60" Muskie!

[CaptainMusky]

Sorry Steve, I wasn't referring to your fish and I misread Doctor B's post about the one 58" which he said was caught on Cass. Flesch's fish and the 58" allegedly caught on Cass were the two fish I was referring to. I know Maas caught his fish on Leech.
Black and Brass huh? :-) I don't have one of those!
There are undoubtedly some HUGE fish in Leech. Considering the numbers of fish caught in the upper 50" class there must be a population of 60"+ swimming around in there. With the deep water of Walker Bay those fish rarely see baits too. Just think if fish over 50" represent less than 5% of the total population of the fish and fish over 55" less than .5% of the fish the odds of catching a big fish on Leech seem pretty good.
I do think that MANY people give Leech and Cass more credit than they deserve though. Many fish are "caught" on Cass and Leech protecting much smaller fisheries. If we had more lakes to fish in this state it wouldn't be such a big deal IMHO.

[RuKiddingMe]

I beleive the Eagle Lake Freak is referring to would be the world class fishery in Canada.

This an excellent discussion, very interesting reading, we have heard from some very good fishermen here, Freak, AWH, DoctorB, guideman even chimed in. Like someone else said, I would be very interested to read what RK has to say about this subject. So how about it RK are you out there.

I know of a 56 inch fish that came out of a very lesser known lake this summer in july, the lake is actually right near my cabin and I was unaware there were even Muskies in it. Super fish are out there, some maybe lucky enough to see one or even tangle with one, others just sit and dream and write about them. It's all about timing and luck of the draw, also helps to put yourself on the right water in the first place.

As far as the metro goes, I would think Minnetonka would be the best bet, White Bear possibly too... I think Mille Lacs definetly has what it takes, forage and sheer size of the lake.

Good Luck Musky Hunters, if she's out there she will show her pretty mug...

RU

[Fish-n-Freak]

Cjac -- Eagle Lake in Canada, not a metro lake.

Capt.-- I knew Maas had caught his off Leech also, but I think the Flesch fish was released into Leech after he had it weighed in Walker?

I think there are a few REALLY big fish out there, and a couple might be over 60". If not on Leech, than maybe Mille Lacs or LOW, Eagle, LacSuel or others. The deep open water with TONS of food, can hold fish that will never see a lure. Some of these smaller lakes around Leech and Cass do hold BIG fish and don't need anymore pressure. I agree we need to get a few more lakes stocked. The pressure that Leech was seeing in the past, sure went down as the Metro Lakes and Mille Lacs came into play. The pressure was well spread out, but now we are seeing more and more new guys fishing Muskies. Almost everytime I go into Thorne Bros. or Reeds I see someone buying their first Muskie Combo and a few lures. I think there are more big fish out there right now than in the past 10-15 years, with all the stocked fish growing up, we have 50" fish all over the state. I wish Wisconsin would get their program fixed so they could get some big fish and help spread the pressure out. They are using mid 30" fish for Brood Stock, and growing more mid 30" fish -- Someone over there needs to look at the program and wake up.

Good Luck and remember CPR!
Steve

[cjac]

I was assuming we were talking about the Eagle in Canada, but you never know.

I'd imagine that there are 60s out there, but few and far between. Minn DNR has netted 20lb walleyes in the spring at the Pine River stripping station, but you never hear of them being caught (would be a new state rec), nor do you hear of 15 lbers caught in the Whitefish chain.

Mille Lacs might get my vote. Has the size, forage, proven to kick out monsters, but lacks the depth.

Does anyone else recall a pic on Outdoor News from a couple months ago of a guy with a 58 incher from out east? Can't recall the body of water though.....

[andy j]

I have an article in In-fisherman from a couple years back by Doag Stange, that tells a story about his friend, I big muskie hunter on LOTW. That hooked a supposed MONSTER! HE had it up to the side of the boat, he had a 60 inch ruler that didn't come close, He atempted to lift the fish in 2 times and couldn't get it in. I know this is just a story but Doug said in the article that the fish consumed him after, quit working, etc. because all he could do was picture the fish. I emailed infisherman to see if they could email me the article so I can post it. If not maybe I could just type it up. I do beleive there are some freak fish out there. AJ

[CaptainMusky]

Steve, I hope Flesch did not release that fish in Leech considering where the fish was caught in is several miles away from Walker. Might as well just bonk it and put it on the wall then, that fish is turtle food.
Speaking of Mille Lacs and I believe there was a comment made that based on the first date of stocking the fish could reach about 55" +/- to this date with a few higher. I heard there were some renegade musky fishermen that were dumping muskies in Mille Lacs years prior to them being stocked. I don't put much stock in rumors and Mille Lacs has its reputation for a reason, but supposedly the DNR netted a 68# musky out of Mille Lacs 2 Springs ago (2003). There was some leaking of this rumor at the time, but little came of it after a few months. This is irrespective of the length discussion at hand here, but I think more impressive than a 60" length is the tremendous girth some of these have.

