Please register or Login
MuskieFIRST | WalleyeFIRST | SalmonFIRST | IceFishing | WhitetailFIRST | BassFIRST | OutdoorsFIRST Upload

Muskie Discussion Forums

Forums | Calendars | Albums | Quotes | Language | Blogs Search | Statistics | User Listing
You are logged in as a guest. ( logon | register )

[Frozen]
Moderators: Slamr

View previous thread :: View next thread
Jump to page : 1 2 3
Now viewing page 1 [30 messages per page]

Muskie Fishing -> General Discussion -> April/May Issue of Musky Hunter Magazine
 
Frozen
Message Subject: April/May Issue of Musky Hunter Magazine
GW
Posted 3/25/2010 4:16 PM (#431001)
Subject: April/May Issue of Musky Hunter Magazine


For those of you that have read Jim Saric's article entitled "As The World Record Turns" in the April/May Issue of Musky Hunter Magazine, how do you feel about Jim's challenge to the WRMA?
Guest
Posted 3/25/2010 5:51 PM (#431015 - in reply to #431001)
Subject: RE: April/May Issue of Musky Hunter Magazine


Can you expound a little on what he said? I don't get the mag.
Slamr
Posted 3/25/2010 9:03 PM (#431061 - in reply to #431001)
Subject: Re: April/May Issue of Musky Hunter Magazine





Posts: 5718


Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs
I dont get the mag either, and personally I'm ready for open water muskie talk versus the same winternet debates (WRMA, spearing, size limits, guides, etc), but I'm sure Jim has interesting insights into the WRMA vs. the Hall debate.

My interest in the magazine rests around the rumor that I got a mention in this issue (go me!).
Junkman
Posted 3/26/2010 7:13 AM (#431104 - in reply to #431061)
Subject: Re: April/May Issue of Musky Hunter Magazine




Posts: 760


Personally, I don't think I could stand for something like the Musky Hunter magazine to exist without me having it-especially for $20.00 a year, cheaper than even one of most musky baits. Admittedly, an addict, I just have to read it the first day it arrives. The biggest way I would characterize myself as an angler is a person who has a lot to learn, but clearly wants to do so. If you don't "know it all" already, MH is a good place to add to your skills. I won't try to give a summary of the editorial, but the essence of the thing seems to say, "We deserve a better record." Marty Forman
Hunter4
Posted 3/26/2010 7:42 AM (#431110 - in reply to #431001)
Subject: Re: April/May Issue of Musky Hunter Magazine




Posts: 697


Slamr,

I didn't know MuskyHunter had a police blotter section.
GW
Posted 3/26/2010 10:34 AM (#431139 - in reply to #431110)
Subject: Re: April/May Issue of Musky Hunter Magazine


For those that don't receive the magazine, here's part of what Jim Saric had to say: "I challenge the WRMA to take a look at the more recent muskies over 60 pounds that were caught and killed, such as the O'Brien and Williamson fish. Even though this isn't their center of focus, make a case based upon photogrammetric analysis as well as affidavits, etc., to verify the weight of the largest musky over 60 pounds. I would like to know what the WRMA believes to be the WR based upon available information, and have that made available to the public.

I think depending upon the results, the majority of musky hunters might be able to rally behind what appears to be the most defensible WR. Sure, we can let the Hall of Fame and IGFA maintain their records. At Musky Hunter, we might refer to them as "historical records" as they are part of the great and interesting history of musky fishing. The sport deserves a WR with much less controversy and suspicion."

Muskiemetal
Posted 3/26/2010 10:44 AM (#431140 - in reply to #431001)
Subject: Re: April/May Issue of Musky Hunter Magazine





Posts: 531


Location: Wisconsin
I haven't gotten my copy yet.....arrrggghhhhh
Hunter4
Posted 3/26/2010 11:00 AM (#431144 - in reply to #431001)
Subject: Re: April/May Issue of Musky Hunter Magazine




Posts: 697


Not trying to be a smarta$$. I don't have too. But you can read that very thought almost hundreds of times on this very site. I don't think Jim is coming up with anything new here and if I'm being honest about this. Jim should have asked this question long ago. Maybe before associating his name with WMRA.
MuskyHopeful
Posted 3/26/2010 11:04 AM (#431145 - in reply to #431061)
Subject: Re: April/May Issue of Musky Hunter Magazine





Posts: 2916


Location: Brookfield, WI
Slamr - 3/25/2010 9:03 PM
My interest in the magazine rests around the rumor that I got a mention in this issue (go me!).


