Anyone thinking about getting a tag – just in case? That is just in case you get one that clearly crushes the state record. Just curious. I’m thinking about it. Hate to have to fillet one up just for the record. But some one will probably get one of those rare freaks in the boat. What’s your take? Not in this forum much, so maybe you guys have this one hashed out?
-J.
Everyone in our group buys one for that reason,We ate one a few years ago it was not very good and would never kill one again to eat.
Dad and I get two tags every year smoked or grilled sturgeon is verry good. The fish are safe this year though $$ is tight now. 
I buy the Tag every year!
Not so much for the State record harvest ability but more to do with not being able to revive a big fish in which case I know people who will smoke and eat the Sturgeon. Also the DNR needs the money and that’s how I roll right or wrong!!
I wouldn’t like to kill one of these fish for short lived fame…..
I am choosing not to kill one for the books. CPR is enough for me.
Same here. Dont think I would kill one with out any plans of eating it. Would hate to see a lot of potential state record fish being killed in attempts to break the state record.
Quote:
I buy the Tag every year!
Not so much for the State record harvest ability but more to do with not being able to revive a big fish in which case I know people who will smoke and eat the Sturgeon. Also the DNR needs the money and that’s how I roll right or wrong!!
I like that idea Pier. I don’t keep fish normally, but I won’t waste one that isn’t going to make it either. Without a tag, I couldn’t do that with a sturgeon.
I’d never keep a fish either to get my name ‘in the books’. Can you name anyone off the top of your head (that you don’t know personally or have come in contact with) that owns a state record? Last weeks sturgeon proves that you don’t need to get your name in the books if you want a little recognition. I know at least one station did a little piece on it. If I wanted to share a little pride in catching a record state fish I’d video tape it, if I had a recorder with me, otherwise I’d take lots of picts and send them in to the news with a little info and my phone number.
Quote:
I wouldn’t like to kill one of these fish for short lived fame…..
I am choosing not to kill one for the books. CPR is enough for me.
Same here 
See you boys soon 
Sitting here at Wigwam, sipping coffee and looking out over a walleye chopped Four Mile Bay, asking myself why I didn’t buy a tag this year.
Came up with two reasons for me.
1. Each year over the last 5 years I’ve witnessed the sturgeon getting larger and larger. More people fishing and getting better at what we do accounts for some of this. The sturgeon themselves are getting larger of course.
Because of our crazy laws I would have to kill the fish to have it a state record and that it’s certain to not last as long as the 90 pounder which is the current record, it doesn’t make sense to me to tag one.
The other reason is that $5. goes to the general fund and chances are pretty good the DNR will not see the money AND if it does happen to see it, it’s going to be going to the walleye guys. (I could have said bass or musky guys, but I know when I pick on walleyes a couple peoples hair stands on end 
)
What we need is what the Bass, Musky, panfish and walleye folks have…a Catfish/Sturgeon Advisory Board for the DNR.
We are the ONLY group (besides the carp/sucker guys-OH I take that back! Carp are represented by the bowfishers!) that is not represented at DNR planning meetings. No squeaky wheel no oil.
Sorry Jon, another hijack. 
Brian, sounds like you got a new group to start. Busy, busy, busy!
No hijack at all, that’s what I wanted to hear.
Quote:
Because of our crazy laws I would have to kill the fish to have it a state record and that it’s certain to not last as long as the 90 pounder which is the current record, it doesn’t make sense to me to tag one.
I actually agree that it makes no sense to have a 98 take it this year, a 101, next and so on.
Quote:
…..get one that clearly crushes the state record.
For the record, I was only thinking of the situation where the record is clearly crushed. I’m talking 150 lbs or better! 
-J.
Some great pictures and a little “net cred” is all I need.
I’ve fished for cats and sturgeon quite a bit, and if you asked me right now what the name of the person is who holds either record, I’d be stumped. I know the weights, and that is about it.
I’ve bought mine ever since Fisherdave took me out my first time ever. I have yet to need it. But I’d rather have it and not need it then not have it and then have one not revive.
Quote:
I know the weights, and that is about it.
Exactly…even if it was a 150 pounder!
….but if the FW and I don’t do better, I’m not really going to have to worry about it. 
I’m getting one Jon. What flames my butt is that you have to kill an ancient animal to get the record. How bad is that? 
Quote:
I actually agree that it makes no sense to have a 98 take it this year, a 101, next and so on.
I am on the opposite side of the fence on this issue. Without documentation and registration, what is the record? I like the thoughts of records and the chance to have caught “the biggest” ever in the state. I see what happens when somebody catches a big fish and posts pics/wieght estimate. Every naysayer and critic comes out of the woodwork questioning, doubting, and discrediting the catch. It happens a lot and right or wrong, it clouds the views of many on how big a fish can actually get and how many monsters are actually landed. The number of actual record contenders that are caught is so small, it does not bother me if they are taken in for weighing/certifying.
I like the idea of setting the benchmark clearly and objectively. A certified weight is the only way of doing this.
If I decide to sturgeon fish more in the future, I sure hope to find myself in the situation of having to make that decision!
T
Quote:
Every naysayer and critic comes out of the woodwork questioning, doubting, and discrediting the catch.
THAT my friend happens even if there photo and lots of documentation!
I think what most don’t like about the MN record system is that the fish will be killed. Not trying to put words into others mouth.
Quote:
I think what most don’t like about the MN record system is that the fish will be killed. Not trying to put words into others mouth.
I agree wholeheartedly. I find that aspect of the system absurd .
When I was younger, in a minute.. if I caught a state record it’d be mounted and on my wall and I’d enjoy every minute of telling people how I caught it and use it to futher my fishing desire to be a Pro.
Now, naw, I have a decent sized Musky on the wall from back then, no record but still not bad, and I wished I’d have passed on the mount.
I’m not totally into C&R but I think I’d have a hard time figuring out what to do with a 90#+ sturgeon that would make sense.
So, now days the big ones get to go back and I get to look at/show pictures if I want.
Al
Quote:
but I think I’d have a hard time figuring out what to do with a 90#+ sturgeon that would make sense.
Last year Realtor Ron had his 104 pound sturgeon replica on the wall at Everts.
Quote:
Quote:
but I think I’d have a hard time figuring out what to do with a 90#+ sturgeon that would make sense.
Last year Realtor Ron had his 104 pound sturgeon replica on the wall at Everts.
Replica maybe, real one, naw I’ll pass..:)
Not sure I could or want to spend the money to mount or get a replica made anyway, that’s lots more fishing equiptment you could buy.
Al
Not to mention the 12,000 pound dinosaur hanging on the wall behind the counter at Everts… that being the replica of the alligator Gar that I believe our own BK co-caught, yes? That thing is like a pig tank with fins.
I’ve elected to set fish-keeping rules for myself:
“Reasonable” meaning up to and including a “good-sized” specimen, but anything in the ridiculous range goes back in the water after photos and measurements. I have a whole list of species size ranges in my head, but that’s a bit much for this post.
I just cleaned a 9.5# channel this morning and she gave up enough meat for my family to eat WELL, probably even having a couple people over. This being the first time I’ve cleaned a channel cat that big, I may have to reconsider my personal size limits because I think a 9# channel may give too much meat for one meal… so even with rules, things change.
The one thing I won’t do is deliberately kill a trophy fish, or harvest slow-growth, limited-reproduction species like sturgeon without a seriously good reason to. If I want smoked fish I can catch a bajillion small carp right around here. 
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
