|
|
Location: 31 | World Record Muskie Alliance www.worldrecordmuskiealliance.com
Johnson Summary Report released to the public
Cal Johnson, 60 ¼” x 33 ½” 67lb. 8oz.
All Tackle Muskellunge Record / International Game Fish Association
Line Class Muskellunge Record / Freshwater Fishing Hall of Fame
Woodstock, Illinois 11-30-2009 — Attached is the link to World Record Muskie Alliance (WRMA) report on the All Tackle Muskellunge Record as currently acknowledged by the International Game Fish Association and Freshwater Fishing Hall of Fame.
The WRMA report questions the validity of Cal Johnson's 1949 World Record with scientific and circumstantial evidence. There will also be a brief summation of the photogrammetry portion of the report by Larry Ramsell appearing in the December issue of Muskie Inc. Magazine.
| |
| | |
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Thank god the MN musky season is over so we can get that much more perspective on this fresh topic. | |
| | |
Posts: 720
| This should be good. I can't wait to read how skewed this fish is. Let me guess. Not 60 1/4" but more likely some where in the neighborhood of 53 to 55 inches. Of course the girth was a little off say by at least 5 to 7 inches. | |
| | |
| Seriously, why is there a "world record muskie alliance"? There isn't a single person out there who knows which muskie is the actual record. Thats pretty sad. They should start with a clean slate. Same with the walleye record, bass, pike, etc, etc. No one knows which records are legit. | |
| | |
Location: 31 | Cannonball:
We may not know which one is the actual record, but we certainly know which one it is not.
I personally think the state of Wisconsin should be starting with a clean slate... or maybe Tom Gelb's. Ryan Dempsey's muskie might still be roaming around out there in Green Bay too. | |
| | |
Posts: 720
| "I personally think the state of Wisconsin should be starting with a clean slate... or maybe Tom Gelb's"
Written by Jerry Newman on 11/30/2009.
Its statements like that and others like it made by you and other folks at the WRMA that makes me look at your organization with raised eyebrows. While you Jerry are allowed your opinion the WRMA isn't. By virtue of the fact that the WRMA is suppose to be a unbias organization. While I would be inclined to agree with your statements about Gelb's fish and others. I think it is in the best interest of the WRMA for its founding members and board members to keep their personal opinions out of this picture. If for any reason to keep up the WRMA unbias image in tact. I don't know may be I'm wrong. | |
| | |
Posts: 8821
| I don't know, Dave. I think someone like Jerry CAN have a completely unbiased opinion. In fact, I would go as far as to say his opinion holds a little more weight than most, because it is likely based on a level of knowledge and insight that most of us do not have, and can likely be traced to actual scientific research, and actual data that can be verified. Now, it might not be a wise decision to voice those opinions publicly, but I would imagine that Jerry AND the WRMA really don't have an axe to grind when it comes to this. They're just out there looking for answers, and their research has likely lead them to a few. A biased opinion, to me, is one that is skewed by a desire to see a certain record verified or disproved; someone with an axe to grind so to speak. As far as I know, Jerry and the WRMA have no such vested interest in that. They, like many others, just want the "world record" to represent something that actually is legitimate. I presume Jerry is more qualified to comment on which fish are and aren't in the running than ANY of us are. | |
| | |
Posts: 720
| Jeff
I'm not saying that Jerry or anyone at the WRMA has an axe to grind at all. I just think that in order to keep that appearance of unbiasness you need to keep personal opinion away from a public forum. Does Jerry have more insight into these records. Absolutely, when we're talking in comparison to me. But as you know appearance is everything. I'm just thinking out loud and like I said " I don't know maybe I'm wrong". I think if you are looking for " the truth" I would not want to tarnish my hard work by throwing out opinions on anglers and fish that don't matter to the disscussion at hand.
I completely agree that the records are a mess and at best are poorly document and at worst an outright lie. What I do know is this. There are a lot of people smarter than I working on this and I appreciate their efforts greatly. But, sometimes its just better to leave well enough alone and let the work speak for itself. The WRMA has made a very solid case for eliminating Cal's fish from the record books. Why not just leave it at that. Instead of engaging someone who can't even login. That was really all I was trying to say.
| |
| | |
Location: 31 | Dave: thank you for your interest… and you are certainly politically correct. It was late (for me:), and I probably should've just went to bed instead of responding to an anonymous poster. Overall, I would hope that folks here are intelligent enough to separate my personal opinion from the facts contained in the Johnson Summary Report and it is not tarnished now.
I will retract my Tom Gelb reference and replace it with “the Wisconsin muskellunge record belongs in the low to mid 50 pound range based on our research”.
If anyone has any questions on the actual report, I will be more than happy to answer them here.
(Thanks Jeff)!
| |
| | |
Posts: 743
| the report is a great read. thanks Jerry and all the members of the WRMA for putting in the effort. I apprecaite all the work the WRMA has done. | |
| | |
Posts: 49
| Agreed, and handled well. I also think that this new report will stir up some interest.
I am also going to add that since my opinion means jack-squat anywhere, I'll throw Tom Gelb's name into the ring as the man to beat. Geez, he catches some big fish.......... 
JR | |
| | |
Posts: 2361
| Pretty tough to get tried, and all evidence provided by vested interests in your being guilty.
No defense experts because the man is dead and cannot defend himself or his accomplishments.
I don't see the need for the WRMA, nor their quest to both discredit the sport, and the anglers in its history. I view the current, past and long term goals of the WRMA to be a negative for musky fishing in the long run, and that becomes clearer as time goes on. Their game discourages me. This should have, and could have been avoided, but I don't think any of us were far sighted enough to see what the future might hold when all this was started.
I believe Louie's fish is still a king, and Johnson and Malo both have bigger muskies than anybody else in the world, and maybe the Lawton's too. | |
| | |
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Well, I don't have to be politically correct here.
The current 'records' are legend and lore much like the Gangster lore from that era up here in N WI is, and revisionist history has a tendency to strengthen 'lore' if it suits those who hold the power to allow argument for change to be heard. Too many examples to mention, and as a result of the manipulation of reality to fit an agenda, most are likely to offend or stir up some crap.
As story, legend, and lore, the 'records' are interesting and have value in context, but obviously are not up to examination when compared to many fish captured since that don't come close to the claimed weights from the stories yet are obviously as big....or bigger. The 'records' are not real, IMO, so we will agree to disagree there, and allow we all have the right to our opinions.
I see no attempt to discredit the sport, I see an attempt to find out how big muskies really DO grow....especially when they are claimed to be what the current records claim.
Avoided? How, by someone who feels this should not be looked into saying it should be so? I think not, those who ARE interested in this have every reason to be, and may be far more passionate about finding what is real than others are in leaving the lore and story alone, and the activity the WRMA undertakes doesn't require unanimous approval.
The nice thing about this little d democracy we have going is that this sort of debate should be expected, and should not be not the exception to the 'rule'.
| |
| | |
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | We need the WRMA. They don't discredit the sport, Louie and Dettloff did. Wrongs should be made right. The world record should be attainable, not a myth concocted by a known scofflaw. And in a fairness that the Hall hasn't shown, ALL possible records need to be looked at. | |
| | |
Location: Contrarian Island | I will throw my 2 cents in...I agree with SWorrall, I see no attempt to discredit the sport of musky fishing....basically to me they are a group that is passionate about knowing how big the old "records" really were..I think anyone who has been around a few 40 lb fish can easily see the Johnson fish was no where near what it was claimed to be...the pictures don't lie as proof by the research done in the report.....interesting read...sometimes the group might come across the wrong way to some but I'm glad someone took the time to shed light on the fact the old records we all thought were the mark to shoot for were simply not accurate....ok so what IS the true record in the eyes of the WRMA anyway, with so many fish being discredited it's confusing what fish really did weigh what it was claimed to weigh...
Edited by BNelson 12/1/2009 1:26 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 619
Location: Verona, WI | I plan on reading it this weekend if I get a chance but I am pretty skeptical of the WRMA. It has nothing to do with the results of their analysis because I am not an expert (and don't particularly care) but it has more to do with the behavior of some folks affiliated with the WRMA on another board during the timing of the Spray report. They came off as having a very specific agenda - maybe this time will be different.
For those worrying about revising history what the WRMA is doing is done ALL THE TIME on other historical topics. New evidence is found and past conclusions are revised.
Shane
Edited by ShaneW 12/1/2009 1:54 PM
| |
| | |
| firstsixfeet,
Because the man is dead doesn't mean there can't be any defense experts. Why doesn't someone come forth and try to defend this fish? If the man was alive I wouldn't want to be in his shoes at this point.
You say you believe this fish is one of the largest in the world. What is there about this fish that makes you believe it is as large as claimed?
| |
| | |
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Well spoken Mr. Worrall. I fully expect that the "you know what" WILL hit the fan in Hayward (and California). Blasphemy it must be...why,how in the world could the WRMA besmirch Calmer "Mr. Clean" Johnson like that? With the TRUTH, that's how!
I don't believe anyone who doesn't have their head in "that dark place" believes that either the Spray records or Johnson's record are legit. However, as you (Mr. Worrall) alluded to, "a result of the manipulation of reality to fit an agenda" is truly what has taken place here in Hayward right from the start! However, I believe the agenda's have changed here since the late 30's and 40's.
Personally, I believe Spray's "original" intent in 1939 was simply a matter of doing something to help generate business for his local "watering hole". Innocent enough, and muskie records weren't that big of a deal then anyway. What with the country coming out of a depression and beginning a World War, business was down. What better way to give it a shot in the arm than a new world record?
In 1940, Spray's ego likely took over and a short term record just didn't sit well with him and of course another record would generate a whole new round of business as well! So...
In 1949, Cal Johnson knew he was dying, had had a life-long love affair with Hayward and knew that after the World War, Hayward could use another shot in the "tourism" arm....So, he likely proceeded on that footing...morally wrong, but good for Hayward, So...
Louie's motive in 1949 was likely one more of "one upmanship" and to get himself (selfishly) back into the fray.
Since then, the "powers that be" in Hayward have used these gentlemen's bogus world records to drive tourism and SADLY, todays powers that be are continuing to do the same thing, EVEN THOUGH THEY KNOW BETTER!! And that my friends is a shame. It is doing a disservice to the muskie world and in the case of the Hall of Fame, they have degraded a world class record keeping program with their shannigan's and using selective criteria to disqualify some record fish and ignoring the same for the supposed locally caught "records".
Tom Gelb's fish was mentioned above. Whether it be Gelb's fish or another Wisconsin giant, the Spray and Johnson BOGUS records have been unfair to ALL anglers past and present, trying to best something that just did not exist!!
I'm glad this report has finally been made public. Perhaps now folks will understand and believe that the past should just be considered "historic" and record keepers should embrace a "fresh start" in Muskellunge record keeping.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell,
Muskellunge Historian | |
| | |
| Thank you Mr. Ramsell for such an infomative post. I feel you summed the whole thing up quite nicely. | |
| | |
Posts: 49
| I really enjoy the stories, legends, and lore of the sport.
To a point.
Steve, Larry.
High five.
JR | |
| | |
Posts: 2361
| Here is the problem. The muskies in question have been part of the myth, lore, legends and reality of the sport since record keeping began. There is in history a certain romance and reverence reserved for musky fishing that captures the hearts of fisherman throughout the midwest like no other game in town. True, not true, I eventually concluded that it doesn't matter to me. I love Louie's story about going out on the Flowage every day, chin whiskers charley, and on and on. I have seen too many pictures making small fish look big, and big fish look small, to ever get too involved about a picture. Is discreditting all these fish going to make fishing better? Nope, it is just going to diminish all musky fishing, and the public perception of the same. Here is the public message sent out. Musky fisherman lie about their fish, and over history they all lied=all musky fisherman lie about their fish, and muskies do not really get that big(discredits and diminishes the sport). The next thing that happens, fish that were caught and never went through any vetting process, are now AUTOMATICALLY discreditted by the same group. Fish that clearly are the top of the heap will also be kicked to the curb, ie the Malo fish(discredit THAT photo). Sworn affidavits overturned on the basis of photographic analysis which is at best questionable, since there is no defense rebuttal, is equivalent to slander of the dead, and they are also not here to defend themselves against these attacks. The whole thing is a lot easier now that all the interested parties besmirched by these claims, are dead and gone. I have no stake in Hayward or the Hall, but I can see their reluctance to overturn verified records OF THE DAY, and support them in that action. What happens 80 years down the line when it is discovered that Larry Ramsell was a musky heretic, and a giver of the secret handshake? Are they going to then further discredit the fish that the WRMA backs?
What is currently being done is to create a new myth, one where every oddity or unusual circumstance in stories that are already 1/2 century in the past, become #*^@ing evidence, when in reality they might have been easily explainable, had they been questioned during the day. It would BE better to seal the records of the first hundred years, and started a record book of the next hundred years, than to carry out this persecution of the old, VERIFIED record holders. That would have bowed to history without trying to rewrite it, and left the way open for more stringent standards coming after the "dark ages". I mean, what's a few pounds among "family" anyway?
Edited by firstsixfeet 12/1/2009 3:33 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 305
| interesting post...I've not read the report, nor pretend to even come close to the knowledge of many who've posted on this. I tend to be skeptical of the records in question, but would love to get a bottom line, one sentence answer to the following question from those who've also posted as skeptical: What is the current world record muskie? | |
| | |
| "I have seen seen too many pictures making small fish look big and big fish look small, to ever get too involved with a picture."
Small fish ONLY look big when they are held out a considerable distance from the person holding it. If they are held in close, they will look small like they really are.
If a fish is truly big, there is no reason to try and make it look bigger. It would be very difficult to even hold a truly large fish very far out.
Mr. Johnson's fish is being held well out in front of Mr. Johnson in ALL the available photos. Same with Mr. Spray's fish. If these fish were held in close, they would appear much smaller.
These fish were also being held vertically so it is very easy to determine how wide they are in relationship to their length. This makes a girth assessment relatively easy.
The WRMA didn't determine the length of these fish. This was done by a professional photogrammetrist. These people are more than capable of determining the actual length of a vertically held fish.
Just because you are fooled by these photos, don't try to claim a professional can be also.
| |
| | |
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | FSF, I know what you are saying, and agree to a point...BUT:
The WRMA didn't start this process. John Detloff did. he made sure the New York records fell, IMHO without anywhere NEAR as much evidence as the WRMA has put to independent examination. All of a sudden, the Wisconsin State record was the WORLD record. Then he wrote a book about the World record...from his home town; where he owns a resort, and joined in publicizing results before the CFMS data (another story indeed) was even beginning to get past rudimentary stages of collection in what appeared to me to be another attempt to make Hayward Muskie angling appear magical....or something. Any questions as to why the Wisconsin 'record' fish were not afforded the same scrutiny was met with incredulity by the Hall, also, unbelievably, located in Hayward of which this fellow was an officer, which I found nothing short of very...very odd.
If the old records had been considered as lore and left to be, I guess I'd not much care other than to point out the obvious now and again. But this one was egregious in my view, and I support the WRMA's attempts to get to the accurate end of all this. | |
| | |
Posts: 8821
| Myth, lore and legend are wonderful things.
Let's not confuse them with actual verifiable truths, though.
In my opinion, the best way possible to "diminish" muskie fishing is to hold fast to a record or records that are not legitimate, giving anglers across the midwest the perception that muskie fishing is not now, nor will it EVER be as good as it was decades ago, when clearly that is NOT the case. | |
| | |
Posts: 720
| Let me make this very clear I don't have a problem with the WMRA looking into these past fish. What I do have a huge problem with are statements like these:"I personally think the state of Wisconsin should be starting with a clean slate... or maybe Tom Gelb's. Ryan Dempsey's muskie might still be roaming around out there in Green Bay too." Jerry Newman written on 11/30/2009
There is also this one from Larry Ramsell "I fully expect that the "you know what" WILL hit the fan in Hayward (and California). Blasphemy it must be...why,how in the world could the WRMA besmirch Calmer "Mr. Clean" Johnson like that? With the TRUTH, that's how!" Written on 12/01/2009.
In 1949, Cal Johnson knew he was dying, had had a life-long love affair with Hayward and knew that after the World War, Hayward could use another shot in the "tourism" arm....So, he likely proceeded on that footing...morally wrong, but good for Hayward, So... also written on 12/01/2009.
Two of the three statements are opinions based on conjecture the third is just a complete unsolistied opinion. None of them have anything to do with the science of the report. Nobody can truly say what another person has going through their head. Even if they are dying Larry. Why can you guys just leave well enough alone. You presented a very strong case for the elimination of both Spray's and Johnson's fish. But you just can't keep from throwing your own 2 cents in. Why is that?
| |
| | |
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Perhaps their opinions are their own, just like yours are. Notice these comments are posted here, personally by each. I fail to see any issue here, 4, perhaps both gentlemen feel their opinions are supported by the report. And, Jerry explained and retracted that statement anyway...please read all the posts | |
| | |
Posts: 20245
Location: oswego, il | Dave, some of those statements are from the previous experience between the WRMA and the hall. You can bet they will try and influence the IFGA as well if they already have not. Based on past experience, this will not pass without a fight from the hall.
Those past records will always be lore and legend. Huge fish but not records. I would like to see right being right. If you take one down(lawton's fish) it's only right to take them all down and for those who think nothing else should be done, never address that arguement. | |
| | |
| Bias.
Ahhh, yes.
I have to kinda shudder when I hear this word. As a journalist, it is what grounds us, it is what we live by and adhere to. At least we're supposed to.
Let's be real: The reason an organization was founded like the WRMA was, is because there was doubt about record fish..........call it bias if you want to. Opinion.
However at a certain point, opinion, when backed by facts, negates bias.
My point is that this "panel" who makes up the WRMA was hardly w/o bias. Its not like some neutral higher authority brainstormed one day and randomly picked people out of the blue to bring truth to our sport. They had opinions, and likeminded people gathered with an agenda. But these people with "bias," also had facts with which they formed their opinions.
I wish them luck. I just hope that what comes of this isn't like Buckmasters in the deer hunting world, in which a new record keeping organization/system is formed.....one which nobody seems to care much about.
So Cal's out, eh? I've kinda lost track, how big exactly was the Rob Malo fish?
-Eric
| |
| | |
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | First six...:
A lot of what you say I fully agree with (for a change). I grew up with these records and personally knew many of those folks and hate it worst than anyone...in the first edition of my "Compendium" I went to all possible lengths to support these fish, not discredit them. But when John Dettloff couldn't leave well enough alone, the lid was off the bottle...and talk about BIAS. Mr. Worrall covered that nicely.
Your statement: " I have no stake in Hayward or the Hall, but I can see their reluctance to overturn verified records OF THE DAY, and support them in that action." is a bit misguided, as it is the Hall that disqualified the Lawton fish (IGFA did NOT and NY still recognizes it as their state record) and THEN, the HALL, under the Presidential direction of Mr. Dettloff used all manner of trickery and total ignoring of the facts to uphold the Spray record...most egregious of which was total sweeping under the rug of the "siloutte comparison" which Mr. Dettloff used strongly to get Lawton disqualified, so NO, the Hall has NOT been reluctant to overturn THE LARGEST all-tackle record ever "verified", they just drew the line when it came to the local hero Louie...a sham of mammoth proportions indeed!!!
Hunter4:
You are correct about "conjecture", but my purpose was to give one possible explanation of "why" BOGUS record claims were made AND to show how the current regime is STILL using 60 year old LIES to drive local tourism...even when they know better....with the Hall of Fame, its current Director and Past President leading the charge. Sham indeed.
As for being unable to resist throwing in my 2 cents worth, call it frustration. I've had to sit by and watch the Hall destroy a credible world record program that I spent many thousands of hours developing and the press has let them get away with it. Since the press refuses to take them to task, being a "record keeping entity" they get to determine what THEY want the world record to be...the LOCALLY CAUGHT fish (well not actually, at least in Spray's case...I've talked to one of the poachers who provided two of his record fish) of Spray and Johnson. Dettloff used every trick he could find to get the job done and, so far, has succeeded (if you doubt this is true, read Vol. I of my 3rd Edition Compendium or the article therefrom in the MuskieFirst archives). He was about as subtle as a bull in a china shop with his underlying agenda!
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell,
Muskellunge Historian
Edited by Larry Ramsell 12/2/2009 11:01 AM
| |
| | |
| First of all, growing up with these records does not mean a person should go to all possible lengths to support them. As you can clearly see you were supporting records you now know are bogus. In my opinion, what John Dettloff did should have been done far sooner by someone who was not bias.
As far as I'm concerned, the silhouette comparison made by Dettloff easily showed the Lawton record to be bogus and it should have been disqualified by the IGFA just as Johnson's should have been. The fact is the Lawton record is no longer recognized by the IGFA and rightly so. The real crime is that the IGFA still recognizes Johnson as their record holder even after professional photogrammetric evaluation. This along with a similar silhouette comparison makes the IGFA look even worse than the NFWFHF.
| |
| | |
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Guest,
Dettloff was interested in disqualifying the Lawton fish, and apparently has no intention of indicating anything negative at all about the Wisconsin fish; in fact he has staunchly supported the current records in place. | |
| | |
| Bnelson’s question : “ok so what IS the true record in the eyes of the WRMA anyway, with so many fish being discredited it's confusing what fish really did weigh what it was claimed to weigh...”
Answer: This fish--- http://www.lakelandtimes.com/main.asp?SectionID=13&SubSectionID=13&...
Rita's fish. | |
| | |
| Were Malo's and Ken Obriens fish shot down too? | |
| | |
| The Lawton fish needs to stay as NY State Record.The last thing we need now is all the big muskies being caught & released on the St. "Larry" to start being killed in the future,as each person moves up a lb or two above what ever new record size they replace it with. | |
| | |
| I'm well aware of what Dettloff's intentions were and I'm not trying to defend him. He clearly has shown a double standard and because of that I have lost all respect for him. However, I do feel he did a good job of showing the Lawton fish was not as large as claimed. Why do you think the IGFA no longer recognizes this fish as their record? I just wish it would have been done by some other person that wasn't bias.
What bothers me is that everything always seems to go back to the NFWFHF. At this point we should be more concerned with how the IGFA is treating the WRMA's Johnson challenge. This has NOTHING to do with Dettloff or the NFWFHF. How the IGFA treated the Johnson challenge is WORSE than how the NFWFHF treated the Spray challenge!
| |
| | |
Posts: 378
Location: Michigan | I personally commend WRMA, and all of its members. I think the forensics work is thorough, evaluated with today’s science, and presented very professionally in a fact based manner. I would seem that some of these “records” really could be eliminated based on photos and very basic information. Yet WRMA goes in to just unimaginable detail looking at virtually every possible perspective.
Slowly, but surely I believe WRMA is crossing off the “unobtainium” fish…
Thanks!
| |
| | |
| This thread is supposed to be about the IGFA's decision on whether or not to remove the Johnson fish from record status. It has nothing to do with the New York record so why is this even brought up? Also, why is anyone concerned about which fish the WRMA considers the world record?
Why don't we hear any opinions on the IGFA's decision? Why doesn't anyone try defend the reported size of Johnson's fish?
| |
| | |
Posts: 8821
| Guest - 12/2/2009 8:00 PM
[...]
Why doesn't anyone try defend the reported size of Johnson's fish?
because it was obviously bull#*#*? | |
| | |
| Seems funny when the Spray challenge was made MANY people attempted to defend it and these same people are not attempting to do so with Johnson. Any idea why? | |
| | |
Posts: 20245
Location: oswego, il | Some are but the IFGA's quick refusal to consider has them not needing to.
Can anybody actually look at Johnson's mount and not see it's a fake?
Looks like there isn't a credible record keeping agency.
| |
| | |
Posts: 720
| Todd,
Maybe we should use Larry's Muskie Inc. endorsed agency. | |
| | |
| Some are but they don't need to? I would think they would still have to mount some type of a defense as the IGFA certainly didn't make a case for it. What really matters here is how the majority of the people feel about the size of the fish, not how the IGFA ruled on it. How do you think people will feel about an organization that didn't even address the entire report? | |
| | |
Posts: 20245
Location: oswego, il | Guest, about the same as people feel about the hall and the way they dealt with the WRMA report. This one went quickly, the less they discuss it, the quicker it blows over. To be honest if the hall and their friends were going to debate this to nauseum it would already be posted and discussed(derailed) on another site where they post frequently and they are not.
Dave, I agree, that is the only viable organazation at this point.
I would for grins submit the Spray report to the IFGA to see if they would change their reason as to why they do not recognize his fish.
Edited by ToddM 12/2/2009 10:21 PM
| |
| | |
| Todd,
The fact is the "Hall" and their friends tried desparately to prove Spray's fish was legitimate to get everyone to continue believing in it. This isn't being done with Johnson.
These things NEVER blow over. Right now very few people believe in the Spray record even though the "Hall" upheld it. NOBODY attempting to defend the size of Johnson's fish is an open admission to the public that the fish is bogus.
Regardless of the IGFA's ruling, you would think people would try to find fault with the WRMA report just for the sake of getting people to continue believing in the claimed size of Johnson's fish. | |
| | |
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Guest - 12/3/2009 10:52 AM
Right now very few people believe in the Spray record even though the "Hall" upheld it.
I would change this statement to very few people in the core musky areas believe it. Outside of WI/MN/IL and some other smaller areas (NY, IA, KY), people really don't have a clue about the Spray deal. They see the record as a number and believe it as fact. Many of them don't even know there is a controversy. | |
| | |
| I think perhaps Jerry et. al. at WRMA missed the boat five years ago. What they should have done originally was perform their analysis on Art's fish FIRST, submit it to the Hall and IFGA so they came to an agreement on the method they were using. So then when they submitted their reports for Louie and Cal's fish, it would give them a firmer ground to stand upon given they may have found common ground on a previously disqualified fish by both organizations. But they didn't and now they are now 0-2. Now since there isn't any more 'record' fish to protest, what is the organizations goal, establish their own list? And if they are reviewing one fish every four years how long will that take?
I truly believe there is a 70lb. fish swimming out there waiting to be caught. It could be in WI, MN, NY or Canada. Whether the record record is 69-15, 69-11, 67-8, 66 or 65... it really doesn't matter.... In my mind, anything over 70 is "the one".
And when that crappie fisherman finally does catch that fish, We can all have a nice bonfire with these WR reports! | |
| | |
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | Pointerpride102 - 12/3/2009 12:13 PM Guest - 12/3/2009 10:52 AM Right now very few people believe in the Spray record even though the "Hall" upheld it. I would change this statement to very few people in the core musky areas believe it. Outside of WI/MN/IL and some other smaller areas (NY, IA, KY ), people really don't have a clue about the Spray deal. They see the record as a number and believe it as fact. Many of them don't even know there is a controversy. Until there is pressure put on the hall or IGFA from bigger magazines and larger organizations nothing is going to change. That doesn't mean you/we can't do something. I've already e-mailed Jason Schratwieser - [email protected] I'm sure he would welcome a few hundred other e-mails!
Edited by Will Schultz 12/3/2009 11:26 AM
| |
| | |
| Why would the WRMA perform an analysis on a fish that wasn't even recognized as a record by either record keeping organization five years ago?
Nobody "missed the boat" here. The IGFA was presented with more than enough evidence to disqualify Johnson's fish. To say otherwise is ludicrous! | |
| | |
| Guest,
Each organization (Hall and IFGA) refuted the report based on whatever motives or lack of belief in the science used. I think that if they would have analzyed Art's fish in the same manner and came up with a 55"ish solution, then I think both organizations might have been a BIT more receptive to the analysis used on Louis & Cal's fish.
Its about starting from a position of strength and agreement to argue your point.
No kidding Art's fish wasn't on the books five years ago. But both organizations tossed Art's record. So if you go to that organization and say, "Why yes, we agree with your earlier decision and OUR scientific analysis SUPPORTS THAT particular decision... and oh by the way..."
