Fish-Hawk.Net

HI ALL

I start that post because there is talking about big muskies and money on the other post,,,,,,,,,,

BUT I would like to no ,,,,,,,the truth,,,,,,,,,WOULD YOU KEEP A WORLD RECORD FISH,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,



there will be a lot off deferent opinion on this,,,,,,,,,,,,,
but if there was no money guive to that big catch it would change some response,,,,,,,,

joco,

I'd like to. But I wouldn't. Unless it was hooked beyond release.

I would take some measurements with a witness present, if possible, and a couple of pic's for posterity. (And a replica mount, if I could afford one of a fish of such stature. )

W.

Nope.

I honestly don't think so.

CCB

I know forsure i would. ( i release almost everything i catch but thats asking to much in my mind.)

same here i release everything i catch...couse i dont eat fish i fish for the sport.....but in next breath a world size fish i sure would think about getting it mounted but it would have to be somthing u would never ever see again!


zort

Well it's a tough choice. Not really sure if there is any monetary value in it other than maybe sponsorship?

In the case of a world record muskie, I think the only way it would be believed without a doubt would be to keep it. As sad as it is, it sure would be nice to put an end to all the bickering about the actual "WR" muskie.

A tough question Joco and most if not all world records are dead fish .I guess if there is some monetary value and sponsorship involved I don't think that fish would swim another day if it was mine but I do release most bigfish as a rule . The thing is most fish of that size have seen their day and have passed on their genetics umpteen times so if they are harvested then I won't sweat it too much . For example the Brook Trout record has stood forever and yet more than once someone has challenged it but after many tests were done by ROM the challengers were found to actually be splake and DR. W. Cooks record continues to stand . You see a brookies life span is only 5-7 yrs . So in conclusion most bigfish will continue to swim because when I eat fish I want a reasonable size for the table but a world record that I'm absolutely sure is a world record will be put on display somewhere .

TD

Yes for sure 100% I would keep it.
I rarely keep amything..a few Walleye her and there...I did yake hoem my first King and Rainbow last weekend...but beyond that they go back. As I and others have stated I would like one of every species to mount and I do not want a replica. World record fish...money or no money It is comin home!
For that matter I would keep a Canadian Record too.

To be a world record it would have to be killed.

If I wasn't in the business I would put her back but the benefits would be worth keeping her. Sure there wouldn't be a million for a WR muskie but the sponsorships would be begging to have you, instead of making $300-$600 USD for speaking engagements it would be $1000-$2000. And naturally my rates would go up as I don't have that much room for new customers and the demand would be there.

I definatly would not kill any fish unless I was 100% sure it was over 65 lbs.

I don't have any mounts. I eat some trout and walleye I catch. I don't catch enough trout of decent size to be selective of what I keep, but with the walleye I can't recall ever keeping any fish over about 21-22" for the table, and definetely just prefer them small for good eating anyways.

I want the world record speck first but would settle for an arctic char, marlin or sturgeon. The two char I'd probably mount and keep at home, the other two fish would need a museum.

I'd think about it twice, I would definitly want to keep the bragging rights but thats about it.

SURE !!--it's probably not a good spawner anymore, and because of it's age it will be likely to die soon anyways.

Realistically...in our area....I think Muskie is the only shot we have at a world record.....

Would I?....only if I was damn sure it was over the 65 pound mark.....

65X30....that would do it....

I don't think I have to worry about that decision any time soon....

RJ

Sorry, moondog:

The "the fish is old and isn't a good spawner anymore" story is just that- a story.

Older/larger fish DO lay fewer eggs, but the eggs are larger AND viable/the fry are larger and stand a far better chance of surviving through the first winter AND passing on their superior genes.

CCB