*New WA Record Fish - Pending

[MarkFromSea]

For state record, need a state certified scale. Here's the rest of the steps to record.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/records/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[muskyhunter]

For state record, need a state certified scale. Here's the rest of the steps to record.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/records/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Good info Mark,
unfortunatley the state has not come up with a catch and release record keeping system. Catch and kill stinks..

I read the article on muskyhunter magazine's website. Stated that the fisherman measured the fish at 49" inches. Then put it in his live well until he got a second measurement from another which put the fish at 50" inches.? Hmm?
Had I measured it at 49 then I would have released the fish on the spot.
I reckon' he was lucky he didnt get caught with the fish being short eh? But it wasn't.
Just creating a what if scenerio..

Todd

[AJ's Dad]

Understanding the weight thing is simple. You can catch 10 fish of the same length and they can come in at 10 diffrent weights. A record, is a record of the biggest fish. A 50" fish that weighs 35 pounds is obviously bigger than a 50" fish that weighs 34 pounds. To establish an "accurate" record a weight would be necessary. I would hate to see a large tiger killed, only to come up a little short on weight if a person thought they had a record, but if it's a legal keeper, I guess thats up to the angler.

Mark,
You cannot base the length to weight to equal out all the time. You have to also take into consideration on the time of year. For an example, there were 2..2..52" plus fish caught on St.Clair this weekend neither of those fish were even close to 25 lbs. Its the middle of summer and typically these musky do not feed at the same rate as a spring or fall musky. So those fish were rather snakeie for their length. Their heads were nearly 15" long.
Water temps generally have a big factor in their feeding patterns. So length does not equal what a fish should weigh all the time. It is a good scale to use, i guess, but in this case Chris's fish of that fall season, I think, surpasses that fish caught last weekend by a few good pounds...saw the official length was 50.375" good fish none the less.
Todd

I agree that length does not equal what a fish should weigh. That is the point. Length means nothing. The largest fish caught deserves to be a record. So,whoever weighs the most should be the top dog. I'm not an expert on the subject but I would find it easy to believe that most if not every state record in all 50 states is based on wich fish is the heaviest, not the longest. Why should a musky record in Washington be any diffrent?
I'm not hear to argue. That's just my 2 cents worth.

[Lucius]

That is one hell of a fish!!! Congrats on his great catch and the new state record. I thought I posted this last october, but I guess I didn't. New Idaho State Record was caught last year. Sorry Mark K, the gentlemen was going for trout with a trout spinner, but caught a 44 lb tiger muskie 13+ years old!!!

http://www.fieldandstream.com/articles/ ... ught-idaho" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Mark K]

Exibit A. Thats how it always works. Just like Idahos Pike record.

[KUP]

Hey Dave; Congratulations on your new State Record!
I am so glad it came to a great angler and to a guy who really respects muskies.
Kudos for your determination, I know you and your son are dedicated anglers.
I remember when you brought the family all the way over for the Lake Tapps Tourney years ago.
Kudos to your son, too for that 45 incher - bet that surprised him on 8lb test and PB and a marshmallow.
You two will have many happy memories of THAT annual trip.

Again, congratulations on your wonderful record fish; she was a beauty!

and... it looks like it is Official : http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/washington/Species/1207

[muskyhunter]

Understanding the weight thing is simple. You can catch 10 fish of the same length and they can come in at 10 diffrent weights. A record, is a record of the biggest fish. A 50" fish that weighs 35 pounds is obviously bigger than a 50" fish that weighs 34 pounds. To establish an "accurate" record a weight would be necessary. I would hate to see a large tiger killed, only to come up a little short on weight if a person thought they had a record, but if it's a legal keeper, I guess thats up to the angler.

