|
|
| Are any of you guys paid members of the WRMA? Have any of you become members since the Louis Spray fiasco or made any contributions to the WRMA?
I'm just wondering if there IS an actual membership or even a following of this organization. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 159
Location: Stevens Point, WI | There is an actual membership for WRMA, I know a few of the guys on this site are members and Steve Worrall made it on the "prominent members" list! http://www.worldrecordmuskiealliance.com/2009_WRMA_Application.pdf is the application, if you're interested. |
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | Check out the site and look around. http://www.worldrecordmuskiealliance.com/index.html WRMA is more than just about verifying the current records. Look at the Beyond the Records tab and also the Simcoe Project tab give you some good information. I believe once the records are dealt with that great things will come from the WRMA concerning fisheries and management issues.
Edited by Will Schultz 7/31/2009 9:27 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 83
| It's pretty tough to verify a 50 or 60 year old catch. |
|
| |
|
| Thanks for the links to the WRMA. I am very aware of their website.
Doesn't seem like they had much luck getting the Spray fish removed from the record book. With all the evidence they had against it, Louie still holds the FWFHF record. WRMA never had much of a follow up after the Hall refused to disqualify Spray. They never were able to get public pressure to remove an obviously bogus record.
I was just wondering IF there is anyone who actually supports the WRMA with financial contributions or even supports it mission AT ALL......
The Alliance began with much fanfare but never seemed to get very much public or industry media support.
Haven't heard much from them since.
I've yet to meet anyone who claims to be a contributing member.
Are there any???
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 123
| I believe this group is also about the establishing of legitimate standards of measuring and weighing for future fish caught of record quality. This would be to avoid any possible doubt regarding the accuracy of present day fish that are caught that are in this class, and avoid situations such as we have with the Spray fish, Johnson fish, O'Brien fish, etc. The last I heard, nobody has caught a single fish that met this organization's minimum criteria to be considered a "record". There are a lot of prominent members, and the organization is supported/endorsed by Muskies Inc. |
|
| |
|
| Lens Creep says;
"I believe this group is also about the establishing of legitimate standards of measuring and weighing for future fish caught of record quality."
The group you refer to is part of a separate org. that Larry Ramsell is involved in and promoting.
I don't believe the WRMA is associated or a promotes that group.
Are you a member of the WRMA Lens Creep?
Is ANYBODY?? Who are THEY?? |
|
| |
|
| If as you say, the WRMA is supported by MI, are they supported by the International or by individual chapters of MI?
If MI does or did support WRMA, why did they, or do they, allow the travesty of the Spray record to remain without any major lobbying of the FWFHF to remove his bogus fish in the face of the overwhelming evidence that it is not as large as claimed? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2865
Location: Brookfield, WI | Guest - 8/1/2009 9:18 AM
Who are THEY??
Who are you? Why would anyone care that you are interested?
Kevin
I'm a proud member of the GRSS. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Hopeful, well said. I'm a member, and I don't think this inquiry has any intent but to be anonymously negative, and since it wasn't placed to a member or to the WRMA is nothing more than sniper activity.
'If MI does or did support WRMA, why did they, or do they, allow the travesty of the Spray record to remain without any major lobbying of the FWFHF to remove his bogus fish in the face of the overwhelming evidence that it is not as large as claimed?'
Because no one can change the mind set of the Hayward Hall no matter what the evidence. Not too hard to figure out why.
|
|
| |
|
| Hopeful......I would think that ANY member of the WRMA would care that I am interested...no matter WHO I am.
Steve, this is not intended to be a negative, necessarily.
Since you are a member, I will address the question to you. Is there a membership that supports the WRMA? Are they a credible, viable organization? Are they currently doing anything about the current records?
Has WRMA has been working on the Cal Johnson fish for the last 3 years, since Spray??
As a supporter of the WRMA goals with regard to the records I'm frustrated that
there is no info available about just what is happening.
Jerry Newman posted awhile back that they are in fact "working"........why the secrecy?
I know a lot of you guys don't care...but aren't those who DO care wondering what's up??? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Q1) Yes
Q2) Yes
Comment 1) No news because this is a slow moving process, not an event
Comment 2) No secrecy...just no new items to report.
Comment 3) Apparently not. |
|
| |
|
| Thanks Steve.
