|
|
Posts: 4080
Location: Elko - Lake Vermilion | Ok guys, I've been thinking..(I know, Why?)
About 12-13 years ago I was on a 5-7 ft. reef with a steep drop off to 25-30 FOW on the East End of Vermilion... I raised the Largest fish I have ever seen... twice... I got a really good look at her and I believe she was pushing 60" Seriously.
My question is ...Do you think that fish this size just stays in deeper water most of it's life, and that is why we don't see them very seldom, if at all ?
This fish still Haunts me.
G-Rome |
|
| |
|
Posts: 152
| I think they are just quite rare. 1 in thousand (s)+ and only on big water with fatty diets. But I would say those that spend most of the time in open water seem to be of the biggest variety. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3136
| Haven't they found most huge monster fish to be sterile females?? That way the don't lose any energy or weight during spawning every year. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20178
Location: oswego, il | Possibly not and probably involuntary.:-) |
|
| |
|
Posts: 718
| There was a lake trout netted out of Lake Athabascsa in Sask decades ago that was 102 lbs. From what I understand it had no reproductive capability so it just ate... a lot. One day a musky like that will show up...maybe 18" between the eyes! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 668
Location: mercer wi | A true white whale |
|
| |
|
Posts: 744
| Girth matters;  THere have been a few "long fish" caught that were not the monsters we normally associate with the upper 50/ 60-inch mark. I remember this story from a few years back. awesome fish; just skinny.
http://www.brainerddispatch.com/sports/outdoors/3150167-monster-mus...
Edited by Mojo1269 11/7/2018 10:00 AM
Attachments
----------------
 59-incher.jpg (47KB - 476 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1220
| Either Gelb’s book or one of his seminars (both??) suggest the biggest fish in the lake remains unseen and uncaught. And I’ve personally been on Big Vee in an event where a competitor caught a 57.5 that was accurately measured. So, I can easily believe there’s a 60 in there. Just not sure there’s one very much larger than that anywhere?? Also know that lake to be a showroom lake for skis, maybe the highest likely place for seeing great fish who will flip you their tail faster than a middle finger to a boat who just cut off your drift! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3469
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | In my humble opinion I would say the biggest fish in the system are feeding on the biggest and most oily prey fish that exist within that system. In most waters where huge fish like that live and exist with regularity, that would either be Whitefish, Cisco/Tulibee, and trout based waters. With those prey species, most of the year they are open water fish, suspending out in the middle. The predatory fish have no reason to go shallow, except when the prey species goes there....In the fall for spawning cisco/tulibee as an example.
For the majority of the time we get to fish for these critters, I'd say their stomachs are nicely supplied, and being on the fish at the moment they feel like feeding is a very rare situation, making these fish so highly sought after, but seldom caught.
A world record I believe exists out there for this reason...
Steve
Edited by VMS 11/7/2018 10:32 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 166
| It's out roaming GBay somewhere eating whities and herring |
|
| |
|
Posts: 70
| Here on the east coast, we travel to Chautauqua in NY. The Indians have legends of fish “oars length” and fish have been reported there of enormous size. I read a book think it was called saving Chautauquas muskies. Super cool lore and old photos of times long gone. Many stats from back long ago reports of 10-20 fish days and such. No proof of fish past high 50s only legend. Highly recommend the book. They say one of the original indigenous strains used to stock all over Pa Nj and Ny. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 612
| Chautauqua's a great musky lake, the best numbers lake in NYS. Plenty of nice musky's in this lake. largest musky ever collected by trap nets measured 56' (this is considered the longest fish ever measured in Chautauqua). However not the lake if your in goal is ski's that size 60". Perhaps a large pelagic musky from Georgian bay or the Thousand Islands?
Edited by NPike 11/21/2018 9:39 PM
|
|
| |
|
| i have never seen yet a single 60incher bumpboard pics.then it don't exist because there is no pics.simple as that.if someone take the time to take dozen of pics for his internet fan club but he don't take the time to take just on in the board ,then i would say it's very strange. it's like hey guys 60 incher are that common in my boat that i'll not waist my time for that,guys will trust me for sure on that.like the brit say the proof is in the pudding.but im with npike largest one would came from these body of water.i would also add nipi ssing to his list |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1023
| I bought a boat from a guy twenty years ago that told me he put a sixty inch in the boat. He was not a musky guy.
I almost passed on the boat as it made me ask myself what else he was lying about. Lol. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4053
Location: Land of the Musky | TI has had one confirmed 60"+ on a Dominatrix D10 caught on Georgian Bay in Canada. The guide asked we not post the picture. This was 6 years ago. Bumbed he did not want us to post the picture but it was a MONSTER! The guide is known for putting clients on big fish and is booked solid for 18-24 months so I understand his request.... He also HATES BS haters online..... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1759
Location: new richmond, wi. & isle, mn | Black Friday must be a little slow? |
|
| |
|
| hehe |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20178
Location: oswego, il | James, c'mon you have to at least say he or she put it on a bump board for it to count!:-)
Edited by ToddM 11/25/2018 5:36 AM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | A lot of us old farts were fishing long before bump boards and digital cameras. My personal best is 55 but I have 2 friends with 60's one with a 59 and another with a 58. Heading out in an hour to try for a PB. It's like unicorn hunting.
