# What would YOU do?



## MuskieJim

So here is the situation. Capt. Rich Clarke who has been guiding on the St. Lawrence River for 31 years recently caught and released what may be the biggest musky ever caught. It was approximately 60" long by 29.5" around. Weight calculators put the fish at or above 65 pounds, which has a definite chance of breaking the current world record. What did he do? Let the fish go! Keep in mind he has caught many large muskies in the 40 and 50 pound class. It's tough to think and I don't want this to turn into a bash session but I am just curious. If you were lucky enough to find this massive beast on the end of your line, caught fair and square, and in your net, would you let it go?


----------



## Wannabitawerm

If I knew it to be a potential world record, in all honesty, I would try and get it to a certified scale alive. Release it after if possible. If I couldn't, I would keep it and have it mounted. 


Ain't technology great? Now I can be distracted by fishing everywhere I go!


----------



## FISNFOOL

CPR the fish. Been fishing for over 50 years and never had anything mounted.
No need to get my name in a record book.


----------



## DCopas

I would probably let it go, like fisnfool I have no need to have my name in record books. I caught my biggest muskie to date this past fall, 49" and I didn't think twice about keeping it, just let it go and hopefully I'll catch it again next year. I have no problem with someone keeping a fish of that size though, it has probably grown to its full potential in size, you just never know.


----------



## Snakecharmer

To be honest. It would be on my wall..


----------



## Bad Bub

Snakecharmer said:


> To be honest. It would be on my wall..


Same here.....

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## Burks

Only if I was 99% sure it was a record.....would I ever keep a fish.

Otherwise, back to the water you go. If it's a personal best, fish of a lifetime, etc I'll just take good measurements and have a mount made (have yet to do so).


----------



## Bad Bub

Burks said:


> Only if I was 99% sure it was a record.....would I ever keep a fish.
> 
> Otherwise, back to the water you go. If it's a personal best, fish of a lifetime, etc I'll just take good measurements and have a mount made (have yet to do so).


I guess i'm the other way around. Fish of a lifetime is worth more in my possession than a record fish.... i don't ever expect to catch a record (which would be a fish of a lifetime i guess) but the fish of a lifetime for me would be more realistic....

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## BaddFish

Wow... tough one. If I was hunting for a trophy/ world class muskie in waters like that I would make sure I had a digital scale that I had tested with weights, etc... The fishing world may not accept as a record but at least I would know that I caught a beast!

So, I would release it- after ALOT of pics!


----------



## MuskieJim

Lots of good replies gentleman. I'm going to throw my $.02. Rich has caught and released at least 50 muskies that can be considered "fish of a lifetime" and I applaud him for that. But this one, I'm sorry to say I would have bonked it on the head and shoved a tampon in it so it didn't lose an ounce. And it's not about having your name in the books, it about having the fish and history of muskie fishing recognized as TRUTH. The world record muskie has been a debate and flawed with falsities throughout fishing history. Getting a 65+ pound beast fish on a scale in front of everyone would put a nail in the coffin for the record.


----------



## Bad Bub

MuskieJim said:


> Lots of good replies gentleman. I'm going to throw my $.02. Rich has caught and released at least 50 muskies that can be considered "fish of a lifetime" and I applaud him for that. But this one, I'm sorry to say I would have bonked it on the head and shoved a tampon in it so it didn't lose an ounce. And it's not about having your name in the books, it about having the fish and history of muskie fishing recognized as TRUTH. The world record muskie has been a debate and flawed with falsities throughout fishing history. Getting a 65+ pound beast fish on a scale in front of everyone would put a nail in the coffin for the record.


I'm gonna agree with this one as i feel it applies to all species. If someone ever came up to you and said they just caught and released the world record (insert species) without certifying it, there's no doubt that there would be quite a bit of questionable reliability from that point on..... no matter how well you knew the person.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## ohiotuber

I would keep it only if I were convinced I had taken a record. Personally, if I were a trophy muskie fisherman, I would have an excellent scale on board.
Mike


----------



## Catproinnovations

see here is the kicker of it all Capt. rich clarke didnt catch that the guy on the right did he is just holdin the fish for him in the pic First time Musky angler Daniel Polniak Jr. of Ogdensburg, NY. Now not only is that a fish of a lifetime for him its a record breaker and everything. thats great sportsmanship newbee or not. Im pretty sure if he would have wanted to bop that musky over the head and keep it there wouldnt have been anything that ol' Capt rich could do about it. Just trying to give the credit where credit is due.


