"Chris Musselman" said:
Even within those genetic landlocked populations can't small physical adaptations take place over time as the larger females out compete smaller ones with more offspring and over time growing slightly larger fish?
I think that's what we have there now. They grow faster than anywhere in the state, they reach sizes larger than anywhere in the state. They would/should only improve with more genetic diversity introduced.
There were some freaks caught over the last 12 years that make this latest Michigan fish look small. They were not kept. It is my contention that the eastern Canadians and Georgian bay boys are not going let this record stand. I really dont see our 58 pounder as a freak. If it would have had a 32 inch girth it would have been a freak. And yes this fun 😀 .
I am predicting here and now that we are going to see the record edge back up to about 65 pounds in the next three to 5 years. the fish will come from Georgian bay or the St. Lawrence. W e will eventually end up right where we were before the new world record group . Somewhere north of 67 pounds.
Will ,you say 63 pounds.I say 70 which is a measly 7 pound stomach full of forage difference. To me a world record is a fish that is one of a kind, not as big as most of them get. It exceeds our dreams , astonishes us , makes us say holy bat $#!*. The reason this 58 pound fish verified reinforces my belief THEY GET BIGGER is that it came from lake Bellaire. If we can grow a 58 pound fish there with average girth for her length the Larry or Georgian bay will produce a real freak with her length and a much bigger girth. IT ALREADY HAS , the fish were however released. This new record club is going to start the next great race just like we had before with Lawton, Spray, Jonson , Malo, and a host of others who battled for decades over who held the real record. Now it will be a new list of names all looking to hold that record. We are going to see some real tankers weighed in the next 5 years.
I still think this was a potential world record very near 70 pounds. This was a true freak. McNair is a huge guy and he didnt hold this fish out for the picture because he coudnt. But ah yes the controversy over his numbers. Did they stretch those figures or was it really 57 by 33.
<url url="[Permission to view this media is denied]
"><link_text text="[Permission to view this media is denied] … McNair.htm">[Permission to view this media is denied]
Had he kept it ,weighed it, certified it we would have no more debates over how big they get. And there are nearly a dozen other fish that were released with equal measurements and girth all released. Now that the bar has been lowered they will be kept.
"Chris Musselman" said:
haha by "tried convincing" I can imagine that discussion not lasting long.Even within those genetic landlocked populations can't small physical adaptations take place over time as the larger females out compete smaller ones with more offspring and over time growing slightly larger fish?
With as much egg taking as we have done in the last few years… with salmonids anyhow… we have noticed that size structure and egg count, or health of the eggs is not related whatsoever. I know big females CAN hold more eggs, but I am not sure it means they do. however they can certainly hold more food [smilie=brows.gif] and do, therefor outcompeting that way. but as for out-populating by means of reproducing, I am not sure it would happen.
How big do you guys think the Dale McNair's 57 x 33 fish from the Larry a couple years ago actually weighed? If you pop that into the various weight formulas out there you get anything from 65-72lbs. Now I know those formulas are only an estimate and sometimes not accurate, and that they came up with them by using dead fish, but still. I personally would think it would be pretty safe to say that was a low to mid 60lb class fish. I myself think that is probably about as big as they will ever get. Fortunately we'll never know since he chose to release it. I have to believe there are at least a few more in that system that big or slightly bigger. I really feel like one of these days one will be documented in the low to mid 60lb class and that will/should be the legitimate world record.
Love the debate, great discussion guys.
"Kingfisher" said:
There were some freaks caught over the last 12 years that make this latest Michigan fish look small. They were not kept. It is my contention that the eastern Canadians and Georgian bay boys are not going let this record stand. I really dont see our 58 pounder as a freak. If it would have had a 32 inch girth it would have been a freak. And yes this fun 😀 .I am predicting here and now that we are going to see the record edge back up to about 65 pounds in the next three to 5 years. the fish will come from Georgian bay or the St. Lawrence. W e will eventually end up right where we were before the new world record group . Somewhere north of 67 pounds.
Will ,you say 63 pounds.I say 70 which is a measly 7 pound stomach full of forage difference. To me a world record is a fish that is one of a kind, not as big as most of them get. It exceeds our dreams , astonishes us , makes us say holy bat $#!*. The reason this 58 pound fish verified reinforces my belief THEY GET BIGGER is that it came from lake Bellaire. If we can grow a 58 pound fish there with average girth for her length the Larry or Georgian bay will produce a real freak with her length and a much bigger girth. IT ALREADY HAS , the fish were however released. This new record club is going to start the next great race just like we had before with Lawton, Spray, Jonson , Malo, and a host of others who battled for decades over who held the real record. Now it will be a new list of names all looking to hold that record. We are going to see some real tankers weighed in the next 5 years.
I still think this was a potential world record very near 70 pounds. This was a true freak. McNair is a huge guy and he didnt hold this fish out for the picture because he coudnt. But ah yes the controversy over his numbers. Did they stretch those figures or was it really 57 by 33.
