How common is the 50-inch Musky?

[dsludge]

My question is: How many muskie fishermen have caught a four foot, two-inch muskie?

Moderators, I wonder what is the percentage of muskie fishing registered FMer's who have reached that elusive mark?

I have fished muskies for about six or seven years. Last year I boated zero muskies, another year 15, and in 2002 a 49-incher - still one inch away from the 50-inch mark.

How rare or common is it to CPR a big 50"+ muskie?

dsludge

[setterguy]

I am no expert, and would consider myself an "average" muskie fisherman. I probably target muskies a total of 120 hours a year, mostly from now until ice. Last year I had the privilige of hooking up with a 52" fish, which was my first over 48. Now I am more lucky than I am good, but I do think the number of big fish is increasing due to stocking efforts, and CPR. RK might have some hard facts or statistics to actually answer your question.

[BrianLucky13]

They say 1 out of 1,000 muskies released grows to be 50 inches!!! But every lake and all that is not the same, thats just average.

[AWH]

It's going to vary a great deal dependent on the water that you fish. It took me 210 muskies before I finally hit the 50" mark. Hopefully I've learned a thing or two over the years and I won't have to catch 210 more before I hit it again! I've also lost a few fish that may have been over that mark, but only one that was a no doubter.

Aaron

[Stratosman]

I have never caught one either, 48" is the largest so far... I been net man on two 50+ 'ers over the last few years, just payin my dues. Both of my muskie fishin buddies have gotten at least one 50" and they're not afraid to remind me of that.

[fishermusk]

From what I read and see you would think everyone who fishes for them has caught a 50 incher. I haven't though,I've caught 1 @ 47" 3 @ 48" and 1 @ 49" so i am still one inch short of the new benchmark 50 incher. I have a bump board for measuring fish so my measurements are true and I never pinch tails. I think alot of 50" fish are miss measured with measure sticks and there realy are not as many 50" fish caught than are in the Lunge Log.

So my overall feeling is that some people feel that they have to lie about it to fit in.

[buzzsaw]

Add me to the list of not hitting that 50' inch mark and I've been fishing for them on and off for 20 years.

[MLmusky]

It all depends on the water you fish and what you are trying to catch.. I fish Mille Lacs only because it has a good population of 50" fish, as I am looking for big fish.. I know of several lake in MN that get far less pressure and have lots of stupid fish in the 38" -45" range, but few fish grow to be 50" in these lakes.. I want big fish, so I fish waters that will give me the best opportunity to catch big fish.. I definatly do not fish Mille Lacs to get away from pressure and find lots of stupid fish willing to open their mouth, it is a tough lake, with lots of rewards.. Vermillion is on the same scale... I am a firm believer that big waters produce big fish...

[MJBo]

I've gotten a 50+. 54 to be exact. Freak luck. I've been fishing muskies~ 1.5 years and have caught about 15 total (including a 49). I have also seen another which I believe was a 50+.

[RK]

Hiya -

Lots of angles to this. The first is how common are big fish on a given body of water. The simple fact is some fisheries, though they are good muskie fisheries, just don't produce numbers of what we arbitrarily classify as 'big fish.' Could be genetics, habitat, forage, or a pile of other reasons. If you ever want to see a really detailed look at this, go find a study called "Growth and Ultimate Length of Muskellunge from Ontario Water Bodies" by John Casselman, Chris Robinson and Ed Crossman. I've mentioned this paper several times before, but it's very very worth reading (even if some of the statistics are above the reach of the math challenged such as yours truly). The bottom line is, 'big fish' is a very relative term. In a lake where fish top out at 48 inches, catching a 48 is no different, in terms of where the fish is in the population, than a 55 out of a lake where fish peak at 55-56 inches.

I'm sort of a throwback on big fish benchmarks. As I said in another thread, I consider a four footer or above a 'big one.' 50's cool, but I still think anything over 48's getting into that big fish range for sure.

That having been said, I'd have to go back and look to see how many I've actually caught over the years. even then I'd only get in the ballpark. Some years I keep pretty good records, others are a little haphazard. I've had 5 in the boat this year that were big ones, 2 of them over 50. On the other hand, I've fished less this summer than I have in...well, ever probably. Building a cabin, which has REALLY cut into my fishing time badly. I can't tell you how much it hurts to stand there covered in sheetrock dust looking out the window as a front rolls in..

But I'm probably a bad example. On a normal year I get to spend an awful lot of time on the water on some of the premier lakes like Leech, Lake of the Woods, etc., often with some pretty good anglers like Jack Burns, Dan Craven, Dick Pearson, Pete Maina...and when I'm not there I'm on some home waters that are pretty solid too. I have a lot of advantages.

A very wise angler once told me that big fish are found at the intersection of knowledge and opportunity. A knowledgable angler fishing good water will have chances at a big fish - whatever a big fish may be for that body of water. If you fish a body of water with a low probability of producing 50-inch fish, you may catch a lot of 'big fish' for that body of water, and never crack 50... It's ALL relative.

Cheers,

Rob Kimm

[CommonSense Guy]

It depends on where you are fishing. MN, and Ontario are going to turn out more 50's than the rest of the country. To get more specific it depends on the lake. Your odds of hooking into a 50 inch fish are much higher on LOTW than on a stocked lake in the Metro area. I would guess that throughout North America 1-2% of all muskies caught reach the 50" benchmark.

