Fordson's fish.....62lbs in the Sun paper

Post by **fordson** » Thu Oct 16, 2008 9:47 am

I have fished for 38 years...for bass and pike.

This year I bought 2 musky rods and started learning about and targeting Musky

Just check out the weight sites I posted and then send tell me I am such a bull@#$@#$.

Finally, I do ask Fish-hawk questions when I have one. Will I again? I don't know now.

Post by **NewfieFisher** » Thu Oct 16, 2008 9:59 am

Comparing his head to the fish 30+ inches on the girth is not unreasonable. The man doesn't look like a pigmy either. Fantastic Fish, sir and congrats on the release. It's back in the river boys, go get 'er, and get her weight for us and hope she avoids weight watchers and the Tai-Bo DVDs.

Then this thread will be more pointless than it already is.

Post by **Andy_L** » Thu Oct 16, 2008 10:03 am

Fordson? take a deeeeep breath (and everyone else

)

I did go look at those sites...and indeed on one of them if you put in the length of 54" it comes up with a girth of over 30" and a weight of 60lb. HE IS CORRECT ABOUT THIS GUYS. So if the weight of the actual fish is less than that, then the error isn't Fordson's but with the way this site calculates weight...perhaps that calculation may be correct at the location where the website calculator creator lives and be incorrect here...but what Fordson said was correct if using that calculator. feel free to point out that it may not be correct and show why, don't just call someone a liar

but again....right or wrong about the weight, thats NOT THE POINT OF THE ARTICLE and that point (thanks Placide) is going to be lost within the arguement about weight......

Post by **bass_hunter** » Thu Oct 16, 2008 10:08 am

Placide wrote:I think you guys are all missing the point of the story, atleast he released it to fight another day. He could of kept it!

Brian Daniels was fishing at the public launch in Kemptville a while back, when a fellow showed up with a dead 56-inch muskie -- bragging that he could not wait to get it mounted. Daniels left disgusted and could not understand why the man had not taken a photo of the great fish and released it.

Michael Kadoura, on the other hand, caught a beautiful 54-inch, 62-lb. muskie on the Ottawa River recently, but rather than kill the fish, chose to take photos of his trophy, remove two lampreys and release it, live and fat.

Catch and release for the muskellunge brings up a huge ethical question. Truly dedicated muskie hunters would not think of keeping a single fish and would shudder at the idea of killing a large breeding female of perhaps 20-plus years old.

Earlier this year i released a 27 pound small mouth bass

We are not talking about the article , the article is good and all , we are talking about EXAGGERATING fish. He really still thinks it is 62 pounds.We are trying to help him not look like a FOOL.

Post by **Jimmy_1** » Thu Oct 16, 2008 10:14 am

bass_hunter.

Fordson is new to muskie fishing. He went to a site he thought was reasonable to approximate weight and girth. He has stated this several times.

Did he make a mistake in giving the wrong weight to a journalist..yes.
Did he maybe believe he was right based on a muskie/weight website..yes
Is he only human...yes

I guess we can't all be as saintly as you! Have you ever made a mistake buddy?

Sheeeesh get over it already!

Post by **wolfe** » Thu Oct 16, 2008 10:17 am

Big, beautiful musky, regardless of weight.

Do I think it is 62 lbs? No, not nearly.

Would I have liked (loved) to catch it myself?

Yes, absolutely!

I do think the response was a little harsh, folks. Although I agree it's quite under the 62 lb. mark, constructive criticism could be offered rather than a lambasting.

Fordson, your fish is far bigger than anything I have ever caught. Being a new musky fisherman, you should be really proud of that fish and a little humbled by the good fortune bestowed on you! It's a great catch for a seasoned musky fisherman at that!

I do find that those plug-in-the numbers estimation charts are usually over the top.

W.

Post by **bass_hunter** » Thu Oct 16, 2008 10:19 am

Jamsers wrote:bass_hunter.

Fordson is new to muskie fishing. He went to a site he thought was reasonable to approximate weight and girth. He has stated this several times.

Did he make a mistake in giving the wrong weight to a journalist..yes.
Did he maybe believe he was right based on a muskie/weight website..yes
Is he only human...yes

I guess we can't all be as saintly as you! Have you ever made a mistake buddy?

Sheeeesh get over it already!

Yes i have , and when i made a mistake , and someone told me about it , i didnt go on a rant how i am right . I admit my mistake and say im sorry and listen to the people correcting me.

Post by **HereMyGo** » Thu Oct 16, 2008 10:19 am

I guess maybe I don't know why the story in the paper offended you? Say the fish only weighed like 35lbs and not 62lbs as is stated...why does that cause you heartache? Especially to the point that you threaten to go to the columnist who reported the story. I don't want to sh*t on your wheaties but chances are highly likely that he's not going to follow up with a column about a good samaritan that goes around correcting the weights of fish of other anglers in the area.

As for credibility, please remember, it's fishing. There is a reason the term "fish stories" exists. If he wants to report the fish was 309lbs, let him, it's his fish not yours. You may have a better educated guess, and are definitely entitled to your opinion, but I would consider voicing it in a non abrassive way. Quite frankly, he really doesn't have to prove himself when not in competition to anyone but himself.

As others have stated, the story isn't about the weight/length/girth, but more so about C&R. Fordson, I think you removing the eel's from the side of the fish is a class act.

