|
|
Posts: 507
| WRMA Delivers Report to Hayward Hall
Rich Delany - 10/20/2005
On the subject of the Spray 1949 FWFHF All Tackle World Record
"Spray, and most musky fishermen for that matter, were far from jealous about the Lawton musky. They just wanted to be convinced that the muskie was legitimate. It's not necessarily WHO holds the world record musky title that's important, rather that the record is accurate."
-Dettloff, John, "Lawton World Record Overturned," Musky Hunter Magazine
It's hard to believe that it has been over a decade now since Art Lawton's 69lb 15 oz former All Tackle World Record came under intense and independent scrutiny by current FWFHF President, Mr. John Dettloff. The fact that Mr. Dettloff was able to collect new and valuable information disqualifying not only this record, but all of the Lawton records, in addition to the Hartman, Hanser and Haver historical records has certainly set a standard for independent and unbiased muskellunge research that the WRMA has striven to follow.
It is likewise personally hard to accept that after a year and a half of hard work the World Record Muskie Alliance Report on the current FWFHF All Tackle Muskellunge Record is finally complete.
Nonetheless, I am proud to announce that as of today, October 20, 2005, the WRMA report on the Louis Spray 69lb, 11oz record allegedly caught on the historic waters of the Chippewa Flowage on October 20, 1949, has been delivered to the National Freshwater Hall of Fame and Museum, Hayward, Wisconsin.
Given the preponderance of scientific and circumstantial evidence to the contrary presented within this report, we at the WRMA are compelled to accept the physical impossibility of the current FWFHF Record to have weighed anywhere near the 69lbs, 11 oz claimed by Spray in 1949. Therefore, it is our recommendation that this and all Spray records be immediately disqualified from current or historic record status or consideration by the National Freshwater Fishing Hall of Fame and Museum, as they represent obvious cases of fraud on the part of Spray and his associates.
We at the WRMA believe that the burden of establishing adequate proof for this or any angling record must fall squarely on the shoulders of the claimant in order for a record to be valid. By this test, the Spray fish not only fail, but fail miserably.
It is abundantly clear that this same burden of proof was borne by the Lawton, Hartman, Hanser and Haver records when the FWFHF ruled on the basis of Mr. Dettloff's findings to disqualify these claims from record consideration. Furthermore, it is important to note that Ruth Lawton's 68lb 5oz potential world record candidate was rejected by means of an amateur's photo analysis alone.
We know that adding Spray's patently false muskellunge records to the already long list of "Muskie Crimes of the Century" represents yet another historic disillusionment for the entire muskellunge community. Nonetheless, it is our hope that by authoring this report we at the WRMA have added to the overall credibility of our beloved sport, and in this spirit humbly submit our findings to the general muskellunge public for consideration, as promised.
Please find below an excerpt from the report detailing the WRMA 1940 and 1949 visualization experiments. After the WRMA completed this preliminary work in the summer of 2004, we found ourselves in complete agreement that reasonable doubt now existed with regard to the Spray records. In fact,
Those interested in reading the entire 95 page WRMA Spray Summary Report may do so by going to the WRMA web site at www.worldrecordmuskiealliance.com.
We realize that this report is likely to give rise to a great deal of discussion on this and other forums. For this reason, we will do our best to fully answer on a weekly basis as many legitimate questions about our findings posted by authors willing to share both their first and last names as time will allow.
Similarly, we reserve the right to constructively ignore anonymous queries, as so often in the past these have served as an obstacle to sincere debate.
Thank you,
Rich Delaney
President, World Record Muskie Alliance
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editor's note:
The full text of the WRMA document can be viewed in Adobe Acrobat (6.84 mb) format at:
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/pdf/wrma.pdf
The visualization portion (972 kb) can be viewed at:
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/pdf/wrmavis.pdf
There will be follow-up reports, a continuing discussion and more regarding this issue on the Research Board here:
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=22... | |
| | |
Posts: 7036
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | Here is the link to the Press release and the report documents. We will have a full WRMA interview on MuskieFIRST Radio this week.
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/articles/10.20.2005/974/WRMA.Delive... | |
| | |
Posts: 1185
Location: Wishin I Was Fishin' | When are we going to know of the Hall's decision and if turned over, the new recognized record?
Joe Junion | |
| | |
Location: The Yahara Chain | What does the WRMA have to say about Cal Johnson's fish?
What is the record, according to the WRMA? | |
| | |
Posts: 1168
| My understanding is that they are starting with the Spray fish and working their way down. Could be wrong on this but since the Spray fish is currently recognized, they'll move down from there.
