|
|
Posts: 14
Location: Oak Park, IL | WRMA Update
September 22, 2004
WRMA Petitions Hall
To ensure we are following proper protocols, as a part of our due diligence the World Record Muskie Alliance has formally requested a copy of Mr. John Dettloff’s reports to the National Freshwater Fishing Hall of Fame that addressed the Lawton, Hartman, Spray, Johnson and Haver Muskies as of 6-4-2004.
We are aware that Mr. Dettloff’s work in this area has certainly set the standard. Like Mr. Dettloff, our endeavor is to analyze and verify, wherever possible, all evidence related to the currently accepted record fish. This includes ongoing research into the circumstances surrounding the catches themselves, and professional evaluation of available photos.
We are as open as ever to the possibility that when our study is complete, everything may sit just as it is now in the record books. However, if our work gives rise to new and valuable information pertaining to any of the record fish, we would like to be able to report our findings to the Hall in a manner appropriate for proper review and consideration.
Sadly, several months have passed since our first attempt to obtain this information from the Hall.
It is with great regret that I must at this time report that all attempts to establish a line of communications with the National Freshwater Fishing Hall of Fame - our trusted, public service organization dedicated towards, “…qualifying, compiling, publishing, and updating record freshwater fish catches…” - have been met with silence.
At the time of this writing, the Hall had failed to even acknowledge our request, much less grant access to this vital information.
Membership Drive
We are happy to announce that the World Record Muskie Alliance has attracted some of the best and brightest of the muskie hunting community. The WRMA membership rolls include such notable anglers as Dick Pearson, Jim Saric and Marc Thorpe. Further, although not WRMA members, Larry Ramsell has opened his extensive library and supplied the images for the ongoing photo analysis, and Pete Maina has made a significant monetary contribution to the WRMA.
We are above all a “grass roots”, volunteer-based organization. As previously stated, our progress has been slowed somewhat because a number of key individuals who initially pledged their labor and/or financial resources failed to deliver on their promises. This in addition to the initial $50.00 suggested membership contribution put us into a bit of a tight spot until a couple generous individuals pledged and came through with additional donations.
To capitalize upon this momentum, the WRMA has chosen to reduce the suggested membership contribution to $10.00 so we can gain additional support and assistance from those who would like to help, but can’t afford the original $50.00 suggested membership donation.
Further funding will undoubtedly be required to achieve the originally stated goals of the WRMA. Just as important, the more people who are willing to show support for our cause, the more leverage we will be able to exert upon the record keeping bodies to do their part to put an end to the current record controversy.
Please mail your contact information along with a minimum $10.00 donation to the WRMA, P.O. Box 7613, Algonquin, IL 60102. Make checks payable to the WRMA. Thank you for your support.
Photo Analysis Continues
As many of you are already aware, this phase of our study has turned out to be considerably more involved than originally expected due to a number of unknowns regarding the few available photographs. It was a struggle just to assemble the hard data and parameters to begin with, and it seems that every aspect of the photo analysis has taken longer than could have initially been expected. Vacation season and schedules certainly delayed the process as well.
That said, upon reflection it is impressive to consider the amount of effort that this one area of the authentication process has taken so far. As always, special thanks go out to Reid Frank and Dr. Fred Schaffalitzky for their continued hard work and persistent attention to detail.
The current WR has stood for decades; as always, we feel accuracy is more important than speed, and would much rather sacrifice timeliness for accuracy of reporting.
Thank you,
Rich Delaney
President, WRMA
| |
| | |
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Thank you for the update. I sincerly hope the Hayward Hall of Fame eventually cooperates. | |
| | |
| To Everyone who will read thread. This material was also posted on the Musky Hunter website. If you take the time to look into it you will find that many questions were left on the table at that site that Mr. Delaney decided not to answer and "run" to this site. As I asked you on that website Mr. D. how about stepping up to the plate and giving us the answers we requested? | |
| | |
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Seven Strand,
If you have a specific question you wish to ask, let's have them. I will see to it they get answered for you, if you can be civil and reasonable with your questions and approach. Also, if you wish to take a serious swipe at anyone using this board, I suggest you register. | |
| | |
| Sworrall,
Thanks for your input.
Here are the Questions asked before,
How much money has the WRMA raised?
Where has the money gone?
How much money is left?
Looking forward to the response from the WRMA. | |
| | |
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Let's take a look at the questions. Are they reasonable? Would it be reasonable to expect that his group or any non-profit would answer them as demanded? Would any other like group reasonably expected/required to answer these questions on an internet message board?