If personally think that would have been a better approach and would have given the decision makers a bit more difficulty in upholding their decisions.
| |
| | |
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Buckman,
The WRMA's website clearly describes the organizational structure and goals. The link is in this thread. Keep in mind, the WRMA has not had any cooperation whatsoever from the Hayward hall, and shouldn't expect any. The Hall could care less what methods were used or their efficacy, and it appears the IGFA stand is the same on the Johnson fish for whatever reasons. The Hall (Mr. Dettloff) acted unilaterally to remove the Lawton fish, and there was no intent to work with the Muskie community or any other organization I am familiar with during or after that process. | |
| | |
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Good points by Mr. Worrall. I hope Jerry Newman will forgive me the following, as it is getting away a bit from the original intent of his post, but since this thread has "branched out" to include other records, I thought some additional information of the whole picture would help all to understand just what has transpired behind the scenes the past year or so and is in addition to information in my "Compendium". It may be a bit disjointed in some respects as it gets in to the matters somewhat in the middle, but it contains many salient points that I thought were pertinent, ultimately, to the Johnson report and IGFA's handling of it as well as the way they have treated Lawton's record, legitimate or not. My MAIN sources of annoyment in these matters is the way BOTH record keeping organizations have handled record protests...NEITHER have been consistent!! It is my contention that they cannot have it both ways...either treat them all equally; leave them alone or make all past record catches "HISTORICAL" and leave it at that and start anew.
Following is a couple of email exchanges I had with IGFA's Jason Schratweiser (with copies to IGFA President Rob Kramer) in February 2008 and March of 2009:
Re the Lawton record:
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 15:03:34 -0500
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
CC: [email protected]
Larry,
As I said after the records committee review of this case, the burden of proof lies with the angler. Unfortunately, we don’t have enough information or the ability to query the angler to feel secure about reinstating it as a record.
Jason Schratweiser
Jason:
Forgive me for being blunt, but that is simply a cop out. The angler met his burden with Field & Stream, whom the IGFA inherited the record from. No further burden should be required just because a misguided young man with his "tourism hat" on decided to get Lawton's record disqualified (which he didn't with IGFA). It just simply isn't right. As I have said repeatedly, the IGFA has no "valid" reason to keep the Lawton record in set-aside status...NONE. You and your predessors have stated that the Dettloff investigation was not accepted. How then can you "pick and choose" this "photo" aspect to keep it in set-aside status. Either you accept his investigation or you don't (which is what has been repeatedly indicated-you don't). To continue to use this excuse, I believe, is unacceptable.
The Hall of Fame has a black eye in the muskie world for upholding the Spray record with far less evidence and no living witnesses while dismissing Lawton's record with five living witnesses at the time. They can't have it both ways.
Please don't put IGFA in a similar category by clinging to a reason that has no merit regarding the Lawton photograph. Field & Steam certified it...period. Burden of proof met. Put it back as you did with the smallmouth bass record, the right thing to do. OR at the very least, retire the Johnson record and return the AT record to IGFA certified Ken O'Brien. Johnson should have never been put in in the first place!
Sincerly,
Larry Ramsell
Gentlemen:
After I “penned” my five hour earlier response to you two, I again had trouble sleeping and a flood gate of memories came open. And since they are “related” to the Lawton scenario, I felt they should be communicated to you in order to give you a more complete understanding of what transpired in 1992.
Since in 1992 (and 2006) the IGFA conceded that the Dettloff “Lawton Investigation” was insufficient to disqualify the Lawton record, one can now only assume that the Dettloff “hysterics” of 1992, communicated by a cumbersome report, that precious few people got to see all of and be overwhelmed by, was enough for the IGFA to “use” the photographic part of to unjustly warrant the Lawton record being put in “set-aside” status and therefore avoid the obvious controversy that would follow. This is a logical conclusion, especially since Chicago Tribune outdoor writer (the late) John Husar was heavily involved at the time and fighting Dettloff and the Hall’s shenanigan’s and encouraging the IGFA not to buy into it. That “set-aside” worked and the IGFA was able to avoid the ensuing two-year fracas.
John Dettloff then, after a constant barrage of phone calls and letters to Elwood Harry and Mike Leach (he regretfully enlisted my help during my “duped by Dettloff stage”) was unable to get the IGFA to replace the Lawton record with his “hero” Louie Spray. So he did the next best thing for himself and Hayward…he got the IGFA to replace the then in place Ken O’Brien IGFA all-tackle muskellunge record (Lawton’s replacement) with another of his hero’s, Cal Johnson and his Hayward caught muskie, which subsequently became and is the current IGFA all-tackle muskellunge record.
This gentlemen, is what caused me yet another short nights fitful sleep. In retrospect, it would appear that in order to quiet the Dettloff “squeaking wheel” the IGFA replaced O’Brien’s fish with Johnson’s, despite the FACT Johnson’s fish was never certified to world record standards by Field & Stream! In fact, there was not even a F&S contest application for Johnson’s fish available for the IGFA to review, so I hardly think it met the then or now “current” IGFA rules for record criteria!
In addition, as I am sure you know, professional photogrammetric analysis commissioned by the World Record Muskie Alliance (WRMA) has shown that Johnson’s fish was over 8 inches short of claim and obvious alterations to the still existing mount are obvious to the trained eye, and in fact was pointed out to me by one of north America’s most noted muskellunge taxidermists.
I am aware that the WRMA is in process of assembling a valid protest to the IGFA against the Johnson record, so like it or not, the IGFA will become embroiled in the muskie controversy once again.
Mr. Dettloff has created a “cottage industry” of books, seminars, postcards and tourism promotion in support of Louie Spray and is currently working on a book about Cal Johnson that will further his monetary gain as a result of his “selective muskie history revisionism”! In the latter respect, the IGFA has inadvertently assisted that endeavor.
Again, please forgive my persistence, but this has been eating at me for quite some time and it is an “itch” that needs scratched. THANK YOU for your patience and understanding.
Sincerely,
Larry Ramsell,
Muskellunge Historian
Muskellunge record? (after IGFA rejected the WRMA report)
From: Larry Ramsell ([email protected])
Sent: Fri 3/13/09 3:33 PM
To: Jason (IGFA) Schratwieser ([email protected])
Cc: Rob Kramer ([email protected])
Bcc: Jerry Newman ([email protected])
Jason:
Forgive my saying so, but I believe the following two quotes from you regarding the Johnson muskellunge record puts the IGFA in a hypocritical situation:
“Our main rationale for not agreeing with your report’s results is we do not believe that you can accurately determine the weight of a three dimensional object, such as a fish, from two dimensional picture. ..”
“”The committee determined that there should not be any change to the All-Tackle muskellunge record. This was in turn ratified by our full board of trustees. In short, they did not feel that the fish’s weight could accurately be refuted with the methodology presented in the report…”
If these two quotes are indeed the case, then why was not this same logic applied to the Lawton record?
While indeed you can do as you please, please remember you are "keeping" records for the entire world and not just a "club". Personally I do not believe you can/should have it both ways. Either these quotes apply to both records or they don't.
I realize you likely are wishing to remain out of the muskellunge record "fray", but right is right. The Lawton record should be reinstated if you truly believe those quotes.
If nothing else, make the muskellunge all-tackle category vacant and place all past captures in a "historical" category. I'd set the bar for a replacement record at 60-pounds minimum. Time to do something right for the world's muskellunge anglers!
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Muskellunge Historian
Edited by Larry Ramsell 12/3/2009 1:43 PM
| |
| | |
| Steve,
I'm fully aware of WRMA and the record controversies... probably moreso than I'd like to admit :).
I was just stating that if I (emphasis on I) was to take on an endeavor like WRMA, I would have taken a different tack is all. And one of those things would have been to test my method on the previously discredited record.
But when it is all boiled down, this is a pretty ridiculous argument. Whether the record is 69-15, or 69-11 (FOUR OUNCES). Or 69-11 or 67-8 (THRITY FIVE OUNCES). Or 67-8 or 65 (THIRTY TWO OUNCES)... I mean come'on, we are talking 3/4/5 pounds here. Thats one meal for a musky of that category.
To me the magic number is 70Lbs. Thats the sound barrier, four minute mile what have you for this sport. Anything in the 60's is just thrown into the mess (as if a 60lb fish is a drop in the bucket  ). 70lbs. is unique... of course unless you believe the Malo fish.
But in hindsight, I was however looking for a bit more analysis of the JOHNSON MOUNT in addition to the photos. I mean, that is ultimately the elephant in the room (or musky in the bar!). Okay fine, you say the scientific analysis of the photo supports a 50" (possibly 40lb.) fish. Thats great. But what about the mount. Does the photo analysis automatically prove that the fish in the bar is fake? I don't know. Perhaps they are different fish, perhaps not. Is the head on the mount of that 60" fish in the Moccassin bar that from a 40lb. fish or is it proportional to a 60" fish? I know all the theories of stretching skin, dropping sides, moving fins et. al., so save your breath there. But if the size of the fish's jaws/head/mouth are somewhat proportional to the size of the fish, can't we at least do an anlaysis of the mount?
I could really care less if that fish was caught or not, to me the intriguing part of the story is IF fish of that size are swimming around munching on little fishies.
| |
| | |
| And just for the record, I support Larry's opinion that all records should be treated equally. Historic musky catches should have been left as they were, apart of our history, the musky mystique if you will.
Just make it 69-15 and give the guy the gold medal if they crack 70. | |
| | |
Posts: 720
| Steve, Larry and Jerry
I have three questions:
1. What is the size of the worlds largest musky?
2. Who caught it?
3. Finally, where was it caught?
I read somewhere in this post that Jerry Newman wrote "We may not know which one is the actual record, but we certainly know which one it is not". I truly don't believe that statement as a whole. I think and if I'm wrong I apologize each of you three have a strong personnal feeling as whose fish should be the world record holder. I've personally asked this question to two of the three of you and will be real curious to see if your answers have changed.
Edited by Hunter4 12/3/2009 2:05 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Far as I can remember, you haven't asked me, and if I did have any opinion it would be irrelevant any way. I don't have a candidate in mind at this time and none of the other folks involved in the WRMA have expressed any ideas to me on that front...the goal of getting a true bead on the facts surrounding length, girth, and weight claims for the current records had to be accomplished to settle any possible discrepancies positive or negative, but I do personally feel the legitimate World Record will be in the 60 pound class when and if all the dust settles.
Most importantly, I do not feel it has ever been 'up to' (or the intent of) the WRMA to 'select' a WR, that responsibility belongs to (as it should) the Hall and the IGFA. I sincerely hope both will eventually take that responsibility seriously. | |
| | |
| "Most importantly, I do not feel it has ever been 'up to' (or the intent of) the WRMA to 'select' a WR, that responsibility belongs to (as it should) the Hall and the IGFA. I sincerely hope both will eventually take that responsibility seriously."
Then the matter is settled right, 69-11 and 67-8? They've both made their decision, whether we agree or not, correct?
I guess my main question with WRMA is this. Do they accept Dettloff's anlaysis that all of Art and Ruth's catchs that fell in the 65-69lb. range were falsified? If the verification process of WRMA ends at O'brien, then I think its an incomplete process on their part. Outside of Art's 69-15 fish, what of Art's 65-13 and maybe more importantly Ruth's 68-5, both bigger than Ken's fish? I just find it a bit odd that WRMA, who seem to hold their world record analysis to a higher standard than Detloff's, appear to accept his analysis on three fish that could very well be the record (the aforementioned fish attributed to Art & Ruth).
Larry has done quite a bit of research on the 69-15 fish, and has numerous photo's, I would think that one would be a slam dunk for them to review.
JMHO... FWIW | |
| | |
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | Larry, I'm glad you mentioned your "duped by Dettloff" phase, as I recall you were very proactive in dismissing Eli Singer's research on the hoax. I only hope Mr. Dettloff and Mr. Schratwieser will change their minds as well (I doubt Dettloff will).
Now I'd like to see a Singer vs. Ramsell debate on the Johnson fish. I think it should be you who changes Eli's mind on that one! | |
| | |
Posts: 720
| Thanks Steve,
Your right you and I have never talked about this. I do appreciate your answer. I'm not really looking to pin anyone down here. I just was curious to hear your opinion on the matter. As well as Jerry's and Larry's. I just think it would be real cool to get the three of "youse" take on the subject again. | |
| | |
| BuckMan, you state "I just find it a bit odd that WRMA, who seem to hold their world record analysis to a higher standard than Detloff's" Are you suggesting the Detloff's photographic analysis was completed to as high a standard as the WRMA photogrammetric analysis? | |
| | |
| "BuckMan, you state "I just find it a bit odd that WRMA, who seem to hold their world record analysis to a higher standard than Detloff's" Are you suggesting the Detloff's photographic analysis was completed to as high a standard as the WRMA photogrammetric analysis?"
No, thats not what I had implied. In my opinion (and this is just MY opinion)... it appears that by WRMA going to the extra length to contract an independent photogrammetric analysis seems to have set a higher standard than that applied by Detloff's initial review, which I'm pretty sure did not include an independent photo analysis.
I don't know if it was ever EXPLICITLY stated in WRMA's reports, but the IMPLICIT message was WRMA's analysis were of a higher standard. It was almost as if the message was, "You overturned Lawton based X, there is no reason to retain Louis/Cal based on Y".
So again my question to WRMA is, why not apply your methods to three fish that COULD be the world record? If their analysis detemines that Detloff was correct, then HEY, hell freezes over and the two sides find agreement that the Lawton fish were smaller than claimed. If not, then the true WR may be revealed.... which I thought was the real goal of the project.
If Ken's fish is validated by WRMA w/o the same methods applied to Lawton, then I think the project is incomplete... in my humble opinioin... nothing more, nothing less. | |
| | |
| BuckMan - 10-4. I see now. Good point. | |
| | |
Posts: 126
| Pointerpride102 - 12/3/2009 11:13 AM
Guest - 12/3/2009 10:52 AM
Right now very few people believe in the Spray record even though the "Hall" upheld it.
I would change this statement to very few people in the core musky areas believe it. Outside of WI/MN/IL and some other smaller areas (NY, IA, KY ), people really don't have a clue about the Spray deal. They see the record as a number and believe it as fact. Many of them don't even know there is a controversy.
PP,
You might want to recant on that one. I an not from your "core" area and I for one don't believe there is a chance in he!! that the Spray fish has a snowball's chance of being real, neither is Johnson's fish.
There are just as many of the die hard Yanks that believe that Spray's fish is legit, and no matter what evidence or use of common sense, they will never be swayed other wise.
| |
| | |
Posts: 20245
Location: oswego, il | Guest, I have had a good look at the mount. The body ramps up on the back from the head and is a 33" tube(summertime girth!) if you will to untill it reaches the dorsal. The dorsal drops down at a very odd angle to make it to the tail. From the dorsal to the tail looks short in comparison to the body length to me.
Also, the burden was on the hall to disprove the WRMA report for the Spray fish which they did. I can only speculate why the ifga did not wish to consider the reoprt. You are right, noone is defneding the Jouhnson fish, for the very reasons you stated, that is why they are mum hoping this discussion blows over.
it is too bad they will not let anyone examine it. They claim the mount will be ruined but all you would need is a small camera to look at the backside of the fish.
Edited by ToddM 12/3/2009 8:31 PM
| |
| | |
| Buckman,
There is absolutely no need for any type of photogrammetric analysis being done on Art Lawton's fish. All a person has to do is look at the silhouette comparison in the Johnson report and imagine the person holding the cardboard mock up being an inch shorter, and the mock up four and a half inches longer and you have all the evidence you need that Lawton's fish is bogus.
Larry Ramsell has previously stated that this evidence is "incontrovertible" and I fully agree. It is an absolute crime that Larry is attempting to get this fish reinstated. Knowing a fish is bad and wanting it reinstated is about as low as you can go.
L.R.: "I don't believe anyone who doesn't have their head in "that dark place" believes that either the Spray records or Johnson's record are legit."
He should have included Art Lawton in that sentence. | |
| | |
Location: 31 | Buckman:
I completely disagree with your argument for the analysis and/or reinstatement of Lawton. The WRMA did an in-house review of Lawton and determined there was no reason to spend the money or time. Other than New York, it is not a sanctioned record and we agreed with the evidence presented, and conclusions of both record-keeping organizations. Before the WRMA was formed, we sought the advice of Brad Latvaitis and Larry Ramsell and they did not mention doing Lawton first and we can see no justification in doing it now. You complain about the length of time the WRMA has spent on these projects. I would hope you could agree that an inordinate amount of time was spent dealing with the FWFHoF and IGFA's arrogance.
As far as the WRMA doing a full-blown time-consuming and expensive Lawton analysis, take a good look at the silhouette comparison in the Cal Johnson summary report. The WRMA subject is 5'9" holding a 60" silhouette, now compare it to the photographs of 5'8" Lawton supposedly holding a 64 1/2" fish. You might be able convince your self that further analysis is warranted to determine if that is a 64 ½" fish, the WRMA does not. There is no missing photograph as Lawton endorsed the common photograph himself in countless magazines and books.
Can Lawton pass a "common sense" litmus test?
6-60 pounders claimed by the Lawton's fishing in their spare time when nobody else could even catch one on the river.
Len Hartman (who admitted loading fish) could not beat Lawton in the Field & Stream contest.
Harman indicted Lawton in his bedside confession.
Ruth Lawton falsely claimed a 68 lb. muskie that was supposedly as long as she is tall.
Enormous issues with the Lawton weigh in procedure. (Too numerous to mention here, start another thread and I will debate this with you if you like).
I disagree with your 0 for 2 reasoning in that our reports failed, we can only do our job, it was up to FWFHoF and IGFA to do their job. They are the ones that are 0 for 2, and obviously failed. It is my opinion that inevitably something will happen down the road because the WRMA reports are so powerful. Whether you agree with the purpose of the WRMA or not, the research voluntarily delivered to the muskie community is sound.
We explicitly state on our website what our goals are and that we will be holding O'Brien to the same standard.
| |
| | |
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | "Guest":
While I don't normally respond to someone who is afraid to put their name on their posts, I shall in the case of this:
"Larry Ramsell has previously stated that this evidence is "incontrovertible" and I fully agree. It is an absolute crime that Larry is attempting to get this fish reinstated. Knowing a fish is bad and wanting it reinstated is about as low as you can go."
Guest you misintrepret my intent. All the old records are "historical" and as such should all be treated the same and fairly IF AT ALL....the Hall and IGFA haven't and it is an afront to muskie anglers everywhere. Since the Hall and IGFA sees fit to uphold the bogus Spray and Johnson records, they should do likewise with the Lawton record! Fair is fair. If you will read the last comment of mine to IGFA above, I suggested that they at least make the Muskellunge category OPEN and start over with a 60 pound minimum to prevent the unnessary killing of many large muskies or reinstate the O'brien fish which both organizations recognize.
The "historical" records will always be that, historical. So, let's call them that. MOST in the muskie world don't believe or RECOGNIZE the records from the 30's, 40's and 50's anyway, so why not call them what they are and go with a consensus record all can support and believe in or start over? | |
| | |
Posts: 720
| I'm still hoping for an answer from Larry and Jerry to my last question. I appreciated Steve's response. Look forward to yours Larry and Jerry. | |
| | |
| Larry,
When you were shown the cardboard mock up of Spray's fish you said that evidence was incontrovertible, plain and simple. Don't try to weasel out of this. I read the Spray report. You should not want a record you know is bogus reinstated under ANY circumstances. Calling a record "historical" is a joke. If its proven bad it should go down as a lie, not something that is to be cherished.
What you should be doing is getting behind the WRMA with Johnson and agreeing with the IGFA's decision on Lawton. The IGFA did the right thing and you know it. Dettloff was right about Lawton...Get over it!!! | |
| | |
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Hunter4:
You ask:
"1. What is the size of the worlds largest musky?
2. Who caught it?
3. Finally, where was it caught?"
Not sure if/when we talked or what I told you then (when?). If some time ago, things may have changed in my mind, maybe not. I think my last post pretty much clarifies my "historical" postition re the mid 20th century fish that have been challenged either by John Dettloff or the WRMA. That leaves only a handful (or less) of others over 60 pounds in the verified historical list that have yet to be scruitnized, albit all weighing less than the more recent Ken O'Brien fish. The most recent of all is Martin Williamson's 61-4 in 2000. Ken O'Brien's 65-0 was caught in 1988. To my knowledge, Williamson's fish was never sanctioned by any record keeping organization. O'Brien's fish was sanctioned by BOTH the IGFA (and was their all-tackle record for a short time and is still a line class record) and the Hall (and is their power trolling record currently).
So, to answer your questions, at this point I have to go with Ken O'Brien's 65-pounder caught from the Moon River, Ontario in October of 1988. | |
| | |
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | "Guest":
You should be venting your frustration at the IGFA and the Hall, not me. I fully agree with the WRMA that the Johnson fish is bad, have said so and have made that clear to the IGFA as well. What is it that you don't understand about treating ALL historical records the same and fairly??? My POINT, again, is that the record keepers cannot pick and choose which fish THEY want as the record. Leave them all in or take them all out...fairly simple concept and one you do not seem to grasp.
You cannot CHANGE history. That several fish were bogus is true, but for over a half-century they were recognized as world records. Doesn't make it right, just a fact...a "historical" fact. | |
| | |
Location: 31 | Dave:
Larry's response is the obvious logical choice. The WRMA will be holding O'Brien to the same standard.
I do think that it is a bit of a revelation that our research conclusively proves that the largest verifiable size of any muskellunge in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan is that they top out at 55 pounds. Are larger fish possible... of course, but nothing over 55 pounds is verified yet and please do not consider this an endorsement to kill a muskie.
Getting back to what the official Wisconsin state record "should" be, I was just doing some research and stumbled across this neat little article that was obviously lost within the Spray and Johnson "mystique"of yesteryear.
Without question, "lovely" Rita Hildebrandt's 52 ½ pounder should be one of the legitimate contenders. I am not endorsing her fish only, rather, I would like to see the WDNR take the lead on this and name a legitimate Wisconsin record based on research and science rather than idling accepting the FWFHoF's record.
http://www.lakelandtimes.com/main.asp?SectionID=13&SubSectionID=13&...
Edited by Jerry Newman 12/4/2009 12:04 PM
| |
| | |
| Jerry,
A few responses...
"I completely disagree with your argument for the analysis and/or reinstatement of Lawton. The WRMA did an in-house review of Lawton and determined there was no reason to spend the money or time. Other than New York, it is not a sanctioned record and we agreed with the evidence presented, and conclusions of both record-keeping organizations." - This I did not know. I didn't realize you accepted Detloff's initial review.
"Before the WRMA was formed, we sought the advice of Brad Latvaitis and Larry Ramsell and they did not mention doing Lawton first and we can see no justification in doing it now." - I can understand if it was a monetary issue. But my point was to provide both organizations with a point of reference with regards to the methods you were going to be using, and apply those methods to a previously discredited fish to ENHANCE your argument. I my main point wasn't necessarily to "reinstate" the 69-15 fish, but provide reference for future reports.
"You complain about the length of time the WRMA has spent on these projects. I would hope you could agree that an inordinate amount of time was spent dealing with the FWFHoF and IGFA's arrogance." - The Spray report was released in what 2005?, the Johnson report was just released now four years later. I can understand the politics and the cost of the matter, but to the general public, its still a four year lag. And does it with O'Brien?
"As far as the WRMA doing a full-blown time-consuming and expensive Lawton analysis, take a good look at the silhouette comparison in the Cal Johnson summary report. The WRMA subject is 5'9" holding a 60" silhouette, now compare it to the photographs of 5'8" Lawton supposedly holding a 64 1/2" fish. You might be able convince your self that further analysis is warranted to determine if that is a 64 ½" fish, the WRMA does not. There is no missing photograph as Lawton endorsed the common photograph himself in countless magazines and books." - Couple of points... Yes, I've seen all the reports and visualization tests. Do I think the Lawton fish was legit. Not based on the 'common' photograph. But it hasn't been put through the photomodeler either. And I thought Larry had other photos of the supposed 69-15 fish other than the one that is the "common" photo. However again, in the LARGER scheme of things, I think the photomodeler results would have had a better chance of being accepted by BOTH the Hall and IFGA had the Lawton pic been used as a test example. You don't agree?
"Can Lawton pass a "common sense" litmus test? 6-60 pounders claimed by the Lawton's fishing in their spare time when nobody else could even catch one on the river. Len Hartman (who admitted loading fish) could not beat Lawton in the Field & Stream contest. Harman indicted Lawton in his bedside confession." - So now we are taking a "common sense" approach and not a purely scientific one? Heresay evidence from Len? Again, these are things that Detloff has been ridiculed for so I'm surprised to here this tack from yourself.
"Ruth Lawton falsely claimed a 68 lb. muskie that was supposedly as long as she is tall. Enormous issues with the Lawton weigh in procedure. (Too numerous to mention here, start another thread and I will debate this with you if you like). " - I'm not arguing the validity of Lawton. I don't KNOW (And you don't KNOW either) if Art & Ruth caught those fish they did. We weren't there. They had signed affadavits just like Louis and Cal. And in the end, Field & Stream accepted their entries, just as they did for Louis. Art & Ruth caught a boat load of muskies and they did put a lot of time on the water. And... AGAIN.. the point of analyzing the Lawton fish is to provide a POINT OF REFERENCE for the photomodeler results.
"I disagree with your 0 for 2 reasoning in that our reports failed, we can only do our job, it was up to FWFHoF and IGFA to do their job. They are the ones that are 0 for 2, and obviously failed. It is my opinion that inevitably something will happen down the road because the WRMA reports are so powerful. Whether you agree with the purpose of the WRMA or not, the research voluntarily delivered to the muskie community is sound." - The records still stand, so unfortunately WRMA failed to sell the science and argument. I realize the deck was stacked against you with the Hall, but in the end... the two record keeping organizations decided against you. If you think the current record organizations have failed, why don't you publish your own list and maintain a 'musky record' program? What makes the Hall and IFGA the end all and be all of record keeping? Perform your analysis and start a list!
"We explicitly state on our website what our goals are and that we will be holding O'Brien to the same standard." - I would expect nothing less.
| |
| | |
| Jerry,
Art Ross' 55lber was a fish that belongs in the "biggest WI fish ever" discussion as well. FWIW... | |
| | |
| Larry,
You're back to twisting what I said again and I'm sure everyone here can see this. Why are you avoiding my POINT? Again, you said the silhouette comparison is incontrovertible evidence. This means NOTHING else is needed and you know it.
I want you to come clean to all these people and admit that ALL of the Lawton fish are BOGUS. If you do that, maybe you will restore some level of credibility which I feel you haven't much left.
No matter what the record keepers are doing, you don't put fish back that are proven bogus. It is morally wrong. The ONLY thing I agree on is that ALL these old records should be thrown out. If the IGFA reinstates Lawton, you should find sleeping at night very difficult.
Your "partner in crime" BuckMan, should also understand that there is nothing to debate on this issue. The silhouette comparison effectively accomplishes the same thing as the photogrammetry.
Editor's note: Guest, either read Mr. Ramsell's comments carefully, or expect further poorly stated obvious personal attacks will be deleted.
| |
| | |
| Easy there Guest, I'm an independent bystander in this debate.
MY opinion is that WRMA should have applied photomodeler to the Lawton fish as a base of reference, thats it. I don't think Art & Ruths fish were as big as claimed, just would have liked to have seen an independent analysis applied like that done on Louis, Cal and soon to be Ken. I know Larry's POV in this debate and that is where it ends. Whatever beef you have with Larry is between you and him.
But I do agree with Larry that these WERE historical records and everyone should be treated equally.
And if you think all the science needed in this debate was to go to Hobby Lobby and pick up some cardboad sheets, then I guess for you it really is a simple process. However, I think WRMA setting a higher standard than that is a move in the right direction. | |
| | |
Posts: 720
| Thanks Larry and Jerry. I appreciated your responses very much. I can only imagine its tough to sit there and listen to your hard work get picked apart at every level. To that I'm very sympothetic. But I think for the most part people don't look as these fish as what they claim to be. Anyway, I don't think WRMA is setting out to destroy the "lore" of the Spray, Johnson and Lawton fish. Instead just looking to set the "Record itself" straight. I would like to ask just one more question and please this not ment to be adversarial (spelling) by any means. How do you folks at the WRMA pick the fish that are going to be looked at (outside of the obvious ones) and is it hard to keep your own personal feelings out of the mix. Is that even possible?