After reading all 95 pages of that report this morning my head is still spinning. Gets pretty technical but is worth a read if you get the time. What fascinated me the most was the exact numbers of how big a fish will grow when held 6 inches from the body, 12 inches, and 15 inches. I've known that before but the technical aspect of that was fascinating for an info geek like me. | |
| | |
Posts: 293
Location: Sakatchewan,Canada | Ken O'brien will be the new record holder once they get rid of all of the frauds. | |
| | |
Posts: 7036
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | From Mike Norris (found on another thread):
Rich Delaney from the WRMA and Larry Ramsell from the FWFHH will be guests on my radio show at 3 p.m. to 4 p.m. today. The show can be live streamed by going to http://www.radioshoppingshow.com/wbig/index.htm
The radio show will be available for listening on my website after 5 p.m. this afternoon at www.mikenorrisoutdoors.com | |
| | |
Posts: 516
Location: Kildeer, IL | I don't see how you can overturn a recod based on photo analysis.
In just about every picture, their experiment picture was taken from a much closer distance. In the first example, there are six other people in the frame with Mr. Spray. Try and fit all of those people in the experiment picture.
The next example is the same thing. It's a close-up of Bruce, and a distant shot of Spray.
This goes on for every example.
There are way too many assumptions. If you are going to overturn a record, you need proof, not photo analysis.
Scott Trudeau | |
| | |
Posts: 32882
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 31,
That photo analysis withstood very careful scientific peer review. Before you make that sort of assumption, you need to read all the supporting material. There's over 90 pages, and this portion of the review is pretty darned tight. Every possible consideration for the position of the angler and the fish was carefully considered. The issue of the camera used and even the lens is discussed carefully, as is the perspective and background. | |
| | |
Posts: 1335
Location: Chicago, Beverly | "Therefore, it is our recommendation that this and all Spray records be immediately disqualified from current or historic record status or consideration by the National Freshwater Fishing Hall of Fame and Museum, as they represent obvious cases of fraud on the part of Spray and his associates. "
Why all the Spray records? I thought only the WR by Spray was under review? I know, I know, 95 pages of reading to do, but still, it was my understanding that only his WR was being questioned... Has it been submitted to IGFA also, or only the Hall of Fame? | |
| | |
Posts: 2361
| I am curious. This fish was brought in to Herman's wasn't it? Wasn't it taped at that time by the crowd? I can't believe it wouldn't have been. I know I woulda had something there to measure it right then. If it was taped, do we have a massive conspiracy? | |
| | |
| It is a very good read, a very well done study, and I encourage you all to check it out objectively. The Spray WR fish is equivalent or just slightly bigger than my largest of 54. Check out my replica if you have any questions. I have fished the Mighty Chip my entire life and there are monster fish in there, as well as LCO and Grindstone. Some fish pushing 60 inches that could be legitimate world records if caught. | |
| | |
Posts: 20211
Location: oswego, il | All of spray's fish were done to show that he falsified more than just the current "record".
Setme31, the lawton fish was disqualified using phto analysis. Read the report, very well done. | |
| | |
Posts: 32882
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | FSF,
The 'lore' of the day allowed for some pretty loose record keeping, and even 'looser' official interpretation of the tape. The 90 plus page document is a long read, but worth it. I've had the report here for quite some time while it was in peer review and showed it to three individuals whom I respect. All three looked the report over, gave it some time, looked it over again, and agreed it was extremely compelling. What remains to be seen is how the record keeping folks interpret this. | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | I have read most of the full report not all of it. I have some questions for those who maybe know more.
I admit the photo stuff looks pretty compelling.
The taxidermy stuff is very interesting. The question I have is if the photo analysis is correct, and the skin mounts where modified (in the world record’s case almost 10 inches) how is this possible? How do you add 10” of skin around 2/3s of the body, back probably wouldn’t need it since it’s in a case? This puzzles me. I know good taxidermist can add girth to the fish, and it sure looks like that was done to the first record mount, but again how do you add length?
I am sure glad I don’t have to make this decision. I see it like the NFL does their replay rules, there has to be clear indisputable (in the eyes of the Umpire) evidence to overturn the call. I am not 100% convinced it is there. Does it add more doubt in my mind, yes. Enough to overturn the record, I just don’t know.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
Posts: 32882
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | There's several ways a taxidermist can extend the length of a fish. The skin is pretty pliable, and the forms hand made. Think of the skin as like a sock that is supposed to fit a foot a couple sizes too big. Open up the side of the sock, pull it out, fit the foot, and then stitch the cut material up with a considerable gap. The tail is also easy to extend with the backing and some art work. I'm not saying this was done on this fish, but it can be. | |
| | |
Location: The Yahara Chain | MRoberts - 10/21/2005 8:14 AM
I have read most of the full report not all of it. I have some questions for those who maybe know more.
