What’s the systemic issue? Sorry I honestly don’t know 

46 minutes ago, TnRiver46 said:

What’s the systemic issue? Sorry I honestly don’t know 

Poor fish handling, when C&R is the goal.

Places like BR help, and it's less common among people who frequent active fishing forums/pages...but there's still a lot of it out there.

There's an on-going post on another forum's fishing page about this year's fishing pictures...lots of fish dragged up on sand, or up on the bank, vertical holds on big fish, bass held at the wrong angles...it's a fishing sub-forum on an upland hunting focused forum...so they probably don't know any better.

It's always a touchy subject to bring up...because there's almost always someone who jumps on the person bringing it up for being some kind of elitist that doesn't think any fish should ever be killed...and there's always the "it swam away" bunch...

There was a decent discussion of this fish on the FB Musky Fly Fishing page...and those guys see a ton of muskies...it was good because no one got angry or defensive about it, and recognized it as an opportunity to do a better job teaching proper techniques.

Some fish are going to die when caught...it's a fact of life in our sport.  We can increase the odds a lot of ways, and handling is one of the biggest impacts, when C&R is the goal.

The man that caught this 51 pound muskie did a excellent job releasing it. I am sure he is very happy and could care less about some people criticizing him. Congratulations to Luke King for catching a 51 pound muskie from land, thousands of people hire guides in boat and rarely catch a fish that compares to his catch.

3 hours ago, soflabasser said:

The man that caught this 51 pound muskie did a excellent job releasing it. I am sure he is very happy and could care less about some people criticizing him. Congratulations to Luke King for catching a 51 pound muskie from land, thousands of people hire guides in boat and rarely catch a fish that compares to his catch.

A few things:

1. Congratulations are certainly due.
2. Where was anyone criticizing him?  He tried as hard as he could, and did what he thought was right.  Anyone who thinks my posts were criticizing Mr. King either doesn't understand what I wrote...or is choosing to be offended for Mr. King. 
3. Evidence suggests (as evaluated by some of the most savvy musky guys in the US) that a fish that red...is a dead fish swimming.  I'm sorry of that offends some people, but it is what it is.
4. It makes sense that the state agency involved wants to shine the best possible light on the situation...even when they know they released a dying fish.  It encourages C&R, and I would absolutely try to do the same thing.  It sends the right message to others.
5. this is a perfect example of...

     

   On 3/23/2022 at 11:44 AM, Further North said:

   It's always a touchy subject to bring up...because there's almost always someone who jumps on the person bringing it up for being some kind of elitist that doesn't think any fish should ever be killed...and there's always the "it swam away" bunch...

    

I hope Mr. King gets a nice replica of his 51 pound muskie to put his wall, he earned it! It is an impressive accomplishment, even more since he caught this muskie from land.

On 3/23/2022 at 10:36 AM, newriverfisherman1953 said:

Measured, weighed and released. Fish and game personnel met him at the River. 
https://www.outdoorlife.com/fishing/record-muskie-west-virginia/

 

Both Mr. King and the Fish and Game personnel did a great job releasing this giant muskie.

I wish that were true...

They did do the best they could, which is all we can ask of anyone.

No one knows for sure if that fish is dead now. Not even the most lunatic musky hunters. I did see a different source about this story, see the little gray box behind the guys holding the fish? The fish was put in that box to be weighed, and it looked very awkward for a big long esox. 

1 hour ago, MassBass said:

No one knows for sure if that fish is dead now. Not even the most lunatic musky hunters. I did see a different source about this story, see the little gray box behind the guys holding the fish? The fish was put in that box to be weighed, and it looked very awkward for a big long esox. 

For sure?  No. 

Would we bet on it?  Of course we would.  Red fish = Dead fish in the experience of every "lunatic musky hunter" I've seen comment on it.

Again:  Great fish, and this takes nothing form the achievement of the young anglers that caught it.

The problems - the failures - are in the poor job we've done WRT angler education.

 

 

43 minutes ago, Further North said:

For sure?  No. 

Would we bet on it?  Of course we would.  Red fish = Dead fish in the experience of every "lunatic musky hunter" I've seen comment on it.