<url url="[Permission to view this media is denied]
"><link_text text="[Permission to view this media is denied] … McNair.htm">[Permission to view this media is denied]Had he kept it ,weighed it, certified it we would have no more debates over how big they get. And there are nearly a dozen other fish that were released with equal measurements and girth all released. Now that the bar has been lowered they will be kept.
To quote a friend, "if you didn't weigh it you can't say it" C&R fish are not allowed in this discussion unless they were weighed. For example, a friend of mine caught and released a fish that was 58# by formula this fall, he could have called her 58… BUT that fish actually weighed 51# on a certified scale.
The problem with your 7# of forage argument is that you can't fit 7# of anything into one of these fish once she's at her max (unless you fill it with water like the O'Brien fish). The argument can always be they're one 10# meal away from being 70# but reality is that doesn't happen. I would love to be wrong about this and see a real 63#+ fish but I'm not going to hold my breath.
What we're seeing isn't bigger and bigger fish being caught, what we're actually seeing is more fish being caught at their maximum size.
This discussion has me contemplating moving to New York and starting Chasing Unicorns Guide Service BTW I'm officially claiming that name as my own right now!
"Smada962" said:
How big do you guys think the Dale McNair's 57 x 33 fish from the Larry a couple years ago actually weighed? If you pop that into the various weight formulas out there you get anything from 65-72lbs. Now I know those formulas are only an estimate and sometimes not accurate, and that they came up with them by using dead fish, but still. I personally would think it would be pretty safe to say that was a low to mid 60lb class fish. I myself think that is probably about as big as they will ever get. Fortunately we'll never know since he chose to release it. I have to believe there are at least a few more in that system that big or slightly bigger. I really feel like one of these days one will be documented in the low to mid 60lb class and that will/should be the legitimate world record.Love the debate, great discussion guys.
I would put 58# on the MacNair fish. Kinda like this one from out there that weighed 58#:
"><url url="[Permission to view this media is denied]<url url="[Permission to view this media is denied]
"><link_text text="[Permission to view this media is denied] … 00×214.jpg">[Permission to view this media is denied]
” alt=”
"><link_text text="[Permission to view this media is denied] … 00×214.jpg">[Permission to view this media is denied]
” />
People can call the MacNair fish whatever you want but I would once again refer to the quote "if you didn't weigh it, you can't say it"
What is it about the St Lawrence that is different from Torch that makes it more capable of producing a 60# fish? Is it the forage base or the climate, or both or other reasons? I know you mentioned that places with different temps provide longer growing seasons, is that the case here? What is the ideal climate for them to grow the biggest? Or is it just the bigger body of water?
I have a buddy that lives in Buffalo, I may have to swing a trip to "visit" him this summer…
"MattG_braith" said:
What is it about the St Lawrence that is different from Torch that makes it more capable of producing a 60# fish? Is it the forage base or the climate, or both or other reasons? I know you mentioned that places with different temps provide longer growing seasons, is that the case here? What is the ideal climate for them to grow the biggest? Or is it just the bigger body of water?I have a buddy that lives in Buffalo, I may have to swing a trip to "visit" him and maybe a unicorn this summer…
higher population gives you a better chance of actually getting one???
Also, are they still continuing to track the fish tagged in the lower chain tracking study? They have the ages of all of those fish, so they could possibly down the road 10+ years find out just how long these fish really do live. I imagine most of those Torch fish dont see many lures, if any, each year so they should have no real way of dying other than natural causes.
"MattG_braith" said:
What is it about the St Lawrence that is different from Torch that makes it more capable of producing a 60# fish? Is it the forage base or the climate, or both or other reasons? I know you mentioned that places with different temps provide longer growing seasons, is that the case here? What is the ideal climate for them to grow the biggest? Or is it just the bigger body of water?I have a buddy that lives in Buffalo, I may have to swing a trip to "visit" him this summer…
Genetics.
Buffalo? Jig the Niagra, it's got some nice fish and is where the Red October tubes were born. You need to go to the other end of Lake Ontario to get a crack at the real giants.
"vano397" said:
higher population gives you a better chance of actually getting one???
Yes, not higher density but bigger water means larger population of big fish.
"MattG_braith" said:
Also, are they still continuing to track the fish tagged in the lower chain tracking study? They have the ages of all of those fish, so they could possibly down the road 10+ years find out just how long these fish really do live. I imagine most of those Torch fish dont see many lures, if any, each year so they should have no real way of dying other than natural causes.
No, the transmitter batteries are dead since they only last 24 months +/-. With ultimate size at 57-58 and the known ages we can estimate that the maximum age is 20-22.
"Will Schultz" said:
No, the transmitter batteries are dead since they only last 24 months +/-. With ultimate size at 57-58 and the known ages we can estimate that the maximum age is 20-22.
Oh I didnt even think that those things run on batteries…that is too bad.