I admit the photo stuff looks pretty compelling.
The taxidermy stuff is very interesting. The question I have is if the photo analysis is correct, and the skin mounts where modified (in the world record’s case almost 10 inches) how is this possible? How do you add 10” of skin around 2/3s of the body, back probably wouldn’t need it since it’s in a case? This puzzles me. I know good taxidermist can add girth to the fish, and it sure looks like that was done to the first record mount, but again how do you add length?
I am sure glad I don’t have to make this decision. I see it like the NFL does their replay rules, there has to be clear indisputable (in the eyes of the Umpire) evidence to overturn the call. I am not 100% convinced it is there. Does it add more doubt in my mind, yes. Enough to overturn the record, I just don’t know.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
I agree with Mike 100%.
My problem is that everything is based on Spray being 6' with his shoes on. My Grandfather knew Louie, he told me Louie was a big man, 6'2"-6'3". What would the photo analysis say on the fish then? I don't see how the mount could have been stretched almost 10".
Why does the WRMA go into the whole Flemings Bar, did he even catch it BS? If you are so sure of said falsifactions, why are you going there? It makes it look like a witch hunt to me. Just deal with the size of the fish. I don't believe you will be able to do a character assassination of Mr. Johnson. | |
| | |
| Bytor,
I'm in agreement with you. All the evidence supporting AND discrediting Spray's fish is circumstantial in my mind. The physical evidence, the ACTUAL fish, no longer exist. Unfortunately the truth, what ever it may be, could have been told with those mounts.
HOWEVER, the CAL JOHNSON fish is the one that will show the quality of this methodology, and in the perverbial sense will be "where the rubber meets the road". FOR THE VERY FACT THAT THE DAMM FISH IS MOUNTED AND EXISTS! Its a huge specimen that appears to be anatomically correct.
And the same character attacks that have occured with Louie Spray, Len Hartman, Percy Haver and Art Lawton will not stick with Cal Johnson, plain and simple.
| |
| | |
| It seems that there could of been a discrepancy between 5'4" and 54" | |
| | |
Posts: 293
Location: Sakatchewan,Canada | I guess it's the medical records v.s. grandfathers word.5'11" v.s. 6'2" or 6'3".Someone was off but who?Hmmm...
| |
| | |
Posts: 32882
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Please review carefully (read this entire section) the portion of the report dealing with the 1949 fish photogrammetric solution for historic skin mount muskie lengths. The data there is also extremely compelling, and also passed rigorous peer review.
I received a WRMA communication yesterday that the Johnson fish will be reviewed in the not too distant future.
If you have any questions regarding the report please post them here, MuskieFIRST will do our best to get them answered accurately and promptly.
| |
| | |
Posts: 20211
Location: oswego, il | Cal Johnsons fish does not even look real. Look at the girth and a summer fish too. Why won't they open the glass case for inspection, anybody want to guess why? | |
| | |
Posts: 5161
| No matter how compelling the info is,there is no way to determine what is true ,or false.If this goes to court it will all be thrown out,just circumstancial evidence.With this being said I think all those all records should be thrown out.Bill | |
| | |
| 0723 - 10/21/2005 8:00 PM
No matter how compelling the info is,there is no way to determine what is true ,or false.If this goes to court it will all be thrown out,just circumstancial evidence.With this being said I think all those all records should be thrown out.Bill
ALOT of people get send to jail for life or the electrical chair on nothing but circumstantial evidence. If you have enough of it the preponderance of evidence is undeniable and points to the truth. | |
| | |
| Who is Doug Petrousek? What is his background?
How much did the Martin Williamson (53 ½ x 31 ½ ) fish actually weigh?
How do three “large & intoxicated men” pull off falsifying measurements so well? I would be very suspicious if that was happening to me – knowing how drunk people are unable to keep stories straight? In the report it said that how is not a concern, but how does one get hoodwinked like that?
If Jess Ross “clearly remembered that no boat was fishing on Fleming’s Bar on that faithful afternoon” does that mean Tony Burmek was a liar or is it Jess Ross? After all Burmek claimed he was on Fleming’s from 3PM till dark.
Is the Notary for the document, Sharon Newman related to Jerry Newman the Trustee?
| |
| | |
Posts: 1430
Location: Eastern Ontario | I can answer the first two questions.
Doug Petrousek is an extremely experienced taxidermist, he knows muskies. I paid top dollar to have him do my replica as I knew he would do the best of jobs.
