|
|
Posts: 136
| I know where there are two world record fish living. ONce caught they will beat the spray fish by 4-6 pounds. I will be chasing her next season. |
|
| |
|
Location: Minnesota | Where?
figured it was worth a shot |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8831
| I believe there are 70lb muskies out there.
Sooner or later someone will catch one.
I don't believe it will ever be a regular occurrence, and here's why
1. Incidence of fish reaching that size is very rare
2. Those that do reach that size feed on prey we can't possible mimic with lures (and still be able to fish with them)
3. The largest fish in a lake ecosystem aren't eating where we're fishing
My prediction:
70 pound fish will be caught one of three ways:
1. Vertical Jigging
2. Live bait
3. DEEP trolling
|
|
| |
|
| With no other muskies over 65 pounds, what is your frame of reference Esoxaddict? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8831
| Guest
We have verified 65 pound fish, right?
Arguing that the biggest musky that has ever lived has already been caught and that there can't be a bigger one seems awfully presumptuous.
The recent introduction of muskies to so many lakes and rivers combined with all the C&R education, increased size limits, genetic research, and the combined efforts of the clubs and DNR to build quality fisheries, it is only a matter of time.
We're putting more and more muskies in more places, and the fish people are catching are getting better every year.
The record fish were caught during a time where we knew very little about them, and there was no catch and release -- you caught it, you ate it.
The techniques and equipment we're using to find and catch them is constantly improving, and musky fishing is growing like never before.
It's only a matter of time.
Look what has happened with bass fishing in the last 20 years, and the size of some of the fish being caught out West. There was a time when if you showed someone a picture of some of those fish and told them how big it was they'd have called you a liar, because it was completely unheard of, it was "impossible"...
Edited by esoxaddict 12/4/2006 1:56 PM
|
|
| |
|
| The Bass refference makes sense. The part about arguing that because there is one that was 65 means there has to be one 70 (and it will be caught too) seems awfully presumptuous to me. When you add to the mix that Mr 65 may have had some water added to it and the next one on list is only 61, then I question if a 70 could exist. Just an opinion.
|
|
| |
|
| Havn't the LL only been stocked in Mil lacs for around 16 years? Does this means the LL have not even reached there full potential yet? I think it does.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8831
| Think about what it would have to be to get to 70 lbs...
58"x31.25"
59"x31"
60"x30.75"
In my opinion most the guys who say they've seen fish that would go 60" really didn't see one quite that big, but I'd be willing to bet at least a few of them were legitimate 60" fish.
Musky fishing is getting better every year. Look at the fish caught this year alone. You don't think a 70lb fish is possible on Vermillion, or Eagle, Sabaskong Bay, Georgian Bay, Green Bay? Look at that Nippising fish -- there's your 58" right there. It stands to reason that there are quite a number of fish out there that are an inch and a meal away from 70 pounds.
Obviously they still need to be caught to be the record, but more and more people are taking up musky fishing all of the time, and between the books, the videos, GPS mapping, electronics, and the internet it's taking them a lot less time to get from zero to 50 and beyond...
I'd be willing to bet that within 7 years we will be seeing pictures of a 70 pound fish. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1769
Location: Algonquin, ILL | I'm with EA on this just because no one has seen or caught a verified 70# does not mean it does not exsist. The pond behind my house has tons of bass in the 2-4# range and a few in the 5-6# range for years i thought that this would be the max size for the pond but this summer I got one that went 8#, so now I wonder are there bigger fish in there ? perhaps but I will never know for sure until I or Someone else gets it.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 720
| Hi Jeff,
I understand where your coming from and yes there are some true giants that are being caught. However, the very points you raise about the advantages to the information age we currently live in are the same reasons I feel that a fish of the magnatude your talking about is a long, long way from being produced let alone caught.
The huge amounts of information, and the dialoge on websites like this one does a couple of things. One it makes fisherman more savvy to what is going on out there on the water. Which is a good thing don't get me wrong. But better fisherman means more fish caught and more fish dying. Accidental death or poor handling of a big fish, or simply legal harvesting of a legal musky. Now remember I'm not talking about your weekend 45" which is a great fish but your 40 to 45 pound hogs. Secondly, and I feel most importantly is the effect that education and dialoge that is taking place today can and does create huge pressure on specific lakes. Take Vermillion for instance that water gets hammered all season long these fish ( the true giants) are being pressured by fishing, recreational boat traffic, and loss of habitat for spawning. Throw in spearing and accidental ice fisherman catchs and you have a great strain on this fishery and many others like it.
Not saying that big fish truly big fish don't exisit out there. But look at Tom Gelbs fish and just how fricken fat she is. Now add nearly twenty pounds on her and you have your 70 pounder. With the information age comes both the good and the bad. Especially on those waters that are pumping out some huge fish. I think its going to be a long time before anyone even gets close to 70 pounds if not for any other reason than they just can't get to that size.