Again, I hope that isn't coming across as a loaded question. I personally don't think I could do what you folks are doing without letting my own personal feelings influence the way I look at the data presented in some of your reports. For example and I'm with Larry in regards to O'briens fish. Unless, they can dig up that dead fishes carcass and pulled an anchor out of it's stomach. I truly feel that fish should strongly be considered for the "World Record". But I know or don't know that there may be some circumstances that might make that a hard call. Thats where the personal thought and feelings would come into play. At least for me. How about you guys? | |
| | |
| BuckMan,
Historical lies SHOULD all be treated equally. They should all be THROWN OUT! And if you think tracing the image of Lawton's fish and blowing it up to 64.5" will not work at duplicating what Lawton's fish should have looked like you indeed have a problem, sir. This type of "cardboard image" held in front of a person the SAME height as Lawton will tell you everything you need to know. The WRMA should save their money. Or maybe YOU want to pay for the photogrammetric evaluation, how about it "BuckMan"? | |
| | |
Posts: 20245
Location: oswego, il | Guest, I have read this whole thread and and I have never once taken Larry as thinking the lawton fish as legit. I toook it as leave them all or dismiss them all. As he has said over and over, can't have it both ways. I like you and most others would like to see them go but if not, which looks to unfortunately be the case, then recognize them all. | |
| | |
| "Historical lies SHOULD all be treated equally. They should all be THROWN OUT! And if you think tracing the image of Lawton's fish and blowing it up to 64.5" will not work at duplicating what Lawton's fish should have looked like you indeed have a problem, sir. This type of "cardboard image" held in front of a person the SAME height as Lawton will tell you everything you need to know. The WRMA should save their money. Or maybe YOU want to pay for the photogrammetric evaluation, how about it "BuckMan"?"
Okay, Guest, I'll repeat this s...l...o...w...l...y.
Yes I agree the cardboard visualization is an OKAY test. For some, thats all they need. Obviously you are in that boat. WRMA went the EXTRA step in obtaining a photogrammetric analysis for for Louis, Cal and probably Ken. All I was looking for was a similar analysis on Art because... AGAIN... independent photo analysis was never performed on Art's fish and I (emphasis on I) would be interested in the results of that analysis. SO AGAIN... I don't beleive the Lawton fish was big as claime. AND AGAIN, lets treat all WR equally.... AND AGAIN, if they are all short, then they should set them aside or just recognize them as "historic".
I have zero clue as two what it would cost... Perhaps Jerry would like to share and maybe something can be done | |
| | |
Location: 31 | Dave:
I appreciate you mentioning, "its tough to sit there and listen to your hard work get picked apart at every level". Interestingly enough while speaking with other working members of the WRMA this past week it was not even a topic of discussion. There is simply nothing being picked at with the Johnson Report.
I will personally admit to making some mistakes with the Spray report. For instance, how much money Spray received for his record and his loading the fish with ice. Probably the biggest mistake was the "backbiting" contained within the report that President Rich even cautioned us (okay me) against several times.
Obviously, we were extra careful to avoid that same mistake with this report.
There is a flipside though, one reporter that called mentioned that our report was a "research masterpiece", it certainly has received good reviews like this one from Dale Bowman of the Sun-Times.
http://blogs.suntimes.com/bowman/2009/11/wrma_debunks_another_muski...
Moving forward, the WRMA is equipped with the experience, knowledge, and funding to finish the job. Our next task will be the O'Brien record and we have no horse in this race. I can promise you that the research will be thorough and voluntarily delivered to the muskie community once again. We have researched other fish internally (like Lawton and Malo) and determined there was no need for further research. We will simply continue with the top-down approach until we find the #1 one fish.
I hope this answers your question and thank you for your interest.
| |
| | |
Location: 31 | Buckman:
I will not argue online, the answer remains the same.
I can tell you that the difference between the WRMA, IGFA and FWFHoF is that our only motivation is to find the #1 fish. We believe as long as we strictly adhere to that theme, everything else will fall into place.
One thing you missed with your comparison on our "common sense litmus test" is the WRMA did not use that premise to have Lawton record removed, it was simply part of other circumstances and data collected to determine if further action was necessary.
Bottom line it is not a sanctioned record anymore and although the research is not up to our standard, we agree with the conclusion. I personally would bet everything that I own that the size was misrepresented. If you would like to have DCM do a full-blown solution... about $1000.
As far as hindsight in starting with the Lawton record first to help "sell" our research. Point taken, but this is after the fact and now pretty far back in the rearview mirror, not worthy of further discussion. Even so, we believe the WRMA should not have to "sell" anything to either of the record keeping agencies.
| |
| | |
| Fair enough Jerry.
Maybe if my stocks do what there are supposed to DCM might get a call one day!
On the whole, I do agree with WRMA's results, just wish we could have had a 'cleaner' outcome. But given everything involved, probably was never in the cards to begin with.
Maybe one day someone will stick a 70 and end it... I'll continue to be happy fishing for the 50" ers!
Merry Christmas! | |
| | |
| ToddM,
Did you ever hear Larry admit that the Lawton fish IS bogus like he does about Spray's and Johnson's? I'm still waiting for his response. Remember, he said the silhouette results are incontrovertible with Spray and he knows this same test performed with Lawton will result in an even greater discrepancy. He actually refers to Art and Ruth Lawton as the "King" and the "Queen"!
| |
| | |
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Chris, please drop the personal vendetta. | |
| | |
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Thank you Mr. Worrall re: "guest". Should have stayed with my policy of not responding to "anons" in the first place, but did so because I thought my responses would be beneficial to the entire discussion. His last post was just trying to "bait me out", again, and this time it won't work unless he wishes to put his name to his posts (I'm sure you already know who it is) for all to see instead of hiding like a coward behind "guest".
I love nothing more than a good discussion on this subject that is so near and dear to my heart. However, I refuse to be badgered by some "clucker" hiding in the darkness of his computer room! | |
| | |
Posts: 39
Location: IL | Larry,
As you well know, everyone else reading this interesting post is aware of your position to the WR issues and understands. It seems that there will ALWAYS be the few (usually "guests") that have nothing better to do than sit at a computer and "muck" with people, just for sport. Seems as though there are other Muskie message boards that a "Chris", or "Guest" (as well as others) constantly pokes at people trying to ask legit questions, or debate issues, that gives the same interruptions. For those, I remind you of the word "Consequences". Then, they wonder why MOST of the Guides & "oldtimers" don't engage in interesting, or informational posts!
To Steve, Jerry, Larry, and others who participate in meaningful banter about "The King Of Freshwater"....I Thank You!
To the few "wannabe's" ("guest") that just sit around ALL THE TIME and tap on there keyboards, instead of getting out on the water looking for the NEXT world record........go away.
Phil Blanck | |
| | |
Posts: 566
Location: Elgin, IL | Well said, Phil. Thanks Larry.
I strongly second the Thank You to those involved..
Interesting stuff. | |
| | |
Posts: 229
| Regarding the Ken O'brien fish- will the WRMA verify this fish or will it report that it is smaller than stated?
John | |
| | |
Posts: 20245
Location: oswego, il | WMF, is that not putting the cart before the horse? I do not believe they stated what they thought the results would be on the other fish before hand. | |
| | |
Posts: 229
| ToddM,
I am guessing the WRMA have a pretty good idea already on whether they will affirm or deny this record. I say this because they must already have done some preliminary analysis.
John | |
| | |
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Why 'must' they have done anything on this fish? It's interesting to me the assumptions folks make. The WRMA looks into one fish at a time, with no assumptions what so ever until the results are back in. | |
| | |
Posts: 229
| Steve Worall:
I am just going off of things I have heard... Larry Ramsell has written extensively on the O'Brien fish as well. I know there was some question about the weight of the fish a week after it was caught. All that being said, I am placing an educated guess there will be issues affirming this fish but possibly not enough to completely deny it. Once again- JUST MY OPINION.
John | |
| | |
| Steve,
All I've been hearing is what is fair and what isn't. The question I asked Larry to answer was completely avoided and it was a very simple one. I find it hard to believe you feel this was an inappropriate question.
Now Steve, I'll ask you this question: Is it FAIR for Larry to say the silhouette comparison is incontrovertible evidence against Spray and yet CHALLENGE the IGFA about their decision on Lawton when he knows very well that this same silhouette comparison used on Lawton will result in an even greater discrepancy? Keep in mind this challenge was made BEFORE the WRMA submitted the Johnson challenge. Why would he even challenge the IGFA's decision knowing this? Again, keep in mind this has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the IGFA's ruling on Johnson as that challenge had not yet been submitted.
The IGFA's decision on Lawton maintained their credibility as a record keeping body. They lost it AFTER they upheld Johnson. This whole thread was derailed by even bringing Lawton into it which never should have happened.
| |
| | |
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Again, you misread what Larry actually said here, or are chasing your own personal vendetta or argument, and second, what Larry says or doesn't say on a message board doesn't effect the results of the scientific analysis or the acceptance/rejection of that analysis by either record keeping organization.
One more time, take your personal agenda elsewhere. | |
| | |
Location: 31 | Guest:
I think you've made your point already... and I understand your train of thought that these records are intertwined, because in some respects they certainly are. However, I would consider it a personal favor if you would kindly direct your questions to the subject matter only, Cal Johnson's record.
thank you!
WImuskyfishermen:
Steve and Todd are correct. Hypothetically speaking... even if the WRMA was 99% finished with the O'Brien Summary Report, we would still not divulge any of the contents until the report was 100% ready. That would be unprofessional.
Although Larry Ramsell is the number one historian, he is not a member of the WRMA. Although we certainly have a working relationship with Larry, our differing opinion on Lawton's reinstatement pretty much speaks for itself. | |
| | |
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Let me see if I can, once and for all, make my position clear here (sorry Jerry, but your last comment begged for response):
The current "official" record keepers are not and have not been treating the historical records equally. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that. What I have been saying and will continue to say is that if both the Hall and the IGFA refuse to accept good science and disqualify their current records (Johnson for the IGFA and Spray for the Hall), then they should both reinstate the Lawton record, which was set aside/disqualified with far less credible evidence than the WRMA provided against Spray and Johnson. Or they can both list the O'Brien fish, which BOTH organizations certified (the ONLY one) or clean the slate and start over.
As I see it, they have no other "valid" options. They simply cannot use differing criteria to uphold one and DQ another and be FAIR to the angling public and the past record holder. Of course politics and arrogance, unfortunately, come into play as well, so it is likely that the muskie world will not have a credible "official" record anytime soon. | |
| | |
Posts: 2361
| Jerry Newman - 12/8/2009 7:55 PM
Steve and Todd are correct. Hypothetically speaking... even if the WRMA was 99% finished with the O'Brien Summary Report, we would still not divulge any of the contents until the report was 100% ready. That would be unprofessional.
Although Larry Ramsell is the number one historian, he is not a member of the WRMA. Although we certainly have a working relationship with Larry, our differing opinion on Lawton's reinstatement pretty much speaks for itself.
I am curious as to the "professional" comment you are making here? Somebody getting paid?
I am also unclear as to the differing opinions on the Lawton's re-instatement? How does that speak for itself.
I see the reinstatement of all records prior to 2000 and the sealing of that history as a viable option. Why wouldn't the revolutionary guard and the various record keeping entities be able to agree on that. That would leave a modern day, well documented record as a on going category, and hopefully one irrefutable fish as the gold standard, without the obvious, political, personal and possible "professional" irons in the fire.
Leave the two record keeping entities to their own disagreements, and bring the current century to the table as the new standard. Sounds like this has been put forward by some, but is unacceptable due to what? Infighting? Personal differences?
| |
| | |
| If both the Hall and the IGFA refuse to accept good science and disqualify their current records, they should be blasted by the media and brought down to size. The arrogance they are currently displaying needs to be addressed. It would be absolutely ridiculous to give them the option of reinstating fish that have been PROVEN bogus. | |
| | |
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | FSF,
Far as I am aware the only people being paid are the unbiased specialists who perform the studies on each fish.
Larry, that's several times you've had to explain the obvious. I hope it's the last. I apologize for the necessity, but the fellow WAS rather insistent. No harm done for or by either, I guess.
I guess I would accept that the records from the past are 'historical', and should be time capsuled and modern day records established. I bet that would be just as difficult to get accepted by the record keeping organizations as the WRMA's reviews have been.
Revolutionary Guard, that's sorta funny... | |
| | |
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Mr. Worrall wrote:
"I guess I would accept that the records from the past are 'historical', and should be time capsuled and modern day records established. I bet that would be just as difficult to get accepted by the record keeping organizations as the WRMA's reviews have been."
Therein lies the rub. The MEDIA gives the two record keepers a "pass" because they are the record "entity", regardless of what they do or what they decide. Unless or until that changes, the Hall and the IGFA will continue to keep their head in the sand and thumb their collective noses at the anglers who care about a credible world record. Perhaps MuskeiFirst should become an official record keeper! Fast access thru the Internet and leave the paper pushing slugs behind. I'd bet a huge majority of north america's muskellunge anglers would embrace it and we'd finally get a credible record that would be acceptable to almost all instead of the phony sham's now in place!
| |
| | |
Location: 31 | Well said Larry. Not so fast on keeping the record here though, as you know the WRMA has been exploring other angles and we may have just located the straw that breaks the camel's back.
"Sounds like this has been put forward by some, but is unacceptable due to what? Infighting? Personal differences?"
Sixfeet: There is certainly no in fighting in the WRMA or between the WRMA and Larry, just two different opinions on how to handle an adverse situation. We certainly understand where Larry is coming from in his effort to reinstate Lawton. We disagree with this effort because it is the WRMA's position that we cannot un-ring the record bell simply by putting Lawton back.
At the core of this two-sided issue is that the WRMA is satisfied that the 69 lb. 15 oz. muskellunge Mr. Lawton entered in the Field & Stream contest in 1957 was a false entry. We understand Larry's position is that Lawton should not have been overturned based on existing protocol, and therefore should be reinstated. Whether or not it actually was 69 lbs. 15 oz. is less relevant.
It is the WRMAs position that reinstating Lawton would be taking a step backward because putting Lawton back as the IGFA record is saying that IT IS a legitimate record and not just an historical record. A Big difference to us...
Let me make something perfectly clear, the WRMA is holding the "record holders" to the higher standard. Certainly, a case has been made for Lawton, and could even be made for Malo and plenty of other fish that are"historically" heavier than O'Brien. Larry and the WRMA have agreed to disagree on this singular issue long ago, but remain united on every other front.
The WRMA will proceed with O'Brien and simply leave whether or not both record-keeping organizations acted incorrectly in removing the Lawton record to individuals reading this thread. I hope it is obvious to everyone that both record-keeping organizations acted incorrectly by not overturning their existing muskellunge records.
As for the question about "unprofessional" regarding the release of any information in front of the O'Brien report. I do not believe we could be any more clear, we will not release any information until the report is finished. There is nobody on our payroll either as Steve indicated.
| |
| | |
| Even if Lawton's fish was reinstated by BOTH record keeping bodies, where would we be as far as having a credible record? Lawton was a bigger cheat than either Louie or Cal! Having only one bogus record instead of two certainly doesn't better the situation. | |
| | |
| Why care about ''records'' of a couple of silly ego maniacs. Most anglers don't agressivly pursue world records except ego maniacs.
Move on and go catch your own personal records and smile!
United we stand divided we fall! | |
| | |
| After looking over both reports and reading this entire thread, I am in total agreement with the WRMA. I can also see why Jerry Newman is their spokesman. I thought he did a great job stating their position and side with him that Lawton should not have the record.
I am a property owner in northern WI and have always dreamed of catching a record. I think that dream is a little closer now that I know the state record is actually in the low to mid 50 pound range. The Hall of Fame and the IGFA should be ashamed of themselves for giving anglers a false assumption of how large the muskies in this state are capable of growing. | |
| | |
Posts: 229
| Rebuttal from the other side...
http://www.haywardwi.com/articles/2009/12/16/news/doc4b2963814dfa78...
John | |
| | |
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | “Our history is important, and it must be accurate,” Dettloff said. “This is a very famous piece of outdoor history for Hayward. It’s something Hayward should be proud of. There’s a little clique of people trying to shoot it down. I’m sure it’s based on jealousy.”
John Dettloff
No John, it's based on the indisputable simple observation that the fish is not anywhere near as long or carries the girth recorded. No one is jealous, some of us would simply like to see reality some where at least in the same ball park when it comes to Muskellunge World records. Your past record of adhering to the truth and to scientific principles and protocol speaks clearly...where it serves you, your business, and your community's self interests, you are willing to do nothing of the sort.
Hang the recent fish from the St Lawrence up there, and let's have a man like sized hold it up and out like that...and I am willing to bet beyond any doubt this recent St Lawrence fish is considerably larger.
But, of course, that's me.
CFMS style spin magic. | |
| | |
Posts: 8821
| I liked this comment:
“Our history is important, and it must be accurate,” Dettloff said. “This is a very famous piece of outdoor history for Hayward. It’s something Hayward should be proud of. There’s a little clique of people trying to shoot it down. I’m sure it’s based on jealousy.”
Read between the lines. "Our history is important, this is a famous piece of history for Hayward. It's something Hayward should be proud of."
Unless, of course, that little piece of history is shown by scientific research, from an unbiased source, to be false. Then it becomes something to be laughed at, with MR Detloff in the center of it all, exposed as a fraud. That would not bode well for Hayward, obviously.
"There's a little clique of people trying to shoot it down."
From everything I've read over the years, nobody is trying to shoot it down. Everyone is just searching for the truth. IF that record could stand on its own merits and research would show that it probably was somewhere in the vicinity of what is claimed? I would think that MR Detloff would be all for doing the research.
And seriously? This is all because they are jealous??
Of WHAT?
I find this all pretty amusing. The WRMA has no axe to grind from what I've seen. Neither does Mr Ramsell. They are just interested in what the real record is. Mr Detloff on the other hand? It's not difficult to imagine a half a dozen reasons why he would want the current "record" upheld.
Like I said, I find it amusing. Like any other rational muskie angler, if I want to catch trophy class muskies, and have a shot at some sort of record? I am going to go to the places where those caliber of fish are being caught. World records or not, Hayward is not on that map today, regardless of what may have happened there many decades ago.
So the Johnson fish. Let's say it was letgitimate. We're still all going to Minnesota, Georgian Bay, the St Lawrence, Lake of the Woods, Green Bay, Georgian Bay. Why do you suppose that is?
| |
| | |
Posts: 2361
| This article and its inclusions are enough to convince me the Johnson record should stand.
Edited by firstsixfeet 12/17/2009 5:20 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 20245
Location: oswego, il | Just a one sided tourism article. Had it been even remotely unbiased the WRMA would have been contacted for comment. No mention of it in the article.
The rod is not in the same plane. It is leaning at an angle against the sign which johnson is in front of and the fish is in front of him.
Hey if those scales are as they say, lets look at the back of the fish and see if things jive there. They will NEVER allow the mount up for inspection but if it is what they say, then they should and settle this dispute.
Great piece of fiction by the hayward paper. | |
| | |
Posts: 2361
| Oh, c'mon Todd, one man's soup is another man's SHARP INVESTIGATIVE REPORTING.
And how can you even ask about the scales? I thought you had looked at those scales yourself?
| |
| | |
Posts: 20245
Location: oswego, il | FSF, I have not seen the backside of this summertime 33" tube! | |
| | |
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | FSF, some folks think the National Enquirer contains sharp investigative reporting. Now I know you probably don't, but that 'story' was rife with nasty tone, antagonistic commentary, and some plain outright mistruths. Not investigative 'reporting' at all, unfortunately.
| |
| | |
Posts: 2361
| sworrall - 12/17/2009 9:57 PM
FSF, some folks think the National Enquirer contains sharp investigative reporting. Now I know you probably don't, but that 'story' was rife with nasty tone, antagonistic commentary, and some plain outright mistruths. Not investigative 'reporting' at all, unfortunately.
Strangely enough, it struck me as similar to some of the posts on this thread regarding others views. And I suppose next your going to tell me aliens DIDN'T ABDUCT SLAMR AND USE AN ANAL PROBE ON THE POOR BUGGER? If not, how did he turn out the way HE did? He barely spent enough time with me to influence him to such a degree.
I would urge people to go look at this pic enlarged though, it seems to speak pretty clearly when you look at it full sized and closely check the reference points for the rod, and the position in relation to Cal's feet and body. For a good enlargement look here
it is a little tough when looking at the article since it doesn't enlarge.
If you have the flat pack of Extra Gum(similar to other flat packs) you will note that the pack edge is almost exactly the length of the rod, and when you move it to the fish, voila, once again almost exact. Seems to bear out the fact that this fish was a big long bugger. My need for collaborative science is satisfied by this pic.
Further edit added, when you do the gum pack science thing, use the regular sized pic in the article I linked, not the blow up. If you want to reference rod position and feet, blow it up and look closely. Looks pretty good to me. | |
| | |
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Sorry Jay, absolutely no way am I going to allow a link to push people to that guy's website. We have to have SOME standards, even low ones allowing most BUT that. Use the Hayward article image or where ever else.
Can't speak to the aliens probing Slamr, but they definitely had him. I heard in the National Enquirer they couldn't wait to get him back home. Something about beating them badly at volleyball. | |
| | |
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Rubuttal indeed...that "Record" article contains a TON of misinformation, misleading information, bad information, incorrect facts and just plain lies!! It is such a biased article that one must assume that there is still, after 70 years and 60 for this fish (they couldn't even get the year correct) that there is indeed a conspriacy in Hayward to protect the moniker on the water tower..."Home of World Record Muskies". Change that to "muskie" and maybe it would be true.
It isn't hard to figure out that this is all driven by money and tourism. The paper cannot exist without the local advertisers...gotta keep them happy...the money connection there, hence the "colored journalism". The "reporter" is merely a puppet for Dettloff and Brown, the "puppetmasters, whom also have a financial stake in the outcome...Hall Director Brown derives part of his Hall remuneration from money he generates for the Hall and historically that has been "local" support. No surprise there. And of course, all should know by now the Dettloff has created a cottage industry around Louie Spray and now Cal Johnson. He owns a resort merely a few hundred yards where Spray supposedly caught his fish; wrote a book about Spray's life and markets postcards of Hayward's "records" and now he is writing a book about Cal Johnson's life...can't have that hero sullied before publication now can we???
At any rate, I am working on a rebuttal to that biased article and will refute almost all of what is printed therein to support Johnson's fish...stay tuned.
Larry Ramsell,
Muskellunge Historian | |
| | |
Posts: 444
| I would like to say thanks quick to the WRMA and Larry for putting in there time and effort to find reason and the truth in regards to this records.
It is apprecated by those themselves that hunt for the absolute truth throught life. | |
| | |
Posts: 229
| I guess I have to agree the rod in the "new" photo is not standing straight up and down and is leaning at an angle against the sign. Thus the 2D appearance of the rod in the photo is something less than its actual length. How could John Dettloff think people are so dumb and not see this. John should give up fishing and take up magic and illusion like Houdini because he ccertainly can make people believe what they want...
All that being said, as an impartial observer, I can plainly see that some associates of the WRMA have some axes to grind with the Hayward people. Don't shoot the messenger on this one take my comment for what its worth...
John | |
| | |
Posts: 2361
| Hmmm, this thread was frozen shortly after I linked another musky site for a reference picture to compare, and the link was removed, neither of which particularly offended me, however it did render my post about the rod comparison nearly incomprehensible without the picture to use it on. Seems kind of odd to open it again to the "pro" WRMA findings. Larry almost sounds like he believes there is a conspiracy going on. There must be a grassy knoll in Hayward I haven't noticed. Thought it was pretty flat there prior to this.
Frankly I am still very impressed with the picture featuring the fishing rod. As everyone knows, I was leaning that way prior to the picture, but now, that picture seems like a pretty solid rock supporting the Johnson fish. I was somewhat astounded by the statements surrounding the Malo fish. How could those occur? Were the statements incorrect or was there bad research involved with that whole deal? Strange stuff. Part of the reason it becomes difficult to deal with the so called "science" in all this. It's evidently a bigger mess than even I thought it was.
Maybe a new thread just to deal with the new picture would be in order? | |
| | |
Location: 31 | firstsixfeet - 12/17/2009 10:23 PM
"I would urge people to go look at this pic enlarged though, it seems to speak pretty clearly when you look at it full sized and closely check the reference points for the rod, and the position in relation to Cal's feet and body. For a good enlargement look here it is a little tough when looking at the article since it doesn't enlarge.
If you have the flat pack of Extra Gum(similar to other flat packs) you will note that the pack edge is almost exactly the length of the rod, and when you move it to the fish, voila, once again almost exact. Seems to bear out the fact that this fish was a big long bugger. My need for collaborative science is satisfied by this pic."
Sixfeet:
Although the WRMA appreciates your interest and input, you must remember that even if the rod was as long as claimed, it is "leaning" against the sign and angled away from the camera. This singular point is key because it simply cannot be accurately used for any type of direct scaling.
Therefore, this new photo provides no additional evidence to support the claimed length, the only new evidence is that more of Mr. Johnson's waist is now revealed to use as a visual aid.
If anything, it should be blatantly obvious to the naked eye that Mr. Johnson's muskie could not have the claimed 33 1/2" girth. The girth of the muskie should (at the very least) be comparable to 5'9" Johnson with an average waist size.
The harsh reality is that Mr. Johnson's record muskie is just another thinly built July caught fish that simply could not have possessed such an extraordinary girth, and by way of extension could not have weighed anywhere near 67 1/2 pounds.
Getting back to the length, the WRMA has secured a professionally prepared peer-reviewed scientific report proving the fresh muskie was in the low 50" class and the skin mount was dimensionally augmented to represent a 60" class muskellunge.
| |
| | |
Posts: 2361
| Jerry Newman - 12/18/2009 11:39 AM firstsixfeet - 12/17/2009 10:23 PM
"I would urge people to go look at this pic enlarged though, it seems to speak pretty clearly when you look at it full sized and closely check the reference points for the rod, and the position in relation to Cal's feet and body. For a good enlargement look here it is a little tough when looking at the article since it doesn't enlarge.
If you have the flat pack of Extra Gum(similar to other flat packs) you will note that the pack edge is almost exactly the length of the rod, and when you move it to the fish, voila, once again almost exact. Seems to bear out the fact that this fish was a big long bugger. My need for collaborative science is satisfied by this pic." Sixfeet: Although the WRMA appreciates your interest and input, you must remember that even if the rod was as long as claimed, it is "leaning" against the sign and angled away from the camera. This singular point is key because it simply cannot be accurately used for any type of direct scaling. Therefore, this new photo provides no additional evidence to support the claimed length, the only new evidence is that more of Mr. Johnson's waist is now revealed to use as a visual aid. If anything, it should be blatantly obvious to the naked eye that Mr. Johnson's muskie could not have the claimed 33 1/2" girth. The girth of the muskie should (at the very least ) be comparable to 5'9" Johnson with an average waist size. The harsh reality is that Mr. Johnson's record muskie is just another thinly built July caught fish that simply could not have possessed such an extraordinary girth, and by way of extension could not have weighed anywhere near 67 1/2 pounds. Getting back to the length, the WRMA has secured a professionally prepared peer-reviewed scientific report proving the fresh muskie was in the low 50" class and the skin mount was dimensionally augmented to represent a 60" class muskellunge. I wasn't actually offering anything to the WRMA, and in fact my only offering would be that it might be best if the group dissolved. I will also venture that "blatantly obvious" things are really difficult to discern in this whole discussion. It wouldn't be much of a discussion at all were things "blatantly obvious". In what year did Johnson die? | |
| | |
Posts: 222
| which one is bigger? hmmmmmmmmmm..................
Attachments
----------------
 larry2.jpg (46KB - 2412 downloads)
| |
| | |
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Cal Johnson’s 1947 world record musky creates a new splash…A Rebuttal from Muskie Historian Larry Ramsell
This link is to the titled (in black) article.
http://www.haywardwi.com/articles/2009/12/16/news/doc4b2963814dfa78...
Cal Johnson’s 1947 world record musky creates a new splash (actually it was 1949…LR)
Status attacked, defended
by Terrell Boettcher
News Editor
Published: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 4:51 PM CST
I will excerpt the pertinent parts of this article with my rebuttal to follow each part:
TB article: “…The WRMA bases its assertions on the science of photogrammetry, as practiced by DCM Technical Services of Toronto, Ontario. DCM analyzes old photographs of fish to determine how large the fish actually are. In its report, the WRMA claims that DCM’s analyses of three old photos shows the Johnson fish to be no longer than 52 inches.”
