|
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Yet More Nails in the Coffin of Louie Spray’s
World Record Muskie Claims
by Larry Ramsell, Muskie Historian
On Wednesday, January 25, 2017, I had the opportunity to sit down with a long-time Sawyer County, Wisconsin resident and learn more details behind the claim of one of Louie Spray’s world record muskies, specifically the one that started his chain of claims of having caught three world record muskies; a 59-pound 8-ounce fish from Grindstone Lake at Hayward, Wisconsin in 1939.
This gentleman wishes for now to remain unnamed and his wish is understandable. I have from him an affidavit, so you will just have to accept that for now. I know him to be an honest and upstanding person and have no reason to believe his story to be other than the truth.
The following information has been known by this gentleman since June 21st, (6:30 a.m.), 1992, when he personally did an interview with life-long Winter resident, one Mr. Paul Petit, recently deceased when in his 90’s. Mr. Petit was known in the Winter area as a person who lived off the land and was quite prolific at capturing fish and game.
This gentleman had heard by the grapevine that Petit had been involved in the capture of one of Spray’s claimed record muskies and set out to find out the story from Petit himself. The interview took place at a Winter cafe and was observed by two other Winter residents who shall remain nameless for now as well. Petit was 74 at the time of that interview.
The interviewer began the interview notes he took in 1992, as follows: “Paul, for most of my muskie days, 25 years (as of 1992), I’ve heard all the controversy surrounding Louie Spray’s world record muskie catches. I’ve heard Louie caught all of them legally, to none of them (were) caught legally. Much speculation still surrounds these catches. To help cut down on speculation I went right to the source of a man claiming to know the real story of Spray’s first big fish – the 1939 – 59” – 59 ½ pound fish.
“I wanted to hear the story from life-long Winter, Wis. resident Paul Petit. Paul a true Northwood’s ‘character’ himself has hunted, fished, and trapped every conceivable square acre of Northwest Wisconsin’s Sawyer County and surrounding areas.”
Following is that interview:
Interviewer: “Paul there is still much controversy surrounding the world record muskie catches of Louie Spray. A couple of times during the past 25 years you’ve told me about how ticked off you still are because Louie didn’t pay you for his first record muskie claim. Would you elaborate on your story?”
Paul Petit: “Well sure, it was 1939 or 1940 (actually it was 1939 when Spray registered his first world record claim…LR) I was working in the shipyard in Duluth during the week. On weekends, we’d come home (Winter, Wis.). A lot of the time we’d go down to the ‘fish refuge’ (closed all year at the Winter Dam on the Chippewa River) and catch fish, big muskies and walleyes – nothing to it, just loaded with fish. Well, we got a hold of a big muskie.
“Louie (who lived in the area at that time) had always told us he’d pay good money for a real big one. So, we (Paul and his brother) gave it to him and a couple of days later he produces the big muskie. He never paid what he said he would. He lied to me and I never did it for him again (although Paul’s brother did – Louie’s claimed 1940 world record!). I’m still ticked off about him not paying!”
Interviewer: How did you catch that big one?”
Petit: “We fished for them, Pikie Minnow.”
Interviewer: “You didn’t net the dam with commercial nets?”
Petit: “No, we just fished for ‘um. They were just thick in there then. Ya know we thought the supply was endless. Heck, we ate ‘um, gave ‘um to hungry people ya know.”
Interviewer: “Paul, what about Louie’s two record muskies after that? Did you have anything to do with those two?”
Petit: “No – no way! Louie screwed me once, not again. Other people got ‘um for Louie.”
Interviewer: “You mean someone gave Louie the fish or sold ‘um to him – he didn’t catch the fish?”
Petit: “No – no way. Louie knew he needed real long fish to get the weight up there.”
Interviewer: “What do you mean?”
Petit: “Well, you can’t get 60+ pounds out of a 51 incher. So if a mid 50-inch fish weighed light, they would grind up some fish, suckers – put a funnel in the muskies mouth and pour enough in to get the weight up where you need it. Record fish could be examined, their stomach opened and no weights or rocks that way. Just ground up fish.”
Interviewer: “You weren’t involved in Louie’s 1949 world record?”
Petit: “No – no I wasn’t. Never again after that first fish!”
Interviewer: “Well Paul, I’d like to hear more stories someday. I wanted to just ask you about Louie’s three world record muskies for now. Thanks.”
Petit: “Ya know Louie was no better fisherman than the next guy.”
Ramsell note: Before Mr. Petit died, I got word to him that I would pay him $1000.00 for an affidavit to back-up this information. He declined. He was proud of the fact that throughout his life he had never been caught violating. When Petit was informed his information wouldn’t be exposed until after he died, he still declined. While he was still peeed at Louie for “stiffing” him $50.00 in 1939, no money at this point was going to get him to confess in writing, his indiscretion in this matter. He and his family knew the truth and that was good enough for him!
To complete the above story, I have reported previously that Mr. Petits’ brother was involved in getting Louie his 1940 “record” fish. Neither Paul nor his brother were involved in getting Spray his 1949 “record’. Professional photogrammetry has, however, proven that Spray’s 1940 and 1949 “records” weren’t nearly the lengths claimed: See: http://www.worldmuskiealliance.com/spray
Photogrammetry has not been done on Spray’s 1939 record claim as there are no photographs extant showing Spray holding that fish! The only known and published photograph of Spray’s 1939 record claim is one taken of Spray’s friend Alton Van Camp shown holding a large muskie (note: Van Camp had caught a 39-pound 14-ounce muskie in 1938) and that photograph was taken from an “extremely” low camera angle assisting in making the fish look as large as Spray claimed!
NOTE: There are two photo's that go with this article which have been sent to Mr. Worrall along with the article to hopefully post to the NEWS section. If he does so, I have asked that he post a link on this thread so that you may view the photos.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1901
Location: MN | So this entire interview opportunity the interviewer never asked and Petit never told what the true size of the 1939 fish that Petit provided to Spray was?
And I get a kick out of his pride in "not getting caught..." |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | ' So if a mid 50-inch fish weighed light, they would grind up some fish, suckers' |
|
| |
|
Posts: 735
Location: Apparently where the Muskie aren't | How would they not notice the ground up fish? Muskies don't chew their food. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3504
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | My guess is back then, people didn't scrutinize like we are now with these fish, so the stomach contents never were looked at.
A lot has happened since the 40's with recognizing and understanding a general size -vs- weight relationship.
The lack of understanding is still out there today. Just a couple years ago, I was fishing on Lake Minnetonka... Guy is loading up for the day and says he has a 25 pound fish he caught and kept. Being I love seeing nice fish people catch, asked to see it.. Turned out it wasn't even 36" inches, and maybe went 10 pounds....
Steve |
|
| |
|
Location: Sawyer County, WI | Come on Larry, you should know by now that use of anonymous sources make the story "fake news".  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Propster: It was Louie that figured out the weight vs. length needed to achieve his goal. To Petit it was just "another" big muskie. Here is the link to the article with the photo in it: http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/articles/03.01.2017/10630/Yet.More....
It should be easy to look at the photo and come to your own conclusion as to the size of the fish.
dfkii: This isn't politics, LOL Besides, the "source" isn't "anonymous", I'm just not saying who the interviewer was. The "actual" source was named and that is the guy that got the fish! That is the important part.
