Muskie Discussion Forums

Forums | Calendars | Albums | Quotes | Language | Blogs Search | Statistics | User Listing
You are logged in as a guest. ( logon | register )
Moderators: sworrall, Slamr

View previous thread :: View next thread
Jump to page : 1 2
Now viewing page 1 [30 messages per page]

More Muskie Fishing -> Muskie Biology -> Tiger or Natural
 
Message Subject: Tiger or Natural
fins355
Posted 9/18/2019 12:43 PM (#946961)
Subject: Tiger or Natural




Posts: 280


Interesting article...I wonder who agrees with Dr. Casselman.....
https://www.outdoorcanada.ca/is-it-a-muskie-pike-or-tiger-heres-how-...
KenK
Posted 9/18/2019 12:49 PM (#946963 - in reply to #946961)
Subject: Re: Tiger or Natural





Posts: 574


Location: Elk Grove Village, IL & Phillips, WI
Those rounded fins have me thinking tiger, but I'm not Dr. Casselman.
Moon Boy
Posted 9/18/2019 2:27 PM (#946969 - in reply to #946961)
Subject: Re: Tiger or Natural




Posts: 19


I would bet a good chunk of change that it's a tiger. Looks obvious to me.
sworrall
Posted 9/18/2019 3:02 PM (#946973 - in reply to #946961)
Subject: Re: Tiger or Natural





Posts: 32852


Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin
I would not. This guy comes with a 'pedigree' way beyond any of us here.
VMS
Posted 9/18/2019 3:45 PM (#946975 - in reply to #946973)
Subject: Re: Tiger or Natural





Posts: 3478


Location: Elk River, Minnesota
sworrall - 9/18/2019 3:02 PM

I would not. This guy comes with a 'pedigree' way beyond any of us here.


I'd agree...

Not that it is anything to consider with much weight here, but any tiger I have seen has not had as dark of bars. The bars on this fish seem too too dark overall in my humble opinion

The tail on that fish in the article looks like it's pretty pointed as well..

Steve



Edited by VMS 9/18/2019 3:47 PM
ToothyCritter
Posted 9/18/2019 4:17 PM (#946976 - in reply to #946961)
Subject: Re: Tiger or Natural





Posts: 661


Location: Roscoe IL
Beauty of a fish..
bbeaupre
Posted 9/18/2019 4:21 PM (#946977 - in reply to #946961)
Subject: RE: Tiger or Natural




Posts: 390


I caught one out of GB about ~12 years ago with very similar coloration. I will post pics when I get a chance to dig it up.

It makes one wonder if all hybrids are sterile...

TCESOX
Posted 9/18/2019 7:49 PM (#946988 - in reply to #946961)
Subject: RE: Tiger or Natural





Posts: 1231


Provided I can figure out posting a picture, here is some side by side comparisons to ponder. The left and top are tigers from tiger stocked lakes, and the other one is the fish in question. I'm not sure. Do you look at fins, head size(as the expert did), patterns, colors?



Zoom - | Zoom 100% | Zoom + | Expand / Contract | Open New window
Click to expand / contract the width of this image
(tigers?3.jpg)



Attachments
----------------
Attachments tigers?3.jpg (142KB - 616 downloads)
Kirby Budrow
Posted 9/18/2019 8:12 PM (#946992 - in reply to #946988)
Subject: Re: Tiger or Natural





Posts: 2305


Location: Chisholm, MN
Tiger

Edited by Kirby Budrow 9/18/2019 8:13 PM
sworrall
Posted 9/18/2019 10:08 PM (#946994 - in reply to #946988)
Subject: RE: Tiger or Natural





Posts: 32852


Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin
TCESOX - 9/18/2019 7:49 PM

Provided I can figure out posting a picture, here is some side by side comparisons to ponder. The left and top are tigers from tiger stocked lakes, and the other one is the fish in question. I'm not sure. Do you look at fins, head size(as the expert did), patterns, colors?


Striking difference in the coloration and fin tips of the fish in question from the other two. I'll let the preeminent authority make the ID.
Cfollow
Posted 9/19/2019 6:06 AM (#947000 - in reply to #946994)
Subject: RE: Tiger or Natural


Because having a PhD means you can't be wrong? It's a Tiger.
Kirby Budrow
Posted 9/19/2019 7:12 AM (#947002 - in reply to #947000)
Subject: Re: Tiger or Natural





Posts: 2305


Location: Chisholm, MN
So the only reason Casselman thinks this is a pure strain canadian muskie (which usually don't have bars like this), is that the head is 26 percent the size of the fish. So he's using an estimate from measuring the picture. That can't be trusted. I have worked with many scientists and I disagree with them all the time. Just because you have a degree does not mean you are always right.