LR rebuttal: First of all, DCM is not in the business of analyzing old fish photographs. The primary business is one of accident reconstruction and DCM’s Dan Mills is the foremost north American expert in the field of photogrammetry, which IS admissible in a Court of Law. Secondly, the WRMA report concluded that the Johnson fish’s length was a “…maximum possible length of 54 inches (when lower jaw measurement is utilized)…”
NOTE: the WRMA’s “Johnson Summary Report can be found at: www.worldrecordmuskiealliance.org
TB article: “…Earlier this year, the IGFA rejected the WRMA’s effort to get the IGFA to disqualify the Cal Johnson muskellunge world record. In a letter to WRMA president Rich Delaney, the IGFA’s conservation director, Jason Schratwieser, said, “We simply do not feel that the photogrammetry analysis is sufficient for us to rescind this record. I do appreciate the time and passion that your organization has put forth on this, but we are resolute on this matter.””
LR rebuttal: Following is another quote from IGFA’s Schratweiser: ““…Our main rationale for not agreeing with your report’s results is we do not believe that you can accurately determine the weight of a three dimensional object, such as a fish, from two dimensional picture. ..” If this is indeed the case, why then does the IGFA have the Lawton fish in “set-aside” status? They claimed to me that the question of the photo was the reason, but in the Johnson case, they switch horses and make the above comment. They cannot have it both ways and be fair.
TB article: “…Hall of Fame statement
”Emmitt (sic) Brown, executive director of the Fresh Water Fishing Hall of Fame in Hayward, said the claims presented by the WRMA “have been floating around for a while now.” He said the WRMA report “is the usual drivel from the usual suspects touting the usual flawed and self-serving logic and science as fact. The fact is, Cal Johnson's 1949 record muskellunge is on public display at the Moccasin Bar in Hayward. It’s the original fish in its original form. It is, unquestionably, a 60-inch fish."”
LR rebuttal: That the Hall refuses to acknowledge photogrammetry as “science” is but a lame excuse, especially when they merely used Dettloff’s “amateur” photo analysis to disqualify the Lawton record. And another thing most folks seem to be missing here…the WRMA’s report SUPPORTS that the Johnson mount is in the ball park claimed!!! If DCM acknowledges that and then uses the mount to PROVE that the fish shown in the fresh fish pictures is NOT as big as claimed!
Brown continues: “Documenting that fact “is that when you look closely at the scales that run lengthwise on the fish (mount displayed at the Moccasin Bar), they are all perfectly intact,” Brown said. “There’s not one disruption of the scale lines running back and forth. They quite conclusively prove that that fish was not augmented. There is no ‘filler’ put in to make it 60 inches. It’s actually 60 1/4 inches. I’ve talked to several taxidermists about this. They say that even using today’s technology, there’s no way you could augment a fish and not disturb that scale line, much less (likely) that it was augmented 60-some years ago in 1949. Both lines and scales are absolutely undisturbed from the tail to the head of the fish.””
LR rebuttal: This is just simply NOT TRUE and I have shown same to the author of this article! There IS an interruption in the lateral scales and it doesn’t take the fish being out of the case or a magnifying glass to see it directly above the rear paired fins, obviously where the mount was augmented and there is a crack. The taxidermist was a world class museum taxidermist, having worked 25 years for the Field Museum in Chicago. He knew how to make an animal look realistic or even enhanced. Working with wax was known in those days and it would have been a simple matter for him to replicate the original scales.
TB article: ”Moreover, a photo of Johnson and his fish and fishing rod, never before published until this issue of the Sawyer County Record, shows conclusively that the fish is as long as listed, according to the Johnson family and to musky fishing historian John Dettloff.
LR rebuttal: This just simply is NOT true! First of all, the affidavit submitted by Johnson to Field & Stream did NOT say what the rod was that was used (see affidavit photo in the article or in “A Compendium of Muskie Angling History” Volume I, 3rd Edition, page 219). And even if the rod used was identified elsewhere by Johnson there is absolutely NO PROOF that the rod in that photograph is indeed the one Johnson was using that day!! NONE.
Dettloff continued: ““Our history is important, and it must be accurate,” Dettloff said. “This is a very famous piece of outdoor history for Hayward. It’s something Hayward should be proud of. There’s a little clique of people trying to shoot it down. I’m sure it’s based on jealousy.””
LR rebuttal: Muskellunge history IS important, not just the Hayward muskellunge history and Mr. Dettloff has lost sight of that fact. He simply refuses to apply the same standards and methodologies that he used to derail the Lawton record to the Spray and Johnson records, otherwise he would concur with the WRMA’s findings and not oppose them.
TB article: “Dettloff bought an identical South Bender 411 rod on E-Bay. It measures 58 3/4 inches. The photo of rod and fish shows that the WRMA’s claim that the fish is 52 inches long is “totally absurd,” Dettloff said. “Their preconceived goal is to make the fish smaller than it is. The WRMA report is done with a lot of slants and innuendo,” he said. (Editor’s note: The WRMA report is available on the Internet at www.worldrecordmuskiealliance.org.)
Again, there is NO PROOF that this is indeed the rod in the photograph (unless Dettloff wrote it on the photo as he likely did with his Lawton “smoking gun” photo) and I’m not buying that. And again, the WRMA report concluded the Johnson fish was 54 inches, not 52 as stated above. It is NOT the WRMA’s goal to make the fish smaller, it is Mr. Dettloff’s goal to make the Johnson fish bigger than it really was, pure and simple and good for business. There are no ‘slants or innuendo’ in the WRMA report, just Dettloff’s wish for readers to believe so.
Dettloff continued: “Looking at the camera angle and distance of the photographer from Johnson and his fish, “the rod is in the same plane as the fish,” Dettloff said. “The fish is longer than the rod. It’s in the ball park of 60 inches.” Johnson himself stood 5-foot-9 inches. The fish’s tail is about one foot above the ground and its head is two-three inches above the top of his head. There’s minimal distortion.””
LR rebuttal: Again, this rod is a moot point as it cannot be proven what rod is in the photo. As for Johnson’s height, in 2006 Dettloff claimed “…Johnson was 5-feet-seven-inches tall. I’m the only one that knows and has that information and if anybody else tells you anything different they don’t know what they are talking about.” (A Compendium of Muskie Angling History, Volume I, 3rd Edition). Well, obviously Dettloff doesn’t know what he is talking about since now in 2009 he has Johnson growing 2 inches!!! Come on John, you tried the same BS with Spray and it didn’t work and no one should buy this change either.
Dettloff continued: “Looking at the WRMA report (which is available on the Internet at www.wrma.org), I am so glad we have the "rod photo" of Cal with his fish and the rod next to his fish.” I feel this photo is critical in further verifying his record catch as it gives a simple and very accurate length corroboration to his musky's reported length of 60 1/4 inches. I want to stress that, because the rod and the object it is measuring (the fish) are more or less the same length, it gives a much more accurate calculation than when merely using a much shorter line segment (such as the eye to upper jaw distance) as a known distance.”
As previously discussed, the rod is a moot point as it cannot be proven to be the rod used and simply could not be anymore accurate than the measurements in the WRMA report which were done with a computer.
Dettloff continued: “Back in July 1949, Johnson’s fish was weighed on two certified scales. The certification was sent to Field and Stream magazine. Two days after receiving a letter from Johnson, the magazine certified the musky as the world record. They requested an affidavit attesting to the accuracy of the scales, and the names of two to three additional witnesses to the weighing and measuring. Field and Stream “treated this fish with the full scrutiny that a world record deserves,” Dettloff added.”
LR rebuttal: Here again, Dettloff puts up a “smoke-screen” CLAIMING that the two scales used to weigh the Johnson fish were certified. HOWEVER, there is NO EXISTING DOCUMENTATION that either scale was “certified”! The affidavited witnesses all signed one document when in fact not all witnessed the weighing on both scales. And Field & Stream certainly did NOT give Johnson’s fish full scrutiny, despite what Dettloff would have you believe…I have seen the Field & Stream files and I know better!!!
Dettloff continued: “…In an article on his catch, Cal Johnson said the new world record muskellunge’s “stomach was empty. Its body did not have a blemish. It is planned to display this great fish at many sportsmen’s shows, but its permanent home will be in Hayward Wisconsin, near the waters where it grew to such prodigious size.””
LR rebuttal: I challenge the newspaper (or anyone for that matter) to conduct a survey of ten dozen muskie anglers that routinely catch numbers of large muskies. I doubt that any will agree that a July fish that was “empty” would ever approach the weight claimed unless “extremely” obese, which Johnson’s fish was not.
TB article: “…As far as the mount at the Moccasin Bar is concerned, Dettloff said “it’s hard to measure, because it has minor curves and mounts do shrink.” The mount “is in the five-foot ball park. There’s nothing glaring against it being a five-foot fish.”
LR comment: As I have noted previously, the WRMA report concedes that the “MOUNT” of the Johnson fish is in the ball park of the length claimed. Where the rub comes is that the fresh fish just does NOT measure up to the mount. If one compares the distance between the two sets of paired fins vs. the distance between the rear paired fins on the fresh fish and then does the same exercise with the mount, it immediately becomes clear “where” the mount was enhanced to make it come up to the “claimed” length.
TB article: “The skin mount was produced by taxidermist Karl Kahmann in 24 days, much less than the usual time frame, Dettloff said. “It’s a beautiful work of art. But they (WRMA) are calling Kahmann, the family and the witnesses liars.”
LR rebuttal: Why is it all right for Dettloff to call the Lawton witnesses liars but professes outrage when the same is done with another bogus fish?? In fact, most of the Lawton witnesses in recent years produced a second set of affidavits upholding the size of the Lawton muskie, but it fell on deaf ears and blind eyes re: Dettloff and the Hall of Fame! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
Dettloff continued: ““Keep in mind that even having the WRMA's eye to upper jaw calculation be off only one-half inch and it will skew their total length calculation by five inches,” Dettloff added. “I measured Cal Johnson's mount with a laser measuring device and did indeed find the WRMA's eye-to-upper-jaw calculation of 5.669 inches to be off by 9/16 of an inch. The actual measurement proved to be 6.25 inches when measured with lasers. This error alone is very significant and skews their result by five inches.
LR rebuttal: Here again Dettloff tries to sway opinion with “smoke and mirrors” and an outright lie!! Just one week prior to this article being published, Dettloff contacted Dan Mills at DCM and asked for clarification of the measuring points in the WRMA report…he did NOT know! Mills didn’t tell him and referred him to the WRMA. He never contacted them, yet here he is one-week later with bogus calculation (likely “back-calculated”) to arrive at a figure needed to make the Johnson fish “appear” to be as long as originally claimed. SHAME ON YOU JOHN DETTLOFF!!!!! I don’t know how you sleep at night. Here is part of what his email asked of Mills: “…Can you tell me to what part of the eye this distance was measured to? Was it from the tip of the lower jaw to: 1) the forward edge (the edge closer to the jaw) of the eye socket or 2) the centerline of the eyeball, or 3) the back edge (the edge closer to the tail of the fish) of the eye socket? Because the eye socket is close to an inch wide (from edge to edge), it is an important piece of information to known when doing this calculation.” He did NOT know, but still “manufactured” some bogus measurements. Out and out fraud…Sheesh! I won’t even respond to Dettloff’s next comment as it is so far off base.
TB article: “…A conservation pioneer
“The sad thing (about the WRMA’s attack on Johnson) is that Cal did so much in his lifetime to set the stage for so many of us to make a living” in the fishing and tourism industry, Dettloff said. “He opened the door. He was a pioneer. He championed conservation and environmental issues when it wasn’t popular in the 1920s and ‘30s. He wanted to save the sport for future generations. He saw the bigger picture: sportsmanship, ethics, conservation, size limits. This (world record musky catch) was something he accomplished toward the end of his life. His doctor told him three years previously that he had three to six months to live, with a heart condition and rheumatic fever. When he caught this fish, he knew it might be his last day. He was an outstanding citizen in our sport.”
LR rebuttal: Once again Dettloff tries to make the angler a hero to garner support for him, regardless of what the scientific evidence says. No one would ever argue against Johnson’s career and that he did many great things…and personally, I feel that since Johnson knew he was dying he wanted to do one last great thing for Hayward tourism, which was at a low ebb after WWII. Why else would he “give away” a world record mount that is now privately owned?
TB article: “Louie Spray fish”
No need to rehash this here other than to state that again only what the Hall and Dettloff wanted known got made public. The Hall did and has steadfastly REFUSED to hire their own photogrammetrist as was RECOMMENDED TO THEM BY THE MATH PROFESSOR’S who were unhappy with how the Hall interpreted their work on the Spray fish although they used that work to uphold the bogus Spray fish! Have they no shame at the Hall of Fame??? It was NOT “poor science” as Hall director Brown claimed. Why is the Hall reluctant to have their own Photogrammatic experts hired? Are they afraid of the results? In fact, I’ll wager that the WRMA would PAY for THEIR expert to review and comment on Dan Mills DCM peer-reviewed report!!
LR conclusion: Mr. Boettcher then proceeded to drag another questionable fish, the Malo muskie, into the mix even though it had nothing to do with the current issue AND it was highly inaccurate and outdated…poor research at best! Perhaps it was merely a shot at me for not supporting the bogus Hayward “records”! He also wrote that the Hall “lists” the Malo fish in their record book, when in FACT, Mr. Dettloff and Mr. Brown conveniently removed that fish several years ago so “Louie” would appear to have no contenders!! A SHAM OF EPIC PROPORTIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dettloff will likely be displaying the Johnson mount again at the Chicago Musky Show. If so and you attend, take the time to look CLOSE at the mount, the crack above the rear paired fins and the “added” distance between those paired fins and the anal fin and compare that to the fresh photo that he will also have there…it will be eye opening for you!
In the meantime, have fun with these photo’s: (note: I couldn't get them to attach, so am sending the entire rebuttal to Mr. Worrall for inclusion in the Article's section and it will include the photos.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Muskellunge Historian
| |
| | |
Posts: 8821
| Funny how folks can look at a picture of any fish caught today and tell you length and girth within 1/2", and if the angler says it was 53"x26" they unanimously agree he was lying; but they can look at the picture of Johnson's fish and say it was really 67-1/2 pounds with a 33.5" girth?
Somebody's full of crap here.
Seems to me that all the biggest muskies these days are coming from everywhere else BUT Northern Wisconsin and the best answer anyone can come up with as to why is that "oh, you just don't hear about them..."
I tend to think that if an ecosystem had the potential to produce several fish of that caliber 50 years ago, that with todays catch and release ethic, size limits, closed seasons, and everything else that is done to presevre the fisheries that the fishing would be even BETTER. Maybe our conservation efforts are only effective outside of Hayward? | |
| | |
Posts: 2361
| The rebuttal sounds like a lot of "he said vs. he said".
Is a photogrametist more or less scientific than a rainmaker? | |
| | |
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | More, by a long shot, Jay. | |
| | |
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | If Hayward's "journalists" (I use this term loosely) are going to support this B.S. I've spent my last dollar in Sawyer county. | |
| | |
| There is another picture of Cals fish that I'm surprised that WRMA or anyone else hasn't posted or looked at.
That picture, the fish is held below Cal's head, close to his body and Cal's head is to the left of the fish.
That photo shows a different angle and the fish's girth appears much larger than these pics.
Not saying one way or another, just, if you are going to comment on the photos, look at all the photos. | |
| | |
| I guess the only thing I have left to say on this is the old saying: there are 3 sides to every story- your side, their side and the truth... I really think this holds true in this whole WRMA vs. Hayward thing. Yes, we do need to obtain truth regarding the records...
Hayward should just let go of the record, they look stupid.
The WRMA and associates is not in the right either- they have let this battle become personal and that really hurts their credibility.
John | |
| | |
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | The report is not personal at all. My comment wasn't personal, either, it was a reminder this fellow who claims jealousy as a motive is not a credible source for a commentary in the first place...nothing personal at all. I believe Mr. Ramsell speaks for himself in his answer, not the WRMA. Correct me if I'm wrong, Larry or Jerry, please. | |
| | |
| I have not read the report and only read about half of this thread. Somewhere it says you cannot measure the fish because the case cannot be opened? That is not true, there are all kinds of laser methods to measure items from afar. Simplest here would be laser that shines at 90 degrees from a rod that it slides on. Position the laser spot on any part of the fish, then slide laser along rod until it is positioned on another part of the fish. Jaw length etc should be within 1/8 inch using this method. There are all kinds of laser methods using mirrors, or in this case, the reflections off the mirror-like plexiglass box to make calculations.
Guest | |
| | |
Posts: 20245
Location: oswego, il | Guest, nobody is questioning the length of the mount so measureing that fish will prove very close to the claimed length. They should just open up the cast and let it be inspected. Emmett Brown needs to put his money where his mouth is. | |
| | |
Location: 31 | John - 12/18/2009 5:58 PM
I guess the only thing I have left to say on this is the old saying: there are 3 sides to every story- your side, their side and the truth... I really think this holds true in this whole WRMA vs. Hayward thing. Yes, we do need to obtain truth regarding the records... Hayward should just let go of the record, they look stupid. The WRMA and associates is not in the right either- they have let this battle become personal and that really hurts their credibility. John
John:
With all due respect, please do not indict the WRMA along with other people who might be making personal attacks. Larry, Steve and others certainly speak for themselves, I am the soul spokesman for the WRMA.
The WRMA realizes that an indictment against Mr. Johnson and his witnesses could be considered a personal attack. Even though we are very proud of the effort, it certainly gives us no pleasure to indict Mr. Johnson. Our hope is that everyone would understand that this type of unpleasantness is inherent with any protest of this scope and nature.
I'm supremely confident that if you review the posts I have made here you will agree that every effort was made to avoid precisely what you have accused us of. I can assure you that your concern is our concern and we will continue to make every effort to remain above the fray. As a matter of fact, this is one of the reasons why we did not release our report over on Muskie Hunter.
Further, please keep in mind that we are moving on to Mr. O'Brien's record now, so this should not be construed as a WRMA versus Hayward thing. Our approach has always been to start from the top down and the top two just happen to be from Hayward. That's it and that's all.
We remain hopeful that at least the vast majority of ardent muskie fishermen concur that the WRMA has done exactly what it promised to do so far, and that only the "provable truth" is contained within our report.
Edited by Jerry Newman 12/18/2009 9:24 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Thanks Jerry, good answer! | |
| | |
| Get It Done! OBrien or Williamson muskie needs to be established as the new world record very soon!
Capt. Larry | |
| | |
| If the rod in the photograph is a South Bender 411 (which it very well may be) that measures 58 3/4 inches, that rod would look and measure much longer with Dettloff's caliper if it was straight up and down because the tip of the rod would be much closer to the camera. This is the ONLY thing relevent about that rod. | |
| | |
Posts: 5
| I'll temporarily go against the heard mentality on the board. As a preamble, I have not read the Cal Johnson report and I haven't immersed myself in this thread. I did spend considerable time with the Spray report. Hopefully, that does not mean I am automatically stricken, because I do believe there is an abundance of material that does have merit.
The fact is the WRMA is 0-2. Remember, at the Hall rebuttal for the Spray report there were 15 reporters and a dozen + people from the public (please don't gripe about how there were no formal invites). The point is they had a 55" mounted fish that had shrunk to 54" in the mount process hanging in front of a life size photo of Spray. The Hall used this since it was close to the 53.6 inch conclusion of the DCM report. Many an honorable industry professional were on-hand who concluded that clearly the Spray fish was clearly greater than 54 inches.
Without going into all that debate, the WRMA did not learn any lessons from that failure. Instead, they trotted out the same old process of silhouettes (as mentioned, clearly and easily refuted by anyone who will to go through the effort), peer reviews (good stuff, but see Climategate, or more famous peer reviewed papers that professed that birth control pills cause cancer or the Cardiac Diet that beef was bad for your heart when it was known not to be true).
The same taxidermist and the same photomodeler program and DCM. By the way, for those of you who do not know, DCM did not write any of the mathematical formulas that are included in the photomodeler program and there is quite a bit of debate surrounding that subject. We could talk vanishing points ad naseum.
The photomodeler gives an answer but it does not give an answer for each unknown point, how good is that point in the x, y, z direction. Using Rubine square and other formulas it does not tell you for each input how good that number is.
Instead of going a different direction, the WRMA trotted out the same failed methodology and I, for one, applaud the IGFA!
In order to be genuine in their quest for answer, I will propose and ask this of the WRMA......
Please either allow me to purchase or provide a "release" of any WRMA interest in the model created by Visual Geometry Solutions. Try approaching this from a different angle.
I will create my own independent group to have Visual Solutions conduct a similar project.
If you are not willing to do that, then enough. Finally, I don't need to hear about how VSG could be tainted by having a length disclosed. There are multiple tests that can be conducted to determine accuracy of the model. And, by the way, it's not the only model out there in the universe of this art / science.
| |
| | |
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | I like this guy already! | |
| | |
| Esoxarchaeologist:
You are making me laugh. Which member of the Hayward mafia are you?
John | |
| | |
| Esoxarcheaologist wrote "The same taxidermist and the same photomodeler program and DCM. By the way, for those of you who do not know, DCM did not write any of the mathematical formulas that are included in the photomodeler program and there is quite a bit of debate surrounding that subject. We could talk vanishing points ad naseum."
So are you saying the math of photogrammetry is flawed or specifically the software used. Where is this debate about photogrammetry? If you want to mention it then back it up.
Also I can't say with this software, but it is standard in all photogrammetry calculations to acutally calculate the associated errors...they are called residuals and are very much attached to the accuracy of each point (feel free to look up residuals and least squares...that is how you play this "if you mention it back it up" game). You started to sound like you actually knew something about photogrammetric measurements then you went off like that. Followed up with this Rubine square comment....also not part of any photogrammetry that I have heard of...not like the Samuelson sqaure....hey look, I can make up BS names for math to sound edumacated too.
Also, if you have not immersed yourself in this second report but rather only the Spray report then how exactly do you know that is the "same old failed methodology"?
Before everyone goes off that I am a WRMA plant...I am not, I just actually stayed awake in some of my math classes at university. I can put up with debate back and forth on peoples opinion of these record because everyone is entitled to theirs but when someone actually tries to say something and hold it out as definative but is just talking from their butt then think they need to be held accountable...that and I agree with John that we have a bit of Hayward mafia on here.
MJ
| |
| | |
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Again, whether or not the rod in the photo IS a SouthBender 411 is a moot point (and it cannot be proven that it is). There is ZERO proof that the rod in the photo is the actual rod used by Johnson...period! It's angle or location means zip. | |
| | |
| Whether or not the rod in the photo was used by Johnson is a moot point ( and it cannot be proven that it wasn't). The ONLY thing that matters is whether or not this is a SouthBender 411 and if it is, it's angle and location mean everything. | |
| | |
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Guest wrote:
"Whether or not the rod in the photo was used by Johnson is a moot point ( and it cannot be proven that it wasn't). The ONLY thing that matters is whether or not this is a SouthBender 411 and if it is, it's angle and location mean everything."
LR: Not so. Show me the doumentation that states Johnson used a SouthBender 411...it is NOT on his affidavit. "Perhaps" he later indicated such a rod was used (?) but was it just because South Bend was one of his sponsor's if so (and we have no record stated that Johnson said elsewhere that was the rod he used).
| |
| | |
Location: 31 | Esoxarchaeologist:
It is difficult to believe that a person can have that much insight and interest in both records without having even looked at the Johnson report. You rattle off how many people were present at the Hall of Fame's closed press conference, the size of the mount used, and other irrelevancies regarding Mr. Spray's record. Please at least take the time to read the Johnson report so you can comment or ask informed questions about the subject matter.
Regarding your comment that the WRMA failed in both attempts, we disagree. It appears that the overwhelming consensus (to those who have read the report) is that neither fish is near a legitimate record. Considering that it was the "sole" responsibility of the FWFHoF and IGFA to remove these records, they are the ones that failed (us). To this day, both of our reports remain unchallenged even by the lowest of professional standards.
Before you decide to leapfrog back into attempting to dissect the DCM peer-reviewed Johnson report in the future, we ask that you first research the three-page mathematical facts addendum. In this exercise the WRMA compares Mr. Johnson's fresh fish to a perfectly round cylinder, and unless Mr. Johnson's fresh fish was basically round, the sworn dimensions on the affidavits have been dismissed. http://www.worldrecordmuskiealliance.com/Mathematical_Facts.pdf
Lastly, you have presented yourself as someone who is not sincere about representing the truth when you say that you have not read the Johnson report, yet applaud the IGFA's decision. Therefore, until such a time as you can mount a reasonable challenge to this small addendum, we will just accept your statement regarding our work as having "an abundance of material that does have merit".
| |
| | |
| Guest wrote:
"Whether or not the rod in the photo was used by Johnson is a moot point (and it cannot be proven that it wasn't). The ONLY thing that matters is whether or not this is a SouthBender 411 and if it is, it's angle and location mean everything."
LR: "Not so. Show me the documentation that states Johnson used a SouthBender 411...it is Not on his affidavit. "Perhaps" he later indicated such a rod was used (?) but was it just because South Bend was one of his sponsor's if so (and we have no record stated that Johnson said elsewhere that was the rod he used)."
What difference does it make if Johnson actually used the rod in the photo to catch the fish? He may be showing a SouthBender 411 in the photo only because this particular rod has a length comparable to the fish. This may be his way of proving the length of the fish is accurate.
Why is there a measuring stick being held against O'Brien's fish in some of the photo's?
| |
| | |
| esoxarcheaologist,
You say, "Without going into all that debate, the WRMA did not learn any lessons from that failure. Instead, they trotted out the same old process of silhouettes (as mentioned, clearly and easily refuted by anyone who will go through the effort,...".
Consider this: When a fish (or cardboard silhouette) is held in front of a person, it's length will appear to increase by a factor equal to the ratio of the camera distances. For instance, if the camera is 8' from the person but only 7' from the fish, a fish length of 52.5" would change to 52.5" / .875 or 60". This CANNOT be refuted by you or anyone else.
The silhouette comparison that you dismiss SUPPORTS the photogrammetry that you also dismiss. These silhouette comparisons should be reason enough to dismiss these records all by themselves.
The people of Hayward should try this silhouette comparison themselves so they are sure the card board mock-ups used by the WRMA were indeed the stated length. After doing so they should be convinced that both records should be disqualified.
| |
| | |
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | THis is one other thing that Dettloff and the Hall of Shame (where records are concerned) continually IGNORE, the silouette comparisons. When the Hall held their "private" (by invite only) press confrence to pull off their sham upholding of the Spray record, they TOTALLY ignored the silouette comparison, something Dettloff used in a major way when getting the Lawton record disqualified and the same with the Johnson fish. WHY IS THAT???
I'll tell you why...because they had NO counter for it and chose to ignore it hoping the "chosen few" they invited wouldn't bring it up.
Pure and simple, it is a SHAM, a COVER-UP and a CONSPIRACY all rolled into one. I really don't know how Dettloff and Brown can live with themselves or how they sleep at night. But they smile all the way to the BANK!!
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Muskellunge Historian
www.larryramsell.com | |
| | |
| GREAT post Larry! Like I said, photogrammetry isn't even needed. Another thing to consider is the silhouette comparisons do not add the additional side to side thickness of a real muskie into the equation. If this was factored in the discrepancy would be even GREATER because the silhouette would have to be held out even further! | |
| | |
Posts: 5
| Pointerpride -- Thanks for the compliment (I think)
MJ --
You have asked a few questions. Initially, I will try to answer two of the questions. To recap:
So are you saying the math of photogrammetry is flawed or specifically the software used. Where is the debate about photogrammetry?
Sometimes the best way to answer a question is with a question, which is same thing I asked of Jerry Newman:
If the WRMA is genuine in their quest to uncover the truth, then will the WRMA "release" their interest in the model created by Visual Geometry Solutions?
I would think the simple answer to that question would be "yes" despite the rejection by the Hall and the IGFA. The WRMA already "believes" that their point is proven. Thus, there is no reason in retaining any right to a model that they neither intend to employ nor have any interest in using.
So while I wait for an an answer from the esteemed Mr. Newman (trust me, I do respect him even though I am confident that he and the WRMA are entirely incorrect on the records issue), I will answer the question above in two parts:
PART ONE:
1.) Can you tell me whether the individual who performed the "photogrammetric" analysis used by WRMA is a "CERTIFIED" photogrammetrist?
That would be a great place to start in answering your question about the ART / science of photogrammetry.
Most certified photogrammetrists that I have had the occasion to be in front of tend to be rather specific, precise and (perhaps) even a bit arrogant.
In all cases, if they are a CERTIFIED photogrammetrist, you can bet that they will tell you that, they will state that in their resume, it will be shown in any vitae and C.P. will be included in any correspondence.
In the case of the individual used by the WRMA, I have not seen this designation represented in his Curriculum Vitae, website or any other description that includes his name.
