Would you keep a potential state record?

[50inchpig]

I'm letting her go but I'd definitely post some pics on the interweb and enjoy the circus.

I'm also on the trail of a big metro albino. I'd let her swim too but would enjoy catching it every bit as much as a state record.

[EBass]

I'd let it go. Besides catching it, the next coolest thing is watching it swim away.

[AaronM]

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.

Enjoyed this post lightning, needed a chuckle after reading a few different opinions!

[CANOPY SAM]

If I had a fish that by all accounts looked to easily break into the record books, there's no doubt I would do everything possible to put it there.

I think a more appropriate question is why is there social stigma surrounding the harvesting of a record book musky, but not so much with a walleye, or even a northern pike, or maybe even a huge white-tailed buck?

It's true that one can never really tell how much longer they will live, or how much bigger they will get, but most scientific studies indicate that these old giants are not particularly valuable in reproduction of more of their species. A giant old fish may still produce 100's of thousands of eggs each year, but most of these eggs are not viable...they don't even fertilize, let alone grow to adulthood. And there's a pretty good chance that you are catching this magnificent creature at the peak of it's adulthood.

That's why "slots" were created. To protect the middle-aged, most reproductively viable egg producers. This resource protection approach has proven time and time again to not only bolster the population, but also create a group of large adults in a species that would have otherwise likely been harvested.

Another good point has already been made. The timing of the catch is critical to the size of the fish. These Mille Lacs giants show up at this time each year (albeit not quite this big) as they're really putting on the feedbag, and are at their heaviest weight of the year prior to ice up, and pre-spawn egg production. The same fish caught post-spawn, following the long, cold, nearly dormant winter, would be many, many pounds lighter.

I admire the musky community for the CPR mentality, and it's certainly played a huge role in creating a great Minnesota fishery, but when a fish reaches record book proportions, just like a giant antlered white-tailed deer, I don't think a person should be chastised for harvesting the animal, and achieving a little personal recognition for accomplishing an extremely rare achievement.

If it's unquestionably one that will make the record books, I'd be proud to have it on my wall, and have replicas all over the country for other people to enjoy.

[CRBass]

Canopy,

I'd like to read some of those scientific papers. I've heard people refer to some, but I've never had the chance to read them. Could you tell me where I can find them? Thanks.

[aanderud]

Are you sure that the reason the "slot" has a top end is because those fish aren't useful as spawners? Their eggs really aren't viable?

I haven't read any of these scientific studies either, and so I had guessed that the top-end of the slot was implemented to allow people to keep a trophy fish...sort of a compromise that allows protection of MOST spawners (the ones in the protected slot) while still giving the license-payers a chance to take that trophy home (which only affect the small fraction of 'good' spawners -- those that that exceed the slot).

[CANOPY SAM]

I wish I could point you guys to specific information, but I'm going to have to leave it up to you to do the research. It's actually kind of "old hat", stuff that was talked about a lot 10, 15, 20 years ago, back when the thought of releasing any fish was sacrilegious.

There is a part of the "trophy" mentality that goes into slot selection, "incentivising" folks to fish, but in large part it's designed almost entirely to protect the group of fish that are reproductively the most viable.

Just know this, and frame it up in a logical fashion, fish are not particularly different than any other warm blooded, or cold blooded creature on earth. Just like humans they have a window of time when they are at the peak of their reproductive viability. Beyond this time frame can they continue to produce? Yes, but to a much lesser degree, and they are "past their prime", and have passed on their "giant fish" genetics to about the greatest extent they can during their prime.

Once they pass their prime, just like an old heifer, or old bull, they just aren't firing on all cylinders anymore. There's a legitimate, and serious reason why doctors discourage women from getting pregnant beyond the age of 40! Other animals are much the same.

I've followed fisheries biology for much of my life, and much, if not all of the research I've read, supports what I'm sharing with you now. Again, I can't point you to particular publications, but I'm confident that every fisheries biologist out there will tell you the same thing.

Giant fish are rare, and we all know how infrequently we even HEAR of one being captured, let alone catching one ourselves. Fish of record book proportions likely only attain that size for a reasonably small window of time each year, and for only a few years before their natural, or unnatural demise.

I'm not advocating killing lots of big fish. I'm simply saying, if it were up to me, and I had a genuine record book contender in hand, I'd take the shot. The fish, deer, or whatever else the game, may grow to be a bit larger, but ultimately it will either die on it's own, or someone else will claim the prize within a year or two. Simple as that.

[tolle141]

I think the stigma against a record is that the system for registering one is old and out of tune with musky culture. We all want a record, but we work too hard to protect these fish. There should be a way to get one for the record books and let it live.

[aanderud]

In the last year, there have been state record blue catfish caught in at least 4 states that I know of, and ALL of them were released. The closest example is south dakota. There's no reason a DNR officer couldn't meet someone at a ramp with a scale and get the fish weighed and released. Would every one of these fish survive the stress? No, of course not.

On the other hand, if people are really only keeping what is a legitimate shot at a state record, that's not a lot of fish being removed from the ecosystem. Can't fault a guy for playing within the rules that the MN DNR makes them play in.

