56 inch minimum?

[Gordie]

People want to catch 50" fish not 32"ers.

This is what it is all about and thats it.

[JackPineGuy]

Yer joking right? They only grow to have the size of pure strains. Ive caught prolly a 100 tiger muskies over 45 inches or better. so by that math pure strains grow to 90 inches? Must be the mexico muskies.... And ta say people want to catch 50s not 32s really sums up whats wrong with muskie fishing today. ive caught numerous muskies over 50 inches and i can honestly say i have better memories catching 44s, 45s, on family trips or with close friends. I agree most anglers are going for bigger fish, its just the nature of the game, but I take as much pride in releasing a 36 inch fish as I did any of my 50 plus inchers. And the fact they they only live 8 years is irrelevant considering they reach 40inches much much much quicker then pure strains. I mean duh it doesent take a rocket scientist ta figure out that tiger muskies are not going to thrive in piersons lake etc etc. But i guarantee they would in tonka and prior, or ottertail.

[Nolan]

No doubt the tigers would thirve in Tonka. The pure strains would have a harder time competing with all these tigers you want in Tonka in turn making the general size of all the muskies go down. People travel to MN to catch 50"+ not 38"s

[Musky Buck]

100 tigers over 45" wow !

[50inchpig]

And ta say people want to catch 50s not 32s really sums up whats wrong with muskie fishing today.

I had some other stuff to post here but forgot all of it after I read this and got confused.

[Musky Buck]

Strange some, man another 50" 33 pounder darnit, was hoping for a 8 pound 32" that I can waterski to the boat. You need to change your name to 32inchpig.

[Nick Kuhn]

I look at Tigers as just a huge bonus when trying to catch other fish as you really don't need muskie gear to catch them.

[kapp]

I look at Tigers as just a huge bonus when trying to catch other fish as you really don't need muskie gear to catch them.

intersting point, you do not have to have musky gear to catch a pure strain either.

question is.... if you catch a 50" fish by accident (not targeting) is it a fish that an angler would kill to have mounted?

answer is..... i think happens,

[JackPineGuy]

I can say no pure strain muskie has ever put up the fight of an avearage tiger muskie. Except 1. And I have a 50 incher in fall just pull up ta the boat like a wet towel.

[Shawn Kellett]

Yer joking right? They only grow to have the size of pure strains. Ive caught prolly a 100 tiger muskies over 45 inches or better. so by that math pure strains grow to 90 inches? Must be the mexico muskies.... And ta say people want to catch 50s not 32s really sums up whats wrong with muskie fishing today. ive caught numerous muskies over 50 inches and i can honestly say i have better memories catching 44s, 45s, on family trips or with close friends. I agree most anglers are going for bigger fish, its just the nature of the game, but I take as much pride in releasing a 36 inch fish as I did any of my 50 plus inchers. And the fact they they only live 8 years is irrelevant considering they reach 40inches much much much quicker then pure strains. I mean duh it doesent take a rocket scientist ta figure out that tiger muskies are not going to thrive in piersons lake etc etc. But i guarantee they would in tonka and prior, or ottertail.

What's wrong with someone wanting to catch a bigger fish? My biggest tiger is a 45" which I treasure. My biggest WI strain (natural)is around 52" which I treasure. My biggest pure strain is 55" which I treasure. My biggest natural reproduced pure strain is 50" which I treasure. Personally I enjoy the story of how a fish is caught as well as unique catches more then anything anymore, but the fact of the matter is people want to catch big fish. If they didn't then muskie fishing wouldn't be as popular as it is.

One other thing I've found is that tigers typically don't follow as readily as pure strain which I believe is one thing that get's people into muskie fishing. I know it's the follows that hooked me originally.

[muskiemanAD]

Yer joking right? They only grow to have the size of pure strains. Ive caught prolly a 100 tiger muskies over 45 inches or better. so by that math pure strains grow to 90 inches? Must be the mexico muskies.... And ta say people want to catch 50s not 32s really sums up whats wrong with muskie fishing today. ive caught numerous muskies over 50 inches and i can honestly say i have better memories catching 44s, 45s, on family trips or with close friends. I agree most anglers are going for bigger fish, its just the nature of the game, but I take as much pride in releasing a 36 inch fish as I did any of my 50 plus inchers. And the fact they they only live 8 years is irrelevant considering they reach 40inches much much much quicker then pure strains. I mean duh it doesent take a rocket scientist ta figure out that tiger muskies are not going to thrive in piersons lake etc etc. But i guarantee they would in tonka and prior, or ottertail.

Time to lock this thread.......

[ted4887]

Yer joking right? They only grow to have the size of pure strains. Ive caught prolly a 100 tiger muskies over 45 inches or better.

You're the Tiger Whisperer, dude.

