Weight Calculator Fun Fact....
According to the MCI website..a 54" x 30" fish weighs roughly 61 lbs.....
Just an FYI for all those going over all of the weight calculators out there
Fordson's fish.....62lbs in the Sun paper
-
MuskieWannabe
- Bronze Participant
- Posts: 344
- Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 6:57 pm
- Location: Carleton Place
-
almontefisher
- Diamond Participant
- Posts: 2971
- Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 3:08 pm
- Location: Carleton Place
Yes,
But see Fordson didn't have a girth measurement........
So if it were 54 x something smaller than it isn't 60+ lbs.
The point is a mistake was made, its been debated.
The reason not to post stuff and to say go to a meeting etc.
Why even bother being a dedicated group then? We would just post things on here.
The premise of MCI is conservation and is a group made up of people with the goal of conservation. Why ask you to come to a meeting? To get you to join and partake in things like the cleithrim project, log program etc. All things that enhance the sport and the conservation more than posting on the many fishing sites that exist.
I can see how you view it as elitist...but that isn't my bag. If it were I would have burnt my membership card a LOOOOOOOONNNNNGGGGG time ago.
J
But see Fordson didn't have a girth measurement........
So if it were 54 x something smaller than it isn't 60+ lbs.
The point is a mistake was made, its been debated.
The reason not to post stuff and to say go to a meeting etc.
Why even bother being a dedicated group then? We would just post things on here.
The premise of MCI is conservation and is a group made up of people with the goal of conservation. Why ask you to come to a meeting? To get you to join and partake in things like the cleithrim project, log program etc. All things that enhance the sport and the conservation more than posting on the many fishing sites that exist.
I can see how you view it as elitist...but that isn't my bag. If it were I would have burnt my membership card a LOOOOOOOONNNNNGGGGG time ago.
J
-
MuskieWannabe
- Bronze Participant
- Posts: 344
- Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 6:57 pm
- Location: Carleton Place
Sad thing is though....I know a lot of people...well, not a lot, but 10 or 15, that don't want to go simply because it seems that way....To me, that's the real shame...It sometimes comes across as though if you want to ask muskie questions, the only place you can ask them is at an MCI meeting, which usually turns people off right away, rather than simpy helping out and saying, if you want more tips and insight, you should try coming to a meeting. A small change, I would agree, but one that feels much more inviting.
That's all..Lunch is over now so back to work...
Cheers
That's all..Lunch is over now so back to work...
Cheers
-
almontefisher
- Diamond Participant
- Posts: 2971
- Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 3:08 pm
- Location: Carleton Place
CAUTION*****THREAD HIJACK********
So MCI guys and gals. I know MCI is a great class act organization just like the one I am in called the Lions club but would you not be doing MCI a favour if you spoke more open on sites like this about conservation...that clithiam project, proper C&R techniques and possibly promote gear,etc that would help save such a beautiful fish etc instead of leaving this to be discussed with fellow MCI members only?? You could say that spots are not spoken of but lures...line choice...rod choice etc should not be such a guarded secret and I think that is what Muskiewannabe is trying to say. I know the Lions club is going down hill in most parts because we stayed to tight lipped about what we do etc. They see us as an old boys club who does nothing but get together and drink which is so far from the truth...Now I do agree that if you want to learn how to fish for them then go to a meeting...join a club etc. but you should be more vocal about what MCI does and the projects it supports and also the gear that one should use if trying to catch these creatures....No point in hiding that info from non members cause it is important.
So MCI guys and gals. I know MCI is a great class act organization just like the one I am in called the Lions club but would you not be doing MCI a favour if you spoke more open on sites like this about conservation...that clithiam project, proper C&R techniques and possibly promote gear,etc that would help save such a beautiful fish etc instead of leaving this to be discussed with fellow MCI members only?? You could say that spots are not spoken of but lures...line choice...rod choice etc should not be such a guarded secret and I think that is what Muskiewannabe is trying to say. I know the Lions club is going down hill in most parts because we stayed to tight lipped about what we do etc. They see us as an old boys club who does nothing but get together and drink which is so far from the truth...Now I do agree that if you want to learn how to fish for them then go to a meeting...join a club etc. but you should be more vocal about what MCI does and the projects it supports and also the gear that one should use if trying to catch these creatures....No point in hiding that info from non members cause it is important.
Well to those 10-15.
If you have any questions please feel free to PM me.
I am no expert but I do catch muskies.
If I do not know the answer then I will ask those that do.
The flip side is that some of the nicest and most knowledgeable MCI folk don't use the net and are not part of this site.
I would urge you to actually go to a meeting and at that point form your opinion. Until then you see 1 side and have a gut feeling etc.
