Thanks will… I still cannot fathom a 50+ Muskie.. Especially in that dark dreary lake it any lake and yet I have seen pics from you all this year and years in the past.. So here is another question to chew on… Your free to travel.. Nothing tying you down money included and your goal is to fish for that world record.. Not necessarily where do you go but what type of habitat can sustain and feed a fish to get to those sizes… Do you go north and look for waters that gets less pressure?? Or do you look for the proper habitat and forage to produce a monster and not necessarily worry about people but worry about the water your fishing and its capability to potentially produce a world record class fish?? I'm sure a combination of both is the answer I only ask because I want to go north for monster pike and musky and I see lake of the woods always… But honestly how intimidating that looks to me I feel like I could have a better chance on smaller waters that fit the bill. My comfort zone has not left the "small water lakes" that through trial and error I have succeeded. I'd still like to travel north and fish but I feel like it would be a waste of time without truly feeling confident in my skills to locate fish on a regular basis. Obviously I would love to catch monsters but I'd much rather make as much consistent contact with fish and know eventually ill hit and I swear, especially with Muskie if you have no faith in what you are doing.. You won't succeed. That's why I have a hard time leaving thorn. I finally feel confident I will move/contact fish now every time I fish and I have now three out of my last five, but I know I can do better. I've read you guys talk a lot about muskies holding in deeper water, for example I don't feel confident on thornapple when I don't move them in the shallows or right on the weed break. So I start to troll and follow baitfish on my graph… Would the bottom structure be more important?! The types of weeds that I pull of bottom, or follow the fish.. Does it change from day to day, or more importantly the season that you are fishing.. So many questions I need to win the lottery and figure this out and you can all come with if I hit the powerball someday… Hopefully I didn't ask to much I'm building a gameplay in my head and it never stops with the questions… Gotta be confident lol I keep telling myself that
"bails" said:
Thanks will… I still cannot fathom a 50+ Muskie…
… So many questions I need to win the lottery and figure this out and you can all come with if I hit the powerball someday… Hopefully I didn't ask to much I'm building a gameplay in my head and it never stops with the questions… Gotta be confident lol I keep telling myself that
dude that is a lot of questions!! 
But good ones and interesting ones- maybe should pull them out of Joe's nice Thornapple report, and separate them into like common themes or something?
"bails" said:
So here is another question to chew on… Your free to travel.. Nothing tying you down money included and your goal is to fish for that world record.. Not necessarily where do you go but what type of habitat can sustain and feed a fish to get to those sizes… Do you go north and look for waters that gets less pressure?? Or do you look for the proper habitat and forage to produce a monster and not necessarily worry about people but worry about the water your fishing and its capability to potentially produce a world record class fish??
Realistically a world record is something that's simply not attainable. IMO there are only a few places capable of producing 60# fish. They all have one thing in common, they're BIG water, generally very low density that will make you bang your head against the wall wondering why you've just spent four completely fruitless 15 hour days fishing for these stupid fish.
A much more attainable goal is 40#, even that isn't attainable for 99% of muskie anglers. 40# fish are available in many waters and even possible in Michigan inland lakes. You could really swing for the fences and set your sights even higher at 50#, any 50# fish is a true freak and though it's a number that gets thrown around a lot it really doesn't happen too often… anywhere.
"bails" said:
Would the bottom structure be more important?! The types of weeds that I pull of bottom, or follow the fish.. Does it change from day to day, or more importantly the season that you are fishing..
Figuring out daily movements on every water is part of the game. Sure, anyone can find fish during perfect conditions but time on the water will help put the puzzle together. Time of year, weeds or lack of, water temp, light penetration, etc. all play into locating fish. On some lakes it pays to watch your graph looking for baitfish, on other lakes where the primary forage is suckers you're really not going to see them on the graph and you'll need to know where they should be seasonally.
In all honesty, if you're finding fish 60% of the time on Thornapple you're doing very well compared to most people that fish muskies there.
"Will Schultz" said:
In all honesty, if you're finding fish 60% of the time on Thornapple you're doing very well compared to most people that fish muskies there.
I will completely agree with that. I have fished Thorn this year more than any other southern MI lake and I would say I only contact fish maybe 30-40% of the time and even that is probably being generous. If you are contacting fish more than half the time out there then I would say you are doing pretty well.
If money is no option, and I want a world record. I am heading to the St. Lawrence and hiring Rich Clarke until I know the system like the back of my hand. IMO this will give me the best shot at a world record fish, all the while knowing I have just as good a shot of winning the powerball jackpot. However, that water isn't on my personal list as I am not worried about record class fish.
I am still trying to top the magic 50 inch mark. I have caught well over one hundred muskies, but the 50" mark has eluded me. I have spent a fair amount of time on trophy water, and lost a couple fish that might have made the grade. However, it hasn't happened yet. Time on the water… or maybe I just need Jim to take me to Murray and hand me a topraider.
Big fish water tends to be tougher, makes those fish all the more rewarding. So I tell myself.
"Scott Williams" said:
I am still trying to top the magic 50 inch mark. I have caught well over one hundred muskies, but the 50" mark has eluded me. I have spent a fair amount of time on trophy water, and lost a couple fish that might have made the grade. However, it hasn't happened yet.
Spend more time on St Clair, it's like catching 45" fish in any other lake.
If I was after a 50 pounder with a longshot of a world record I would fish northern lake huron. Georgian bay/st marys/munuscong bay area.
If I wanted to put up huge numbers of fish with the best chance at numbers of 50-55" fish and a chance at fish over 40 pounds I would spend all my time on St Clair and would spend a lot of time on the Canadian side. Right now I only have been fishing the US side and most guys will tell you its not nearly as good in the summer months.
Purely from an enjoyment to fish, aesthetically pleasing lake with great casting structure I would pick a big shield lake. I've never been but Lake of the Woods looks sweet as does Eagle. These lakes can produce some big boys too.
If you don't care about 40+ pounders I think the coolest area of the US to live in and fish all the time would be Vilas or Oneida county Wisconson, lots of good numbers waters and very pretty lakes/river systems to fish.
"><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] … a7820f.jpg">[Permission to view this media is denied]
” alt=”
"><link_text text="[Permission to view this media is denied] … a7820f.jpg">[Permission to view this media is denied]
” />
Here is the giant i mentioned. 57×25 i guess
Or you can guys say screw it…pay $200 flight to Ft. Meyers, another $1800 / 2-3 anglers for 3 days and hook into 6-7 foot Tarpon weighing 200# and have shots at them every half hour or less!! Even if you get a good hook up and fight with constantly 4-5 foot jumping and ripping drag like its in freespool it's still amazing and worth every cent spent!!
"muskaholic" said:
[quote="jasonvkop"]Simple: Eagle Lake in the fall
Did that miserably.. 2nd week of October and 80* air temp with 65* water temps, whatever you do don't plan too fat ahead!! Saw some super tankers but got skunked, very depressing:-) [smilie=brickwall.gif]
I've gone there the past 7 years or so but have always gone in July as that is what my schedule allows. I can't imagine how big the fish get there in the fall as they are already monstrous in the summer. The fish are just different up there as they are so big and fat from head to tail. The biggest fish I have ever seen was one I had follow a bucktail in 2012. She was 55"+ and already super thick. Even though I haven't caught anything close to 40#, I believe this fish would have broken that mark easily.
If money wasn't a concern, I would fish up there July-Ice up and be guided everyday.
368
24
1 Guest(s)