A 45-Pound Fish, Two States, and One Very Nervous State Line
By Kat Leslie
When the Dispatch first reported that a 45-pound leviathan had come through the ice on Greenwood Lake, we expected congratulations, maybe a few jealous side-eyes, and at least one uncle claiming he once “lost one bigger.”
What we did not expect was a border dispute.
The story of the 45-pound lake giant didn’t just ripple across Greenwood Lake — it sent shockwaves strong enough to rattle tackle boxes from Warwick to West Milford. Within hours, social media was frothing like spring runoff. Suddenly, everyone with Wi-Fi and a worm hook had an opinion.
Armchair anglers who skim headlines for photos were quick to point out what they thought was a species mismatch. Those who read past the splash title discovered it was, in fact, a muskellunge — teeth, spots, and all – properly identified.
But just as the taxonomy tug-of-war settled, something far murkier surfaced:
Which state gets to claim the fish?
And that is when this stopped being a fish story and started becoming a case study in interstate fisheries law.
The Catch That Started It All
On February 24, 2026, Warwick resident and Warwick’s Chocolate Factory owner Viktor Gelman landed a muskellunge through the ice on Greenwood Lake that weighed 45.02 pounds on a certified scale at the Hackettstown State Fish Hatchery in New Jersey.
Measurements vary slightly depending on the report. Gelman’s paperwork submitted to this newsroom lists the fish at 52 1/8 inches long with a 26.5-inch girth. Other published accounts cite 51.125 inches in length and a 27-inch girth.
Either way, the fish exceeds New Jersey’s standing state record of 42 pounds, 13 ounces, caught by Bob Neals in 1997 at Monksville Reservoir.
An application was promptly submitted to the New Jersey Division of Fish & Wildlife.
Routine? Not quite.
The controversy is not about the weigh-in process. Rather, it centers on where the fish was caught on a lake shared by two states.
The Certification Question
A New Jersey Fish & Wildlife social media update cites record program criteria stating that fish must be “caught in New Jersey waters and be located within the boundaries of the State,” adding that this is “in alignment with New York’s criteria.”
At the same time, agency messaging surrounding the Gelman fish has circulated language asserting the catch occurred on the New York side of Greenwood Lake — forming the basis for internal hesitation about certifying it as a New Jersey record.
This creates a direct tension between a widely understood requirement of most state record programs — that fish be caught within state jurisdiction — and the practical reality of Greenwood Lake, where day-to-day fishing rules treat the water as a reciprocal, bi-state fishery.
In other words, the dispute is less about whether a New Jersey angler may legally fish there, and more about whether New Jersey’s record program interprets a border-water catch as eligible if the hook-up occurred across the state line.
Greenwood Lake’s Unusual Regulatory Reality
Greenwood Lake is officially treated by both states as a New York–New Jersey border water, with specific seasons and limits for species including muskellunge and tiger muskellunge.
What makes this case especially notable is that both states explicitly recognize reciprocal licensing on the lake.
New Jersey’s published Greenwood Lake rules state that New York and New Jersey fishing licenses are recognized anywhere on the lake or along the shoreline. They even note that a portion of the lake is “owned by the State of New York” while still open under reciprocal license recognition.
New York likewise treats Greenwood Lake as a border water where a New York freshwater license is valid.
That reciprocal framework is central to the debate. Anglers may legally fish across the invisible state boundary on the ice. Yet the record program’s language emphasizes jurisdictional boundaries.
Stocking, “Native” Status, and Who Built the Fishery
A key argument in Gelman’s case is that muskellunge are not native to Greenwood Lake and that the fishery exists because of stocking — principally by New Jersey.
New Jersey Fish & Wildlife publications state that efforts to develop a muskie fishery in inland New Jersey waters began with stocking Greenwood Lake in the mid-1980s. The state’s muskellunge rearing and stocking program formally began in 1993.
Background materials describe muskellunge’s historic native range as centered in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence systems — not as a naturally established inland New Jersey species — while noting that New Jersey’s muskie opportunities were expanded through propagation and stocking.
New Jersey hatchery documentation repeatedly lists Greenwood Lake among waters receiving muskellunge. One published account notes that hatchery staff stocked 3,000 muskellunge into Greenwood Lake in a single year’s cycle.