Question 1: Non-profits issue a report yearly that is available to the public. I suspect that the WRMA will be required do that. If that information is available to you when it is required by the IRS, etc. would that be satisfactory? If yes, great. If no, then what is the reasoning behind your question? If you are accusing them of misuse of any funds, what are your reasons for the accusation?
Also, if I am going to discuss this here, who am I discussing this issue with, sir? Register, please.
Question 2:
This sounds pretty confrontational, any reason it seems that way or am I reading something into this that I shoudn't?. Answer to question number one applies.
Question number 3:
Answer to question number one applies.
I will do an interview with the WRMA folks when I get a clearer idea of your motivation, and get the facts for you if they are willing to do the piece for us.
| |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Steve,
I have no idea who Seven Strand is or his motives but here is my opinion on this subject.
If a group is going to solicit members and money on your and other websites I believe that they have the obligation to answer questions like those posed above.
I believe that if these questions where asked of a group like Musky Inc. they would be answered with no questions asked, to the best of the abilities of the responder. Especially considering that honest answers to those type of questions would only mean more members and more money.
I also suggest anyone who may be interested go to the Musky Hunter site and read John D. response. He paints a very different picture than that of Mr. Delaney.
I don’t understand what is in the water over in the Eastern part of the State but why does everyone have such a hard time getting along and working together.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Interesting answer from John, thanks for the heads up, Mike. I will see what the WRMA has to say, with a request to interview them going out next week. As to Mr. Detloff's personally claimed attention to detail in scientific undertakings, it would seem the perhaps he hasn't in every undertaking always followed the protocols one might expect, so no one here is shiny new penny perfect. It IS odd that the Hall claims the records were turned over, and the WRMA claims they were not.
I am not in any way suggesting John or the Hall did not follow protocol and proceedure undertaking World Record investiagtions.
Many times history is written by those with a particular viewpoint or perspective, and much of what actually happened is lost forever. Some times the facts are presented properly later; sometimes the 'facts' are simply changed to fit the beliefs or position of the day. Examine any history book from our past, and compare same to what is presented now, there are dozens of examples. I suspect the fishing world history, especially regarding the Muskie fishing world, might reflect that same oddity at times.
I actually believe the WRMA will find Mr. Dettloff's facts and figures to be correct, at least as far as that might be possible. I might be wrong, who knows, but will obviously welcome any investigation into the details and records he and the Hall might be willing to share, if for no other reason to put that continual winter argument to bed.
As to the fund raising issue, I agree, every nonprofit does have a responsibility to answer questions as to the funds raised, what they were used for, etc. However, standard proceedure is that information would be sent in the form of a report, at the required time, under strict controls set by the IRS and other agencies. Fund raising in the public doesn't equate to immediate published public disclosure, especially on most internet message boards.
| |
| | |
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Response from the WRMA:
To John Dettloff, and again to all concerned muskie anglers:
Mr. Dettloff, I appreciate your willingness to set the record straight regarding the nature of the relationship between the Hall and WRMA. In keeping with your creed, I’m sure you will not mind my addressing the inaccuracies contained within your recent post; in all things surrounding the record fish, I, too, would like us to work only with facts in an effort to learn the truth.
In your post, you question the need for the WRMA to raise funds to pay for research-related expenses. You wrote: “I find it interesting that in all of the research that both Larry Ramsell and myself have done into our musky history, we have never asked for or received one penny for our own research expenses. Rather we paid our research expenses out of our own pockets.”
If you do not mind, I would very much prefer to leave Larry Ramsell out of the present discussion. To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Ramsell has never expressed a desire to discuss his personal financial matters in a public forum; I will not presume to speak for him here.
Your comment about covering the costs of your own research seems to imply that you did not profit by this effort, which appears to be at odds with even the most superficial of observations: it is a matter of common knowledge that you are the author of, and presumably profit by sales from, “Three Record Muskies in His Day, The Life and Times of Louie Spray,” a historical biography that places the capture of the current world record fish.
Of course, it goes without saying that I have no special knowledge of your financial dealings. Nor do I hold it against a man to expect to be compensated for his hard work. I merely wish to make it clear that - unlike the WRMA – it is apparent that you have indeed profited by your research.
For my part, I am a schoolteacher from Illinois. My Master’s Degree will yield a gross before-tax income of $24,500. I am not a guide or celebrity angler, nor do I own a resort connected to any of the historical record fish by which I may recoup the more substantial costs of this study.
