Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
[Frozen] Moderators: Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 Now viewing page 3 [30 messages per page] Muskie Fishing -> General Discussion -> April/May Issue of Musky Hunter Magazine |  |
| Message Subject: April/May Issue of Musky Hunter Magazine | |||
CSI |
| ||
| OK Steve, I think you're wrong, but I would like the WRMA to get a legal opinion on this. Otherwise I think the whole challenge and all the effort put forth over these years has been in vain.There is no where else to go. The FWFHF is entrenched in their decision along with the IGFA. Soooo, where else can we go ? Is the WRMA serious about their mandate or not? | |||
| Hunter4 |
| ||
Posts: 720 | Larry did you really type this response to Jim's quote? Get off the fence Jim and take a stand that MOST musky hunters will accept, embrace and "rally behind". How smart would that be on his part? Probably not a very good move on his part. First of all who cares what Jim has to say about the world record (no disrespect intended Jim). Most level headed adult musky anglers no that Spray's fish along with the others are not what they claim to be. Jim throwing his two cents in either way would be nothing more than throwing fuel on an already out of control fire. Secondly, while you may sell more books. This would not put more magazines in circulation. If anything I think it would hurt their sales. When a person buys MuskyHunter they look for helpful fishing information the where's, why's and what for's. Its about the sales of useful information. Not a compendium about the history of mystic fish of mythical size. Its interesting the number of times you tell us to avail ourselves of your writings. Sometimes I think these threads turn into the Larry Ramsell Musky Compendium commercials. Jim has managed to stay out of the fray by being on the fence. I find that refreshing. We all know what the game is and it always seems to be the same players blowing their own horns. You talk about influence and taking a stand. I don't know about you but I'll be willing to bet that most if not all of the readers of MuskyHunter and of your books are quite capable of making a decision regarding these travesties all by themselves. And I'm not speaking for Jim but I'm willing to bet he feels the same way. | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32784 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | CSI, There is no mandate. What is in play is an attempt by an organization (WRMA) to verify the actual size of a couple muskies claimed to be larger than quite a few folks believe they were. The WRMA feels that goal has been accomplished, and the record keeping organizations disagree. Someone needs to indicate how that becomes an issue for the Courts from the WRMA perspective; I just don't see it happening. A suit by another angler who feels there is a civil case as lambeau describes, maybe, but that isn't the WRMA. An observation; if Mr. Saric had desired to 'stay out of the fray', no editorial comment would have been necessary. He had something he wanted to say, and got it done. | ||
| CSI |
| ||
| Steve, the mandate, the authorization to proceed, was given to the WRMA by the membership. As one of the notable members, you gave your OK to proceed with the mission which was to investigate the current WR muskies. The WRMA has provided scientific challenges, peer reviewed, which are acceptable in a court of law. Both the FWFHF and the IGFA have refused these challenges without disproving the evidence. The WRMA has proved, IMO, the Spray and Johnson fish to be smaller than claimed. They remain on the books as WR, however, and the state of WI, the FWFHF, the town of Hayward, the Moccasin Bar and John Detloff reap the benefits of an undeserved WR musky. That sounds like fraud to me. Unless and until these bogus records are removed from the books of the recognised record keeping organizations the mission of the WRMA is incomplete, IMO. To stop at this point would be a waste of all the effort that has been put into the investigation and challenge. I ask that the WRMA consult with attorneys for a legal opinion. If there is no legal recourse then I would accept a "game over" mind set and just drop the concept of investigating any remaining muskies since one just needs to say that; "I don't accept your scientific and mathematical evidence that shows this fish to be smaller than claimed. I choose to ignore the facts and will believe this fish to be as big as claimed. " If that's the case the WRMA is shooting blanks and might as well just pack up and go home. Just my humble opinion offered for the WRMA and the boards consideration. | |||
| CSI |
| ||
