Really fun topic…

So, this is just something to chew on…

I have fished with Marc Thorpe 20 days on the water in the last 7-8 years. Marc has been fishing Ottawa and St. Lawrence for ~23 years. If you just average 5 days a week for 5 months (which is probably conservative), he has been on the water ~2500 days.

He has a love/hate relationship with Lazarus who has probably spent as much or more time on the same water…. Sometimes they talk, and sometimes they don't. But they have shared a LOT of info with one another over the years.

Marc has NEVER had a 60" fish in his boat… Never… He has also never had a 59"… Keep in mind, we are talking fish in natural state with no tail pinch. He has had less than 10 58" fish in his boat EVER…

Lazarus claims to have had a couple 59's and a 60 in as many years. I don't know if Mike pinches tails or not… These guys each catch 50-ish fish over 50” each season.

They catch a ton of big summer fish, but the big fish bite gets incredibly difficult when the fish are at their heaviest weights in the fall. I would bet money that the fish Lazarus just boated is the heaviest fish that has ever been in his boat.

Based on all that Marc has shared with me, I would suggest his heaviest fish is no more then mid 50's.

Standard formula puts my 58 3/8" 2 years ago at 45.6 and Crawford at 48.4. Marc's eye said 46-47lbs. My 57" 3 years ago, goes 41/44.7 with same formulas, Marc said 44/45. The twin 56's go 38.7/42.6 by formula, Marc said 43/44…

This past year I hooked and lost a fish that Marc, Mike, and one other guide have all boated once. The fish has been hooked and lost about 6 times in that same period of about 3-4 years. The fish uses 3 different pieces of large structure. And when it has been hooked it has been on one of them each time.

Marc said the last time it was caught(2 years ago) it was measured and weighed at 58.5" and 53.5lbs. He, and the other guys agree that this fish is the "Queen" of the St. Lawrence. Simply stated, the largest fish they have seen on the St. Lawrence. In order to weigh 53.5 lbs, it had to have a 27" girth… My eyes told me she was definitely heavier than the 58 I caught the prior year. She was much taller in the body than mine. So, I could believe the 27" girth…

I would suggest Mike L. caught this fish or her sister with this recent 58/59 x 30 at nearly her heaviest weight. Lets just say 59 x 30, which formula puts it at 66/61 (Standard/Crawford), but they weighed her at 58…

I personally would put Richie Clarks and McNairs in the same class as Mikes. All 58-60# fish. And I don't think they get any bigger anywhere…

My 2cents… No science, just here-say and observations…

"Kingfisher" said:
I have always stated that stomach contents are the variable that defies all the normal. Take that 58 pound fish and have her eat a 10 pound northern. or a pair of 5 pound suckers. Now she is 68 and has become the Infamous Unicorn. Johnny Dadson ordered the first 21 inch Deep threat from me. In fact he was the one who contracted me to build the first 21. He sent me a picture of the stomach contents of a 54 inch Georgian bay monster that died during release. She had a 22 inch Lake trout in her belly along with 4 smaller ones. Johnny told me the stomach contents weighed around 9 pounds. Stomach contents really are the one variable that defies all the known facts about these huge fish. It is also the way cheaters have made fraudulent claims in the past. Rocks, water, even actual fish stuffed down the throats of dead Muskies to pad the weights. I believe that a 58 inch 58 pound Musky can and will weigh 70 pounds right after eating a big meal. The problem is getting her to eat again after she has filled her belly with the real thing. Mike

Yes but… They're never full of eggs AND full of food. Don't ask me why but it never happens. Therefore my guess on the above fish was it was a summer fish or between spawning years and without 4-5 pounds of eggs.