I was just reading an article about the St. Louis River. Nothing to do with Tigers...

But the article goes through the opinions of fisherman and DNR scientists. Such differing views. Read Deserae Hendrickson's point of view on the river. She's the fisheries supervisor there.

http://www.fishing-headquarters.com/the-future-of-the-st-louis-rive...

I would be willing to bet that no fisherman agrees with her.

Edited by Kirby Budrow 9/19/2019 7:19 AM
VMS
Posted 9/19/2019 7:17 AM (#947004 - in reply to #947000)
Subject: RE: Tiger or Natural





Posts: 3478


Location: Elk River, Minnesota
Cfollow - 9/19/2019 6:06 AM

Because having a PhD means you can't be wrong? It's a Tiger.


I'll take the assertion of someone with a PhD in the field of study over anyone who thinks they can fully determine this by looking at one single picture.

Cassleman has STUDIED, and RESEARCHED so many specimens over his career I would highly doubt his assertion on this fish is wrong.

Heck...using what he has stated about head size vs overall size from his extensive RESEARCH, measure the darn thing yourself. It won't be perfect as the fish is not entirely straight nor perpendicular to the camera...but it is not too far off...

Steve
Pepper
Posted 9/19/2019 7:42 AM (#947005 - in reply to #946961)
Subject: Re: Tiger or Natural




Posts: 1516


I’ll take Casselman’s word for it.
KenK
Posted 9/19/2019 7:48 AM (#947006 - in reply to #947004)
Subject: RE: Tiger or Natural





Posts: 574


Location: Elk Grove Village, IL & Phillips, WI
What would you say these are. Nothing big, but nice markings.


Zoom - | Zoom 100% | Zoom + | Expand / Contract | Open New window
Click to expand / contract the width of this image
(Kenny's 26inch tiger full resized.jpg)


Zoom - | Zoom 100% | Zoom + | Expand / Contract | Open New window
Click to expand / contract the width of this image
(John Tiger Resized.jpg)



Attachments
----------------
Attachments Kenny's 26inch tiger full resized.jpg (81KB - 651 downloads)
Attachments John Tiger Resized.jpg (234KB - 636 downloads)
Attachments Tiger 33cropped.jpeg (80KB - 646 downloads)
VMS
Posted 9/19/2019 11:00 AM (#947011 - in reply to #946961)
Subject: Re: Tiger or Natural





Posts: 3478


Location: Elk River, Minnesota
Hiya,

I'd say Pure all the way!! Those two pictures look extremely close in coloration and markings to the one in the article.

Steve
KenK
Posted 9/19/2019 11:08 AM (#947012 - in reply to #946961)
Subject: Re: Tiger or Natural





Posts: 574


Location: Elk Grove Village, IL & Phillips, WI
There is also a 3rd picture I uploaded, not sure why it doesn't display like the other 2, but it is almost identical to the top one.
sworrall
Posted 9/19/2019 11:28 AM (#947013 - in reply to #947002)
Subject: Re: Tiger or Natural





Posts: 32852


Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin
Kirby Budrow - 9/19/2019 7:12 AM

So the only reason Casselman thinks this is a pure strain canadian muskie (which usually don't have bars like this), is that the head is 26 percent the size of the fish. So he's using an estimate from measuring the picture. That can't be trusted. I have worked with many scientists and I disagree with them all the time. Just because you have a degree does not mean you are always right.

I was just reading an article about the St. Louis River. Nothing to do with Tigers...

But the article goes through the opinions of fisherman and DNR scientists. Such differing views. Read Deserae Hendrickson's point of view on the river. She's the fisheries supervisor there.

http://www.fishing-headquarters.com/the-future-of-the-st-louis-rive...

I would be willing to bet that no fisherman agrees with her.


I read the entire linked document, and see the same debate we see repeatedly in the muskie world over what anglers perceive and what is management based scientifically proven using today's accepted fisheries management processes. The data doesn't 'support' the catch rates, so the assumed and most obvious conclusion by anglers is the fish are gone. I see a repeated reference to using the 2017 data to reach an eventual conclusion and that the piece itself was written in 2015. What did I miss?

This is not a parallel comparison, one issue is fish identification by arguably the world's leading authority, and the other a data VS catch rate active debate. As I see it here, no one said anyone couldn't disagree, but one might expect equal analysis and conclusions drawn in that process.
North of 8
Posted 9/19/2019 11:57 AM (#947016 - in reply to #947013)
Subject: Re: Tiger or Natural




I guess we are lucky to be able to quickly identify "pure" from tiger on the chain where I live. The pure muskies are dark on the back and upper portions with little or no markings, silver lower portions. The tigers, which are natural hybrids, not stocked, have bold stripes. The water in the chain is very dark, which I have been told accounts for the coloring on the pure muskies. Not sure why the tigers are not impacted by that.
MartinTD
Posted 9/20/2019 10:16 AM (#947055 - in reply to #946961)
Subject: Re: Tiger or Natural





Posts: 1141


Location: NorthCentral WI
I have caught several fish with markings similar to the fish in the article and I believe they are barred pure muskies. Looking at the comparison of the stocked tigers the difference is obvious. Not a tiger IMO.