| Scenario......the "Illinois World Record Keeping Organization" has been formed and recognises a 88lb 5oz. musky caught by Joe Potzivoken as the "Official World Record Musky'. The town of Fantasyland, IL where the fish was caught in Stixx Lake is now the home of "World Record Muskies". You can view the mount of this fish at Wallyworld Bar and Grill in Fantasyland. Read the story of this fabuluos catch in Johnnie Gotcha's new book on the newstand now. Do you think there might be a legal issue with this scene? | |||
| Guest |
| ||
| I for one am glad Musky Hunter doesn't tell me what I should think. They have covered the issue and left it up to their readership to decide how each of them personally feels about the matter. I once subscribed to another publication that told me what I should think issue after issue so I let that subscription die. I see that publication is no longer in business so others must have agreed with me. I also agree that that Mr. Ramsell goes overboard when "WRMA In Cincinnati" discussions come up. It sure looks like he's trying to sell his books. Not only does he want to tell me what to think he wants me to buy his books to find it out. No thank you. | |||
| Duke |
| ||
 Posts: 65 | To Jim Saric: For what it's worth I am very impressed with your handling of this fiery subject both in the magazine (which I LOVE) and on this board. Especially in the face of some fairly disrespectful comments that have come your/Musky Hunter's way, which I thought were both shameful and surprising. I say stay the course and keep up the good work! Fishing season can't get here soon enough... | ||
| Sam Ubl |
| ||
Location: SE Wisconsin | What are these records worth? Money and popularity? That's not why we fish, not all of us anyways. Musky Hunter Magazine is a publication for the fisherman to learn tactics and learn/hear what's current in the Musky world. Understandably, some of you feel very strongly about this topic and believe it should be one way or another, but assuming MH should involve themselves in Musky politics seems selfish. Ultimately, this isn't MH's battle, it's the individuals, such as Mr. Ramsell, who have dedicated much of their life to the topic at hand. Edited by Sam Ubl 4/1/2010 10:25 AM | ||
| Hunter4 |
| ||
Posts: 720 | Sam, I completely agree with what you just wrote. But sometimes don't you just feel like you're "#*^@ed if you do and #*^@ed if you don't" with this subject. If you agree that the records are wrong than you're spitting in the face of history. Or if do believe the sizes of Spray's, Johnson etc. than you're an idiot and a Dehtloff simp. Hell I can even spell the mans last name. Saric, Ramsell, Brown, Sworrall and many others deliver their opinions very eliquently. But when its all said and done what has this disscusion and the reports from the WRMA gotten us as a whole. Nothing. Nothing at all. This is not a I'm sick of this talk post because honestly I find it very entertaining. I also feel its important. But someone or some group needs to change the direction of these conversations. Because its not changing anything. The records still officiall stand and unless somebody comes up with a better approach than I feel everything will stay the status quo. | ||
| Guest |
| ||
Sam Ubl - 4/1/2010 10:23 AM Ultimately, this isn't MH's battle, If my memory serves me right, MHM printed a lot of Dettloff/Ramsell articles that defended these records back in the day and John Dettloff was commended by MHM for his undercover work which opened the door for the removal of other records. The involvement probably helped get rid of that Perry? fake MI state record too, and that made way for a legitimate record last fall. If there's a fair chance MHM could make a difference then I'm for their involvement. | |||
| KenK |
| ||
Posts: 574 Location: Elk Grove Village, IL & Phillips, WI | I find it odd that all 3 of these players all work at the same magazine. I'm not saying there are any shennagins taking place, but there is a definate conflict there. | ||
| edalz |
| ||
Posts: 458 | Agree 100% with this statement. | ||
| CSI |
| ||
| Musky Hunter bills themselves as "North America's Musky Authority". As NAMA they take no position on what the actual World Record musky is....? They have the WRMA reports available to them. I'm sure they've glance through them. Seems to me if you are going to claim title to being "North America's Musky Authority" you should take a solid position on wether the current records are valid or not. The FWFHF and the IGFA are not "musky authorities". They keep records, bogus ones at that. The musky authorities should step up and help to set these records straight and not just sit on the fence. The WRMA had a good idea and followed through with solid info that incriminates these records. The mission has failed, however, because of lack of support from the industry. | |||