----------



## nooffseason

MuskieJim said:


> Lots of good replies gentleman. I'm going to throw my $.02. Rich has caught and released at least 50 muskies that can be considered "fish of a lifetime" and I applaud him for that. But this one, I'm sorry to say I would have bonked it on the head and shoved a tampon in it so it didn't lose an ounce. And it's not about having your name in the books, it about having the fish and history of muskie fishing recognized as TRUTH. The world record muskie has been a debate and flawed with falsities throughout fishing history. Getting a 65+ pound beast fish on a scale in front of everyone would put a nail in the coffin for the record.



Tampon? I'm not sure what you'd be trying to do with this, just haven't heard of such a thing before. Wouldn't they consider it tampering or some kind of illegal move. I know it doesn't weigh anything, but it could be considered something like pushing lead down a fishes throat. Probably reading too far into your post.....

I would probably keep it for an attempt at the books. I think Musky are a prized fish and should be released always, but it would be pretty darn cool to show your kids their name in the record books.


----------



## steelheader007

Release.............................


----------



## Shortdrift

Forty years ago I would have kept the fish. Thirty years ago I might have released the fish. Twenty years ago and thereafter it would have been an unquestionable refease after a photo to look at through the years and recall that once in a lifetime catch. Record books are just that. A record of something that happened. A written record established at the expense of a magnificent creature is simply something for others to observe and never know the satisfaction of that moment in time when you experienced the thrill of the capture and the warm satisfaction of the release.


----------



## crittergitter

I am a die-hard CPR muskie guy. However, as MJ alludes to, the WR for musky is a complete and utter mess. I truly believe that most 50"rs have a chance to get bigger(to an appreciable degree). However, I don't believe very many 60" fish are going to grow very much bigger. I would keep it and get it to a certified scale ASAP. If it falls short, then we can call BOGUS on all those weight formulas. Either way, the world would not question what I caught. They would know.


----------



## acklac7

Thought about this before with S-eye as I've seen a few caught that were a pound or two shy of the State record and to be honest i'd probably get a couple really good pictures and release it. Now, if the fish was absolutely done for, as in really no chance of reviving it I would probably have some serious second thoughts.


----------



## JamesT

I am not a muskie fisherman (but i have caught one and was actually targetting them)

But im guessing weighing just the fish puts a lot of stress on it. How about having a bathrroom scale on board. Stand on scale with fish, record weight. Stand on scale by yourself. Subtract weights. That way you get a more accurate weight than the length girth calculator, takes less time (id guess, but you have to have a bigger more stable boat witn a flat surface to put scale and it still may fluctuate a bit while reading scale, but you could still prob get a decent wt then make a more informed decision on whether to keep or not.

Then again reading a scale on even a bigger more stable boat may just be difficult.

I dunno just an idea. And i realize this procedure also takes time. Maybe have you weight already known before you go fishing...i know hardly perfect technique but will give good close ballpark figure.

And to get back to the original question. If i did a length girth calculation and it was within 3 pounds or less id provably keep it. But i am sitting here in a house. If i were on a boat with the thing, id probably have a difficult time killing such a specimen and it would probablh get tossed back. I am not a mount person. To me a mount wouldnt bring back any more memories of catching that fish any more than a picture would. It would just remind me of how i decided to kill such a beautiful specimen. There would be lot more stream muskies in ohio if they werent removed "back in the day when the mode of thinking was.....uhhhhh....."different"....than it was today(see bass stringer picks from bass booksmfrom 50s and 60s if you are not sure.


----------



## Danfc80

As a general practice, catch and release of fish is a good thing except it gets carried too far sometimes. Now, the Most Interesting Man in the World "The Dos Equis guy" says he promotes "catch and release". When I see people practice catch and release with sheepshead, it's inexcusable. I learned catch and release from my grandfather when I was a kid and that only applied to Largemouth Bass. He told us to keep all the Bluegill or throw them in the bushes. I don't release Pike, they are delicous. Muskies are a phenomenal gamefish and I have released all but my first. If I caught big one in the St. Lawrence, I would keep that too, and it might be my last. You can't get any better!