[Muskydanno]

Hi guys,
I love this kind of speculative discussion..
In all this talk i hear alot of verbage discounting the metro lakes as a viable option for huge fish. I'm as big a fan of leech and mille lacs as the next guy , and don't doubt the fact that the numbers of huge fish are there , but Without a doubt there are a few metro lakes that hold fish nearing the 55 inch mark. A sixty incher? Probably not. Out of the realm of possiblity? who knows. I can tell you that of what i have seen the past few summers, down here my trips up north have been fewer and farther between. I spend most of my time on leech and my two biggest fish 52 and 50-3/4 have come from the metro.CPR willing those fish will be that 55 incher in a few years if they aren't mishandled. The only difference i see is the forage base may not be as tullibee, sucker rich as the northern lakes , and the fish i have seen do not sport 25 to 28 inch girths. I think you will be surprised in the next year or two what appears from a few of these lakes, the girth may not be there but the length will be. 60 incher? probably not but you'll see that 55........

[Muskydanno]

Hey guys i was just thinking..In all this talk about huge muskies i have not heard anything about the 66 inch fish that was caught by roger halvorsen(sp?) that was supposedly caught out of leech. This was in an one of my issues of musky hunter i believe last year or early this year. There is a picture of his fish and the article was about potential record muskies.

[Riverfishin]

I was fishing with ny friend once for northerns and he caught and realesed a 48 in. muskie, The same day I hookes into one that was atleast a foot longer.

[David Swenson]

The genetics of Leech Lake strain may produce a 60 inch fish in any of the waters they exist. But the chances are slim to none, especially on smaller bodies of water. Catching a 60 incher (or a state record) would be like having a son born to you that is physically identical to Shaq Oneil. How many people have you seen like Shaq and making the money he makes? He is a rare specimen as would a 60 inch (or state or world record) muskie would be.

Every year you hear of stories on the Big V or other lakes of monster fish, yet you almost never see a picture. Recently there was an artical in the Duluth News-Tribune were some people locally stated a 58 incher was caught on Vermilion in 2003 yet none of these people saw the fish, know who caught it, or seen a picture of it. I attempted to verify it as others did and we all came up with nothing. Yet Sam Cook is writing about this fish as fact? So why is there so much B.S. in the muskie world?

I am a "Doubting Thomas" on almost all big fish I hear about and most of the pictures I see. What is the phrase, "Believe nothing you hear and only half of what you see". This is especially true when it comes to muskie fishing.

Thats not to say I disbelieve everything. I believe the fish from Mille Lacs this summer may have been a upper 40 or maybe even a 50 pounder. A lot of the fish mentioned caught on Leech I believe as I have seen the pictures and the anglers are reputable.

I believe if someone is going to make the claim they caught a monster fish (or a 50 incher for that matter), they should be able to back it up. If they can't, it didn't happen and I hold myself to this same standard. If I catch a monster fish, I will have a photo and probably a witness or two. If I don't, I will keep my mouth shut.

Just my 2 cents which is non-sense.

David Swenson
http://muskieguide.homestead.com/

[This message has been edited by David Swenson (edited 10-14-2004).]

[cjac]

Found the Outdoor News with the pic of the big fish from out East that I mentioned earlier.

Aug 27th, 2004 issue, 59 1/2 inch muskie from the Niagara River in Pennsylvania. C&R and the listed weight is 47 lbs. Hard to tell from the pic, but there's a what looks like a couple feet of "tail" just hanging out there beyond the guys hand. Could be true......but again we're going on what the angler submits as length/weight. A 50 inch fish can be under 30 lbs or over 40, all depends on the girth as we know. So 59.5 and 47 lbs? Maybe....

