Muskie growth and potentials and limitations to a world record

[Guest gbfisher]

Cram "My two cents -- the deep open water fish see <1% of the angling pressure (maybe less than 0.001%), are in colder water (helps them fatten up), and are eating much richer/fatter forage base than their shallow-water counterparts. If there's a new WR, and i would like to think there is, its coming from there.'

 

 

 

What is a deep open water fish?

Edited October 19, 2009 by gbfisher

[cram]

Cram "My two cents -- the deep open water fish see <1% of the angling pressure (maybe less than 0.001%), are in colder water (helps them fatten up), and are eating much richer/fatter forage base than their shallow-water counterparts. If there's a new WR, and i would like to think there is, its coming from there.'

 

 

 

What is a deep open water fish?

 

Those in open water feeding on herring/cisco. Just a guess but i'd bet they're bigger -- better forage, colder water, and likely see WAY fewer lures trolling by than those muskies associated with shallow water structure eating pickerel and bass.

[mepps]

Nice write up Marc, great theories!

 

I ran into some clients of yours from Muskies Inc New Jersey last week...

[Muskieman]

I also heard of a pike study done on Nippissing that involved netting and the MNR reportedly netted several muskies during that study that were approaching 63-65" . These fish on a body of water such as the Nip. surley have record potential.

 

 

 

I know of 2 60" from Nipissing this year ... one even made the front page of The North Bay Nugget......

LIVE RELEASE for both.

 

And I also know that a 61.5" apparently 58.5 lbs was KILLED in a gill net just east of Target Is. on Nipissing.

I know the angler... or so called.

 

What a shame........

 

RFS

 

http://www.ofncommunity.com/forums/index.p...35041&st=20

Edited October 19, 2009 by Randy from Sturgeon

[MAzing]

Ok a lot of what's been said makes a lot of sense.

 

Now what is stoping one of those 55 pounders from been caught just minutes after a meal lets say a couple of 5 pound whitfish or whatever swims in its waters. There have been fish under 55 inches and over 50 lbs caught and released.

 

Secondly let's say the norm for maximum girth is normally 1/2 the lenght but what about those rare fish like the Williamson fish which had a much bigger girth. What if that fish lived another 5 years and reached 56-57 inches in lenght?

 

Even a normal fish reaching the 60x30 mark would exceed the 65 lb mark.

 

We know the maximum growth rate for muskie is 54 in most places with maximum giths of 27 and just over 50 lbs, nothing is proven that there isn't a few freaks out there that will grow at least an extra 10% in lenght and girth or 59.5 x 29.7 or 65 lbs.

 

Also different areas offer different built fish, the Thousand Island fish like the Buffalo harbour fish seam to be georging in November and their girth is mostly in a small area and not through their lenght like the other big river fish or the GBay fish.

 

The McNair fish was released and may still be swimming out there, maybe it will be 60 x 3? the next time it hits a net and just maybe it will make it to a scale this time around.

 

Do I believe there are 70 pound fish out there, maybe maybe not but there sure are fish over 65 pounds out there, which is the true world record.

[cram]

Marc - any idea why there aren't huge musky caught in Lake Ontario? They are there (a few caught incidentally every year), and the food sources are pretty impressive.....you'd wonder why salmon fisherman wouldn't happen into giants once in awhile.

[Marc Thorpe]

The intent and purpose of my post was not to give credibility or diss-credit any of the recent captures.

 

If anyone would like to discuss some of the recent captures on ANOTHER THREAD,I will gladly share my observations on the physical features of those captures and explain why those fish are of certain weights in my opinion and why they have attained maximum growth rate at the pinnacle of their evolutionary growth rate in their life.

 

Many of the explanation are within my post,The evolutionary growth in length and in girth were mathematically calculated and based on my observations throughout the years and considering many of the recent captures.

Along with information on many of the fish that are un-known to be caught but were weighed with measurements taken.

The numbers seem to indicate my beliefs

the purpose of the post is to give folks some idea of the limitation and potentials that trully exist in the growth of muskies.

Unlike humans,animals generally cease eating when they are full

Digestion can take up to 3 days during summer months given the high metabolism and surrounding water temps and every 5 days or more during cold water periods.

Feeding periods is generally an individualistic thing,they do not all feed at once and may not feed for days on end,maybe even weeks,weather does not trigger all fish to eat,but I suspect as they attained a certain size or age,they individually feed according to individual physical and metabolic needs.

