One of my "fishin' nut" pals sent me this pic that's circulating. The pic title has it landed at Rainy Lake and weighing 44#. My pal says he believes the world record is 46#...?
Wow, this is kinda hard to believe. Is this thing legit?
Thanks, Ewest...
If ya can, or want, you can nix this thread for me.
Brettski:
While you were wasting your time putting in a big, gorgeous pond that is well on the way to becoming the envy of pondmeisters world over, several of us attended to important matters by discussing this picture. I cannot locate the thread right now or I'd link to it. {Edit: But that's why we love Eric!}
It is fair to say there was a healthy level of skepticism about the authenticity of the photo. To my own limited Esox experience (haven't caught a Northern for 20+ years and have never seen a Muskie up close and personal), it looks a little fishy. Specifically, the highlights on the fish's head and the water do not quite smell the same to me. Alternatively, I feel it is within the abilities of good photo editors (yours truly not included) to put a Northern's skin pattern on the body of a Muskie. This may be a better explanation if the photo was created, as some experienced posters thought the fish had Muskie characteristics. A 44 pound Muskie is a (very) nice catch, but certainly no world wonder.
Twice is good with me. But this does prove a very good point. The speed of the internet and how far out in front the PB forum is.
I saw 2 science type articles (by people who are supposed to be up on all things fish) in the brand new In-Fisherman mag. - got it this week. One was about Round-up and frogs -old news and they didn't even report that it was not the active ingredient (GLYPHOSATE)
that was the problem but the surfactant - they just took a cheap shot at the product. Second was they reported on a study that PFF reported on several mths. ago but they failed to state the obvious problems with the study and its attention grabbing conclusions. Anytime a scientist seeks attention by grabbing the media spotlight, waves a study around and starts yelling the sky is falling be careful. Real scientists don't work that way.
POINT -- THE PB FORUM WAS WAY IN FRONT OF THOSE GUYS AND GOT THE STORY (INFO) RIGHT.
I could not verify this fish with my biologist friend who works up on Rainy Lake. He said the biggest northern pike caught this year was close, but not that big. He could verify that there was one caught that was just under 40 pounds. Amazing fish, aren't they? Even if that picture is "doctored," it certainly was a "pretty" northern pike!
I've done probably a few hundred northerns in the 24 years I've been doing taxidermy and this fish looks pefectly legit to me. Not saying it is, as I have no way to verify it, but as far as the photo, color, and appearance I see nothing abnormal. It's a big female.
Additionally the shape of the tail is not that of a musky anyway if someone did some photo doctoring.
Thanks for that feedback, Cecil. That fish is truly impresssive.
Gosh, you cant even post a pic of a near WR, without some skepticism. I may not even enter my 18" golden shriner in Cecil's pond records.
BTW, that whatever it is in the photo should knock down an out of control BG population pretty quickly.
Originally posted by burgermeister:
... whatever it is in the photo should knock down an out of control BG population pretty quickly. And possibly small children swimming in the lake.
the tail of a pike is rounded , muskie have flat and pointed. muskie are white back ground with black bars. pike are dark green with light bars. i still say its a muskie. i'v caught plenty of pike. only a few smaller muskies. you can tell the diff when you get them in. just like coho and kings look the same when there the same size. kings have black mouth , coho have white. i have a 36lb 44" king on the wall.
Originally posted by ken:
the tail of a pike is rounded , muskie have flat and pointed. muskie are white back ground with black bars. pike are dark green with light bars. i still say its a muskie. i'v caught plenty of pike. only a few smaller muskies. you can tell the diff when you get them in. just like coho and kings look the same when there the same size. kings have black mouth , coho have white. i have a 36lb 44" king on the wall.
Ken why do you say it's a musky? The tail is rounded like a pike and it obviously has all the hallmarks of a pike. So you're saying someone took a pike and by photo doctoring put the markings of a pike on it?
From the photo, one does not have a good view of the tail.
Taxonomic key for Fishes of Canada says pattern on pike is dark gound color with white to yellow wavy, vertical stripes in young, or horizontal rows of yellow bean shaped spots in adults, cheeks fully scaled.
