Muskie Discussion Forums

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

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

Muskie Fishing -> General Discussion -> New World Record Controversy?
 
Message Subject: New World Record Controversy?
Larry Ramsell
Posted 5/1/2022 1:15 PM (#1004984)
Subject: New World Record Controversy?




Posts: 1275


Location: Hayward, Wisconsin
Here's a new one. Click on the link to the article, and then we can discuss it here:

https://www.outdoorsfirst.com/muskie/article/new-muskie-controversy/

Edited by Larry Ramsell 5/1/2022 1:21 PM
Brian Hoffies
Posted 5/1/2022 1:45 PM (#1004985 - in reply to #1004984)
Subject: Re: New World Record Controversy?





Posts: 1663


Does it really matter who caught the fish? Obliviously neither man cared. Why, 100 years later do we care who caught it? Flip a coin, pick a guy.
sworrall
Posted 5/1/2022 1:52 PM (#1004987 - in reply to #1004985)
Subject: Re: New World Record Controversy?





Posts: 32761


Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin
Because the history of the sport and the record keeping associated with the standing records needs to be accurate.
Brian Hoffies
Posted 5/1/2022 2:02 PM (#1004988 - in reply to #1004984)
Subject: Re: New World Record Controversy?





Posts: 1663


It's a sport that records don't always matter. Has every large Muskie caught in Mille Lacs been properly recorded? It's been said they still are catching state record fish there but you don't hear or see any proof. Seems the catch & release thing has made the records irrelevant. I'll leave it at that as I don't really know or care what the records are or how they are determined and validated.

Carry on.
sworrall
Posted 5/1/2022 3:01 PM (#1004992 - in reply to #1004988)
Subject: Re: New World Record Controversy?





Posts: 32761


Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin
Brian Hoffies - 5/1/2022 2:02 PM

It's a sport that records don't always matter. Has every large Muskie caught in Mille Lacs been properly recorded? It's been said they still are catching state record fish there but you don't hear or see any proof. Seems the catch & release thing has made the records irrelevant. I'll leave it at that as I don't really know or care what the records are or how they are determined and validated.

Carry on.


Difference is this is a World record. That matters to quite a few folks.
North of 8
Posted 5/1/2022 3:12 PM (#1004993 - in reply to #1004992)
Subject: Re: New World Record Controversy?




That Knobla fish was really something.
mikie
Posted 5/1/2022 6:21 PM (#1004994 - in reply to #1004984)
Subject: Re: New World Record Controversy?





Location: Athens, Ohio
The answer is pretty simple - someone needs to get out there and get a 52 pounder to settle this thing. m
chuckski
Posted 5/1/2022 11:54 PM (#1004999 - in reply to #1004984)
Subject: Re: New World Record Controversy?




Posts: 1152


I've seen the mount of the Knobla fish very impressive!
North of 8
Posted 5/2/2022 6:46 AM (#1005000 - in reply to #1004999)
Subject: Re: New World Record Controversy?




Is the Knobla fish on public display?
kdawg
Posted 5/2/2022 9:25 AM (#1005002 - in reply to #1005000)
Subject: Re: New World Record Controversy?




Posts: 727


What's interesting as well it seems, I could be wrong, why there's controversy on muskie records and other freshwater fish records, bass, pike, walleye, etc., I hear crickets. Kdawg
chuckski
Posted 5/2/2022 11:12 AM (#1005004 - in reply to #1004984)
Subject: Re: New World Record Controversy?




Posts: 1152


Ya John saw in a bait shop called the Minnow Bucket along with a mount of a 43# Tiger caught by Dick Lapp, this bait shop I think is or was on the south shore of Lac Vieux Desert I also seen a mount of Ott/Lapp Tiger in a video store in Land O Lakes (1994) and the other two fish in the late 1990's. I have pictures of all of them I wish I had the skill to post them.
R/T
Posted 5/3/2022 10:53 AM (#1005035 - in reply to #1004984)
Subject: RE: New World Record Controversy?