Thus far, the initial phase of our contract for photo analysis with Visual Geometry Solutions will cost approximately $1600. We have also obtained the services of a professional photographer (cost pending), in addition to the amount you charged us for copying the photographs you so graciously supplied. These expenses have fortunately thus far been met by WRMA member donations.
To date, my personal, out-of-pocket expenses related to phone, travel, etc. have cost approximately $450. I will not seek reimbursement from WRMA fundraising efforts to cover this personal expense, in keeping with the policy set forth publicly in the initial WRMA mission statement.
In the past, I have always extended the invitation to WRMA members to inquire at any time as to where their contribution moneys have been spent. May the record show that to date, not a one has taken me up on this invitation. I would like to go one step further by offering that any WRMA donors (ahem, donors who actually exist) who feel we have mismanaged his/her donation are welcome to come forward and ask that it be returned, and we will do so without delay.
My expectation is that this invitation will go unanswered as well.
As the WRMA charter promises that the organization will seek to authenticate all three current record fish (Spray, Johnson, O’Brien), we certainly appear to have a long and winding road ahead of us. Clearly, we will need widespread support from the general muskie public if our mission statement is to be fulfilled. Beyond actual financial support, we feel it is equally, if not more important, that as many interested members of the muskie fishing public as possible have the opportunity to have their voices heard in this long-standing debate, which is why at this time we have chosen to reduce the membership amount to $10.00.
In the recent past I have been loathe to answer direct (and, usually anonymous) questions regarding the WRMA’s financial status, as I felt that they were usually aimed toward portraying my organization’s fundraising efforts as shady, the work of a Jim or Tammy Faye Baker, or some other such “snake oil salesmen”. As a classroom teacher, it is my experience that many problem behaviors are reinforced by giving undue attention to them. My hope is that I have not made a mistake by answering your financial query(s) here, but rather that the subject of finances may instead be put well to rest.
At any rate, the paperwork for the WRMA’s not-for-profit status has already been submitted.
Regarding, for lack of a better term, proper protocols, you wrote:
“We find Mr. Delaney's attempt at criticizing the Hall in his September 22nd post on this message board for not responding to his last letter to be unfair, especially since we didn't receive his letter until September 22nd.”
The “undated letter” you refer to lacks a date because it was sent so many times, in several different forms, so as to become fairly absurd.
Beginning on June 4 of this year I wrote a series of emails to Ted Dzialo personally, and the Hall generally, that received no response.
On June 21 I sent this same, initial request letter to Ted Dzialo at the Hall of Fame via standard post, and again received no response.
On July 19, Ted Dzialo signed for a bundle of copies of this very same request letter sent certified mail (holding the receipt as I type), each individually addressed to the entire Executive Board of the Hall.
The final request letter you speak of was again sent certified mail, and should indeed have been received on our around September 20..
To sum up the above timeline, I feel it was more than reasonable to conclude that all such requests had been placed in the same, vertical file. At no time during the past four months did the Hall, in any way, shape or form, make any attempt to communicate that the matter was up for discussion at a meeting scheduled for September 23.
Had that occurred, I would agree that my announcement was unfair.
As it stands, the fact that we are only having this correspondence now, in the context of our latest media release, only serves to confirm my feeling that we were to continue being ignored had the WRMA not gone public with these details.
Regarding “access to vital information,” you wrote:
“For reasons that I don't understand, in his post, Mr. Delaney has given the false impression that the Hall of Fame has not given the WRMA "access to vital information" regarding our historical musky records. This is not true. The fact is: we at the Hall have already given the WRMA's founding president, Jerry Neumann, (as well as other members of the WRMA)full access to all of our musky records by allowing them to personally go through our archives at the Hall.”
I am aware that Mr. Newman has indeed visited the Hall of Fame, was granted access to a photocopier, and did indeed leave with information pertaining to one of the record fish.
Several years prior to the beginnings of the WRMA, Mr. Newman visited the Hall while fishing Hayward waters. He reported having had a pleasant visit, and that the secretary on duty even went so far as to allow him to bring a photo of the O’Brien fish back with him to Illinois for further study.
Mr. Newman assures me the photograph was returned promptly with a thank-you note. Please double-check your records to verify that this is indeed the case.
Unfortunately, this kind secretary had not since been transferred to the mail room. As it stands, this apparently was the extent of Mr. Newman’s curiosity at the time, does little to assist the WRMA in our present study, and does not explain why the Hall would not be just as forthcoming with information requests today.
So, again, as President of the World Record Muskie Alliance, please consider this another formal request for cooperation from the Hall.