Again:  Great fish, and this takes nothing form the achievement of the young anglers that caught it.

The problems - the failures - are in the poor job we've done WRT angler education.

 

Oh. Yes I see the patches of red skin. On closer inspection, if you don't focus on the size- that fish is highly stressed. There is a very convincing narrative in the article about how the fish was released. I don't want to bash the angler and the biologist, so I will just leave it there.   

On 4/2/2022 at 6:10 PM, MassBass said:

 

Oh. Yes I see the patches of red skin. On closer inspection, if you don't focus on the size- that fish is highly stressed. There is a very convincing narrative in the article about how the fish was released. I don't want to bash the angler and the biologist, so I will just leave it there.   

There's not criticism here of the angler or the biologist, they absolutely did the best they could under the circumstances.

Woulda been dead for sure if I had caught it. I'd have got a skin mount and my Hilljack taxidermist buddy would have ate it. We'd have both been happy.

On 4/7/2022 at 5:47 PM, T-Billy said:

Woulda been dead for sure if I had caught it. I'd have got a skin mount and my Hilljack taxidermist buddy would have ate it. We'd have both been happy.

Troll much?

Ain't no one dumb enough to eat that bait.

3 hours ago, Further North said:

Troll much?

Ain't no one dumb enough to eat that bait.

No trolling. That's exactly what will happen if I catch a musky big enough that I want to mount it. That's what happened to the smallmouth on my wall. They're fish, not sacred cows.

10 hours ago, T-Billy said:

No trolling. That's exactly what will happen if I catch a musky big enough that I want to mount it. That's what happened to the smallmouth on my wall. They're fish, not sacred cows.

I agree, to a point.

1. It's not the greatest play, for the health of the resource, to remove a fish like that from the gene pool.  She got that big for a reason - possibly several, and we want as much of that in the pool as possible.
2. Big esox like that don't eat well.  If we're going to eat them, about 22" - 35" is the sweet spot.

Personally, I'm not a "hang-it-on-the-wall" guy, but I love seeing other people's well done mounts.

At the end of the day, I know what I caught, and will have pictures, which is all I want, or need.  Others feel differently, and that's just fine.

4 minutes ago, Further North said:

Big esox like that don't eat well. 

I agree, but my buddy likes em.  He's a fan of canned muskrat too though, soo...... ? 

 I put them all back with the exception of eaters and once in a lifetime kinda fish. I figure they've been passing on their genetics for a long time by that point, and don't have long to live anyway. To each their own.

4 hours ago, T-Billy said:

once in a lifetime kinda fish

I used to be the same way.  A 50+ inch pure strain or a 40+ inch tiger was going on my wall, and I was hell bent on doing it.  I changed my mind after I had a skin mount of a largemouth done about 10 years ago.  It died in the August heat, so I got it mounted.  Its begun to show signs of degrading now.  Two years ago, I finally caught a 40+ inch tiger that I had tried for so long to catch and after I took some photos and was holding that fish in my hands, there was no way I was going to kill it.  I got a replica of it made by LAX Reproductions out of Conover, WI instead.  I am so glad I went with the replica instead of the skin mount.  The replica isn't going to degrade or fade for as long as I have it and I have the satisfaction of knowing that the fish is still alive, or at least it was after I released it.  Think about it @T-Billy.  I won't hold it against you if you get a skin mount, but a replica is the way to go.

 Not all skin mounts are created equal. My taxidermist regularly repairs mounts done by others that didn't stand the test of time. I've seen mounts of his that are 20+ years old and still look great. He's in his 70's and has been doing it a long time. His work is outstanding.

 That said, all replicas aren't created equal either. Some look very good, yours does @gimruis, but they cost twice as much as a skin mount, and in my mind it's just not the same. It's not the fish I caught, and as I mentioned, the meat doesn't go to waste. 

 I'm not a dedicated musky fisherman but I catch 'em while bass fishing. I've caught and released dozens up to 46". If I get one over 48" it's going on the wall. I've caught and released thousands of smallmouth. I eat a few small ones now and then and I've put one 6+ on the wall. I've caught and released thousands of largemouth up to my PB of 6lb10oz. I eat a few of them too occasionally and if I get a 7 pounder it'll go on the wall. Same story with eyes. I don't feel a bit bad about it. The DNR allows me to harvest FAR more than I do.