[RK]

Hiya -

OK folks, you should all be hearing keys jingling right now...

I want to have an open, thoughtful discussion about this topic. As I said in my ODN column and have said in this thread, whether or not 56" minimum ultimately happens, I think the discussion the proposal will spark is an important one, which is why I've let this thread get a lot closer to the line than usual. But if this devolves into personal issues, out comes the paddle lock.

Don't usually give out warnings, but I want this discussion to continue...as long as it stays on topic.

RK

[Musky Buck]

After reading the outdoor news yes we need a 56". Read those comments about it there were like 6 guys questioned on it, from what I could gather by reading between the lines comments like "my walleyes" and it costs to much for a replica compared to a skin mount. It's funny these guys with a beef that they're eating all my walleyes still choose a lake with muskies in it, they do that because it must still be a better option than going to a non-musky lake or they would so there goes that argument. I still think the hammerhandle pike that hit and eat everything are easily more detrimental, how many of those per acre are there ? There are lakes where plenty of muskies are killed off each year, how many my walleye guys are there and what % mention in the boat or fishhouse or darkhouse if we get a musky it's done. Fully onboard with the 56".

[delcecchi]

Well, none of us can predict what absolutely will happen in the future, but I believe my decendants think enough of me to want and keep such trophies. Especially if they great shape. I have several trophies here in my house that came from my elders and they hold a special place here, even though they are not in the best of shape. That being said, if these mounts fall apart, and they eventually will, it will be time to let them go. Until then, they have an honored place in my house. That's the nice thing about replica mounts. They never fall apart. You might know what's right for your situation, but you have no clue what is good for my family.

So I didn't think enough of my dad to keep his deer head? That what you are saying? That's pretty judgmental don't you think?

I didn't keep my northern that was mounted by my uncle the taxidermist from when I was 10 either.

By all means keep whatever makes you happy, but don't judge others.

[Spike76]

It all comes down to what JPenny said, you might know whats right for your situation, but you have no clue what is good for my family. I agree with this statement absolutely.

[muskiemanAD]

I guess I haven't read this whole thread but what is this talk about what might be right for you is not for me and whats good for my family? All I know is when my family goes out we like there to be a healthy population of fish that are not on walls of cabins. That is good for my family....

[pinkfloyd4ever]

I have an honest question that goes to the talk about Tigers. Wouldn't some tigers naturally occur in musky lakes? I would think WBL or BE would have tigers in them because of having pure strain + northerns in the lake. I suppose the period of spawning times is a greater factor, but I would think there would be?

and I am all for raising the minimum

[muskiemanAD]

Pinkfloyd we got a 40 inch Tiger in Tonka a few years ago. I have also heard of a few other Tigers out there.

[pinkfloyd4ever]

That's what I would think, while not in the numbers of the lakes that are stocked it would just seem that there would be some swimming around. Thanks for the info MuskiemanAD

[mainbutter]

Wasn't that fatty tiger out of (I think) the St Louis a natural also? I don't know if tigers have ever been stocked there.

[tolle141]

Wasn't that fatty tiger out of (I think) the St Louis a natural also? I don't know if tigers have ever been stocked there.

Yeah. I don't think either state has, but apparently both WI and MN stock the St Louis as if it was all their own. Lots of fish in there...

[Feathers Rainin]

Lots of fish in there...

...until the flood.

CPR only would be ideal but 56 would be a good start.

[RK]

There are certainly natural hybrids out there. Biggest natural hybrid I've ever caught was a 46-incher out of Lake of the Woods, a friend caught a big one on Leech a while back... But man are they a rarity.

Sometimes things happen with lakes where you get a bump in the hybrid numbers for some reason. Water went way up on a MN lake a while back, and the pike numbers kind of took off due to the ideal spawning habitat that was suddenly available to them, and the hybrid numbers spiked along with it. Also know of a lake in Canada that had pike stocked in it illegally and for a while there were all kinds of hybrids in there. It was that lake that taught me that hybrid muskies act a lot more like pike than muskies actually.

So yeah, there are for sure some paddling around but they're really a one in a million fish unless circumstances set up ideally for them, and that is usually temporary.

[Bob Schultz]

I must say humbly and without any intent to discredit or disrespect the author of this statement---but I have never read or seen anything that related to Musky fishing that blew me away like the statement---I have probably caught 100 or more tiger Musky's over 45 inches---Im paraphrasing....

But if thats true----that is just an unbelievable accomplishment--totally mind blowing--considering growing up a a great tiger lake- fishing hard--lots of nice fish over 40--but the biggest tiger 44 inches in my boat.

LOL to me---it would be harder to catch a 100 tiger Musky's over 45 than to do what Jordan did and win 6 NBA titles---just saying---if JP has really accomplished this---I say he is the new MJ of Musky fishing---

Am I missing something here?????