The Williamson fish was over 61 pounds.
I have been saying all along that I boat fish as big as any of Louis every single year and it looks like I was right. I guess in du time the O'Brien fish will be on top where it belongs. | |
| | |
| Will the WRMA do the same for pike records? | |
| | |
| Hello everyone.
First, we would like to thank the vast majority of the muskie community for the warm reception of the WRMA’s report on the Spray record. Given our findings, it certainly brings us no pleasure to submit this report to you, and having no idea how it would be received – well it is a tremendous relief to us.
Q1) Setme31: John Dettloff used this same standard on the Lawton record. Please focus on the length of the fish vs. the angler. We did our collective best to be even handed with this aspect of our study. Lot’s of details and many hours went into this segment, so please take some extra time and review. I hope that then you can agree with Larry Ramsell that it is near incontrovertible proof.
Q2) Mroberts: Steve did a fair job of answering that question for you. Yes, it was conclusively proven that the mounts were augmented.
Q3) Firstsixfeet: This was not a massive conspiracy. Nixon Barnes was the only person of record who suppostly measured the length of the fish (64”) at Herman’s landing that day. The WRMA pointed out that he was also a witness to both of Spray’s other records. Now, you can believe he just happened to be “Johnny on the spot” with a tape measure that fateful day – in spite of over whelming evidence to the contrary. Or he was not being truthful about the measurement. Either way, he was hardly an unbiased witness.
Q4) Who is Doug Petrousek? What is his background?
Good question, and I agree the WRMA should have included that information it the report – our mistake.
Doug Petrousek is a taxidermist from Naperville, IL. In addition, he has mounted several world record fish over his long and enviable career. More importantly to the WRMA, he has remounted some of Karl Kahmann’s (Noah's Ark) original mounts and knows his work both inside and out, as well as other work from that same period.
He is a true expert in his field and the WRMA is grateful that he was willing to donate his time and effort for the benefit of this report. It was Doug's idea to use the lower jaw section because it would not change from the fresh fish to the mount. This enabled Dan Mills to determine the near 15% difference between the fresh fish and the mount on the current world record. This extremely clever idea of measuring the jaw (which cannot shrink) to determine if there was augmentation was paramount in providing the absolute prove that the mounts were indeed augmented. Of course, there are a number of other qualified taxidermist's who could have preformed this type of work for us; we selected Doug for his expertise, professionalism and willingness to help.
Q5) How much did the Martin Williamson (53 ½ x 31 ½) fish actually weigh?
The weight is not the important point in the report. Rather, it was the girth comparison between the reported Spray 31 1/4" and the reported Williamson 31 1/2" that was so revealing.
The Williamson event took place on Sunday November 26, 2000 in Georgian Bay, Ontario, the reported weight of the Williamson fish was 61-4.
Q6) How do three “large & intoxicated men” pull off falsifying measurements so well? I would be very suspicious if that was happening to me – knowing how drunk people are unable to keep stories straight? In the report it said that how is not a concern, but how does one get hoodwinked like that?
I find this question somewhat odd. The report clearly states that it is of “no consequence.” Now you’re asking us to comment on something that is of no consequence? We simply stand by that statement.
Q7) If Jess Ross “clearly remembered that no boat was fishing on Fleming’s Bar on that faithful afternoon” does that mean Tony Burmek was a liar or is it Jess Ross? After all Burmek claimed he was on Fleming’s from 3PM till dark.
Incredibly detailed question! How many people could possibly know enough to ask this type of question about that particular speck of testimony – very few in our opinion. It is interestingly that you are attempting to make a liar out of one of these guys. Why?
Ok, whatever… here is your answer:
The quotes from the Milwaukee Journal contained in the WRMA report are “3 PM till dark” and “did not see Louis Spray”. You wrongly linked them together. The entire 11-12-49 Burmek quote is “I was fishing on Fleming’s bar and Pete’s bar, right near it, from 3 o’clock until dark on Oct 20, and Spray was not there.” A quote from the Jess Ross statement “ and would have certainly seen his boat (Spray’s) and heard the excitement from where I was located” (if Spray was there).
Amazingly enough we are now picking over this instead of some of the glaring falsehoods contained in statements that supported Spray. We really do not have an answer for you here; there are several good reasons why there is this one slight contradiction, but why bother. The bottom line is that this discussion merely demonstrates how eyewitness accounts are inherently inaccurate. Suffice it is to say that there were 2 witnesses that Spray was not on Fleming’s bar that fateful day, further there is a mountain of other supporting evidence dealing with this single issue. Please reread that section of the report.
Q9) Is the Notary for the document, Sharon Newman related to Jerry Newman the Trustee?
