Is 55 the new 50?

[setterguy]

Maybe its because of sites like FM or the growing popularity of muskie fishing but I have seen many more 50" fish caught in the last few years than I had seen in the previous 5-6. CPR has a lot to do with the larger fish, what else could be factoring in? Are there the same amount of big fish being caught, we just know about more of them because of digital photographs and websites? I am starting to think my 52 that I got last year isn't as special as it once was. Or is it just my minds way of saying "get out on that water and get a 55?"

[CaptainMusky]

Quote:

---

Maybe its because of sites like FM or the growing popularity of muskie fishing but I have seen many more 50" fish caught in the last few years than I had seen in the previous 5-6. CPR has a lot to do with the larger fish, what else could be factoring in? Are there the same amount of big fish being caught, we just know about more of them because of digital photographs and websites? I am starting to think my 52 that I got last year isn't as special as it once was. Or is it just my minds way of saying "get out on that water and get a 55?"

---

A 52 is a truly amazing fish and for most people a fish of a lifetime. I think the internet has a lot to do with hearing of all these huge fish, but I also think there are many more being caught. You have Vermillion, Mille Lacs really pumping out some hogs right now. In years past the only big fish came from LOW and Leech. Now you add in a few more lakes that have that potential and there is bound to be more tremendous fish caught.

John Gillespie just caught a 56 and change on a recent episode, Pete Maina has NEVER caught a 55. The catch and release ethics of fishermen coupled with the management efforts by local fisheries departments should get a lot of credit.

[MuskieJunkie]

I think it is all relative, for someone who doesn't muskie fish a 40" is a huge fish, once you catch a 40" it isn't that big to you and you want that mid to upper 40s. Once you have a 50 you just want that 55. The more involved you are in this sport and the more fish you catch the higher the bar gets. To answer your question, IMO no it isn't, 50 is a huge benchmark that is great to break, and a 55+ is a very rare fish.

[MuskyBrian]

absolutely not.....50 is still 50

[Cooter]

I sure hope not cuz lately I have trouble catching 30s! !

[MLmusky]

I don't care where you fish, a 50 inch fish is a awsome fish!!! However, if you are fishing some of the bigger bodies of water in MN, most people will not bat an eye at a 50" fish. In fact, I think most will not bat an eye till they hear 54".. It really all depends on what you consider a trophy. Some of the guides who are putting (15) 50" fish in the boat each year probably consider a 50 to be farily common... Girth is also a big part, just look at Hammernicks 52" fish a couple years ago...

[RK]

Hiya -

Some muskie fishing friends of mine and I have been having this exact conversation via email lately.

I really do think expectations have changed about muskies and muskie fishing success. I got an email from a guy I sort of know a week or so ago who was singing the blues because he'd had a tough weekend - only got two fish in two days. I sort of thought - are you kidding me? He's a guy who fishes mainly stocked lakes, and hit them when they were at their peak - when the first generation of fish was in the low 40 inch range, and they weren't getting fished much. Basically, he was on lakes that were full of dumb fish. He got pretty spoiled pretty fast.

I think a couple things have played into the change in attitudes about muskie fishing and what a quality fish is. One is the MN stocking program. It has resulted in some remarkable fisheries like Mille Lacs and Vermilion. The numbers of big fish being caught from those lakes is astonishing. I think it makes for a skewed perception of what muskie fishing is now vs. what it was before these lakes came to be.

I started muskie fishing 23 years ago. I started in the days when Minnesota had 40 muskie lakes, and 15 of them were good fisheries. Just because of a quirk of timing, I caught the last of what I think were the 'old days' and the very front edge of what we see now. I was fortunate enough, and connected enough, to fish many of the notable new muskie lakes in the state before the world knew. I got to fish lakes like Plantaganete and Little Wolf when you could count the number of muskie anglers who were aware of them on one hand. In the early 90s, I had a boat pull up to me on Vermilion and ask me what the hell I was fishing for with those big lures... Imagine that... (The fish were so dumb back then 3 of us once caught 28 fish in 3 days. A friend of mine has a photo of 2 45 inchers in the same net from that timeframe).

I think the net result of that change in the fishery and the number of new anglers is that there is now a very different perception of what muskie fishing success is. Good fishermen will catch their fish whatever the era, but today a good guide might put 200-250 fish a year in the boat if he fishes year-round. I once heard one of these guys say that if he'd been fishing 25 years ago, he'd still be catching the same number of fish. No way. Not with dynamite. The fish are so much more available now, in so many more fisheries. Lakes like Mille Lacs, Vermilion, or out of state lakes like Webster or Kinkaid - they didn't exist. Webster has an average population of *6* fish per acre...on a natural lake like Little Boy, .25 fish/acre is a good population.