I guess you're right. No one is wondering apparently.
It will be interesting to see the reaction if & when the Cal Johnson fish is shown to be just as bogus as the Spray fish. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1185
Location: Wishin I Was Fishin' | I carry the registration book (like 10 pages of criteria) in my tackle box in a zip lock. I fish Green Bay often and I hope someday I am fortunate enough to be on the water and be able to help them meet all the strict guidelines to make the WRMA records...I will be calling Steve and Ramsell right away too. I have a few DNR numbers in my phone too.
Sometimes my friends get on the subject and I give them the book to read and their jaw drops in the water.
We have had discussions about ziplocking 2 nets together for a big in the water livewell. I have thoughts about building a 70" temporary livewell in the floor of my trolling boat.
It sure would be nice for someone to finally get a big one and leave the Spray crap for the FFHF history books.
Edited by Jomusky 8/1/2009 12:26 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 123
| I thought this WAS the organization that Larry Ramsell is part of. That is the one MI endorses. Maybe I'm mistaken and this is a different entity entirely. I was refering to Larry's organization in my earlier post, and appologize for any confusion. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1030
Location: APPLETON, WI | In my ever so humble opinion, and please, no one take this the wrong way... but who cares? Go fish.  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2894
Location: Yahara River Chain | Muskies, Inc took no action in regards to the Spray fish. He (Spray) was not a member and while MI promotes trophy fisheries, it does not care about record fish from folks other than its members.
That said the MI Intl did vote to support the rules written for the new modern day record program submitted by Larry Ramsell (at the last minute & without review of the rules). No, I do not know why they did or cared for Larry Ramsell program. The vote was for support only and no money was ever given to Larry Ramsell's organization.
Edited by muskie! nut 8/1/2009 3:36 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Lens Creep, Larry Ramsell was a prominent member of the WRMA at one time. I don't believe he is any longer. His name is off the masthead. The WRMA is not involved in keeping records. Larry's modern day record program is hoping to.
Jomusky, I hope an actual 67lb.+ musky comes from somewhere. I admit that I hope it is kept and verified and scrutinized thoroughly.
muskie nut, thanks for the info about the MI support.
|
|
| |
|
| PSYS - 8/1/2009 2:35 PM
In my ever so humble opinion, and please, no one take this the wrong way... but who cares? Go fish. :)
I agree who needs a record anyway, state records are released in MN all the time anyways. In my oppinion Dale Mcnair owns the world record because he let her go no kill it for his own ego!
Dan Crooms |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Is there snow on the ground over there or something? We've still got some left in the mountains, but not enough for me to start caring about WR's. Plus, people catch wr's out of Pineview all the time. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1030
Location: APPLETON, WI | That''s my point exactly. Who knows how many individual PB's have already broken state records? or WR's for that matter? It's just not something that a lot of people take into consideration. I'm more concerned about having fun, enjoying the outdoors and getting the next musky on my line. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 253
Location: On the water | I agree with dcmusky, who needs a world record!! Dales the man. Fish, have fun and let them all go for someone else to catch.
Tom |
|
| |
|
| Yay for world records! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20211
Location: oswego, il | "If MI does or did support WRMA, why did they, or do they, allow the travesty of the Spray record to remain without any major lobbying of the FWFHF to remove his bogus fish in the face of the overwhelming evidence that it is not as large as claimed?"
Becuase their non for profit status will be challenged. It already happened to one chapter that had some of the WRMA's founding members on their board. |
|
| |
|
| Here's my take, the Spray fish is part of musky lore. It's an era of musky fishing like the steroid era is to baseball. Back then they used to kill them and fill em with sand, some were just that big. Today we release them but some stretch the length and some are just that big. At least today they are released so they can fuel the imagination.
Dan Crooms |
|
| |
|
Posts: 518
Location: Cave Run Lake KY. | What bogas overwelming evidence ? There is none.  Marv. |
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | Guest - 8/1/2009 11:22 AMHopeful......I would think that ANY member of the WRMA would care that I am interested...no matter WHO I am.Steve, this is not intended to be a negative, necessarily.Since you are a member, I will address the question to you. Is there a membership that supports the WRMA? Are they a credible, viable organization? Are they currently doing anything about the current records? Has WRMA has been working on the Cal Johnson fish for the last 3 years, since Spray?? As a supporter of the WRMA goals with regard to the records I'm frustrated that there is no info available about just what is happening. Jerry Newman posted awhile back that they are in fact "working"........why the secrecy?I know a lot of you guys don't care...but aren't those who DO care wondering what's up???
