Would you keep a potential state record?

[esoxhunter11]

I am just wondering what everyone's thoughts are on keeping a state record. I personally dont know if I would. Up to a couple years ago I thought I would with out question. I thought I would have kept my first big fish, then I caught a girthy 49" and I told myself it would have to be over 50", I still have not caught one over 50" but I dont think I would keep one unless it was over 54" and I still am not sure.

I wish there was a way to confirm a state record and release the fish at the same time.

I like to see records fall, but I also like to see the fish swim away and potentially get bigger.

My question is would you keep a state record and what would you feel about someone keeping a state record?

[Hoffer]

If I caught the state record I would knock it over the head with my mag light as fast as I could.

[Hoffer]

Just kidding.

Its just a dream...but if I caught the state record...I would take a pic and send it back. The guy on Mille Lacs this Fall did the same thing. He caught the state record for sure. Next year the same thing will happen. It will be a little bigger. But thankfully Musky guys - especially the big timer hunters - are all catch and release.

I think its just too bad that a state record fish has to be killed in order to be certified. But at the same time...I guess how else could

you verify things??

Maybe we should have 2 record books? One for a fish that was killed and weighed and one for a fish that was measured with girth vs. weight and also photographed. What could it hurt? Plus. I would love to look through the state record photographed fish...that would be cool.

I think its time the state (and other organizations) utilize some out of the box thinking to recognize a great fish catch.

[Esox_Magnum]

Not 1 hesitation about it, take a pic and send her back to her home....

[AaronM]

No.

The state record has zero impact on me as is. I wouldn't be able to tell you who has caught any state record fish. More impressive to me are the people that catch these massive fish and throw them back. I hope to have the same opportunity to get a picture with one of those giants and throw her back.

[JPenny]

A "grab & grin" photo and a release shot is all I'd want. The problem with having a C&R record as mentioned would be all that measuring of length plus girth and then the photo session, is the time out of water and the methods used for getting these measurements. Sure, you can get these measurements in the water, but will everybody do this? A lot of well intentioned folks will still bring that fish on board, lay it on the floor of the boat (removing protective slime), get the tape out and measure it, then want several photos. All of this takes a tremendous toll on the fish and survival is certainly questionable. C&R is only successful if the fish survives.

[Hoffer]

JPENNY

I agree with you.

However, every big fish is already getting measured and photographed anyway. I mean maybe not every big fish...but even the most recent ones of the biggies caught on Mille Lacs were measured and photographed anyway.

The guy that just caught that one (its on the Muskie thread) and measured it and photographed it would have potentially had the state record. Why not create a 2nd category and this guy then could have had his pic and fish listed. Its being done anyway...

[Musky Buck]

What is the life expectancy of a fish when it gets past that 50 pound mark ? They were catching those 5 years ago shouldn't they be 60 pounders now ? I'd have no problem with someone keeping a state record fish as it may or may not have but a few years left in it anyway, but on my end I couldn't even afford the mount lol so she's going back with the hope she has several years left in her. I'd take a picture and then video the release, that's what we do with all our muskies over 45".

[TruthWalleyes]

I don't fish muskies, but i treasure Catfish and Sturgeon as you Muskie Heads treasure ski's.. Given the opportunity to catch a state record catfish or sturgeon - I'd happily release the beast to swim another day. Couldn't bring myself to harvest such a trophy. One of the reasons i love fishing - Can catch em and release em.

[10,000 Casts]

IMO the Record is now 58lbs and if I caught anything under that it wouldn't be the state record and I would know it wasn't the state record everytime I saw my name in the record books. If I catch one over 58 pounds, I will keep it.

[mainbutter]

What is the life expectancy of a fish when it gets past that 50 pound mark ?

Not long. Muskies are shorter lived than northern pike and many other species, heck crappies have potential to life longer than skis.

Including angler harvest, I'd guess a 50lb musky in MN probably only has a life expectancy of 1-2 years, with potential to life 5 more. You can probably estimate a 4 foot musky is somewhere around a decade old, and 15-20 years is where you can probably see old age being a big factor in mortality

[Hoffer]

Yes...the general rule for a Muskie is 15 to 20 years.

Crappies are around 6 to 10 years.

Heres another way to look at this.

Lets say you caught a new state record Muskie and it was 59 pounds.

You figure "what the heck... this thing is going to die in another year or 2...might as well harvest it and get my name in the record books.".

What if it was released and lived another 1 to 2 years?

Do you think its weight maxed out at that 59 pound range and just as humans kind of reach into their old age...start losing weight?

Or would that 59 pounder actually instead pack on another 5 pounds in its last 1 to 2 years?

You have to admit a 59 pounder is out of this world...but a 64 pounder is even more impressive by many more factors.

I mean if thats the case...I would have to say I would still definitely release it. But instead, if I had the "crystal ball" somehow to know that fish was just going to actually go down in size as it reached the last few months of its life...I may...and I repeat MAY keep it.

[certified jumbo]

if i caught a state record musky, i would keep it for sure. but i would let everything else go.

[AaronM]

Out of curiosity, to the guys that say that would keep it, why?

Is it holding a record? Being recognized in a sport you love?

[James_R]

I would either mount a state record fish to decorate my house or fillet it and eat it. Throwing such an elderly fish back with not long to live just seems too wasteful.

[SimilarIsland]

I think it's wise to also consider the genetics of keeping a larger fish alive for breeding, even if it's only a year or two.

[esoxhunter11]

I do believe fish grow through out there life span. It may not put on more weight but it will continue to get longer.

and as far as keeping big fish in for spawning, I think some fish do have better genetics than others but, I believe an old fish may be sterile anyway.

[ted4887]

No.

More impressive to me are the people that catch these massive fish and throw them back. I hope to have the same opportunity to get a picture with one of those giants and throw her back.

This ^ ^

[Sorgy]

No one knows how long these fish will live. 1 year, 5 years 10 years or more?????

One thing is for sure. A 19 year old muskie that breaks the state record at aprox 58.7 lbs that is killed will NEVER EVER BECOME A 60 POUND FISH.

However if that fish is released as Roger did it could be caught again this year, next year of 5 years from now--- don't go around saying it is going to die within a year- knowbody knows how long they will for sure live.

Congrats to Jason for puting his clients on state record fish twice in one week. Roger I hope to see the pics of your finished mount.

Sorry I don't remember the other Guy from Iowa. I applaud both of you for your release of these giants--- Nice Job

Steve

[Musky Buck]

I think to some of the deal is how fast that big girl gets to lets say 50 pounds if it's a younger 50 pounder who ate well vs. an old old fish that just got there, anyway I would have video and a couple pictures and that would be plenty, I'm letting her go and boy would I like to view her deposit of eggs the next spring. I wouldn't want to stop fishing most likely and my livewell could never hold her. If someone keeps the record it's no problem really, then most if not all muskies near the new record would be released etc. It's all good, it's pretty cool that we can even talk about fish in this 50+ category.

[skee0025]

I'd keep it. Just think if no one kept them, there would be no records. It would also give the DNR and biologist a chance to get information and perform any tests they wanted to...expanding their knowledge of the species.

[DTro]

I think the fact that there is a pretty healthy population of fish right at the threshold or even bigger than the current record would also help in making my decision. OK, I keep this fish and kill it, but next week a bigger one is killed and so on and so forth

For example the Sturgeon record is broke just about every year in fact again just in the past couple of days. Thats because there is a lot of record breaking fish out there. You can't say that for most other species.

No doubt about it, Musky regs and the social stigma of keeping a big fish has succeeded in making the MN fishery maybe the best in the country, who's to say how far it can go. Seems like 55 is the new 50.

C&R records just don't work well, especially with such a large species that you would need to keep alive for official confirmation. You would NEVER be able to trust people to submit their own. Yeah, yeah, I know all the arguments about picture verification...length/girth....etc etc. Trust me, it doesn't work and people will stretch it how ever much they can, GUARANTEED. You WILL have blurry pictures, and judgmental issues that will turn into a huge Pandora box.

In my opinion, recognizing trustworthy people within the Musky community and keeping track of your own catch and release record will have just as much merit or more as the MNDNR whacking it and bringing it back to be analyzed.

[LightningBG]

If I was 90% sure it was actually a new record, by more than a few ounces, I'd keep it. If it was close, but even/under, I'd let it go.

Lets say it was 60lbs. Sure, the fish could live another 1-5 years, maybe more. But it also could start losing weight next week. Animal species do have biological limits. Would someone ever argue that if we left all the big ones, many will get to 70lbs? Why not? How about 65? 62? At what number do they simply not grow anymore? Evolution and exterior forces, may allow them to get bigger over many generations, but they could also get smaller. Would you leave that Tirdy Point buck with the hopes that he gets to 40 next year? (even if it was fenced)? Maybe lots of these record book animals are simply freaks of nature with genetic "defects" that actually make them this big. Maybe it's not ideal to have them passing genes. Maybe their are adverse affects that go along with the great size of a genetically mutated fish. What if you caught a 65lb fish that upon inspection was sterile and always had been? Lots of maybes.

Even if I was in the record book, I'm not sure I'd want my name. Maybe LightningBG. I'm not interested in any fanfare that could go along with a record.

[TruthWalleyes]

Heaven forbid a fish dies naturally.

[LightningBG]

The nature would be me killing it.

Either way, I dont fish for Musky, so everyone/fish is safe from me. And I'm not a great fisherman, so most fish are pretty safe from me.