That attitude spills over into how we look at the size of fish. To this day, my benchmark is still a four footer. Many of the best, most experienced anglers I know have the same attitude. A 48 is a 'big one.' But once you start seeing 52s plastered all over the internet when someone stumbles into one, suddenly, for some at least, a 50 isn't enough. I think this is part of why all of a sudden fish have to be reported with a girth measurement too - some of which are WILDLY inflated. A 50 isn't impressive anymore unless it has a massive girth besides. Look at the difference in length between a 48 and a 51. I mean - LOOK at a ruler. The value placed on one over the other is, to me, FAR out of proportion to the actual difference in size.

I think the internet has a lot to do with it too. Someone catches a big fish and it's all over the place. It's cool - we should celebrate when one of our fellow anglers catches a nice fish. But I think it can skew reality a little. I have a friend who's a quiet guy, doesn't care about much besides just fishing muskies because it's fun. He's a tremendous angler, and catches a lot of big fish every year. None of you would recognize his name, but if his friends posted a pic of every 48 + he's caught in the last 3 years, he'd be a rock star. Information travels faster now. Before the net, if you wanted to know about a big fish you looked in the window at Reeds or the Musky House in Longville. A lake 4 states away was the dark side of the moon.

What concerns me about all this is that there isn't much of a sense of history with many muskie anglers today. During a seminar this winter I talked about Mark Windels. When I asked how many people knew who Mark Windels was, less than 25% of the people in the room raised their hands. I was stunned. (I still am. Mark is one of the founders of modern muskie fishing. Whether you realize it or not, he's taught you more about muskies than I, Jim Saric, Pete Maina, or any of the current celebrities ever will.)

I worry about taking the fishery we have for granted, and seeing 30 pounders as commonplace. It seems like a lot of anglers think that since they started hearing about Mille Lacs 5 years ago, they put muskies in there 6 years ago. The reality is Mille Lacs is the fishery it is because of work that began in the early 1980s. My fear is that if we lose sight of the difference in quality between what is and what was - if a 30 pounder isn't impressive anymore - we risk losing what we have by thinking the fishery just is and always has been.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not wishing for the days when 30 muskies a year was a good season. But I worry a little about what our current good fortune is doing to how we value the fish we do catch, however many we catch. I've heard Doug Johnson say more than once: "I'm glad I fished muskies the last 40 years, not the next 40." It's a phrase that haunts me.

Cheers,

Rob Kimm

[Lars]

Rob, that was really well written. I too remember those days just for species other than muskie. Isn't great to actually be living in the "good ole days?" Thanks.

[VMS]

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'll gladly take a 50 incher any day!! In fact, I have been fishing for these critters for 27 years now, and have just gotten my personal best on canadian waters at 47-1/2" I was jumping for joy because for me, the trophy is the new personal best. I have always wanted that 50 incher (as I would suspect most do)but the waters I fish, the 50 inch fish is quite rare.

I'll still take any muskie I get and be happy though. No matter what, the fish is still the toughest fish to catch in any body of water where they exist.

A 30 fish year? Heck... I am on the water almost every day from June to September and 30 fish would be awesome!! Now...go to Lake of the woods and learn that body of water well, and 30 fish a summer would be (could I actually say it?)poor...

RK, well stated!!

Steve

[CommonSense Guy]

Catching a 55 is like trying to find a needle is a haystack within a field of haystacks. All that aside;

I think we all need to appreciate the state of muskie fishing in places like MN, and Ontario. I feel lucky to have the opportunity to enjoy this resource that was not available in such abundance in the past. I really hope that the fishery can sustain itself long term. We all know of all the big fish comming out of new lakes like Mille Lacs and Vermillion. But that is exactly what they are, "new" lakes. They are a product of a recent experiment by the DNR. I think they have done a hell of a job but only time will tell. You can't put these lakes in the same class as proven trophy waters like LOTW, Eagle, and Leech and the like. Sure they are giving up monster fish(55" plus), and surely hold state record fish. But they are in their infancy. I am very optimistic about the future of muskie fishing.

Maybe someday 60 will be the new 50! Ha!

[DitchPickle13]

No, I do not think 55 is "the new 50." Muskies only live so long and they certainly have to beat the odds to reach the age necessary to get that big. 55" fish make up a very small percentage of the population. Even if the benchmark was to be raised, I think the 5" jump to 55 is far too aggressive. Of course this is just an opinion, but let's be realistic!

[dsludge]

Is 55 the new 50? It may be for those who have already caught a 50-incher.

In 2002 I caught a 49" muskie and I consider myself very lucky. I wonder what percentage of muskie fishermen have caught a 50 - 1%, 5%, 10%, 20%?

dsludge