The key says Muskellunge pattern is silvery or light ground color with dark spots, blotches or vertical stripes; neither cheeks or opercula completely scaled.
The fish looks to have creamish to yellow spots on ground color body to me. The spots merge into or become wavy lines on the caudal peduncle. Note the small cream spots all over the dark colored opercule cover.
The pattern of that fish. IMHO, is 100% northern pike. As Bill said, the best way to tell is check for scales on the lower cheek but I think this fish shows a lot of NP characteristics and no obvious musky ones. Are we thinking someone photoshopped the pattern on a musky?
Some generalizations I have found are that musky have more red in the fins, musky's spot pattern is less obvious with the spots being dark not light, pike are more green on the back while musky are often silver to bronze.
It does seem like there's something off with the picture. Maybe that guy 5'2" and 100lbs? The girth on that fish is IMPRESSIVE.
i say it's a muskie because of the light color. pike mostly live in or around weed beds. pike are dark green with white bars to blend into weeds. if you look at the tail it is diff , not round and has some point to the ends. i've caught hunderds of pike , small and large. biggest was 24 lbs , looked nothing like that fish. just my thoughts ok
Tiger muskie backcrossed to a northern pike? This could account for added size and weird tail pattern.
i just found this same fish posted in a rainy lake fishing fourm. there it is posted as a 38lb fish. some there beleive it is a europe pike.
Yes, I could go for that theory. I have noticed that the european record for northern pike is 55+ lbs and this is often cited as the "world" record. I believe they are both Esox lucius. I am not sure if they are different subspecies or if they just plain get bigger. Anybody know?
Originally posted by JayMan:
Yes, I could go for that theory. I have noticed that the european record for northern pike is 55+ lbs and this is often cited as the "world" record. I believe they are both Esox lucius. I am not sure if they are different subspecies or if they just plain get bigger. Anybody know?
Yes they are the same species but for some reason they get larger in Europe. No one knows why. One theory is the diet. More varied forage species and some forage is quite fatty.
Pond myth busters episode 133: get a pond, get a pike (preferably from europe), feed it mackeral. World record here I come.
Jayman, thats a good one, that head always did look as different as that fish. Nobody has commented on the line of surf in background, that is one big lake.
One should see other large pike from Rainy Lake before making definate comments. If the fish is from Rainy Lake it is not a hybrid pike. I do not think musky occur in the regions around Rainy Lake.
Red fins are common on pike from some lakes in Canada. Truly large pike in deeper Canadian Lakes do not spend much time in and around weeds beds except during pre and post spawn. Thus their body color will vary quite a bit from those smaller pike 5lb-15lb that inhabit shallows. It has been proven numerous times that real big pike will spend most of their time in deeper colder water in proximity to the thermocline. Often they stay below the thermocline feeding on whitefish, walleyes, and trout, etc. That fish in the picture was probably eating 2 to 4 pound fish; walleyes, etc.
Hiya,
As I mentioned when the pics of the giant 'Rainy Lake' pike first started making the rounds, I had sent off an email to my friend Jan Eggers (AKA 'The Pike Ferret') in Holland to see if he knew the story behind the fish... As usual, he did. Here's what Jan had to say about the fish...
"This pike was caught on the 6th of March 2006 by Dutch fisherman Ewout Blom in a pretty big lake in the south of Holland, I know the name of the lake from where quite a number of 40 plus pikes were caught and released but promised not to mention the name to avoid too heavy fishing pressure.
"This pike had a length of 127 cm and a weight of 19,5 kilo and was caught trolling with a Rapala Super Shad Rap in perch colour and I have about 10 original digital pictures of this fish"
For the metric-impaired (such as yours truly), 127cm and 19.4 kilos works out to right around 50 inches, and just barely shy of 43 pounds...
So, not 50 pounds, NOT Rainy Lake...
Cheers,
Rob Kimm
That is a pike. A pike caught in Holland to be exact. How it has been posted in all these boards is kind of funny.
Ken good research on this one.
A European pike, no wonder there were a lot of opinions about it. Caught early in the year very probably a pre-spawn female, thus the oversized abdomen laden with eggs. Also no doubt the fish was in prespawn mode in shallow water and much more vulnerable to typical lure fishing techniques used by many anglers.