Congrats on a once in a lifetime fish. 
 

For all the debate on keepers and catch and release guys, to each their own. If you keep fish awesome all I hope for is folks follow established laws and show respect to the quarry. 
 

Tight lines amigos!!!!

20 minutes ago, T-Billy said:

The DNR allows me to harvest FAR more than I do.

I actually wouldn't even be able to keep a muskie.  I have a conservation angling license in MN which is half the cost of a normal one, but it only allows me to keep half of a normal bag limit.  Since the daily bag limit on muskies is 1, mine is zero.  Never really considered that.

 

Minimum length to keep a pure strain muskie here is 54 inches.  Tiger muskie, 40 inches.

1 hour ago, SWVABass said:

Congrats on a once in a lifetime fish. 
 

For all the debate on keepers and catch and release guys, to each their own. If you keep fish awesome all I hope for is folks follow established laws and show respect to the quarry. 
 

Tight lines amigos!!!!

Absolutely...but that's not what we were discussing here...

1 hour ago, gimruis said:

I actually wouldn't even be able to keep a muskie.  I have a conservation angling license in MN which is half the cost of a normal one, but it only allows me to keep half of a normal bag limit.  Since the daily bag limit on muskies is 1, mine is zero.  Never really considered that.

 

Minimum length to keep a pure strain muskie here is 54 inches.  Tiger muskie, 40 inches.

You could keep half a muskie!  ?

2 hours ago, gimruis said:

I used to be the same way.  A 50+ inch pure strain or a 40+ inch tiger was going on my wall, and I was hell bent on doing it.  I changed my mind after I had a skin mount of a largemouth done about 10 years ago.  It died in the August heat, so I got it mounted.  Its begun to show signs of degrading now.  Two years ago, I finally caught a 40+ inch tiger that I had tried for so long to catch and after I took some photos and was holding that fish in my hands, there was no way I was going to kill it.  I got a replica of it made by LAX Reproductions out of Conover, WI instead.  I am so glad I went with the replica instead of the skin mount.  The replica isn't going to degrade or fade for as long as I have it and I have the satisfaction of knowing that the fish is still alive, or at least it was after I released it.  Think about it @T-Billy.  I won't hold it against you if you get a skin mount, but a replica is the way to go.

I'd love to tangle with a tiger that size.

I read all the responses and it does not change the fact that Mr. King now holds the official West Virginia state record muskie. Congratulations Mr.King, I hope you get a nice replica for your wall.

2 hours ago, soflabasser said:

I read all the responses and it does not change the fact that Mr. King now holds the official West Virginia state record muskie. Congratulations Mr.King, I hope you get a nice replica for your wall.

I'm left wondering why you feel the need to keep coming back and posting that.

Not a single person has suggested that congratulations were not due.

That thing is a monster.  The 3 and 4 pounders I catch have a fit when they're caught. Kudos to him for being able to land it.

On 4/9/2022 at 9:30 PM, gimruis said:

I actually wouldn't even be able to keep a muskie.  I have a conservation angling license in MN which is half the cost of a normal one, but it only allows me to keep half of a normal bag limit.  Since the daily bag limit on muskies is 1, mine is zero.  Never really considered that.

 

Minimum length to keep a pure strain muskie here is 54 inches.  Tiger muskie, 40 inches.

 

You have to be careful with your conservation license. If you catch a musky & it dies for any reason you have violated your license mandate & can be fined. We had the Canadian DNR people teach us that lesson after we released a walleye caught in deep water that could not swim away. The only way we avoided the ticket was to give the dead fish away to another angler under his limit. We had two in the live well & were only allowed one each. 

6 hours ago, Dwight Hottle said:

 

You have to be careful with your conservation license. If you catch a musky & it dies for any reason you have violated your license mandate & can be fined. We had the Canadian DNR people teach us that lesson after we released a walleye caught in deep water that could not swim away. The only way we avoided the ticket was to give the dead fish away to another angler under his limit. We had two in the live well & were only allowed one each. 

Good point @Dwight Hottle.