"Will Schultz" said:
My completely unrealistic goal since 2004 is to catch a 60" or 60# muskie in Michigan. I've deemed that goal completely unattainable and don't even try any longer.
Sounds like you should spend some more time on Torch…Or after some recent developments, maybe even Bellaire. I dont think 60 is as unattainable as most people think. They are out there, just a matter of finding them on that giant lake.
"MattG_braith" said:
[quote="Will Schultz"]My completely unrealistic goal since 2004 is to catch a 60" or 60# muskie in Michigan. I've deemed that goal completely unattainable and don't even try any longer.
Sounds like you should spend some more time on Torch…Or after some recent developments, maybe even Bellaire. I dont think 60 is as unattainable as most people think. They are out there, just a matter of finding them on that giant lake.
It is a matter of finding them at the right time of year. The Bellaire fish reinforces my belief that there are Bigger Muskies than most experts think. That fish most likely spent some time In Torch. She could have ranged all through the system. To catch a true 60 plus not only are they very very rare but the time frame is a very short window when they are at their best weight be it fall fat or egg mass. Then you have to hope for the luck that she ate 10 pound northern just before she ate your lure. 70 pounds is possible, not probable. 60 pounds is probable and will happen in the next few years. If we can grow one here Georgian bay already has them. There are monster tankers swimming in Lake Michigan that will never see a lure. They shadow schools of Whitefish, Lake trout and Salmon. I have always believed that where the St Marys river dumps into Lake Michigan/Huron is the place to find a True world record. Mike
"MattG_braith" said:
[quote="Will Schultz"]My completely unrealistic goal since 2004 is to catch a 60" or 60# muskie in Michigan. I've deemed that goal completely unattainable and don't even try any longer.
Sounds like you should spend some more time on Torch…Or after some recent developments, maybe even Bellaire. I dont think 60 is as unattainable as most people think. They are out there, just a matter of finding them on that giant lake.
Don't get me started on Bellaire… the only lake I had to myself in the entire state is now on the map… hundreds of hours alone on that water and a guy bass fishing catches her. [smilie=bs.gif]
I'm pretty sure they don't make it to 60" anywhere, certainly not in Michigan. I'm also pretty certain there's never been a 60# muskie caught and verified, regardless of what the IGFA and the NFFHOF would lead you to believe.
"Kingfisher" said:
It is a matter of finding them at the right time of year. The Bellaire fish reinforces my belief that there are Bigger Muskies than most experts think.
How does that fish reinforce your belief? I think it proves what has been said since the two WR's and the Can. record have been disproven. We have a perfect specimen at near maximum length and max girth and she is only 58#. If I had to put a number on maximum possible it would be 62# and that would have to be a complete freak of nature.
"Kingfisher" said:
That fish most likely spent some time In Torch. She could have ranged all through the system.
Why would you think that? None of the tagged fish moved at all beyond their spawning and home water.
"Steve S" said:
So what happened with the last MI. record fish. Some said it might be the new world record.
Waiting for the last step in the verification process. The initial fish and scale examination was fine, there was a length discrepancy, the weight was good. The last step involves internal examination which will be done later this winter. After the final examination of the body cavity it will be verified as the Modern Day Muskellunge Record Program world record.
"Will Schultz" said:
I'm pretty sure they don't make it to 60" anywhere, certainly not in Michigan. I'm also pretty certain there's never been a 60# muskie caught and verified, regardless of what the IGFA and the NFFHOF would lead you to believe.
60" may not be possible but I think 60# is not as improbable as most think. How much would that Bellaire fish have weighed after 1 more month of the fall feed bag and immediately after swallowing a big brown trout or something? Not sure if there are any whitefish out there but what about out in Torch or Elk where they have an unlimited supply of whitefish and suckers to eat all fall. I think in the right time of year there are several 60+# fish swimming in those waters but your chances at finding them on such large water is very improbable, but nothing is impossible.
How old can a female muskie actually live if in the perfect conditions with no fishing pressure at all? I have heard that they can live to be 25 years old or older but the age of these last 2 state records have been much younger than that.
How much longer would that Bellaire fish have lived if it had not been caught?
"MattG_braith" said:
How old can a female muskie actually live if in the perfect conditions with no fishing pressure at all? I have heard that they can live to be 25 years old or older but the age of these last 2 state records have been much younger than that.How much longer would that Bellaire fish have lived if it had not been caught?
