Rocking the Boat Outdoor News

[fishermusk]

Anyone agree with Joe this week. I do. I think he is right on the money with what he had to say about us here in Minnesota constantly catching state records and always letting them swim. Its getting to be sickning hearing about yet another record fish being let go. If you catch a record muskie keep the (Contact Us Please) thing, It won't hurt the fishery and to he!! with the let them all go crowd.

Good Luck

Dave

[B420]

They have been close, but nobody has released a legit record there yet. Very nice fish don't get me wrong, but not records.

[MLmusky]

I think a couple record fish have been caught, they do not get reported as the people who have caught them could care less about the record.. The fish in Outdoor News that claims to be the new state record I think maybe was looking at the tiger musky record.. Looks to me to be a 48" x 22" fish, probably would not be the tiger musky record...

My question is why do some people get so wound up about it?? What do the old T-shirt say?? Shut up and fish?? If you want to let it go, let it go, if you want to club it on the head and claim the record, claim the record...

[musky_tail05]

Quote:

---

If you catch a record muskie keep the (Contact Us Please) thing, It won't hurt the fishery and to he!! with the let them all go crowd.

---

Why say to hell with the let them all go crowd? I mean, if someone who fishes for muskies or any other species decides to C&R everything they catch, regardless of record size, then why say that? It's a personal decision we all make. I personally choose to C&R all muskies I catch. Why? I just don't have a want or desire to kill one. I catch it, it gives me a good fight and great experience, so I let it live. Why is that bad?

[Dano_the_jigasaurus]

I don't see why keeping those genetics in the gene pool is a bad thing. It gives the possibility of predisposition for young fish to grow large and the frequency at which this "gene to grow large" would occur meaning more large fish. I don't think that sounds bad at all.

Just letting a big fish go allows it to get bigger and gives someone else the oppportunity to catch a great fish.

[10,000 Casts]

I agree its a personal decision.... Why get worked up about it? If a person wants to keep what they catch, let them.

Also, speaking of record fish..... I just found out that the state Rock Bass record is only 2 pounds! I crushed that 2 years ago with a Rock Bass well over 3 pounds... My mistake, now those @#$%! are everywhere in Ottertail! So if you are really concerned with catching a record and keeping it for the wall then head to Ottertail, throw on a #5 shad rap, black of course, troll 1.8mph (email me and I will give you the gps coordinates) as I hear that Rock Bass are extremely territorial... And that should get you your record that will take care of that itch of keeping a state record. haha

John

[bigbritt]

There have been no clear cut records caught yet, there have been some very close if not tied fish caught this year, but none that are absolute (especially that fish in outdoor news). Most of these fish are caught by guides and are well aware of the record; they are put back because they might be even bigger next time. Most are contempt with a picture and a replica, why keep it anyway? What good does that do but stick your name in a book that only walleye fisherman look at for the new regulations. If you want to see your name in print, then look in a phone book. This is the reason why our state is so great for muskies, those who fish for them really care about the future; they want those fish to remain so fishing stays good for a long time. Those fat bellies aren’t just ciscoes stuffed in them, they are eggs as well. Besides, you didn’t catch it, they did, and it is their choice on what to do with it, and I am glad they decided to release.

[WRD]

I won't critize anyone one way or the other, as stated above I believe it's the individuals choice, but I think it would be a said deal if a fish was kept thinking it was a new record only to be a little short.

[nofishfisherman]

Quote:

---

Its getting to be sickning hearing about yet another record fish being let go. If you catch a record muskie keep the (Contact Us Please) thing, It won't hurt the fishery and to he!! with the let them all go crowd.

---

Wow you seem to get pretty worked up over something that would seem to not affect you in the least.

It wouldn't be your record so whats it to you? You should thank these people for letting the fish go, now you can go try to catch it and see if it got any bigger.

I just do see why you should care so much about other peoples decisions.