Yes she is… “A notary may notarize the signature of his or her spouse, children and other relatives”. Page 24, IL notary public handbook.
Frankly, this clearly makes the WRMA’s point that it really does not matter if a statement is notarized or not. One must look past any type of official looking paper and seek the truth contained within; this is another odd question because notarized paper was the main component supporting those bogus Spray records.
The WRMA wants this report to be as transparent as possible for those that are truly interested in the truth, which is one of the reasons it is so readily available to you now. The report - in its entirety - simply crushes any remote possibility that the Spray records are valid. Let us not get side tracked here...
these questions are 1/16 of one percent of the report, what about the other 99 15/16's percent?
Any reasonable and intelligent questions will be respectfully answered straight out as time allows. The experts who contributed to this report are also willing to answer any legitimate questions as well. However, this will be the one and only time we will answer an anonymous post like this. Thank you for all for your interest.
Further, the WRMA is understaffed and on a shoestring budget, even today. Just one of the many reasons this report was a long time coming, so please consider joining and showing your support.
I would like to congratulate and welcome Richard Collin today as our newest member!
Jerry Newman WRMA membership director
| |
| | |
Posts: 32882
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Jerry,
Thanks for taking time out of your weekend to answer questions, and thank you for the detail contained in your answers. | |
| | |
| Jerry Newman, let me get this right. It is ok for WRMA to nit pick every single detail of each affidavit, in sense calling each person a lair if they don’t remember the precise times that they landed the fish or how long they fought the fish, but if someone bring up a discrepancy that is favorable to Spray, it doesn’t matter? Real nice.
I read the report and I jotted down questions I had. It may or may not have been germane to the record fish(s), but more so for my own curiosity. I appreciate the answers. You guys really did your homework and I applaud you, WRMA.
| |
| | |
Posts: 20211
Location: oswego, il | Guest, why don't you sign in and have a name? I thought the report was and is conclusive, time to recognize a new record fish. | |
| | |
Posts: 32882
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Guest:
You've twisted what Mr. Newman had to say. I looked critically to see if it's remotely possible to get what you posted out of his answer, and IMHO, it isn't. It isn't necessary to point out where, that's a lock for anyone to figure out. I will ask you to be reasonable with your questions and debate. If you have a legitimate question, feel free to ask and when an answer is given, feel free to debate with facts, figures, and logic. If you can disprove clearly any section of or item in the report, then PLEASE, let's see the data. If not, and all one wishes to do is honk loudly, there are other places to do that than this board, and I'll ask that is avoided during this conversation.
Have you, sir, ever had a document notarized? I have. I don't think the Notary function is anything more in this case than to indicate those who published this document are who they say they are. Nothing there untoward, far as I can see.
Why would the World Record Muskie Alliance look into Pike records? For the record, Guest1 as we will identify him, asked all of these questions.
I'll ask everyone leave raw emotion at the curb for this discussion. | |
| | |
| I do not think the "guest" was being difficult, he simply put forth the idea that he had his own questions regardless if they affected the outcome...he even gave props to a job well done....BenR | |
| | |
Posts: 32882
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'Jerry Newman, let me get this right. It is ok for WRMA to nit pick every single detail of each affidavit, in sense calling each person a lair if they don’t remember the precise times that they landed the fish or how long they fought the fish, but if someone bring up a discrepancy that is favorable to Spray, it doesn’t matter? Real nice. '
It's possible you are correct Ben, but this is a tone I will steer this conversation away from to the best of my ability.
| |
| | |
Posts: 384
Location: Eagle River, Alaska | Very well done and comprehensive report. When the WRMA first formed I was asked to help in some small ways but after awhile became disillusioned as it seemed nothing would ever get done. It appears I was wrong.....the study was compelling and laid out very well. Although I have always been an admitted Spray nonbeliever I was prepared to accept any findings. Thanks to those who put so much time into this effort. Just an added note about Doug Petrousek. I met Doug online several years ago and have had many conversations over email about the Spray fish and taxidermy in general. I hope he doesn't mind me saying but Doug did NOT want to believe that these fish had been falsified. For him to come to the conclusions he did must have required a great deal of personal disillusionment to him but he appears to have let objectivity and fact determine his analysis. BTW his mounts are also the best I have ever seen....he is a fabulous taxidermist.
From a long lost MuskieFirst devotee,
Brian | |
| | |
Posts: 80
| I finally read through the 90+ pages of the report, I found the section of the report comparing the fresh fish, and the skin mount fish to be the most interesting.
The one minor question or concern I have, why didn't the WRMA have DCM conduct the photogrammetric analysis using an example of a fish that was of known dimensions as a control?