But just because they live longer doesn't mean they will get bigger. They could have reached their maximum growth already at 15 years old or so. Look at humans, just because we get older doesn't mean we keep growing. I never like going against mother nature so I'm not going to say there isn't a 60# fish out there, but I think those huge fish are just roaming around Lake Michigan somewhere and most likely never will see a musky lure.
"MattG_braith" said:
[quote="Will Schultz"]I'm pretty sure they don't make it to 60" anywhere, certainly not in Michigan. I'm also pretty certain there's never been a 60# muskie caught and verified, regardless of what the IGFA and the NFFHOF would lead you to believe.
60" may not be possible but I think 60# is not as improbable as most think. How much would that Bellaire fish have weighed after 1 more month of the fall feed bag and immediately after swallowing a big brown trout or something? Not sure if there are any whitefish out there but what about out in Torch or Elk where they have an unlimited supply of whitefish and suckers to eat all fall. I think in the right time of year there are several 60+# fish swimming in those waters but your chances at finding them on such large water is very improbable, but nothing is impossible.
That Bellaire fish would have weighed 58-59 from when she was caught until May. She wasn't going to eat more because the water was cold. She was going to grow eggs but that weight has to come from somewhere. Bottom line is that she was maxed out. Sure she's damn near 60# but she's not 60#. Just because they have unlimited food doesn't make them eat all the time. If/when we see a true 60# that goes through the verification process it's likely to come from only a few waters none of which are in Michigan.
"jasonvkop" said:
I'm just looking for a 40 pounder!
Hope you get one, you'll then be able to count yourself among the .5% of muskie fishermen that have caught a 40#er.
"MattG_braith" said:
How old can a female muskie actually live if in the perfect conditions with no fishing pressure at all? I have heard that they can live to be 25 years old or older but the age of these last 2 state records have been much younger than that.How much longer would that Bellaire fish have lived if it had not been caught?
She would have lived until she died… Sorry, couldn't resist. Depends on how old she was and we aren't going to know her age for a while. It appears that 20 might be the max for that system, which seems to be the case for all of our Michigan waters. Again, she was maxed out probably as old and as big as she would ever get. I know it's cool to dream about 64" 70# muskies but they're as common as unicorns.
Question for Will or anyone else:
With some of the rivers and drowned river mouth lakes along Lake Michigan that will likely be stocked now with the GLS program, could you ever see Lake Michigan having a fish-able population of muskies? Obviously it would be super low density and would take years and years, and natural reproduction would have to take off, but is this something that you could actually see happening? I know its EXTREMELY far fetched but I like to think Lake Michigan could be like a LSC-west, only much bigger. I'm sure there's many reasons why this can't/won't happen but a guy can dream, right?
Nice thread change. I like to go off on tangents sometimes and forget that I may be jacking someone elses conversation in the process…
Although I am not disagreeing with you completely, I do think that after seeing this fish caught it is hard for me to believe that that was the biggest fish in that system or that that is the only fish that size in that system. Im not too familiar with the forage in Bellaire but I assume it mostly consists of lake herring, perch and trout. I would think if a lake like that can produce a fish that size than a lake like Torch or Elk or even the Traverse Bays and their forage bases with more suckers and whitefish can produce an even bigger one.
I am sure there is a better chance to grow fish 60#+ in systems like the St. Lawrence and Georgian Bay but arent these fish supposedly the same strain as the Antrim chain fish? If so, why wouldnt the Antrim fish have just as good of a chance at growing that size since Torch is plenty big enough for maximum growth.
Will, I remember you saying something about more studies needing to be done on the genetics of the Antrim fish compared to the LSC fish. When will these studies be done and will the data and report be published publicly?…there I got off on another tangent…
"Smada962" said:
Question for Will or anyone else:With some of the rivers and drowned river mouth lakes along Lake Michigan that will likely be stocked now with the GLS program, could you ever see Lake Michigan having a fish-able population of muskies? Obviously it would be super low density and would take years and years, and natural reproduction would have to take off, but is this something that you could actually see happening? I know its
EXTREMELY far fetched but I like to think Lake Michigan could be like a LSC-west, only much bigger. I'm sure there's many reasons why this can't/won't happen but a guy can dream, right?
I imagine, if natural reproduction does take off, it would become more like the Green Bay population as opposed to LSC. LSC is an anomaly in the muskie world. Those fish dont have the deep water to hide in that they will have on the West side of the state. I can imagine alot of fish will be "lost" in the big water following the salmon/steelhead schools only coming back into the rivers when the salmon/trout do.