I'll be honest. I am relativley new to MCI. I have gone out musky fishing with more people from here than from MCI. But just as not everyone is willing to fish with new people there, I am sure there are more here that would do the same.
Its a group, same as here. So it is diverse and opinions will vary greatly.
But I still think that if you came to an Upper Valley or Ottawa meeting you would really enjoy it.
J
If you have any questions please feel free to PM me.
I am no expert but I do catch muskies.
If I do not know the answer then I will ask those that do.
The flip side is that some of the nicest and most knowledgeable MCI folk don't use the net and are not part of this site.
I would urge you to actually go to a meeting and at that point form your opinion. Until then you see 1 side and have a gut feeling etc.
I'll be honest. I am relativley new to MCI. I have gone out musky fishing with more people from here than from MCI. But just as not everyone is willing to fish with new people there, I am sure there are more here that would do the same.
Its a group, same as here. So it is diverse and opinions will vary greatly.
But I still think that if you came to an Upper Valley or Ottawa meeting you would really enjoy it.
J
Not to take anything away from Fordson's fish, it is a beautiful fish. And it merit's being published in a newspaper. But, I question the knowledge of the outdoor writer who published the story though.
He published the weight, based on what? On what Fordson told him? And without even a girth measurement? Does the writer know the difference between a 20 , 40 , 60 , or a 100lbs fish? Obviously not...... I think all of this could've been avoided had he been more knowledgeable and said, well we don't know the weight for sure, so let's just mention the lenght instead.
Joe
He published the weight, based on what? On what Fordson told him? And without even a girth measurement? Does the writer know the difference between a 20 , 40 , 60 , or a 100lbs fish? Obviously not...... I think all of this could've been avoided had he been more knowledgeable and said, well we don't know the weight for sure, so let's just mention the lenght instead.
Joe
-
troutnmuskiehunter
- Diamond Participant
- Posts: 3131
- Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 11:30 am
-
Bobber
- Diamond Participant
- Posts: 3182
- Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002 10:40 am
- Location: Stittsville, Ontario
- Contact:
Oh boy......
First of all, Fordson, that's a great fish and kudos to you for releasing her back into the water to swim again.
As I understand it, the weight factor was based on many online calculators that you used to figure it out, assuming those calculators were accurate.
Matt, I know you pretty well and I'm a little surprised at how hard you've come down on Fordson for this. I don't know the reasons why, but they really don't matter. I think you were a little harsh, which in turn brought out some more harshness by others, of which some of it had nothing really to do with the alleged weight of the Muskie.
Folks, there were comments about this site not being the site they thought it was. I think for the most part it's a good clean site, with lots of information, and great people on here contributing. Sure, there will be times where very passionate people express very passionate opinions, but that's all they are, just opinions and we can't let those few times become the foundation for how things are judged. Find me a board where it doesn't happen on some level. We let people express themselves and try hard not to moderate too much, but when personal attacks become the norm, we need to step in and diffuse.
If the weight of that fish was less than reported, then it's not Fordson's fault, as long as he used some kind of calculation, based on technology, to try and figure it out. Let's give people the benefit of the doubt and not accuse them or call them out if we don't agree with something the paper wrote. This should not have gone this far. It's not a record, it's not being entered into a competition, it's just a fantastic fish reported on by a local paper to promote catch and release. Let's leave it at that and move on.
I think we've said enough on this one. Great fish Fordson.
Cheers,
First of all, Fordson, that's a great fish and kudos to you for releasing her back into the water to swim again.
As I understand it, the weight factor was based on many online calculators that you used to figure it out, assuming those calculators were accurate.
Matt, I know you pretty well and I'm a little surprised at how hard you've come down on Fordson for this. I don't know the reasons why, but they really don't matter. I think you were a little harsh, which in turn brought out some more harshness by others, of which some of it had nothing really to do with the alleged weight of the Muskie.
Folks, there were comments about this site not being the site they thought it was. I think for the most part it's a good clean site, with lots of information, and great people on here contributing. Sure, there will be times where very passionate people express very passionate opinions, but that's all they are, just opinions and we can't let those few times become the foundation for how things are judged. Find me a board where it doesn't happen on some level. We let people express themselves and try hard not to moderate too much, but when personal attacks become the norm, we need to step in and diffuse.
If the weight of that fish was less than reported, then it's not Fordson's fault, as long as he used some kind of calculation, based on technology, to try and figure it out. Let's give people the benefit of the doubt and not accuse them or call them out if we don't agree with something the paper wrote. This should not have gone this far. It's not a record, it's not being entered into a competition, it's just a fantastic fish reported on by a local paper to promote catch and release. Let's leave it at that and move on.
I think we've said enough on this one. Great fish Fordson.
Cheers,
Rob Atkinson
Site Admin (retired)
Site Admin (retired)