KenK - I believe yours are nicely barred pure muskies also.

Edited by MartinTD 9/20/2019 10:20 AM
ToddM
Posted 9/20/2019 11:57 AM (#947060 - in reply to #946961)
Subject: Re: Tiger or Natural





Posts: 20197


Location: oswego, il
I believe Ken's fish are tigers. That is what tigers look like where the clear strain resides. Caught them as well. In order for it to be a pure there would have to be two strains and in the case of where I fish, two strains reproducing naturally.
dougj
Posted 9/20/2019 5:31 PM (#947072 - in reply to #946961)
Subject: RE: Tiger or Natural





Posts: 906


Location: Warroad, Mn
Not sure if this lake  has natural tigers, but it looks like a back cross to me? From what I've read some eggs  of female Hyberds are fertile. If these would mate with a male muskie I'll bet the off spring would look something like this fish. Ive caught a few that looked simular on the LOTWs,
bbeaupre
Posted 9/21/2019 11:59 AM (#947088 - in reply to #947000)
Subject: RE: Tiger or Natural




Posts: 390


but I have a PhD and Im never wrong.....unless you ask my wife
KenK
Posted 9/23/2019 11:52 AM (#947167 - in reply to #947088)
Subject: RE: Tiger or Natural





Posts: 574


Location: Elk Grove Village, IL & Phillips, WI
Here is what the naturals from the same lake.


Zoom - | Zoom 100% | Zoom + | Expand / Contract | Open New window
Click to expand / contract the width of this image
(46.5(resized).jpg)


Zoom - | Zoom 100% | Zoom + | Expand / Contract | Open New window
Click to expand / contract the width of this image
(WP_20150607_09_44_59_Proresized.jpg)



Attachments
----------------
Attachments 46.5(resized).jpg (114KB - 622 downloads)
Attachments WP_20150607_09_44_59_Proresized.jpg (134KB - 627 downloads)
Pike Master
Posted 9/24/2019 2:42 PM (#947204 - in reply to #946961)
Subject: Re: Tiger or Natural




Posts: 293


Location: Sakatchewan,Canada
I agree with Casselman on this one
fins355
Posted 9/30/2019 3:56 PM (#947430 - in reply to #946961)
Subject: RE: Tiger or Natural




Posts: 280


Well....I'll take my shot here. I've handled a lot of hybrids over 44 years and my vote is hybrid...looking not only at markings but the size and shape of the fins. The pectorals and pelvic fins are especially large and rounded which is a definite sign of a tiger from what I have observed. Actually, all the fins are overly large along with the tail. I can't go along with Dr. Casselman on this one......wish we could see the sensory pores.
true tiger tamer
Posted 10/1/2019 12:22 PM (#947477 - in reply to #946961)
Subject: Re: Tiger or Natural




Posts: 343


I've caught several hundred hybrids and pures. I can't think of a single tiger I've caught that didn't have an oversize head, I'd have to agree with Doctor Casselman.
Moon Boy
Posted 10/1/2019 1:52 PM (#947480 - in reply to #947477)
Subject: Re: Tiger or Natural




Posts: 19


If Casselman never saw this fish and someone posted it as a tiger, there wouldn't be anyone trying to debate that this is a tiger. It's so obvious that it is a tiger. I can't see why there is even a debate or an article written about it.
Brandyn Shepherd
Posted 10/31/2019 1:51 PM (#949236 - in reply to #946961)
Subject: Re: Tiger or Natural





Posts: 13


Location: Illinois
You can tell it is a Tiger Muskie in more ways than one. Most obvious to me... other than the obvious... is the size and shape of the dorsal fin.

Not looking for an argument. It is what it is.

A Tiger Muskie.
Larry Ramsell
Posted 2/5/2020 12:28 PM (#953525 - in reply to #946961)
Subject: Re: Tiger or Natural




Posts: 1287


Location: Hayward, Wisconsin
"Pedigree" or not, I have to differ on this one with the good Dr. I have studied hybrids most of my life (long) and have a huge hybrid photo file (and a chapter on same in my "Compendium"). NO question in my mind that this is indeed a tiger in my humble opinion.
Jump to page : 1 2
Now viewing page 1 [30 messages per page]
Jump to forum :
Search this forum
Printer friendly version
E-mail a link to this thread

(Delete all cookies set by this site)