Edited by Larry Ramsell 3/2/2017 8:05 AM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Sawyer County, WI | Larry Ramsell - 3/2/2017 8:02 AM
dfkii: This isn't politics, LOL Besides, the "source" isn't "anonymous", I'm just not saying who the interviewer was. The "actual" source was named and that is the guy that got the fish! That is the important part.
Oh, so it's heresay then. That makes it better.
Additionally, if you consider why a specific few of our neighbors have supported Louie's bogus records, it's all about politics. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | No dfkii, it wasn't "hearsay". It was a formal interview with the person that actually caught the fish and related same in front of witnesses. What is it about that that you don't understand? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 410
Location: With my son on the water | I actually hate these type of stories by people going on a mission to disprove this or that, as this is becoming the culture of guys in the sport. Nobody ever believes anybody anymore. Catching one big muskie is a great accomplishment that most muskie fishermen never accomplish, and for those that consistently get them good going. (Class of their own)
Now if a guy posts a nice fish nobody buys him a beer and he may get 1 reply saying good job, 9 replies saying I don't believe you, and 1000 jealous other guys.
I am one of those guys that has caught more than my share of big fish in my life time and still do, but I don't post it anymore. I have busted my butt to catch those fish putting in countless hours and spent lots of money traveling. I never have heard it face to face but I can just imagine what people have said about me, so be it. Then we wonder why some the guys who I classify as gods of the sport don't say much?
Sorry for the rant. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8821
| I think it's obvious to anyone with a few oz of shyt between their ears that if those lakes were capable of turning out fish like that, more than once, we'd be seeing fish of that quality being caught there today. Between increased size limits, creel limits, and the popularity of catch and release fishing it only stands to reason that the quality and size structure of the fish is better today than it's ever been in the past. With the advancements in gear and technology, and the wealth of media that allows us to learn about our quarry, we're also a lot better at finding them and catching them.
That aside, what we have here is far more simple than just lying about the size. Someone ELSE caught the fish. Spray bought it. What happened afterwards doesn't really matter.
|
|
| |
|
Location: Sawyer County, WI | Hearsay: A statement made out of court that is offered in court as evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
Since you seem to enjoy holding "court" on this topic every now and again (and occasionally playing the role of both judge and jury) the information (edivence ?) you have provided is indeed hearsay. I didn't say that it isn't credible, nor did I state that it doesn't help you further prove a point that you've long since proven.
Your sharp response, however, does seem to indicate some bitterness about the reality that many people in our great country fall victim to alternative facts. Fake photos, fake taxidermy, fake news, it's all the same. Who gains from all of the nonsense ? Follow the money and you'll find out.
In the end, people will still frequent the FWFHOF and a certain resort on the Chippewa Flowage. I don't think we need an affidavit to know what those two parties to the discussion think about it, just listen to the cash register ring.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 135
| This topic really isn't discussed enough.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | btfish - 3/2/2017 9:17 AM
I actually hate these type of stories by people going on a mission to disprove this or that, as this is becoming the culture of guys in the sport. Nobody ever believes anybody anymore. Catching one big muskie is a great accomplishment that most muskie fishermen never accomplish, and for those that consistently get them good going. (Class of their own)
Now if a guy posts a nice fish nobody buys him a beer and he may get 1 reply saying good job, 9 replies saying I don't believe you, and 1000 jealous other guys.
I am one of those guys that has caught more than my share of big fish in my life time and still do, but I don't post it anymore. I have busted my butt to catch those fish putting in countless hours and spent lots of money traveling. I never have heard it face to face but I can just imagine what people have said about me, so be it. Then we wonder why some the guys who I classify as gods of the sport don't say much?
Sorry for the rant.
In this case it's not just 'a big fish', it's the standing world record. It's important to many anglers who enjoy the sport and want to know the potential of the fish they pursue know what the real and attainable record weight is.
Unfortunately, the culture back then allowed for some fairly aberrant behavior. It's been business interests and politics that have kept these fish in the record books, and that's unfortunate.
The rest of your rant is just a bit overblown...but you make a reasonable point about muskie anglers second guessing fish images and claims. It's usually a couple, though, and almost always the same guys.
The rest of us like seeing big fish pictures and reading the story. And the rest of us is a really...really big audience, largely silent. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| X2...I for one enjoy ALL of the info on these past records. Such as they are.... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 390
| Oi, honestly, don't actually care about the world record or anything like that. I do find it cool to hear the stories and learn a little bit about the culture of fishing during this, and other, time periods. It's interesting that on one hand you had a guy that was obsessed with having his name in the record books. On the other, you have a dude who seems like he liked to fish, but thought of it as a utilitarian endeavor - and also thought of himself as a rum runner of natural resources. I found it to be an entertaining and informative read, thanks for posting Larry. Keep up the good work and searching for the truth. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | dfkii: AGREE on "follow the money!! Well stated, sorry for my "sharpness"!
Fly Piker: Thanks, will do! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 255
| would somebody please just catch a freak of a fish this year and measure it right, weigh it right, be honest and believable, with several witnesses, while being videotaped and photo'd by multiple world renowned photographers, with an attorney present, and use a notarized stamp on its tail? Anything else?
I like the story, I kinda like the debate. Hopeful our sport can someday have a clean, undeniable world record. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 5193
| If this gets overturned I might need my uncle Larry to go after the 13 lb Illinois Largemouth Bass record which might have come from a Florida vacation a week before.First the fish weren't that big,now someone else catches them, and stuffs them with fish guts to get the record weight?The stories just never end at the Chip.Great publicity / legend lore for Big Chip once again.
Edited by 0723 3/2/2017 11:26 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 23
| Can we please just let this go? It was a long time ago. This latest "development" is nothing more than hearsay from a long, long time ago. Believe it or don't but it's time to move on. |
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | After researching and listening to hearsay (as well hearing part of this story from Paul Pettit himself in person). I'd theorize that Paul Pettit did in fact obtain the fish for the mount that Louie used for the taxidermy end of the 1939 record. I would also theorize that Louie submitted a picture of a different fish that he obtained from his friend Alton VanCamp to use for the Field & Stream contest requirement.
In a nutshell; the 1939 record was not nearly as large as claimed, Louie did not catch the fish used for the Frankenstein mount, and he never even touched the fish in the picture that Alton VanCamp is holding. Other than that, it's a solid record... LOL.
I think Larry is on the right track here because I've long thought that the most direct way to expose Louie would be with the 1939 fish because it was his first attempt, and therefore he would have made the most mistakes with it. When I began my initial research, I started out by looking through the local 1938 newspapers for a picture of Alton VanCamp holding the 1939 record in 1938… find that picture Larry and it's game over!
|
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | followking - 3/2/2017 12:12 PM Can we please just let this go? It was a long time ago. This latest "development" is nothing more than hearsay from a long, long time ago. Believe it or don't but it's time to move on. Don't like hearsay… maybe you prefer some fact? Louie claimed to have caught his first record on July 27, 1939, he also claimed to have caught 2 other mid 40lb fish right in the middle of summer that same year. Wow, that Louie really got around with a 59 ½, 48 ½, and a 46.3 all caught from different lakes in a one-week span.