Same issue has a 17 yr old young lady with a 54 from Mille Lacs, looks as big as her! Monsters are in Lacs, and who knows what many of these low to mid 50s that are C&R'ed will be in a few years. Might we be seeing 56 to 58 inch fish? Think of the diet they have in that fishery to feed on. Lacs fish are healthy and wide, they all seem to have "shoulders".

The 55 that Terry McQuoid and his partner Terry Blood caught (pic is on this site) was estimated at near 50 lbs. Terry McQuoid has seen a few in his days to say the least. Their estimate may be valid. C&R two years ago, what that fish at now?

One thought on the metro, had one follow last Oct on White Bear that still haunts me. That eye staring right thru me looked the size of a silver dollar. Yeah, the adrenaline may have impaired my judgement, but she was HUGE! I know of a few 53 and 54 inch fish that came from there last fall. Remember the East side of the metro has 'em too!

Wow, I've got the itch, as I gather we all do!!

Good luck gentlemen!

[Muskydanno]

Your guys are driving me nuts !! I gotta get out there now! Theres another monster with my name on it!

[RK]

Hiya,
Sorry it took me so long to chime in guys - been busier than a one-armed paper hanger these days, and not with fishing either This weekend though...

As far as the MN record, I think it's very likely that it's already been 'broken' by someone who quietly released it. I hear enough about giant fish from pretty credible sources to believe there are more huge fish caught out there than you ever hear about through 'normal' channels. I also do think there's a window open right now for a real giant to be caught out of a few of the MN lakes - Mille Lacs, Vermilion, Bemidji, etc. Some of the natural lakes (vs. stocked lakes) also have some strong year classes of big fish that are starting to peak. The bigger the year class, the better the odds of some of them getting out of proportion to the 'normal' maximum size at age.

60 inch fish? It's certainly possible. Like most of the things with muskies, it's about math in the end. More big fish in a system, the better the chances of one of them jumping above the theoretical maximum potential. Summer before last, just before the muskie season, Stu Legaard, the publisher at In-Fisherman, was out walleye fishing on Mille Lacs and found a floater that he measured at around 60" - close enough to be in the range anyhow. Stu couldn't exagerate if his life depended on it. If he says the fish was that big, it was. It's an example of the growth potential of both the strain of fish, and the potential of first generation fish in stocked waters to produce a real giant.

It still all comes down to genetics though. In the upcoming issue of EA we have a pretty interesting article on muskie size-at-age
based on results of the Cleithrum Project. The Cleithrum Project started in 1979, and analyzes the cleithrum bone from the pectoral girdle to determine the age of fish from a variety of waters across Canada. From the data they can predict the projected maximum size at age. The results are pretty interesting. Won't give away the whole article (have to buy EA for that ) but the projected max. size-at-age for different bodies of water varied widely. The best waters for max. length topped out at around 56".

Does that mean fish can't reach 57, 58, 59 on those waters? Certainly not. How do other bodies of waters that should theoretically top out at 52 kick out a 55? Good genetics...or in some cases, 'bad' genetics (from an evolutionary standpoint at least). I honestly think the true 'super fish' are sometimes genetic oddballs - the Manute Bols or Yao Mings of the fish world. I can't find it right now (if you saw my office you'd understand why - looks like a bomb went off in a bookstore...), but someplace in my office I have a photo of a 49", *39* pounder caught from a chain of lakes in Ontario that are known as 'numbers' lakes, which are projected by the Cleithrum Project data to top out in the mid-40" range. The thing looks like a lake trout. It's likely a genetic oddball. The K. O'Brien fish from Georgian Bay is another example. When it was analyzed by the MNR they discovered it was a sterile female. Instead of spending the energy developing eggs and spawning, it just got fatter and fatter. The fish was 58 inches long, with a 31" girth (think that's right) but only 17 years old - a youngster considering the size it attained on the body of water it came from. Another genetic oddity.

Besides the typical lakes you think of when it comes to big fish, there are also the Lake X type places - bodies of water with low incedence populations and high growth potentail. In some respects, Lac Seul is an example, but there are others around Ontario, and even a few here in MN.