I didn't know MH magazine had a volleyball or bacon section.

Kevin
lambeau
Posted 3/26/2010 12:08 PM (#431162 - in reply to #431001)
Subject: RE: April/May Issue of Musky Hunter Magazine


i thought Jim's point was a great one, and it's NOT one that's often heard as part of the online discussion: suggesting that instead of debunking certain fish, that the WRMA should go ahead and _validate_ what their tools demonstrate to be the largest muskie ever caught. start low and work up instead of starting at the top and working back?

i think it also adds a certain gravitas to the proposal when it comes from the editor of Musky Hunter magazine as compared to someone posting in an online discussion forum. as demonstrated by the fact that we're talking about it right here, Jim Saric carries a certain "E.F. Hutton" factor that BobFish1234 just doesn't quite have.


Edited by lambeau 3/26/2010 12:11 PM
GW
Posted 3/26/2010 12:21 PM (#431165 - in reply to #431144)
Subject: Re: April/May Issue of Musky Hunter Magazine


In my opinion, Jim Saric should already consider the the records maintained by the NFWFHoF and the IGFA as nothing more than "historical". Why would he request photo analysis of the O'Brien and Williamson fish when the lengths have never been disputed? Why also would he request photogrammetry again be performed when he hasn't stood behind the results found on the historical records?

Everyone knows the O'Brien and Williamson fish are in the mid-50" range. The request to have thousands of dollars spent on something this obvious is absurd.

The WRMA has already stated that they would investigate O'Brien next. Whether or not photogrammetry is part of that investigation is up to them.

At this point, Musky Hunter Magazine should consider Ken O'Brien as the record holder as his fish is the largest of the two over 60 lbs.





MuskyHopeful
Posted 3/26/2010 12:27 PM (#431168 - in reply to #431162)
Subject: RE: April/May Issue of Musky Hunter Magazine





Posts: 2916


Location: Brookfield, WI
lambeau - 3/26/2010 12:08 PM
i think it also adds a certain gravitas.....


Nice. Most people will have to look that up.

Kevin

Guest
Posted 3/26/2010 2:00 PM (#431204 - in reply to #431001)
Subject: RE: April/May Issue of Musky Hunter Magazine


I don't see how the WRMA could possibly validate O'Brien withoutout first invalidating Spray and then Johnson. Now,if they end up validating O'Brien,that would be the end of it and we would have a record we could pretty much rally around. If they end up invalidating O'Brien, then they move on to Williamson and so on.

I for one would really like to see this mess cleared up and have a record the majority of Muskie anglers believes in, rather than the other way around. The sport does deserve a legitimate record but I think we are past being just "suspicious" of those records due to the WRMA research. The only real "controversial" part is that they somehow still remain records,not whether or not they were as large as claimed.
Plunker
Posted 3/26/2010 2:11 PM (#431205 - in reply to #431001)
Subject: Re: April/May Issue of Musky Hunter Magazine




Posts: 291


You guys are missing the point as to WHY Saric wants the O'Brien fish investigated. It is not to disprove how heavy it is, but to prove how accurate photogammetry is against a fish that is not disputed. That in turn can give us a baseline result for comparing disputed fish.

In the end I just don't know if I care that much about this stuff anymore. I used to think the WR was fairly important, but as time goes on it really does not turn my crank anymore.
Lundbob
Posted 3/26/2010 2:14 PM (#431206 - in reply to #431165)
Subject: Re: April/May Issue of Musky Hunter Magazine





Posts: 259


The reason to do it on the O'Brien and Williamson fish is to prove to everyone that the technology your using works. If their findings match what we already know about the O'Bien fish than you have a better case proving that your findings of Spray and Johnson were correct.