[CANOPY SAM]

Aanderud. That's the point I was getting at in another musky thread. Seems like somehow we should be able to get a reasonably quick response to a call for someone to come out and measure, weigh, and record an "official" state record fish, allowing us to release the fish with as little stress as possible, and still get it in the record books.

Seems like technology today should make that fairly easy. Especially on our big five, or big seven lakes here in Minnesota. There's almost certainly a DNR rep nearby, or available at almost any given time, on our bigger bodies of water.

I'd wager there was someone who could've officially weighed and measured these last few 50+ lb. muskies out of Mille Lacs, within a few miles of the catch, at the time of the catch.

I think a state record musky, especially caught at this time of year, out of pretty cold water, would stand a very good chance of surviving a slightly delayed release.

[aanderud]

I agree. I think out of cool water, every one of those fish would survive. They might have a bad day recovering from the boat ride back to the ramp and whatnot, but they'll be kickin hard tomorrow.

[Esox_Magnum]

Many don't have a way to transport a fish of that caliber as many if not all of us muskie guys use our livewells for storage, baits ect... You are also looking at large bodies of water that take time to navigate and also the travel time to even get to the water.... Put a big muskie in a livewell you are basicly killing it.....

[CANOPY SAM]

Just ease your way over to a landing and have an official rep meet you there. Badda bing, Badda boom...away she swims.

[10,000 Casts]

I suppose it's Deer season but why doesn't the DNR have a boat out on the SE corner of Mille Lacs. If they gave their cell # out and put a certified scale in their boat or at Buzzys, problem fixed. And with the amount of boats out their in these cold temps, they should be out there anyway.

[Esox_Magnum]

Just ease your way over to a landing and have an official rep meet you there. Badda bing, Badda boom...away she swims.

So say I'm in WakumUp Narrows and the place the DNR wants to meet is at the Landing, not as simple as easing your way about 6 miles or more....Or your on the West end of the Pond and they are set up on the SE side... Theselakes arent ponds and ifaguy only has a 60hp motor could take 30-40 minutes to get to the landing providing the lakes calm enough to make it.. IMO putting a fish in a livewell is totaly unacceptable, to many bad things can happen even without the stress factor...

[aanderud]

IMO putting a fish in a livewell is totaly unacceptable, to many bad things can happen even without the stress factor...

Nobody said that all the fish would live if the DNR came up with a catch-and-release-compatible record procedure....in fact I said up in my post where I mentioned the 4 state record blue cats that all of the fish wouldn't live. The point is SOME record-breaking fish would certainly live to fight another day if the DNR had some mechanism in place to do this type of thing. Maybe instead of hauling them to shore in a livewell, hte person who catches him could tie the fish up on a stringer or throw it in a decoy bag and wait out on the middle of the lake until the DNR gets to you

Yeah, 10000 casts, we could pretend like having the DNR launch a boat for a record-verification would happen every day and break the budget, or possibly take all the wardens away from deer hunting if you want. Somehow I just don't think the record is going to be broken THAT often LOL.

[10,000 Casts]

Break the budget? They should be out there anyway.

[mweb_21]

Ok. First off, congratulations to everyone who has caught these huge fish this fall, many of which could have been state records! (I am guessing that's what sparked this topic to begin with). The fact that so many of these fish are being caught and are alive in our waters just goes to show how the "musky culture" of releasing fish has allowed the opportunities of state records to become capable. Hats off to those who have caught these fish of a lifetime, and released them!

That being said, if someone catches a potential state record fish, I feel like they should have the right to do with the fish as they please. The regulations we currently have set up to grow trophy fish (that is why, along with the the muskie etiquette) allow these fish to grow that large in the first place. I know the muskie fishing community has a specific view on catch and release, but why does the DNR set their limits differently? Is the goal only to create world record quality fish in our waters, or is it to enable trophy potential? I think the DNR regulations, as well as the muskie fishing etiquette, has enabled both of these goals to be achievable (I think MuskieBuck may have been getting at this earlier). We can see this by the fish that are being caught each year.

And the whole idea of the state or DNR being there to weigh the fish alive and then releasing it is a good idea, but I do not see how it would be feasable or an economical idea. If you put a fish in the livewell (if you have one big enough for a fish that big) and haul it accross miles of lake to have it weighed, the chances of mortality go way up. If you care that much for the state record weigh in, then you may as well just kill the fish (which would be entirely in your right to do so). Biologically, who knows what the potential of that fish will be? It may die next year naturally or perhaps it could live 5 more years.

I caught a 53 inch fish this year in late October, and released it just as if it were any other fish. In fact, it never crossed my mind and nobody in the boat even mentioned keeping the fish until about a half hour later when it sunk in.. That was the fish of a lifetime! I likely will never catch a fish that big again, but we all knew it was not even close to a record. One thing people need to consider is how difficult it actually is to catch a fish the size of a state record. Not saying they are plentiful, but we all know there are many fish that could break the record in many of the big lakes throughout the state. If a potential state record is released, what do you think the chances are of it being caught again before it dies? Just total speculation, but the chances can not be too good, especially when the record window is short (only in the fall).