----------



## sherman51

sorry guys, but i would have to keep any fish of that stature. i remember my first walleye. i caught it through the ice in jan 1981. it was 29 1/2 in long and weighed 9 1/2 lbs. i took it to k-mart where my wife was working just to show it to her. and i,ve never felt bad about keeping that fish. and it was probably the biggest walleye in our local little lake.
sherman


----------



## ShutUpNFish

If these claims of world record sized, however released, fish are popping up in recent years; then why don't these folks take EXTRA efforts in taking pictures of ALL the measurements on camera before releasing these so called world record fish? Furthermore, if they don't care either way; why are their claims or posts about these fish always seem to be something to the effect of "Possible New World Record" or "Biggest Muskie Ever Caught"?? I would certainly NEVER question the credibility of anyone I don't know, but these claims are just that, claims when concrete evidence is not offered, IMO. Everyone has their own ideas, opinions and beliefs....I personally feel that records CONNOT be records without a determination by certain officials with certain certified measuring instraments. Kinda like a guy claiming to beat the world record for making the world's largest hamburger, but eating it before showing it to anyone....lol...Yeah Guinness Book would buy his story and recognize the record...yeah, nice try 

Call it a "World Record Release"....which again, IMO, is simply commical. SO he released the fish in this new world of elitism/extremism/purism muskie fishing....All he really needs to be proud of is that he released a damn big fish and cuddos to him for making that personal choice that he has to now live with. However, its NO world record unless it is certified just THAT.

So there ya have it Jim (How ya been by the way?) My answer would have to be an astounding YES....if I felt I had the next potential WR muskie....It would be getting certifiably weighed in the hands of the right people....I have sacrificed far to much years, money and one marriage to muskie fishing... How many potential records will any given one of us truely have a chance at? And think about how many fish, serious muskie fishermen, release every year.

Happy Holidays Men!


----------



## Bad Bub

ShutUpNFish said:


> If these claims of world record sized, however released, fish are popping up in recent years; then why don't these folks take EXTRA efforts in taking pictures of ALL the measurements on camera before releasing these so called world record fish? Furthermore, if they don't care either way; why are their claims or posts about these fish always seem to be something to the effect of "Possible New World Record" or "Biggest Muskie Ever Caught"?? I would certainly NEVER question the credibility of anyone I don't know, but these claims are just that, claims when concrete evidence is not offered, IMO. Everyone has their own ideas, opinions and beliefs....I personally feel that records CONNOT be records without a determination by certain officials with certain certified measuring instraments. Kinda like a guy claiming to beat the world record for making the world's largest hamburger, but eating it before showing it to anyone....lol...Yeah Guinness Book would buy his story and recognize the record...yeah, nice try
> 
> Call it a "World Record Release"....which again, IMO, is simply commical. SO he released the fish in this new world of elitism/extremism/purism muskie fishing....All he really needs to be proud of is that he released a damn big fish and cuddos to him for making that personal choice that he has to now live with. However, its NO world record unless it is certified just THAT.
> 
> So there ya have it Jim (How ya been by the way?) My answer would have to be an astounding YES....if I felt I had the next potential WR muskie....It would be getting certifiably weighed in the hands of the right people....I have sacrificed far to much years, money and one marriage to muskie fishing... How many potential records will any given one of us truely have a chance at? And think about how many fish, serious muskie fishermen, release every year.
> 
> Happy Holidays Men!


Bingo!

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## Tatonka

I would keep a potential WR Muskie


----------



## MadMac

I have released every muskie I have caught including a 51" in 2010. That being said, if I get the state record or world record it will not only be weighed by the right people but I would want them present when the taxidermist cuts it open to prove nothing unusual is inside it. I have a problem with the state record only being 50.25" but weighing in at 55.13 lbs.


----------



## Lewzer

I don't muskie fish either but I would let it go. It's probably to old to eat and have any good taste and the cost to mount that beast would be waaaay too much for what it's worth to me.
How many thousands would it cost to mount a 60" fish? I'd rather save and invest the possible thousand or two.
The personal satisfaction of watching that beast swim away after I successfully caught it would be plenty for me.


----------



## ShutUpNFish

Lewzer said:


> I don't muskie fish either but I would let it go. It's probably to old to eat and have any good taste and the cost to mount that beast would be waaaay too much for what it's worth to me.
> How many thousands would it cost to mount a 60" fish? I'd rather save and invest the possible thousand or two.
> The personal satisfaction of watching that beast swim away after I successfully caught it would be plenty for me.


I'd be willing to bet that it would cost you absolutely NOTHING to have a world record, or even a state record fish mounted....You'd probably have every taxidermist in the country beating your door down and blowing up your phone wanting the opportunity to stuff THAT fish.

There would also be a ton of money making possibilities in endorsements, shows, etc etc with a catch&keep like that, trust me.


----------



## Bad Bub

ShutUpNFish said:


> I'd be willing to bet that it would cost you absolutely NOTHING to have a world record, or even a state record fish mounted....You'd probably have every taxidermist in the country beating your door down and blowing up your phone wanting the opportunity to stuff THAT fish.
> 
> There would also be a ton of money making possibilities in endorsements, shows, etc etc with a catch&keep like that, trust me.