(Louie newspaper (3).jpg)
(Louie newspaper (4).JPG)
Attachments
----------------
 Louie newspaper (3).jpg (60KB - 578 downloads)
Louie newspaper (4).JPG (70KB - 564 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 222
| Pictures don't lie.....do they?
The one on the left is 17 lbs heavier than the one on the right?
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Attachments
----------------
larry2.jpg (46KB - 586 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 5193
| I've heard it all now .The haters are trying to Drew Peterson poor old deceased Louis Spray with the hearsay law.To bad the record wasn't in Illinois .Louie's kinfolk would be in jail for his past actions .Seriously ,someone already won the chicken dinner when they said let it go .Find a hobby,I know maybe try fishing.Good luck this season . |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Muskidiem: We do have a legitimate World Record (Modern). See: http://www.modernmuskierecords.org/ |
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | 0723 - 3/2/2017 1:04 PM Find a hobby,I know maybe try fishing.Good luck this season . I think Larry already has a hobby… he's our muskie historian.
Here's his 4th claimed 40lber from the summer of 1939.
Attachments
----------------
Louie lie (1).jpg (23KB - 590 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 5193
| No offense but thats like the Champion of the Cfl«wrma»vs the Nfl«fresh water hall of fame».No comparison .Good luck ,love your big fish pictures and stories you share with us here
Edited by 0723 3/2/2017 2:05 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 20248
Location: oswego, il | I find it funny when people say let it go. What about the lawton fish? Why is it the only one allowed to be discredited? Why cant the st Lawrence tourism bureaus promote a record fish to increase business? Oh yeah a chip resort owner and former hall of fame president discredited the fish.
One thing is for sure, it is a mute point, the hall has reaffirmed the records and put new rules in place to thwart another attempt at challenging it.
As far as people posting fish pics and people bashing it, this is an apples and oranges comparison. Those people dont care about those records, they dont believe them. Current big fish hurt their egos, they dont like seeing fish as big or bigger than they are catching.
Edited by ToddM 3/2/2017 2:32 PM
|
|
| |
|
| I do find it interesting that the hearsay comes from an admitted poacher and that is what the guy was if he was knowingly fishing in an area that was closed to fishing year round as the story states. But then maybe it goes back to "it takes a crook to catch a crook". Sort of like letting a small time drug dealer go to get his supplier. But, the guy is a still a poacher. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | I'll reserve judgement until Reelwise weighs in with his evolutionary evidence..... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 105
Location: Florida | btfish - 3/2/2017 9:17 AM
I actually hate these type of stories by people going on a mission to disprove this or that, as this is becoming the culture of guys in the sport. Nobody ever believes anybody anymore. Catching one big muskie is a great accomplishment that most muskie fishermen never accomplish, and for those that consistently get them good going. (Class of their own)
Now if a guy posts a nice fish nobody buys him a beer and he may get 1 reply saying good job, 9 replies saying I don't believe you, and 1000 jealous other guys.
I am one of those guys that has caught more than my share of big fish in my life time and still do, but I don't post it anymore. I have busted my butt to catch those fish putting in countless hours and spent lots of money traveling. I never have heard it face to face but I can just imagine what people have said about me, so be it. Then we wonder why some the guys who I classify as gods of the sport don't say much?
Sorry for the rant.
Well said. It never surprises me seeing people trying to discredit another person's catch and its a petty thing to do. Some people seem to enjoy insulting other peoples catches more than giving compliments. Saying ''thank you for posting your catch'' or ''congratulations'' goes a long way, especially if you want people to keep posting their reports. With that said, nothing that somebody says online will take away another mans accomplishment in fishing, and from the looks of it that +69 pound Muskie record is going to last for a long time. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | What 69 pound muskie is that?
This debate has little to nothing to do with your first couple statements. This isn't someone fudging a bit about a 52. It's supposed to be the World Record, and it's just plain obviously not what it was claimed to be.
Things were different back then, but if anyone tried to pull such an obvious hoax off today to displace a real record, it would be laughed off this board within minutes.
Not only that, but there was another fish removed in large part due to efforts of the very people protecting this deal so THIS fish could take over the WR. The group refused to consider this fish with the same critical eye.
I get it, the idea is to promote the area and fishery and if it was just a big fish claim, no one would have questioned it. In fact, had they not ripped apart the standing WR and left one even more questionable in place New York would still hold the record.
The average muskie angler deserves to know what the real, actual potential of the fish we chase is.
This is a clear case of reaping what one sews, but as long as the very organization that lists the WR represents business interests in the area where this fish was 'caught', the entire affair is even more spectacularly off center.
It's about money, tourism dollars, and prestige, not someone over estimating a fish a bit.
At least Rhinelander chose to use a truly silly mystical creature to market the area. Yet the Hodag is real, I have seen one. It's out in front of the COC building.
Larry and I don't always see eye to eye and in fact argue loudly sometimes, but we share mutual respect. He didn't convince me of anything, the evidence did. Why should I care from the editorial position? Better question, why shouldn't I?
Larry isn't trying to 'discredit' anyone or anything, he's seeking the truth as a historian and in a long, detailed, and careful analysis by a diverse group, made a clear case that history should be adjusted. If it's 'just a story' or 'lore', then let's make it a historical record and establish a modern World Record program and list the record as such.
Wait, that's not how this works in ANY sport....yet here we are.
If the fish in the attached image is as large as claimed, I have caught at least two World Records.
Attachments
----------------
Louie.jpg (23KB - 666 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 319
Location: Tomahawk,Wis | See now you all know why I did not tell anyone about my 65" 72 lber caught in Wis. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | pfft, if you caught that fish the world would know about it...  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8821
| Let's just cut to the chase...
It's bull#*#*. Everyone who isn't an idiot or an a-hole sees that clearly. There is no substantiating evidence to support the claim. There are mountains of evidence that clearly repudiate the claim. Politics and monetary interests have clouded the issue to the point where it will likely not be resolved any time soon. The only thing the record has going for it is the fact that the guy behind it is DEAD. There is no other evidence, research, or history that would even come close to validating the world record. What we have is politics, publicity, and monetary interests holding fast to a record that for all intents and purposes has proven to be bunk.
Give it up. Let it go. You're full of #*#* and everybody knows it. The ****ing fish just don't get that #*^@ big. They never have, and it's likely that they never will. Teams of people who know more than you, have done more research than you, and are more equipped to have an opinion than you have proven that beyond any reasonable doubt.
The giant muskies of today are THE giant muskies. Go home and apologize to your wife and family for being absent. Throw a pizza in the oven. Pet your dog, plant your garden, wash your car, call your mother. It's OVER. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Geez Jeff, I think we'd all appreciate it if you would speak more to the point.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8821
| sworrall - 3/2/2017 9:18 PM
Geez Jeff, I think we'd all appreciate it if you would speak more to the point.
*sigh*...
Apparently I've failed to be as concise as I should be... I get carried away sometimes.
Let's try this again...
WTF are you people smoking?!?
Better? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1660
Location: central Wisconsin | Might as well sell all my gear then. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Oh, I don't know, the current 58# fish is darned impressive. |
|
| |
|
| No body gives a poop about world records anymore because no one believes any of them are world records. Its over. Does anyone except maybe the record keepers actually believe that the current "modern day" record is actually the biggest muskie ever caught in the world? Or is it just something that fits neatly into somebody else agenda. The mine is bigger than yours attitude is dead. Thank you!!! Can we just go fishing now and give this nonsense up?