Dave |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2067
| IMO 70Lbs...will never happen. a true 60lb fish is almost non existant -I don't think we will ever see a 70# fish. With the pressure and knowledge todays muskie anglers I think we would see 60lb fish every year if there is 70# fish out there.
I have only held a two 35-40lb fish... hard to imagine one twice that size. |
|
| |
|
| 60 inch fish have been caught and released in recent years
A 60 pound fish may have been released on Nippising this year
Big fish are out there
70 pound Big Bertha may be out there but never be seen or caught 
(Jim_Hutchings_60_X_29_MH2-450x328.jpg)
Attachments
----------------
 Jim_Hutchings_60_X_29_MH2-450x328.jpg (32KB - 209 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
| what do we KNOW about nature?
what do we THINK we know about nature?
who knows. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | Steve w. I think gelbs fish would make a nice new new cover pic. As far as big fish go I have seen two I would say are considered tankers. One I lost on chataqua lake about 4 years ago. A very very big fish!!!!! The other on North Twin about 12 years ago,this baby was a super tanker!!!!!!!!
I get to spend a fair amount of time on the water and I know they are out in the that high 50 inch range. I agree that a 70 is something I doubt I'll ever get to witness. When I saw a pic of lees,the cover fish and gelbs fish I am in considerable deep envy. Truely fish of a lifetime.
Pfeiff |
|
| |
|
Posts: 136
| 62-64X34-36. No BS. The fish has been eating beavers for 40 years I think. Just you all wait.
There is probably a 100 pounder swimming in Superior. Could it be the next frontier. The fish I am talking about is not from the Great Lakes however. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32930
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Don,
Toms fish IS on the cover, has been since the minute we got the picture. |
|
| |
|
| Steve C: to say a 70 pounder exists and then say we may never see it sounds like the same thing people who promote bigfoot might say. Commonsense guy: when you say the fish will beat the record by 5 pounds you are in effect saying you can guess the weigth better than Tom Gelb .... a 100 pound musky when only 2-60 pound have ever been hung on a scale is just plain sillyness.
I would like to see a 70 pounder too, but there would have to be more legit 60's caught first, it's the only thing that makes any sense. I've not seen a picture of a 60 pounder since 2000, except maybe the Dempsy Fox River fish which was not weighed, if you want to continue to claim you saw a "record class fish" go a head and add your name to a long long list. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8831
| As I stated before
We're growing begger fish than EVER before. I don't believe we've reached the pinnacle of what a musky can grow to if allowed to reach that size because we've only recently gotten to the point where we're letting them get that big. There are a LOT of new fisheries cranking out fish of size and weight that 20 years ago were unheard of.
I don't belive 100 pounds is possible, or even 80. But 70 pounds? There is probably a 70 pounder or two swimming around out there somewhere. Someone will figure out how to catch her eventually. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1310
Location: Washington, PA | With ALL of the disagreements, untruth's, and arguments concerning the current world record('s), I look to beat personal bests, forget about the rest of the world. Frankly, I don't know one way or the other how big they possibly get.
Just my two cents. |
|
| |
|
| I am a firm believer that there ARE fish in excess of 60"s and definitely 70 #'s. I can't honestly say that I am not sure if I've ever seen a "70 pounder," but I know there have been some awfully BIG fish chasing lures and walleyes on Eagle!
With this being said, it was mentioned earlier, about "where are these fish?" One summer, back in 1999, when Weston was 10 years old, I was fishing a rock pile way down west, just before Buzzard Falls. As I had two other friends in the boat, Kevin & Troy, I was casting out, while they all cast towards the rock pile. I had a fish come in, and I literally didn't see it, until it was RIGHT HERE...8 feet from the boat.(which is weird on Eagle's West Arm....super GIN clear water) This fish was as black as COAL! I don't think this fish has ever come shallower than 15-20 feet IMHO. In order for a fish to stay that black, they aren't getting much light penetration on their bodies. This fish was pushing the majic mark, and was one of 4 fish I feel I've seen that are close to 60"s. It literally "shocked" me. The day was VERY overcast....low clouds, and very dark.
So, when it was said that the way to catch a new world record is vertical jigging, livebait, or deep trolling, I think I am in agreement.
Just my $.02 cents worth!
Donnie  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Do they exist? You bet they do. Think of the massive amount of water that is out there to be covered. Not just area of water, there is a massive volume of water to cover. Think of the odds of contacting that 'Giant'. You need to have your bait in the right area, right depth, right window. So many factors go into catching these things. Getting your bait directly in front of its nose is like finding a needle in the Sahara Desert. I hope I find that needle.
Mike |
|
| |