But anyways, just for the sake of more conversation, I think I remember you said that Bellaire record fish was aged at 15 years old? Or 17? I cant remember exactly, but assuming it still have 5-7 more years to live to 20-22 before it dies of old age, do you think that it is just not going to grow anymore in those remaining years? Is there any real way of knowing if they stop growing or not?
Formula puts this giant at 65 lbs. And she's "only" 29.5" girth. If McNairs fish could hit 33" girth at 57", just imagine what this 60" fish would weigh at 33". 😯 Over 81lbs by formula. See? Unicorns DO exist. Humph.
"><url url="[Permission to view this media is denied]<url url="[Permission to view this media is denied]
"><link_text text="[Permission to view this media is denied] … 0x29_5.jpg">[Permission to view this media is denied]
” alt=”
"><link_text text="[Permission to view this media is denied] … 0x29_5.jpg">[Permission to view this media is denied]
” />
"MattG_braith" said:
[quote="Will Schultz"]No, the transmitter batteries are dead since they only last 24 months +/-. With ultimate size at 57-58 and the known ages we can estimate that the maximum age is 20-22.
Oh I didnt even think that those things run on batteries…that is too bad.
But anyways, just for the sake of more conversation, I think I remember you said that Bellaire record fish was aged at 15 years old? Or 17? I cant remember exactly, but assuming it still have 5-7 more years to live to 20-22 before it dies of old age, do you think that it is just not going to grow anymore in those remaining years? Is there any real way of knowing if they stop growing or not?
Old doesn't always mean better. I'm going by memory on age but I'm within a year on this but … We had one in Thornapple that was last captured at 19yo. She didn't grow over the last three years and was actually about 1/8" shorter than her max upon her last measurement.
The biggest (not longest) fish are going to be at their peak. One reason the biggest females spawn every other year is because it takes so much out of them to build eggs for 6 months. Consider the fish that Kyle Anderson caught. At her peak she was 55" and 53-ish# it took her the next five months to get healthy again and get back to 50#, basically an entire growing season lost. So at 17 with another 5 years of growth at .5" per year she would end up at 57.5.
"Will Schultz" said:
"…a friend of mine caught and released a fish that was 58# by formula this fall, he could have called her 58… BUT that fish actually weighed 51# on a certified scale"
How did he do this?
"Will Schultz" said:
"I tried convincing the hatchery to pressure treat the eggs to create triploid muskellunge"
…And how hard did you try?!
"Jim tenHaaf" said:
Formula puts this giant at 65 lbs. And she's "only" 29.5" girth. If McNairs fish could hit 33" girth at 57", just imagine what this 60" fish would weigh at 33". 😯 Over 81lbs by formula. See? Unicorns DO exist. Humph.
Exactly… Unicorn.
"john c" said:
[quote="Will Schultz"]"…a friend of mine caught and released a fish that was 58# by formula this fall, he could have called her 58… BUT that fish actually weighed 51# on a certified scale"
How did he do this?
IGFA certified scale on the boat.
"john c" said:
[quote="Will Schultz"]"I tried convincing the hatchery to pressure treat the eggs to create triploid muskellunge"
…And how hard did you try?!
Problem is, it's not really a muskie any longer it's a genetically engineered species and shouldn't count.
My other failed attempt was for them to use carp pituitary to produce female fingerlings only.
"Will Schultz" said:
[quote="john c"][quote="Will Schultz"]"I tried convincing the hatchery to pressure treat the eggs to create triploid muskellunge"
…And how hard did you try?!
Problem is, it's not really a muskie any longer it's a genetically engineered species and shouldn't count.
My other failed attempt was for them to use carp pituitary to produce female fingerlings only.
I dont know about all this…this sounds strangely similar to the plot of the movie Jurassic Park.
Go on…
"Will Schultz" said:
Problem is, it's not really a muskie any longer it's a genetically engineered species and shouldn't count.
No, c'mon, it's a modern replacement for the old non-reproducing tiger program. 😀
"Will Schultz" said:
My other failed attempt was for them to use carp pituitary to produce female fingerlings only
This one counts! 😀
"MattG_braith" said:
[quote="Will Schultz"][quote="john c"]
…And how hard did you try?!
Problem is, it's not really a muskie any longer it's a genetically engineered species and shouldn't count.
My other failed attempt was for them to use carp pituitary to produce female fingerlings only.
I dont know about all this…this sounds strangely similar to the plot of the movie Jurassic Park.
Go on…
Kinda like the Jurassic rainbow trout…
"><url url="[Permission to view this media is denied]<url url="[Permission to view this media is denied]
"><link_text text="[Permission to view this media is denied] … Small).jpg">[Permission to view this media is denied]
(Small).jpg” alt=”
"><link_text text="[Permission to view this media is denied] … Small).jpg">[Permission to view this media is denied]
(Small).jpg” />
368
43
1 Guest(s)