| Larry Ramsell |
| ||
Posts: 1275 Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Guest(s) and Hunter4: I do not do this to sell books...in FACT, you can find FREE, articles on this subject on this website and almost ALL of Volume I of my Compendium (pertaining to THIS very subject...about 400 pages) also FREE on my website (www.larryramsell.com). I have done this not to sell books, but rather to get the COMPLETE truth out there for ANYONE to read!!! I sent Saric an advance copy...he hasn't read it. He has the WRMA reports...he hasn't read them. Time to "bone up" and take a stand. When one reads the entire senario, it becomes very apparent how Dettloff has influenced and revised History and made the Hall and the IGFA guilty by association and lack of any consistency in their decision making processes. So, if you are really serious about this subject, READ THE ENTIRE STORIES...first before running off half-baked on these forums. READ THE ENTIRE STORIES and THEN make up your own mind about what you believe and don't just rely on the bits and pieces from various forum threads. And as one recent "guest" pointed out, Musky Hunter published MANY Dettloff articles about Lawton and the other records he got out of Spray's way (Haver-2 and Hanser...Hartman took himself out). Why not now publish additional/new, scientific, peer-reviewed material on the same subject. Was Bucher more interested when he was MH editor? Apparently. Muskie regards, Larry Ramsell Muskellunge Historian for ALL of North America www.larryramsell.com | ||
| Hunter4 |
| ||
Posts: 720 | Once again Larry you can't resist the urge to get hoof and mouth. Let me explain to you something. First off I own or posess everything you written for publication. I've enjoy reading it and I've paid a lot of my hard earned money doing so. But sometimes Mr. Ramsell you amaze me with some of the stuff that comes off your computer or typewriter. So while you are allowed your opinions I and others are not? Is that correct? Simply amazing Larry. I'm absolutely dumbfounded by your huberous. | ||
| Guest |
| ||
| I'm still waiting to hear how John Dettloff "badgered" the IGFA into removing Lawton. To claim that the IGFA removed Lawton just to get Dettloff off their back is remarkable. They believed 100% in his photo analysis then and continue to do so today. | |||
| CSI |
| ||
| So you say the IGFA believed in Detloff's amateur photo analysis and continue to do so but reject without explanation the WRMA professional photogrammetry and math science. What's wrong with THIS picture????????? | |||
| Mr Musky |
| ||
Posts: 999 | My thoughts on the records are at least Minnesota has a state record that is attainable to break. As far as Wisconsin goes, Tom Gelb and Gene Allen's fish are the records to break as well. The Ramsell/Detloff fued is getting SO OLD! Mr Musky | ||
| Larry Ramsell |
| ||
Posts: 1275 Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | It appears that I have once again touched a few sensitive nerve endings…sorry if I have offended anyone with my passion…this has been ongoing for a long time and it seems that most of the time the same information is covered without most knowing the real basis of why. It is this that I have most often tried to address, as an “insider” with knowledge that few other have/had. As always, my goal has been to put forth complete and truthful information so that readers may make an informed decision. I shall continue to do so as long as I can breathe. If that offends anyone not in the Dettloff camp, I apologize now and in advance of anything further. As Mr. Worrall has pointed out however, no one really has to read these threads if they “really” don’t care. Having said that, I shall address some of the more recent posts: Hunter4 (Dave) “Once again Larry you can't resist the urge to get hoof and mouth. Let me explain to you something. First off I own or posess everything you written for publication. I've enjoy reading it and I've paid a lot of my hard earned money doing so. But sometimes Mr. Ramsell you amaze me with some of the stuff that comes off your computer or typewriter. So while you are allowed your opinions I and others are not? Is that correct? Simply amazing Larry. I'm absolutely dumbfounded by your huberous.” LR: Dave, I’m not sure why you think I have stuck my foot in my mouth, but perhaps it is just your perception. Thank you for being a gatherer of my writings and I’m glad you have enjoyed same. As I have noted, my passion and more often my frustration causes me to write-off have cocked…most of the time I ponder for a bit and often “try” to sleep on things (which I have done here) before posting, sometimes not and that gets me misunderstood…one of the downsides to the Internet. Then too, folks often