I read on the Hunters Point Webpage that someone had heard on the radio on the way to work a report of a 61″ muskie. Just trying to see if anyone else has some verifiable info??? I checked at Rollie & Helen’s, they no hear, so I am assuming a MN fish IF it occurred.
Mark
If it is true and it is a MN fish that is most likely gonna be a new state record. But I doubt it, sounds fishy to me.
I did a quick search and all I could find was this one caught by Martin Williamson, from Toronto. 61 pounds 55.5″ length 31.5″ girth
Some creative googling came up with this. The story originats on the K102 morning show. Host Amy James claims a family member caught the fish. Can’t get any more details.
Amy James K102 profile
e-mail >>> [email protected]
I sent her a note. Maybe the more she gets, the better!
-J. 
Interesting… thanks to those who googled
Mark
Sounds like it might be true i guess only time will tell i heard that a magazine is going to publish the story and they are holding the details might even be a new W.R. Until then i will be looking for a 61 incher of my own.
I actually got a response. Here is Amy’s relpy.
============================================================
RE: Musky
From: James, Amy ([email protected])
Sent: Fri 9/11/09 6:33 PM
To: Jon Jordan ([email protected])
Hi Jon!
I just spoke with my dad and- this is crazy- my cousin’s fish is actually closer to a WORLD RECORD!!! I’m not supposed to say anything (or mention the lake- my dad didn’t think it was Mille Lacs though) because apparently he’s been contacted by a big Muskie magazine and they’re buying his story!! There are no pictures available yet, per that magazine’s request. I’ll mention it on the air when they’re available!
Thanks for listening and have a great weekend!!
AmY j
—–Original Message—–
From: Jon Jordan [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Fri 9/11/2009 9:28 AM
To: James, Amy
Subject: Musky
Hi Amy,
I’d love to see a picture of the musky you were talking about. If you get a chance, please send!! Thanks!
________________________________________________________________
Jon:
Great work, sounds like we will have to wait for the magazine to bring us the news…
Mark
Do we know which magazine it is 
the ONION 
Quote:
the ONION
-J.
WHAT’S THE ONION? 
ONLY America’s Finest News Source
It’s a satirical “news” magazine where every story is fiction.
http://www.theonion.com/content/index
If you work in downtown St Paul or Mpls, it a free paper all over. Just something to read while taking a 
. Somtimes funny…
-J.
Yeah, I was just wondering how accurate the reporting could be in that fine piece of men’s room literature 
If you want to have some fun ? 
toss a few copies around the old folks home, and just sit back and watch
Talked with my fellow Rollie and Helen’s crew and at least as of this time yesterday, I have word that the only musky mag left has not heard of said 61″ fish.
Now before all the skeptics come forward and say we all knew it was BS, there are a couple of other fine fishing mags out there that might be said magazine and of course my news is through a friend of a friend, so my info might not be all that accurate at this time either.
Mark
That is just down right mean.
I have no idea if this 61 incher is real or not, but if it is, I am guessing Lac Suel as the location. I can’t imagine that a magazine would be able to keep the pictures and story under wraps for up to a month in order to “break” the story in the next month’s issue.
That or Lac Des Mille Lacs Ontario. Hence the confusion with Lake Mille Lacs, Minnesota.
-J.
Quote:
That or Lac Des Mille Lacs Ontario. Hence the confusion with Lake Mille Lacs, Minnesota.
-J.
Its only a matter of time before someone gets one here in MN that hits 60+, I am sure there are a few here in the Pond
For your consideration, since at first glance I am extremely skeptical about this fish.
First, I took a ruler and measured the sunglasses I currently wear every day. Those that know me, are well aware that I have a fat squash, at 6’5″ 300+ pounds, I guess it’s proportional, but anyway this non-polarized set of $10 gas station glasses I have are 5.5″ wide from outside edge of lens to outside edge of lens.
Second, I took the same ruler and measured the shades this gentleman has on in the photo of the fish. I don’t know him, but from the picture I am pretty sure that his face is not anywhere near as fat as mine, so I am going to assume that he is wearing a standard set of glasses, give him the benefit of the doubt and say his are also 5.5″ wide. On my 17″ Dell Laptop, at 1920 X 1200 resolution, his glasses are 7/16″, or .4375″.
Third, I then measured the length of the fish from bottom jaw down to the edge of the picture, top edge of the upper tail fin, there is a slight bend in the fish and I don’t care to estimate the variance it may create, but none the less it is slight. The total length by my ruler is 4″ almost exactly.
4 / .4375 = 9.1428
THEN
9.1428 X 5.5 = 50.2857
Now the majority of the tail is out of the shot, but to say that the remainder of it measures almost 11″ is a little hard to believe, for me anyway, having seen several fish in the 50″ class before, 6″ of pinched tail is a decent guess.
Now, to add one more thing to my guestimation. The glasses used for a point of reference are in fact behind the fish, which is not being held out too far, but his arms are extended. So in actuality, the glasses are smaller in scale in the photo, then they would be in real life at the same depth, i.e. if they were laying across the muskie’s back. Most likely the measurement of the glasses by my ruler would be longer than .4375″, meaning the fish as we see it in the photo is actually shorter than my estimate above.