Guest (if that really is your name)...
Perhaps this line of questioning should be directed to those at WRMA and not a message board that will be full of opinions that may or may not be accurate. This e-mail (available on the WRMA site) should get you the answers you seek - [email protected]
If you honestly care about this (and aren't just trying to stir up $hi#) contact the WRMA and get the answers you want. It seems to me Jerry already answered your original inquiry on this board. Why not contact him directly and save yourself some time? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | For those who do not care about the World Record...cool.
For those who do, and I'm one of 'em, I'd like to see the World Record set straight, lore/legend/bullcrap aside. Make it real and therefore attainable, and eventually offer a REAL release division for the World Record; then we'd see some monsters....... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20211
Location: oswego, il | I would like to see it cleared up too, what is right, should be set right.
I still find it funny, somebody can post a 52 that looks 48 and just get roasted on the message boards for a fish that absolutely does not matter to anyone but the person who caugh it but these same roasters could care less about the record. Imagine if Louie caught these fish today, posted the pics and said they were as big as he claimed. We could post the sattellite images of his arse getting roasted on the message boards. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 123
| In an upcoming issue of Muskie magazine I'm doing a piece on how there could be a huge difference in the appearance of fish in photos depending on how you hold them. I see this a lot as MI's Photo Editor, such as fish that are actually about the same size except one looks like it could eat the other. As far as records I must say I agree completely with Steve. I'm not sure how a release record would work though. What would the criteria be, who would set it, and who would verify it? It just seems it would be a tall order to get an accurate measurement/weight of the fish and still be able to release it. I'd love to hear any ideasanyone may have for this. Good fishing all. |
|
| |
|
| So if the lying Louie fish gets throwen out it's only 4 lbs less than Kens fish and I still doubt that's attainable for most.
I'd like to use the Williamson fish for an example: 61 lbs and 16 years old, close but not quite a record. A very special fish but now those genes are dead along with the fish. Who knows what that fishes potential was. It was his fish and by no means am I critisizing him for keeping it but I wouldn't have. The problem with any records or way of keeping the and getting accurate measurements doesn't have the best interest of the fish in mind. I shoot for 100% survivalbilaty on all muskies I catch, I know this is unreal but I still try. Even my biggest this year I skiped the girth measurement for the sake of a good release but am confedent that my 50+ lb lunge is still swiming and will be a record class fish this fall. Fish like this have the most value as spawners not trophys.
Dan Crooms
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1764
Location: Ogden, Ut | dcmusky - 8/4/2009 3:16 PM
A very special fish but now those genes are dead along with the fish.
Dan Crooms
Dan,
While I will not ever find fault in your passion, I find your logic about fate of this particular genetic complement a bit flawed (unless I misunderstood and you were merely stating that 'this fish is dead, and dead fish no longer grow'). If we take a look at that particular fish's genetic make up, we may indeed find it was something different or special; I cannot discount that possibility. It was the result of a genetic coupling 16 years prior to it's capture though. It may have siblings with similar genetic make up, but it's offspring will only be the recipient of half of it's genetic information. The magic combination was the result of it's parents, not anything it can pass on it's own. Assuming sexual maturity of 5-6 years (conservatively), it had the opportunity to pass genetic information to the population no less than 10 times (again assuming annual spawning, which may be up for debate). They do not clone, therefore that fish's genetic make up was not possible to exactly duplicate no matter how long it lived. Now, is the genetic information that fish would pass beneficial to the population as a whole? Probably, but it was able to do that several times. But was it essential for insuring that the line will produce record-quality fish? Probably not.
Again, I'm right there with you on releasing big fish, but to infer that a single fish is so important that future records may hinge on its survival, I personally find to be a bit of a stretch.