This all being said, if I were to catch a fish that I thought could break the state record, I am not sure what I would do with it. The odds are this will mever happen so I will not have to deal with that decision. But if I were to keep the fish, I do not feel like I should endure any wrath or punishment at all from anybody.

What would the problem be with someone keeping that fish? They would have it on the wall saying that it was the fish of a lifetime and they were in the right place at the right time, and a pound or so shy of a record. Could you fault them for that? I don't think so. There are bigger fish out there!!! Lets go catch them, and then see what happens

[aanderud]

...I do not see how it would be feasable or an economical idea. If you put a fish in the livewell (if you have one big enough for a fish that big) and haul it accross miles of lake to have it weighed, the chances of mortality go way up. If you care that much for the state record weigh in, then you may as well just kill the fish

Personally, I think the frequency with which record fish are caught is so low that there's probably not a huge difference in the fishery's quality if people just kill a fish to claim a record...but options would be nice.

Catch and release records certified by the DNR in realtime is obviously feasible both logistically and economically if other states are currently doing it. We know that there's a 100% chance the fish dies if you take it home. There's a less-than-100% that it dies if you throw it in a livewell and haul it across the lake -- not ideal for the fish, but a chance of living is better than none right? There's an even better chance for it to live if you just hold it in the water where you caught it (perhaps in a large decoy bag or on a stringer) while waiting for the DNR to show up.

Who knows, on any given day perhaps the DNR is already on the water. A certified scale in every boat can't be that expensive. Probably cheaper than a weekend's worth of gas. If the DNR isn't on the water already, then maybe they could offer to come weight it at some cost. Perhaps the record seeker would pay for it, or would have a group like muskies inc help foot the bill. There's a million possibilities but my point is there would/could be some option other than the 100% death-probability we have today.

[AaronM]

Esox,

Do you have an email where I could reach you?

If not I believe mine is in my profile, I have something I would like to run by you.

[CANOPY SAM]

Hey, no secrets here!

I'm not arguing about this either. I just think, in a civilized society, with cell phone technology what it is, if I can order a pizza and wings over the phone, and they can get it to me hot and fresh within 30 minutes, then the same could and should apply to weighing a big trophy fish.

Again, many, if not all our big 5 lakes in Minnesota already very likely have CO's, in boats, on the water, on almost everyday one can fish. If they're not on the water, they're certainly nearby, at a fisheries station, in a DNR office, or somewhere within a reasonable distance.

If this weren't an option, then perhaps they (the DNR) could designate a few locations, grocery stores, meat counters, or pizza delivery guys, that could get paid a small stipend to officially weigh, measure, and photograph a fish for someone quickly, at a landing whenever possible, or even meet them half way, with the fish lazily finning in a submerged basket of some type?

All one really needs is a certified scale, a certified tape measure, a decent camera, a couple witnesses, and your done and done. Off she swims.

[AaronM]

Hey, no secrets here!

I'm not arguing about this either. I just think, in a civilized society, with cell phone technology what it is, if I can order a pizza and wings over the phone, and they can get it to me hot and fresh within 30 minutes, then the same could and should apply to weighing a big trophy fish.

Again, many, if not all our big 5 lakes in Minnesota already very likely have CO's, in boats, on the water, on almost everyday one can fish. If they're not on the water, they're certainly nearby, at a fisheries station, in a DNR office, or somewhere within a reasonable distance.

If this weren't an option, then perhaps they (the DNR) could designate a few locations, grocery stores, meat counters, or pizza delivery guys, that could get paid a small stipend to officially weigh, measure, and photograph a fish for someone quickly, at a landing whenever possible, or even meet them half way, with the fish lazily finning in a submerged basket of some type?

All one really needs is a certified scale, a certified tape measure, a decent camera, a couple witnesses, and your done and done. Off she swims.

But it's so much fun to talk about you. Kidding of course, but this thread has given me an idea.

[PurpleFloyd]

It's a personal decision for the person catching the fish and they should be left alone to do as they please whether that is an immediate release or in the cooler for fillets.

[Esox_Magnum]

Esox,

Do you have an email where I could reach you?

If not I believe mine is in my profile, I have something I would like to run by you.

[email protected]

[bturg]

At least in MN the "record" is only a registration technicality. Bigger fish have been released a number of times in the past half dozen years. Any kept fish is only a paper champion at best.

The true reason to release the biggest fish is to share the experience of the catch with another angler. Most mature muskies will be caught a number of times over the course of their lifetime...we recycle these fish so other may share in the experience. Even if the fish is at it's max weight potential and possibly trending towards being sterile the reasoning behind harvest based on those factors is flawed. It's not a trophy buck...once and done. Even a "past prime fish" will provide the next angler a rush of excitement on the next encounter. Who wouldn't want to catch one of those giants at a less than prime 45-50 pound weight next season...and maybe they aren't peak and will get to 65lb, how would we find out if they had gotten wack'd.

If the angler('s) who caught them previously had harvested those fish they would never have been caught this fall and shared with the angling comunity.

Pass it on to the next angler...the thrill of the hunt is enhanced knowing those fish exist. Their true value is simply the fact that they are there.