Posts: 76


In strictly my own opinion the Delores Lapp fish was one of the greatest fish (ok, the greatest) in our sport. The well known picture in strictly my own opinion is one of the greatest shots of fish and angler in our sport. Furthermore the is little to no controversy surrounding this fish. At least not that I am aware of. Whether it is recognized as the official tiger record matters not to me but it is my personal recognized WR Hybrid Muskie.



North of 8
Posted 5/3/2022 11:15 AM (#1005036 - in reply to #1005035)
Subject: RE: New World Record Controversy?




R/T - 5/3/2022 10:53 AM

In strictly my own opinion the Delores Lapp fish was one of the greatest fish (ok, the greatest) in our sport. The well known picture in strictly my own opinion is one of the greatest shots of fish and angler in our sport. Furthermore the is little to no controversy surrounding this fish. At least not that I am aware of. Whether it is recognized as the official tiger record matters not to me but it is my personal recognized WR Hybrid Muskie.





I agree. Great fish and wonderful picture.
Fishboy19
Posted 5/3/2022 12:48 PM (#1005040 - in reply to #1004984)
Subject: RE: New World Record Controversy?





Posts: 296


The Knobla mount was impressive! Thick head to tail. Carried the girth throughout the length. Most muskies aren't built that way. Just the special ones! I remeber as a kid stairing at that monster every year when we went to the Minnow Bucket bait shop. True Giant!
Slamr
Posted 5/3/2022 1:10 PM (#1006038 - in reply to #1005040)
Subject: Re: New World Record Controversy?





Posts: 6995


Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs
I rolled my eyes when I saw this thread, thinking the same as Brian H above. BUT, I guess we do need (how much is up for debate) a standard of "this is the biggest X caught and weighed" records. But with catch and release, current technology, a 24 hour news cycle that can keep us informed...
esoxaddict
Posted 5/3/2022 3:19 PM (#1006039 - in reply to #1006038)
Subject: Re: New World Record Controversy?





Posts: 8703


One one hand I think: "Who cares?!" But then if historical records are proven to be inaccurate, where does that leave us in terms of knowing how muskies are really able to grow and thrive in our favorite waters?

We know what people are catching today, and if that's as good at it gets something is out of whack - management, over harvest, habitat destruction, climate change, genetics... Unless most of the records are bogus, in which case the fishing is as good or better than it's ever been.

That, and I feel bad for the guys just starting out. A lot of guys are going out there with an expectation of what they're likely to catch that doesn't match reality. I've heard it more than once. "Man I fished that lake for 3 years and I never even saw a 50. My biggest fish was only 47..." Dude, you probably caught the biggest fish in the lake.

Edited by esoxaddict 5/3/2022 3:31 PM
Muthsky
Posted 5/10/2022 1:51 PM (#1006289 - in reply to #1004984)
Subject: RE: New World Record Controversy?




Posts: 46


In those days they actually ate the fish as families were poor and needed the nutrition.

Fisherman fished for food not trophies

Take care
chuckski
Posted 5/10/2022 6:58 PM (#1006290 - in reply to #1004984)
Subject: Re: New World Record Controversy?




Posts: 1152


Fish fries are great! As a teenager staying with my grandparents for the summer in Northern Wis. we had fish once or twice a week. And I was encouraged to go berry picking too! With today's limits it's harder to have a fish fry.
Larry Ramsell
Posted 9/25/2023 10:13 AM (#1023835 - in reply to #1004984)
Subject: Re: New World Record Controversy?




Posts: 1275


Location: Hayward, Wisconsin
Correction/amendment: In my original post I stated that I had received an email about this matter from an "acquaintance". The reason I didn't identify this person was the fact that I interpreted his several emails on the subject as support for the article and I didn't wish to embarrass him. As it turns out, he recently saw the article and was miffed at me for not giving him credit for the information, for which I apologize. The person unnamed was/is Robert Gollinik of Plover, Wisconsin.

Again, Thanks Bob...Larry
ManitouDan
Posted 9/27/2023 2:08 PM (#1023888 - in reply to #1004984)
Subject: Re: New World Record Controversy?




Posts: 561


The Muskie thats anywhere from # 3 -6 on many list is the 56.7 pounder caught by Gene Bourucki a couple miles from my families camp and was photographed on our dock . Its certainly authentic and verified
Jump to page : 1
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)