So You Want a Minnesota State Record...

[Jim McCullough]

I've always said that I will never keep a Muskie unless it is a state or world record. I'm iffy on whether I would keep a state record, but I know if I caught the world record fish, it would be sent immediately to the "Muskie Beyond". If for no other reason then to put controversy to rest. :) Anyway, I have always thought about compiling a list of length X girth measurements and keeping it in my tackle box so I could be relatively sure that I had a record fish in my net. I used the Musky Hunter calculator on their site to do this. I know recently that another formula has been created for big fish. I'm not sure which one they are using on their site, so take this with a grain of salt. The Minnesota record stands at 54# and was taken back in the 50's on Lake Winnibigoshish. I live in Minnesota, so that is why I am doing it for here. I suggest everyone who would keep a state record, do the same for their state. This would help prevent people from keeping undersized fish that look huge to the angler, but aren't a record.

I decided to start my length measurements at 53 inches and end it at 63 inches. I think that covers the limits of fish that could conceivably be a state record in Minnesota. Something I noticed while doing this is that girth makes a huge difference compared to length. This makes sense. In Minnesota, the smallest girth you could have and still be a state record, is 26.5 inches. Note that the fish needs to be at least 63 inches to qualify at that girth. What does this tell you? Your fish better be REALLY fat to qualify. Length only isn't going to cut it. This tells me to concentrate my efforts on lakes with tons of forage. I'm not really going out on a limb if I tell you to concentrate your efforts on lakes with Cisco's (Tullibee in Minnesota)and Whitefish. In some cases, just an inch to a 1/2 inch makes the difference between a record and not a record. I listed that difference at 54 inches, 61 inches, and 63 inches. I will put an asterix for the non-record ones so if you have this in your tackle box, you won't make a mistake. Obviously, these are minimums and if you have a larger girth than listed, you are above the record. (Per the formula. This formula has been proven to only be an estimate, so use it as it was intended.)

Minnesota State Record Muskie stands at 54#

53x29=55.7#
*54x28=53#
54X29=56.7#
55x28=54#
56x28=54.8#
57x28=55.8#
58x28=56.8#
59x27=53.7# (close enough for statistical error)
60x27=54.6#
*61x26=51.5#
61x27=55.5#
62x27=56.5#
*63x26=53.2#
63x26.5=55.3#
63x27=57.4#

*Comparison purposes only. Not a state record.

[RoyC]

Jim,

I raised this issue a few months back, but I think it was on another message board. On paper, I think this is a great idea. But for all practical purposes, I don't think that the LGG/800 formula is good for this purpose. From some data that I have seen, there is just too much weight variability among big fish that goes beyond the length and girth measurements. Even if you took an accurate length and girth measurement and calculated the weight as soon as you catch it, you could be off by quite a bit. The data in the recent Esox Angler article for fish in this size range indicates formula errors in the range of +/-5 pounds. Thus, you could easily end up killing a non-record fish or releasing a record one.

Roy

[Dan Dean]

Jim,

Nice work! we always gave out a guide line of 57x28 or bigger to eclipse the Minnesota record. I printed out your tables, they are a good "giude line". A lot of fish have been killed by people who thought they had a record but in reality were not even close. This table may help people build a frame of reference to work off.
Thanks for your work!

Dan

[Jim McCullough]

Roy,

That is why I put in the disclaimers. Myself, I would want to be squarely into the record category before I decided to keep a fish. This could also be a deciding factor whether or not you pull your scale out and take the time to weigh the fish. If it isn't in the neigborhood via the formula, and you are C&R, then you don't take the time to weigh it. One of the other reasons I wanted to do this, was just for informational purposes. In talking to guys who I have a lot of respect for, and who have caught way more big fish than I, one of their main concerns is people over estimating their fish. Saying that their fish weighs over 40 pounds when it actually weighs just over 30 pounds. Can you imagine what these people would think if they actually caught a 45 pounder? When people don't have much experience with big fish, (myself included) it is very easy to over estimate the weight. It is very rare to hear of fish that have girths of over 26 inches, so it's good for people to know what type of size puts you in the ballpark.

[Jim McCullough]

Dan,

We posted at the same time, so I didn't see your post. As I put in my post above this, what you said is one of the main reasons I took the time to put this together.

[Turgeon]

Hey Jim,

Interesting for you to have thought of having this info onboard, and for you to take the time to do the calculations. It is interesting to see what it may take to exceed the mark.

Of course some people may now wonder if you have too much time on your hands..........;)

Bob T

[Jim McCullough]

Uhhh...Bob, I think they stopped wondering quite some time ago. ;) Can you tell that the kids are napping and I was perusing the other parts of the Musky Hunter website while the message board was crashed?

[Jim McCullough]

...another clue might be when a guy has more posts in his thread than all of the other people combined.

I'm almost to 600 posts...I'm almost to 600 posts...I passed ToddM and I'm almost to 600 posts...(mumbling incoherently)

[HerbB]

So a 55x26 isn't 50 lbs???? Rats.