"MattG_braith" said:
[quote="Smada962"]Question for Will or anyone else:With some of the rivers and drowned river mouth lakes along Lake Michigan that will likely be stocked now with the GLS program, could you ever see Lake Michigan having a fish-able population of muskies? Obviously it would be super low density and would take years and years, and natural reproduction would have to take off, but is this something that you could actually see happening? I know its
EXTREMELY far fetched but I like to think Lake Michigan could be like a LSC-west, only much bigger. I'm sure there's many reasons why this can't/won't happen but a guy can dream, right?
I imagine, if natural reproduction does take off, it would become more like the Green Bay population as opposed to LSC. LSC is an anomaly in the muskie world. Those fish dont have the deep water to hide in that they will have on the West side of the state. I can imagine alot of fish will be "lost" in the big water following the salmon/steelhead schools only coming back into the rivers when the salmon/trout do.
The green bay comparison is probably a lot better one, my LSC comparison isn't very accurate (but it would be sweet).
"MattG_braith" said:
Nice thread change. I like to go off on tangents sometimes and forget that I may be jacking someone elses conversation in the process…Although I am not disagreeing with you completely, I do think that after seeing this fish caught it is hard for me to believe that that was the biggest fish in that system or that that is the only fish that size in that system. Im not too familiar with the forage in Bellaire but I assume it mostly consists of lake herring, perch and trout. I would think if a lake like that can produce a fish that size than a lake like Torch or Elk or even the Traverse Bays and their forage bases with more suckers and whitefish can produce an even bigger one.
I am sure there is a better chance to grow fish 60#+ in systems like the St. Lawrence and Georgian Bay but arent these fish supposedly the same strain as the Antrim chain fish? If so, why wouldnt the Antrim fish have just as good of a chance at growing that size since Torch is plenty big enough for maximum growth.
Will, I remember you saying something about more studies needing to be done on the genetics of the Antrim fish compared to the LSC fish. When will these studies be done and will the data and report be published publicly?…there I got off on another tangent…
I like to stick to the facts. There have been two fish ever caught in the entire chain that were "verified" over 50#… EVER. The fact that they were very close together is strange but it wouldn't surprise me if it took 50+ years for another 50# fish to be caught from there. There's more to WHY and maybe you'll be able to get a beer in me sometime and get the rest.
Strain is one things and genetics are another. Sure you can call them the same strain but the Georgian Bay and the Larry fish are genetically different. The growing season is also very different, generally a faster growing season means fish get bigger faster but not big in the long run. The wild card in all of this is climate change and what impact this will have on growth.
As far as genetics on the chain compared to LSC, the project is ongoing and will be for at least a few years. In the mean time this means stocking will not take place and there is an urgent need to adjust the size limit on the Lower Chain and other natural waters in the state.
"Smada962" said:
[quote="MattG_braith"][quote="Smada962"]Question for Will or anyone else:With some of the rivers and drowned river mouth lakes along Lake Michigan that will likely be stocked now with the GLS program, could you ever see Lake Michigan having a fish-able population of muskies? Obviously it would be super low density and would take years and years, and natural reproduction would have to take off, but is this something that you could actually see happening? I know its
EXTREMELY far fetched but I like to think Lake Michigan could be like a LSC-west, only much bigger. I'm sure there's many reasons why this can't/won't happen but a guy can dream, right?
I imagine, if natural reproduction does take off, it would become more like the Green Bay population as opposed to LSC. LSC is an anomaly in the muskie world. Those fish dont have the deep water to hide in that they will have on the West side of the state. I can imagine alot of fish will be "lost" in the big water following the salmon/steelhead schools only coming back into the rivers when the salmon/trout do.
The green bay comparison is probably a lot better one, my LSC comparison isn't very accurate (but it would be sweet).
A fishery in the lake would be very unlikely, I don't think I've ever seen any historic records of muskellunge in Lake Michigan. All of the drowned rivermouth lakes have/had populations. So… yes they wander but end up back in the rivers. We've seen that with Green Bay fish, they travel but the fishable numbers are in nearshore areas and when they travel they're not caught by salmon guys in the big lake they're caught at or inside the pierheads. It simply isn't a comfortable life out there for a muskie having to chase food all of the time. Now if you had giant reefs that topped out at 10-20' all over out there surrounded by 100-300' of water then you could make them more comfortable (sounds like Georgian Bay).
368
17
1 Guest(s)