# Nice 60" muskie on DNR page



## mrfishohio

_Jim Lynch, Jr.
Michael J. Kirwan Reservoir
5/06/05
60" Muskie_

Here's the DNR Link (click).


----------



## johnboy111711

wow is all i can say! is that really 60???


----------



## mrfishohio

If you figure from the tip of it's jaw to it's gill plate was 12" then it could easily be a 60" fish...


----------



## fffffish

No Way
I deleted this once did not want to start any thing but I cant keep my mouth shut. That fish is 48 tops and that is being generous. Look at the picture of the winning fish in the [URL=http://www.ohiogamefishing.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27774]Salt Fork Chapter Challenge Results post.[/URL] That fish is a 49.5 Shrem is 6 feet tall and is holding the fish against his chest the other guy is holding his away from his body. Also look at the [URL=http://www.ohiogamefishing.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21560]57X 28 post.[/URL] Paul is at least 5'10" tall Look at how that fish is held. Come on what do you really think? If you tell me the guy is 7 1/2 feet tall I might think it over again. NOT


----------



## mrfishohio

You make a good point ffff and if you used my method from tip of jaw to gillplate is 10", even at 12" it may go 50-54 but at 10".......
It's on the DNR site, maybe he was estimating it like some do with weight. Maybe his scale "shrunk" from the water? Some fisherman have been known to exagerate(or better yet..._ s-t-r-e-t-c-h )_ the truth at times.
I'm holding a 50" fish in my avatar (if it's still the big bluecat.)


----------



## Whaler

If that fish is 60 inches, I'll eat my Swim Whiz!


----------



## flathunter

beautifull fish, might not be 60 however.


----------



## catfishhunter33

hhjhjhjhjhjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj


----------



## fffffish

I think whoever did the data entry for the web page just typed the wrong information.  Look at the picture of the woman 2 places under the muskie the caption says 17 ½ largemouth bass it looks more like a catfish to me. I stand by what I said there is no way that is a 60 inch fish. I was being overly generous before I really think it would be lucky to make 45


----------



## mrfishohio

Yes, I had the same same thought...typo, meant to hit 50" ......


----------



## JIG

It does look like a record but photos can be... 45lb/50in fish?


----------



## mrfishohio

60" is the same as the width of a queen sized bed...does that fish look like it would cover that distance? A full size bed is 54" I'm just don't think it's 60" after seeing those other fish pictures. Here's a picture of my 50" fish. I'm 6' 4" too  I'm holding it snug against my chest. Is his hand 6" wide ?? It might take 10 of them to equal the length of that fish  I still don't know...it might be. Five feet (60") the width of a queen size bed is pretty big, I wish he laid it across one !


----------



## dnm

Not to sound like a dork, but I think were all overlooking the fact that that thats a damn nice fish


----------



## Paul Anderson

DNM.... you are correct. It's definitly bigger than the one I caught last week. That was a zero inch fish.  ODNR has removed the 60" listing on that fish. IMO... no way that is a 60" fish...upper 40's yes, but not 60". It is a fine catch though and the dude ought to be really proud of it. Looks like a good hold also. I plan on catching a bigger one at Clearfork this comming weekend.  

Check out this photo of a Green Bay muskie. Lots of folks on other forums think its a fake. I don't know, but it at least looks like a 60" fish. They are both very :B .


----------



## fffffish

Link to the above fish story

http://www.thenextbite.com/forum//viewmessages.cfm?forum=8&topic=1315


----------



## mrfishohio

I did email the DNR and sent them a link to our discussion here.  
It could be a typo or something.


----------



## mrfishohio

What's the length of it ?? I didn't read all the posts. It's 60" ??


----------



## Wetnet

IMO, There is no way the fish on the ODNR site is bigger than 45-46".

The other fish is legit. It is somewhere around 56-57" x 35", and probably over 60 lbs. Possible new world record. Check it out though, they did a chop job on it to cut the real background out. It was caught out of season by a walleye fisherman and the guy wants to keep the location a secret so he can go back during the season and fish for it.


----------



## Rod&Reel

Nope that aint no 60" fish period. Anybody that thinks it is needs their eyes checked. I am 6'3" and that would make that fish only 15" shorter than me and I hate to break it to you, but that thing is alot shorter than 15". Nice fish though.


----------



## crittergitter

Ok, the Ohio fish isn't even close to 60". That had to be a typo and since that text is gone now I would think clearly it was a typo. As for that Green Bay pic that is just an awesome musky and I think it is silly that the photo was cropped as that fish aint gonna hit a bait anytime soon and it would likely relocate anyway. Sometimes musky fishermen do weird things. Oh by the way, I am a musky fisherman and do weird things. 

Good luck on Clear Fork Paul. That little lake gets a heck of a lot of pressure.

CG


----------



## catfishhunter33

:B 
hhjhjhjhjhjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj


----------



## BottomBouncer

That is exactly what I noticed 33.............the hands, they are huge. And in that other pic, everything else is nice and clear......the fish looks like you are looking at it through a week long drunk.


----------



## mrfishohio

You're talking about the second fish? I think it's legit, only they did a background change to hide the location. The hand is okay, if you put your hand out the length of your forearm in front of you, it will appear as large as your head. just put it on your face, it's almost that big to start with anyway. I can easily place my index finger & small finger on each side of my eyes. As for the blurred hand, looks like the fish slipped, it's moving up the belly from the tail section. I do know #33 is an expert on photos too, so I can be proven wrong with the facts. I just don't see them yet.
PS: If you follow the link posted to that fish, then go to page 2 and 3 there's some controvercy there. The fish , it's backed up from a guide, yes, they did alter the background of the picture...


----------



## catfishhunter33

hhjhjhjhjhjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj


----------



## mrfishohio

Okay...No need to go nuts over it and kill them all


----------



## Banker

if I had that fish (the green bay one) on my line, it think it would scare the living s*** out of me when it got close.


----------



## kingjohn

No way on the 60" I live near the Hughes River WV ,,,, Big muskie and that aint 60"

the other,,, I agree photoshop works wonders give me a couple of photos and time and I'll have you eating dinner with the pope!

Hands and head say it all fake!!!!

JB


----------



## Rod&Reel

Believe what you wish, but in the end. That fish isn't 60" or even close.


----------



## NewbreedFishing

Pete Mania a Pro Musky Fisherman/Guide said the fish was legit.


----------



## Smallie Gene

Rod&Reel said:


> Believe what you wish, but in the end. That fish isn't 60" or even close.


I ain't one to call anyone out or cast doubt or start sh*t some others, but when I seen this picture claiming it was 60 inches, the first thing I thought was, no frick'n way but now that I had time to look at the picture more, study the sources and read everyone's input, my thought now is no frick'n way in frick that thing is 60 inches. 60 inches is 5 feet! I believe it is a typo and should say "50 Inches." Unless I am looking at the wrong picture.

So...as always....Rod&Reel is right! Still one heck of a nice fish!


----------