The American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing has approximately 6,600 members. The breakdown by membership is as follows: 30% remote sensing, 28% GIS, 21% photogrammetry, and 16% surveying.
As of March 2000, there 610 CERTIFIED photogrammetrists in the society, which is less than 10% of the membership.
These percenatges seem to say alot about the people who practice photogrammetry: they are not the majority of the membership and certified photogrammetrists are a rare breed. In 1999, 13 people took the CERTIFIED Photogrammetrist exam and the exam has an average pass rate of about 30%.
ASPRS certification is an official recognition by one's colleagues and PEERS that an individual has demonstrated professional integrity and competence in their field.
I hope that provides enough detail of the size and selectivity and level of expertise one must reach to become a certified photogrammetrist. You can tell by the selectivity of the field why CERTIFIED photogrammetrists tend to adopt certain positions that they do.
Other the other hand, the WRMA individual is trained collision re-constructionist who uses Photomodler extensively. I believe in the Spray report his official designation was a Btech (bachelor of technology).
Why would you hire a collision re-constructionist to analyze the dimensions of a 50+ year old picture? The correct answer might be because that individual is a certified photogrammetrist and has worked in this the field of photogrammetry for twenty plus years, is eminently qualified in the field of photogrammetry, is highly respected among his colleagues (read other certified photogrammetrists) etc. etc. etc.
PART TWO
The science of perspective geometry includes an inter-mingling of human interpretation of what point is used to measure what (i.e. it relies on judgement skills). Please refer to the bevy of qualifications / expertise required to be a certified photogrammetrist.
Photomodeler is an "off-the-shelf" computer program. From what I know, it requires two strong vanishing points. In Spray's 1949 picture, the left hand vanishing point is very strong.
2.) Can you tell me what point / object was used as the basis for the right hand vanishing point?
While I haven't reviewed the data in a long time, it seems to me that the right hand vanishing point was established using the lower window of structure, which is below Spray's right elbow.
Is that correct? If you could let me know, that would be great and it would certainly help to answer your question about flawed math.
I am aware of two known vanishing points in the Spray picture that will provide an accurate answer.
Any certified photogrammetrist worth their salt who was going to peer review the photomodler technique would recreate the exact sequence and technique used. Everything that someone else did in a photogrammatic analysis must be provided, the order in which it was done must be provided, then the review becomes similar to reading a book. To verify the method in a photogrammetric sense, the method must be regenerated. The reason is so very obvious so the reviewer can be sure that he has not made a mathematical error or a procedural error.
I hope that provides some "back up" about the quality of representation, the level of expertise and understanding one might need in order to rigorously apply photogrammetry.
If you are able to provide answers to both of my questions, then that will go a long way toward understanding why both the Hall and the IGFA rejected these claims.
Edited by esoxarcheaologist 12/26/2009 2:32 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | And this information should be provided to you by the WRMA....why? You haven't described what your interest in the WRMA investigation is, what your association, if any, is to the Hayward Hall, it officers or interested parties, and offer nothing but to say you think the conclusions are incorrect. You last post is a classic 'Look over THERE!' attempt, IMO, to distract from the fact you at first were obviously misinformed, at least according to your initial posting, and you admitted to not even reading the current report.
Pretty much everything you stated in your last post can be found by using a Google search, but you still have quite a bit of the information backwards or just plain wrong:
The American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing
http://www.asprs.org/
Note this paragraph:
'There is a distinction between certification and licensure. Simply stated, ASPRS certification is official recognition by one’s colleagues and peers that an individual has demonstrated professional integrity and competence in their field. As such, the ASPRS voluntary certification program is considered "specialty certification." It is not a substitute for licensure as, for example, a Land Surveyor or Professional Engineer. Licensure is a legal act on the part of states to protect the public health, safety and welfare. It is a procedure by which various state and local governments require the licensing of certain professions, practices, trades, etc. under formal statutes and ordinances to protect the well-being of its citizens. Licensure may be required by your local state, county, etc. whether or not you secure certification.'
As of 2000? It's 2010 in a couple days, grab a calendar and take a look.
Now what was that 'certified' question you asked again?
How about answering the initial questions asked of you and then tell us if you followed Jerry's advice?
You can't be seriously suggesting you could offer peer review, are you?
You might be a bit more cautious when addressing who's intent is 'genuine' in any efforts whatsoever until you let us all know exactly who you are and what your interest in the World Record staying in Wisconsin really is.
We know nothing of your background or education, qualifications to challenge anything the WRMA or for that matter anything anyone has stated.... you register here and post just twice...both to this thread. A vested interest, perhaps? If so, what might that interest be?
| |
| | |
Posts: 8821
| Certifications aside for a moment...
All the evidence and all the research done to date shows the Johnson fish to me much smaller than claimed. Where is the research showing that the record was legit? Where's the math? Where's the science? It's easy to point fingers at someone else and announce that they don't know what they are doing when you don't like their results. But where's the research, where's the analysis, where's the math that shows it WAS legit? If you're so confident the record was legit, why not produce some actual scientific rersearch showing that is was?? IF the WRMA can screw up that bad in their use of photogrammetry is sould be a piece of cake to use that same science, from those certified in photogrammetry to show the Johnson fish was legit.
I've seen no such evidence. Where's the math, exoxarchaeologist?? I want to believe the Johnson fish was as big as the records say it was, and nobody has been able to convince me. | |
| | |
| Esoxarcheaologist,
You said, "I am aware of two known vanishing points in the Spray picture that will provide an accurate answer."
In other words you are able to determine where the second vanishing point is more accurately than the photomodeler software. You expect anyone here to believe this? Are you a so-called CERTIFIED photogrammetrist? If you are why don't you identify yourself? If you can prove the DCM results are inaccurate why haven't you done so already? | |
| | |
| Esoxarcheaologist,
You also said, "Most certified photogrammetrists that I have had the occasion to be in front of tend to be rather specific, precise and (perhaps) even a bit arrogant."
Most people have never even heard of a photogrammetrist and yet you claim to have been in front of SEVERAL that were CERTIFIED?
Why were you contacting these people? Obviously you didn't get the answer from them that you were looking for otherwise you would have used it. And why did you contact several? Evidentally you weren't satisfied with the first response even though the person was "certified".
If you were ever truly in front of any certified photogrammetrists, don't try to tell me that you didn't contact them. A person doesn't just stumble into more than one "certified" photogrammetrist.
| |
| | |
Posts: 444
| I think Steve busted the so called Archealogist big time....Pointer you like this dude?
He's full of B.S.
The WRMA report deals with a very well and proven science. The report was done by an outside unbiased group then peer reviewed independly and again unbiased.
Unreal that people cant read the report and come to a simple basic conclusion.
Johnson and Spray were con men.
Edited by thescottith 12/28/2009 1:22 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 229
| Since nobody else will say it... I will. Obviously esoxarcheoligist is either John Dettloff or one of his associates/friends. That was painfully obvious to me at least after his first post.
John | |
| | |
Location: 31 | Eloquent (and accurate) rebuttals people! We appreciate your support, thank you!
Esoxarchaeologist:
Leapfrogging past the Mathematical Facts addendum will not make it go away. If you cannot explain how this record did not possess mathematically correct dimensions "here" on Muskie 1st, your "look over there" strategy will certainly not bode well for you in the future either.
To enlighten those with only a casual interest, the Mathematical Facts addendum is basically an immovable obstacle for those who support this record because the debunked measures were recorded on sworn affidavits. An affidavit that contains material errors is not an asset, it is an indictment. Why would somebody lie about the dimensions of a fish if the weight was accurate? Further, the newly discovered photograph provides strong visual evidence that this slender JULY caught muskellunge could not have the professed 33 ½" girth.
However, even though Esoxarchaeologist is an anonymous poster, the WRMA still takes any accusation like this very seriously. Quite frankly, we are all growing increasingly tired of the FWFHoF's ongoing rhetoric that our reports contain "bad science" based only on a biased amateurs opinion. This latest salvo by Esoxarchaeologist appears to be just another unqualified attempt to discount the methodology of a highly credentialed expert without merit or justification.
Consequently, the WRMA officials have decided to make an offer in an attempt to end this nonsense. We will pay 100% of the services for any "certified" photogrammetrist if either record can be proven to be as long as claimed. The WRMA can make this offer because we know both photogrammetric solutions are indeed correct and even peer-reviewed. The Professors the FWFHoF "used" to uphold the Spray record recommended that they obtain their own experts (along with the WRMA) in their letter to the FWFHoF.
http://www.ima.umn.edu/~arnold/muskie/brown-02-01-06.pdf
It would seem rather obvious that if there was any truth in DCM using "bad science", this offer would be readily accepted. It is also interesting that someone with a supposed mathematical background is not willing to provide an opinion on the Mathematical Facts addendum.
It can be ignored, denied, but it remains a mathematical certainty.
http://www.worldrecordmuskiealliance.com/Mathematical_Facts.pdf
Edited by Jerry Newman 12/28/2009 2:41 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 8821
| I really wish the Johnson fish was legitimate. I want to believe that there is a 70 pound muskie swimming around out there somewhere, that those size of fish were caught, the genes are still there, and the lake ecosystems where these "records" came from can support a fish of that caliber. I want to believe that, but math doesn't lie. Pi IS. The circumference of a circle IS, and even a perfectly round 60" muskie just wouldn't get to 70 pounds.
Not to mention the fact that the length clearly was falsified, too.
It's not going to change how or where I fish or when, bit I am a bit dissapointed that muskies really don't get as big as we all like to think.
| |
| | |
| esoxaddict,
Do you think a perfectly round muskie of ANY length actually exists or ever existed? | |
| | |
Posts: 8821
| Guest - 12/28/2009 3:04 PM
esoxaddict,
Do you think a perfectly round muskie of ANY length actually exists or ever existed?
Nope. And that's the only way that fish could possibly have had a 33.5" girth. There's just no way to manipulate the numbers to make that fish even CLOSE to what was originally claimed. Not length, not girth, not filled full of sand...
| |
| | |
Posts: 73
| Some late-posted random thoughts here, regarding WR Musky size and the Chippewa Flowage in particular, since about every major Musky forum has been discussing the Lawson report/ Spray ‘WR’ Musky’s for the past several weeks.
A matter that’s always perplexed me is, if Spray/Johnson had indeed ever caught fish of the size they purported, why did it never happen again? I realize that there was a time when Musky everywhere were recklessly harvested, but that hasn’t happened for years now. And it doesn’t seem adequate to explain why IF fish of those proportions ever swam in the waters of the Chippewa Flowage, where are they now? If those guys caught 2-3 or more fish like that out of the Flowage, why not ever again? And, why all in that particular time frame? (The Chip was already over twenty five years old then.) Were those guys just particularly lucky? Or were they that much better at finding big fish than anybody else before or since them? I don’t know…maybe so.
For years now I’ve watched excellent Chip guides like Ty Sennett and Tanner Wildes (and several others) post their year-end numbers. And what you see from them and their clients combined for an entire year is actually a relatively small number of plus 50” fish (lower to mid 50’s) coming from that lake, but none close to the Spray/Johnson fish.
These guides and others spend a huge number of hours on the water there---with boats and electronics that enable them to cover more water in a year than Spray or Johnson ever could have. Yet…no fish of the Hayward WR size; or even close. Why? It seems reasonable to suggest that it’s because the fish doesn’t exist. And if not, it’s a stretch for me to conclude it ever did. Perhaps someone might reason that the Spray/Johnson fish were of a genetic species that DID grow that big but were all harvested out of the lake during the slaughter years. And the present-day predominant genetics in the lake do not grow that big. Could be, I guess. But, it’s a logic that’s conjecture at best.
Not trying to dish the Flowage. The Chip is a great lake, and holds some nice Musky. But it’s always troubled me that with the number of people that have fished it over the years (even after the fish have been size-protected and should’ve recovered in size and numbers), and that even with the modern boats and electronics and huge amounts of angler’s hours that are spent catching fish there that nothing even close to the ‘WR’ has been caught again out of the Chippewa Flowage. It seems to defy common sense that this would be the case if those fish once were in there. So the thing that gives me the greatest cause for pause here is the Chips ability---(or lack of?)---to produce a fish like that. No, it can’t result in proving nor disproving whether the Spray and Johnson fish were genuine or not. But it does lead me to being more open to considering reports like Jerry has put forth on the matter.
| |
| | |
Posts: 8821
| Jim, that's a good question. It seems to me that if an area was home to several record class fish, all our conservation efforts would have been successful by now, (like they have everywhere else) and you'd be seeing fish in that size range on a fairly regular basis. But those fish aren't being caught anywhere, even though there are fisheries out there today with growth potential far beyond the lakes in Northern Wisconsin.
And that's the bottom line for me. If I want to catch big muskies, I'm going to fish where there ARE big muskies and not where there once were. Or weren't...
It would be nice to know what the real records are, the ones where the size and weight of the fish actually WAS what they said it was. I'd love to know that, just like most other muskie anglers. But it's sure not going to change how and where I fish. I'll still be out there looking for a big one. And as soon as it swims away, I'll be out there looking for the next one.
| |
| | |
| Actually a lake with fewer predators will grow bigger fish than a lake with a lot of them. Don't believe me?? Take two fish tanks and have one tank with ten fish in it and another with two fish in it. Feed both tanks the same amount and see which one grows the biggest fish. | |
| | |
Posts: 444
| I went to the Indian Trail resort page on Detloff's site, looked at the big fish contest or whatever the resort has, not one 50" fish out of that resort in 09. didnt bother to check 08 or 07
hmmmm... | |
| | |
| I think Detloff might have just cooked his own goose with his measurement of Johnson's eye socket mount measurement . He says Cal's mount measures 6.25" to the back of the eye socket and my old 53" skin mount measures 6 1/4" for the same measurement. This basically proves the head of the Johnson mount was actually from about a 53". I don't see how the same size head could be from a 60+" and 53" muskie anyway.
I just thought it would be good to let the WRMA know what I found, any reward bucks if this turns out to be the case cracker?
From Detloff's Cal Johnson web site, "The primary reference measurement of 5.669 inches that was generated by a computer program, from which they direct scaled length calculations of the musky, proves to be grossly in error by more than 9/16 of an inch. An accurate laser measurement on the mount reveals this same measurement to actually be 6.25 inches."
| |
| | |
Posts: 2361
| I love all the guests that show up for these. What does this prove exactly? That the calculations are not reliable, or that you caught a big headed fish? | |
| | |
| Oz on MuskyHunter has it right, dettlof and ramsell are working together to create this situation...they are co-dependent...otherwise it would not matter...they are perhaps playing a bigger scam than louie every could...I find it quite funny and a bit brilliant at the same time.... | |
| | |
Posts: 123
| Has anyone in the past 10-20 years actually adjusted their travel plans to vacation in the Hayward area because huge muskies were supposedly caught there in the 50's? I can't for the life of me see tourism being such a big factor regarding these fish, but maybe I'm missing the point. Anyone care to enlighten me? | |
| | |
| I don't think people who know the muskie ropes travel much to Hayward to fish for big muskies. They enjoy the scenery and other very nice things the area has to offer. The people who are being lured there with the record fish are the newcomers who want to try musky fishing. It might be several years by the time they figure out that there are better places to fish for big musky and move on, the next "crop" of people take their place and the cycle repeats. | |
| | |
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | People used to. Then they got tired of beating their heads against the wall and decided to go to MN for trophies. | |
| | |
| Agree that almost all the musky vets from Hayward in search of 50" musky head to MN, matter of fact all Hayward saw of Ty was his tail lights before he settled down.
What we are talking about is the 1st time people walking threw shows and stuff, they just don't know what to look for and have no idea they are being played by the Hayward "come catch a record" system for all they can get if they are really looking to catch a 50".
The current situation is that Hayward doesn't need it, the town itself (even though build on these records) has plenty of other great things to offer now. Anymore it is one man’s weird obsession to try to convince us of something that we know is just not so. Maybe he needs to head to MN to get his first 50" like the reast of us? | |
| | |
| firstsixfeet,
If that 53" muskie skin mount turns out to have the SAME head to body percentage as Cal's fresh muskie you're in big trouble. I requested ANYBODY that has a 54" skin mount to check the tip of the snout to the POSTERIOR of the eye socket and only had this one response. Anybody that does this with a 54" muskie that has a head to total length percentage the SAME as Cal's fresh fish will quickly learn that Cal's mount has the head of a normally proportioned 53" muskie.
| |
| | |
| Even if you don't believe in the WRMA findings, it's hard not to believe in the head size thing if what this poster claims is true. Right away, I got a mental picture of that latest 58" St. Larry fish when I read that post, and it was "Only" 58". Wonder how big that head was?
There is no way Johnson's 60" fish could have that small of a head if it was really 60". Common sense, and just looking at the pictures where the head is about average looking for it's size (whatever size it was). I'm all for giving the benifit of doubt to Johnson, but this head size pits a lock on it for me. | |
| | |
Posts: 2361
| Look at the pic of that fish taken on the shoreline. That is a big fat fish, and that is a LARGE HEAD. Muskies are not made with a cookie cutter. Each of the pictures unfortunately pull the head back, which shorten the spine, and shorten the overall length of the fish to it's minimum, and also shorten the fish's aspect in every photo. You take pics at different distances and then compare them as equal, but does that really work? Is it missing 5-6 inches or not? I don't think there is any compelling evidence proving that. I don't see the Gelb fish as anywhere near equal to the Johnson fish. And I don't see them as having similar body types either. | |
| | |
Posts: 906
Location: Warroad, Mn | FSF: I might add that you and I have similar body types. Makes about as much sence. See you soon! Doug Johnson | |
| | |
Posts: 20245
Location: oswego, il | FSF, you are right, Gelb's fish had bigger girths. Stealing a quote from poster on another site, these new photos only prove there are more photos of the fish.
As far as the tourism thing goes, I have had someone in a booth come to me, hand me a brochure and say "come to the chippewa flowage and catch a world record muskie" direct quote. | |
| | |
Posts: 2361
| Todd, you are welcome to that opinon on the girths, I don't share it, but...when you convince the sanctioning bodies of that, let me know.
And BTW, they were dead serious, they WANT YOU to come to the Chip and catch a world record musky. Do you realize how much money you would make them all if you did that?
| |
| | |
| Sixfeet, don't you mean they want Todd to come there and spend his hard earned money with virtually no chance of catching a 50"? If what the other post said is true, John Dettlof has never even caught a 50", let alone have a shot at a worlds record.
That's an interesting angle on that new photo Todd, hopefully he puts ALL OF THEM up on the Johnson web site. | |
| | |
Posts: 73
| You don't have a reasonable chance to catch a world record Musky in the Hayward area, but you can catch a 50"...every now and then. Nothing like the chances you'll have in several other places. Sennett's year-end totals list 133 fish caught out of the Chippewa Flowage, with only one fish being 50". For you math majors---that's less than 1% of the Musky catch. Not good odds. (Maybe there never were very good odds there?) | |
| | |
Posts: 20245
Location: oswego, il | FSF, here is another angle to consider with these fish. They are hurting the lake management. The folks who prop these fish up are dead against raising the size limits, why? It puts a shadow of doubt on the water's abilityto produce that "fish". They lobbied hard against the 50" limit and won, lost on the 45' limit while other guides there were screaming for an increase. | |
| | |
Posts: 8821
| Todd, that's the point I was trying to make earlier -- having old "records" that show the fishing was light years ahead of what it is now, during a time when they shot every one they caught? That certainly doesn't help ANY of our conservation efforts, and it's a perfect reason not to support any increased size limits, additional stocking, or anything else. | |
| | |
| Todd, that's a valid point you make about Hayward having to "maintain the myth" even though it hurts local musky fishing. I've even heard the local WDNR office get in the act when they referred to Johnson's record. If they really believe in those fish the area is doomed because it will continue to affect stocking and length limits in Sawyer County, Hayward is their own worst enemy by hanging on to these records. | |
| | |
Posts: 26
| Steve:
After reading through the posts on this subject, following is a slightly different point of view regarding world records that may be of interest. It's a slightly modified version of a response to Jerry Neumann that I recently posted on another site.
Jerry:
You state the WRMA's goal is to find the #1 fish. I have a couple of comments and questions.
The WRMA sponsored photogrammetric solutions by accredited photogrammetrists to evaluate the Spray and Johnson muskies. The technically sound measurements acquired using photogrammetry were significantly less than the reported measurements for these records. The WRMA used a sound technical approach to establish a basis for the feelings of many muskie anglers, namely; that the monster muskies being caught during modern times are likely as large or larger than the historic records.
While the WRMA's efforts are commendable, can photogrammetric solutions be used to identify the #1 muskie? When an accredited photogrammetric solution finds a record that matches its reported measurements how will its weight be determined? How will potential loading be assessed for a muskie caught 10 to 20 years ago? In the case of the 21 year old O'Brien muskie, if a photogrammetric solution supports the reported measurements how will its weight be justified? Dr. Crossman examined the stomach contents and found nothing unusual but the muskie weighed considerably less when examined than when weighed. So, a photogrammetric solution of the O'Brien fish would led us nowhere???
Since weight can't be determined from a photogrammetric solution, will photogrammetric solutions of released muskies eventually be compared to photogrammetric solutions of kept muskies in the WRMA's quest to find #1? Will the WRMA's #1 be based on length, girth & estimated weight?
Additionally, how will the WRMA handle photos of obviously huge muskies that do not include sufficient detail for deriving their photogrammetric solution?
Evidently, the WRMA's quest to find the #1 fish will continue. The WRMA mentions the next fish on their list is O'Brien, isn't that selection premature? How about Lawton, Malo, the Lawton muskie of 65#+ (caught after his world record was recognized) and McNair?
In 1992, Lawton's record received a hurried, self-serving, biased and incomplete review. Information was selectively presented and much of it was obtained from the Lawton family in an underhanded, despicable manner. Regardless, Lawton's record was "set-aside" by the IGFA (indicating it's still open) and disqualified by the FWFHF.
Does the WRMA consider the Lawton record false because it's obvious the Lawton's routinely exaggerated the size of their fish? Does the WRMA's quest for #1 disqualify Lawton because he exaggerated the size of other catches? Does the fact that Hartman confessed to loading fish have anything to do with Lawton? Lawton was deceased at the time of Hartman's confession.
The Lawton record has not been analyzed to the WRMA's standards set for Spray and Johnson. In the case of the commonly recognized Lawton record photo a photogrammetric solution (like those for Spray and Johnson) would likely support a much smaller fish.
Unfortunately, a photogrammetric solution of Lawton's muskie would not eliminate all doubt because the Lawton F&S photo file does not include a chain-of-custody so it's impossible to verify that the photo commonly recognized as the Lawton record was submitted with the record application, further; the issue becomes clouded if you consider that F&S requested an alternate photo from Lawton. We'll never be sure which photo was published and whether it was important in 1957 to publish an exact photo. Hell, per the Lawton record affidavit a photo was to be submitted IF AVAILABLE. It's a fact that F&S recognized several world records without an accompanying photograph! TO MY KNOWLEDGE THERE IS NO DOCUMENTATION THAT A PHOTO WAS MANDATORY IN 1957 TO ESTABLISH A WORLD RECORD. (Only Dettloff's claim that McClain when interviewed said a photo was required).
For completeness, shouldn't the WRMA review the Lawton photo record to determine if it includes a muskie larger than the commonly recognized record or a credible #1?
Arguably, the Lawton record boils down to the credibility of the 1957 F&S records committee. What information was important in 1957 and what was considered?
Finally, historic records were sanctioned on specific dates by specific organizations. They are a product of their era, established with the scrutiny the era demanded. Whether they're challenged or not, they will forever remain historic records!
Brad Latvaitis
| |
| | |
Posts: 123
| I've never seen a photo of the World Record Largemouth Bass that was caught in 1962, if I recall correctly. I do know a photo was not required at the time and that the fish was filleted by the angler and eaten. I don't recall anyone ever really questioning that fish at any point in time, which is somewhat strange when you think about it. It was a "realistic" record fish though, with many caught approaching that size and maybe even recently surpassing it. Maybe that was why, who knows. | |
| | |
| Yeah, bass and walleye are always being caught about the same size as the record and yet nothing ever close to the #70 musky record, pretty telling in of itself. George Perry's bass was from the 20-30's and there is a fair amount of doubt about it in the bass world to. | |
| | |
Posts: 676
Location: Wisconsin | World Record Largemouth (Tie) was just caught in Japan and it took weeks to verify it, but it was 22 pounds 4 ounces and from the pictures, it LOOKS that big.....(so does the 25 pounder that was snagged in California too) | |
| | |
Posts: 123
| Yeah, the George Perry fish from 1932 was what I was refering to. I was President of a Bass Club for a couple years and a member of that club for around 6 years. Not once was the legitimacy of that fish ever discussed. I've never seen any articles in any magazine about it either, and to my knowledge there NEVER was a picture of it. That fish met all the criteria of that time to be certified as the record and is simply accepted as such. Maybe if there was a picture of it we'd have people doing photo analysis of that one as well? I for one want to see a certified, un-arguable world record muskie, but it may never happen. We'll see. | |
| | |
Posts: 280
| Here's a pic of the supposed Perry world record. What do you think?
Attachments
----------------
perrybassphoto2.jpg (35KB - 360 downloads)
| |
| | |
| The kid's head would fit in the mouth of the monster, I wish we had a record that was at least as believable. The part I don't understand is how Emmett Brown is allowing John Dettloff to make a mockery of Hayward, the Hall and even his own legacy. I don't blame Larry for being fuming mad because his life's work there has been turned into the biggest of musky jokes. | |
| | |
Posts: 676
Location: Wisconsin | Compared to the World Record Tie...
http://www.nola.com/outdoors/index.ssf/2010/01/outdoors_notes_bass_...
| |
| | |
Posts: 26
| Fin 355:
Fin 355, you're correct regarding the George Perry photo. Interestingly, F&S sanctioned the world record largemouth without a photo!
The photo was obtained from a relative 74-YEARS AFTER IT WAS CAUGHT. The photo showed up on 05/28/06!!!
I wonder if Lawton had a similar photo in his file??
Brad Latvaitis | |
| | |
Posts: 123
| That's the first I've heard of a photo existing of that fish. Looks legit to me. As Brad states above, F&S did not require a photo at that time. The Crupi 22lb fish actually looked bigger than the Japanese fish, but it was probably just the angle. Thanks for posting that. | |
| | |
| Brad,
If the photo that Field & Stream used was not the correct photo of Lawton's record muskie, Art Lawton should have said so immediately after they started using it. Case closed.
John Dettloff showed an affidavit by Mr. Ball of Field & Stream in a 1992 issue of Musky Hunter Magazine that said in 1957 a photo WAS required by Mr. Lawton. This was not the case in the earlier years of their contest.
Furthermore, you make no mention of the recant by Walter Dunn in 1992.
Also, the world was thought to have been flat "historically" but what value does that have as far as what we know today? | |
| | |
Posts: 26
| GW:
You must not have read my post very carefully.
I said, "the issue becomes clouded if you consider that F&S requested an alternate photo from Lawton. We'll never be sure which photo was published and whether it was important in 1957 to publish an exact photo."
Under 2010 scrutiny I would agree that the proper photo would be a requirement and the responsibility of the angler to confirm. I'm not sure for 1957, are you?
Regarding the requirement for a photo I wrote, "Hell, per the Lawton record affidavit a photo was to be submitted IF AVAILABLE. It's a fact that F&S recognized several world records without an accompanying photograph! TO MY KNOWLEDGE THERE IS NO DOCUMENTATION THAT A PHOTO WAS MANDATORY IN 1957 TO ESTABLISH A WORLD RECORD. (Only Dettloff's claim that McClain when interviewed said a photo was required)".
I invite you to look at the BOLD PRINT on the Lawton record affidavit...I don't have my files with me for the exact wording but it states, send photo IF AVAILABLE. There is no other document in the F&S files, to my knowledge, that states a photo was required for a world record in 1957. If you can direct me to it I'll stand corrected.
As far as an affidavit obtained by Dettloff, when Mrs. McClain was queried regarding a similar affidavit John obtained from her dying husband she refuted several items. I personally have no faith whatsoever in any affidavit obtained by Dettloff.
Show me F&S documentation other than a questionable affidavit. By the way, why exactly would you believe this affidavit and not the affidavits associated with Lawton's fish? How do you decide which affidavits to believe...independent research?