The next world record if caught is unlikely to be an extremely long fish a lot of the long fish I've seen over the years are old skinny fish in decline. Sorta like me.
Edited by horsehunter 11/25/2018 6:45 AM
|
|
| |
|
| no bumpboard mean lots of chance for a bs measurement.cradle in the water and stick is no good.ive caught 2 times fish that have been measurement with a stick and it,,s strange because they turn to be smaller after years. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3469
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | horsehunter - 11/25/2018 6:00 AM
A lot of us old farts were fishing long before bump boards and digital cameras. My personal best is 55 but I have 2 friends with 60's one with a 59 and another with a 58. Heading out in an hour to try for a PB. It's like unicorn hunting.
The next world record if caught is unlikely to be an extremely long fish a lot of the long fish I've seen over the years are old skinny fish in decline. Sorta like me.
Totally agree with this statement. I know of one fish from about 15 years ago that went roughly 64" but was definitely on the decline... The head was huge, but the body very very skinny like the fish pictured earlier in this thread.
Bump boards didn't exist back then...so to call someone out today with their measurement being an illegitimate length because it wasn't on a bump board is honestly....ignorant...
Steve |
|
| |
|
| So if before the creation of laser range finders a golf hole is measured at 400 yards but decades later the laser range finder measures the hole at 407 yards the earlier 400 yard measurement is still correct. Makes sense. |
|
| |
|
| supertrollr - 11/25/2018 8:12 AM no bumpboard mean lots of chance for a bs measurement.cradle in the water and stick is no good.ive caught 2 times fish that have been measurement with a stick and it,,s strange because they turn to be smaller after years. I have measured quite a few fish with stick in water and then bumpboarded those same fish right after. The fish on the bumpboard usually measure a 1/2 inch longer with the tail pinch. Just my personal experience. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3469
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | Cfollow - 11/25/2018 8:32 AM
So if before the creation of laser range finders a golf hole is measured at 400 yards but decades later the laser range finder measures the hole at 407 yards the earlier 400 yard measurement is still correct. Makes sense.
Yep...it makes perfect sense...
The hole is moved so as to not wear out the green in that location, and the tee markers are moved so as not to wear out the tee box in that area. So...decades before, the yardages would be different every week or so on the local municipal golf course as they still are today laser range finder or not...
|
|
| |
|
| VMS - 11/25/2018 9:01 AM
Cfollow - 11/25/2018 8:32 AM
So if before the creation of laser range finders a golf hole is measured at 400 yards but decades later the laser range finder measures the hole at 407 yards the earlier 400 yard measurement is still correct. Makes sense.
Yep...it makes perfect sense...
The hole is moved so as to not wear out the green in that location, and the tee markers are moved so as not to wear out the tee box in that area. So...decades before, the yardages would be different every week or so on the local municipal golf course as they still are today laser range finder or not...
Haha, nice mental gymnastics!! You must have had to limber up before that post. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20178
Location: oswego, il | VMS - 11/25/2018 9:01 AM
Cfollow - 11/25/2018 8:32 AM
So if before the creation of laser range finders a golf hole is measured at 400 yards but decades later the laser range finder measures the hole at 407 yards the earlier 400 yard measurement is still correct. Makes sense.
Yep...it makes perfect sense...
The hole is moved so as to not wear out the green in that location, and the tee markers are moved so as not to wear out the tee box in that area. So...decades before, the yardages would be different every week or so on the local municipal golf course as they still are today laser range finder or not...
There is a funny joke but I cannot go there.
Edited by ToddM 11/26/2018 8:36 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 3469
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | Hahahaha!!!!
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 3469
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | Fact of the matter is...when golf holes were designed way back when, they used survey crews to determine lengths....pure and simple mathematics, and that method was extremely accurate. They did not need laser range finding to figure things out... Heck...look at bridges, the gateway arch, etc... They didn't have that stuff.... And the accuracy was phenomenal!!
Today's bump board is a convenience and a quick way to get a good measurement. To say those people in the past or even to this day (who are honest) don't know how to measure is ridiculous at best. To be off by 1/4 of an inch due to measuring with a stick as compared to a bump board is (in my humble opinion) a non issue for the recreational fisherman.
Tournament fishing now though....a completely different story as there are so many good sticks out there that the measurement might be crucial to a win/place, and with releasing these beautiful creatures quickly, a quick method is needed...I get that... THAT makes perfect sense to me, but I would bet a measurement with a stick would be extremely close given all contestants measure using the same method. It's really not that hard..
Steve
Edited by VMS 11/26/2018 9:19 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 4080
Location: Elko - Lake Vermilion | Then Todd's 49.5 inch fish might very well be a fifty..... Hmmmm. |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | I caught a 50 in Dec of 2015, guy sent me a pic of a fish he said was 53.75 he caught in 2014..... one quick glance I could see he caught the same 50 I caught... how is one off by almost 4 inches? lol .. we got a 55.25 that a guide caught a week or 2 prior and measured at 55.5.. now a .25 inch difference I can see but it is interesting... I also wonder if a fish has a big fat belly if that can 'shorten' the length as opposed to not much in the belly?
Edited by BNelson 11/26/2018 9:56 AM
|
|
| |
