nelly Posted September 20, 2007 Report Share Posted September 20, 2007 http://www.chippewaflowage.com/70pound_fish.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricoboxing Posted September 20, 2007 Report Share Posted September 20, 2007 if thats 73 lbss, then i guess those kids are 5 feet tall too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Posted September 20, 2007 Report Share Posted September 20, 2007 (edited) yeah, I don't think it's even 48"........but love old stories about big fish it is a nice old photo Edited September 20, 2007 by Terry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlowPoke Posted September 20, 2007 Report Share Posted September 20, 2007 It's a pike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jediangler Posted September 20, 2007 Report Share Posted September 20, 2007 That would be lucky to weigh half that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zib Posted September 20, 2007 Report Share Posted September 20, 2007 if thats 73 lbss, then i guess those kids are 5 feet tall too. Ditto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelly Posted September 20, 2007 Author Report Share Posted September 20, 2007 Okay, I agree with everyone that the musky is nowhere close to 70+ lbs but.... here is a photo of some nice slabs from the golden years. http://www.chippewaflowage.com/gallery/treelands/unknown3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricoboxing Posted September 20, 2007 Report Share Posted September 20, 2007 this one weighed 58 lbs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Posted September 20, 2007 Report Share Posted September 20, 2007 As the average 6 year old is around 4' tall, the math speaks for itself! I would guess that it's at least 9" off the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oncogene Posted September 20, 2007 Report Share Posted September 20, 2007 As the average 6 year old is around 4' tall, the math speaks for itself! I would guess that it's at least 9" off the ground. Not only that... it seemed the fish was held way in front of the camera while the 2 kids were more at the back. Maybe it really was 7.2 lb? the decimal point got lost on the print/news after all these years.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rizzo Posted September 21, 2007 Report Share Posted September 21, 2007 check out the eyes on that thing, I think that may be a world record pickerel, not a slimy esox. Either way, heck of a fish. Not 73 lbs but I wouldn't mind tangling with it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DT10Sam Posted September 21, 2007 Report Share Posted September 21, 2007 I believe the musky was 72 lbs., and I am a good authority on fish weights after all Laurie's bass was 28lbs. Regards, Sam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishindevil Posted September 21, 2007 Report Share Posted September 21, 2007 Well its a nice old picture....BUT....it aint no 72lbs,. .there is no way man,well i guess every year that past it just kept getting bigger & bigger. ..LOL..LOL..LOL thanks for showing us that pic cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now