These fish pop up from time to time. A friend of a friend was spearing whitefish on Leech last winter and had a muskie come through his hole. This is a guy who's held 55 inchers, and all he could say about the fish he saw through the ice was "I didn't know they got that big." During the early days on Lac Seul a friend and his partner caught and released a 57, and it wasn't the biggest fish they saw that day. Another friend may have lost the "Queen" on lake of the woods a few years back. He's caught 54s, and lots over 50 (he's one of the best muskie fishermen I know, but nobody's ever heard of him.) I saw him the day he lost the fish, and he was a wreck. I've never seen anyone that heartbroken over losing a muskie. Asked him how big it was (keep in mind, 50s are nothing new to the guy) and he just said "I don't know. It dwarfed my 54."

I don't think I've ever seen a fish over maybe 56". I 'saw' some back in the early days of my muskie fishing, but looking back now, they were probably closer to 53 than the 57 I thought they were back then. Still, fish can fool you. Someone mentioned Pete on the Ottawa - I talked to him after he got back and he still couldn't believe the fish he got was 53". He made Thorpe measure it twice. It can go the other direction too. This summer I caught a fish that both Pete and I guessed at 49. We see enough fish to both be pretty good at pegging a length within a half inch or so. It was 50.5 Made Pete measure it twice because I thought he was seeing things the first time-heh...

I have to say too that it seems like a lot of guys have rulers that start at 3 inches these days. There's no doubt that the fishery in MN has never been better in some ways (also have to say would be very easy to lose it too) and lots of big fish are being caught. Still, I hear of an awful lot of "50s" and not so many 48s and 49s. (I've said for years the most honest man in the world is the one who says he caught a 49.5" muskie... )

Really rambling here, and those who asked me what I thougt probably really regret it by now, but the bottom line is fish like we're talking about certainly exist, but are exceptionally rare. Even with as much as I fish and as much time as I spend on big fish water, my odds of catching a 58 incher are about the same as me being hit by lighting twice, winning the lottery, then being run over by the space shuttle - in the same afternoon. Not that I wouldn't look nice holding one, but I'm not holding my breath in the meantime...

Cheers,
RK

[mudman]

RK
Have you ever fished with Chad Cain?
Are him and Pete still fueding?
One of my good friends sponsor him. They fish LCO quit often some years ago.
Said he saw a 60" a couple different times but never hooked up.
My question is, is he a good source?

[Scoot]

RK,

That doesn't sound like good odds for a 58"er. I busted out the abacus and crunched some numbers- turns out my odds of a 58 incher are about 50/50. I also figured I've got a 60/40 shot at the next Powerball!

------------------
Scoot

RodsbyEngel: custom made fishing rods

[RK]

Hiya Mudman -
Yeah, I've fished with Chad. Scared the bejeezus out of him driving his Ranger around in the dark on Lake of the Woods... Tried to warn him about the bugs when it got toward dark. Funny watching him try to reel a bucktail and swat mosquitoes with his elbows and feet. Looked like he was dancin' Chad's a good fisherman and he's pretty honest about his fish. With fish that are so huge though... How do you tell a 56 from a 60 when you only see two in a lifetime? Dunno about him and Pete - not my business I guess.

Scoot - Better get that abacus into the shop man. Sure you aren't confusing an abacus with a Magic 8 ball? I never buy lottery tickets. Figure my odds of winning are about the same whether I buy one or not, so I save my $ and buy minnows instead...least I can eat walleyes. Lotto tickets taste like ****

Cheers,
RK

[Big G]

RK;

Are one of those goofy guys who chase skis by yourself when the sun goes down???

I met 2 doctors from Chicago 2 years ago on LOTW, up at Wiley Point.

Craziest thing I ever saw. They took off @ 11pm, at about 40 mph, with no lights. The older of the 2 (about a 60 year old surgeon) had been doing this for 20 some odd years. The guy knew the lake so well, he didn't use gps........Just off he went. The 2 guys did very well at night, fishing the reefs in the Narrows........

Their point of fishing skis at night up there was due to the crawdads moving shallow on the reefs at night, then the eyes would move in to feed on them, so the skis moved in to feed on the eyes........

I wasn't brave enough to do it, even though our rig has all the gps mapping systems and what not.......but these guys really scored on big fish that don't see pressure.

The guys theory was that these skis only feed at night. That there are different mentalities of skis. Kind of like how you have weed, rock, mud, wood walleyes. Some walleyes live deep, others live shallow on the same body of water........He had the same theory for skis.....some feed during the day, some at night, some live deep, some live shallow.

