Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

I have "heard" of 50's pulled out of Cranberry but can anyone on here substantiate any of these claims or weigh on Pike this large in Cranberry or anywhere in NY for that matter ?

bigpike.jpg

Posted

There are northerns that size around. There could be a lot more if the minimum size was raised and the creel limit reduced. The way pike get abused is a real shame. But if we restricted their harvest I guess they would “eat all the good fish “[emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Lake Ontario United mobile app

Posted

Did they used to permit / encourage harvesting of Pike out of there ? Could that have aided in creating a "larger fish" fishery vs "numbers" ? 

 

Don't get me wrong I'm 100% catch and release esox but I do subscribe to a system only being able to support a limited amount of predators - fewer larger or more smaller fish

 

I would love to see another pic of a verified 45+ Pike from NY

Posted

There is no indication of what the alleged length of that fish is. Pictures can be deceiving. He is holding his arms straight out as far as he can. My guess is, it is in the mid 30s. With no pic of measurement, it is hard to say.

Posted

I've caught many over 40 inches and have personally landed several 4 footers my friend caught. However, the pike fishing is not what it used to be up there. Too much enmity towards an amazing fish. 10 years ago it was a given that you could catch several 15 to 20 pound pike on a trip. Nowadays I hope for one 40 incher on a week trip. Might find some new water. DEC could have made this lake a trophy pike lake, instead they feed what's left with stocked brook trout that no one targets. 

Posted

Chinook1981, nice info there and, yes, we need new & different regulations in NYS. In my opinion, it is a pity that, while NYS boasts the North American record pike of 54" / 46 lb. out of Sacandaga many years ago, our regulations do not support good pike fishing. We shouldn't need to go to Canada for such an experience.

On another note, considering the North American record mentioned above, I find the dimensions of the fish in question to be doubtful. If that fish was 56", it would probably have been heavier. More than likely, there is a typo in there (i.e. 46" and 28 lb. ??)  Those dimensions would make good sense.

  • Like 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...