Ryan Dempsey's Lower Fox Monster...

[Rebel9921]

I was reading through an issue of Musky Hunter last nite... and came upon an ad by Fittante featuring Ryan Dempsey and his 56x33.5 Lower Fox Monster... This fish was released and Ryan got his reproduction...

What struck me was the 56x33.5 measurement... I immediately turned to a table I had made myself showing length x girth = weight... My table doesnt have the half pound (.5) measurement... Turns out that this Monster would've shattered both NFWFHF and IGFA world record and pretty much would've settled all those debates/controversy surrounding the Spray and the Johnson world records... It would've weighed anywhere between 76.23lbs to 80.92lbs... Turns out he was out on Lower Fox River fishing for walleyes and the line he had on was 8lbs Power Pro... The comments of many pretty much resonates here... that a lucky walleye fisherman would be catching a World Record Muskie... Just wondering what everybody thinks of this... Just for comparsion... Ken O'Brien's Muskie was 56.5x30.5 (65lbs)... and that was caught 20 years before Dempsey caught his Monster...

What amazes me even more is that there is a fish out there barely knocking on the 80lbs barrier... This story just gives me confidence about how far CPR has gone when it comes to Muskies... and I wouldnt be surprised to hear/read about a similar Monster coming out of Minnesota sooner or later... With the rates of 55+" x 27"-28" are being caught in Minnesota lately...

Ken O'Brien's Muskie:

Scroll over to 2nd page to see Dempsey Muskie in a posting Vahn did... Image wouldnt show up here...

[Nick Kuhn]

Or the success of their 54" minimum length in the area (at least for Green Bay, and there's no shortage of food there). Wisconsin has made a strong effort to restore Great Lakes strain fish in Green Bay and nearby waters.

[DHanson]

Walleye fisherman seem to exaggerate how big fish are sometimes. I find it hard to believe that those measurements are accurate, especially the girth measurement. 33.5" girth? Not a chance.

[Nick Kuhn]

True, I never really thought about a 33" girth but then I remembered I have a 32" waist, so that'd be like holding up a shorter version of myself. Can't say I've seen any fish close to that. Even those low 20" girth fish seem really thick when you hold them.

[Scoot]

 Originally Posted By: DHanson

Walleye fisherman seem to exaggerate how big fish are sometimes.

I completely agree! However, plenty of muskie fisherman do too!!

[musky_tail05]

 Originally Posted By: DHanson

33.5" girth? Not a chance.

Have you seen the picture of it? With the pedigree Green Bay has, it's possible. I believe it.

[Cooter]

A quick note on an above post, I thought GB has a 50" limit and got the 54" increase shut down although it was overwhelmingly favored in the spring hearings.

I saw the pics and consider things a bit fishy - edited photos supposedly to conceal the exact location. Probably a big fish nonetheless.

[DHanson]

 Originally Posted By: musky_tail05

 Originally Posted By: DHanson

33.5" girth? Not a chance.

Have you seen the picture of it? With the pedigree Green Bay has, it's possible. I believe it.

I have not seen the picture of it yet. I would really like to see it, anyone able to post it on here for everyone to see. I guess this is one of those things where I would have to be there and be the one measuring it to believe measurements of that size. I am not here to bash anyones claims, but I'm real picky when it comes to measurements of fish. When it comes to measuring fish, not necessarily muskies, but all species of fish, you have to have the mouth closed all the way while pinching the tail for a true measurement. I'm not saying a 33.5" girth is not possible, but I am saying that I'm not a believer in this fish yet. If anyone can prove the measurements of this fish, I might be persuaded.

[Nick Kuhn]

Cooter you're right on the minimum length, I guess I was just remembering the push for it though. The Wisconsin DNR really needs to just grow some grapes and lay down the regs they feel is best for the health of that body of water.

[musky_tail05]

Well, I found the pictures on another site, so I'm pretty sure I can't post the link here. It's very obvious they photoshopped the background out, must have been near some easily recognizeable landmark I suppose. But the fish.....yeah, that's what I call "scary big".