[muskiemachinery]

I nominate bigbritt for the fishing quote of the year..."If you want to see your name in print,then look in a phone book" LMFAO

Right on, your my hero

[propster]

Mostly I enjoy Fellegy and often agree with his outlook, probably because he tends to stir the pot a bit and shake things up. In this case we all know he's a walleye guy - he doesn't care much for bass and he doesn't care much for musky. That's all fine and good. And, it is his opinion that people should stop crowing about "we let the potential state record go". Well first of all, I've read or heard about the couple/three fish that may have beaten the record being released, and in no case do I feel that anyone involved "crowed" about it, it was more of a factiual thing - here's the fish I caught, it was this big according to our measurements, we didn't weigh it, but we chose to let it go. To me, that is what is cool about most of you musky guys, and I hope I include myself among you. If I caught the potential state record musky, I could not bring myself to kill that fish, and know that my kid or you or your kid will never have a chance at catching it again. Does that make me anything special? Nope, it doesn't. I just think Joe took this one a bit far to say he's sick of us talking about releasing them. I don't think we've come close to exploiting that. Just my opinion.

[fishermusk]

I think you need to read the article in the Outdoor news to understand what i am talking about.

I never did say that if you want to let it go, to keep it instead. I happened to release my personal best,a 48" fatty about 8 years ago when I was new to the sport and I didn"t have the camera with and I just couldn't see keeping the fish just for my ego. What I am saying is that I would like to have see a new record fish for the state. I think it would be big news.

And the last time I looked in the regs it did say that you could keep one 40" or better a year. I don't think you could if it was going to hurt the fishery.

Good Luck Dave

[Random guy]

Personal preference thats what it is.

I personally release many walleyes, crappies perch and other table fair fish...because I hate cleaning fish.

Do what ya want, if a guy wants to keep a 40"+ musky so be it is his right, and he he wants to release it so be it. It has been proven in the past that if the fish was kept some would scold him to no end for killing the fish, and if he releases the fish he is now scolded for what ever reason it may be.

[MoreSlimePlease]

I agree it is all about personal preference. I caught and released the Minnesota State Record Tiger muskie last year. She was 48.5 inches and had a 24 inch girth. I never did the calculations but at the time I was pretty sure she was the record. I released it because of how beautiful she was and because people were not going to know me and say "hey you boated the huge tiger, can i have your autograph?". In my opinion, there is a double standard when it comes to muskie fishing...people release alot of pure strain ski's but when they catch a sizable tiger, they kill it. I am plenty happy with the replica that I have on the wall next to me as i type this as well as the the feeling i get knowing that she is still swimming and that I could catch her once again.

[musky_tail05]

fishermuskie-

First of all, I did read that article, twice. And no, I didn't accuse you of telling everyone to keep muskies. I just want to know why you are criticizing people who release possible record muskies. Like I said, it's a personal choice. I'm sure most people would like to see a new record. But the question remains, why say "to hell with the let them all go crowd"? Maybe to some people it isn't that big a deal if they're in the record books or not. If you don't like to read about the possible records being released, then just don't read about it.

[Hockey Guy]

Moreslime – I am one of the biggest catch and release guys out there. But, I have to tell you, I would have had a hard time letting that fish go! Since Tigers are sterile, it’s not like you were taking an egg producing fish out of the gene pool. I’m not judging you by any means. In fact I admire your conviction.

I just KNOW part of me would have looked at that fish and said, “You have to be 20-25 years old to get this big, so what right do I have to kill you”. But, another part of me would have said, “Your so old your going to die soon anyhow. Get in my live well baby!”

Do you have any pictures of that bad girl you can post? I would love to see that fish!

[muskiemachinery]

PLEASE let's not go down that old road of 'you might as well keep them they are going to die soon anyway'. The truth of the matter is we really don't know. When I started Muskie fishing in the seventies the Muskie 'experts' of the time said Muskies grew to about 52" and then lost weight and soon died. We KNOW NOW that was total talk. The ultimate self-fullfilling prophecy.

Prof Casselman of the Ontario Ministry (one of the foremost Muskie experts of modern times) has said that he believes that the El Nino that started in 1983 is the reason for the amazing Muskie year class growth rates we are seeing. 1983 fish are now 23 years old now and really starting to show up. Plus it might only get better.

A good example is an email I just got from Marc Thorpe who guides on the Ottawa. His boat boated 31 Muskie over 50" this season and 9 of those were over 55". (I've seen a number of the pictures) His best year ever. So PLEASE let's have an open mind on what can be achieved. OK?

Honestly every year the bar keeps rising and rising. (which is a GREAT thing, don't ya think?)