Separately, a New York State muskie species assessment references Greenwood Lake records and identifies New Jersey as the stocking state.
New York’s public-facing Greenwood Lake page states that “pure strain and tiger muskellunge are stocked annually,” but does not specify which state conducts the stocking.
A review of New York’s statewide “Actual Fish Hatchery Stocking Report” for 2022 and 2024 lists only Greenwood Lake (Nanticoke) in Broome County — a different waterbody — and does not list the Warwick/West Milford Greenwood Lake as stocked.
Based on those official documents, there is no evidence of New York state hatchery stockings into Greenwood Lake in recent years. However, available stocking documentation clearly emphasizes New Jersey’s involvement.
It is that distinction — who built and sustained the muskie population in the lake — that sits at the center of Viktor Gelman’s argument. In a statement provided to this newsroom, Gelman maintains that the record application is not about geography alone, but about the origin and stewardship of the fishery itself.
“I am beyond grateful and humbled that I was given an opportunity to target and was able to catch an amazing fish of such a caliber less than 15 minutes from my house. I am grateful to Craig Lemon and the entire NJ DEP team in charge of hatching , taking care of and stocking muskies in mainland NJ and in NJ border waters. It is because of their vision and hard work that world class musky, walleye and several other species exist in New Jersey and its border waters. I have recently been made aware that there is controversy with regard to whether this magnificent fish is going to count as a New Jersey state record due to where on the border water it was caught. If I had caught a species that was native to this body of water or if both states bordering this body of water paid for the stocking of muskies in it – I would have never entered it for consideration as a NJ state record. However, muskellunge is not native to Greenwood Lake, and it is also not stocked by New York State. It is only stocked by the state of New Jersey. The fact that this was a fish born, raised and stocked by New Jersey but caught on the NY side of a border water lake where muskellunge DO NOT naturally occur, NOT Stocked by NY and that is NOT connected to any other NY waters from where muskelunge could have entered this particular body of water creates a unique situation that is possibly without precedent.”
Experts argue that because muskellunge are not native to the lake, and because New Jersey has demonstrable stocking history tied to Greenwood Lake, the situation presents what they call a “unique case.”
Is There a Precedent?
There is no single national standard for how states handle record fish caught on boundary waters.
Minnesota explicitly includes boundary waters where a Minnesota fishing license is valid. North Carolina, by contrast, requires fish from state-boundary waters to be caught within North Carolina’s portion.
New Jersey’s language more closely resembles the stricter model.
However, observers often point to Dale Hollow Reservoir — a Tennessee–Kentucky border water — as precedent for shared recognition. The historic 11-pound, 15-ounce smallmouth bass caught by D.L. Hayes in 1955 is officially listed as the state record in both Tennessee and Kentucky.
That example shows that agencies can, when they choose, recognize border-water records across state lines.
Whether Greenwood Lake becomes a similar case remains an open question.
What Happens Now?
Certification is pending.
In a statement provided to this newsroom, Gelman urged that the decision involve collaborative review rather than a single administrative interpretation.
“This matter needs to receive due process and be the result of a collaborative effort of an independent review board. Rather than being vetoed on and decided by a single individual this decision requires a full democratic process. As long as I know that the decision making process considered the unique nature of this situation and was made collaboratively, and without bias I will gladly accept it regardless of what it may be,” he stated.
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has not yet issued a formal comment regarding record eligibility.
More Than a Fish
Beyond paperwork and jurisdictional language, this is a trophy-class musky by any standard.
It has already returned Greenwood Lake to regional fishing conservation.
It also raises broader questions:
Should border-water fisheries have distinct record policies?
Does stocking responsibility matter?
Should reciprocal fishing access extend to record recognition?
This story is still developing.
In our next edition, we will publish an in-depth interview with Viktor Gelman, explore the historical development of Greenwood Lake’s muskie fishery, and examine how other states have navigated similar disputes.
Readers are invited to submit questions for Viktor or share opinions on how border-water records should be handled.
One thing is certain:
This fish has already made history.
Whether one state claims it — or something more nuanced emerges — is the next chapter.
Stay tuned.