S. |
|
| |
|
| True but it can't hurt either. I couldn't wack a biggie for the record books and I'm not saying someone who does is the antichrist but thats allot of eggs and it's the genes that I'd like in a system for as long as possible. I wish this WRMA would look into a C&R freindly format for a WR one that every one could agree with and the fish lives. I think that killing a fish so it can get weighed is out dated for todays C&R guy, also I think just going by length is a poor judge of a C&R record. My only answer is to carry a calibrated scale and photo the scale with fish in landing devise and at least 1 witness but I'm sure youd still have cheaters. Thats why I say who cares.
Dan Crooms |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20211
Location: oswego, il | "So if the lying Louie fish gets throwen out it's only 4 lbs less than Kens fish and I still doubt that's attainable for most."
Based on how the FWFHoF went about the WRMA report, then spent time and money to re-affirm the record afterwards, it will not be thrown out, ever. Only a bigger fish will trump it. |
|
| |
|
| I think Todd is right. The only way to get Spray out of the FWFHF is to get a new board of directors and president who are interested in the truth. The same will happen with the cal Johnson fish and the IGFA. That fish will not be removed either. Heavy pressure and lobbying by those within the industry and the public who want honest records may be effective if done as a coalition.
Each of the two record keepers recognize different W.R. muskies, both of which are not as large as claimed. Terrific.
For me C&R records are a non valid issue right now. |
|
| |
|
|
I would have to disagree a little with Sorensen's points.
If it takes 2 parents to make the "magic" combination, than killing one of the two possible parents does have a negative affect on that combination happening again.
Furthermore, muskies don't successfully spawn every year. In natural muskie lakes there are good year classes and some years that don't do well at all.
Every spawning opportunity is important, especially with large fish. Many muskies will never reach lengths over 52". The ones that do are special, and if we as muskie fishermen want to catch them than they need to be released.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1764
Location: Ogden, Ut | Guest - 8/5/2009 6:15 AM
I would have to disagree a little with Sorensen's points.
If it takes 2 parents to make the "magic" combination, than killing one of the two possible parents does have a negative affect on that combination happening again.
Furthermore, muskies don't successfully spawn every year. In natural muskie lakes there are good year classes and some years that don't do well at all.
Every spawning opportunity is important, especially with large fish. Many muskies will never reach lengths over 52". The ones that do are special, and if we as muskie fishermen want to catch them than they need to be released.
I think you misinterpreted my points a bit. Yes, it takes 2 parents to make the magical fish (let's say the Williamson fish). It's quite possible that as individuals, they were quite 'normal', or perhaps even unremarkable fish. But it was their spawn, not any future spawn of the Williamson fish that produced a known giant (the Williamson fish). For all we know, the Williamson fish got big because it was sterile (not saying that it was, just throwing out a scenario). And yes, they often don't spawn successfully every year, nor do they often spawn w/ the same individual(s) every year. Add to that the variabilities of external fertilization and you may begin to see my points. Important, yes. But insurance that a big fish produces big fish, no. Particularly on a population level. Removing ALL of the big fish is obviously risky, but an individual here and there probably won't cause any detectable population level responses.
Personally, I think the next world record, if there is one, will be a genetic anomaly with some sort of growth disorder. It will probably be fairly young, and the poor sap who gets it will be both praised and crucified. |
|
| |
|
|
We'll have to agree to disagree a little here.
Record fish aside, just speaking about fish that are capable to grow to mid 50's.
The importance of them as breeders in a population is enourmous.
That coming from Bob Strand, who notes that just the enourmous amount of eggs the put out when they spawn. Taking big fish out of a system greatly reduces potential numbers of surviving fry. Fish over 50" put out up to 3 times as many eggs as females under 50 inches.
I also believe that big fish do have more potential to produce big fish as offspring over smaller fish.
That is just simple statistics.
Anyway, talking about record fish is another story. That is anybodies guess as to how or why they come about.
|
|
| |
|
| good discussion...and just to clarify who's speaking here:
the Guest is choosing to post anonymously.
Mr. Sorenson is not...he's a fish biologist who played a key role in establishing, protecting, and maintaining a western muskie fishery and just happens to have released an unquestionable state record muskie.
if it's "anybody's guess" about how trophy muskies come to be, i'll put my money on the guess that Sorno makes.
|
|
| |
|
| Just to clarify....I'm the "guest" #1 who posted the original topic about the WRMA. I am NOT involved in the discussion w/ Mr. Sorenson.