Regards,
Sean.

Post by **JRSuprstar** » Thu Oct 16, 2008 10:21 am

I have never caught a muskie...yet

Here's my input...I went to both sites given by Fordson

Muskie.outdoor.first...came up with 54" entered, no girth given=44.99lbs

Kentucky.muskie.fishing...came up with 54" entered, girth automatically given at 31.3"=58.86lbs

Those are the weights I received...

I don't see 62lbs anywhere, but I still think it's a beauty of a fish and he did the right thing releasing it, as will I, if I ever boat one, regardless of weight or girth or poundage

JR

Post by **bass_hunter** » Thu Oct 16, 2008 10:22 am

HereMyGo wrote:I guess maybe I don't know why the story in the paper offended you? Say the fish only weighed like 35lbs and not 62lbs as is stated...why does that cause you heartache? Especially to the point that you threaten to go to the columnist who reported the story. I don't want to sh*t on your wheaties but chances are highly likely that he's not going to follow up with a column about a good samaritan that goes around correcting the weights of fish of other anglers in the area.

As for credibility, please remember, it's fishing. There is a reason the term "don't tell fish stories" exists. If he wants to report the fish was 309lbs, let him, it's his fish not yours. Quite frankly, he really doesn't have to prove himself when not in competition to anyone but himself.

As others have stated, the story isn't about the weight/length/girth, but more so about C&R. Fordson, I think you removing the eel's from the side of the fish is a class act.

Regards,
Sean.

If he doesnt have to prove himself why did he risk killing the fish , bringing it to shore and taking a picture.Only to go posting the pics on a fish forum.And go on 17 fishing weighing sites and the only one that estimates the girth take that estimations and go tell a frigging news paper.

Post by **JRSuprstar** » Thu Oct 16, 2008 10:30 am

bass_hunter wrote:"Yes i have , and when i made a mistake , and someone told me about it , i didnt go on a rant how i am right . I admit my mistake and say im sorry and listen to the people correcting me."

I think people are correcting you right now...let it go

This is not meant to offend

JR

Post by **Jimmy_1** » Thu Oct 16, 2008 10:30 am

bass_hunter wrote:
Jamsers wrote:bass_hunter.

Fordson is new to muskie fishing. He went to a site he thought was reasonable to approximate weight and girth. He has stated this several times.

Did he make a mistake in giving the wrong weight to a journalist..yes.
Did he maybe believe he was right based on a muskie/weight website..yes
Is he only human...yes

I guess we can't all be as saintly as you! Have you ever made a mistake buddy?

Sheeeesh get over it already!
I think you'll find that is what he did. He admited where he got the info and he thought it was reasoanble. Which it turns out it is not. I think he gets the point.
There may be more to this, there may not.
All I am saying is I think YOU are getting way too worked up and should drop it.

Yes i have , and when i made a mistake , and someone told me about it , i didnt go on a rant how i am right . I admit my mistake and say im sorry and listen to the people correcting me.

Post by **fordson** » Thu Oct 16, 2008 10:31 am

Thanks for the support for those of you who have done so.

I posted those two sites this morning but I'd gone to about 8 the day after I caught that fish (I was still very excited).

I don't dispute that the fish may have been less than 62. The point I was trying to make bass...guy is that I didn't try and be dishonest about it.

As far as your concern about releasing the fish alive, etc. I invested in several hundred dollars of equipment this year precisely in order to protect the fish. I've said it before. I'd never harm something like this animal.

I was humbled, grateful, and in awe of it.

I hope the article helps promote catch and release. If that happens, bonus.

Post by **HereMyGo** » Thu Oct 16, 2008 10:33 am

bass_hunter wrote: If he doesnt have to prove himself why did he risk killing the fish , bringing it to shore and taking a picture.Only to go posting the pics on a fish forum.And go on 17 fishing weighing sites and the only one that estimates the girth take that estimations and go tell a frigging news paper.

1) Hmm I don't know, he clearly said he didn't have someone to take the picture, and he "MIGHT" have wanted the picture as something to remember the day by? Just a guess though...
I guess though that was the same risk he took by having it out of water long enough to get the eel's off of the side of it.
2) I would think he posted the pics on a fish forum, because after all it is a FISH FORUM. Had he gone onto a forum titled "Guiness book of world records largest musky ever caught" and started posting pictures, then yes maybe he's out to try and prove something.
3) Remember the aim of the story was C&R, not about the size of the fish. And I would guess he went on the 17 fishing sites in hopes of getting a ESTIMATION (the same kind anyone else provides by looking at a picture) of the size of his fish.

Regards,
Sean.

Post by **Andy_L** » Thu Oct 16, 2008 10:33 am

fordson wrote:Thanks for the support for those of you who have done so.

I posted those two sites this morning but I'd gone to about 8 the day after I caught that fish (I was still very excited).

I don't dispute that the fish may have been less than 62. The point I was trying to make bass...guy is that I didn't try and be dishonest about it.

As far as your concern about releasing the fish alive, etc. I invested in several hundred dollars of equipment this year precisely in order to protect the fish. I've said it before. I'd never harm something like this animal.

I was humbled, grateful, and in awe of it.

I hope the article helps promote catch and release. If that happens, bonus.

well said Fordson

that was my take from the article as well