[fishermusk]

Take a look in Fall 2006 Esox in the anglers photos, there is one picture of a fish over 50"s that I don't think is even close to 50". I don't know that this fish isn't as long as the person claims it is, I don't know this person, and am certainly not calling them a liar, But maybe there was a mistake when measuring the fish. I see this quite often with the claims of the girth of fish as well, there seems to be alot of fish out there with girths over 24". Like the old saying goes:

Fish Like He__ And Make Up Lies

[CommonSense Guy]

I feel you. Pictures are very deceiving. You can have a guy that's 5'4" holding a fish out from his body and it looks like it's 50 pounds. I saw a picture on the Outdoor News recently of a kid holding a fish on Harriett that was supposedly 50 inches. I know that thing wasn't an inch over 40. With pictures you just never know.

[mtreno]

ya or like that guy who claimed in the MI news letter he had a 55.5 in july on lotw. ya right that thing is not a shade over 30....... j/k - that thing would eat my best of the year at 45

[propster]

After reading some of you more experienced guys, who I have been reading a good part of the summer and respect and have learned from, I guess I have to say my son and I have been pretty lucky. This is our 3rd year of fishing. It's taken us awhile to learn (he was 10 when he started me on this!), and we haven't caught a lot of fish. Last year was our best - between the two of us we boated 13 or 14 is all. But we have 4 over 50 between us. I have 2 - 51's and a 50 and he has a 49 and a 50 (just 2 weeks ago for his 50). I now maybe have a better appreciation for the luck we've had. Here's the other thing - 4 of those 5 fish have come on topwaters, the other on a bucktail. We would probably catch more fish if we stuck with underwater methods more, but we just enjoy the heck out of catching 'em on top. We like catching them all, but the big ones are extra special.

[RK]

Hiya -

Fishermuskie - yeah, we did discuss that photo actually, but decided to let it go in. The Reader's Photos thing really is kind of tricky deal. We get some that look iffy, but all of us know how deceptive photos can be. With the right lens, hold, body position, and camera angle, I can make a 45 incher look like a 45 pounder - or make a 35 pounder look like a 42 incher... We get quite a few that are obviously way off, and those we just don't run, but generally speaking when it comes to reader photos we give people a fairly generous benifit of the doubt...

Cheers,

Rob Kimm

[cjac]

Good Morning,

I'm at 49.5 and darn proud of it! Have I seen bigger? Sure....had them "on and gone" too. This really is a testament to the management of muskies and the emphasis on C&R. In my opinion 50 is a monster of a fish and still the benchmark. That said, I'm really proud of the low-mid 40 inch fish I've caught on the lake closest to home this season. To me it's a hoot to be that close and catching 'skis!

Propster, nice season for you and your son, I want to fish with you!

Regarding photos, I don't think I'm posting a picture on here EVER unless I have another FM'er, three rulers, and one hand on the bible in the photo with me!

[RK]

Hiya -

Hehehe...I've said for years that the ONLY measurement you can ever believe for sure is 49.5...

Big fish are cool, but they come when they come. They're all fun. When a 20 pounder isn't fun to catch, I'll quit fishing.

[CommonSense Guy]

Propster;

I appreciate your modesty. I like guys that are humble with there fishing. Although I think the most honest fish story I have ever heard came this year. I met a guy who quides on Ontario. He has a replica of a 59.75X 29 fish. The fish was pushing 60 pounds. But you know he is an honest guy when he won't give himself the benefit of just .25 inches to get a 60 inch fish. That's a guy you can trust. By the way the fish is still alive!

[dsludge]

Thanks for all the input. Makes me feel a little prouder of my 49-incher. By the way, two Muskies Inc guys took pictures for me and helped measure the beast.

Maybe I'll hit 50 today! Good luck all.

Quack, quack.

dsludge

[MuskyBrian]

I have been fishing Muskies only for the past 6 years, but very hard in Canada during that time and also smaller MN lakes. I have put in about 150-170 during that time frame, never anything over 48". ...UNTIL last Monday, it finally happened for me on the Winnipeg River system near Minaki, 52" girth like a truck. I wouldn't be surprised if I never top that fish again, luck plays a factor but picking the right waters to fish on consistentlyis just as important. I also think certain baits are more prone to catch big fish from what I have seen from others...

[dsludge]

MuskyBrian, does "about 150-170 during that time frame" refer to hours/year fishing or total muskies boated? Wow - 170 fish in 6 years time would be 28 plus fish on average each year! If the latter is the case, congratulations and I envy the waters upon which you fish. I am very interested in knowing the lakes where you are fishing. Oh yeah, congratulations on busting the 50-inch mark!!

How many muskie fishermen have caught 28 muskies in one year? My best year out of the last seven was 15 muskies boated and I do hope to reach that mark again.

Congrats to Propster and his son - "...we haven't caught a lot of fish. Last year was our best - between the two of us we boated 13 or 14 is all. But we have 4 over 50 between us. I have 2 - 51's and a 50 and he has a 49 and a 50 (just 2 weeks ago for his 50)." Some never reach that mark in decades of hunting muskies!

RK, thank you for your input and the confidence booster - "I'm sort of a throwback on big fish benchmarks. As I said in another thread, I consider a four footer or above a 'big one.' 50's cool, but I still think anything over 48's getting into that big fish range for sure."

I will consider myself very lucky to CPR a fifty-inch muskie during my lifetime. Let,s go!!

dsludge

[MuskyBrian]

DS..that stands for numbers of fish...and it is purely because of a few reasons...

Working a Job with flexible hours as allowed me to make 3-4 trips per year to Canada for the last 3 years. I have been fortunate enough to have enough time to explore a wide variety of lakes, such of which have the best numbers of Muskies per acre in the World. It's been a blast, and has taught me a lot about musky fishing, but the bottom line is If I had been chasing big fish consistently( as I am kinda graduating to now), those numbers would certainly be down. My email is [email protected], I would be more then happy to share with you some of these lakes if you are ever interested