GW - 3/26/2010 12:21 PM

In my opinion, Jim Saric should already consider the the records maintained by the NFWFHoF and the IGFA as nothing more than "historical". Why would he request photo analysis of the O'Brien and Williamson fish when the lengths have never been disputed? Why also would he request photogrammetry again be performed when he hasn't stood behind the results found on the historical records?

Everyone knows the O'Brien and Williamson fish are in the mid-50" range. The request to have thousands of dollars spent on something this obvious is absurd.

The WRMA has already stated that they would investigate O'Brien next. Whether or not photogrammetry is part of that investigation is up to them.

At this point, Musky Hunter Magazine should consider Ken O'Brien as the record holder as his fish is the largest of the two over 60 lbs.





sorenson
Posted 3/26/2010 2:56 PM (#431221 - in reply to #431168)
Subject: RE: April/May Issue of Musky Hunter Magazine





Posts: 1777


Location: Ogden, Ut
MuskyHopeful - 3/26/2010 11:27 AM

lambeau - 3/26/2010 12:08 PM
i think it also adds a certain gravitas.....


Nice. Most people will have to look that up.

Kevin



I thought he was talking about the bad guy on 3-2-1 Penguins...
Guest
Posted 3/26/2010 3:18 PM (#431229 - in reply to #431001)
Subject: RE: April/May Issue of Musky Hunter Magazine


I think the record is important if only to establish how big they actually get. If that's indeed what Jim is asking,it seems strange because it's about the equivalent of validating whether or not fingerprinting is a valid means to identify someone. The WRMA photo technology is a tried and true method and the results were even subjected to peer review. Besides that, any one of us can easily look at Johnson's record and see that it is only a low 50" fish for "validation".
GW
Posted 3/26/2010 3:48 PM (#431237 - in reply to #431229)
Subject: RE: April/May Issue of Musky Hunter Magazine


As the "Guest" stated, the technology used by the WRMA (photogrammetry) has been proven to reliably determine the size of ANY object in a photograph. Saying you need to prove it works on fish is ridiculous. This science is admissible in a court-of-law and has been validated in numerous scientific journals. It's not something that needs further testing on anything. Determining the length of a fish being held vertically is no different than determining the length of a board being held the same way.
sworrall
Posted 3/26/2010 9:44 PM (#431280 - in reply to #431001)
Subject: Re: April/May Issue of Musky Hunter Magazine





Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin
Or, for that matter, a broad. (sorry, Sue)
GW
Posted 3/27/2010 11:00 AM (#431331 - in reply to #431280)
Subject: Re: April/May Issue of Musky Hunter Magazine


I think the WRMA should offer this challenge to Jim Saric. If the WRMA agrees to do the photogrammetry on the O'Brien fish and the results coincide with the reported length, Jim MUST accept the findings and consider the current records nothing more than "historical". If he wants the WRMA to needlessly spend their money, he better give the WRMA his word that he will stop riding the fence on this issue. All he offered in his "Editors Line" is that Musky Hunter MIGHT consider the current records as nothing more than "historical". The WRMA should require a guarantee from him considering the amount of money involved.










Northwind Mark
Posted 3/27/2010 11:43 AM (#431340 - in reply to #431221)
Subject: RE: April/May Issue of Musky Hunter Magazine





Posts: 532


Location: Elgin, IL
sorenson - 3/26/2010 2:56 PM

MuskyHopeful - 3/26/2010 11:27 AM

lambeau - 3/26/2010 12:08 PM
i think it also adds a certain gravitas.....


Nice. Most people will have to look that up.

