TJQ Posted July 17, 2013 Report Share Posted July 17, 2013 Ive been sick for the last few days so forgive me if someone else has already posted this... http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/field-notes/2013/07/wisconsin-angler-releases-possible-world-record-muskie “I didn’t really think anything of it when I caught it. I just knew it was big,” Grover told the Green Bay Press Gazette. “To be honest, I don’t fish for muskies, so I just imagined the record fish to be like 70 or 71 inches until I came in to (Smokey’s) bait shop and talked to him.” Grover asked Jeff Tilkins, owner of Smokey’s on the Bay Bait Shop, about the size of the muskie mounted on the wall of the bait shop. After finding out that it was a 52-inch fish, Grover casually mentioned that he just caught one larger. Everyone thought he was joking until he pulled out his smartphone. “When he showed us the picture, I could not believe it. There it was, and just look at the body. That fish has at least a 30-inch girth, there is no doubt in my mind about that,” Tilkins said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jigger Posted July 17, 2013 Report Share Posted July 17, 2013 Pre-spawn, 64"? Monster indeed! I was going to comment on the jacket, but it was caught in May, not today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lew Posted July 17, 2013 Report Share Posted July 17, 2013 Saw that on another website this morning TJ, a real brute for sure !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
captpierre Posted July 17, 2013 Report Share Posted July 17, 2013 Heck of a fish. Hopefully it survived Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy Ivan Posted July 17, 2013 Report Share Posted July 17, 2013 Nice fish but 72 lbs? No way. It looks bigger because he's reaching for the camera instead of holding it against his body. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leaf4 Posted July 17, 2013 Report Share Posted July 17, 2013 holy crap that thing is huge! on 17lb test none the less, what a catch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Clemens Posted July 17, 2013 Report Share Posted July 17, 2013 Now that would fill up anyone's pants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishindevil Posted July 18, 2013 Report Share Posted July 18, 2013 Yes I seen that fish on Facebook a week or so ago !!!! She is a big one !!!!! Wow.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glen Posted July 18, 2013 Report Share Posted July 18, 2013 Thanks for putting it up TJ. Nice one. My pants are 36" so if they don't fit it's a bigun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishsevern Posted July 18, 2013 Report Share Posted July 18, 2013 All it takes is one bite at the right time, at the right place, with the right lure, with strong enough line, and a way to get them into the boat (or shore). Easy for that guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porkpie Posted July 18, 2013 Report Share Posted July 18, 2013 Nice fish but 72 lbs? No way. It looks bigger because he's reaching for the camera instead of holding it against his body. Thats a big fish, and he isn't holding it that far away, you can tell by the angle of his right arm. However it is not a 72LB fish, I agree. Hell of a catch though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glen Posted July 18, 2013 Report Share Posted July 18, 2013 Hard to tell true size of any fish from a picture. I've had people think my 40s are bigger then my 50s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey Posted July 18, 2013 Report Share Posted July 18, 2013 What a monster. I don't think he is holding it out toward the camera, his arms are bent. That thing would weigh a ton and be too heavy to hold out. Looks pretty dang heavy to me and if that guy weights say 200 lbs and that fish is half the guy's size it could definitely weigh 72 lbs. The head of the fish even looks bigger than his head Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike rousseau Posted July 18, 2013 Report Share Posted July 18, 2013 Not to high jack but this was also boated recently... 57.25" by Mike Hulbert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted July 18, 2013 Report Share Posted July 18, 2013 "The head of the fish looks as big as his head" "He is not holding it towards the camera at all" Two statements that conflict a little. Lol What a monster! I dunno about record class or anything like that, but it sure is a trophy musky. Being able to tell how long or heavy from that pic/hold would be completely impossible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy Ivan Posted July 19, 2013 Report Share Posted July 19, 2013 (edited) Here is a big fish photo that makes it easier to judge the size. This one was 65lbs. Scroll up and compare it to the Wisconsin muskie. Edited July 19, 2013 by Crazy Ivan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lew Posted July 19, 2013 Report Share Posted July 19, 2013 Ivan, that 65 pounder was disputed by many people too. I doubt there's ever been a big musky caught that wasn't disputed by someone and is the exact reason why many musky anglers never even bother posting pictures of their catches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outllaw Posted July 19, 2013 Report Share Posted July 19, 2013 LEW yer dead on that one. more often then not guys don't show trophy catches... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moosebunk Posted July 19, 2013 Report Share Posted July 19, 2013 (edited) The minute you say "trophy" anything, whether it is or not, the eyes of some will just roll for different reasons. You or someone mentions "record" breaking and that's even worse. Heck, I've known people that will end friendships over such things. Big ole ski this one is... to him it's both a trophy and his record I'm betting. Edited July 19, 2013 by Moosebunk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lunkerhunter Posted July 19, 2013 Report Share Posted July 19, 2013 solid fish for sure! and from shore!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lew Posted July 19, 2013 Report Share Posted July 19, 2013 And more often than not, the guys doing all the name calling are guys who've never caught a big musky themselves...funny how that happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
captpierre Posted July 19, 2013 Report Share Posted July 19, 2013 gotta love those wide angled lenses some guys use Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ehg Posted July 19, 2013 Report Share Posted July 19, 2013 (edited) It is a big, old fat musky. Nice surprising catch. If you look at O'Briens 65 lb,. 58 by 30 inch fish or Williamson's 61 lb., 53.5 by 30 inch fish. they are way bigger than this supposed 64 inch fish. Edited July 19, 2013 by ehg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jigger Posted July 19, 2013 Report Share Posted July 19, 2013 I dont know the length or girth of O'Brian or Grover. Without that info, it is impossible to judge their fish against each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJQ Posted July 19, 2013 Author Report Share Posted July 19, 2013 Trophy or Not... its an awesome fish. 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