I know, I know, anonymous posting is cowardly. Sorry, I have my reasons. |
|
| |
|
|
Well it's your "guess" as to what credentials "guests" have is it not??
|
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | sorenson - 8/5/2009 9:12 AM Personally, I think the next world record, if there is one, will be a genetic anomaly with some sort of growth disorder. It will probably be fairly young, and the poor sap who gets it will be both praised and crucified. If I remember right there was something about the Williamson fish and her reproductive organs... or maybe it was just speculation. If Larry see's this I'm sure he can confirm. |
|
| |
|
| Well it's your "guess" as to what credentials "guests" have is it not??
actually, for those of us running this site, it's not a guess at all.
it will always be your right to post anonymously, but if you want to be taken more seriously sign your name and offer your credentials. you do that regularly on the site you normally frequent...
your general position on the need to protect big fish is a good one, and well demonstrated with the impact of catch-and-release on the fisheries.
at the same time, i think it's unsound to say that the harvest of one single fish is a genetic crisis, and for that i rely on biologist's opinions such as that of Mr. Sorenson.
don't get me wrong: the social message is a bad one, especially when the pictures of big dead fish circulate as it suggests that harvest is okay...but fighting that fight with unsupported genetic arguments doesn't fly. we can and should choose a better and more accurate platform to encourage the release of all those big fish, because if we don't the science will be used against us.
|
|
| |
|
| It was just speculation regarding the fish being sterile. The theory was it may have been resorbing it's own underdeveloped egg mass causing it's rapid growth rate and excessive obesity. It may have also been filled with water just like O'Brien's probably was. |
|
| |
|
|
It comes down to a matter of to what degree does an idividual see as damaging, which has nothing to do with science.
Nobody said anything about a crisis. But the impact is always there when a big fish is killed.
It's up to the individual to decide whether that impact is signigicant, it's not a matter of whether or not science says it is.
Especially considering one biologist will say it is significant while another says it isn't. What is science saying there?
|
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | Will Schultz - 8/5/2009 11:23 AM sorenson - 8/5/2009 9:12 AM Personally, I think the next world record, if there is one, will be a genetic anomaly with some sort of growth disorder. It will probably be fairly young, and the poor sap who gets it will be both praised and crucified. If I remember right there was something about the Williamson fish and her reproductive organs... or maybe it was just speculation. If Larry see's this I'm sure he can confirm.
According to Larry:
"Info I got was that the Williamson fish was sterile and putting all energy towards growth, hence the size vs. age."
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | DC and J,
Obviously, it's up to the individual who caught the fish as to whether it gets released or not, and there's always arguments on both sides of the issue. I believe we were talking about the WR here, so lets not get all crazy about pushing release of sub-record fish...preaching to the choir for the most part, and not the subject of this thread.
|
|
| |
|
| One way to help prove the size of a fish in photos is to show the fish on a bump board or include a ruler in the photo with the fish.
Brian
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 7
| I want to provide several questions in one of John's books. The fish that put Hayward on the map came out of Spider Lake according to the actual account of President Coolidge receiving the fish. It is in the July 1, 1981 issue of the Sawyer County Record. In the same book look at the fish Stasek is holding. How does anyone hold a 45-pound fish in that type of finger hold and not show one sign of muscle strain? That is one well-girthed fish after loosing all that weight. That is one easy-going smile for someone holding a fish that heavy. Only a trained gymnast could pull it off.
I think enough people have connected the dots on this, and the continued support of the Hall and the people connected with it only prolongs what might come out of this.
How you hold these fish for a photo makes a lot of difference.
Thank you for the use of your forum
Edited by musky53dat 2/5/2010 10:22 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 7
| I just spoke with the grandson of one person who saw the Johnson fish immediately after capture. In his store in Hayward is another 60 inch fish that has not been in any books due to the owner not wanting any photos out. It hung in Draper for awhile and the person speared it. His descendants, Native Americans, come in to see it. It came off a bar by Pat's Landing.
We had a good laugh about what these guys did. Time to put them into a historical category and get on with things.
Out of respect for the owner and the family I did not even ask for a photo. It is just a monster.
Edited by musky53dat 2/3/2010 10:56 AM
|
|
| |
World Record Muskie Alliance question...