Kevin



I thought he was talking about the bad guy on 3-2-1 Penguins... ;)


Or something new at Taco Bell.
Muskiefool
Posted 3/27/2010 7:30 PM (#431414 - in reply to #431001)
Subject: RE: April/May Issue of Musky Hunter Magazine





I want to see people start taking split rings off hooked fish to make it "easier" to remove hooks; as was explained in the "How to Make your own stone tools article".
I think you guys missed all the taters and gravy of that issue if you haven't explored indulgence in the thoughtful fish friendly wisdumb of the "knowing".
WRMA talk is a smokescreen to pull you away from the "Big split-ring news" so you dont get a info overload on the cortex.
jaycbs74
Posted 3/27/2010 8:11 PM (#431419 - in reply to #431001)
Subject: Re: April/May Issue of Musky Hunter Magazine




Posts: 131


Location: Chicago
I read the MH intro by Saric and didn't think he was talking about some of the stuff you guys are posting here. From what I got out of it he's sick and tired of all the internet bantering like the majority of us. Plain and simple he said someone should go out and catch the WR and put all the garbage to bed.
sworrall
Posted 3/27/2010 8:27 PM (#431425 - in reply to #431001)
Subject: Re: April/May Issue of Musky Hunter Magazine





Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin
Simple answer to that...don't read the 'internet banter'. One must click on it...and read it..to get sick of it.
Pointerpride102
Posted 3/27/2010 10:28 PM (#431444 - in reply to #431425)
Subject: Re: April/May Issue of Musky Hunter Magazine





Posts: 8118


Location: The desert
MuskyHopeful - 3/27/2010 10:14 PM

He doesn't like Internet banter? That's weird. Doesn't he have a website that has a forum? It's a football site. I think.

Kevin


Actually it's a Brett Favre site.
WI_guy_turnedMudDuck
Posted 3/27/2010 10:38 PM (#431447 - in reply to #431001)
Subject: Re: April/May Issue of Musky Hunter Magazine




Posts: 225


Location: Maple Grove
I'm not sure Jim Saric has posted here so who knows what he likes or dislikes. One thing I'm sure of is the MH board is as much a Musky board as this one is. Although the Golf guy who likes to talk about Muskies enjoys the football stuff.

Joe Olstadt

Edited by WI_guy_turnedMudDuck 3/27/2010 10:40 PM
sworrall
Posted 3/28/2010 8:47 AM (#431471 - in reply to #431001)
Subject: Re: April/May Issue of Musky Hunter Magazine





Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin
Jim posts here every once in awhile, and visits often. By the way, I was addressing jaycbs74.
lambeau
Posted 3/28/2010 9:05 AM (#431474 - in reply to #431001)
Subject: RE: April/May Issue of Musky Hunter Magazine


i wonder what Al Gore thinks of the World Record banter.
he invented the internet.


Edited by lambeau 3/28/2010 9:07 AM
sworrall
Posted 3/28/2010 9:37 AM (#431484 - in reply to #431001)
Subject: Re: April/May Issue of Musky Hunter Magazine





Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin
He officially supports it being warmer in Hayward. Yep.
GW
Posted 3/28/2010 2:08 PM (#431540 - in reply to #431484)
Subject: Re: April/May Issue of Musky Hunter Magazine


jaycbs74,

You say you didn't think Jim was talking about some of the stuff that was posted here? What I posted was a direct quote from his article and what he said could not be misconstrued. What exactly is it that you don't understand about Jim's challenge to the WRMA?

For you to say, plain and simple, he said someone should go out and catch the WR and put all the garbage to bed is very misleading. He said a lot more than that.

The "garbage" that needs to be disposed of are the current records that the record keepers stubbornly hang on to. What Jim clearly stated is that we deserve a DEFENSIBLE record that is not suspect. The problem is he and Musky Hunter Magazine continue riding the fence and haven't taken the position of considering the current records nothing more than "historical". He challenges the WRMA to do further expensive photo analysis without offering them any guarantee the results will change his position even if the results are satisfactory to him. What kind of a challenge is this?
Jump to page : 1 2 3
Now viewing page 1 [30 messages per page]
Frozen
Jump to forum :
Search this forum
Printer friendly version
E-mail a link to this thread
Lake of the Woods Tourism

(Delete all cookies set by this site)