The main issue anyone should have regarding the recant by Mr. Dunn is the manner in which it was obtained by Dettloff. Why did Dettloff stop asking questions when he got an answer he liked? Surely you've read the newspaper commentary regarding this issue by Shawn Thompson (I believe the name's correct but like I said, my files aren't available.
Last but not least, an historical understanding is a bit different than an historic event. But since you were able to find out that the earth was once considered flat that evidently had some value to you...plus it's an historic fact even though we don't believe it now...kind of like some of the muskie records, ya think!
Brad Latvaitis
Brad | |
| | |
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | I think this horse is almost dead now.
Maybe its best to agree to disagree?
Actually, does it really matter? How many +60 lb Muskies have ever been caught? How many of us will ever even see a Muskie that large while fishing? And how many of us would need a change of underwear if we did?
Now there is another thing to store in the boat. | |
| | |
| Brad,
I apologize for incorrectly identifying the Field & Stream judge that provided John Dettloff with the affidavit as Mr. Ball. It's been a long time since I've looked into this. The affidavit was actually provided by Dr. H. John Rayner who was a judge of many years with Field & Stream. In this affidavit Mr. Rayner confirmed that at the time of the Lawton entry in 1957, photographic evidence of a fish was mandatory in order to be accepted as a world record. Without a photo an entry was not acceptable. You will find this affidavit in Vol. 4, Number 5, Oct./Nov. 1992 Musky Hunter Magazine.
The issue does not become "clouded" just because F & S requested an alternate photo. They just wanted a clearer photo of the SAME fish if one was available. If this wasn't possible the original photo would have to do. The ONLY photo that should have been submitted is a photo of the record and it's up to Mr. Lawton to make sure the photo was indeed of that fish. Like I said, if the photo F & S used was not the correct fish, Mr. Lawton should have said something immediately.
Think about it. Why would any angler want a fish that was a world record to be represented by a smaller fish? Your arguement just doesn't make much sense!
I also don't like the words "questionable affidavit". You can't favor one over another. Walter Dunn recanted what he originally said plain and simple. Just because you don't like the response doesn't mean it isn't truthful.
You ask why would John Dettloff stop asking questions after he received the answer he liked? Why wouldn't he? What other answer could Mr. Dunn have given him? John asked him if he weighed or measured this fish and he said NO. How could more questioning have changed anything?
Brad, you KNOW this record is phony and it's time to get over it. Hardly anyone believes in it anymore and you'll never convince people to reconsider. This thread is about the Cal Johnson Summary Report we need to stay focussed on this. You are being very unfair to Jerry Newman by dragging this thing on.
| |
| | |
Posts: 26
| GW:
I just got back from dinner and am glad to have the opportunity to reply to your post.
Let's discuss your last paragraph first. How am I being unfair to Jerry Neumann? Less than 5 minutes after my initial post Jerry called me and we had a lengthy discussion. Two of the points we discussed was why the WRMA would consider spending the time and money to sponsor a photogrammetric solution of O'Brien's muskie when the weight issue for O'Brien's muskie would remain a problem? Another point was that there are other muskies, including Lawton's that didn't receive the same treatment as Spray and Johnson and to be thorough they should be reviewed before O'Brien. If you take the time to read through the 7 pages of posts you may realize this post touches on O'Brien, Lawton and others, not just the Cal Johnson summary report, so the issue has led to this point.
GW (I'd use your real name if you posted it), your first paragraph mentions the Rayner affidavit. What part of my response concerning Dettloff obtained affidavits did you miss? Let me repeat my last reply, "As far as an affidavit obtained by Dettloff, when Mrs. McClain was queried regarding a similar affidavit John obtained from her dying husband she refuted several items. I personally have no faith whatsoever in any affidavit obtained by Dettloff."
I don't know if the following is any clearer but here goes...SHOW ME THE F&S CONTEST RULES THAT DOCUMENT A PHOTO WAS REQUIRED FOR A WORLD RECORD IN 1957!!! The F&S contest application that Lawton submitted clearly states that a photo wasn't required. The F&S application that states a photograph wasn't required certainly carries more weight than an affidavit prepared by Dettloff 25 years after the fact!!!
Regarding the photo, since a photo wasn't required, the F&S Lawton photo file includes no chain-of-custody and no one knows the true photo history, I lean toward the integrity of the F&S committee including the F&S sponsored visit by Dale Shaw. Also, I believe you have to consider the status of records and the fishing industry in 1957 compared to today.
What's you basis for saying, "they just wan't a clearer picture of the same fish....if this wasn't possible the original photo would have to do." Do you know this for a fact? For purposes of argument, with just as much basis as your statement, I could say the blurry photo was a larger fish but an alternate is okay for F&S magazine purposes...after all it was 1957 and the fish looked in the same ballpark as the fish it was replacing... neither of us know for sure what happened! This is out and out conjecture but what if F&S said we'll go with this picture, is Lawton going to say no?? In this case the photo of a smaller fish would make sense.
I have no problem with Dunn's second response...I've considered them both and commented in writing to the FWFHF in 1992 regarding the issue (you can read it if you'd like in Larry's book, or get a copy from the FWFHF). The second affidavit is questionable to me because it was prepared and obtained by Dettloff who was obviously searching for the answer he wanted to hear rather than a thorough explanation, so I don't care if you don't like the words "questionable affidavit". Evidently you feel the original affidavit is the "questionable affidavit"...(it's okay for you to imply but not for me to say??) You say in your post above regarding the Dunn affidavits, "you can't favor one over the other." I don't favor one over the other but it appears that you do. If you haven't, please obtain and read Shawn Thompson's article on the subject...I'd post it but I won't have my files until April. If you'd like to see it I'm sure someone out there has it. I suppose you could contact Thompson if you don't want to review the issue in Larry's book.
Well GW, like many others you clearly haven't done your homework regarding the weighing and measuring of Lawton's muskie. I'm doing this from memory know but I'm sure it's pretty spot on. Dunn Brothers Slaughterhouse weighed their products (in this case a fish) in one room but the scale read-out took place in an adjoining room. So Dunn may not have actually placed the fish on a scale...he either heard the weight reported after it was read in the adjoining room or read the weight and reported it. Similarly, he was likely present when the fish was measured and the length was called out. He likely didn't physically weigh and measure the fish. Do you believe that all the witnesses for each F&S record individually physically weighed and measured each fish...or do you think they were present for the readings? By the way, the F&S representative, Mr. Shaw, visited the slaughterhouse so he was aware of the methodology.
I'm confident that the Lawton record is at a minimum as valid as the Spray and Johnson records and was scrutinized more thoroughly than the previous muskie records by virtue of the Shaw visit. Further, I know, just like the Perry bass picture that showed up 74 years after the fact, that anything is possible...including a photo of a 69#15 oz muskie.
Finally, as I said in my first post, "The Lawton record has not been analyzed to the WRMA's standards set for Spray and Johnson. In the case of the commonly recognized Lawton record photo a photogrammetric solution (like those for Spray and Johnson) would likely support a much smaller fish." Put another way, the Lawton, Spray and Johnson photographic evidence does not support the record measurements. Of these three fish, only Lawton's still has a glimmer of hope for a valid photo to show up.
Brad Latvaitis
| |
| | |
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | How about this conspiracy fans...was there an as yet unknown photo of Lawton's 69-15 in the Lawton files when sent by Lawton's neice to John Dettloff that has "mysteriously" disappeared???
Dettloff KEPT the supposed "smoking gun" Lawton photo (did NOT return it to Lawton's neice)...and there is NO proof that HE (Dettloff) did not put the writing on that photo as it DOES NOT match any other Lawton handwriting (confirmed by IGFA representatives!)!!!
Dettloff so wanted "Louie" to be the top dog, the mysterious disappearance of a true photo of Lawton's 69-15 by his hand certainly wouldn't surprise me.
If you want to read about Dettloff's "underhanded" dealings with the Lawton family, check out the "News" archives on this web site for 2006..."Did Art Lawton recieve a fair shake?". Cal Johnson III should be very happy that Dettloff WANTED to do whatever he could (honest or not) to support Johnson's muskie!
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Muskellunge Historian
www.larryramsell.com | |
| | |
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | By the way, just how tall was Cal Johnson? In 2006 Dettloff said in no uncertain terms that he was 5 foot 7 inches. Then magically, just as with Spray, he GREW to 5 foot 9 inches in 2009!
Hopefully my attachment will work (photo of Spray's fishing partner Ted Haag who was, if anything, a bit shorter than Louie who WAS 5 foot 11 inches, not the 6 foot 2 inches Dettloff originally had him). In this photo, Cal (center) is OBVIOUSLY much shorter than Haag (holding the muskie)!! And YES, they are in the same "plane" standing on the same level!
Edited by Larry Ramsell 1/13/2010 10:06 AM
Attachments
----------------
Johnson_with_Haag.jpg (27KB - 382 downloads)
| |
| | |
| Brad, I have also read the entire thread and was wondering what has changed your mind since 1993?
Neumann quote, "Before the WRMA was formed, we sought the advice of Brad Latvaitis and Larry Ramsell and they did not mention doing Lawton first..."
If you truly thought it was legitimate or should be the rightful record, why didn’t you more strongly lobby for the reinstatement before Spray was upheld? Your a smart guy and must realize your push to reinstate Lawton could be perceived as just a personal vendetta against John Dettloff, and not really a sincere belief in the fish itself.
| |
| | |
Posts: 26
| Larry:
It's hard to grasp how anyone with even a cursory interest in records could support Dettloff's "research".
Regarding the "big 3" historic muskie records I have the following suggestions:
1. The law firm of Lawton and Cates in a letter to the FWFHF suggested for the Lawton muskie, "...photographs ...should be randomly numbered and sent to two independent photogrammetrists. The only information given the photogrammetrists would be the height of the person shown with the fish. Each photogrammetrist would be asked to independently determine the length of each fish. After this procedure has been followed you should know whether measurements provide relevant evidence concerning the...world record."
If an independent third party followed the Lawton and Cates suggestions (which I believe the WRMA has offered to pay for) the Spray and Johnson record controversy could be resolved. If the photogrammetric solutions are similar the records would be disqualified. If the results cast doubt the records would remain in place. Until a second photogrammetric solution is conducted the Spray and Johnson muskies should each be placed in "set-aside" status.
In each case there would have to be agreement on Spray and Johnson's height...I wonder if the Lawton & Cates suggestion has any bearing on the "adjustments" over time to the angler's stature. By the way, since a person's height is determined with feet together and head erect, each analysis should use an even lesser height than a known measured height...or maybe the same height to compensate for shoes.
(For the record, I believe the photogrammetry conducted to date is solid and would be supported by a second solution...I hope we'll find out someday!)
2. Regarding Lawton, in keeping with common sense the most common photo of the Lawton record would be considered "short" without a photogrammetric solution. However, in respect of the F&S records committee and in light of collaborating evidence, the Lawton record should be recognized as set-aside in case a photo ever surfaces. As presented in my earlier posts, Lawton's record is the best of the "big three".
My posts above point out some of the problems of where to go after the "big three." It would be a mess!
We need a Modern Day Record program!
Brad Latvaitis
| |
| | |
| Brad,
I don't have the time to spend on this as you do but just because you personally have no faith whatsoever in any affidavit obtained by Dettloff doesn't mean a thing as far as I'm concerned. Are you implying that Dettloff held a gun to these peoples heads and FORCED them to say what they did?
Why are you avoiding the Rayner affidavit? This affidavit clearly states that a photograph WAS required in 1957 and I urge everyone here to obtain the Oct./ Nov. 1992 issue of Musky Hunter Magazine and read it for themselves.
If a photo wasn't required, WHY would Lawton even bother submitting one? Especially of the wrong fish!
It's become very apparent to me that you have an obvious agenda. You appear to be very upset with Dettloff for not treating Spray and Johnson the same way he did Lawton (and rightly so) and you feel the ONLY way you can get revenge is by getting the IGFA to reinstate Lawton. Don't hold your breath because a photo WAS required by F & S and Dettloff provided the IGFA with the affidavit from Rayner to confirm it. | |
| | |
| And Brad, YOU need to do your homework about the Lawton weigh-in. Art Lawton told Mr. Shaw that Walter Dunn balanced the scale and ALL the witnesses were there watching. Lawton was in the adjoining room by himself and NOBODY could see what he was doing when he placed the fish on the scale! It's no wonder he won so many contests!
This fish is the biggest joke of the three. People make fun of how Spray was able to catch two muskies over 60 lbs. Johnson caught one. Lawton and his wife supposedly caught six!!! | |
| | |
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | Gosh, from that picture, the Johnson fish doesn't look any longer than 48 inches and maybe, just maybe 30 lbs. Unless if the guy holding it is 8 ft tall....
So, there is an argument here? How can there be? Its like calling a Ford Ranger an F350. About half the stated size at best. | |
| | |
Posts: 26
| Guest:
I noticed the Neumann quote, "Before the WRMA was formed, we sought the advice of Brad Latvaitis and Larry Ramsell and they did not mention doing Lawton first..."
While I don't specifically remember my first ever discussion with Jerry at the time of the discussion the Lawton record had been removed and the focus was on Spray. Also, it was obvious that the most commonly recognized Lawton record photo was short as were many of the Lawton's reported catches. At the time the potential for an additional Lawton photo was unknown to me.
My mind regarding the Lawton muskie record hasn't changed since 1993. it was then, as it is now, that per the F&S record application a photo was NOT required. Because the F&S Lawton file has no chain-of-custody we do not know for certain the details involving the Lawton photo. I considered the record in the same category as Perry's bass...a world record without a photo.
You then say, "If you truly thought it was legitimate or should be the rightful record, why didn’t you more strongly lobby for the reinstatement before Spray was upheld?" You're kidding aren't you? As a member of the FWFHF Records Committee reviewing the Lawton record, I voiced my concerns. These have since been published by others...as a committee member, regardless of disagreement, the consensus rules. Regarding the Spray record, surely you're aware of my efforts to attempt to get the FWFHF to follow a set protocol and conduct a technically sound and supportable review.
You end by writing, "Your a smart guy and must realize your push to reinstate Lawton could be perceived as just a personal vendetta against John Dettloff, and not really a sincere belief in the fish itself."
I do not have a personal vendetta against John Dettloff, rather; I believe he was underhanded and self-directing in his "investigation" of Lawton and as a representative of the FWFHF he has been self-serving, unprofessional and unsound technically...other than that he's probably a nice guy. I have no vendetta...I'm just looking for consistent treatment of records, not consistent treatment of only the Hayward area muskies.
Finally, where did I say that I have a sincere belief in the Lawton fish? What I said was all of the "big three" are short but there's a glimmer of hope that a photo of Lawton's muskie could surface...just like Perry's bass.
Brad Latvaitis
Edited by Brad Latvaitis 1/13/2010 12:17 PM
| |
| | |
| There's a BIG difference. There was NO photo submitted with Perry's bass and there WAS a photo submitted with Lawton's muskie. This means there was NOTHING to show Perry's bass was not as large as claimed. Also, at the time Perry's bass was entered it was NOT required to have a photo and at the time Lawton entered his muskie a photo WAS required and this is the reason the IGFA has set it aside. | |
| | |
Posts: 26
| GW:
I'm not implying that Dettloff held a gun to these peoples heads and FORCED them to say what they did? But I am wondering how you justify chosing between the two affidavits that Dunn prepared about the time of the catch (one of them witnessed by the F&S representative, Shaw) and the Dettloff affidavit prepared 35-years after the fact.
You ask, "Why are you avoiding the Rayner affidavit? This affidavit clearly states that a photograph WAS required in 1957 and I urge everyone here to obtain the Oct./ Nov. 1992 issue of Musky Hunter Magazine and read it for themselves." GW you refuse to get my point. The Rayner affidavit was prepared 35 years after the record was accepted...it's based on a respected man's recall...but it was not a written F&S rule. On the other hand, Lawton's F&S record application states in bold print to submit a photo if available...I'm not sure but the affidavit is probably in the MH issue you reference.
You ask, "If a photo wasn't required, WHY would Lawton even bother submitting one? Especially of the wrong fish!" A photo was to be submitted if available...evidently one was submitted...it was blurry...who knows what happened next.
You follow by stating, "It's become very apparent to me that you have an obvious agenda. You appear to be very upset with Dettloff for not treating Spray and Johnson the same way he did Lawton (and rightly so) and you feel the ONLY way you can get revenge is by getting the IGFA to reinstate Lawton. Don't hold your breath because a photo WAS required by F & S and Dettloff provided the IGFA with the affidavit from Rayner to confirm it."
Let's get something very clear. I AGREE THAT THE IGFA LAWTON RECORD SHOULD REMAIN IN "SET-ASIDE" STATUS IN CASE A RECORD PHOTO SHOWS UP!!! FURTHER, I BELIEVE BOTH SPRAY AND JOHNSON SHOULD BE SET ASIDE BASED ON THEIR PHOTOGRAMMETRIC SOLUTIONS UNTIL THE SOLUTIONS ARE EITHER SUPPORTED OR REFUTED IN A TECHNICALLY SOUND MANNER! FINALLY, TO BE FAIR AND CONSISTENT, UNLESS ALL THREE ARE SET ASIDE, LAWTON SHOULD BE REINSTATED.
Brad Latvaitis
Edited by Brad Latvaitis 1/13/2010 12:41 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 26
| GW:
You wrote, "And Brad, YOU need to do your homework about the Lawton weigh-in. Art Lawton told Mr. Shaw that Walter Dunn balanced the scale and ALL the witnesses were there watching. Lawton was in the adjoining room by himself and NOBODY could see what he was doing when he placed the fish on the scale! It's no wonder he won so many contests!"
That's interesting...if the scale was in a room seperate from where the reading appeared which room do you think the scale was balanced in...were the witnesses watching Dunn balance the scale, place the fish on the scale, or were they all huddled in the office where the weight was read? Do you really think Lawton was alone in the weight room weighing the fish...and he had the fish pre-weighed 4-ounces heavier than Spray's...or maybe he put his foot on the scale along with the muskie and got lucky!
You end with, "This fish is the biggest joke of the three. People make fun of how Spray was able to catch two muskies over 60 lbs. Johnson caught one. Lawton and his wife supposedly caught six!!!" There's a man that currently produces similar results...outfishing everyone consistently...anything is possible.
Brad Latvaitis
| |
| | |
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | GW - 1/13/2010 12:02 PM And Brad, YOU need to do your homework about the Lawton weigh-in. Art Lawton told Mr. Shaw that Walter Dunn balanced the scale and ALL the witnesses were there watching. Lawton was in the adjoining room by himself and NOBODY could see what he was doing when he placed the fish on the scale! It's no wonder he won so many contests! This fish is the biggest joke of the three. People make fun of how Spray was able to catch two muskies over 60 lbs. Johnson caught one. Lawton and his wife supposedly caught six!!! GW: Not to get in the middle of this discussion BUT... People make fun of Spray catching fish over 60# because of WHERE he caught them. Lawtons were at least catching 60# fish where they were probably caught back then and can still be caught today.
Edited by Will Schultz 1/13/2010 1:17 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 26
| GW:
I disagree that the IGFA set-aside Lawton's muskie because a photo was required.
They set it aside because when the IGFA investigates a record it is held to the standards in place at the time of the review. In this case, the most commonly recognized photo was considered short (I think we all agree on this without a photogrammetric solution).
The rub is, if the IGFA were consistent they'd likewise set-aside Spray and Johnson...wait a minute, they ignored Spray and jumped to Johnson (maybe because the Spray fish didn't meet the IGFA's number of hooks protocol or maybe they think the picture is bad (you'd have to ask them!!??).
So, as of today, the IGFA has set-aside Lawton (I agree), failed to recognize Spray and showed inconsistency by recognizing Johnson...nice work! As record keepers as far as muskie are concerned, the IGFA in the most credible!
Brad Latvaitis
Brad
| |
| | |
Posts: 3504
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | Hi Everyone,
Question of curiosity here (in reference to Brad's previous post), but wasn't the spray fish not considered by the IGFA because it was subdued with a bullet to the head?
Steve | |
| | |
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | VMS - 1/13/2010 3:00 PM Hi Everyone, Question of curiosity here (in reference to Brad's previous post), but wasn't the spray fish not considered by the IGFA because it was subdued with a bullet to the head? Steve Spray's record was never a consideration at the IGFA due to technical considerations: per IGFA standards, he had exceeded the amount of allowable hooks, and shot the fish in order to land it. On a recommendation, the IGFA subsequently changed their record to Cal Johnson's 67-8. http://www.worldrecordmuskiealliance.com/history.html | |
| | |
| Brad,
I don't have the slightest idea of what you're talking about. The fact is if a photo was NOT required the IGFA could not have set aside Lawton's record on a photo issue, PERIOD!!!
| |
| | |
| Brad, GW, most of us really care about the finer points of "why", the important thing is that all 3 of those records should all be set aside.
Larry, you are totally right about Dettloff being capable of anything, he is musky record crook there is no doubt about that. However, I don't see how it would be possible for him to steal a picture of some giant #70 musky. Think about it, if Lawton really had such a picture, why wouldn't he have produced it for Field & Stream or for 1 of the articles he did afterward. What reason would he have to keep it hidden? Heck, why would he have signed that picture of a smaller musky for you too, that was his personal endorsement that that fish was in fact the record. Didn't he also have "problems" with his camera and claim to only have the one picture of it like Spray too? | |
| | |
| Brad,
The scale platform was in a separate room from where the scale could be balanced according to Art Lawton's nephew Art Molle.
Art Lawton told Mr. Shaw that ALL of the witnesses were in the office watching the scale being balanced by Walter Dunn.
If you would have done your homework you would know this was true.
I don't care how you feel about what took place. Being Lawton was free to do whatever he pleased without being seen, I can't see how anyone could accept this weigh-in procedure.
Mr. Shaw also never said anywhere that he visited the Dunn Bros. Slaughterhouse to witness this procedure as you claim. Show me some proof?
Also, don't talk to me about about someone producing similar results today. How many verified 60+ lb. muskies have been caught recently that you can confirm?
| |
| | |
Posts: 26
| GW:
Regarding Lawton, a photo was not required but could be submitted if available. A photo was associated with the Lawton muskie. The IGFA set-aside Lawton's record based on a this photo. Does it mean anything to you that the IGFA DID NOT DISQUALIFY Lawton's fish. They set it aside in case an appropriate photo shows up!!
Regarding the IGFA's policy to consider all challenged fish on the IGFA's rules in place at the time of the challenge, don't take my word for it...look at the Will Schultz post above. Spray was disqualified...not set-aside...because the fish was caught with more hooks than the IGFA allowed and it was shot in order to land. Neither of these issues regarding the Spray fish were in place when F&S sanctioned the record. It's likely it wasn't necessary for the IGFA to evaluate the Spray photo...which also wasn't required in 1949 but was obviously submitted.
Brad Latvaitis | |
| | |
Posts: 26
| GW:
As I've stated all along, I don't have my files with me and won't have them until April. So I have a few requests:
1) You state that, "The scale platform was in a separate room from where the scale could be balanced according to Art Lawton's nephew Art Molle". Please give me your source for this information....if not, I'm requesting another post reader to set this issue straight.
2) You state that, "Art Lawton told Mr. Shaw that ALL of the witnesses were in the office watching the scale being balanced by Walter Dunn". Again, please share your information source and its context with me...or I'd like someone else to join in.
You state that, "Lawton was free to do whatever he pleased without being seen..." Again please provide your source for this statement.
It's my understanding that Mr. Shaw was sent to the Dunn Bros. Slaughterhouse by F&S. I never claimed that he witnessed the weighing of the muskie, just that if he visited the slaughterhouse he would be aware of their standard methods. I don't have my files with me...can anyone out there confirm Shaw was sent to the slaughterhouse...it's not hard to assume he did since he met with one of the Dunn Brothers.
Finally, you ask, "Also, don't talk to me about about someone producing similar results today. How many verified 60+ lb. muskies have been caught recently that you can confirm?" I can confirm no 60 pound muskies and didn't say that I could...I said similar catches meaning numerous 50-pound muskies. I am confident of several 50 pounders. Regarding 60 pound muskies, I can make a good case for McNair's being a minimum of 60-pounds.
Brad Latvaitis
| |
| | |
| Brad,
This business of "setting aside" these fish doesn't make any sense to me at all. All three of these fish should be disqualified as far as I'm concerned. As far as that bass photo that was produced after all these years, how will we ever know that was indeed the fish it is supposed to represent? Who are the people in that photo? To me that photo is meaningless other than "somebody" caught a large bass a long time ago.
If a photo was submitted that clearly does not represent a fish of the size claimed, the angler should be held responsible and the fish should be disqualified. You are entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine. Is that Ok with you?
| |
| | |
| I have been watching and reading this thread with great interest,I applaud all that are involved in trying to make things right and truthful.
Sadly I suspect as has been suggested a 2 tier format for records is the only harmonoius solution,,alast I doubt some folks invoved would be in favor of such.
Even though it is the most viable peaceful and proper solution.
Brad with all do respect
"I can make a good case for McNair's being a minimum of 60-pounds."
Brad Latvaitis
I dont agree with you,I suspect discrepancies occurred during the measurements.
Considering the biological growth of muskies and their peak life cycle period and physical dynamics,I highly doubt or believe a muskie could swim around with a legitimate and accurate 33 inch girth measurement in water,even out of water measurement would increase and possibly lead to further discrepancies.
Those are my observations over time
Its a great big fish and most probably one of the largest since Williamson,but I suspect that fish weighed 55 to 58 pounds from my observations.
The most honorable thing is they released it, without even considering the weight,trully a great example of how C&R has evolved from its very conception.
I dont think considering it a WR is in best interest of what this fish and the act represents,definitely one of the most largest ever release no doubt,we should leave it at that.
Tksa for sharing you views and discussions in this,its interesting to observe folks views on the matter | |
| | |
Posts: 8821
| GW - 1/13/2010 2:45 PM
Brad,
I don't have the slightest idea of what you're talking about. The fact is if a photo was NOT required the IGFA could not have set aside Lawton's record on a photo issue, PERIOD!!!
Why not?? What does one have to do with the other?? So they didn't require a photo.... If later on down the road, photographic evidence proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the record was indeed false? What difference does it make what the requiements to submit the record were at the time?
That's like saying that DNA evidence shouldn't be used in unsolved criminal cases because there was no DNA testing when the crime was committed... | |
| | |
Posts: 26
| GW:
I agree wholeheartedly and I respect your opinion.
Regarding the Perry photo, if you go online you'll find advertisement for a book published in November 2009 entitled, "Remembering George W. Perry." The book is written by Mr. Baab...THE authority on George Perry. Baab claims the photo is from a Perry relative and the person holding the bass is Perry's fishing partner. I can't confirm the acuraccy, I'm only passing on what I read online. I've ordered the book.
Brad Latvaitis | |
| | |
Posts: 26
| Marc:
Nice to hear from you.
Thought you might be interested in how I estimated weight for the McNair muskie.
To be conservative, I assumed that the length and girth measurements were inaccurate because of dealing with a live fish in a moving boat. Although there's no basis to assume the measurements were greater than they should be...they just as likely could have been less than actual length...to be further conservative I assumed the reported measurements were greater than recorded.
The McNair photos that I've seen show a substantial girth for a good size section of the fish. I don't know McNair but I'm told he's a big man who'll have no need as time goes on to increase in size from 5'9" to 6'2" or 5'7" to 5'9".
I know that the weight calculation formula takes its share of criticism but consider the following for the largest musky dimensions reported recently by Musky Hunter: 59x27 weighed 55# 9oz and calculates at 53.76#, 54x28 weighed 53# and calculates at 52.92#, 53x28.5 weighed 51.17# and calculates at 53.81# and 56.125x27 weighed 50# 8oz and calculates at 51.14#. The formula gives a range of 1.8# under weighed weight to 2.64# over weighed weight for four muskies with an average weight of 52.13#.
Consider McNair's musky at 57x33 calculates at 77.59#. If the girth measurement is reduced by 3-inches to 57x30 the estimate is 64.125#, if you then reduce the length by an inch, to 56x30 the weight calculates at 63# (If you then use the error range for five most recent weighed muskies you get a range of 60.36 to 64.8#. So, it takes a length measurement reduced by an inch and a girth measurement reduced by 4-inches or a greater formula error to get under 60#...56x29 calculates at 58.87#.