[Nick Kuhn]

musky_tail, right click on the picture and hit "save picture as", and save it wherever. Then upload it yourself and post it here. I have instructions on the first page of the photo thread.

Or you can cheat and right click and say "copy image location" in Firefox, or in Internet Explorer click properties and copy the Address (URL) for the picture. Then come here and just paste the address and put the image tags around it [image]pasted address[/image]

[Quackaddict9]

I think there was a video of this Green Bay muskie last year or two years ago? Maybe this is a different fish but I'm pretty sure there was a video uploaded on here of a muskie that a walleye angler caught in a river or something like that. They were saying it could be the possible new world record.

[Black_Bay]

The muskie in picture I saw, especially the vertical hold photo, looks like it had something in it's stomach. That would increase the girth beyond what would be normal for that fish. Impressive fish none the less.

[Rebel9921]

I edited the posting using Vahn's "cheat"... O'Brien's muskie showed up just fine but dont know why Dempsey Muskie wouldnt show up...

Yeah... the 50" limit really helps... seeing how MN has a 48" limit imposed on their trophy muskie fishery... and its obvious that Muskies do grow whole lot more after the 48" benchmark...

Quack... I did a google on the Dempsey video... couldnt find anything else... just two pictures... if you happen to come across that video again, let me know I would love to see it!!!

[Nick Kuhn]

Because you used which is PHPBB code as opposed to [image] which is UBB and what this forum uses.

[DHanson]

Thanks for the picture Rebel. It looks like the pic was taken in the 70s. And I'm sorry to say if that fish was released....well....it looks deader than a door nail. Definitely a monster fish though.

[Rebel9921]

Vahn... I changed it from to [image] and its still a no-go...

DHanson... From what I know... the O'Brien Muskie was kept, it was caught in 1988... and the Dempsey Muskie was released, CPR in 2005...

[BigGrassBass]

I just did a google search for "Ryan Dempsey Musky" and the picture came up right away. That thing is huge. You can tell it was photo shopped to take out the backround but WOW! It may not be as big as the measurements say but it's darn close.

[Nick Kuhn]

Yeah it has to do with the way that site hosts photos, I got you covered though.

The Lenthxgirthxgirth thing only works if a fish is pretty much the same girth all the way through. He just took it at the bulge there I'm sure.

[Rebel9921]

Thanks Vahn...

[DHanson]

 Originally Posted By: Rebel9921

Vahn... I changed it from to [image] and its still a no-go...

DHanson... From what I know... the O'Brien Muskie was kept, it was caught in 1988... and the Dempsey Muskie was released, CPR in 2005...

That's the O'Brien muskie in the pic? I mistakened it as the Dempsey muskie then.

[Rebel9921]

DHanson... O'Brien Muskie is pictured in the original posting made by me... Vahn added a posting on 2nd page with the pics of Dempsey Muskie...

[DHanson]

Oh my god that thing is unreal! Thanks for the pic Vahn. I believe the 56" length 4sure, but I'm unsure on the 33.5" girth.

[10,000 Casts]

I have fished the Door County area quite a bit and I can tell you that they have some big Muskies swimming around in Green Bay. The Lower Fox has kicked out a few monsters but that 56x33.5 is unreal. The weight caulculator puts it at 78lbs... That would crush the world record, it's possible but, I think that there would have been more buzz if it was over 70lbs, even if it was caught out of season. Imagine catching that fish in November.... Makes me thik twice about letting the dog play fetch in the lake!

By the way, whats the ruling on taking a bunch of pics on a fish that is out of season? Doesn't it say that the fish must be immediatly returned to the water??? What would of happened if they kept it the Big Kahuna until the dnr could get there? I suppose they only had a walleye and the record wouldn't count but it would be cool to have verification.

[b1gf1sh1]

the rule is immediate in the wording in the yearly book but on the DNR site immediate release is defined as including picture as long as fish is released immediately afterwards and not put in livewell or transported in any way from the site of the catch. wording is more mumbo jumbo legal stuff but that's the gist. MN dnr that is.