I raise my glass to the real world record holder and hope that the only ones to know about it are him/her and the big guy in the sky! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 7076
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | These arent nails in a coffin. Posting this stuff is digging up the coffin, taking the body out, making sure it's still dead, fondling it a bit, maybe posting a few selfies with the body to instagram, then posting on twitter that you're putting nails in the coffin and then doing a fb live video of you lowering the body back in the ground.
No one believes these records anymore. It's done. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 576
Location: Elk Grove Village, IL & Phillips, WI | Unfortunately, it appears a few on this board do still believe in King Louie's record. I can't imagine why. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure it out. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20248
Location: oswego, il | Please post the selfies! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 4amuskie - 3/3/2017 8:00 AM
No body gives a poop about world records anymore because no one believes any of them are world records. Its over. Does anyone except maybe the record keepers actually believe that the current "modern day" record is actually the biggest muskie ever caught in the world? Or is it just something that fits neatly into somebody else agenda. The mine is bigger than yours attitude is dead. Thank you!!! Can we just go fishing now and give this nonsense up?
I raise my glass to the real world record holder and hope that the only ones to know about it are him/her and the big guy in the sky!
No 'agenda' other than to offer what has been the largest Muskie registered using bulletproof registration requirements. It's IS the biggest muskie in the world that was registered, there's a release program in place for released fish, and a giant from Mille Lacs holds that position. You might not care, but others do, and this is doing it right.
As to the rest, a WR can only be a WR if it's registered, and it's even perfectly OK to release it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | 4amuskie, YES, people do care as Mr. Worrall stated...LOTS of them. You cannot imagine the number of folks that let me know same. I don't believe, I, or anyone on the Modern Day Muskellunge World Record Committee has ever said that our current 58 pound world record "is actually the biggest muskie ever caught in the world." What we do say is that it is the heaviest and best documented (as Worrall said "bullet proof").
Also, as Worrall stated, I have NO AGENDA in this regard other than the truth! I live in Hayward, Wisconsin (supposed home of "World Record Muskies") and until recently was a muskie guide making my living here...do you honestly think I would speak against the Hayward records, hurting my personal income if I didn't believe what I write to be the truth? Would you jeopardize your job for the truth? Doubt it.
Never once have I claimed "mine is bigger than yours".
Personally, I believe that the Williamson fish of 2000, which was caught in Georgian Bay and weighed 61# 4oz. (on an uncertified scale) may just be the heaviest muskie ever caught, but it obviously cannot comply with Modern Day Record rules. I am confident that all heavier muskies ever registered were less than claimed!
Muskies just don't grow much over 60 pounds and there has never been one put on a scale (legitimately) that gets anywhere near the 70 pound mark, taken by any means (pre-spawn fish not included)!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 255
| I looked up Malo musky and found a February 2013 discussion of 4 pages about all this same stuff. Can't wait for next years late winter arguments. Put it on the agenda. |
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | travelingfisherman - 3/2/2017 6:41 PM btfish - 3/2/2017 9:17 AM I actually hate these type of stories by people going on a mission to disprove this or that, as this is becoming the culture of guys in the sport. Nobody ever believes anybody anymore. Catching one big muskie is a great accomplishment that most muskie fishermen never accomplish, and for those that consistently get them good going. (Class of their own) Now if a guy posts a nice fish nobody buys him a beer and he may get 1 reply saying good job, 9 replies saying I don't believe you, and 1000 jealous other guys. I am one of those guys that has caught more than my share of big fish in my life time and still do, but I don't post it anymore. I have busted my butt to catch those fish putting in countless hours and spent lots of money traveling. I never have heard it face to face but I can just imagine what people have said about me, so be it. Then we wonder why some the guys who I classify as gods of the sport don't say much? Sorry for the rant. Well said. It never surprises me seeing people trying to discredit another person's catch and its a petty thing to do. Some people seem to enjoy insulting other peoples catches more than giving compliments. Saying ''thank you for posting your catch'' or ''congratulations'' goes a long way, especially if you want people to keep posting their reports. With that said, nothing that somebody says online will take away another mans accomplishment in fishing, and from the looks of it that +69 pound Muskie record is going to last for a long time. I can completely understand why some of you cannot understand why these Spray records keep resurfacing even though it's one of the most obvious fishing frauds out there. As unpleasant as it can be at times, IMHO it’s something we need to do as long as this record resides at the top… the least of which is to help educate newcomers to our sport. If you please; Larry is not getting any younger and still holds out hope that this situation can be resolved in his lifetime, perhaps because he (and others like me) grew up in a different era and still take these records seriously. In a nutshell, Larry almost single-handedly preserved muskie history, and was instrumental in helping to compile (what he thought was) accurate records back in the day. These "kept" records may not be as relevant today, but many of us still feel that if records are to be kept, they should be accurate… and they should not be trampled on and used for personal gain like they are now. Larry has spent a large portion of his life collecting muskie history for the betterment of our beloved sport, much of it which will be enjoyed by future generations without regard to its origin. I think we all owe Larry a large debt of gratitude for preserving muskie history, and I hope it's not too much to ask for those of you who have a problem with it to simply skip these discussions. I also think Steve deserves a lot of credit for embracing the obvious truth and allowing it to be presented here on Muskie First, it would have been a much easier job for Steve to have simply ignored it like they did over at Musky Hunter. It’s my personal opinion that if Musky Hunter (and to some degree Muskies Inc.) would have stepped up in a like manner in 2005, all this unpleasantness would be behind us now. Anyway, thank you Larry, Steve and Muskie First! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Slamr - 3/3/2017 8:41 AM
These arent nails in a coffin. Posting this stuff is digging up the coffin, taking the body out, making sure it's still dead, fondling it a bit, maybe posting a few selfies with the body to instagram, then posting on twitter that you're putting nails in the coffin and then doing a fb live video of you lowering the body back in the ground.
No one believes these records anymore. It's done.
After this many years, what parts are being fondled?
Edited by Pointerpride102 3/3/2017 1:21 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Good question for Dettloff PointerPride102, as I don't even know where Louie's grave is (Slamr), but rest assured Johnny D certainly does. He even has a picture of Louie's grave stone in his book!
Edited by Larry Ramsell 3/3/2017 2:05 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 4269
Location: Ashland WI | I am one that is thankful and appreciative of what Larry has done. I honestly had no idea the records were false until I read a little here (a couple years ago) and dug into a bit. |
|
| |
|
| Larry
I appreciate your the intense dedication you have and the painstaking work you do and I thank you for it. I also believe the world record program should end. I see no purpose to it at all other than to put someones name on a list for a fish that can change its weight in an instant by eating a 5 lb walleye or 10 lbs of cisco or shad or be laden with eggs. No one believes Louie Spray but I give him credit for a good ride. It was fun. Time to move on.