Even though I am confident that the WRMA's findings are accurate, I feel it would cast asisde any doubt had they used the same photogrammetric analysis on another, more recent catch, such as the Wiliamson fish, or any other fish of known dimensions.
Edited by JWB475 10/25/2005 8:45 AM
| |
| | |
| "The one minor question or concern I have, why didn't the WRMA have DCM conduct the photogrammetric analysis using an example of a fish that was of known dimensions as a control?"
Great question JWB!!! Wow, someone is actually reading/studying the WRMA report and asking a valid question. Thank you! We are assuming you are not talking about the 1940 fresh fish, because there is obviously a man standing next to a 4' ruler as the control.
The real question regarding the 1949 current world record.
Mr. Mills (of DCM) used the photomodeler software that has been validated many - many - times, it has incredible accuracy because it is simply pure math. Further, Mr. Mills is a official training provider for the photomodeler software and teaches students it's various applications. In short, the WRMA considers Mr. Mills one of the worlds foremost authority's on the use of this software, just one of the reasons the WRMA put the entire report into cyberspace for a "world review" so to speak.
The DCM peer reviewer, Mr. Reis of Imaging Forensics (who has never met Mr. Mills) was the gentleman who performed the peer review. He is well aware of this software's incredible reliability and most certainly agreed with it's novel application - his credentials are simply beyond reproach. Combined, these top professionals put an exclamation point on the WRMA Spray world record challenge in our opinion.
"It is ok for WRMA to nit pick every single detail of each affidavit, in sense calling each person a lair if they don’t remember the precise times that they landed the fish or how long they fought the fish, but if someone bring up a discrepancy that is favorable to Spray, it doesn’t matter? Real nice."
Guess 1. The WRMA picked at every detail simply because we felt it a requirement to prove the case, there are many "forces out there" that want to retain the record at all costs. Please bear in mind that we had cowardly people calling the IL Attorney General on us and the FRV Chapter of M.I. just last year! To us, this certainly did not give the outward appearance of people who truly believed the record was authentic and beyond reproach. We honestly can see no possible explanation that the testimony you are referring to could possibly help - in any way- support the Spray record.
Doc Esox. Our choice of Doug Petrousek was for the very reason you mentioned, we strongly felt that he would give every benefit of the doubt to the Spray mounts. We were correct, and he did just that... and they failed miserably. Thank you on behalf of the WRMA... another early supporter who dropped out said it best when he first read the report and said "wholly follow threw" before rejoining the WRMA group. We would of course welcome you as our "newest member" too Doc.
Jerry Newman
WRMA membership director | |
| | |
Posts: 32882
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Doc Esox! Good to see you still lurking on the boards now and again, how's the fishing in Paradise??
As an aside I agree with you Doc, this one was done right. | |
| | |
| I have read the report and see it being accurate but, I am just playing an advocate here with a few thoughts and curiosity questions, along with getting educated.
First I would like to commend the WRMA for putting together such a nice report. I will start with a big question first: Why did you wait 56 years to the day to do so? Technology has since evolved, but is it the real issue for attempting to change the records now? Also, how long since it was official contested last? I can make assumptions on these questions, but would like to hear from someone directly involved.
Having worked extensively with photogrammetric and GIS Services for a major mapping company. I found it very interesting utilizing it for such an issue. I understand the control issue. I also understand the Spray’s fish falling short of expectations with control used. The control basically used in the 1949 fish was Louis’s height based on a 1934 medical examination. To verify control or height is there any documentation of his wife’s height for a comparison in Figure 3?
I am not defending any of the Spray’s fish but how did these get into the record books to begin with? Yes, I understand the times were not of today’s standards. It seems that the constantly changing new world records between 1939 and 1949 wouldn’t someone at least verify these fish before submitting them knowing the times of fraud and economic hardships were at hand? The entire scenario just seems a bit bizarre.
Unless I overlooked in the Document that there is no affidavit for the photo’s of the alleged world record muskie. It is likely that Louis may have caught many large muskies in his day. Are we sure that the Record muskie pictures that we all know are in fact the one’s in question? Which would require an affidavit? I apologize if I overlooked it in the report.
I am asking these questions just to eliminate much of the conditional evidence that this report is generally based.
I would like to see History confirmed regardless of the outcome of this report.
