57"er from leech

[mudman]

did anyone else see this fish?

[RuKiddingMe]

I seen the pic on the outdoor news HSOforum. It's a great fish, looks nice and healthy, a sweet catch in anyones book. And here comes the BUT, I find it really hard to beleive that fish is 57". Seems I'm not alone, there is a discussion about it on another HSOforum... Please don't think of this as bashing, I'm just stating my observation.

RU

[mudman]

That is exactly why I brought it up, I too saw it in the outdoor news and thought, 57"? No way! 52"-54" I could see but 57" looked a little fishy to me.

By any means still a great fish, I wish I would have landed it!

[Hugo]

I just saw it this morning and thought the same thing. 47" sure, 57" doubtful.

Hugo

[LEECH21]

Here's that fish. I agree, I think he got his 4 and 5 mixed up.

http://www.outdoornews.com/OUTDOORNEWS/sites/outdoornews/0230Edition/skie.jpg

[TMan]

I agree, no way is that 57".

[Gustafson]

Yeah, that fish is not 57", its a gorgeous fish and I would love to boat one like that, but it probably isn't more than 52". Great fish though!

[Scoot]

Those pics can really be deceiving. A smaller fish can look big and a bigger fish can look small.

[Neighboor]

50" inch tops. Also, too bad he breaking his spine.

[hanson]

Scoot-

I'm no muskie fisherman by any stretch of the imagination but I've definitly paid enough attention to my Musky Hunter & Esox Angler magazines and various other photos in publications to know that 57" is stretching the truth on that fish.

I will give the benefit of the doubt to him being a larger, taller guy but I still don't think so.

Anyway, no doubt it is an awesome fish. It will probably take me 10 more years to catch one as big as that at the rate I'm going!

[andy j]

I don't know if it is a 57" but he does look like a big guy, that might make the fish look smaller, I would say it is at least 50"

[Brian Jones]

Breaking his spine???

[Greg Clusiau]

For what it's worth, here's a short article I wrote several years ago:

LEECH LAKE'S MONSTER

by Greg Clusiau

The following tales are about one huge musky that roams the fishing rich waters of Leech Lake. Leech, the fourth largest lake in Minnesota, sprawls out for over 112,000 acres and reaches depths of up to 178 feet. This fantastic fishery is a favorite among anglers across the nation, offering quality fishing for most of Minnesota's game fish. Although it is famous for most of these species, it is the mighty musky that reigns supreme.

The author believes these tales are about one fish in particular, because of its immense size. It is possible, however, that there are a few fish of this magnitude.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Before we get started, consider that the Minnesota state record musky, caught in 1957 on Lake Winnibigoshish weighed 54 pounds. Also consider that the world record musky tipped the scale at just under 70 pounds. The author believes this fish would easily surpass the state record and just might be a new world record, if anyone could catch it.

As a courtesy to the anglers involved, some of the information about the baits used and the general whereabouts fished may appear vague. In some instances, the fisherman's name has been withheld. The stories, however, are true.

Leech Lake, Minnesota, about ten years ago.........Ted had just caught his best musky to date, a 37 pound 10 ounce fish that measured 52 inches. He was back to the same spot on the very next day and was casting the same bait when he saw the fish of a lifetime. Ted had just cast out a bucktail, which had fouled up on him. He was "ripping" the bait back at high speed so he could straighten it out for another cast when the big fish followed to the boat. It made his 37 pounder from the day before "look like a minnow." The back of the fish was estimated to be at least ten inches wide, or better. When asked the size of the fish, he responded "How do you know? There's nothing to compare it to!"

About seven years ago.........Brian Griffith, a musky guide from Deer River, Minnesota, saw what could of been the same fish that Ted had seen. Brian tells of a hot day with the water being flat calm. There was, however, a storm moving in. He was working a Suick jerkbait back to the boat, when it "didn't feel right." Griffith was in the front of the boat and the bait was behind the boat's transom so he couldn't get a good look at it. He gave it another jerk and as the bait ended up laying on the water in front of him, he saw what he described as an apparition. Something, dark in color, was directly below his bait. As it became larger, it changed to white in color. It was then that Griffith recognized it as a very huge musky mouth, wide open. It came straight up, missing the Suick by an inch. It continued to come out of the water, until it was above the gunnel of the boat. Brian said "a nine inch Suick would of easily fit sideways in the fishes mouth." He also added "do you know what the scary part is? I never got a chance to see any of the fish's body. It was all head and neck sticking out of the water! The head alone looked to be at least 16 to 18 inches long!"

One month later.........It was during the annual Muskie Inc. International Tournament, when Brian Griffith's fishing partner, Rodney, saw the behemoth musky. They were fishing in the same general area, when he heard Rodney mumble "what's that?" It was followed up by "oh my God." Brian, who was in the front of the boat, couldn't see anything at first but as the big musky slowly followed Rodney's bait past the back of the boat he got a good look at it. At least some of it. The transom cutout on the boat measured 54 inches. All that Griffith was able to see was body, which he estimated to be 18 inches deep. No head or tail was seen before the fish sank out of sight!

About five years later, 1994..........A musky enthusiast from Keewatin, Minnesota, was casting in roughly the same area. He was told this spot by Brian Griffith. Brian hadn't seen the big fish for the last five years and figured it might be dead. The big musky hit a bucktail and when the hooks were set, it just laid there, not moving. The angler couldn't budge the fish and it was long before it came to the surface, shaking the lure free. It was only hooked for about five seconds but it was enough for the fisherman to get a good look. He said he had never seen anything like it, comparing the head to a five gallon pail! This was coming from a musky fisherman who has caught his share of 50 inch trophies. The angler spent every free moment during the next seven weeks, until ice-up, on the exact same spot, not seeing the fish again. This was encouraging, however, because some folks thought the big fish had died, perhaps of old age. It shows up every once in a while, wetting the big fish appetite of a few anglers in the know. It's due to show up again, if it's still alive.