The muskie world has done something few others have and its called catch and release. Time to say photos are good enough. We all know a giant when we see it even though we might argue about it. Part of life. Just my opinion, but I enjoy yours too. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8821
| If there's anybody in Musky fishing that ought to be famous, it's Mr. Ramsell. The Compendium is something to behold, that's for sure... I can't even keep track of the muskies I've caught myself, and let me tell 'ya, it ain't all that many! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 105
Location: Florida | This subject reminds me of the current world record 22 pound,4 ounce largemouth bass that was caught in 1932.Both these records have a lot of controversy around them and both where caught before the internet existed. Hopefully both these records get beaten soon in a manner that all will consider 100% official. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | 4amuskie: And we DO have a WR release program here on MuskieFirst! But we will still maintain a kept record as well, just in case!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20248
Location: oswego, il | 14ledo81 - 3/3/2017 2:52 PM
I am one that is thankful and appreciative of what Larry has done. I honestly had no idea the records were false until I read a little here (a couple years ago) and dug into a bit.
Lets not forget the beating those who challenged the records took, right down to challenging the non for profit status of a muskies inc club by someone affilliated with the hof. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 253
Location: On the water | Larry, one of the most impressive fish, at least for me, is the
musky caught by Rick Clark, 60x29.5, from the St. Lawrence.
Very little has been said about this fish, what’s the story.
Thanks, Tom |
|
| |
|
Posts: 31
| As far as Sprays fish goes, it's a true monster. Just ask the guy who debunked Lawton's fish.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1425
Location: St. Lawrence River | Like Steve said, it's a local pride thing. A promotional thing. The only people I ever see getting butt hurt about the Spray deal is Wisconsin residents. Go figure. No different here, there is a ton of promotion here still and always will claim "St Lawrence River home of the world record musky"... and I will say bullcrap. Those fish were shams...Man do people get mad, or just tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. It hurts their pride and the pride of where they are from.
Bottom line, if you truly believe in your heart that Spray fish was legit, I don't take you seriously on a personal level. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32
Location: West Bend WI | I visited this link in LR opening post (http://www.worldmuskiealliance.com/spray ). I wanted to send a message to the email address provided from the "contact" button ([email protected]).
The message was returned "This Message was deliverable due to the following reason:Reason:invalid mailbox (call fwd)".
Larry, is there a working email address to contact this organization?
Pat
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | FEVER: I'll have to pass on that one, sorry. Giant fish, but...
Pat: Just PM Jerry Newman (he posted above). He is the founder of the WRMA, now WMA. Or try: http://www.worldmuskiealliance.com/
Edited by Larry Ramsell 3/5/2017 7:56 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 5193
| Mr. Ramsell didn't you prove that the Malo calf fish weighed 70 lbs?I understand it was disqualified because it was weighed on an uncertufied scale.Just wondering if this fish was somewhere around the 69 or 70 lb mark?. |
|
| |
|
| 4amuskie - 3/3/2017 5:13 PM
Larry
I appreciate your the intense dedication you have and the painstaking work you do and I thank you for it. I also believe the world record program should end. I see no purpose to it at all other than to put someones name on a list for a fish that can change its weight in an instant by eating a 5 lb walleye or 10 lbs of cisco or shad or be laden with eggs. No one believes Louie Spray but I give him credit for a good ride. It was fun. Time to move on.
The muskie world has done something few others have and its called catch and release. Time to say photos are good enough. We all know a giant when we see it even though we might argue about it. Part of life. Just my opinion, but I enjoy yours too.
Interesting comment. Many years ago, maybe 40, saw a mount from the late 1950s. My buddie's uncle had been fishing late October in N. WI, with a sucker. He caught a huge muskie that went over 40# on a sporting goods store scale. He took it to a nearby taxidermist. The guy called him right after he got home. He asked if he hadn't caught it on a big sucker. When my friends uncle replied that was right, the taxidermist said, "well she must have been really hungry because she had a walleye that must be almost 5# in her gut and looks like it was just swallowed". They decided to mount the musky over the mounted walleye. My friend's uncle said the fish had a huge belly and the photos showed that but he was dumbfounded the musky would then turn around and eat a sucker he estimated was 15" or 16". That walleye was what pushed the fish well over 40#. Without it, it might not have made it.
Edited by North of 8 3/5/2017 7:50 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | 0723: That was before I learned that the poachers has stuffed a northern pike down its gut before it was weighed. It also had over 8 pounds of spawn in it...it was taken in April before it had a chance to spawn. Live, during open season and empty it was likely a fish in the 50 pound class somewhere. |
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | Lots of hoaxes like Malo in that area... check out the crowd that gathered. LOL
Edited by Jerry Newman 3/6/2017 12:56 PM
Attachments
----------------
1967 muskie hoax.jpg (28KB - 560 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 141
Location: Minnetonka | This Letter to Ben East, with the photos of Spray around the outside is the most telling of his lies. Most people know the bottom left photo as the world record fish, yet he claims it as his 61 pound, second world record. He claims the top left photo is the world record, 69 pound fish, but it's very clear that it's actually the fish from the bottom right, shot from a different angle with gills flared. That fish is noted as a 43 pound fish. It's so plain that it's nearly insulting. He even has his hat at the exact same angle, same clothes, same marks on fish, blood by gill plate. Ridiculous. I'm sure Larry has pointed this out in one of his books. You'll hear no more from me on the subject for now.
(Spray Letter to Ben East.jpg)
Attachments
----------------
Spray Letter to Ben East.jpg (60KB - 554 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
| North of 8 - 3/5/2017 7:49 PM
4amuskie - 3/3/2017 5:13 PM
Larry
I appreciate your the intense dedication you have and the painstaking work you do and I thank you for it. I also believe the world record program should end. I see no purpose to it at all other than to put someones name on a list for a fish that can change its weight in an instant by eating a 5 lb walleye or 10 lbs of cisco or shad or be laden with eggs. No one believes Louie Spray but I give him credit for a good ride. It was fun. Time to move on.
The muskie world has done something few others have and its called catch and release. Time to say photos are good enough. We all know a giant when we see it even though we might argue about it. Part of life. Just my opinion, but I enjoy yours too.
Interesting comment. Many years ago, maybe 40, saw a mount from the late 1950s. My buddie's uncle had been fishing late October in N. WI, with a sucker. He caught a huge muskie that went over 40# on a sporting goods store scale. He took it to a nearby taxidermist. The guy called him right after he got home. He asked if he hadn't caught it on a big sucker. When my friends uncle replied that was right, the taxidermist said, "well she must have been really hungry because she had a walleye that must be almost 5# in her gut and looks like it was just swallowed". They decided to mount the musky over the mounted walleye. My friend's uncle said the fish had a huge belly and the photos showed that but he was dumbfounded the musky would then turn around and eat a sucker he estimated was 15" or 16". That walleye was what pushed the fish well over 40#. Without it, it might not have made it.
Exactly correct and the reason why these weight records are BS in "MY" opinion. Lets judge a fish by how much it just ate and which ever one just ate the biggest or most fish before it was caught wins. Time to move on.
I love Louie stories, Hartman stories, Johnson stories, all of them. Brought alot of interest into this sport and likely had something to do with where its at today. I can just see and hear the young uns talking when heading to the Chip about the monsters that live there. History is an interesting thing even when its BS.