Sincerely,
Dan White
| |
| | |
| Thank you for your observations and questions Mr.White. The fact that you have extensive photogrammetric experience and find the report accurate should speak volumes to anyone who may have raised an eyebrow at the DCM study - the spearhead of the WRMA report. Considering the vast majority of us are not experts, the best analogy might be to compare the DCM report to a radar gun. In that, we have no idea how the number "got there", just that it is correct and admissible in a court of law. It is a feather in the cap of the DCM study to have yet another expert (who understands how that number "got there" ) who is willing to attest to it's accuracy. Your experience in this specialized field explains the nature of your questions... we continue to welcome all questions.
So;
"I have read the report and see it being accurate but, I am just playing an advocate here with a few thoughts and curiosity questions, along with getting educated. I will start with a big question first: Why did you wait 56 years to the day to do so?"
>>>The simple answer is this record fraud is so obvious that it should not have been on the books for 56 years, it's a shame that it took this much effort to force the truth out into the open. As far as the 10-20 WRMA release date, please consideration the peer review was not complete until 10-10-05. It took time to then organize the report - send it off to the printer - put it into binders - then over to the FWFHF. Truth be known... we were working on the details up to the last day and really scrambling to get it on our web site in time for a 10-20 public release. Our major deadline was to have this report available at the recently concluded muskie symposium. We understand it was part of final panel discussion today at the symposium.
"Technology has since evolved, but is it the real issue for attempting to change the records now?"
>>> It is not about just "changing the records", not for a second, it is about authenticating the top record for a variety of reasons. Please visit our web site and check out the section entitled, "beyond the records".
"Also, how long since it was officially contested last?"
>>>We are aware that another group officially challenged the record as recently as a couple years ago. Unofficially, the Spray records have been contested since day one by enough reporters to make your head spin. Please consider rereading the Tony Burmek section dealing with his - what we consider - original challenge in 1949. Tony was willing to back up his statements with a lie detector test way back then, this was an act of true bravery on the part of Tony in our opinion - all things considered.
"I can make assumptions on these questions, but would like to hear from someone directly involved. Having worked extensively with photogrammetric and GIS Services for a major mapping company. I found it very interesting utilizing it for such an issue. I understand the control issue. I also understand the Spray’s fish falling short of expectations with control used. The control basically used in the 1949 fish was Louis’s height based on a 1934 medical examination. To verify control or height is there any documentation of his wife’s height for a comparison in Figure 3?"
>>>Excellent question sir! Spray claimed his wife was 5'4" and based on a cursory review alone, her height supports the 5'11" height (6' with shoes) used for Spray. We also telephoned and talked to a gentleman from Hayward who was a good friend of Spray's to help confirm this 5'11" height. Further, many attempts were made to secure his arrest and criminal records to no avail. It should be noted here that the medical exam was obtained from John Detloff himself, this superseded his earlier claims of "6'2" with a lumberjack frame". We are satisfied 5'11" is correct, plus Spray (and his fish) were givin every benefit of the doubt at each step by the WRMA.
"I am not defending any of the Spray’s fish but how did these get into the record books to begin with? Yes, I understand the times were not of today’s standards. It seems that the constantly changing new world records between 1939 and 1949 wouldn’t someone at least verify these fish before submitting them knowing the times of fraud and economic hardships were at hand? The entire scenario just seems a bit bizarre."
>>>We agree 100%... and can offer no real explanation other than times were different back then - just as Steve Worrall explained earlier in this thread. Karl Kahmann's (the taxidermist of record for the 39-40 Spray fish) poignant letter addresses this question (contained in the WRMA report) nicely.
"Unless I overlooked in the Document that there is no affidavit for the photo’s of the alleged world record muskie. It is likely that Louis may have caught many large muskies in his day. Are we sure that the Record muskie pictures that we all know are in fact the one’s in question? Which would require an affidavit? I apologize if I overlooked it in the report."
>>>No problem Dan, the pictures require no affidavit in our opinion. We have many - many different sources confirming the photographs contained in our report are the same as identified by Spray, and the news media back then. The record keepers at the time (Field & Stream) required a photograph - if available - and these were most certainly the photographs that were available and claimed to have been the fish in question. We are near 100% satisfied these are the correct pictures of the fish.
"I am asking these questions just to eliminate much of the conditional evidence that this report is generally based."
>>>Very good Q, the conditional evidence was checked and rechecked by the WRMA to the best of our ability, we are supremely confident that John Dettloff (the author) is also rechecking the report for it's factual content.
"I would like to see History confirmed regardless of the outcome of this report."
>>>We would like to point out that we are not official record keepers and do not claim to be historian's, (we certainly did our homework though) we are just a group of dedicated anglers committed to authenticating the brass ring of our beloved sport. We have no horse in this race!
