Dylan33 Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 I think this story has come up here before- but wanted to get everyone's take on it again- it is a confirmed world record muskie. Seems to me, that if musky fisherman cared at all about records, that MN would have broken this "world record" many times over in the past few years. World Record Muskie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuKiddingMe Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 Haha - I'm going to pull up a chair and grab some popcorn, this could be fun! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yooperguy Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 You mean the fish that a make believe record org. That made up their own record? They only have one fish as their record. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinkfloyd4ever Posted April 5, 2013 Share Posted April 5, 2013 and its 58.........or 59 inches Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esox_Magnum Posted April 5, 2013 Share Posted April 5, 2013 We got to start someplace since the old so called records cant be verified and many reliable claims they were false.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yooperguy Posted April 5, 2013 Share Posted April 5, 2013 Like that old Ken O'brien 65 pound record from 1987? This so called modern record bunch are nothing but clowns. Heck even the fish Art Bearfoot caught that is the IGFA 17 pound line class record is bigger then this so called "world record " . That fish was 59 pounds also caught in the mid eighties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANOPY SAM Posted April 5, 2013 Share Posted April 5, 2013 Is it possible that this is considered a "line-class" world record? The article does say he was fishing for smallmouth bass, and switched to live bait, so perhaps he was using very light line (6-8 lb. mono)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGRED07 Posted April 5, 2013 Share Posted April 5, 2013 and so it begins!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrklean Posted April 5, 2013 Share Posted April 5, 2013 Is it possible that this is considered a "line-class" world record? The article does say he was fishing for smallmouth bass, and switched to live bait, so perhaps he was using very light line (6-8 lb. mono)? was wondering the samething, the article is very poorly written lots of details missing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeguy 54 Posted April 5, 2013 Share Posted April 5, 2013 8 pound test the comments say... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordie Posted April 5, 2013 Share Posted April 5, 2013 They only have one fish as their record. You can't have a record until the first one is a recorded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ammoman16 Posted April 5, 2013 Share Posted April 5, 2013 How long until the new ones aren't modern anymore? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graf703 Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 In their defense, I know a few people from the Winter area near Hayward Wisconsin. I understand why they would want to start a "modern" federation.Louis Spray is a well known celebrity around there. It isn't for catching a record musky it is for lying, stealing, and faking to gain anything he wanted. His friend of equal quality Widmer said that Spray's fish was "The only honest story he ever told." But that is why we have the suspicion about that fish that has set off years of other speculation.This just helps me confirm that my fish isn't a line class record. 52" long from Eagle Lake caught on 8 lb braid with a 3 ft floro leader. I did look and the current mono was only 50" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shawn Kellett Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 Ummmm, I'm pretty sure that there have been several fish bigger then that one caught in MN over the past 3-5 years (I know of several myself). The difference is that the anglers in MN know the value of their fishery and put them back. In MI (especially N MI) they care so little for their fish and the muskie fishery that the allow them to be speared. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordie Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 In MI (especially N MI) they care so little for their fish and the muskie fishery that the allow them to be speared. Didn't that fish come from a lake with spearing allowed and I guess I wouldn't call it not caring for the fish but caring for the sports people in that state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shawn Kellett Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 Imagine what their fishery could be if they eliminated the spearing? I know people who live up there and 50"ers are the exception and rarely encountered compared to MN. There's a reason why MN is a muskie destination and N MI isn't. Caring for the majority 99% (anglers) vs the 1% (spearers) is caring for the sportsman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yooperguy Posted April 14, 2013 Share Posted April 14, 2013 Having lived there for fifty years Kellett is spot on. My home water in Newberry had a 30 inch minimum years after the 42 went into effect. People care more about trout and perch than pike and muskies. In fact you still see very few fish muskies there and the release rate is below even Wisconsin. I'm glad I moved to Minnesota for sure! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now ↓↓↓ or ask your question and then register. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.