I apply the same steps to my 50.5″ from Forest a couple years ago, as I have glasses on my head in the photo for frame of reference. Again assuming my glasses that I have on in the picture are 5.5″ from outside lens edge, to outside lens edge. My ruler measurement is 3/8″ or .375. Now my fish has bit more of a curve from the hold, and the tail is swayed back from the wind. So I took a measurement from the tip of the lower jaw again, and made a straight line to the top of the tail (the tip of what you can see). I come up with about 3.5″.
3.5 / .375 = 9.333
9.333 X 5.5 = 51.333
Pretty close. But consider this, those glasses on my head in the picture are the fancy wrap-arounds, and although I don’t have them anymore I am pretty sure that they are a bit narrower then the ones I measured tonight at 5.5″. So for arguments sake, let’s say they are 5″, well that would be 46.66, and between the tail being blown back and the curve created by my hold, I would say it is reasonable that I could make up 4″. For the record my fish was measured on a Dunwright bump board, so I am pretty confident that it was nutz on.
And finally, for frame of reference, I include a picture of the biggest musky that either Bob or I have measured. Bob’s 54.5 X 26 girth behind the pecs. Imagine that fish with 7 more inches tacked on, does the purported 61″ fit the bill?
Again, not to take away from what is a really awesome fish, but from what I see in the only picture published so far, I am not a believer.
Quote:
….at first glance I am extremely skeptical about this fish.
Agree.
-J.
First, let me start by thanking Jon Jordan for helping to unearth the story from the rumor.
Second, there is always the possibility that these large fish may not seem to be as large as they are reported. After speaking with guys at the Musky shop last night, first words out of ones mouth was this fish will get pounded by all of the critics/skeptics.
I guess I naively put the story up thinking if it came from a credible source…
Dan, thanks for the work putting together the numbers for us to consider…
Mark
There will always be skeptics and by the unselfish idea that the guy released the fish of his life tells me that he really don’t care if anybody is skeptical. I used Paint Shop Pro and drew a straight line across his glasses which measured 49 pixels then I also measured from the upper most portion of the visible part of the tail to the tip of its lower jaw and came up with 528 pixels.
528/49×5.5=59.26 or say that his glasses are 5 1/4″ that would still equate to 56.57″ then add the missing portion of the tail you said more like 6″ but I am going to say 4 1/2 inches, by golly we have a 61″ fish.
No matter how you look at it, it is still an amazing catch anyone would be proud of, record or not. I am just happy he was not selfish enough to worry about getting an accurate measurement to end up with a dead trophy.
Good work 
I was also thinking that maybe he doesn’t give a rats about what people think.
I mean you’re damned if ya do, and you’re damned if ya don’t
People would’ve pissed and moaned if he would’ve kept it too, so what do ya do
What do you do? Fish prepared! Use a legitimate bump board (dunwright), take a picture of the fish on said board. Take a bunch of pictures of the fish where it isn’t cut off.
Good lord! It’s a 61″ fish, take some good pictures, get some proof, every muskie guy knows there are going to be skeptics.
Quote:
“After the fish was gone, I quickly grabbed the camera and began looking through the pictures Josh had taken. I sat down and went over everything that had just happened, trying to soak it in as best as I could at the time. I was still having a hard time believing the length Josh told me, and tried measuring the width of my shoulders to compare to the fish in the pictures. After about 15 minutes, I finally came to terms with what had happened as best I could and started fishing again.”
This says that he has more than just one picture…
Quote:
Two weeks earlier, King and Meyers had left their measure stick at a cabin, so for this trip Meyers fashioned one from a two-piece net handle. “The larger section was marked out to exactly 55 inches, and snapped together the ruler went to 70 inches, something I noticed earlier in the day and got a chuckle out of because my biggest to that date had been a 44-incher,” King said.
“Josh measured her. I kept waiting for him to tell me how big it was and he held it up and looked, and then put it down, and did it three times before he told me ‘Sixty-one inches’ and I said ‘No way’,” King said. “When I was fighting it I knew it was well over 50 inches but I had no idea it was that big.”
Meyers explained the three measurements: “I couldn’t believe it and neither could Garrett. I then measured two more times just because 61 inches is very big.”
OK now the guy is 23 years old and forgot his measuring stick at a cabin a couple weeks ago and he is getting ready to go fishing for some skis. Maybe he don’t have a lot of money and he needs a little tackle and a measuring stick, so he decides like I would buy the tackle and make a measure stick. Heck they measured it 5 times and came up with 61 inches each time the only thing that did not get measured was the girth. I did not see anything that says they do or don’t have a picture of the fish and the measure stick.
Quote:
King said he didn’t think twice about releasing his musky. “It never really crossed my mind to keep it,” he said.
This tells me the guy could not care less about a record, I mean if you are going for a record you really should take it to be weighed on certified scales and measured by a warden. And by the time all of this is done the fish is dead, Garrett King is more interested in getting the fish back into the water so someone else like you or I can experience the same thrill he did.
BTW this article was printed in Musky Hunter Magazine. Don’t you think they have a good idea that they think it is legit?
This is a link to a bio about Steve Heiting the man that wrote the article
I would bet you could contact Steve Heiting by using this email address if you were so concerned [email protected]
There is more information about this story on Muskie Hunters forums (see link below). Steve Heiting makes some comments in the thread indicating there were 3 pictures of the fish and the one in the story was the best of the 3.
The fish is bigger than anything I’ve ever caught (no doubt). I commend the guys for releasing it. Would Muskie Hunter have run a story on this if it was a low to mid 50 inch fish? Probably not. Was it a 61 incher? Only god knows that one.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