interpret what I write in a manner not intended. I try and correct that whenever I can. I certainly didn’t mean to infer that you weren’t entitled to your opinion…quite the contrary and in fact have said folks should avail themselves of all available information and make up their own minds. In my last post I should have qualified that as a good portion of that post was not directed at you. As for your last sentence, I’ll have to dig out my dictionary before I respond, but it won’t be tonight (3 or so in the morning). Guest: “I'm still waiting to hear how John Dettloff "badgered" the IGFA into removing Lawton. To claim that the IGFA removed Lawton just to get Dettloff off their back is remarkable. They believed 100% in his photo analysis then and continue to do so today.” LR: “Guest”, normally I don’t respond to apparent or obvious anon posters from the other camp, but I’m not certain of your bent, so I’ll give you a brief answer that you probably won’t peruse. The information you have now requested twice is in my book. Go to my website (www.larryramsell.com) and on the left side click on “Current information on World Record Muskie Controversies” and then read the Lawton section…your answers are there. CSI: “So you say the IGFA believed in Detloff's amateur photo analysis and continue to do so but reject without explanation the WRMA professional photogrammetry and math science. What's wrong with THIS picture?????????” LR: CSI, this post, as have been all of your posts, is right on target. In this the IGFA has been extremely hypocritical. They say they set the Lawton record aside due to the photograph(s) and then tell the WRMA that they don’t believe weight can be determined from a photograph in their Johnson review. Well which is it? They just can’t have it both ways, just as the FWFHF can’t have it both ways accepting Spray’s documentation but rejecting a more thorough and complete Lawton documentation, especially when several of the witnesses came forward and reconfirmed their initial affidavits! lambeau: “…ummm...Larry? Jim Saric is a "prominent member" of the WRMA. and as the editor of MHM he used his column to generate thought and discussion about an issue - and hey, guess what? it worked! his column has resulted in renewed discussion of an issue that had gone flat. since you care so much about the issue, perhaps you should be thanking him instead of accusing him of not taking a stand. just saying... personally, i agree with your perspective on the currently recognized fish and the incestuous relationship between local business interests and the FWFHoF. that being said, your argumentative and at times obnoxious style makes it difficult to pay any attention to you...you come across as a hollow gong, even for those of us who support the ideas. if you SHOUTED MORE in your posts i'd be less likely to read what you write. but not by much.” LR: lambeau, yes, Jim is a prominent member of the WRMA, but he has “admittedly” not read their reports (or Vol I of my book). Yes, he has generated thought and discussion and for that I do thank him, but I sincerely believe that he should “take a stand” and also follow in his predecessors shoes and print all of the parts of these stories, not just the ones Dettloff conjured up and that now have the muskie world totally confused as to just what is our world record. MH “is” the North American Musky Authority and again, I sincerely believe they need to take a stand. Fence riding may be the easy thing to do, but it doesn’t solve the problem. I am in hopes that Jim has read all of these posts and taken many of the suggestions from all to heart…most muskie angler really would like to know what our “Holy Grail” is (even those that continue to protest…me thinks they protest too much…they don’t really have to read these threads if they don’t really care). Thank you for agreeing with my perspective on the FWFHF…it really is sad and it only serves to give our fine area more of a black eye rather than the intended increase in tourism…just too bad the Chamber of Commerce and the Visitor’s and Convention Bureau can’t see this and adjust. As for my “argumentative and at times obnoxious style”, sorry, that is just me and my frustration. I’ll try and do better. As for my “SHOUTING”, actually it is just for “emphasis” and not really shouting…although at times I do shout here in my office and tear at what is left of my hair… Muskie regards, Larry Ramsell Muskellunge Historian for ALL of North America Edited by Larry Ramsell 4/2/2010 3:39 AM | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32784 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Larry, great post. Thanks for your perspective. I just gave up and cut off what little hair I had left.  | ||
| Guest |
| ||