Having said all of this, I agree we'll never know the weight of the McNair musky on the day it was caught. Your guess is as good as mine and maybe better. It's a fact that either; inaccurate measurements, a yet undetermined live/dead girth relationship, formula error, all three, or a yet unrecognized factor are needed to result in a weight estimate that's under 60# using the weight formula (I used the MH weight calculator).
Brad Latvaitis | |
| | |
| Brad,
With all due respect, don't you really feel that the IGFA saying Lawton's fish is "set aside" is just a way of being kind to the Lawton family? It sounds a lot better than "disqualified" and you have to agree that the likelyhood of another photo surfacing is next to zero. I'll bet the IGFA is not the least bit concerned of another photo ever surfacing. The IGFA KNOWS this fish is bogus but hates to discredit the Lawton family and I can understand their position.
It's too bad these anglers didn't consider how their reputations could be hurt by their shenanigans and also the terrible position they put the record keepers in. The IGFA I'm sure is aware that the Johnson muskie is also bogus but they couldn't possibly put it in "set aside" status because there are so many photos of it. The ONLY way to avoid harming the reputation of the Johnson family would be to uphold the record and I'm sure that's the reason they did so. Now the IGFA finds itself in a position that lacks credibility because of their failure to treat both the Johnson and Lawton fish equally. This situation needs to be resolved and people that have lied should have to suffer the consequences. I say disqualify any fish that clearly isn't supported by the photo that was submitted with it. Then the record keepers could get back to doing what they are supposed to do. Keeping honest records.
| |
| | |
Posts: 5
| Brad:
I have a tremendous amount of respect for you, if for nothing more than posting well-thought out, reasoned and pragmatic posts. However, for the life of me I don't understand the persistence with Lawton by you and your friend.
I know you have seen this post before and agree with the facts that support it, but one more time for the record:
Here’s the FACT on the Lawton record:
As represented by Arthur Lawton himself, the World Record photograph of his fish was, in fact, a MISREPRESENTATION.
As represented by the IGFA, the World Record photograph of Lawton’s fish was, in fact, a MISREPRESENTATION.
As represented by the FWFHF, the World Record photograph of Lawton’s fish was, in fact, a MISREPRESENTATION.
As represented by the lure manufacturer in official factory displays, the World Record photograph of Lawton’s fish, was in fact, a MISREPRESENTATION.
As represented in numerous trade publications, the World Record photograph of Lawton’s fish was, in fact, a MISREPRESENTATION.
There is absolutely no debate among anyone, anymore that the photograph that was represented for not only years, but decades to be “the” photograph of the World Record by Lawton was, in fact, not a photograph of a fish 64 ½ inches long.
That is the FACT.
For years and decades, LAWTON’S WORLD RECORD PHOTOGRAPH was MISREPRESENTED.
MISREPRESENTATION being what it is, can mean only one thing, that the official record keeping agencies, by default, disqualified the fish: er, set-aside, whatever. It was willful misrepresentation.
It’s that simple.
Since the Lawton fish was willfully misrepresented (some people may consider that fraud since the "intent" was to misrepresent something that clearly was not true), any other insinuation, innuendo, might of been, could have been, because Detloff did or didn't do is absolutely immaterial.
I know that you agree with the fact statement above. You have said so on more than one occasion.
Based on all of the above, it never should have been a record and will never be a record again. | |
| | |
Posts: 3504
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | EA,
So, If I may play devil's advocate here for a moment...if the WRMA has found that the spray fish and the Johnson fish are willfully misrepresented through their scientific and mathematical analysis (and using your own quote here, "many would consider that fraud since the "intent" was to misrepresent something that was clearly not true") would that also be a solid justification that they should never have been records as well?
Steve
| |
| | |
Posts: 5
| VMS:
Playing devil's advocate, I agree with you. However, you statement includes a BIG second "IF". | |
| | |
Posts: 3504
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | Hi again EA,
Being a bystander in this and staying as open minded as I possibly can on this, but having read the report and the mathematical addendum, I am curious as to your view or argument for or against the WRMA's girth analysis. Would you be willing to divulge your view on that point?
Steve | |
| | |
Posts: 26
| Esoxarchaeologist:
I agree with your statement of fact...Lawton's world record photograph was misrepresented.
I also realize that it would take some pretty unusual circumstances for the wrong photo to end up representing the record. My prior posts list several reasons how and why the wrong fish may have been used...and it should be understood that one of the reasons that it was misrepresented may be that the picture and/or the fish never existed.
The Lawton record claim is unique for several reasons, not the less of which is that family and some witnesses have insisted for years that the wrong fish was represented...the claim has some basis when you consider the F&S file correspondence regarding a photo. Something happened, who knows what it was?
Neither you nor I know how the wrong fish ended up being represented. If the misrepresentation was an F&S oversight or decision, I don't believe it's a basis for disqualification. I agree that in 1958, after having been awarded the muskie world record, Lawton could have complained that the wrong photo was published in the F&S article...there's no evidence that this did or didn't happen...how important was it in 1958 (I certainly don't know).
I don't think that the IGFA's designation of the record as set-aside has anything to do with respect for the Lawton's but rather respect for the 1957 records committee and in recognition of the possibility that a representative photo exists. Since it appears that the Perry bass photo was found and authenticated 74 years after the fact, I don't expect the IGFA's status of the Lawton record to change. From the response to my posts, I doubt many that follow these posts expect one to show up...consider that no one expected a Perry bass photo either!!
Finally, I honestly don't care who holds the world record, however; I strongly feel that the record stewards have a responsibility to treat each record equally. They clearly haven't done so. My lack of respect for Mr. Dettloff stems from the fact that he prepared the Lawton disqualification claim but was unwilling to hold Spray and Lawton to the same treatment when he was in position to do so.
Regarding my persistence with the Lawton record, equal treatment by the record stewards would require reinstatement of the record as long as Spray and Johnson remain in place. In my mind the proper handling of the "big three" would be to disqualify Spray and Johnson based on photogrammetric evidence and keep Lawton in set-aside based on my arguments above.
Also, for what it's worth, in an earlier post I mentioned a second photogrammetric solution for Spray and Johnson based on a lawfirms suggestion...I personally believe the solutions to date are technically sound and a second isn't needed...but a second round would end any suggestions of technical bias/error
Brad Latvaitis
| |
| | |
| Hi Brad,tks for sharing your calculations towards this great big fish
I dont doubt the length but I suspect 28 or 29 inches in girth is more close to a relative accurate girth than the 33 inches measured,without consider the possibility of air trapped in the swim bladder (which greatly reduces the weight).
We must also factor the hold which embellishes the protrusion of the girth and after dark pictures which enhances the size of the subject.
As far as Mcnair stature,I dont consider him above the norm,some dudes are giants but I dont think dale fits this stature
Having fished with Steve Bedarf whom makes a 58 look like a 53,he is what I define as a giant man,if it were not for the cradle shot we would have had disbelief's ourselves. coming from a short crocht'ed person everyone is bigger than me hahahahaha
Your calculations of 58 pounds are within my views also
Mighty fine example of release ethics
tks for sharing your thoughts
marc | |
| | |
| Regarding Lawton,did not Cubby Caya share pertinent info on his fish? | |
| | |
| Is anyone considering the months all these fish were caught?
Fish generally and biologically do not begin to retain mass or egg development until water temps reach a certain designated temperature which slow down in there metabolism and leads to increased mass
Most muskies peak at full mass in their yearly/ life/growth cycle in November or below 45 degrees
beyond the accurate science of mathematical measurement calculations and photogrametry,there is biological yearly growth cycles which seemed forgotten. | |
| | |
| Cubby was Hartman, not Lawton.
It's interesting how EA (assume it's Detloff unless he IDs himself) bugs out every time someone brings up the the mathematical analysis on Johnson. Can't say as I blame him because that piece of work is a slam dunk THAT everyone can relate too.
I still don't understand how anyone is willing to accept Detloff finding problems with the experts work on both Spray and Johnson either. Muskie 1st, Musky Hunter, Muskie Inc. and Muskie Canada should ban together and pick up the torch, they are the leaders in the industry and together would be powerful enough to put a stop it. | |
| | |
Posts: 26
| Marc:
While a muskie's typical seasonal condition factor is considered, when reviewing records, the submitted measurements are used. Unusual girth would be a red flag today...was it recognized in the past? (I'm not sure). Excessive girth could also result from a very recent meal...that's why modern scrutiny would require an internal examination of a world record soon after weighing.
Esoxarchaeologist:
One point I forgot to add to my recent post to you regarding Lawton. If a supporting photo were presented to the IGFA and the record was reinstated, a photogrammetric solution would be required to place it on equal footing with Spray and Johnson.
Brad Latvaitis | |
| | |
| Oh sure and Esox (AKA Detloff) will be able to convince everyone that Cal's July 601/2 x 33 1/4 was really that big and had nothing in it's stomach.
| |
| | |
| Brad,
You claim Field & Stream writer Dale Shaw knew about the weigh-in procedure after he was sent to investigate the Lawton record. If this were true, why would the following have been presented as NEW evidence in 1993?
Mr. Husar's February 21, 1993 column, "New Evidence Enters Great Muskie Controversy", details the normal procedure used to weigh the Lawton muskellunge at Dunn Bros. told by Lawton nephew Art Molle, as follows:
"While the scale happened to be in the refrigeration room, the results were displayed inside the adjoining office," 'he said' "The procedure was for someone to read the scale in the office, write down the weight and slip the paper through an opening in the window. So no one by the scale actually saw the scale display, although they did hear the announced results."
Then you asked how do I know where Lawton and the witnesses were located.
From the 1958 article that appeared in Field & Stream by Dale Shaw:
Lawton laid his fish on the scale bed, Dunn fiddled with the sliding weight, and the balance was soon struck.
"Sixty-nine pounds fifteen ounces," Dunn said.
Everybody gathered close to check the reading, Dunn and Sharp signed a Field & Stream affidavit.
This is what Art Lawton told Dale Shaw who then wrote the story.
Now you can clearly see that Mr. Dunn and the witnesses were located in the office while Lawton was alone in the refrigeration room where the scale bed was located.
Remember this was a slaughterhouse and pre-weighed meat is stored in the refrigeration room. How easy would it be for Lawton to place 69 lb. 15oz of meat on the scale bed instead of his fish?
Like I said, now you know how Lawton was always able to win the fishing contests!
| |
| | |
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | GW - 1/14/2010 11:42 AM From the 1958 article that appeared in Field & Stream by Dale Shaw: Lawton laid his fish on the scale bed, Dunn fiddled with the sliding weight, and the balance was soon struck. Wait a second... I think you're reading too much into what is actually said. It doesn't state Lawton was alone when placing the fish on the scale. In fact it states "Lawton laid his fish on the scale bed..." Since it specifically says fish, it leads me to believe someone saw him put the fish on the scale. It is also stated there's a window to the room and I'm pretty certain back then window meant window and it was something a person in one room could see through to the adjoining room. How many watched Lawton through the window place the fish on the bed of the scale? | |
| | |
| Brad,
I'd also like to know how you can dismiss an affidavit from Dr. H. John Rayner who was the Chief of Operations for the Field & Stream fishing contest at the time Lawton submitted his entry?
| |
| | |
| Will Shultz,
You're forgetting that this is what Lawton TOLD Dale Shaw. Nobody KNOWS what Lawton laid on the scale bed! If you read this whole story you will find no mention of ANYONE being in the refrigeration room with Lawton. The ONLY mention of witnesses were that they were in the office looking at the scale reading.
And what about this weigh-in procedure being brought out as NEW evidence in 1993? | |
| | |
| Brad,
Actually, I'd support disqualification of Lawton after just reading the interview Larry had with him! | |
| | |
| Will Shultz,
You said, "How many watched Lawton through the window place his fish on the bed of the scale?"
You tell me!!!
I think I'm going to relay this information to the IGFA just to make sure Lawton is never reinstated!
| |
| | |
| Marc Thorpe,
I totally agree with you girth assessment of the McNair fish. This is NOT a 60 lb. fish in my opinion either. | |
| | |
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | GW - 1/14/2010 12:26 PM Will Shultz, You're forgetting that this is what Lawton TOLD Dale Shaw. Nobody KNOWS what Lawton laid on the scale bed! If you read this whole story you will find no mention of ANYONE being in the refrigeration room with Lawton. The ONLY mention of witnesses were that they were in the office looking at the scale reading. And what about this weigh-in procedure being brought out as NEW evidence in 1993? They were in the office that has a window to the scale - right? So based on everything mentioned we can't say without reasonable doubt that no one watched the whole thing. I'm not here to argue with you I simply wanted to point out that differenct rooms doesn't mean they couldn't see him. I believe it has been stated before that the only reason Lawton came into the discussion is that a photo got his record set aside. Shouldn't Spray and Johnson be held to the same standards? I don't think anyone disagrees that the Lawton fish (with current photo) should NOT be reinstated. The others are being held to a different standard. I also don't think anyone wants to argue about affidavits and who said what about the Lawton fish. If this has some relevance to the Johnson fish that this thread is supposed to be about please tie them together.
Edited by Will Schultz 1/14/2010 12:14 PM
| |
| | |
| Mr. Ramsell,
But on the prevfious page of the Detloff book there is a picture showing Johnson as being TALLER than Haag. Why not show that photo also.
| |
| | |
| Brad
"Excessive girth could also result from a very recent meal...that's why modern scrutiny would require an internal examination of a world record soon after weighing."
I suspect considering the time of year for these captures that the unlikeliness of a possible meal being able to stretch a fish stomach which in turn would stretch the skin of the fish in an instant is not probable nor physically possible given time of year.
Growth and stretching of the outer skin is made over time by slow weight increase and egg developpement.
Interesting possibility but not biologically probable given seasonal growth rates
The only viable solution to all this dilemma is a 2 tier WR system,historical and modern day
Good thread but looks like we are chasing each other tails or scales that is | |
| | |
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Guest:
Obviously you know nothing about perspective. Maybe Johnson just "looks" taller because you imagine Johnson AFTER Dettloff gave him growth hormones. Get real, the photo posted shows the TRUE difference between Johnson and Haag. | |
| | |
| That's the one where he is standing 1 level up there isn't it Larry? Cal was a midget... I mean "little person".
You guys are arguing about something that almost doesn't matter. The inside of the fish (let alone the fish itself) was not inspected by anyone other than Lawton AND the picture does not support the claimed weight. This thread is a really good one! | |
| | |
Posts: 26
| Marc:
You may already know this but just in case, here's a brief summary of fish growth.
All healthy fish grow throughout their life. As water temperature cools , fish growth slows, that's why in northern climates a fishes hard parts, like scales and cleithra, form growth rings that can be used to determine age. By fish growth I specifically mean fish length.
Condition factor is relative plumpness and involves the measurement of girth (in fisheries, the most robust circumference). A fish's girth varies throughout the season and year to year. Comparative measurements of condition between years are used to assess a fisheries health. Generally, a change in condition for a species from one year to the next is associated with a change in abundance of preferred forage. Unlike growth which increases each year, girth may be reduced from one year to the next.
It wouldn't be unusual for a muskie to eat a fish 1/3 its own size, numerous smaller fish or crayfish...or rarely, but occassionally, it may swallow a duck, muskrat, turtle, or a fairly large fish . In these cases, if the muskie hit a bait soon after a meal, an extended girth would be expected. Another generality is digestion is faster in warmer temperatures...and there's generally an optimum temperature where growth is best.
Of course you're correct regarding the contribution of egg mass to a muskies girth. Girth enhancement due to egg development begins in early fall and is greatest just before spawn.
Regarding the extension of a fish's skin, a fish's stomach extends and in turn stretches the skin of the fish as needed. Just as a fish's body cavity fills and stretches the skin as reproductive structures develop.
Brad
| |
| | |
Posts: 26
| GW:
I'm glad you added your two cents regarding the girth of McNair's muskie.
It never ceases to amaze me how angler's react to another's catch. My estimate conservatively reduced girth 3-inches and length an inch even though I had no reason to reduce either value!
I guess I should have realized that the muskie couldn't have been 60 pounds, figured what it would take to get it under 60-pounds, then reduced the girth and length accordingly.
Brad | |
| | |
| Will Shultz,
It doesn't mean they could see him either because nobody knows where this scale bed was located in relationship to the window. Lawton's fish is a hoax in my opinion and I'm just tired of people trying to defend it. There is NO photo of Lawton's fish that supports it's claimed size.
If you remember, I was the one that wanted this discussion centered on Johnson. In my opinion, what the IGFA pulled with Johnson is WORSE than what the NFWFHoF did with Spray. Dettloff had a personal interest in having Spray as the record but what interest does the IGFA have in having Johnson as their record holder? It seems Dettloff is in control of BOTH organizations! Lawton's fish should NOT be set aside by the IGFA and neither should Johnson's. They BOTH should be disqualified as neither one has a photo that supports the claimed size. Likewise, Spray's fish should be disqualified by the NFWFHoF.
Don't ever get the idea that I'm a supporter of the NFWFHoF. Quite the contrary. What they have done sickens me but I'm not about to support Lawton as a way to get revenge. I'll do everything I can to see to it that no record that has been proven smaller than claimed ever gets returned to record status.
| |
| | |
| Brad,
It never ceases to amaze me how some people buy into the reported measurements of these fish. You should have started your reduction from a lesser girth. I'll respect your opinion as long as you do mine. I'll bet you've been amazed on a lot of things lately! | |
| | |
Posts: 26
| GW:
Okay...I'll assume you'd like some responses so'll I'll bite once again!
You're inquiry regarding the Rayner affidavit has been answered twice. Let me try this...I've considered Rayner's affidavit. It was prepared 35-years after Lawton's record and the committee was in session. I've considered the 1957 Field & Stream contest entry form which states to submit a photo if available. I've considered the completed 1957 Lawton application form which also states to send a photo if availabe. I've considered that for 1957 and before I am aware of no F&S written rules that state a photo is required (rather than to submit one if available). I've considered that there are several F&S records for which a photo was not submitted. I've considered that Dettloff was responsible for the Rayner affidavit. I've given each considerable thought and do not believe that a photo was required in 1957. It appears that the only information you're considering is the Rayner affidavit (which if I remember correctly is not notarized, but who cares?).
Regarding your statement that you'd support disqualification of Lawton based on Larry's interview with him. That's fine. With that attitude you might be able to attain a high position on one of the records committees.
Regarding the Lawton weigh-in, I thought maybe you had new information but you're just selectively interpreting old news...again, maybe the records committees...
I'll get serious and try to address your other points.
Husar's newspaper article may have been new evidence to the general public but not to the record committees.
A second Dunn affidavit dated March 20, 1958, was prepared, handwritten, by someone other than Mr. Dunn on T.W. Dunn Sons stationery. This affidavit clearly states that Mr. Dunn, supervised the weighing on state inspected beam scales of a sixty nine pounds fifteen ounce muskellunge (69 lb. 15 oz.) It also states, "I measured this fish to be 64 inches in length and 31 inches in girth". This notarized affidavit was signed by Walter J. Dunn and witnessed by Harold Dale Shaw, the Field & Stream writer.
Shaw went to New York to do research for a story on Lawton's muskie, he met with Mr. Dunn and an affidavit was prepared on Dunn Brothers stationery. It's reasonable to assume Shaw visited the Dunn Brothers Slaughterhouse and was aware of the weighing methodology...perhaps the basis for Dunn's affidavit emphasizing he supervised the weighing.
If we assume Shaw wasn't taking poetic justice, per his article, "Lawton laid his fish on the scale bed, Dunn fiddled with the sliding weight, and the balance was soon struck". Logically, the sliding weight would be part of the scale, adjusted until balanced...and in the same room as the scale. So Dunn was likely in the same room with whoever weighed the fish.
Whoops!! You forgot about the window between rooms...I doubt who ever put the weight on the scale ran around adding up pre-weighed packages of meat...besides, most slaughterhouses deal in sides of beef etc...but it is an amusing thought.
So, you think Lawton won all his contests in a conspiracy with the Dunn Brothers...that's an interesting new twist!
Finally, the IGFA is on record as keeping the Lawton record open because Lawton may have submitted the wrong photo. They don't care about any additional evidence and at this point either do I. I've done my best to provide what I think I know about the subject and provide my opinions.
The IGFA evidently feels the 1957 estemmed committee of Rayner, et al. should be given the behefit of doubt. On second thought, maybe one of the records committees couldn't use you!
Brad Latvaitis
| |
| | |
Posts: 26
| GW:
I wish you'd read what I've written rather than what you think I've written.
Please read this post carefully before you respond. In summary I've said:
I support fair and equal treatment of all muskie records.
Until Spray and Johnson are treated equally with Lawton, I support Lawton's reinstatement.
I believe the record photos of Lawton, Spray and Johnson are less than their reported measurements.
I believe the photogrammetric solutions for Spray and Johnson and each should be disqualified.
I believe the Lawton record should be removed but remain open, in case a photo shows up, because a photo was not required and it's the only record where the photo has been publically questioned and considered by the records committee.
I believe a muskie should be selected as the record to replace Lawton, Spray & Johnson.
Most of the other stuff I posted was to share my understanding and rationale of the record situation as it exists today and provide the basis for my beliefs summarized above.
Brad Latvaitis | |
| | |
Posts: 26
| GW;
I think that a 10% reduction was reasonable, I'm sorry you don't. The girth of that muskie is not only significant but extends over a large area. Who cares what its girth was, the fish was honorably released. Since it was released, people can sit and snipe at the reported measurements.
I haven't heard any new information but I continue to be amazed by the extent of some of the interpretations and one-sided considerations.
Brad Latvaitis | |
| | |
Posts: 39
Location: IL | Brad, Larry,
I can't believe you guys are bantering words with "Guests", and "slicks" that post anonymously! If they are afraid to have their words pinned to their real name, then don't acknowledge them.
ANYONE with ANY common sense realizes those past records were embellished.
ANYONE, take a GOOD LOOK at the Johnson mount....then look at
A N Y picture of A N Y Muskellunge -- doesn't matter if it's 10 inches, 40 inches, or 60 inches. Look at the placement of the rear fins in relation to the Anal fin. O.K. - do you have the general silhouette outline of a Muskie in your head? Great - now, take another look at the Johnson mount...doesn't it seem a bit...um....peculiar that the rear fins are located way-to-far-forward?? It's like looking at a "Jackalope"....sorta looks like a Rabbit, but somethin's not quite right!?
I wasn't exactly sure where they added to the length on that mount, until it was pointed out to me at the Chicago Show....yep!...you can see part of the vertical line just behind the rear fins! 
To those that say "WHO CARES"..."MOVE ON"..."GET OVER IT"..."LET IT GO" - Are you serious! You honestly believe that no one (especially true Muskie Guys) wants, or deserves to know who holds the TRUE title of the WORLD RECORD MUSKELLUNGE!! You're the same "dudes" that would luck into catching a 70lb'er - claim the world record - then scream BLOODY MURDER when some "SLICK" turned in a 70lb - 1oz fony a few weeks later. Who cares?...I DO, and so does almost ALL other Fishermen. You "dudes" better stick to your football threads, your ignorance doesn't show as much there!
Brad, didn't run into you at the Chicago Show, but was only there on Sat. this year. Did you make it? See ya next year! Phil Blanck
| |
| | |
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Figure8Phil - 1/14/2010 6:49 PM
ANYONE with ANY common sense realizes those past records were embellished.
To those that say "WHO CARES"..."MOVE ON"..."GET OVER IT"..."LET IT GO" - Are you serious! You honestly believe that no one (especially true Muskie Guys) wants, or deserves to know who holds the TRUE title of the WORLD RECORD MUSKELLUNGE!! You're the same "dudes" that would luck into catching a 70lb'er - claim the world record - then scream BLOODY MURDER when some "SLICK" turned in a 70lb - 1oz fony a few weeks later. Who cares?...I DO, and so does almost ALL other Fishermen. You "dudes" better stick to your football threads, your ignorance doesn't show as much there!
Phil Blanck
If your first statement was 100% true, we wouldn't be having these threads would we? Fact is, the onus is on the WRMA to prove beyond any shadow of doubt that these fish are false. (Which I believe they are, in actuality.) I don't feel they have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, however. We all "know" OJ killed his wife, right?
The second statement I highlighted is amusing. Some of us "true Muskie Guys" think the efforts could be used much better for other things to better the sport. I have stated this here multiple times. I personally don't enjoy hearing about the WR issues year in and year out, and have stated so year in and year out. That is my opinion, yours is yours. To call us ignorant is much more ignorant to others viewpoints. Almost all other fisherman is a pretty broad brush stroke to paint when the musky community is the vast minority over most other angling groups. | |
| | |
Posts: 19
| Until I see a fish on a certified scale that exceeds the so called world record, I won't believe a word anyone types on this subject! Its obvious that these fish are not what they were said to be! If Johnsons fish was over 52 inches i would be amazed! Very AMAZED! It just amazes me how pathetic some people are when it comes to these dumb records!
To the people who continue to add to this thread, it really shows your brilliance on a subject that NOBODY CAN PROVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Go cuddle up with your ladies and get ready for 2010 opening day! That way hopefully they will let you go fishing and one of you guys can catch that 70lber and put this PATHETIC subject to rest!! Good Luck! Mike Crawford!!! Yes I was exclamation point happy!!! | |
| | |
| First off Brad, I could care less how many years after Lawton's record and the committee was in session. The Rayner affidavit is all the proof anyone needs that a photo WAS required. You shouldn't be considering anything further. As I said, Dr. H. John Rayner was the Chief of Operations for the Field & Stream contest.
I also think you should stop assuming that Mr. Shaw was aware of the weigh-in procedure because clearly he was not. You say it's "reasonable to assume" but it isn't. Nobody would accept such a weigh-in procedure and you know it.
How do you figure Dunn could be in the refrigeration room with Lawton when the scale could only be balanced in the office?
It also wouldn't take much time to add up enough weight from meat that was previously weighed and labled to break the previous record of 69 lbs. 11 oz. Lawton may have been in the refrigeration room prior to his weighing of the fish also.
You're right Brad, obviously the sliding weight should be part of the scale and yet Lawton's own nephew says the scale display was in the office instead of in the refrigeration room where the scale bed was located.
You keep making assumptions and saying "perhaps" it was this way or that way about everything that others say is the opposite.
I'll let the IGFA decide if this is important.
It sounds to me like you would defend O. J. Simpson if you had the opportunity! | |
| | |
Posts: 8821
| Has anyone given any thoght to the fact that during a time of much less regulation, it would be very beneficial to a slaughterhouse to have the scales they use calibrated to overestimite the weight of product to begin with???
| |
| | |
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | esoxaddict - 1/14/2010 8:29 PM
Has anyone given any thoght to the fact that during a time of much less regulation, it would be very beneficial to a slaughterhouse to have the scales they use calibrated to overestimite the weight of product to begin with???
Certainly possible. Good luck proving it. | |
| | |
Posts: 26
| GW:
Thanks for telling me what should be considered and also to ignore the rest. Are you already on a record committee?
Yep, I can see how it's unreasonable to think that a writer for F&S would travel to New York to investigate the fish, meet with Walter Dunn, get an affidavit written on Dunn Brothers stationery and not bother to visit the slaughterhouse and its scale room...he'd be there only for the important things. Also, I agree it's hard to understand how anyone could possibly accept the weigh-in procedure even though the procedure on state certified scales was a routine part of the slaughterhouse's daily commercial operation...boy, I bet the people got screwed on the actual weight of their meat in 1957. I wonder how Dunn Brothers stayed in business? How could Lawton use a slaughterhouse instead of the post office?
The F&S records committee must have really been incompetent to accept the weigh-in procedure and I wonder what the IGFA is thinking. How could they accept all but the photo and hold the record as "set-aside" in case a photo is submitted! My god, that means the IGFA also accepts the weigh-in procedure! It's a shame they don't have more people like you on the committees...I bet you could set them straight and tell them what to ignore and what to consider. Have you considered sending them a letter...Oh never mind, you mentioned a letter a few posts ago! I hope you haven't already sent it, there's still stuff to be added.
Darn, had you been around the record would have been thrown out in the first place. Must be that Dr. Rayner, Chief of Operations, didn't feel that knowing about the weigh-in procedure was important. Too bad he wasn't asked about it on his affidavit! Instead of 35 years after the fact it's now 53...maybe we need some more affidavits! You should have been there in Rayner's place. Maybe you could get a position now and just throw out the record based on Larry's interview with Lawton...make sure you add that to your letter.