I was thinking the same thing.....

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## Snakecharmer

Bad Bub said:


> I was thinking the same thing.....
> 
> Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


Yea it could possibly worth a million bucks or so with endorsements and appearances etc. The world record bass was always said to have that potential.


----------



## Lewzer

> Yea it could possibly worth a million bucks or so with endorsements and appearances etc.


That's a whole different ballgame. $1,000,000.00? I definately would keep it. I could use some new socks and underwear.


----------



## Scum_Frog

I agree as well.....if its a 60" musky...i would personally want to take it in to a certified scale for the fact on proving an amazing fish...not to get my name in the books. If it wasnt a record it would be a mounted musky on my wall for its recognition of beauty. If you would CPR the fish....more power too you! Honestly too....thatd be too hard for this guy.....but then again I keep saying I wont keep a largemouth and have it mounted if it doest break 10lbs.....hard telling.....lol. Either way....awesome fish.....even better having it CPR! Shows that there still is true monsters out there! S_F


----------



## PapawSmith

Snakecharmer said:


> Yea it could possibly worth a million bucks or so with endorsements and appearances etc. The world record bass was always said to have that potential.


I voted release, but for "a million bucks or so" the fish dies. A million bucks, in certain situations, can be a game changer.


----------



## MuskieJim

ShutUpNFish said:


> So there ya have it Jim (How ya been by the way?) My answer would have to be an astounding YES....if I felt I had the next potential WR muskie....It would be getting certifiably weighed in the hands of the right people....I have sacrificed far to much years, money and one marriage to muskie fishing... How many potential records will any given one of us truely have a chance at? And think about how many fish, serious muskie fishermen, release every year.
> 
> Happy Holidays Men!


+1. Good answer Paul!


----------



## allegheny river kid

A fish of this caliber i would have no qualms about taking home. Simply a fish in a HUGE body of water that will possibly never be seen again even if it does live a few more years. I do congratulate the angler for chosing to release, his decision, either way he wouldn't of made a mistake in my eyes!


----------



## DCopas

I have to admit, I would like to retract my previous statement, lol. I always said that if I shot a world record deer, I would get as many endorsements, sponsors, etc as I could out of it. That fish, if it were a world record, would definitely be worth a lot. Just wasn't thinking of it in that light I guess. I'm keeping it if it looks like a 60-plus pound fish capable of breaking the record. I really don't care about the record, but it sure would be nice to fish for free the rest of my life


----------



## vc1111

I'd keep it and go through any steps necessary to get it certified as what it is. Doing so would end all debate as to the size, period. As to the endorsements and potential cash, that would be very nice, but it would be second to having proved beyond a doubt what had been caught.

Of course, the average person, myself included, has a much better chance of being struck by lightning, but it really is an interesting question.

I would also add that I also respect the decision this guy made to release the fish. Unfortunalely, all message boards, including this one at times (unfortunately), have people who cast doubt upon the catch or kill of their fellow sportsmen. If his catch was actually a record, he'd have no shortage of people doubting the picture and the claim once the picture and the story made the round on the internet.


----------



## DnD

*Cheese n Rice...That's a flippin BEAST...

What was it caught on? Bulldawg? Pounder?

Considering the age of that fish u can bet your rear it would be proudly displayed on my Living Room wall...

I'd much rather see that bad boy on my wall than to see it floating on the shoreline in 6 months due to natural death...*


----------



## MuskieJim

DnD said:


> *
> I'd much rather see that bad boy on my wall than to see it floating on the shoreline in 6 months due to natural death...*


Another +1, never really thought about it like that! The fish was caught on a 10" believer trolling.


----------



## tomb

Certain of one thing: my 10" firetiger believer is going out more next year


----------



## firstflight111

i would keep it and eat it


----------



## MuskieJim

firstflight111 said:


> i would keep it and eat it


That makes perfect sense


----------



## firstflight111

MuskieJim said:


> That makes perfect sense


its a joke ....that ones way to big to eat


----------



## raiderdave

Absolutely let the thing go..... take some pics and put that on the wall..... not for killing fish / any animal if you aren't going to eat it!!!


----------



## Bad Bub

Truth is nobody in this thread has been in that situation to truely KNOW what they would do with it. I'd bet alot of the "release it" guys would really have a serious gut check moment when they swung that thing over the gunnel..... and to be honest, there's probably a few that say they would keep it then change their mind after actually laying eyes on it..... i would like to think it would be headed to my wall if i had the opportunity....