| I read everything you had to say in your book and on your website and I find NOTHING that explains why the IGFA tossed Lawton other than John Dettloff's photo analysis. The IGFA is NOT affiliated with the NFWFHoF and no amount of "badgering" should be able to influence their decision. If all it takes is a lot of badgering to get the desired result from the IGFA, why didn't YOUR badgering result in getting Lawton reinstated? If you claim you didn't badger them, why didn't you? Listen up WRMA. Maybe some major badgering is all that's needed to get Johnson disqualified. | |||
| Guest |
| ||
| I agree, excellent post! I think we are lucky to have had Larry dedicate his life to the musky. | |||
| Larry Ramsell |
| ||
Posts: 1275 Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | "Guests" you need to start numbering yourselves in lieu of backing up your posts with your real names (although I fail to see why you choose to remain anon, unless you don't have the convictions to back up your statements, claims and questions). Again, I shall respond to anon merely as additional points of clarification, as I realize my book is a "tough read" and difficult to follow and sort out in the long run (probably why Saric didn't read it, LOL). Guest one (above) wrote: "I read everything you had to say in your book and on your website and I find NOTHING that explains why the IGFA tossed Lawton other than John Dettloff's photo analysis. The IGFA is NOT affiliated with the NFWFHoF and no amount of "badgering" should be able to influence their decision." LR: First of all folks, you need to understand that in the case with both record keeping organizations, there were different regime's in place at the time of the Lawton debacle. Second, the IGFA did not, I repeat for emphasis, did not "toss" the Lawton record...they merely "set it aside" as the regime in charge at the time was "uncertain" that a proper photograph existed and left the door open should a photograph surface that satisfied them of the Lawton fish. Regardless, the fact is that the current IGFA regime has stated that they feel "weight" cannot be determined via photograph...therein lies the dicotomy and double standard by them. When presented with another photo by me, the "current regime", regardless of the fact that the previous regime left the door open, refused reinstatement of the Lawton fish. One has to wonder why if they truly feel "weight" cannot be determined via photograph (new or old) and they have refused to acknowledge the scientific, peer-reviewed photogrammetry "proving" that the Johnson fish was nowhere as "long" as claimed and therefore by default could not have weighed the claimed weight! Guest one cont.: "If all it takes is a lot of badgering to get the desired result from the IGFA, why didn't YOUR badgering result in getting Lawton reinstated? If you claim you didn't badger them, why didn't you?" LR: Guest one, here you make an incorrect assumption. I never said that Dettloff badgered the IGFA to get the Lawton record set-aside. Where the "badgering" took place, and it is in my book, was when the IGFA refused to put Dettloff's hero Louie Spray in the top spot and instead "promoted" the O'brien fish to all-tackle record status. Failing to get his way with Spray, dispite considerable badgering, Dettloff then settled into badgering the IGFA to replace O'brien's fish with the "unvetted" Cal Johnson fish. And I claim "unvetted" dispite the considerable rhetoric put forth by Dettloff recently. IGFA's second mistake and one they, for reasons known only to them, have chosen/failed to correct. I chose not to badger them for obvious reasons and remember, it wasn't this regime that set the Lawton fish aside and aquessed (sp?) to Dettloff's desires re the Johnson fish dispite the lack of its vetting! I have however, made it clear to the IGFA that I believe the actions of this current regime regarding the muskie reccord are highly hypocritical and their two decions are at odds with each other. Guest two, thank you for your kind words and thank you to the many who have called, emailed and PM'd me via this site thanking me and telling me to "stay the course". Your support, even if behind the scenes, is very much appreciated!!! Muskie regards, Larry Ramsell Muskellunge Historian for ALL of North America Edited by Larry Ramsell 4/2/2010 12:12 PM | ||
| Slamr |
| ||
Posts: 7009 Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | This one appears to have run it's course, as usual. If anyone would like to continue this discussion with Larry, see his contact information on his profile or by clicking on his website. | ||
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 Now viewing page 3 [30 messages per page] | |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Copyright © 2024 OutdoorsFIRST Media |