Thank you Louie Spray, Len Hartman, Cal Johnson and all the others! You did more for our sport than you can imagine. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 5193
| Larry Ramsell - 3/6/2017 8:07 AM
0723: That was before I learned that the poachers has stuffed a northern pike down its gut before it was weighed. It also had over 8 pounds of spawn in it...it was taken in April before it had a chance to spawn. Live, during open season and empty it was likely a fish in the 50 pound class somewhere. Ok thx I remember something years ago when you made a comment about Malos fish maybe the record. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1405
Location: Detroit River | sworrall - 3/2/2017 10:41 PM Oh, I don't know, the current 58# fish is darned impressive. Is that the Michigan fish caught in Oct. 2012? The article on the Modern Muskie Records page states that the fish was caught with live bait & that conflicts with stories that were out when it was caught as they stated he caught it on plastic drop shotting. Also one of the angler's had stated before that the fish was hooked in the side & not in the mouth, which under Michigan law a fish must be hooked in the mouth to be a legal fish. So many stories go around that get published with incorrect data. There was a fish caught in LSC that was included in an article in Musky Hunter & they stated that the fish was released to be caught again when I knew that the fish had actually died when it was caught & I confirmed it with the charter captain after I had read the article. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Zib: The 58-pounder referred to by Mr. Worrall is indeed the Michigan fish from Bellaire Lake, in October of 2012 and I know of no stories about that fish having been caught "plastic drop shotting", nor was the fish hooked in the side. The fish was verified and sactioned by the Michigan DNR as well as the Modern Day World Record Muskellunge Committee and is very well documented. It was caught on a 7 1/4 inch live sucker.
Edited by Larry Ramsell 3/7/2017 10:19 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8821
| I can also see a lot of young guys going to Hayward because that's their best shot at a giant fish and coming home disappointed because their biggest for the week was 47". Fishing with the mindset that there are opportunities far beyond what a body of water can produce does not create passion and excitement about fishing. |
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | 4amuskie - I love Louie stories, Hartman stories, Johnson stories, all of them. Brought alot of interest into this sport and likely had something to do with where its at today. I can just see and hear the young uns talking when heading to the Chip about the monsters that live there. History is an interesting thing even when its BS. Thank you Louie Spray, Len Hartman, Cal Johnson and all the others! You did more for our sport than you can imagine. I simply do not share your enthusiasm because they lied, cheated and stole from honest and deserving people who played by the rules. The people you mentioned didn't just grossly lie about the size of the fish for fun, they basically committed perjury to obtain large cash prizes, and deliberately misled the unsuspecting public in an effort to separate them from their hard earned money. Take the case of Cal Johnson for instance; (I'm not condoning his act), but he was a real fisherman and decent guy who was definitely influenced by Louie to commit a serious crime (stole a car) that he should have went to jail for.
Those same “young uns” you speak of should have been talking about true gentlemen like Dick Sleight, who might have guided Rita Hildebrandt to the real Wisconsin State record. I think she would have been a much better ambassador for Wisconsin than Louie, and hard-working guides like Dick certainly captured the essence of what a real muskie fisherman was about in that era. What you speak of would have happened, it just would have happened with real fish and credible stories from deserving people.
You are right about how they “did more for our sport than you imagine”… Yes, but IMHO they only did the kind of damage that Lance Armstrong did for bicycling (again not condoning it)… but at least Lance Armstrong peddled his own bike over the finish line. |
|
| |
|
| Jerry Newman - 3/7/2017 11:56 AM
4amuskie - I love Louie stories, Hartman stories, Johnson stories, all of them. Brought alot of interest into this sport and likely had something to do with where its at today. I can just see and hear the young uns talking when heading to the Chip about the monsters that live there. History is an interesting thing even when its BS. Thank you Louie Spray, Len Hartman, Cal Johnson and all the others! You did more for our sport than you can imagine. I simply do not share your enthusiasm because they lied, cheated and stole from honest and deserving people who played by the rules. The people you mentioned didn't just grossly lie about the size of the fish for fun, they basically committed perjury to obtain large cash prizes, and deliberately misled the unsuspecting public in an effort to separate them from their hard earned money. Take the case of Cal Johnson for instance; (I'm not condoning his act), but he was a real fisherman and decent guy who was definitely influenced by Louie to commit a serious crime (stole a car) that he should have went to jail for.
Those same “young uns” you speak of should have been talking about true gentlemen like Dick Sleight, who might have guided Rita Hildebrandt to the real Wisconsin State record. I think she would have been a much better ambassador for Wisconsin than Louie, and hard-working guides like Dick certainly captured the essence of what a real muskie fisherman was about in that era. What you speak of would have happened, it just would have happened with real fish and credible stories from deserving people.
You are right about how they “did more for our sport than you imagine”… Yes, but IMHO they only did the kind of damage that Lance Armstrong did for bicycling (again not condoning it)… but at least Lance Armstrong peddled his own bike over the finish line.
Not condoning their conduct by any means and yes, it was criminal in nature, but the fact remains that alot of interest was stirred in the sport and still is today because of it.
I promote fishing ethics, honesty, abide by our laws and try to instill these values on family and friends, but I find their stories interesting.
I also remember Len Hartman coming to the muskie clubs and members sucking up to him like a God. I feel more duped by Hartman quite honestly because it was during my time and easier to relate to. His actions were criminal also and he sure sucked a bunch into his world before he came clean.
Good Lance Armstrong comparison and when we look back we can see easily that it was wrong. Just like Sosa and Mcquire, but it wasn't clear at the time and it influenced the sport in a positive manner for most. Maybe it even made us a bit more skeptical of people today. I will be the first in line to denounce cheating, lying and law breaking.
I didnt look at Louie and say, geez I wonder if I can stuff a fish with weights and see if I can get a world record. I read the stories and thought about giant muskie and the chance to get one too. Not a world record but just the thought of one of those beasts was enough.
It has obviously influenced yourself and others as overlookers of ethics and honesty. Most muskie fishman realize theses stories are false but also realize that our sport has evolved past the quest for a world record muskie. Skeptism is at an all time high in the world of social media and its not all bad.
I still like seeing the big muskie in Hayward.
Edited by 4amuskie 3/7/2017 12:44 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 239
Location: Elroy, Wisconsin | Hey Mr. Ramsell, When and who appointed you Grand Pubah of musky records anyway? Spray, Johnson, Hartman did more for musky fishing all the negative judgements you have promoted.
I have met all three of the above persons, all were characters and all interesting and one of a kind to say the least. Enjoy the old timers and old ledgends of the past, they helped get us where we are today.
Mudpuppy |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Mudpuppy - 3/8/2017 7:09 PM
Hey Mr. Ramsell, When and who appointed you Grand Pubah of musky records anyway? Spray, Johnson, Hartman did more for musky fishing all the negative judgements you have promoted.
I have met all three of the above persons, all were characters and all interesting and one of a kind to say the least. Enjoy the old timers and old ledgends of the past, they helped get us where we are today.
Mudpuppy
Larry is a historian, so getting to the truth is his unique personal responsibility. OFM published this information because it's news and fact. Reasonable discussion is welcome, but the old records are so obviously overblown it has little merit to argue that. All that's left is to use the old 'Why are you messing with legend and history?' argument, and that's actually exactly the point...we are learning what really happened and it's inevitable some people won't like it much.
If what's getting discussed here seems negative, it's because it is what it is. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 718
| Mudpuppy - 3/8/2017 7:09 PM
Hey Mr. Ramsell, When and who appointed you Grand Pubah of musky records anyway? Spray, Johnson, Hartman did more for musky fishing all the negative judgements you have promoted.
I have met all three of the above persons, all were characters and all interesting and one of a kind to say the least. Enjoy the old timers and old ledgends of the past, they helped get us where we are today.
Mudpuppy
Disclaimer: I have no dog in this fight. I have stated many times before that IMO ANY record muskie is a paper champion of sorts in that it was simply a really big fish that someone decided to actually document (the paper part). There are plenty of big fish caught that really never get promoted or go thru any real scrutiny because of that lack of promotion. Some of them are likely bigger than the new records. Do I believe the old ones are bogus...hell yes. Do I think bigger fish have been caught than the new records...hell yes. Does it really matter what I think to most...probably not.
That said:
As far as Larry whom I have met briefly once and corresponded with a few time being "appointed" The Grand Pubah" no one did. He simply has a passion for the history and evolution of Muskie fishing to a level that could be labeled more that slightly obsessive and has researched the subject to a depth that I don't think any one else can claim. That search for detail has made him a Pubah of sorts whether he started down that path on purpose or it just led him there. In that path he came across such obvious BS from people making claims that they just could not be accurate so he did the research, got the answers and he called the "characters" out for it. The sport may or not be better for it depending on your point of view but calling out Larry for pointing out the obvious flaws in the claims doesn't really make much sense either. He's just striving to be accurate in his research and reporting as such...even if you really don't give a rats ass about the specifics or the subject.
And his books are a pretty darn good read. The view points on what/who was biggest evolves thru the series but in the end it is a great view of the history of Muskie fishing.
Bob T
Edited by bturg 3/8/2017 10:31 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 390
| Mudpuppy - 3/8/2017 7:09 PM
Hey Mr. Ramsell, When and who appointed you Grand Pubah of musky records anyway? Spray, Johnson, Hartman did more for musky fishing all the negative judgements you have promoted.
I have met all three of the above persons, all were characters and all interesting and one of a kind to say the least. Enjoy the old timers and old ledgends of the past, they helped get us where we are today.
Mudpuppy
Have you ever watched the Forgotten Weapons channel on YouTube or fullthirty.com? If you have, Larry = Ian to the Muskie world. Thanks again Larry for all the hard work you do! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20248
Location: oswego, il | Mudpuppy - 3/8/2017 7:09 PM
Hey Mr. Ramsell, When and who appointed you Grand Pubah of musky records anyway? Spray, Johnson, Hartman did more for musky fishing all the negative judgements you have promoted.
I have met all three of the above persons, all were characters and all interesting and one of a kind to say the least. Enjoy the old timers and old ledgends of the past, they helped get us where we are today.
Mudpuppy
How about Art Lawton? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 239
Location: Elroy, Wisconsin | Never met Art Lawton, but I had the pleasure of fishing with Len Hartmn on Vieux Dessert one time.
Mudpuppy |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2754
Location: Mauston, Wisconsin | “Louie (who lived in the area at that time) had always told us he’d pay good money for a real big one. So, we (Paul and his brother) gave it to him and a couple of days later he produces the big muskie. He never paid what he said he would. He lied to me and I never did it for him again (although Paul’s brother did – Louie’s claimed 1940 world record!). I’m still ticked off about him not paying!”
Did everyone read the context of the above paragraph? Did Paul legally catch the fish? Or did he intend to sell it? The first is not clear, the later is clear, however, he never recieved payment. Louie knew if he showed the fish first, he wouldn't have to pay Paul, because Paul would have to remain silient.
Legally, Paul's intent is not a crime (although a moral one), if he recieved payment it would have been a crime..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poaching#Poaching_in_the_USA
If you catch her, thump her hard and put a lid on Spray's grave and 1949 record. Its that easy. No need for further debate! Go fishing......
Have fun!
Al |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20248
Location: oswego, il | So Al, what you are saying is for us to go out and catch one bigger than the 49 record, a weight that most don't believe to even exist? |
|
| |
|
| ESOX Maniac - 3/11/2017 8:46 AM
“Louie (who lived in the area at that time ) had always told us he’d pay good money for a real big one. So, we (Paul and his brother ) gave it to him and a couple of days later he produces the big muskie. He never paid what he said he would. He lied to me and I never did it for him again (although Paul’s brother did – Louie’s claimed 1940 world record! ). I’m still ticked off about him not paying!”
Did everyone read the context of the above paragraph? Did Paul legally catch the fish? Or did he intend to sell it? The first is not clear, the later is clear, however, he never recieved payment. Louie knew if he showed the fish first, he wouldn't have to pay Paul, because Paul would have to remain silient.
Legally, Paul's intent is not a crime (although a moral one ), if he recieved payment it would have been a crime..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poaching#Poaching_in_the_USA
If you catch her, thump her hard and put a lid on Spray's grave and 1949 record. Its that easy. No need for further debate! Go fishing......
Have fun!
Al
You missed the part where this Paul said he caught the fish in an area by a dam that was closed to fishing. He was a poacher, regardless of whether he got paid by Spray. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 95
| Was Paul a Native American ?? That was the story I was told by a pretty good source that Louie paid the natives to catch fish below the winter dam out of season. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | esocriebe: NO. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 105
Location: Florida | What do you guys believe is the maximum size a Muskie can attain? I am reading conflicting answers and I would like to know what you guys think is the biggest a Muskie can get at this moment in time. I have a book that says a +90 pound Muskie was caught in a fishing net, but this was almost a century ago. Does anyone think that +70 pound Muskies can exist at this moment, but have not been caught since these Muskies are better at avoiding fishermen? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | travelingfisherman - 3/11/2017 7:38 PM
What do you guys believe is the maximum size a Muskie can attain? I am reading conflicting answers and I would like to know what you guys think is the biggest a Muskie can get at this moment in time. I have a book that says a +90 pound Muskie was caught in a fishing net, but this was almost a century ago. Does anyone think that +70 pound Muskies can exist at this moment, but have not been caught since these Muskies are better at avoiding fishermen?
They are not better at avoiding fishermen. There are just very few seriously big muskies in each body of water. Does a 70# muskie exist? Maybe. No one has caught one and registered it yet. |
|
| |
|
| Seems unlikely that fish today are smaller and fishermen today have tools that folks even 45 years ago could only dream of. Everything from trolling motors to sonar to far better rods, lines, and even the information available is so much better. Plus, there are many more musky fisherman.
If you read the old sporting magazines from the early part of the 20th century, there were poachers who used things like a sucker tied under a branch that served as a giant bobber. They would put out 4 or 5 on a lake and then come back to check the next day or so. The muskies would be gut hooked and they used branches because it looked like normal debris in the lake. Hard to see how they could have lived longer back in the day. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1084
Location: Aurora | Glaucus_ - 3/2/2017 9:59 AM
This topic really isn't discussed enough.
Agreed,
Love the way history gets re-written via new technology, science, first hand accounts & personal vignettes, letters, photos, analysis, etc. It's essential and significant to those precious few without agenda who are in continual pursuit of the elusive, head-shakin', tail-walkin' truth. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8821
| I'd venture to say that a pre - spawn fish, living in the right environment, with a full belly, could tip the scales at 70#. Somewhere like Green Bay, The Ottawa River, maybe even Eagle or Lac Seul. But you're talking about THE biggest fish in the lake, during a time when it has a maximum egg mass and has just finished a giant meal, during a time of year when the season is closed. That same fish, hungry, during the season? Not sure, but I can't imagine it being much over 50#.