Again from your letter, regarding a previous communication:
“Earlier this spring, one of our board members from the Hall had asked the WRMA key questions about their organization and their investigation that have gone unanswered.”
This is news to me. I have never engaged in a single communication with anyone who identified themselves as a board member from the Hall.
From your letter, regarding WRMA leadership:
“We at the Hall would like to believe that the WRMA is all they claim to be in their mission statement; however, because key people in their leadership have already publicly stated in articles, at seminars, and on the various messages boards that they believe the historic world record muskie catches of Johnson and Spray to be false claims, the WRMA is now faced with the responsibility to prove themselves that they are truly unbiased.”
For starters, I applaud the Hall for their willingness to keep an open mind regarding our mission statement.
If I’m not incorrect, I believe you are specifically addressing the fact that Mr. Newman is no longer WRMA president.
It seems most of our members have a passionate interest in the various record muskies. Most prominently, Jerry Newman has been quite outspoken in his views about the Spray fish, while Jack Schwab (Suckerchucker) has been Spray’s most ardent supporter.
To my knowledge, no member of the WRMA in any kind of leadership position has ever publicly denounced the Johnson fish.
As explained fully in an earlier media release, Jerry Newman is no longer president. Simply put, we agree that our organization needs to be free from the appearance of bias.
For this reason, I assumed the WRMA presidency earlier this year. I can only pledge to due my utmost to preserve the integrity of the WRMA mission statement, and request that WRMA members feel free point out any occasion in which I fail to do so.
From your letter, a closing thought:
“We at the National Fresh Water Fishing Hall of Fame welcome any legitimate investigation that the WRMA or anyone else may conduct on the world record muskie history. We will give such matters our full attention; we will take the appropriate action based upon the presented facts; and we will notify the researchers as to our decisions in a very prompt manner.”
Again, I applaud the Hall for taking such a stance. One can only hope that, should the need arise, the Hall makes good on this promise.
Thank you,
Rich Delaney
| |
| | |
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | In keeping with my occasional propensity to state my opinion without being asked to do so, I would say this:
It appears the WRMA is proceeding as they have claimed they would. The post from Mr. Dettloff over on 101 sounded familiar in tone to me, so I discounted it almost out of hand personally but said little except the 'shiny penny' comment waiting for a response from the WRMA.
My persoanl experience with a few of the folks involved with the HAll has not been pleasant, that I can tell you. I have never spoken to the Hall, but was involved in a storm of controversy with some of the personalities there a couple winters ago.
There's more to this than the issue at hand.
Let's call a Spade a Spade here. Pete Maina is involved with promoting the WRMA which will automatically set several of the HALL personnel against the WRMA and anyone who is involved with that effort. It's Politics, it's continuing fallout from the CFMS debacle, it's Guide VS Guide, it's anti-shorefishing VS pro shorefishing, it's even to the point where the efforts of BOTH sides to the now famous Hayward Divide will sling barely shrouded insults whenever possible. A website that is, in my humble opinion absolutley the WORST display of sophmoric behavior I have ever seen is used by some of these folks to attack Mr. Maina, Ty Sennet, and many others to the right of the Divide. Example:http://www.musky.com/BadRap.htm Another:http://www.musky.com/
Please note the link to Indian Trails Resort.
Please note also that Mr. Ramsell did indeed offer his records and full cooperation to the WRMA according to all accounts. I believe the tone of the article and mention of Mr. Ramsell's name in a manner that would cause the reader to assume he and the WRMA are at odds is another attempt to divide.
By the way, I am one of the 'notables' spoken of there, or perhaps a 'Mindless Minion'. I feel that their continuous running battle with Pete Maina, Esox Angler, and anyone associated with that publication is counter productive, a waste of the Muskie world's energy and frankly, childish. The presentation of information as fact there when interviews and a bit of investigation found 'fact' to be venemous opinion led me to that conclusion.
In my opinion much of the 'fight' over there is a continuation of the effort by a group of people from the Hayward area to maintain the area's reputation as monster muskie producing water, even if the method used is history.
Suggesting that some of the members of the board at the Hall don't have a personal interest in promoting the Chippewa Flowage and other area waters fish as top in the world is to ignore the obvious. Is that bias? I'm not sure, but it certainly bears watching.
Again, I'm not supporting either side of the issue. I AM interested in seeing what the WRMA comes up with, and still believe that unless something I am unaware of comes up, much of the current 'history' will stand. I felt compelled to comment this morning because many watching this debate would not be aware of the background which severly colors the current argument.
| |
| |
|
WRMA News