's nothing we cast or troll what would be a worthwhile target for such a fish. I'd be willing to bet that somewhere out there, there IS a 60" muskie. But fishing how and where we fish, and with what? We ain't never gonna see it my friend. The largest fish we encounter would need to have a full belly to reach 60#.
A fish doesn't know how big it is, but biology tells it what volume of foold it needs to eat and what amount of energy is worth expending to eat such volume of food. That pretty much rules out us catching the largest fish in the system with the lures we throw.
EA i don't agree, plenty of 55-57" fish get caught ever year on our presentations. You think a 60" fish knows she is 3" longer than a 57"? Research shows a large musky prefers baits roughly 20% of there length....that's only 12" for a 60" fish....a pounder going through the water has a profile of 14-15" long and the appearance of an easy meal. Hungry 55" muskies don't turn down 10" believer's, 60"ers wouldn't either..the issue is there are dang few 60" fish anywhere, if they were even somewhat common (like 55") they would be getting caught.
Edited by IAJustin 3/19/2013 12:40 PM
|
|
| |
|
| IA Justin you know as well as anyone that a 55 inch fish is not common and they are not caught as often as something drastically smaller. The bigger they are the rarer they are. Some fish just stop growing. How many fish over 55 inches were being caught before the double cowgirl phase or better yet all the stocking that has been done? Not even close to as many that are caught now.
Whats crazy is how lake a, lake b, lake c, and lake d can all produce different average size muskies and different maximum size muskies yet be fairly similar in characteristics, forage, size, and location.
So many factors play into whether a fish does or does not reach 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, or 60 inches. I have seen some of the most "skilled" or "experience" muskie fishermen that know EVERYTHING there is to know about muskie fishing and what to and what not to do handle a fish like a moron. Kind of like those same guys who demand you figure 8 after every cast and the next cast after they make the statement do not figure 8. This happens in videos all the time.
Point is that there are a lot of things that are keeping these fish from reaching there maximum potential. Say a fish finally reaches 50 inches after beating the odds of survival. Then its caught by a lucky angler. She reaches 53 and is released yet again. Now she is 55 inches and caught by a walleye guy. We all know what usually happens when that happens. Then there is the case of death by the nature of the fight, catch, and release process.
Okay enough BS. Do some research (you would have already done it if you were a fishermen since the age of three or so and actually have an interest in animals and nature). White Sharks, Anacondas, Pythons, Crocodiles... Top predators that reach enormous sizes. So many reports of HUGE animals bigger than they are thought to be and only a few of the true GIANTS have been verified. Watch professional sports lately?
The does a 60 inch fish know its 60 inches and not 57? Probably not. But the general nature of a fish in good health versus a fish approaching the end of its life could be the main factor. Maybe 60 inchers only eat dead fish. Would that be so hard to believe? |
|
| |
|
| Eagle does have bigger fish. There is something about that system that just grows bigger fish. At one point i had 1200 gallons of discus in tanks and there was one particular tank that was smaller that produced larger and more consistant discus. My point being just because lotw is bigger does not mean theres bigger fish.
Iv fished eagle under a dozen times and have caught my largest fish and also another 50 plus with lots of 45 plus to throw in. I would love to say lotw produces larger fish but it simply is not accurate. I know for a FACT that eagle right now produces larger fish. Iv also learnt eagle and little of what i know on it completely on my own
Facts are facts, if they are not caught and proven they are not there. The argument of a 60 in lake of the woods is PROVEN and the "belief" 0f a dreamed 60'' is just that. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2009
| Guest, my point is there are several thousand 55" muskies living right now, thus the reason they get caught. |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | whooooa there fella...do tell how you claim that eagle produces larger fish? is this on average? is this the top 5% caught a year or what? from what I know, I'd actually say LOTW kicks out more 50 plus fish for sure and what are say the top 5 caught out of Herbies the last 10 years? stack those up against the top 5 caught on lotw the last 10 years and we have some data to talk about... I've only fished lotw once, and eagle once but from all the dudes I know of fishing both lakes on a yearly if not more basis your claim that eagle kicks out bigger might not be right...both have huge fish that is for sure...
Edited by BNelson 3/19/2013 7:34 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Brad you are exactly right, lotw has numbers and your shot at a fifty may or may not be just as good as Eagle. But there for sure is a longer LEGITAMITE fish caught at eagle lake.
Like i said i own the shop on lotw and its better advertisemnt for me to say lotw but it simply not true. For the little iv fished Eagle iv seen it with my own eyes. Maybe some could say im extremely lucky at eagle and thats how iv come out with that conculsion.
Then i go to the LEGITAMITE pictures and reports between the two lakes and eagle has it edged out. What really has changed my mind is the CEA attending eagle lake and the numbers of huge fish caught during there outing. If i were to put in man hours and factor in size eagle clearly has lotw beat.
Admitting that eagle has bigger fish does not help my business but its the truth |
|
| |
|
| according to this thread bill sandy's got a 56.5 on lake of the woods last year. i'm sure tons of people on this board alone caught a fish over 50 inches out of lake of the woods. every single 50 inch fish caught on lake of the woods is not talked about amongst the entire "muskie world."
are we really talking an inch or two here? eagle puts out bigger fish because the average size 50 incher is an inch or two more? i agree your chance at a 50 may be slightly better on eagle with it being fairly smaller with a much smaller amount of prime looking spots (to us anyways).
would the majority prefer to have a shot at a 50 plus a legitimate shot at a 48-49 along with a 46 and some lower 40 inchers with a total of at least a dozen fish between two guys on LOTW? or would you prefer a slightly longer 50 inch class fish and the possibility of another 50 incher? the fish in lac seul are about 5-100 inches longer than the fish in lotw and eagle.
i do like your shop though mr. marlowe  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | BNelson - 3/19/2013 7:28 PM
what are say the top 5 caught out of Herbies the last 10 years? stack those up against the top 5 caught on lotw the last 10 years and we have some data to talk about...
doesn't sound like a fair comparison ... |
|
| |
|
| Just from one fisherman's approximate boat stats....
I have spent about 65 days on Eagle, if not more
I have spent about 50 + on LOTW, not all in what I would consider "prime" parts of the lake
number of 50" caught ...Eagle, but not by much
number of 50" fish SEEN...Eagle
biggest fish we ever actually got in the boat...LOTW
biggest fish seen...LOTW
I'm not ready to make any definitive conclusions about which lake has bigger fish.I think there are less places for them to hide on Eagle ( not just lake size, there are less quality musky spots per acre imo). So in terms of strictly big fish discussion, I do not think it is a slam dunk either way. |
|
| |
