If I knew it to be a potential world record, in all honesty, I would try and get it to a certified scale alive. Release it after if possible. If I couldn't, I would keep it and have it mounted.


Ain't technology great? Now I can be distracted by fishing everywhere I go!

 

CPR the fish. Been fishing for over 50 years and never had anything mounted.
No need to get my name in a record book.

 

I would probably let it go, like fisnfool I have no need to have my name in record books. I caught my biggest muskie to date this past fall, 49" and I didn't think twice about keeping it, just let it go and hopefully I'll catch it again next year. I have no problem with someone keeping a fish of that size though, it has probably grown to its full potential in size, you just never know.

 

To be honest. It would be on my wall..

 

To be honest. It would be on my wall..

Same here.....

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

 

Only if I was 99% sure it was a record.....would I ever keep a fish.

Otherwise, back to the water you go. If it's a personal best, fish of a lifetime, etc I'll just take good measurements and have a mount made (have yet to do so).

 

Only if I was 99% sure it was a record.....would I ever keep a fish.

Otherwise, back to the water you go. If it's a personal best, fish of a lifetime, etc I'll just take good measurements and have a mount made (have yet to do so).

I guess i'm the other way around. Fish of a lifetime is worth more in my possession than a record fish.... i don't ever expect to catch a record (which would be a fish of a lifetime i guess) but the fish of a lifetime for me would be more realistic....

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

 

Wow... tough one. If I was hunting for a trophy/ world class muskie in waters like that I would make sure I had a digital scale that I had tested with weights, etc... The fishing world may not accept as a record but at least I would know that I caught a beast!

So, I would release it- after ALOT of pics!

 

Lots of good replies gentleman. I'm going to throw my $.02. Rich has caught and released at least 50 muskies that can be considered "fish of a lifetime" and I applaud him for that. But this one, I'm sorry to say I would have bonked it on the head and shoved a tampon in it so it didn't lose an ounce. And it's not about having your name in the books, it about having the fish and history of muskie fishing recognized as TRUTH. The world record muskie has been a debate and flawed with falsities throughout fishing history. Getting a 65+ pound beast fish on a scale in front of everyone would put a nail in the coffin for the record.

 

Lots of good replies gentleman. I'm going to throw my $.02. Rich has caught and released at least 50 muskies that can be considered "fish of a lifetime" and I applaud him for that. But this one, I'm sorry to say I would have bonked it on the head and shoved a tampon in it so it didn't lose an ounce. And it's not about having your name in the books, it about having the fish and history of muskie fishing recognized as TRUTH. The world record muskie has been a debate and flawed with falsities throughout fishing history. Getting a 65+ pound beast fish on a scale in front of everyone would put a nail in the coffin for the record.

I'm gonna agree with this one as i feel it applies to all species. If someone ever came up to you and said they just caught and released the world record (insert species) without certifying it, there's no doubt that there would be quite a bit of questionable reliability from that point on..... no matter how well you knew the person.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

 

I would keep it only if I were convinced I had taken a record. Personally, if I were a trophy muskie fisherman, I would have an excellent scale on board.
Mike

 

see here is the kicker of it all Capt. rich clarke didnt catch that the guy on the right did he is just holdin the fish for him in the pic First time Musky angler Daniel Polniak Jr. of Ogdensburg, NY. Now not only is that a fish of a lifetime for him its a record breaker and everything. thats great sportsmanship newbee or not. Im pretty sure if he would have wanted to bop that musky over the head and keep it there wouldnt have been anything that ol' Capt rich could do about it. Just trying to give the credit where credit is due.

 

Lots of good replies gentleman. I'm going to throw my $.02. Rich has caught and released at least 50 muskies that can be considered "fish of a lifetime" and I applaud him for that. But this one, I'm sorry to say I would have bonked it on the head and shoved a tampon in it so it didn't lose an ounce. And it's not about having your name in the books, it about having the fish and history of muskie fishing recognized as TRUTH. The world record muskie has been a debate and flawed with falsities throughout fishing history. Getting a 65+ pound beast fish on a scale in front of everyone would put a nail in the coffin for the record.

Tampon? I'm not sure what you'd be trying to do with this, just haven't heard of such a thing before. Wouldn't they consider it tampering or some kind of illegal move. I know it doesn't weigh anything, but it could be considered something like pushing lead down a fishes throat. Probably reading too far into your post.....

I would probably keep it for an attempt at the books. I think Musky are a prized fish and should be released always, but it would be pretty darn cool to show your kids their name in the record books.

 

Release.............................

 

Forty years ago I would have kept the fish. Thirty years ago I might have released the fish. Twenty years ago and thereafter it would have been an unquestionable refease after a photo to look at through the years and recall that once in a lifetime catch. Record books are just that. A record of something that happened. A written record established at the expense of a magnificent creature is simply something for others to observe and never know the satisfaction of that moment in time when you experienced the thrill of the capture and the warm satisfaction of the release.

 

I am a die-hard CPR muskie guy. However, as MJ alludes to, the WR for musky is a complete and utter mess. I truly believe that most 50"rs have a chance to get bigger(to an appreciable degree). However, I don't believe very many 60" fish are going to grow very much bigger. I would keep it and get it to a certified scale ASAP. If it falls short, then we can call BOGUS on all those weight formulas. Either way, the world would not question what I caught. They would know.

 

Thought about this before with S-eye as I've seen a few caught that were a pound or two shy of the State record and to be honest i'd probably get a couple really good pictures and release it. Now, if the fish was absolutely done for, as in really no chance of reviving it I would probably have some serious second thoughts.