 

Mutation or altered genetics generally do not occur naturally causing excessive growth but more so abnormalities in physical features of most animals: 3 toes,2 arms,stub arms,stub legs and so on

 

Gigantism is disease which affects growth hormones from functioning adequately,generally associated to humans and very few other mammals

 

Acceleration of growth rates generally leads to shorter life expectancy in most living animal

 

Utilization of air in the swim bladder is mostly used for laying on the bottom or laying on the bottom in fast current.

I have witnessed on several occasions muskies coming up to the surface to take a Gulp of air and have witnessed and experienced air in-trapped in fish while fishing high current areas including the 1000 islands region.

 

The Williamson fish display the very specific characteristics and physical features I described.

 

Obrien fish like someone mention was a small guy and the picture we see,the fish head was cut so separating it from the body gives the allusion of a giant head.

It was also take with a wide angles lens thus distorting the actual size of the subject.

A great big fish

 

some of the recent captures that attained 60 inches,did not surpass 54 pounds or mid 50 pounds,some were harvested and weighed.

The original measurement were inaccurate also

Like I said,may of the great big fish captured in this decade may have had discrepancies in the methods of measuring the girth

 

Cram I suspect many of the fish using the st Lawrence do not go out to lake Ontario,I suspect they spend their summers in Chaumont Bay and Quinty, certain percentage of them leave the st Lawrence once spawning has been done to spend their summers these 2 large diverse habitat areas.

The others from what I have read remain in the river as resident populations.

 

Most muskies come within proximity of structure and can be captured.Muskies are lazy by nature and will come withing close proximity to areas where they can be captured,they generally just don't hover in the water,simply because this physical effort consumes energy,most living matter on earth conserves energy for feeding and traveling/migratory purposes.Most migratory fish tend to utilize allot of the energy that would allow for more fat retention and weight gain,thus migratory fish would generally show characteristics of being lean.

each region posses varied densities

 

The purpose an intent is to give some understanding and potentials and limitations to the species

 

the main factors to retain are evolutionary growth periods and evolution life growth cycles and physical features and make up of the species from various regions

 

the secondary factor is whether the fish was girth ed In Water or Out of Water which in my observations has shown discrepancies in the accuracy of weight speculation for Out of Water measured fish.

Fish girth ed in the water seem to display a closer proximity in weight to generally guest estimate calculations.

 

Tks for the comments and I am glad that this may be informative in the limitations and potentials regarding the species

Edited October 20, 2009 by marc thorpe

[bucktail]

Good question Cram

 

I know a couple people that have had fish hit as they realed them in out by the Duck Islands in lake Ontario.

But that is BIG water and just contemplating doing a run to the Ducks is chancy at best for most boats.

A true needle in a haystack out there!

[ehg]

Thanks for further information Marc

 

Having read the material you provided shows catching a musky near 60 lbs to be a very rare occurrence.

The lack of pictures and true measurements provides evidence of this rarity.

[MuskyHurricane]

 

 

 

Would anyone have an idea how much this fish would weigh eventhough I did not measure the girth once she measured to 56"?

 

By the way I am a 270lbs, 6 ft!

Edited October 22, 2009 by MuskyHurricane

[backbay]

 

 

 

Would anyone have an idea how much this fish would weigh eventhough I did not measure the girth once she measured to 56"?

 

By the way I am a 270lbs, 6 ft!

No. Beautiful fish, though!

Welcome to the board; Um, where is Smith's Bar?

[TroutnMuskieHunter]

Great read Marc....was interesting and enjoyable!

[Guest steel'n'esox]

Re: the Martin Williamson fish, I believe was 53 inches in length, and was caught one year before the 54 inch size limit was put in place, had that monster been caught the following year, it would have to be released. That fish was mounted by Larry Jones taxidermy, and if my memory is correct had two large whitefish in its belly, as Marc related this fish was truly a giant in regards to both its lenght but more importantly its girth, and also and maybe most importantly was its relatively young age at 17 years. The McNair fish and the Davison fish both fit this category as well, regarding lenght and girth, age of those two fish are uncertain as both were released, but from the pictures of both fish, they two might have not reached there maximum growth potential, as both fish by pictures were very healthy fish.

[Guest gbfisher]

Martin Williamson

1: Unofficially the second-largest muskie ever caught in Canada.

 

NOTE 2: Actual lengh is 55.5 inches. Fish was measured by fork length method rather than total length on fin fold, as such the correct length is 55.5 inches. This length correction was pointed out by Larry Ramsell who is a renowned muskie fish expert, muskie fishing author and accomplished muskie angler. See the following links for information on how to measure a fish: Common Measurements and How to Measure a Fish

 

 

Stan used to measure all his fish to the fork. His biggest was 57" to the fork....Caught by his daughter on Thanksgiving day some 40 plus years ago.

If you ever read this, sorry Joanne....