fishgutz77 Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 The fish is a true monster, but obviously has a 5-6 lb meal inside. the biggest fish I ever personaly have wittnessed is 54 inch fish two years ago with a 28 in girth. we guessed the fish at 40-42 lbs. IMO the fish he's holding does not exceed 55 lbs. But I'm no expert either. no matter it is a true trophy and a fish of a lifetime. nice catch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjac Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 Yep, per Mn DNR regs a picutre is allowed, just as b1gf1sh said. The standard weight calcs go out the window on a fish like this. It looked like me last night after the Easter dinner. Weight of this fish is a guess, however, it's huge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjac Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 I should mention this was Wis, not Minn, however, I was simply looking to speak to the Mn rules on handling an out-of-season fish....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tisosy11 Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 I have been in a connecting river of the FOX - man if this tank swam by me i don't know what i'd do! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DTro Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 33" is a massive girth. For comparison, this one just barely made 30" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
10,000 Casts Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 That Kitty would make a good breakfast for that Monster! Now that I think of it, I m going to call Muskie Innovations and see if they will make me a 25LB Bulldawg!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebel9921 Posted March 26, 2008 Author Share Posted March 26, 2008 John... good luck casting that then!!! You'd definitely need to build a solid catapault for that... and pray that your catapault reel doesnt backlash!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DTro Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 Originally Posted By: 10,000 Casts That Kitty would make a good breakfast for that Monster! Now that I think of it, I m going to call Muskie Innovations and see if they will make me a 25LB Bulldawg!!! I think it's the other way around ....and you'll have to double the size on that bulldawg order Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
10,000 Casts Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 Wouldn't cast it, just troll... Is that a Flathead? I was thinking channel and I am not a good guesser on Kitty weights. Caught a few Channels on the upper red in Fargo, definitly a good time. And yes, I know that thing probably would go after a muskie and tear it apart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DTro Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 Let’s just say it would be a blast to watch the two monsters go toe to toe. That’s a flathead and was 48x30 and 52lbs I can’t imagine a musky with a 33” girth. I think I would literally wet myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JRedig Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 I think the dimensions are accurate, I just doubt all the calculators/tables. Too many variables, and not enough fish of that size caught/killed/weighed to verify if it's accurate over a certain size constraint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebel9921 Posted March 27, 2008 Author Share Posted March 27, 2008 JRedig... I did have that same thinking til I read an article in the summer 2002 issue of Esox Angler titled, "Do the Math: World Records & weight formulas" by Pete Maina and Ross Fisher... Sure there are variables... but table by Ross Fisher regarding the actual weight vs formula weight was pretty accurate... 34 fishes 44.75lbs or over was recorded... and the average disrespancy of actual weight vs formula weight was minus 0.12lbs (1.92oz)or minus 0.31% per fish... thats impressive... But then again... shouldnt believe everything you read in magazines or see on the tv LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JRedig Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 Originally Posted By: Rebel9921JRedig... I did have that same thinking til I read an article in the summer 2002 issue of Esox Angler titled, "Do the Math: World Records & weight formulas" by Pete Maina and Ross Fisher... Sure there are variables... but table by Ross Fisher regarding the actual weight vs formula weight was pretty accurate... 34 fishes 44.75lbs or over was recorded... and the average disrespancy of actual weight vs formula weight was minus 0.12lbs (1.92oz)or minus 0.31% per fish... thats impressive... But then again... shouldnt believe everything you read in magazines or see on the tv LOL I've used enough statistics in my life to know there's always a way to make them look good for the argument i'm making. Remove a point here, ignore a rule there etc etc. I think the Dempsey fish moves beyond the boundaries of the fish that are used for a study like this. Gotta keep in mind, the average size of recorded fish or known fish has change somewhat since an article in '02. 34 is hardly enough to prove anything considering the number of fish world wide over 45lbs that potentially exist. Such a small sampling to try and make such gross guesstimates on. Besides, does it really matter?-Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts