|
|
Posts: 239
Location: Elroy, Wisconsin | I would like the truth seekers to explain how the current WR Hybrid out of Vieux Dessert, displaced the Doloris Ott Lapp Hybrid recognized by the Muskellunge Club of Wisconsin in the late 70's. Current record recognized by the truth seekers was a mounted fish out of Vieux Dessert with no documentation at all. Embarrassed the Muskellunge Club of Wisconsin and Mrs. Lapp with absolutely no proof.
I was president of the Muskellunge Club of Wisconsin at the time and the rift this caused took years to heal.
You truth seekers need to explain this to me.
Mudpuppy |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32784
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | If you are not looking for a fight, I'll ask Larry to take a look at this.
Until then, take a look:
Record Tiger “Hybrid” Muskellunge - Oct '13
'Committee of the Modern Day Muskellunge World Record Program is pleased to announce the acceptance of a Tiger “Hybrid” Muskellunge weighing 44-pound 4-ounces as its new record. This giant Tiger, caught by Edward Kalinowski of New Meadows, Idaho, from Little Payette Lake, Idaho, was 52.5-inches long and carried a full 25-inch girth. Mr. Kalinowski’s fish has also been recognized as the new Idaho State record Hybrid Tiger muskie.'
http://www.modernmuskierecords.org/index.php?option=com_content&vie... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | I don't think you understand the defenition of "need". |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1275
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | The explanation, Mr. Clark (Mudpuppy), is quite simple, and as the person who developed the world record program for the NFWFHF, I will do so.
The criteria for establishing a category and hence a record hybrid was, at that time, entries of two large LVD hybrids in the annual Field & Stream contest. The two fish considered; John Knobla's 51-pound 3-ounce, 1919 world record "muskie" (hybrid muskies...muskie/pike crosses...were unknown at the time) and Delores Ott Lapp's 50-pound 4-ounce hybrid in 1951. There were no other known hybrids ever caught that exceeded the weight of those two (and still aren't).
Working closely with my good friend, and yours too I'll assume, the late Peter Haupt, it was decided that at "that time" we would go with the Lapp fish, since there was no known photograph extant of the Knobla fish. Peter and many others were almost certain that the Knobla fish was indeed a hybrid (which Lac Vieux desert was well know for) and the existing mount (before being re-mounted by Ron Lax) appeared to be a hybrid. It was due to this lack of photographic evidence that the Lapp fish was chosen and the NFWFH and the Muskellunge Club of Wisconsin declared her fish the world record and a presentation was made by both organizations at the MCOW spring outing on LVD.
Some time later, a 1919 photograph of the Knobla fish was found in the archives of Field & Stream magazine. That photograph proved beyond any doubt that the Knobla fish was indeed a hybrid and it was then recognized as the world record.
This decision was supported by Mr. Haupt, whose great and vast research was the basis for there even becoming a "Tiger Muskellunge" world record category, and the MCOW, Mrs. Lapp, and you, had/have no need to be "embarrassed".
Mr. Worrall: I believe you misunderstood the original post and the information in your post refers to the "Modern Day" Tiger Muskie record, which should cast no doubt on either of the two giant tigers from Lac Vieux desert, WI/MI. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32784
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Didn't misunderstand at all, just pointed out where we are today. Thanks for the explanation, Larry! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 43
Location: S. Wisconsin | Note: On page 191 of "A Compendium of Muskie Angling History" by Larry Ramsell, there is a photo taken by Hayward Legend Peter Haupt, of the original mount of the Knobla fish. The dimensions are on the mount. They are hard to read.
But the LENGTH is listed at 52 1\2 inches. NOT 54. Fifty TWO and one half inches. Once again, everyone missed this detail.
52 1/2 inches. Details are important.
Ott-Lapps fish was 3.5 inches longer at 56". It is also listed as having a larger girth than the Knobla fish. A look at both photos clearly shows that the girth in proportion to the length is GREATER in Delores' fish. I mean it looks FATTER despite being LONGER. Ott-Lapps fish has a larger girth. Considering it is longer AND looks fatter, significantly larger.
Knoblas fish is a beauty. Fish of a lifetime.
But Delores' was LONGER and FATTER. There can be only one conclusion.
These are the facts, DON'T kill the messenger. DO NOT get mad at me for being observant.
PS can anyone read the girth dimensions on the ORIGINAL MOUNT of the Knobla fish...? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32784
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Konobla fish.
Attachments
----------------
 Knobla(1).BMP (1494KB - 648 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1275
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Scott (Fever): Didn't miss a thing. Page 5, Vol. I, 3rd Edition "Compendium";
52 1/4 x 25 1/4.
According to Ron Lax, who remounted both the Knobla fish and the Lapp fish, he couldn't tell which one was bigger...It is the certified weight that matters.
Edited by Larry Ramsell 3/12/2018 8:46 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1969
| I've never seen this photo, I honestly would have guessed that fish at about 48" ...Too funny that all the old "record" muskie photos always placed the fish several FEET in front of the anglers .. pretty fish though! |
|
| |
|
| sworrall it look a lot bigger,i guess the fish is far from the guy,or it could be related to the vertical posture |
|
| |
|
Posts: 43
Location: S. Wisconsin | Larry Ramsell - 3/12/2018 8:45 PM
Scott (Fever): Didn't miss a thing. Page 5, Vol. I, 3rd Edition "Compendium";
52 1/4 x 25 1/4.
According to Ron Lax, who remounted both the Knobla fish and the Lapp fish, he couldn't tell which one was bigger...It is the certified weight that matters.
Fantastic work as usual, Larry. A great historian is always able to take in new information and use it to help reassess their understanding. My research materials do NOT include the last DECADE or so when life got busy...2007-2008... I will of course need to update my data, with any and ALL of the Ramsell "Authorings". My two signed Compendiums are among my most cherished of possessions...
Of course, Knoblas fish was put in its proper position as the top Hybrid, years BEFORE photo analysis was considered, and BEFORE photogrammetry was available to the public... also, due to the mysterious inability of the IGFA formula to apply to the Spray and Johnson fish, it was believed that the formula was not accurate. But we know better now...
As a side note, it bugs me that a guy like Peter Haupt passed away not realizing he likely caught a bigger fish, that 47 pounder, than any of the WR holders he looked up to. Louie Spray congratulated him on the phone, and Haupt thought it was generous of Louie to say so. Oh, the IRONY...
I was hoping that Spray fellow had been dealt with by now.
Keep up the great work. I really enjoyed the Paul Petit stories. Quite the scamp, He...
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 239
Location: Elroy, Wisconsin | Having fished with Haupt for twenty years, he told me in no uncertain terms the Lapp fish was the biggest hybrid ever caught. 56 inches and bigger girth is tough to argue. The Lapp family was and is as honest as they come. Wasn't necessary to make fools of them and the Muskellunge Club of Wisconsin. Sometimes negativism can just be carried too far.
Mudpuppy |
|
| |
|
Posts: 43
Location: S. Wisconsin | Mudpuppy - 3/12/2018 10:37 PM
Having fished with Haupt for twenty years, he told me in no uncertain terms the Lapp fish was the biggest hybrid ever caught. 56 inches and bigger girth is tough to argue. The Lapp family was and is as honest as they come. Wasn't necessary to make fools of them and the Muskellunge Club of Wisconsin. Sometimes negativism can just be carried too far.
Mudpuppy
The Lapp fish was merely displaced due to the discovery that Knoblas fish was indeed a hybrid. It wasn't dismissed. HUGE difference. Nobody should have felt slighted, but it still would be NO fun... It was merely bumped down to second, there was no attempt to discredit the Lapp fish.
But there MAY be an argument that perhaps this situation warrants a closer look...
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 239
Location: Elroy, Wisconsin | Having fished with Pete Haupt as club members, for twenty years, he told me in no uncertain terms the Lapp fish was the biggest hybrid ever caught. 56 inches and bigger girth is tough to argue. The Lapp family was and is as honest as they come. The Ramsell brothers and Gil Hamm were at the Lapp presentation ceramony at Sunrise Lodge on Vieux Dessert. Wasn't necessary to embarras the Otts and the Muskelunge Club of Wisconsin. Pete Haupt was a former President of the MCOW and told me to not let the Lapps down in no uncertain terms. Pete Haupt and Doug Lenicheck did most of the research on the Lapp fish, by the way in order recognize the Lapp fish as a world record. As far as I know the MCOW still recognizes the Lapp fish as the hybrid world record at that time. Bigger ones may have been caught since.
The Lapp fish is so interesting because it was caught on her honeymoon with her husband, later to become a well respected guide on Vieux Dessert. I think a lot of the Lapp family still lives in the area
Mudpuppy
Emoticons
ge Club of Wisconsin. Sometimes negativism can just be carried too far.
Mudpuppy |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32784
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'The criteria for establishing a category and hence a record hybrid was, at that time, entries of two large LVD hybrids in the annual Field & Stream contest. The two fish considered; John Knobla's 51-pound 3-ounce, 1919 world record "muskie" (hybrid muskies...muskie/pike crosses...were unknown at the time) and Delores Ott Lapp's 50-pound 4-ounce hybrid in 1951. There were no other known hybrids ever caught that exceeded the weight of those two (and still aren't).
Working closely with my good friend, and yours too I'll assume, the late Peter Haupt, it was decided that at "that time" we would go with the Lapp fish, since there was no known photograph extant of the Knobla fish. Peter and many others were almost certain that the Knobla fish was indeed a hybrid (which Lac Vieux desert was well know for) and the existing mount (before being re-mounted by Ron Lax) appeared to be a hybrid. It was due to this lack of photographic evidence that the Lapp fish was chosen and the NFWFH and the Muskellunge Club of Wisconsin declared her fish the world record and a presentation was made by both organizations at the MCOW spring outing on LVD.
Some time later, a 1919 photograph of the Knobla fish was found in the archives of Field & Stream magazine. That photograph proved beyond any doubt that the Knobla fish was indeed a hybrid and it was then recognized as the world record.
This decision was supported by Mr. Haupt, whose great and vast research was the basis for there even becoming a "Tiger Muskellunge" world record category, and the MCOW, Mrs. Lapp, and you, had/have no need to be "embarrassed". '
Apparent answer:
'Having fished with Haupt for twenty years, he told me in no uncertain terms the Lapp fish was the biggest hybrid ever caught. 56 inches and bigger girth is tough to argue. The Lapp family was and is as honest as they come. Wasn't necessary to make fools of them and the Muskellunge Club of Wisconsin. Sometimes negativism can just be carried too far.
Mudpuppy'
It seems one fish was longer than the other and apparently had better girth according to old photographs, yet the shorter of the two weighed more on a certified scale, and the question was whether there was proof of the fish being a hybrid. Are you challenging that the shorter fish was misrepresented as heavier, and should be investigated? Certified weight was the standard of the day, as I understand it.
Was the certified weight of either in question during this time frame?
It appears what Larry is stating as the official position was in support of the shorter fish, yet you state that position was the opposite and was taken to intentionally slight someone. Do I have this right?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 14
| Did anyone notice Knobla was holding his fish out?! I enjoy reading about Musky history and always love Larry's posts...but I am curious to the need to know. You been moving a nice tiger that could be a WR? Cool history! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1275
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | A bit more info: First a correction; the first Knobla photo was found in the Outdoor Life magazine archives.
Second, the first published length of Knobla's fish being 54-inches was an "estimate" by Peter Haupt after he had viewed the mount.
Third, early Field & Stream contests required fish length measurement to be "Fork length", not total length. This would make a BIG difference in Knobla's fish, bringing the stated length of 52 1/4-inches much closer to the size of the Lapp fish (as found by Ron Lax when he remounted both fish). As for girth measurements, I have never placed a lot of faith in different folks taking this sometimes confusing measurement, especially in the early days when few knew its value. Again, Lax couldn't tell which fish was bigger and by certified weight the Knobla fish was 15-ounces heavier.
Fourth, had the Lapp's gotten her fish to a certified scale immediately, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The Lodge scale first weighed on showed an unofficial weight of 52-pounds. At that time hybrids were not known to be different than "silver" muskies and the Lapp's knew that the record at the time was a (bogus) Louie Spray record, supposedly much larger than her fish. So, as related by Mrs. Lapp;..."After awhile we weighed him officially in town (at Neiman's grocery - on a meat scale per Peter Haupt)." By then the official weight of the fish was 50-pounds 4-ounces. According to Haupt, the fish hung in the wind and sun most of the day before the official weighing!
Fifth, The State of Wisconsin, the IGFA and the NFWFHF all recognize the Knobla fish as the world record Tiger Muskie.
While I'm sure Mr. Clark's unnecessary "embarrassment" will never be assuaged, it is unfounded as the right things were done at the time of both recognizing the Lapp fish initially and later correcting the record when photographic evidence of the Knobla fish was found and I'm sure Peter Haupt would agree. Recently, a second Knobla photo has been discovered (the first was found by my cousin, not "brother", Rod).
The entire Knobla and Lapp stories can be found in my; A Compendium of Muskie Angling history, Vols. I (pgs. 63, 121,& 281) & Vol. II (pgs. 573, 583 & 593), published in 2007.
Edited by Larry Ramsell 3/13/2018 4:45 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1275
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Lapp and Knobla remount photo's, courtesy of Ron Lax:
Attachments
----------------
Knobla remount.jpg (73KB - 1255 downloads)
Lapp remount.jpg (65KB - 682 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 43
Location: S. Wisconsin | Larry Ramsell - 3/13/2018 4:33 AM
"A bit more info: First a correction; the first Knobla photo was found in the Outdoor Life magazine archives.
Second, the first published length of Knobla's fish being 54-inches was an "estimate" by Peter Haupt after he had viewed the mount.
Third, early Field & Stream contests required fish length measurement to be "Fork length", not total length. This would make a BIG difference in Knobla's fish, bringing the stated length of 52 1/4-inches much closer to the size of the Lapp fish (as found by Ron Lax when he remounted both fish)."
Well, we ran into this issue with the Malo fish and you decided that a 52.5 fork length on a TRUE MUSKIE with a POINTY tail equals 55 inches overall. Haupts estimate of 54 inches from a HYBRID with 52.25 fork length on a ROUNDED tail seems appropriate enough. Even if we add a full 2.5 inches like Malo got, we get 54.75 inches. Even rounding UP to 55, Knoblas fish falls an inch short of Ott-Lapps.
"As for girth measurements, I have never placed a lot of faith in different folks taking this sometimes confusing measurement, especially in the early days when few knew its value."
We can look at the side comparisons of the two hanging fish and see that the girth sure couldn't be BIGGER than reported...
"Again, Lax couldn't tell which fish was bigger and by certified weight the Knobla fish was 15-ounces heavier."
Lax SAID he couldn't tell. This is the answer of a very savvy, tactful, and diplomatic individual. This "perfect" answer shows he has wisdom to match his incredible taxidermy skills.
"Fourth, had the Lapp's gotten her fish to a certified scale immediately, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The Lodge scale first weighed on showed an unofficial weight of 52-pounds. At that time hybrids were not known to be different than "silver" muskies and the Lapp's knew that the record at the time was a (bogus) Louie Spray record, supposedly much larger than her fish. So, as related by Mrs. Lapp;..."After awhile we weighed him officially in town (at Neiman's grocery - on a meat scale per Peter Haupt)." By then the official weight of the fish was 50-pounds 4-ounces. According to Haupt, the fish hung in the wind and sun most of the day before the official weighing!"
How well is the documentation on the certified scale for Knoblas fish in 1919? Where was it weighed? When was it last inspected and certified? How accurate were scales then? They still rode horses back in 1919, mass produced machinery and the assembly line which brought us standardized interchangeable machined parts were rudimentary compared to 1951... Are we sure the scale used on Knoblas fish is more accurate than the one at the resort which weighed Dolores' fish at 52?
"Fifth, The State of Wisconsin, the IGFA and the NFWFHF all recognize the Knobla fish as the world record Tiger Muskie."
The state kinda just follows the HOF, the IGFA stopped caring and like the fact that they will NEVER have to deal with the Muskie WR again since they don't get that big (67.5), and the FWFHF lost ALL my respect when they chose Chin Whiskers Charlie over Larry Ramsell and Brad Latvaitas.
They recognize Spray, Johnson, and Spray. A Shyster Trifecta.
"While I'm sure Mr. Clark's unnecessary "embarrassment" will never be assuaged, it is unfounded as the right things were done at the time of both recognizing the Lapp fish initially and later correcting the record when photographic evidence of the Knobla fish was found and I'm sure Peter Haupt would agree. Recently, a second Knobla photo has been discovered (the first was found by my cousin, not "brother", Rod)."
I agree you guys did the right thing back then, when nobody questioned any weights, measurements, scrutinized photos, and were unsure of the IGFA formula, which we now know is accurate.
So the right thing to do NOW would be to put recently acquired tools and resources to work, and reassess/verify/correct any discrepancies. [Maybe the new photo can be used to authenticate the measurements of the Knobla fish.]
For example when applying the formula to Knoblas fish using the highest estimates in his favor (25.25 x 25.25 x 55 / 800) we get 43.83 pounds. 7.42 pounds light. Thats 14.4% of the total weight of the fish (7.42 / 51.25) With the original measurements, its even lighter, 41.84 pounds. That's 9.41 pounds light, almost 20% of the fish's weight. The claimed weight and the formula estimation are too far off.
Lapps fish has 1" in length and 1.25" in girth over Knoblas. (26.5 x 26.5 x 56 / 800) gives us 49.16 pounds, very close.
It's hard to find archival research documenting such large and rare muskies, but we have a few examples.
A 54 x 26 hybrid caught 6/17/48 by Praefke weighed 42-6. The formula says 45.63 pounds. Within 3.25 pounds, 7.6 % off, not bad...
It sure seems like in order for the Knobla fish to weigh as much as it did with the measurements it had, it must have been made up of something denser than fish meat, at least part of it.
Perhaps Knoblas fish ingested some sand or gravel to aid in its digestion...? This seemed to happen MORE OFTEN the FARTHER one goes back in time, you know...*wink*...
Just some stuff to consider...
Nice post Larry, your time is always appreciated. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1275
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Scott (fever): For the Malo fish, I actually measured the tail of the mounted fish. Tiger tails and fins are much larger than true muskies. An unknown, but close at you 55". As for your girth comments I disagree with most...see below for what Peter Haupt thought about the girth when he first saw the photo. Your Lax comment is out of line. Please view the two remount photo's above.
The scale certification for Knobla's fish is as well documented as that of the Lapp fish...NOT AT ALL FOR EITHER! (Hence, one of the reasons for the new "Modern Day Muskellunge (and Tiger Muskellunge) World Records". We must assume that since the scale used for the Knobla fish was accurate since it weighed in pounds AND ounces. Both were accepted by Field & Stream.
Are you volunteering to pay for photo analysis on these two fish?
Your use of the proven wrong Standard formula for muskies for calculation cannot be accepted. Photo analysis is the only true way to the truth, "if" the knobla photo is useable by the Photogrammetrist.
Your other posts are just "fluff".
Here are the comments from some of the dozens of letters I received from Peter Haupt over the years in question:
I took some time this morning to dig back through my old correspondence with Peter Haupt. Peter was good about dating his letters with month, but never put the year on, so I’m going to post them is what I believe is chronological order:
“Labor Day.” (circa early 70’s before Tiger recognition): ...”On your world record list your 3rd one down coincides with one on my list (1919 51# 3oz taken from Lac Vieux desert but I don’t have the name of the fisherman). It’s a hybrid mounted and still hanging in an estate on the shore of the lake as is Delores Ott Lapp’s 50# (3oz.) hybrid from 1951. We (MCOW) plan to establish one of these two fish as a World Record Hybrid Muskellunge as per our recent newsletter…”
Undated, circa 1970’s: “Thanks for the copies (pics). Knobla’s fish is fantastic – full bodied from head to tail. 35 ¼ G??? (At this point Peter thought that the girth measurement of 25 ¼ was wrong). I don’t know, what do you think? Can’t wait to see the glossy. The photo will bring a review of the W.R. for Musky Hybrid. I intend to be involved…”
Undated, circa 1979: “ The Knobla Fish Location: To Larry Ramsell & Records Comm. Before the (presently being prepared for the printer) next record book is released consideration should be given to listing the record as from Lac Vieux desert Wisc.-Mich. as my research showed that John Knobla fished in Rice & Misery Bays in Michigan as well as the S & W shores in Vieux desert…” Note: Peter has obviously accepted the Knobla fish as the World Record…LR.
Undated, circa 1979: “…Below is my Wis. hybrid list…(#1) 51-3 Knobla; (#2) 50-4 Lapp…”
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 239
Location: Elroy, Wisconsin | Larry Ramsell
They were both huge hybrids. The 1919 fish was missed with the passage of time. In any event my belief is the Lapp fish is the record, but that's what makes these winter discussions so interesting. Musky Pete would have loved this debate. By the way I painted Petes lures so I have a thread of a connection to his trophies.
Mudpuppy
Edited by Mudpuppy 3/13/2018 10:22 AM
|
|
| |
|
| tiger always look bigger than musky of the same size. monster fish for sure tks larry.why do they really want to lose their time to make dna test when the fish tales are obviously not round ?is that possible for a tiger to have caudal fin with pointed tips ? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 43
Location: S. Wisconsin | Larry:
Good post. Not trying to annoy you, I just have a lot of questions and a few doubts. You are a big help. The notes from Pete Haupt are a very cool thing to share.
I know tigers have larger Caudals, fins, and heads, I just thought that a muskies pointy caudal tips made for a greater difference between the fork measurement and the full measurement than a hybrids. So the larger but rounder tail with less fork-to-full length difference would kinda equal things out, hence my estimation of 55" length.
Just looking at the proportions of the two hanging fish, it looks to me like the Lapp fish is thicker in proportion to length, at least from back to belly. Maybe others disagree(?) Since we are only comparing each fish to their own proportions, a simple measurement of each fish comparing its own side measurement to its length measurement would suffice. Proportions could then be compared. A picture of her fish sure would help...
I didn't mean to be out of line with the comments on Ron Lax. I was trying to say that it appeared he politely recused himself from the controversy, I hope it didn't sound disrespectful to him in any way. I really admire taxidermists and their skills. He's one of the best.
If you remember in 2006 I did indeed drive out to Denver and take a Photogrammetry class with Dan Mills himself to satisfy my curiosity on the merits of Photogrammetry and the accuracy of the PhotoModeler software when applied to various real world examples besides fish. It's solid. But anyway I wonder if I could get them done on the cheap for old times sake. BTW I was surrounded by a roomful of law enforcement from all over the country in this class. So no beer at lunch breaks, but at the end of the class we all took Dan out for drinks afterwards...Cops can drink. LOTS.*shudders*
I thought 12 years ago once we discounted the fraudsters from the Sprays to the Johnsons, Lawtons, Hartmans, etc. that the formula was pretty accurate for dead fish with collapsed air bladders. It was reversed engineered that way. I know there are some problems with inflated air bladders misrepresenting true girth when applied to live releases, especially from deeper waters. I was hoping someone created a graduated adjustment scale to deduct bladder expansion by now...?
For dead fish over 45" the formula worked well enough to declare any fish from 50" to 65" to be 1 pound per inch with a 28.25 girth. A 55 x 28.25 would be 55lbs. A 59 incher with 28.25 girth - 59 lbs. etc... maybe the latest research has improved upon this and I missed that.
And Hey! Fluff is what keeps my posts from being boring. I don't even have my photo archives unpacked. I was trying to keep everyone from snoozing while reading my questions and comments.
I think I'm gonna focus on Ol' Louie then... He is Public Enemy No. 1 in the Muskellunge community after all...
I always enjoy Hayward History and even old timey gossip, please keep digging, Larry!
Tight lines and I hope you catch the new record this season. It's time. All the numbers add up...
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1275
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | John Clark (Mudpuppy):
Yes indeed, they were both huge fish. The 1919 fish wasn't "missed", it just took awhile to find all the information and photo(s).
You indeed are entitled to believe foremost in the Lapp GIANT. Much easier and more believable than those that still believe in "Louie the Liar's" bogus records! And indeed, these discussions do make "winternet" more interesting...I live for them. It sure would have been interesting if Peter could have participated, but I personally believe he had reconciled with the fact that the Knobla fish was the record, as evidenced by his correspondence with me.
Scott Hayes (IGotTheFeverBIG): You pose some interesting thoughts, but the bottom line is that "official weight" is the ruling factor and unless you can PROVE the weight wrong, your points are moot. Still, I would welcome photo analysis by Dan Mills. As for formula, L X G/25 minus 8 works extremely well for fish from the low 50-pound range up to the largest known/verified of 61-4. Again, measurements taken almost a century ago may or may not have been accurate and one must consider the fork length measurement used by F&S in those days. And again, since neither scale used was verified after the fact, we'll never know for sure, and also again, too bad Mrs. Lapp didn't get her fish to the certified scale immediately...it would be game over before it even started!
Anyway, "fluff away" and glad to have you back in the game!!
Attachments
----------------
Knobla 2.jpg (113KB - 486 downloads)
Lapp 1.jpg (56KB - 556 downloads)
Lapp 2.jpg (73KB - 567 downloads)
Lapp 3.jpg (90KB - 596 downloads)
Lapp 4.jpg (59KB - 610 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
| Any idea why LVD kicked out giant tigers? Just luck of the draw or something about the body of water? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1275
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Without going into a long dissertation about geological history, LVD, at one time in long past history, had access to the Great Lakes (Superior) and the natural muskie strain(s) there could have included GL strain fish. As the headwaters of the Wisconsin River, it also has accessibility to fish from as far away as the Mississippi River, before it and other places on the river were dammed up for logging in the late 1800's (which prevented further ingress from below into LVD and raised the lake level 3 feet).
LVD is a huge, shallow body of water and as such can warm up very quickly in the spring. Having both muskies and northern pike therein, it often made overlapping spawning an often happening occurrence and at one time over a half-century ago, WI DNR muskie guru Art Oehmcke stated that there were as many as 50% of the muskies taken there were tiger/hybrids. |
|
| |
|
| Larry Ramsell - 3/13/2018 3:39 PM
Without going into a long dissertation about geological history, LVD, at one time in long past history, had access to the Great Lakes (Superior) and the natural muskie strain(s) there could have included GL strain fish. As the headwaters of the Wisconsin River, it also has accessibility to fish from as far away as the Mississippi River, before it and other places on the river were dammed up for logging in the late 1800's (which prevented further ingress from below into LVD and raised the lake level 3 feet).
LVD is a huge, shallow body of water and as such can warm up very quickly in the spring. Having both muskies and northern pike therein, it often made overlapping spawning an often happening occurrence and at one time over a half-century ago, WI DNR muskie guru Art Oehmcke stated that there were as many as 50% of the muskies taken there were tiger/hybrids.
Thanks. The lake I live on is shallow and dark and last spring when fishing for crappies in shallow water, saw both pike and muskie paired up in a relatively small stretch of lake. The guy whose property is closest to the area I was fishing said he often sees both musky and pike in the area for spawning, often at the same time, although the pike are sometimes earlier. He doesn't fish anymore but had come down to his dock just to see that. I was surprised at the size of some of the pike I saw. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32784
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Ther's some really impressive hybrids in a couple year classes on that water, No8, Sue has her personal best from right off the landing. I have a couple 44s over the years, and a client popped a 46 years ago. There's a new year class that showed up a couple years ago too. |
|
| |
|
| Yes, I had a mid 20 on last year that popped off while I was preparing to take hook out without touching it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 239
Location: Elroy, Wisconsin | How much would a photogrammetry study of the two fish cost? Compare the two photos, it seems to me pretty obvious that the head to body length ratio on the Lapp fish, surpasses Knoblas' and then some.
Mudpuppy
Edited by Mudpuppy 3/13/2018 4:38 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1275
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Maybe Scott can answer that, I have no idea the cost.
You could be right on the head to body ratio's, (without putting the calipers to it) but the Knobla fish looks much heavier through the body and across the belly width. Lapp fish long and skinny comparatively. |
|
| |
|
| i could be wrong but i think photogrammetry will be impossible for the lax pics.you need to get the exact measurement of something in the picture. if you don't know their height, good luck,and it's just wood in the background |
|
| |
|
Posts: 43
Location: S. Wisconsin | Great discussion here. Awesome second photo of the Knobla fish. It's impressive enough without the need to hold it out several feet in front of him on that pole, I wish he didn't do that.
No need to use photogrammetry on the Lapp fish. Its Knoblas whose fish is suspiciously off the IGFA formula. Me personally, I don't wanna find out the Knobla fish is way off the mark and knock it off the list. I just wanted to see Lapps fish get the top spot due to being more "verifiable". Lapps fish is closer to the formula and she's not trying to make it look bigger with camera tricks. Then there's the human aspect of wanting the Lapp family, members of which are still around, to be honored, a danger that can cloud ones judgement, ya never know. Its hard not to play "favorites".
I thought I noticed that waters that have both pike and Muskie grow the biggest Muskie because the little pike are hatched first and they eat the little muskie upon hatching, leaving only the most vigorous muskie hatchlings to survive. Like a sort of natural selection for large baby muskie...
Fun thread... |
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | Mudpuppy - 3/13/2018 4:28 PM How much would a photogrammetry study of the two fish cost? Compare the two photos, it seems to me pretty obvious that the head to body length ratio on the Lapp fish, surpasses Knoblas' and then some. Mudpuppy Although both of the fish are very impressive in their own right I think it's pretty obvious that the “muskie” in both of those photos only weighed about half of what was claimed… the other half is northern pike.
I'd wager that Dan Mills would rather repeatedly hit his own hands with a hammer until he couldn't hold the hammer any more than do more fish photogrammetry after dealing with the chuckleheads at the Hayward Hall of Fame. I could be wrong… he might be slightly more willing than? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 386
| I have to say that replicas have come a LONG ways since those two were made by Lax. Those mounts are interesting, but the stuff he's doing now (Fittante too) is light years beyond those. Both awesome fish, and I'm glad these discussions happen, if for nothing else, we get to see some cool pics and get to learn some interesting history. LVD is definitely on my, "have to fish there at least once" list. Catching a stocked tiger is cool, putting a natural in the net is just a little bit more special.
Edited by FlyPiker 3/13/2018 9:15 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 43
Location: S. Wisconsin | HA! Sage-like wisdom from Jerry Newman. NASA hires Mills to do stuff like map the moon, but Dettloff thinks he knows more... Clowns at the Hall.
I don't wanna misrepresent myself as a licensed or certified photogrammetry expert. I took the class and used the software on field exercises, but never got a job doing it. I'm not sure what it costs either. If you think about it, the results would have to show a significant size discrepancy, and then we are back to arguing about size formulas because pictures might tell you dimensions and then you can figure out volume but you have to extrapolate that to weight. If its a close match, then you gotta split hairs, and argue variables. NO THANK YOU.
AND even if the evidence is beyond reproach, who are we gonna submit the results to? The state of WI? The IGFA? The FWFHOF? *Groans*
And even if we could get accurate numbers on the necessary variables to actually perform the work, who wants to prove Knoblas fish is disappointly small? Not me. I WOULD rather catch a 56 x 26.5 than a 55 x 25.25, I can honestly tell you that, though.
Besides, its not like the Hayward fish that lied SO badly they put the WR completely out of reach forEVER. (You can offer $2500.00, or $100,000 rewards for a bigger fish with CONFIDENCE when you know they can't get there!)
The Knobla and Lapp fish are within a pound. And 51-3 is beatable. Maybe.
I'd like to give a special thank you to Larry Ramsell, too. It must have been a little tough looking through Haupts old notes and wishing He was here. I just did the same with some stuff I got from Eli Singer.
They are missed.
Edited by IGotTheFeverBIG 3/13/2018 10:20 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1275
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Scott: Think the pose is more off to the side than in front, but it is somewhat in front of him.
Jerry: Any idea of the cost of Dan would do it?
FlyPiker: Those mounts are the real deal skin mounts redone by Lax. And yes, LVD is special.
Scott: You cannot argue with the fact that the remounts by Lax do show exactly what he said...they were so close he couldn't tell the difference. Pictures notwithstanding. And look at the mount pics...GIANTS both! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1969
| To the side? Fish is 24” in front at least (throws things way out of wack in a photo) the stick/pole is a good 8” in front of his body and come forward from there..no dog in this fight but the Lapp fish looks considerably bigger based on photos |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1636
| North of 8 - 3/13/2018 4:01 PM Any idea why LVD kicked out giant tigers? Just luck of the draw or something about the body of water?
Part of it is located in Michigan...  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 743
| anyone know what these two big tigers were caught on? bucktails? suckers? spoons? jerkbait?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1275
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Both were caught on Spinners...Knobla's likely on a Skinner "feathertail" and Lapp's on a Marathon Musky Houn bucktail. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1759
Location: new richmond, wi. & isle, mn | tomcat - 3/14/2018 10:04 AM
anyone know what these two big tigers were caught on? bucktails? suckers? spoons? jerkbait?
I think they were caught on prototype barfighters.  |
|
| |
|
| Reelwise - 3/14/2018 1:06 AM
North of 8 - 3/13/2018 4:01 PM Any idea why LVD kicked out giant tigers? Just luck of the draw or something about the body of water? Part of it is located in Michigan... : )
Yeah, aware of that, live about 40 miles south of the lake but have never fished it. Does raise an interesting question: In a case like this, is the fish a state record for both states, or do they parse where on the lake it was caught and then decide which state record it is? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 239
Location: Elroy, Wisconsin | Does anyone have verified proof of the Knobla fish weight? There was plenty of verification on the Lapp fish. Larry you may know the details here.
Mudpuppy |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4269
Location: Ashland WI | North of 8 - 3/14/2018 10:27 AM
Reelwise - 3/14/2018 1:06 AM
North of 8 - 3/13/2018 4:01 PM Any idea why LVD kicked out giant tigers? Just luck of the draw or something about the body of water? Part of it is located in Michigan... : )
Yeah, aware of that, live about 40 miles south of the lake but have never fished it. Does raise an interesting question: In a case like this, is the fish a state record for both states, or do they parse where on the lake it was caught and then decide which state record it is?
What if it was caught right on the border line?
Would they only get to count half of the weight toward each states record? |
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | Larry Ramsell - 3/13/2018 10:11 PM Scott: Think the pose is more off to the side than in front, but it is somewhat in front of him. Jerry: Any idea of the cost of Dan would do it? FlyPiker: Those mounts are the real deal skin mounts redone by Lax. And yes, LVD is special. Scott: You cannot argue with the fact that the remounts by Lax do show exactly what he said...they were so close he couldn't tell the difference. Pictures notwithstanding. And look at the mount pics...GIANTS both!
I haven't talked to Dan for quite a while, but wonder how much (if anything) could be gained given the preponderance of evidence. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1275
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | North of 8: The Knobla fish is the state record for both Wisconsin and Michigan.
Mudpuppy: There is equal weight verification on both fish. Also, did some checking and photogrammetry would cost over $1,500.00 per fish and it is doubtful that anything meaningful would come from analysis of the Knobla fish since there are no "knowns" in the photo's to base off of. |
|
| |
|
| Larry Ramsell - 3/14/2018 2:14 PM
North of 8: The Knobla fish is the state record for both Wisconsin and Michigan.
Mudpuppy: There is equal weight verification on both fish. Also, did some checking and photogrammetry would cost over $1,500.00 per fish and it is doubtful that anything meaningful would come from analysis of the Knobla fish since there are no "knowns" in the photo's to base off of.
Thanks Larry, I thought that might be the way they would handle it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1275
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | I have sent Mr. Worrall six more photo's to post for me. Two will be the pics of the original Knobla and Lapp mounts; one will be (hopefully) a better/clearer picture of the second Knobla photo; two will be different shots of a giant 49-pound Tiger caught from Pelican Lake, June 22, 1928 (one just after caught and one after he cleaned up!). The "clean-up" photo appeared in the July, 1936 issue of Field & Stream in an article by Bert Claflin and also in Claflin's book "Muskie Fishing" which came out in 1948 (my all time favorite muskie book). The last photo is of aTiger from Pelican Lake (near Eagle River, WI) and wasn't weighed for 3 days! It then weighed 48 1/2-pounds! I have no other info on it. Enjoy...
Edited by Larry Ramsell 3/14/2018 5:13 PM
Attachments
----------------
Barber 1A.jpg (94KB - 349 downloads)
Barber 2A.jpg (54KB - 322 downloads)
Knobla 2A.jpg (61KB - 366 downloads)
Orig. Knobla mount.jpg (45KB - 323 downloads)
Orig. Lapp mount.jpg (68KB - 324 downloads)
Pickerel Lake 1A.jpg (47KB - 344 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
| Larry Ramsell - 3/14/2018 5:11 PM
I have sent Mr. Worrall six more photo's to post for me. Two will be the pics of the original Knobla and Lapp mounts; one will be (hopefully) a better/clearer picture of the second Knobla photo; two will be different shots of a giant 49-pound Tiger caught from Pelican Lake, June 22, 1928 (one just after caught and one after he cleaned up!). The "clean-up" photo appeared in the July, 1936 issue of Field & Stream in an article by Bert Claflin and also in Claflin's book "Muskie Fishing" which came out in 1948 (my all time favorite muskie book). The last photo is of aTiger from Pelican Lake (near Eagle River, WI) and wasn't weighed for 3 days! It then weighed 48 1/2-pounds! I have no other info on it. Enjoy...
Pelican Lake near Rhinelander, right? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1275
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | North: Correction, the last fish was Pickerel Lake near Eagle River, sorry. The Pelican fish was near Rhinelander, yes.
Edited by Larry Ramsell 3/14/2018 8:01 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Thanks Larry. I know there are tons of Long Lakes, Bass Lakes, Mud Lakes, etc. in WI, but I had not heard of two Pelicans. These hybrids are just the greatest looking fish. I do have a question that you might be able to answer. The chain I live on has dark stained water, lots of tannin. The pure muskies have virtually no marking and I have been told that is because of the dark water. However, the couple tigers I have seen and the photos I have seen from those that catch them show the tigers are very vividly marked. Is that typical? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 43
Location: S. Wisconsin | OutSTANDING photos...
This is really a treat... A lot of folks have gone through considerable resources and effort to dig out these rare gems...and Larry is at the TOP. I'm sure I'm not alone, I really enjoy seeing these old photos...its like stepping into a different era.
The Lax mounts are works of art, there's no question...but these clunky, old, "antique" (though VERY well done!) mounts really need to be classified as some form of time machine. ESPECIALLY when displayed in a bar, near whiskey...
Top DRAWER, Ramsell... good stuff! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1275
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | North of 8: Yes, typical, although tiger from dark waters usually have more of a green tint than the silver tint from clearer waters.
Fever: Thanks...I was especially impressed with the mount of the Knobla fish. For 1919, that mount is far better than many throughout the muskie reange, even up to today! And I have been lax on photo credits:
The original Knobla came from Outdoor Life magazine in 1920, found by my cousin Rod Ramsell.
The 2nd Knobla photo I got courtesy of Al Soczka; Al's Tall Pines in Conover, WI.
Three of the original Lapp photo's came from Peter Haupt & Doug Lenicheck, Muskellunge Club of Wisconsin.
The fourth Lapp photo of her and husband came from Peter Haupt via a magazine article. Note: I would imagine that all the Lapp fresh fish photo's were courtesy originally from Mrs. Lapp.
The original Lapp mount photo I took and the remount photo's were courtesy of Ron Lax and Lax Taxidermy.
The original Knobla mount photo was courtesy of Peter Haupt.
The coverall photo of the Barber fish was a post card (also found in my new book).
The "cleaned-up" photo of the Barber fish was from an Field & Stream magazine article by Bert Claflin and his 1948 book; "Muskie Fishing".
The Pickerel Lake photo was courtesy of Rick Haydu, then Chairman of the Tiger Muskellunge Committee of the Muskellunge Club of Wisconsin.
Edited by Larry Ramsell 3/15/2018 7:49 AM
|
|
| |
|
| Thanks! Hope to catch a good one some day. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 18
| If you enjoy musky history and old pictures of fish, some real monsters, you need to get Larry's new book. It is an amazing collection of musky history. I've acquired and collected musky books for 20 years, there is nothing to compare it to.
Great stuff Larry! Thank you for preserving and sharing our musky history!
Hope to spend some time on the water with you this summer. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1275
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Thanks Thomp.
Also, forgot to mention above that the original Knobla mount had been refurbished and repainted by taxidermist Fred Aman before Peter took that photo.
Edited by Larry Ramsell 3/15/2018 11:17 AM
|
|
| |
|
| This is truly some awesome stuff. Much much enjoy. Thank you!!!!! |
|
| |
|
| Larry Ramsell - 3/15/2018 11:16 AM
Thanks Thomp.
Also, forgot to mention above that the original Knobla mount had been refurbished and repainted by taxidermist Fred Aman before Peter took that photo.
If I ever win the lottery (gotta buy a ticket one of these days), I am going to track down one of Aman's bronze musky sculptures and buy it. When he had his studio in Conover, his stuff was amazing. Bronze ducks that were coming in to land, musky jumping through a thin bronze layer of water. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1275
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | North of 8: Hope you win a BIG lottery as those Aman's bronze Muskies gotta be outta site price wise!! If you can even find one... |
|
| |
|
| Larry Ramsell - 3/16/2018 6:54 AM
North of 8: Hope you win a BIG lottery as those Aman's bronze Muskies gotta be outta site price wise!! If you can even find one...
They do come up on art auction sites from time to time. If a guy would have bought a bunch of his sculpture back in the late 70s' when he had the little shop in Conover, he would have made a tremendous investment. I was in there one day and there was a couple buying four or five pieces for a lake home. That total cost would have bought you a very nice car back then. I am guessing what you see at auctions today were bought by middle aged folks in the 70s, 80s and 90s and now their estates are selling. |
|
| |