[guideman]

I'm wondering how many of you big fish experts have ever been close to fish that size that makes you all such experts at giving it's true length.

That fish is well over 50 and may infact be 57"s

Guessing the size of a muskie in a photo is not as easy as you all seem to think it is. Perhaps you should practice on the next big muskie you catch and see how accurate your estimations are before you discredit someone elses fish.

It's no wonder why most people don't post their big fish on the web, it just isn't worth all the dump you get from the so called "Experts" that just can't accept what they are looking at.

47"?...maybe 50"? come on guys...that fish is a pig.

[Fish-n-Freak]

I would have to agree with Guideman -- That fish is huge and is all of the 57 inches claimed. My biggest is a copy of that fish! He is a big guy and holding it close to his body, he is not holding it out at arms length like so many people do. Look again and try to see the real size, the clues are there! The fishes head compared to his. His lower hand in a padded leather glove = (7-8 inches) and is just a speck on the belly of this beast.

Congrats to this fellow, he boated a monster! That fish is just shy of 50 pounds -- WOW!

Steve Sedesky

[Big G]

Thank you Terry!!!

Geesh! Talk about a bunch of "Family Fun" here about fishing???? Where is the "family" at. Good grief, talk about a bunch of "sore loosers", even the pro staffers!!!

A guy post a pic of a huge fish, which I believe is true with length and girth and everyone rips on him.

I'm a big guy and when I shot pictures of my fish, they look nowhere near as big as they are.

Look at the guy's hand, with that you can tell the length and girth of the fish.

That is the problem with this site and why I post here very little anymore. There are just too many people ripping on others here.......

[Tonka Boy]

It seems pictures hardly ever do justice. I just went through the office the other day to show off some of my fall pics. I had numerous walleyes from 22 to 29.75" and I can't tell you how many people thought they were the same fish! Some were joking, some completely stupid, but I can see their point.

I'd buy that muskie went 57". It's not impossible.

[TomWehler]

Man O Man that fish is grand.

Bet that took a little time to land.

Looks 57" BIG to me.

But what then what do I know,

living on an island can make one a might slow?

Don't care myself HOW LONG, if it is or is not 57", that beauty ROCK'S.

Photos in those positions don't always tell it like it is fer sure...way cool though.

The more that you read,

the more you will know.

The more that you learn,

the more big fishes you'll see.

Cause you never can tell

What goes on down below!

That fish MIGHT be bigger

than you an I know!

So you see!

There's no end

to the things you might know,

depending how far we let them things grow!

Big fish anyway you look at it.

Tommy

PS

Nice storys Greg, Enjoyed them a big bunch.

Thanks for sharing them.

[widetrack]

It's a big fish. It's really hard to tell unless you are there in the boat. Pictures can do funny things either way.

I've been in the boat with 26 muskies over 50 inches. Some of the pictures are great, some don't do the fish justice.

26+ inch girth is a very, very special fish though... I've only seen a couple myself.

For fun, here is a picture of my good friend with a beast he caught, and I had the pleasure of netting. Anyone care to estimate the LxG on this one??

[Mr. B]

The Largest musky I caught was a 52 inch long by 26 inch wide musky out of Leech. That was released. I have never posted the pics on this site because I do not want to hear from people that I might not be holding the fish properly or my fish is not as big as it was.

Who are we to say how large the fish is? From what I have read here he is not claiming it is a record or anything like that. Is that fish 57 inches I have no idea but it is a trophy!

Great fish and I hope that everyone gets a chance or two to tangle with fish that size.

[andy j]

Widetrack,

Wow, another monster, another 50 + lber I would say, my guess is 52 inches. That fish is so thick throughout the whole body. If anyone catchs a 60" plus fish that has the thickness of that fish, which I know are out there, you are looking at a heavy, heavy fish. Keep up the good work, you seem to know what you are doing, I am still looking for my first fish over 44"s, I had the under 40" muskie luck this year. AJ

[Tonka Boy]

Widetrack,

I won't even venture a guess. All I have to say is WOW, that is a brute!!! Congrats to your good friend.

...26 muskies over 50". I can only dream.

[Neighboor]

Hey congrats to the guys who catch these bigguns. Only the ones who actually caught and witness the taping of these fish really know the true length or girth measurements.

As far as some doubting the lenths....well, there are lots of books and folklore written about fisherman stretching the sizes of their fish. I will let you figure this out why this is and how it all came about.

For you to agree with the author of the fish you are taking his word for it. Which is fine. But what is wrong with questioning what they are saying based on our experiences and what we see in the picture? I don't know the guy who caught it, and I don't know if the guy who caught it place the caption under the fish either.

Face it photos and stories on the internet should be taken with grain of salt. How many times have you gotten these tall tale photos and stories about monster fish and man eating grizzlies? A high percentage of the time they are proven false.

Now if it were a regular FMer posting his own fish with a story I would be more inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt and believe him. How boring would this site be if no one could express their opinion. Just my 2 cents. Flame away!!

[Paul Waldowski]

BigG,

The problem is, it wasn't posted by anyone on this HSOforum. It's a link to another site and the guy that caught it hasn't even posted here. There's no personal attacks, it is just everyone stating there opinion by looking at a picture, and you know what they say about opinions

For my .02....I would say that thing is a beast and it wouldn't suprise me in the least to throw a tape on it and see it read 57

[White-tips]

I caught a 57 1/4 x 26 1/2 in June of 2000. The fish was verified by Bob Strand himself. I don't think this fish is a 57. Sorry. Nice fish though.