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## SeanStone

Let me ask this another way. I don't fish for musky, becuase I'm not blessed with waters that hold musky nearby. So I can only look at this from my perspective. Lets say you caught a world record carp? Would you keep it for the biologist to have thier way with it, or release her? I chose carp as an example becuase of its relative low standing with most fisherman. However a world record is a world record right? or is it? I imagine most people would throw her back just becuase its a low profile fish. ie. Not a huge sport fish, and will recieve no endorsement for it. 

On that same note would you release a world record crappie? It has a slightly higher sport fishing value. Endorsements may be possible. 

I guess the point I'm trying to get at is why would you kill any state record, unless you wanted recognized, or endorsed? 

1,000,000 is a lot of money though. I understand. Just something to ponder i guess.


----------



## Bad Bub

SeanStone said:


> Let me ask this another way. I don't fish for musky, becuase I'm not blessed with waters that hold musky nearby. So I can only look at this from my perspective. Lets say you caught a world record carp? Would you keep it for the biologist to have thier way with it, or release her? I chose carp as an example becuase of its relative low standing with most fisherman. However a world record is a world record right? or is it? I imagine most people would throw her back just becuase its a low profile fish. ie. Not a huge sport fish, and will recieve no endorsement for it.
> 
> On that same note would you release a world record crappie? It has a slightly higher sport fishing value. Endorsements may be possible.
> 
> I guess the point I'm trying to get at is why would you kill any state record, unless you wanted recognized, or endorsed?
> 
> 1,000,000 is a lot of money though. I understand. Just something to ponder i guess.


Just a little warning about the money aspect of it.... i've never seen anyone at a launch ramp with a checkbook in hand waiting to see if a fish certifies as a world record. The whole million dollar thing is more legend than probability. Odds are a few companies may ask you to make a commercial, sell photo rights or do some shows, but if you only going to keep it based on the promise of money.... i'd make sure your name is already on the check.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## crittergitter

SeanStone said:


> Let me ask this another way. I don't fish for musky, becuase I'm not blessed with waters that hold musky nearby. So I can only look at this from my perspective. Lets say you caught a world record carp? Would you keep it for the biologist to have thier way with it, or release her? I chose carp as an example becuase of its relative low standing with most fisherman. However a world record is a world record right? or is it? I imagine most people would throw her back just becuase its a low profile fish. ie. Not a huge sport fish, and will recieve no endorsement for it.
> 
> On that same note would you release a world record crappie? It has a slightly higher sport fishing value. Endorsements may be possible.
> 
> I guess the point I'm trying to get at is why would you kill any state record, unless you wanted recognized, or endorsed?
> 
> 1,000,000 is a lot of money though. I understand. Just something to ponder i guess.


This is not about a state record fish. It's about a fish that a real possibility for the WORLD record. The world record for musky has been shrodded in serious controversy for over 50 years. Is that the case for the world record carp? I doubt it. I wouldn't want $5 for my fish. Though, I for damn sure would want to settle things once and for all with everything legit and on the up and up. Fish weighed on a certified scale with multiple witnesses and fish thoroughly inspected by fisheries biologists. There would be no doubts. There would be mutiple pictures of the fish on a bump board, on the scale, with the biologists doing their inspection.


----------



## SeanStone

crittergitter said:


> This is not about a state record fish. It's about a fish that a real possibility for the WORLD record. The world record for musky has been shrodded in serious controversy for over 50 years. Is that the case for the world record carp? I doubt it. I wouldn't want $5 for my fish. Though, I for damn sure would want to settle things once and for all with everything legit and on the up and up. Fish weighed on a certified scale with multiple witnesses and fish thoroughly inspected by fisheries biologists. There would be no doubts. There would be mutiple pictures of the fish on a bump board, on the scale, with the biologists doing their inspection.


Sorry, You'll note that I did write world record near the top of the post and then changed halfway through to state record. I understand that its the whole conspiracy of the thing.....can't seem to keep things straight in my head.

My point was simply aimed at how people concieve certain speicies of fish, and the record setting policy. (IE, where a fish of that caliber has to be weighed on a certified scale, kept for biologists to look over, etc. and more than likely dies.) My point was that it is more likely that a fish such as a musky where released because of its rarity and the prestige associated with catching one, than say a carp or lesser disired species. (To most, I personally like to fish for Carp.)

If a state record were ever to find its way onto my line I would release it. If to say there was a way to keep a fish alive via a tank, then certify it as a record, and then release it back unharmed...maybe then I would consider keeping a fish for a record. Just not worth having my name on a sheet of paper or website. IMO The reference to 1,000,000 was more or less a joke. It just wouldn't happen. I am sorry for the confusion.


----------

