Posts: 8781
| Ken, the consensus was pretty much the same. They announced ahead of time that no questions concerning the current record controversy would be allowed and that the panelists wouldn't be commenting on anything related to the current records. That said? Well, everyone made it pretty clear without actually saying it that the biggest muskies in history and the ones we are catching today. Everyone was pretty much in agreement that the largest muskies are and will continue to come out of places with several common factors:
1. Acreage - big water = big muskies
2. Forage - Whitefish, ciscoes, tulibee, salmonoids... Fatty oily schooling fish, the more the better
3. Genetics - They didn't talk much about specific strains, but everyone agreed that acreage and forage aren't enough without the right genes for the fish to actually grow to trophy size
I heard 60" and 60# mentioned a few times as the upper confidence limit. I think it was Herbie who said that muskies just don't get much bigger than about 57" - 58" Everyone has seen one that could possibly go 60", but until it's on the board you can only guess. It was also mentioned that a significant number of anglers who are reporting lengths/girths/weights in the 55"+/28"+/40# would be really dissapointed to find out the ACTUAL measurements and weights of those fish. That got a chuckle from the panelists, and some scattered applause from the audience as well.
The consensus was pretty much the same between all of them. A world record might be out there. But none of them has ever seen anything that would even come close. The biggest of the big? Well, if you ever catch a 50# muskie? Consider it huge no matter where you are. |