 

I am not a muskie fisherman (but i have caught one and was actually targetting them)

But im guessing weighing just the fish puts a lot of stress on it. How about having a bathrroom scale on board. Stand on scale with fish, record weight. Stand on scale by yourself. Subtract weights. That way you get a more accurate weight than the length girth calculator, takes less time (id guess, but you have to have a bigger more stable boat witn a flat surface to put scale and it still may fluctuate a bit while reading scale, but you could still prob get a decent wt then make a more informed decision on whether to keep or not.

Then again reading a scale on even a bigger more stable boat may just be difficult.

I dunno just an idea. And i realize this procedure also takes time. Maybe have you weight already known before you go fishing...i know hardly perfect technique but will give good close ballpark figure.

And to get back to the original question. If i did a length girth calculation and it was within 3 pounds or less id provably keep it. But i am sitting here in a house. If i were on a boat with the thing, id probably have a difficult time killing such a specimen and it would probablh get tossed back. I am not a mount person. To me a mount wouldnt bring back any more memories of catching that fish any more than a picture would. It would just remind me of how i decided to kill such a beautiful specimen. There would be lot more stream muskies in ohio if they werent removed "back in the day when the mode of thinking was.....uhhhhh....."different"....than it was today(see bass stringer picks from bass booksmfrom 50s and 60s if you are not sure.

 

As a general practice, catch and release of fish is a good thing except it gets carried too far sometimes. Now, the Most Interesting Man in the World "The Dos Equis guy" says he promotes "catch and release". When I see people practice catch and release with sheepshead, it's inexcusable. I learned catch and release from my grandfather when I was a kid and that only applied to Largemouth Bass. He told us to keep all the Bluegill or throw them in the bushes. I don't release Pike, they are delicous. Muskies are a phenomenal gamefish and I have released all but my first. If I caught big one in the St. Lawrence, I would keep that too, and it might be my last. You can't get any better!

 

sorry guys, but i would have to keep any fish of that stature. i remember my first walleye. i caught it through the ice in jan 1981. it was 29 1/2 in long and weighed 9 1/2 lbs. i took it to k-mart where my wife was working just to show it to her. and i,ve never felt bad about keeping that fish. and it was probably the biggest walleye in our local little lake.
sherman

 

If these claims of world record sized, however released, fish are popping up in recent years; then why don't these folks take EXTRA efforts in taking pictures of ALL the measurements on camera before releasing these so called world record fish? Furthermore, if they don't care either way; why are their claims or posts about these fish always seem to be something to the effect of "Possible New World Record" or "Biggest Muskie Ever Caught"?? I would certainly NEVER question the credibility of anyone I don't know, but these claims are just that, claims when concrete evidence is not offered, IMO. Everyone has their own ideas, opinions and beliefs....I personally feel that records CONNOT be records without a determination by certain officials with certain certified measuring instraments. Kinda like a guy claiming to beat the world record for making the world's largest hamburger, but eating it before showing it to anyone....lol...Yeah Guinness Book would buy his story and recognize the record...yeah, nice try

Call it a "World Record Release"....which again, IMO, is simply commical. SO he released the fish in this new world of elitism/extremism/purism muskie fishing....All he really needs to be proud of is that he released a damn big fish and cuddos to him for making that personal choice that he has to now live with. However, its NO world record unless it is certified just THAT.

So there ya have it Jim (How ya been by the way?) My answer would have to be an astounding YES....if I felt I had the next potential WR muskie....It would be getting certifiably weighed in the hands of the right people....I have sacrificed far to much years, money and one marriage to muskie fishing... How many potential records will any given one of us truely have a chance at? And think about how many fish, serious muskie fishermen, release every year.

Happy Holidays Men!

 

If these claims of world record sized, however released, fish are popping up in recent years; then why don't these folks take EXTRA efforts in taking pictures of ALL the measurements on camera before releasing these so called world record fish? Furthermore, if they don't care either way; why are their claims or posts about these fish always seem to be something to the effect of "Possible New World Record" or "Biggest Muskie Ever Caught"?? I would certainly NEVER question the credibility of anyone I don't know, but these claims are just that, claims when concrete evidence is not offered, IMO. Everyone has their own ideas, opinions and beliefs....I personally feel that records CONNOT be records without a determination by certain officials with certain certified measuring instraments. Kinda like a guy claiming to beat the world record for making the world's largest hamburger, but eating it before showing it to anyone....lol...Yeah Guinness Book would buy his story and recognize the record...yeah, nice try

Call it a "World Record Release"....which again, IMO, is simply commical. SO he released the fish in this new world of elitism/extremism/purism muskie fishing....All he really needs to be proud of is that he released a damn big fish and cuddos to him for making that personal choice that he has to now live with. However, its NO world record unless it is certified just THAT.

So there ya have it Jim (How ya been by the way?) My answer would have to be an astounding YES....if I felt I had the next potential WR muskie....It would be getting certifiably weighed in the hands of the right people....I have sacrificed far to much years, money and one marriage to muskie fishing... How many potential records will any given one of us truely have a chance at? And think about how many fish, serious muskie fishermen, release every year.

Happy Holidays Men!

Bingo!

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

 

I would keep a potential WR Muskie

 

I have released every muskie I have caught including a 51" in 2010. That being said, if I get the state record or world record it will not only be weighed by the right people but I would want them present when the taxidermist cuts it open to prove nothing unusual is inside it. I have a problem with the state record only being 50.25" but weighing in at 55.13 lbs.

 

I don't muskie fish either but I would let it go. It's probably to old to eat and have any good taste and the cost to mount that beast would be waaaay too much for what it's worth to me.
How many thousands would it cost to mount a 60" fish? I'd rather save and invest the possible thousand or two.
The personal satisfaction of watching that beast swim away after I successfully caught it would be plenty for me.