Good fishing all.

[Tom B]

Interestingly, I just spoke to an MI member from Michigan, he is into muskie history and is a bit of an engineer and mathimatician (sp). He called regarding the article in Muskie the Jim Smith wrote about 50 lb fish. He said that, mathematically, a 50+ inch fish MUST have at least a 27 inch girth to hit 50 lbs. He went on to say that of the list printed, only 6 were in that category. Then, if you read the current issue of Esox Angler, it pretty much (to me anyways) confirms the validity of the length x girth formula.

Interesting stuff, kind of confirms just how rare 50 pound + fish really are.

Tom B

[RoyC]

Jim,

How would you weigh a 50+ pound live fish in your boat?

Roy

[RoyC]

Jim,

I am a bit of a mathematician, so I took your analysis a step farther and determined the required girth as a function of length for various weights so that you could use this information for other state records and the world record. Here is the resulting table.

Weight, lbs
XX 55.0 60.0 65.0 70.0 75.0
L, in., Girth*, in.
54 28.5 29.8 31.0 32.2 33.3
55 28.3 29.5 30.7 31.9 33.0
56 28.0 29.3 30.5 31.6 32.7
57 27.8 29.0 30.2 31.3 32.4
58 27.5 28.8 29.9 31.1 32.2
59 27.3 28.5 29.7 30.8 31.9
60 27.1 28.3 29.4 30.6 31.6
61 26.9 28.1 29.2 30.3 31.4
62 26.6 27.8 29.0 30.1 31.1
63 26.4 27.6 28.7 29.8 30.9
64 26.2 27.4 28.5 29.6 30.6
65 26.0 27.2 28.3 29.4 30.4
66 25.8 27.0 28.1 29.1 30.2

All of these girths are based on the LGG/800 formula.

I apologize for the formatting problems and hope that you can interpret the results. I have an HTML version of this that might be easier to read, but I couldn't figure out how to post it.

Roy

[MuskieKid]

Here's a picture: http://www.geocities.com/toothycritters/minnesota_record.jpg

The fish was caught by Art Lyons. It weighed 54lbs. 0 ounces. The length was 56" and the girth 27.8 " Enjoy - Tom


for more record fish photos check out:
http://www.geocities.com/toothycritters/giantmuskies.html

[Jim McCullough]

Roy,

Thanks for taking the time to do that. Unlike you, I am mathematically challenged. I think I have your table figured out though.

Tom,

You never cease to amaze me. Be careful or you might take over the title of "Muskie Historian". ;) By the way, your link is currently down, so you may want to check with the server.

[RoyC]

Tom,

According to the LGG/800 formula, it should have weighed 54 pounds, 2 ounces! Pretty close!

Roy

[Dan Dean]

Ok I looked at the Minnesota state record, and I have to ask, has there been any controversy over the official weight on this fish? after all the story on how it was weighed is a little confusing and they say Art was a small man maybe 5 foot 6?.
I suspect controversy will likely always follow record fish no matter what was done to authenticate dimensions.
Dan

[HerbB]

And the MN state Northern Pike record is an even bigger joke. Something like 45 lbs and the fish was only 48 inches long? I've seen the picture and there is no way it could have weighed that.

Would be nice if MN actually looked at their fish records and tried to verify them once. A few would probably be disallowed.

[MuskieKid]

Thanks for info. I was working on the site today. I'm hoping that's why it was down. The actual url for MuskieKid's links should be:

The dot.com for Muskiekid no longer works.

The new dot.com is: http://www.toothycritters.com

I would appreciate it if you will let me if it is working. It is on my end. Tom

Musky historian? I'm learning thanks to the great boards like this one. A lot of the photos that I have were obtained were from other Musky anglers that sent them to me. It's getting to be my favorite section of my site (after the boards of course - Muskie Central is my favorite).

[Jim McCullough]

Tom,

The first link in your original post still does not work. The second link in your original post does work, and I think that the MN record is on page 3. (Although it is well worth the time to scroll through all of them. What a cool reference source.) The link in your post directly above mine works also. :)

[MuskieKid]

Thanks, Tom

[BigFishCarlson]

Weighing a 50 pounder is no big challenge. I keep a $125 Chatillon 100 lb scale and a cradle on my boat. No harm, no problem. I don't want to put the life of a big fish on the line for a formula. Good luck. Mark

[Jim McCullough]

Roy,

I didn't see your post until I looked for BFC's post. He gave a good answer. I don't have a cradle, so I would pinch the sides of my net together and hook the scale on that. I would then minus the weight of the net. I have a Frabill Kwik Kradle and it has a fin saver bottom, so I wouldn't worry about hurting the fish. I could do it very quickly by getting it all set while the fish is still in the water, and then quickly lifting it and getting a reading. Total time out of the water for that would probably be 15 seconds. I don't know how BFC's cradle is constructed, but the one my brother owns, has two ropes with rings on the end and you just hook your scale on the rings and it holds the fish in and gives you your weight. I believe this is how most conservation departments do it.