Mark,
You cannot base the length to weight to equal out all the time. You have to also take into consideration on the time of year. For an example, there were 2..2..52" plus fish caught on St.Clair this weekend neither of those fish were even close to 25 lbs. Its the middle of summer and typically these musky do not feed at the same rate as a spring or fall musky. So those fish were rather snakeie for their length. Their heads were nearly 15" long.
Water temps generally have a big factor in their feeding patterns. So length does not equal what a fish should weigh all the time. It is a good scale to use, i guess, but in this case Chris's fish of that fall season, I think, surpasses that fish caught last weekend by a few good pounds...saw the official length was 50.375" good fish none the less.
Todd

Mark,
Im not arguing either. Just great debate. The fishing hall of fame goes by inches. I've always gone by inches and then weight as the tie breaker. I personally think the weight thing is a salmonoid thing. I have enough trouble lately guessing the length when on the water till i bump board the fish. Then realize how freekin off i am.Weight is twice as hard i reckon'. I feel it would be awesome if Washington would get a catch and release system for freshwater species. And for those who fly fish. it would get more guys on the water fishing which would help the DFW for funding and a little more competition among anglers..without killing a fish. And it could give a state worker for the dept a job..?
Interesting to see how many anglers would get on the water trying to top one another. Not many anglers other than you and me dicussing this.. Good luck out there Mark.
Todd

I agree that length does not equal what a fish should weigh. That is the point. Length means nothing. The largest fish caught deserves to be a record. So,whoever weighs the most should be the top dog. I'm not an expert on the subject but I would find it easy to believe that most if not every state record in all 50 states is based on wich fish is the heaviest, not the longest. Why should a musky record in Washington be any diffrent?
I'm not hear to argue. That's just my 2 cents worth.

[fishnislife]

I agree that length does not equal what a fish should weigh. That is the point. Length means nothing. The largest fish caught deserves to be a record. So,whoever weighs the most should be the top dog. I'm not an expert on the subject but I would find it easy to believe that most if not every state record in all 50 states is based on wich fish is the heaviest, not the longest. Why should a musky record in Washington be any diffrent?

Completely agree.
And I do wish that at some point our state could find a way to record state records without having to retain the fish. Someone on here has the pull, with us backing them, to put in a recommendation to the state of how this could be done. The heaviest fish is the biggest. And that fish should not have to die to be recorded.



fishnislife

[Don Wittenberger]

It's about time we got a new record. The existing record has always been under suspicion of having been caught by less than legitimate means. I don't know, and can't say one way or the other, but I'd like to see any possible cloud over our state record removed by the certification of a new fish. Perhaps that will happen now; I hope so, it's been a long wait.

As the person responsible for getting the 50-inch minimum size enacted years ago, I don't have a problem with anglers keeping record fish. These are hatchery-manufactured fish meant to provide recreation. It's important to return 42" and 45" fish to the water, because we won't have 48" or 50" fish if people don't, but fish over 30 lbs. are different. They're at the end of their lifespan and probably won't be caught again if released, so keeping such a fish isn't depriving anyone of an angling opportunity.

Of course, I'm not advocating keeping any tiger muskies. I support 100% C & R. The voluntary release ethic saved the sport in the midwest. The muskie angling community adopted it nationally for a good reason. The sport was nearly dead by the 1970s because the historic practice of keeping every legal muskie decimated the fishery. Professional guides and hard-core anglers introduced 100% C & R, fortunately it caught on, and the muskie fishery made a comeback and is thriving today because virtually 100% of muskie anglers now voluntarily practice C & R. It's in their self-interest to do so because it's what makes a quality fishery possible. The same is true here in Washington and that's why I encourage and support 100% release, but as noted above state-record fish are a reasonable exception.

[muskyhunter]

It's about time we got a new record. The existing record has always been under suspicion of having been caught by less than legitimate means. I don't know, and can't say one way or the other, but I'd like to see any possible cloud over our state record removed by the certification of a new fish. Perhaps that will happen now; I hope so, it's been a long wait.

As the person responsible for getting the 50-inch minimum size enacted years ago, I don't have a problem with anglers keeping record fish. These are hatchery-manufactured fish meant to provide recreation. It's important to return 42" and 45" fish to the water, because we won't have 48" or 50" fish if people don't, but fish over 30 lbs. are different. They're at the end of their lifespan and probably won't be caught again if released, so keeping such a fish isn't depriving anyone of an angling opportunity.