Now... Let's talk about 50#. That's a fish that does not exist in great numbers anywhere and does not exist at all throughout most of their range. Looking at the weight calculators, it's easy to see why. Here are a few length/girth combinations that would theoretically get you over 50#:
52"x28"
55"x27"
58"x26.5"
Lots of girth measurements get tossed around out there, but even on the longest fish of 55 and up are closer to 22"-23". Every once in a great while someone gets a super fatty with a girth of 25"-26". But check the big fish pictures here. You'll be hard pressed to find a legitimate 50# fish. That's a fish of a lifetime for someone who has dedicated a lifetime to fishing for them, and doing so in a place known to produce giant fish.
Not saying it's impossible. But it's not going to happen in July, and it's not going to happen in Hayward.
Edited by esoxaddict 3/12/2017 12:15 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 73
| I suppose in the big, big picture of world-wide issues the accuracy of Musky world records don’t matter all that much. But then again neither do a thousand other things. But for those who value the hobby of Musky fishing and things related as important to them, it has its time and place. Larry just happens to someone who is particularly passionate about it, as both a historian and an accomplished angler. We could vote on the Grand Puba status, I suppose. But I respect the man quite a bit even without the title, and he’s taken a lot of personal flack for presenting his case. Steve W. seems to be a fairly cranial guy, and apparently considers the matter worth a measure of discussion year after year. Me…I’m as flawed as the next guy and have no desires to be anybody’s moral conscience in life. Yet there’s something about what seems to be an intentional effort to deceive the public for political and monetary gain that bugs me. So I appreciate Larry’s passion and Steve’s willingness to provide a forum for the subject matter on occasions. It’s always a risk to share your perspectives on this volatile matter, because you just may find your post highlighted in another guy’s rebuttal later on. But such is the nature of discussion. |
|
| |
|
Location: Sawyer County, WI | esoxaddict - 3/12/2017 12:12 PM
Not saying it's impossible. But it's not going to happen in July, and it's not going to happen in Hayward.
It's not going to happen anywhere if people keep their boats locked up in their garages. |
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | Jim Munday - 3/12/2017 4:04 PM I suppose in the big, big picture of world-wide issues the accuracy of Musky world records don’t matter all that much. But then again neither do a thousand other things. But for those who value the hobby of Musky fishing and things related as important to them, it has its time and place. Larry just happens to someone who is particularly passionate about it, as both a historian and an accomplished angler. We could vote on the Grand Puba status, I suppose. But I respect the man quite a bit even without the title, and he’s taken a lot of personal flack for presenting his case. Steve W. seems to be a fairly cranial guy, and apparently considers the matter worth a measure of discussion year after year. Me…I’m as flawed as the next guy and have no desires to be anybody’s moral conscience in life. Yet there’s something about what seems to be an intentional effort to deceive the public for political and monetary gain that bugs me. So I appreciate Larry’s passion and Steve’s willingness to provide a forum for the subject matter on occasions. It’s always a risk to share your perspectives on this volatile matter, because you just may find your post highlighted in another guy’s rebuttal later on. But such is the nature of discussion. ; ) Bravo - well said; from my seat here guys like Spray only helped to dupe a generation of muskie fisherman and perpetuate an unobtainable size expectation (25 years ago it was gospel that they regularly got above 60lbs). Although some may still want to romance the cheaters, it’s my opinion that they simply did for muskie fishing what Lance Armstrong did for the Tour de France. I think it's fair to say that Armstrong created a lot of excitement and new interest while setting his records along the lines of Spray. The difference between Armstrong’s and Spray’s muskie abominations is that Armstrong was completely stripped of his records, while Spray is still being paraded around and celebrated by John Dettloff and Emmett Brown of the “Hayward” Freshwater Fishing Hall of Fame. Dettloff and Brown's continued support of this absurdity while being at the helm of a organization charged with keeping fair and accurate fishing records makes them just as guilty as Spray, and about as honorable as Lance Armstrong in my book. Mudpuppy asked “why” Larry Ramsell should be the Grand Pubah of muskie records… I say “why not”? Seriously, would you rather have John Dettloff be in charge again now that his bias and lies have been exposed, same with Emmett Brown who is probably having his morning cup of coffee while reading this. I bet he just shrugs his shoulders and goes back to business as usual with no regard for the truth.
(Emmett Brown defending Spray @ the Hall of Fame .jpg)
Attachments
----------------
Emmett Brown defending Spray @ the Hall of Fame .jpg (14KB - 569 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 294
Location: Sakatchewan,Canada | esoxaddict - 3/12/2017 12:12 PM
I'd venture to say that a pre - spawn fish, living in the right environment, with a full belly, could tip the scales at 70#. Somewhere like Green Bay, The Ottawa River, maybe even Eagle or Lac Seul. But you're talking about THE biggest fish in the lake, during a time when it has a maximum egg mass and has just finished a giant meal, during a time of year when the season is closed. That same fish, hungry, during the season? Not sure, but I can't imagine it being much over 50#.
Now... Let's talk about 50#. That's a fish that does not exist in great numbers anywhere and does not exist at all throughout most of their range. Looking at the weight calculators, it's easy to see why. Here are a few length/girth combinations that would theoretically get you over 50#:
52"x28"
55"x27"
58"x26.5"
Lots of girth measurements get tossed around out there, but even on the longest fish of 55 and up are closer to 22"-23". Every once in a great while someone gets a super fatty with a girth of 25"-26". But check the big fish pictures here. You'll be hard pressed to find a legitimate 50# fish. That's a fish of a lifetime for someone who has dedicated a lifetime to fishing for them, and doing so in a place known to produce giant fish.
Not saying it's impossible. But it's not going to happen in July, and it's not going to happen in Hayward.
You left out the number one water for a 70lber...Georgian Bay! Mille Lacs also deserves to be mentioned |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2754
Location: Mauston, Wisconsin | LOL!
(15871741_365202567172252_2802856915782824567_n.jpg)
(13010698_10209071983425734_6276066144717481547_n.jpg)
(383206_4133414865677_1730068417_n.jpg)
Attachments
----------------
15871741_365202567172252_2802856915782824567_n.jpg (39KB - 575 downloads)
13010698_10209071983425734_6276066144717481547_n.jpg (10KB - 585 downloads)
383206_4133414865677_1730068417_n.jpg (57KB - 576 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Location: Sawyer County, WI | Jerry Newman - 3/12/2017 11:21 PM
Seriously, would you rather have John Dettloff be in charge again now that his bias and lies have been exposed, same with Emmett Brown who is probably having his morning cup of coffee while reading this. I bet he just shrugs his shoulders and goes back to business as usual with no regard for the truth.
There seems to be a strengthening trend in the USA to purvey “alternative facts” in an attempt to support whatever line of BS you're trying to sell. Through simple observation of these two characters, we can see that the brand of BS isn’t limited to elected officials in the highest of offices. There are more than enough people who are gullible enough to buy what they are selling.
Why do they do it ? You guessed it. $$$$$… |
|
| |