Jerry Newman
WRMA membership director
| |
| | |
| GREAT WORK WRMA! Let's face it guys, we ALL know Spray's--and most of the other WR pursuers of the day--WR's were falsified. We've all seen what WR fish should look like with the recent photos and measurements of the Georgian bay beasts of Williamson & O'Brien. Don't fret Hayward, we know the Chip or any number of WI, MN, MI, OH, NY and especially ON waters could hold the next WR ski. This effort finally and truly legitimizes our sport and those that pursue it today and reminds us all how "honesty truly is the best policy". No one is perfect and I do not blame those of the past. They all just got caught up in the WR thing. Different times for sure!
JK | |
| | |
| Jerry Newman,
Thank You for answering my previously asked questions.
I have always known the Louis Spray’s fish as the WRM. Emotionally it is hard not to defend something that I have always known as being a record, until now… Based on the report.
I sincerely hope that the WRMA is able to pursuit the “New World Record” and State Record Muskellunge’s. I believe it is very important for the sport of Muskie fishing that in case of the likely dethroning of the Spray’s fish that the legitimate record be known, soon. I hope the WRMA finds it somewhat of a civil obligation to find Who, When, and Where the New Record’s belong.
It is comforting that you have “no horse in this race” which eliminates motives other than the truth. Which I commend!
Sincerely,
Dan White
| |
| | |
| Such a sad day it is, where their "appears" to be a witch hunt, like they did back in the 50s, chasing down communist.
I'm deeply troubled by the grave efforts applied to not only discredit fish, but it appears to discredit people.
This is all being done on hypothetical analysis.
Everything in that report is "hypothetical" and "circumstancial".
I do not see proof.
I have read the "mission statement", but what is the true agenda/motive behind all of this? | |
| | |
Posts: 2894
Location: Yahara River Chain | Guest, I too was skeptical of this idea of DQing these fish.
But this report opened my eyes. It does indeed look like Spray loaded the fish. When I was in the Hall looking at all those old muskie mounts, I can't help but look at those fish that went 52" and over 45 pounds (in June no less)? How in the heck did that happen? I did ask Dorazio about it and he said that many were taken before spawning, which explained a lot. I still think some of those were also helped to get over 40 pounds. What we know today, these fish that Spray caught could not have weighed that much at only mid-50 inches.
Last year I was adamant about getting MI involved. I thank the WRMA for not doing so. It would have accomplished nothing. You have laid out a very good case to have these fish DQed & I'd be surprised if that Hall doesn't agree.
Nice work, Rich D & company.
| |
| | |
Posts: 550
Location: So. Illinois | I have read the WRMA report and am impressed. I am not very familiar with the records set by the Hartmans and the Lawton's but their success as calssified in the record books is beyond reason. My personal belief is that the study provides a compelling case that the records in question should be discounted. On a very simplistic level, it appears that many of these records were driven by a sense of competition between a few accomplished muskie fisherman -- a form of one upsmanship. One item that continues to drive my own suspicion is "how can just a few people (such as the Hartman's and the Lawton's) dominate the record books with so many fish for so many years when there are so many other accomplished fisherman who have not caught fish to challenge these records? That very issue raises reasonable doubt in my mind that warrents a closer look. I think I have a video that states that just one or two people have accounted for more than half of all fish taken over 60 lbs. To me, this fact alone is reason to question the validity of these records. Cudos to the folks who put this report together. I find it a compelling study and am fasinated by the science that went into it.
Jerry | |
| | |
| What if............
That muskie ate a 10lb walleye, just seconds before being caught........
What if.............
The angle of the picture doesnt reveal the true girth of the fish........... | |
| | |
Posts: 32882
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Please read the entire report, those 'what ifs' are covered pretty well, I think. A 10# walleye would stick out like a sore thumb in that fish, BTW. For that matter, so would a 3# walleye. | |
| | |
Posts: 2894
Location: Yahara River Chain | Your right sworrall. And I'm sure the taxidermist would have said he found "such and/or such" when mounting the fish. Unless of course it was foreign matter. | |
| | |
| The current Spray record is off by 30 pounds, give or take a legal walleye here or there. To answer your question a 10 pound walleye would still leave the record about 20 pounds short, now if you stuffed a 30 pound walleye inside you would have your 70 pound musky, which would of course be a record. Hey, after certifing the weight of musky could you then remove the 30 pound walleye and claim another record? If so, then you could take the perch out of the walleye and | |
| | |
Posts: 20211
Location: oswego, il | Kinda funny, babe Winkleman caught a halibut, it was a world record fish untill about 10ft from the boat when it burped up an 80lb octopus.
Sprays fish would have had to eat more than a couple 10lb walleyes. | |
| |
|
WRMA Delivers Report to Hayward Hall