DTro Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 ...or so says KARE11 http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=865662 if the measurement holds what the heck does that mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonkapat Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 That means the guy just killed a nice fish is all. Maybe 40lbs at best Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbrooks Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 Nice fish. There's probably a state record caught and release every week thanks to the DNR and most anglers who C&R. Maybe the fish couldn't be revive(sp). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
APCfishing Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 I think the writer assumes records are based off length.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justinT Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 Boy, I hope they don't start having a news story on every 53in Muskie caught in MN. Don't think his 50lb estimate is very close though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcons Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 If the article's correct and the angler's been fishing muskies over a year including night fishing he should immediately know it's not a record....who knows which way the newspaper writer twisted what he said though. One less tanker in WB now . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonkapat Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 Nice fish. There's probably a state record caught and release every week thanks to the DNR and most anglers who C&R. Maybe the fish couldn't be revive(sp). So long as its late october or november I'd say maybe. Not much of a chance right now. 28" actual girth or bigger is a very rare fish even late in the year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingfish689 Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 nice fish.but no state record Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JRedig Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 Doubtful it's even near 40lbs. News stations are awful, all they have to do is report the news and they can't even get that right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
50inchpig Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 If you think that fish grew on KARE wait until you stop in the bait shop there next time. How do you revive a fish from a pontoon in 75 degree water? You don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HugoBox Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 Doubtful it's even near 40lbs. News stations are awful, all they have to do is report the news and they can't even get that right. In reference to a great Slapshot line where Reg Dunlop is asked, "If his old lady's ... does that make him..." I need to ask, if a 53" inch fish is 50LBs does that mean my last 48" was 45LBs? Just askin... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NEXPLANAR Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 The State record was 56" not 54". My boy caught a 53" 2 weeks ago and it only weight 32 pounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fatfinger Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 i wonder how many people are gonna flock to wb lake now lookin for more.nice fish tho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esox_Magnum Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 LMAO, thats funny. That 57 recenty didnt even come close to records.... And was a way bigger fish..... 40 pounds would be as good as that WB fish makes..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Kuhn Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 Here's a 50lb 53" fish (51 lb 2 ounce to be exact) so non-muskie people can reference. I'd say there's no way a fish that's any less than 55" can break the state record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muskymaniac4ever Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 isnt the state record 54 pounds, 57 inches with a 28 inch girth yeah that 53 incher isn't even close, nice fish though too bad someone else won't have any fun with her anymore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Schultz Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 The fish picture above from (I believe his name is Tom Gelb) gives a great reference point to a true 50 pound class fish---By the way thats a Wisconsin fish boys and girls---Just kidding of course! Looks like WB will be getting some added pressure----Too bad about that news report--very misleading indeed.I do agree with the others--Very nice fish! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonkapat Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 I like this one better because it still has a chance to be a record Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castinski Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 How do you revive a fish from a pontoon in 75 degree water? You don't. More like 85 degree water temps. Regardless C&R has come a long way, but lots of big fish are still killed every year. To each there own on legal fish, but I think replicas should be hyped a little more than they are now. A lot of people still look at me cross-eyed when I start mentioning replicas, especially newbies. I'd guess probably because replicas are not discussed as much of an option for other species. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gooty Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 Healthy 53 incher = 40 lbs. Fatty slobasaurus(GET THE FRABIL) 53 incher maybe maybe = upper 40's. Skinny thing with big head in picture = maybe 30...no way 50. And now...its dead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooter Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 Mere minutes ago they were discussing the fish on kfan or whatever sports radio show you guys have over there - that gets broadcast over here! Didn't catch the very beginning but believe it was a guide commenting on the fish. Basically he agreed it was a dandy but certainly not close to a state record as it lacked the crazy girth that would be needed for a 53" to be 55lbs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scsavre Posted August 14, 2010 Share Posted August 14, 2010 I heard the radio show as well. It was on 1500. They doubted the possible record, but still claimed the near 50lb claim. They also said that the angler had tried to revive the fish with no luck. I think it was a local guide on the show who was called over to the baitshop, or maybe he is also the baitshop owner. I missed the first minute. The guy claimed to be in the know, knowing the angler, spot and bait. He even gave the spot away on the radio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reinhard1 Posted August 14, 2010 Share Posted August 14, 2010 grafite reproductions as far as i'm concerned is the way to go. i had a ll lb walley done for my son-inlaw a few years ago and it cost $450 at the time. looks as good now as it was the first day. they also dont need repair in the future. take a quick picture and measure it and when you have the money get it done and its yours for a lifetime. good luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
propster Posted August 14, 2010 Share Posted August 14, 2010 A lesson to be learned by all. As big as these fish are, they are a bit of a wuss. We can't fish in these water temps and expect them all to survive, even with our best efforts, but especially when they're out of the water for measurement and multiple photos, when they're returned to such warm water that contains less oxygen. He's been fishing them a year and sounds like he could use some more education. Maybe this will do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scsavre Posted August 14, 2010 Share Posted August 14, 2010 I would definitely get a replica for obvious reasons, including the durability and the fact that the fish is still swimming. The big hurdles I hear are, its the fact that it isnt your fish. It doesnt really resemble your fish. People say these guys will paint them custom, however I have yet to see it done very close. It takes forever, you pay a ton for a guy to go grab a blank from his pile of 52"s and paint it. I catch a 52" by 27", I want my fish to resemble those measurements. I also hear quite often how people swear they see the same mounts over and over again. That said, I would still go with a replica, its just these guys that are just out trolling around, or on charter boats that arent musky nuts, dont always care to do a replica. So any body know the price comparisons these days, skin vs replica. At one point I heard they are getting similar..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now