[Muskiefool]

I read this article last night and it's becoming a trend for Outdoor news to run editorials for anti-fishing, muskie, DNR, and Muskie fishermen bashing rhetoric, the author has a few good points about some things, but assumes that the Muskie Gestapo will kick down your door and kill a man for not releasing the State record, B.S., no more would this person be attacked for keeping it as he has for releasing the fish, I had a talk with a fellow Muskie fishermen last night that told me why he would never intentionally kill a Muskie it is a personal choice, a transformation from one mindset to another, just as it has been for me no one had to tell me to let the fish swim I had no choice if I was to look at myself in the mirror, no different than spotting Bigfoot dragging a road kill to the woods for a meal, would I kill it, heck no I'm just not a killer, I hunt for many reasons and I do kill game and I kill fish for the table to feed my family and friends, I don't kill for aesthetic reasons or for notoriety but this is me, it's my reason and my rhyme, I want to leave things better than what my Great Grandfather to my Father left for me, in the 1960's my Uncle caught a 28# Ski on Cass and it made the local newspaper, today those fish are caught and released daily without a mention due to the fact that good sportsmen and the men that had the vision to fight the status quo in the infancy of C&R with their at times militant attitudes and tactics toward educating fishermen are now the common thought, and my common though is to not buy another Outdoor News.

[fishermusk]

I don't think that the Outdoor News is running an anti muskie campaign, In fact there has been plenty of letters to the editor supporting stocking more lakes and I am not positive but I think there has been atleast one article written about it that was infavor. I think that if you are an outdoors man or woman you should read the Outdoor News. You are not going to get the kind of news they print there anywere else.

If you don't want to keep a state record fine, but I am going to bring her to the scales.

Good Luck Dave

[CommonSense Guy]

First of consider Joe's intentions by writing that article. I'm sure he believes what he is saying. But advertising the fishery will put money in his pocket.

I guarantee you I would take the state record out of the fishery. It's my opnion if people only kept true trophy fish that the fishery would be even stronger. I've never heared of a 55 that wasn't 42 at some point. Those are the fish we need to let go. This comes froma guy that caught a 55 and let it go.

[muskiemachinery]

There is only one problem with your common sense theory. The 42" could be a male or a female. Granted, it would be a large male but still could be. The 55" is definitely female. Think about it.

[CommonSense Guy]

The 55 was 42 at some point. All I'm saying is there would be more trophy fish if only trophy fish were killed. I know a trophy means different things to different people. Lets say 50+

[muskiemachinery]

OMG Many dedicated Muskie anglers fought the trophy release battle back in the eighties. To not cull the superior genetics from the population, the large females need to be released. Males (who rarely get over 45 inches) can stand selective harvest but the egg producing large females are to valuable to completely cull from the resource. You will end with with a whole bunch of males and very few females if everyone fished by your theory. Make sense?

[Muskiefool]

CommonSense Guy that theory is absolutely wrong, there are several study's that indicate the harvest of large fish is detrimental to the system and that in a closed system can take as little as 5 generations to see the effects from this form of management, the negative effects are significantly smaller egg volumes, smaller larval size at hatching, 25% lower growth rates with survivability to 10 days 61% lower, not to mention the fish are not as strong(=Less fun for us), I'm absolutely no biologist but I do read and study as much as I can to educate myself, good sound science is the truth, I would love to publish the entire study of this here but it would cost me 300 bucks for copy write approval, at this link you can read the abstract and buy the article yourself for 39 bucks, it is very interesting, the bottom line is if you take the trophy fish your not making room for more trophy fish, this is a antiquated thought that has proven wrong, the bigger the fish the more protection it needs till it passes by way of a fishermen or natural attrition, no disrespect.

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00858.x

[CommonSense Guy]

I actually agree with you. I wish no one killed any fish. I have never harvested a muskie. If it was up to me no one would. I realize than no one knows how long the big fish live or how long they reproduce. All I am saying is if someone is going to kill a fish let it be a superfish. That would mean very few fish would be killed. I think this is better than people taking their "fish of a lifetime". For the most part I think this is the case. Atleast in MN where we have the best fishery in the US. Compare that to WI where you can take a 36 incher or whatever on some lakes. It's not even close. The CRP culture has worked well for us. And the future of fishing is still in our hands. But I would still kill a state record as most would I believe. I'm sure I will get ripped for saying that but I know it's true. And it will happen soon.