It made total sense and again, the guy had pics of some VERY nice, big fish from his night fishing.

My only problem with the night bite on LOTW, is that my expirience is that the walleyes kind of shut down at night.......One afternoon, into the evening, we were slip bobbering a fairly shallow reef, busting eyes left and right. Once the sun was gone, the fish were gone.......Just slowly came down to and end as the daylight came to an end........

Do you do alot of night ski fishing on LOTW?

[widetrack]

Heading out for 10days on The Woods.

Maybe queenie will pose with me this year.

I'm feeling lucky...

[RK]

Hiya Big G -

I do night fish up there a little. Honestly though, can usually be entertained enough by fish during the day that there's not a big need to do the night shift. Besides, fish from 7 AM or so to dark, and you're pretty used up by nightfall.

Plus, it's dangerous as all get out. I know parts of the lake pretty well and I'm pretty comfortable running some areas at night, but still, only have to be a little off to hurt yourself - or worse. GPS helps a lot of course, but darkness can make a bad situation worse when you're running around in a rock garden. Plus fishing at night is just a pain in the kazoo in general.

That having been said...

There is something to the night bite up there. Whether they're different fish or what, who knows, but stuff goes on after dark. Strange this is, it doesn't necessarily happen at the same spots as the day activity. That sort of carries over to early morning. If you're out at the crack of dawn, the fish aren't necessarily where you put them to bed.

I haven't done the night deal enough (and maybe never will frankly) to say anything definite beyond "it's intriuging" though.

Widetrack - hope so man... Catch some.

Cheers,
RK

[Scoot]

Widetrack,

You'd up your odds of a picture with "The Queen" if you'd just wear a Bison sweatshirt!!!

Good luck, I hope you stick a pig.

------------------
Scoot

RodsbyEngel: custom made fishing rods

[AWH]

RK,

You're always a wealth of information. Glad you chimed in and I look forward to the next EA issue!

And thanks for the compliment too. You said "the most honest man in the world is the one who says he caught a 49.5" muskie". Well, I haven't caught one, I've actually caught 3 at 49.5" now. And that's without cracking the 50" mark. Am I jinxed or is my time coming? I'm thinking that once I pop that first 50", then watch out! So those super fish that we're talking about? I don't think they have anything to worry about with me. But then again, maybe I'll get that 60" fish that's out there instead of getting that first 50". Wishful thinking....

AWH

[widetrack]

54 was as close as I could get this week...

Maybe next year....

[Chad711]

NICE, Fat!

[Fish-n-Freak]

Here is some info I found -- the maximum size note is worth sharing. It only gives us a small window to break the World Record, about 4 pounds more than Spray's fish.

Steve

***********************

Both male and female muskellunge can live to be over 30 years of age?

Female muskellunge usually reach maturity at age 5, males typically one year earlier?

Female muskellunge can add 30% to their body mass in eggs prior to spawning?

Females grow much larger and faster than males?

Muskellunge populations can have a broad range of growth rates and ultimate sizes?

********************************

Theoretically female muskellunge can grow to 68 inches and 73.5 pounds.

********************************

Source: Casselman and Crossman. 1999 Cleithrum Project Booklet

References

* Casselman, J.M. and C.J. Robinson. 2000. Muskellunge age and growth analysis for northwestern Ontario. Manuscript. Ministry of Natural Resources. Research, Science, and Technology Branch, Glenora Fisheries Station, Picton, Ontario. 24 pp.

* (1). Casselman, J.M. and C.J. Robinson. 1995. Age and growth of trophy muskellunge from selected southeastern Ontario water bodies, 1979-1994. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Research, Science, and Technology Branch, Glenora Fisheries Station, Picton, Ontario.

* (2). Casselman, J.M. and E.J. Crossman. 1986. Size, age, and growth of trophy muskellunge and muskellunge-northern pike hybrids-- the cleithrum project, 1979-1983. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 15: 93-110.

* (3). Porter, L.R. 1977. Review of selected literature on muskellunge life history, ecology and management. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Section of Fisheries. Special Publication No. 119.

* (4). Weatherley, A.H. and H.S. Gill. 1987. The biology of fish growth. Academic Press, New York.

* To our Muskellunge Bibliography.

Also of interest: From FishOntario, Blair Dawson considers the World Record Potential of Canadian Waters .