Of course, I'm not advocating keeping any tiger muskies. I support 100% C & R. The voluntary release ethic saved the sport in the midwest. The muskie angling community adopted it nationally for a good reason. The sport was nearly dead by the 1970s because the historic practice of keeping every legal muskie decimated the fishery. Professional guides and hard-core anglers introduced 100% C & R, fortunately it caught on, and the muskie fishery made a comeback and is thriving today because virtually 100% of muskie anglers now voluntarily practice C & R. It's in their self-interest to do so because it's what makes a quality fishery possible. The same is true here in Washington and that's why I encourage and support 100% release, but as noted above state-record fish are a reasonable exception.

It's important to return 42" and 45" fish to the water, because we won't have 48" or 50" fish if people don't, but fish over 30 lbs. are different. They're at the end of their lifespan and probably won't be caught again if released, so keeping such a fish isn't depriving anyone of an angling opportunity.
Don,
I and a bunch of avid Musky chasers would and do disagree with the " probably won't be caught again if released" quote.
Also, I remember you stating that the "50" would not pass so you went into the rule change with a "48" limit if we had gotten a "50" limit that would be a bonus. That was at one of the very 1st Chap 57 meetings. I give Mr. Hughes props for the 50 inch rule verbage that has been in effect for the last 5 years. Sorry Don! Give credit where credit is due!
How is that flying Tuffy doing? Been fishing Merwin lately? Todd

[Don Wittenberger]

I don't care who gets credit, I'm not in this for fame or glory, but for the record it wasn't Mr. Hughes who drove to Olympia in a February snowstorm and sold the 50" rule to Craig Burley and other WDFW staff. My lawyer advocacy skills made that happen.

I think I've made my position on C & R clear ("I support 100% release") and we don't need to dwell on that.

Good ol' Tuffy has a trolling motor that won't work. Can't figure it out. It's gotta be either the motor, batteries, wiring, charger, or maybe all of them. Last fall I spent two weeks at Mike's cabin and we didn't fish because (a) the trolling motor didn't work and (b) it rained the whole time. We sat in the cabin drinking whiskey, eating steak, splitting firewood for the stove, and treating our asthma with medicinal herbs.

Nope, haven't been to Merwin this year. In fact, Tuffy hasn't been in the water this year. I turned 68 last spring, and I'm feeling my age. Spent most of this summer going to medical appointments. In any case, Mike and I don't fish like we used to; a few hours on the water is a day's work for us now. We don't catch a lot of fish anymore, but it was never primarily about that anyway, it's about being friends and having a good time. I still like to chase Mr. Muskie, but it's getting harder. Not sure how much longer I'll be doing this.

Last time I fished was on a fall weekend of a Chapter 57 tournament. The weather was windy and the water choppy, and not being a tournament participant, I didn't go out until 2:30 pm. I caught a 42-incher with one cast, decided that was enough work for one day, and went back in. Probably won't make it down to Merwin this year, because Tuffy's trolling motor still isn't fixed and my calendar is filled through most of September.

[Seattlè Pat]

Sounds like they tail roped that Muskie and drown it like a tuna. Way to go!

I disagree, age, weight and length are never certain factors in a fishes ability to be caught again. Always C&R

[Don Wittenberger]

Of course we don't know if a given fish will be caught again. I was speaking in generalities. What I said (or tried to say) is a state record fish is near the end of its lifespan, so the odds are it won't be caught again. With these weird fish anything can happen. I once hooked a big Merwin fish that broke off and the angler who caught it a week later returned my lure to me. But Mike Nielsen's 31.15-lb. Merwin fish was never caught again, or we would've heard about it. In fact, I didn't hear of any our big fish being caught again. That doesn't necessarily mean they weren't, but in those days Merwin musky anglers were a closely-knit circle, and we usually knew who was catching what.

[Seattlè Pat]

True and agreed. There are always roaming groups from other places that wander in un-noticed that can alter the numbers or odds.

I know that now there is a growing contingent of folks that are going after the musk with flies and big rods and some of them have been doing it for quite a while under the radar, not on purpose, they just prefered the stealth game.

Two years ago I caught a record size fish on the fly that I figured was on it's last days just due to how it was struggling. I got it back in the water with kit gloves but the craziest thing happened, two weeks later almost 1 mile away I caught the same fish! Hard to believe but I compared the photos and the distress and damage to it's body had to be unique so I along with others concluded that it was the same fish.