The scale was in the refrigeration room, the results were displayed inside the adjoining office, there was a window between the rooms, Lawton laid his fish on the scale bed, Dunn fiddled with the sliding weight and supervised the weighing of the fish...well those lying bastards...do you think the supervision included the selection of meat to add to the fish on the scale before it was balanced? What do you think...steaks, burger, pork chops?
Gosh, how could I have missed it...you say that the sliding weight and the scale display are one in the the same! Now I've got it!
I'm glad you pointed out to me that I make assumptions and say perhaps rather than jumping to conclusions...I'll have to work on straightening that out...do you think I should see a doctor? I'll never be asked to join a records committee!
Whew...I'm glad your going to let the IGFA decide, for a moment there I thought you were going to make the decision...have you thought about calling the IGFA?
Wait a minute. Hasn't the IGFA already decided and are waiting for a photo? They'll have a wait until 2032 to beat the Perry record.
O.J. Simpson...I didn't think they allowed football on this website! Do they, if it's okay, what do you think about the Bears next season?
To the readers that have had enough of this discussion already, I apologize...but I hope you had fun...I enjoyed writing this one a little more than the rest! Maybe I shouldn't use my name on this one??!!
To all the rest, I'm finished on the subject unless I absolutely see something new...sorry to bore some of you.
To Phil...didn't make it to Steve's show this year...opted for Florida instead...hope to see you next year.
To Marc...I have no problem with your ideas regarding McNair's muskie.
To all that post anonymously...grow a set!!
Brad Latvaitis
Edited by Brad Latvaitis 1/15/2010 2:25 AM
| |
| | |
| Brad tks for sharing your information, we share same views on the matter
I agree with your year to year average girth can change by 1 inch depending on environmental factors
If you need to reach me,email me [email protected]
Someday we will know the truth........ I hope
Till then lets be content catching what we are catching
| |
| | |
Posts: 123
| Even if someone catches a certified 70lb fish next year it wouldn't PROVE that it was the biggest ever caught, but rather just prove to be the biggest ever certified beyond suspicion of inaccuracy. Who knows how big Dale's fish really was not to mention other fish that may have been released or as in the past, eaten. I've heard of at least 2 DNR groups netting muskies that were closer to 80lbs than 70lbs. Maybe someone caught one or both of them but didn't want the notoriety, advertising dollars, etc? The next 70lb muskie caught and certified under one of these groups may end up being the world record "in the books", but I really doubt it will be the "Largest Muskie Ever Caught In History". Nobody will ever know "for sure". | |
| | |
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | To all who "say they don't care...to my knowledge, Brad and I are the only ones with the knowledge and willingness to counter John Dettloff's re-writing of and revision of Muskellunge history. That is exactly why he wouldn't allow Brad and I to participate in the Spray decision 4 years ago even though I was the Hall's "World Record Advisor" and Brad was an "Advisory Governor" whom had ALWAYS been part of world record discussions and decisions!! THAT is also why we both independently resigned our volunteer positions at the Hall after 35 and 30 years respectively.
As long as I can take a breath, I will do whatever I can to counter all of Dettloff's record revisionism BS and I don't care who doesn't like it. It isn't right, it isn't fair and I'm agast that many of you allow him to continue it without taking him to task.
His latest diatribe "trying" to counter the WRMA Johnson Summary Report is just more smoke and mirrors and twisting of the facts and redoing them to further his goal. He is so far off base with "his" intrepretation of the measuring point it is laughable and totally self-serving to get Johnson's fish to be "long enough". I intend to counter it later and it will become a permanent part of the Internet, ALONG WITH all of the muskie controversies from my book, which completely details Dettloff's shannagian's and underhanded treatment of all but the Hayward records. I'll let you know when finished and up. Stay tuned.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell,
Muskellunge Historian for ALL of North America
www.larryramsell.com | |
| | |
| Thank you Larry! It seems most people don't understand how much damage Dettloff has done to our image us as musky fisherman, to the fishing world we are just a bunch of bickering egos thanks to that one person. The Spray and Johnson evil deeds have only been compounded about 10 fold because of his lies.
How about we all Boycott his books? | |
| | |
Posts: 676
Location: Wisconsin | How about boycotting all records? Wipe them all out and have nothing. I mean, Dale's fish is probably the world record, bravo, and it is still swimming. That says more to me that he put it back, than the fake glory all of these others did in the past......
Edited by Muskiemetal 1/15/2010 11:03 AM
| |
| | |
| Brad,
When you visit a doctor's office and get your weight taken, who is considered the weigher? You, or the person balancing the scale? The person balancing the scale of course. From this it's easy to determine who actually weighed lawton's fish. Art Lawton told Dale Shaw that Walter Dunn balanced the scale.
Walter Dunn 1958 Affidavit "...supervised the weighing on state inspected beam scales of a sixty nine pounds fifteen ounce muskellunge 969 lb. 15 oz.)... It also states, "Further, I measured this fish to be 64 1/2 inches in length and 31 3/4 inches in girth.
Walter Dunn 1991 affidavit ..."I did not actually weigh or measure the muskie, but I was present when it was weighed in. Somebody else weighed the muskie but I don't recall who it was... So far as I know this is all true.
Who is this person Dunn was supervising? In this second affidavit, he claims he doesn't even recall who it was!!!
In the first affidavit, he says he measured the fish himself. In the second, he says he never measured the fish and doesn't even mention who did!
I also never said anywhere that the scale reading was inaccurate. It's what was placed on the scale that's important.
If you want to talk about Field & Stream being competent, I would consider ANY organization that would accept a world record without a photo INCOMPETENT!
Dr. H. John Rayner would turn over in his grave if he knew you were questioning the validity of his statement. This affidavit was made public and Mr. Rayner certainly would not have allowed Dettloff to do this if it was untrue.
Because a photo WAS required for record purposes in 1957 as confirmed by Mr. Rayner, the door should be CLOSED for any future consideration of this fish.
I feel it's bad enough having two bogus records still on the books but if you have your way, we'll be back to three!
I'm glad you enjoyed writing this last post the most. You have inspired me to provide the IGFA with a lot more evidence than what you currently are aware of. You have no idea what else I have come up with. As I said, I'll do everything I possibly can to insure this record is never reinstated.
| |
| | |
Posts: 3504
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | Brad, GW...if I may....
I'm getting confused on where the spray debate you two are engaged in is really going. I've been trying to follow it as best I can and all I am able to really pull from the debate is this: Brad and Larry would like to see the Lawton fish reinstated with the their argument being based upon the Johnson fish was dismissed/not even considered relevant to analyze. (Summarizing: The two fish were not treated in the same manner, with the Johnson fish going through a very thorough examination and dismissed, so if the IGFA will dismiss that, then reinstate the Lawton fish since it did not have anywhere near the examination the Johnson fish had.)
The argument I see GW making is that these fish in current question (spray with the hall, Johnson and lawton with the IGFA) should ALL be eliminated from the record books due to inconsistencies in many different areas, with the mathematics alone being a very strong point.
What I see in all of that (I think...) is one thing: Both agree that the fish are not as they have been stated...and the debate is over what should happen because of the way the IGFA handled the situation. Am I on the right track here?
Would a major analysis of the Lawton fish be something to consider? I'd say yes...for the mere fact that if the analysis of the fish is done, I would say the probability is quite high the same result would come out as did with the two Hayward fish...that the fish has been misrepresented both in length and girth and can very well be proven to be the case mathematically.
I don't know if this is really the case or not anymore with all the debating going on....
Regardless of where things are at, it seems as though some common ground (I feel) needs to be struck. What can we all do to be a constructive part of a solution to this whole mess rather than debate among ourselves? What are the common grounds that can be agreed upon and how can those common areas be used in a joined effort to move forward?
From what I am reading, isn't the overall goal to find a legitimate record then somehow take the "argument" to the IGFA in a manner that will ultimately change the record? Tougher than sounds no doubt, but heck...think back 30 some years ago when everything was catch and keep? Took some time but look where we are today?
Mathematically speaking if a legitimate record is to be found, it should be able to hold up to any measurements that have been stated through picture analyzation, etc., AND it should be "reasonable" that an estimated weight using the standard formula be within a certain amount of the stated and recorded weight of the record. Obviously it will not match, but it should be as some would say, "in the ballpark." That formula is basically a formula of volume so it is only a guide but has been shown over many years to be quite sound in "estimating" the weight of fish.
Steve
Edited by VMS 1/15/2010 2:06 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 26
| GW:
Okay, you've finally amazed me!
Let's start with your last paragraph first, "I'm glad you enjoyed writing this last post the most. You have inspired me to provide the IGFA with a lot more evidence than what you currently are aware of. You have no idea what else I have come up with. As I said, I'll do everything I possibly can to insure this record is never reinstated."
I wrote, "I support fair and equal treatment of all muskie records.' If you feel that it's necessary, keep your new information to yourself but get it to the IGFA.
If it supports disqualification of Lawton rather than set-aside status that would be great but it would still make Spray the record holder at the FWFHF and Johnson the record holder at IGFA. I hope you also have information to convince the FWFHF to take down Spray and the IGFA to remove Johnson. It you have convincing information regarding Lawton I would happily concur with Lawton's removal.
I also said, "I believe a muskie should be selected as the record to replace Lawton, Spray & Johnson." Did you miss that part?
I further say that placement of Lawton in set-aside by the IGFA is more sound than disqualifying Lawton, particularly as long as Spray and Johnson are recognized.
You start your last post with, "You are currently in no position to judge anything. You feel you are still in a position of authority which is no longer the case. Your personal feelings on this matter are currently meaningless. The reinstatement effort by your tag team partner was a complete failure."
What do you mean by position of authority? I was a part of the FWFHF records committee from its inception until the Spray debacle, participated in the Lawton & Malo reviews and the reinstatement of O'Brien after a brief set-aside but my participation wasn't what I would call a position of authority. As a science professional and FWFHF Advisory Governor I fought (unsuccessfully) for consistent treatment of records.
I must disagree with your statement that I'm currently in no position to judge anything. I'm an American Fisheries Society certified fisheries professional with 40-years of experience. I've researched and worked with fish records as a volunteer for much of this time. I now own a small environmental consulting firm named Environmental Solution Professionals. I've spent a lot of time writing, editing and evaluating technical reports...I could go on but I think you get the point. I'd say that my credentials and experience qualify me to judge muskie records.
The feelings I've shared on this site and others shouldn't be confused with my personal feelings...in fact it's an insult to call them that. They're actually my professional opinion.
Larry's a great friend. I've known him since 1972 and we volunteered together at the FWFHF. His efforts regarding Lawton were his, we're not a tag team. Also, they were far from a failure. Larry's sincere effort brought tons of previously unshared information to the table...it greatly helped to shed light on the agenda behind the Lawton investigation and detail the Lawton investigation's less than professional nature. At a minimum, it helped keep the record in set-aside status. It's a shame his efforts aren't fully appreciated.
Regarding the weigh-in procedures and affidavits, I stand by my previous posts. I do have a question though...if you were in a supervisory position in 1975 and one of your workers asked you to weigh and measure a snake (something you had no interest in) and you participated and then signed an affidavit then in 2010 someone calls you on the phone and asks you questions without reference to the 1975 affidavit and you complete an affidavit based on the call, do you think the two would match? Did you get around to reading Shawn Thompson's article yet...if so, I'm amazed that you still support the 1991 affidavit.
Dr. Rayner would probably turn over in his grave if he knew your last post called the F&S record program incompetent because they sanctioned world records without photos...for 74 years, the largemouth bass record was the most prominent!
Your last statement is again amazing, "I feel it's bad enough having two bogus records still on the books but if you have your way, we'll be back to three!"
This is completely false, I said in an earlier post, my way would be for the IGFA to receive and accept a new Lawton photo as the record. Once this was done and the record was reinstated, the new photo would require A PHOTOGRAMMETRIC SOLUTION TO EITHER VALIDATE OR DISQUALIFY IT. The problem would be getting the "authority figures" to take down each record (Lawton?, Spray and Johnson) refuted by a technically sound photogrammetric solution.
What I've said in my posts is, "I support fair and equal treatment of all muskie records. I believe the record photos of Lawton, Spray and Johnson are less than their reported measurements. I believe the photogrammetric solutions for Spray and Johnson and each should be disqualified. I believe the Lawton record should be removed but remain open, in case a photo shows up, because a photo was not required and it's the only record where the photo has been publicly questioned and considered by the records committee. I believe a muskie should be selected as the record to replace Lawton, Spray & Johnson."
In summary, I agree with the IGFA and Larry Ramsell that Lawton should be set-aside. You disagree with a set-aside and instead agree with the FWFHF that Lawtom should be disqualified (as far as I know the WRMA hasn't posted a position on set-aside). You, me, Larry, the WRMA and the IGFA agree Spray is out while the FWFHF disagrees and stand alone with their support of Spray's record. You, me, Larry and the WRMA believe Johnson is out while the FWFHF and the IGFA support Johnson's fish. The only "authority figures" to your thinking are on the FWFHF and IGFA boards or committees. I certainly hope that your new information helps!!
Readers...I said that I wouldn't post again unless necessary. I think this was worthwhile and hopefully will end it.
Brad Latvaitis
Edited by Brad Latvaitis 1/15/2010 3:21 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Brad Latvaitis - 1/15/2010 3:10 PM
Readers...I said that I wouldn't post again unless necessary. I think this was worthwhile and hopefully will end it.
Brad Latvaitis
Ha! Funniest thing in this thread if you think your post will end all this talk. You really dream big, haha. | |
| | |
Posts: 39
Location: IL | "I'm glad you enjoyed writing this last post the most. You have inspired me to provide the IGFA with a lot more evidence than what you currently are aware of. You have no idea what else I have come up with."
gw, When you present your "evidence" to the IGFA, are you going to sign it "gw"?
Edited by Figure8Phil 1/15/2010 3:28 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 73
| Brad Latvaitis - 1/15/2010 3:10 PM <br />Readers...I said that I wouldn't post again unless necessary. I think this was worthwhile and hopefully will end it.
Pointer---Ha! Funniest thing in this thread if you think your post will end all this talk. You really dream big, haha
JM----I'm pretty sure that statement was made in reference to the present exchange between him and GW, and that Brad or nobody else expects that it will end the debate overall. I thought that he provided some helpful input on the matter during the course of his posts.
Edited by Jim Munday 1/15/2010 4:50 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 26
| GW:
In my opinion Lawton should stay set-aside and in your opinion Lawton should be disqualified? We're each entitled to our opinion.
Evidently each of us has our mind made up and neither of us could sway the other. Do you have a problem with that? I sure don't.
Brad Latvaitis | |
| | |
Posts: 73
| It’s a legitimate question, isn’t it? Brad presented a substantial amount of information and made several arguments to support his opinionss on this matter. He included a list credentials for making those arguments, and always signed his real name to each post. It’s hard to know how to interpret the arguments of “GW” when the posts are made anonymously. | |
| | |
Posts: 39
Location: IL | Hi J | |
| | |
Posts: 39
Location: IL | ???
Attachments
----------------
IMG_0001.jpg (62KB - 613 downloads)
| |
| | |
| No Brad, I don't have a problem with that at all. In fact, I think we both got a little carried away in this debate. I may even make another attempt to convince you down the road that Lawton should be disqualified as I feel the IGFA is no longer a credible record keeper based upon how they treated the Johnson challenge. I realize if I'm not able to convince you, I will have no choice but to present my Lawton disqualification material to the NFWFHoF. They seem to be the only people the IGFA will listen to. | |
| | |
Posts: 26
| Hi GW:
It would do you no good to convince me that Lawton should be disqualified. You have to convince the IGFA. I carry no weight with either the IGFA or the FWFHF.
My posts on Lawton merely present the facts as I understand them regarding how and why the FWFHF and the IGFA disqualified and set aside Lawton, respectively.
Seriously and sincerely, if you have information that you think would lead to the disqualification of Lawton, please present it where ever you think it will do the most good. Knowing the history of the relationship between the IGFA and the FWFHF, I doubt that the Hall has the IGFA's ear, but try that avenue if you think it is valid. PLEASE DON'T TRY TO CONVINCE ME BECAUSE IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE WHAT I THINK!
In my opinion, the FWFHF did NOT condut a complete investigation of Lawton, disqualified Lawton for the wrong reasons, and miscalculated a serious conflict of interests. Likewise, the IGFA did NOT conduct a thorough review prior to the Lawton set-aside. It appears that we agree on these opinions...but that makes no difference unless the record keepers are willing to listen.
Lawton, Spray and Johnson have not been equally evaluated by the record stewards. There is no reason that Lawton should "stand-down" as long as Spray and Johnson hold records. We disagree on this.
Please think about this next paragraph and read my prior posts again if necessary.
I NEVER SAID THAT A THOROUGH INVESTIGATION OF LAWTON WOULD LEAD TO THE REINSTATEMENT OF HIS RECORD. WHAT I'VE SAID IS THAT BASED ON THE INVESTIGATIONS THAT WERE CONDUCTED, THE FWFHF DISQUALIFICATION WAS UNWARRANTED AND THE IGFA'S SET-ASIDE AT LEAST HAS A BASIS.
IF A THOROUGH INVESTIGATION IS EVER CONDUCTED IT WOULDN'T SURPRISE ME IF THE RECORD WAS ONCE AND FOREVER DISQUALIFIED. YOU WOULD AMAZE ME IF YOU DISAGREE ON THIS POINT!
I would rather see all the records as historic and move on than try to determine their authenticity 50 to 60 years after there review and acceptance by the F&S records committee. I'M SURE WE DISAGREE HERE!
If each of the records are reviewed, I hope they're reviewed equally by competent people using the best methods possibe.
Finally GW, this is my last post on this subject...if you want to continue we'll have to do so off-line.
Brad Latvaitis
| |
| | |
Posts: 280
| Getting back to the claim by John Detloff [ from his Cal Johnson website] that the eye measurement from upper jaw to the posterior of the eye socket is actually 6.25" as measured by him with his "two parallel lasers". I've attached a pic of a 53" 37lb. musky showing the upper jaw to eye measurement to be longer than John found on a musky supposedly over 7" longer and 30lbs. heavier.
Hhhmmmm.
So, John is saying that the head of Cal's fish, with a body that supposedly measures 60.25" and weighs 67.5 lb., is smaller than that of a 53" 37 lb'er.
I don't think so......
Edited by fins355 1/21/2010 3:38 PM
(muskie 53 in eye msr.jpg)
Attachments
----------------
muskie 53 in eye msr.jpg (206KB - 344 downloads)
| |
| | |
Location: 31 | Doug:
Thank you for posting this, and for all the work you have been gracious enough to do in regard to these records. For those interested, we originally approached Doug about five years ago with some technical questions, mainly because he was a true expert in his field, also because he believed in the Spray and Johnson fish/mounts.
This eye socket measurement is something that the WRMA will be conducting further research on to determine the biological relationship between this eye socket measurement and the overall length of the fish. Without question, these two measurements should reasonably coincide with each other.
| |
| | |
Posts: 2361
| Awful lot of putty on that head. We better get some photowatchamacallits in here right away. I'm starting to wonder if any future fish will ever be verifiable if every minute measurement is treated like the only evidence that matters(when actually the weight is the only evidence that matters). What happens when somebody catches a fish that is off the norm? We gonna reject them out of hand? It also occurs to me, and should have occurred to many others that if you are using all this information to supposably "prove" to yourselves that this or that fish wasn't that big, are you also using these analysis factors to prove the real world record, the Malo fish, deserves to be recrowned as king of the hill. Kind of self serving if that isn't the case.
So, how much work has the comittee done to prove the Malo fish is the actual record, that I know in my heart, it is??? If not already begun, why not? | |
| | |
| Jerry posted on MH: "I would like to point out that these records were more of a "fun thing" in Cal's era; muskie-fishing records were not taken as seriously as they are today. For instance, it is incredibly telling that Louie Spray sent Cal a telegram during Cal's radio acceptance speech after he broke the record in 1949, wherein he promised Cal he was going to come out of retirement and break his record by the end of the year. As we know, Louie had no problem breaking the record and good-natured Cal simply sent along his congratulations. Talk about having fun with it, what an exciting era in muskie fishing!"
Yeah...seems like those guys knew something that's been lost over the years. (Musky fishing and Musky record keeping ought to be based on having FUN!) Maybe they'd have quite a laugh knowing a debate like this was even taking place now?
| |
| | |
Posts: 280
| What's wrong with this picture?????
Attachments
----------------
CJ cmp.2.jpg (117KB - 661 downloads)
| |
| | |
Posts: 223
Location: Minn. | The spots on the middle picture doesn't match the spots on the bottom picture. Top picture has bars.
Edited by muskyfvr 1/22/2010 9:18 AM
| |
| | |
| Doug,
First off beauty of a skin mount WOW!
The distance between the anal fin and the caudal fin on the ''record'' fish is clearly out of proportion of any muskie I have seen. And is evident in the photos for even the untrained eye! I wonder If anyone has any close up pics of the ''record'' fish to see if the lateral line has a wiggle in it between the vent and the front of the dorsal fin. Looks fishy to me. | |
| | |
| OOPS What I meant to say is the distance between the pelvic fin and anal fin looks off. Boy do I need another cup of joe! | |
| | |
| guest x,
you should check over before you submit something. Just like something that has been submitted should be allowed to be checked over. And then corrected such as you have done.
Fins 355 thanks for the post! | |
| | |
| What does Detloff have to do with the IGFA? I thought is was the IGFA that rejected the WRMA challenge to Johnson's fish, because they found the glaring mistake in the photogammetry? i.e., wRMA had the wrong endpoints into the computer, and it's the old "GIGO" garbage in-garbage out. Just because an expensive computer program was used does not make the result correct. But, how does all of this involve Detloff? Is he on the IGFA board? | |
| | |
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Dettloff has "interjected" himself into this fray trying desparately to protect the hero of his new book. He hijacke the Hall of Fame to protect Spray and now has hijacked the local paper to protect Johnson...uninvited. He has nothing to do with IGFA other than it is he that conned them into recognizing Johnson in the first place, displacing Ken O'Brien.
His SHAME knows no bounds!
There was NO "glaring mistake" in the photogrammetry...period.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Muskellunge Historian for ALL of North America
www.larryramsell.com | |
| | |
Posts: 20245
Location: oswego, il | The ifga did not reject the WRMA's findings becuase of flaws in the photogammetry. Just another made up look over there arguement. | |
| | |
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Here is some more Dettloff BS that I have countered over on MH:
Well, I have been away a bit trying to find a lost dog (did!) and it appears that Mr. Dettloff has been at work again "attempting" to justify the Cal Johnson mount...as I have said repeatedly, there seems to be no lengths that he will go to to protect the Hayward records.
Have you ever noticed how he "cherry picks" the posts he will respond to? Dettloff: "Hawkeye asked a legitmate question and I answered it along with a few others that deserved an answer." Deserved? HA! Your a joke. All legitimate questions deserve an answer, not just those you "think" you can overcome. Kinda like how he and the Hall treated the Spray investigation by the WRMA.
At any rate, he has once again stuck his foot in it...Brad and Doug (fins) have covered several things, but I have several more for everyone to digest.
Dettloff wrote: "Last month, the owner of the Cal Johnson mount and I tried to remove the glass off the Cal Johnson mount in order for us to get some reference measurement off the fish...."
Larry: In secret of course and what a crock...if they wanted that case open, it would have been opened...they can't afford to have that fish examined by "outsiders"!
Dettloff cont.: "Then the owner hired a glass specialist who came over with suction cups and we attached them to the glass and pulled as hard as we dared but got nowhere. We all came to the conclusion that the glass wouldn't come off unless we broke it and that was too risky because it could damage the fish."
Larry: More "smoke & mirrors"...turn the case face down, put the suction cups in place and cut or break the glass and it will fall downwards, OR take the case apart...IT CAN BE OPENED, SO QUIT DENYING IT CAN'T.
Dettloff cont.: "I then took several reference measurements with two parellel lasers in various parts of the musky. The head length was 14 1/2", the posterior edge of the eye to the upper jaw was 6 1/4", and the side width was 10 3/4"."
Larry: Now John, who is showing their ignorance of musky biology? Surprised Doug (fins) didn't nail you on this one) THERE IS NO WAY that head was 14 1/2" long...UNLESS OF COURSE YOU ARE ADDING ON THE "CARDBOARD" THAT KAHMANN USED TO ENHANCE THE HEAD AT THE BACK OF THE GILL COVER (about 1/2" minimum...guess you forgot to measure that with your lazer huh?). Brad nicely covered your "blunt head" theory!!
Dettloff cont.: "This mount is 60 years old and the finest example of taxidermy I've ever seen in my life. (Study the fish on the caljohnson.net website) Except for a few minor cracks, it is exceptionally well preserved. The one vertical crack in back of the pelvic fins (that has been wrongly identified as where a 6 or 8 inch section of body was added) was caused during the first years that the mount was being displayed when the end of the cabinet was dropped, causing the crack. The upper portion of the crack was repaired in a small area and painted over to match, most likely by Karl Kahmann himself because he was still around at the time. What cracked when the fish was dropped was most likely the red clay layer that was just under the skin and covering up the excelsior body form beneath it."
Larry: And you know this how John? You weren't even in diapers yet at that time. Nice smoke screen though.
Dettloff cont.: "There is actually nothing to be gained from x-raying the mount because there is nothing inside the mount that was any part of the original fish (except the skull). Everything else is a made made form made out of a thin board, excelsior wrapped with string, and red clay. As far as opening the case of the mount and examining it, there is little to be gained that you can't already see from the outside."
Larry: WOW! You are unbelievable. It is NOT the inside of the mount that is of curosity, it IS the SKIN. Again, nice try.
Dettloff cont.: "In order to take a 52 to 54 inch long (35 to 40# class) musky and turn it into the Cal Johnson mount without such a major project of augmentation being evident is basically impossible. You'd not only have to lengthen the fish 6 or 8 inches, but you'd have to increase the entire girth of the fish dramatically from back to front."
Larry: OBVIOUSLY you are not a taxidermist and have NO knowledge of what can be accomplished. For instance(s), as noted in my head length comment above and its length "enhancement", the SAME THING TOOK PLACE WITH ALL OF THE FINS AND THE TAIL!!!. The tail is fully 3/4" LONGER AND 1 1/2" TALLER than the TRUE TAIL OF THE FISH. All one needs to do is look carefully at the mount in the case and you can SEE where the REAL fins and tail ends and the "AUGMENTATION" BEGINS...of course this adds to the "total length" of the mount too!! Why was this done??? TO MAKE THE MOUNT LOOK PROPORTIONAL TO THE "ENHANCED" BODY SIZE SO AS TO MAKE IT "BELIEVEABLE"!!!!!!!!!
Dettloff cont.: "Another important fin fact is that, in order for that much length to have been added behind the pelvic fins, the pelvic fins would HAVE TO BE much further forward than they are..."
Larry: WHY John? This simply is NOT true. IT IS THIS ADDITION THAT GIVES THE MOUNT THE "NECESSARY" LENGTH TO MEET THE "CLAIM"!
Dettloff cont.: "Furthermore, the scales of the fish are very pronounced along nearly the entire length of the mount and you can't add a big section of body without interrupting this intricate scale pattern. The scales even are in perfect alignment where the crack in the fish is."
Larry: Ever hear of using "hot wax" in taxidermy John? Kahmann was a MASTER museum taxidermist. Do you not think he could replicate the scale pattern OVER his "addition" to make the mount look legitimate? And that crack again...hummmmm.
Dettloff cont.: "This mount represents the rarest artifact in our sport's history. It should be preserved and cared for to the best of our ability so future generations can continue to marvel at this fine speciman. It would not be worth the risk to this irreplacable catch to try to open up the case and probe into the mount just to pacify a small group of jealous musky guys who aren't going to be convinced no matter how perfect the mount proves to be..."
Larry: Just how "self-serving" that statement is. YOU DON'T WANT THE CASE OPENED! It really is that simple. There is nothing that could be done to it that several of today's finest taxidermists (Petrousek, Lax, Fittante, Michaelson, etc.) couldn't fix. You just don't want the TRUTH known.
Dettloff cont.: "For those of you who truly are curious about the mount and are not part of this negative click, keep in mind that even without the mount this fish is still exceptionally well documented and well proven and well witnessed and there is not one peice of evidence proving the fish to be smaller than claimed. Not one of the claims against the validity of this fish proves to be true."
Larry: Again "smoke & mirrors"! It is just that YOU "choose" to ignore the truth and do anything and everything that you can to protect your hero's. Science against YOUR BS...guess which wins! OPEN THE CASE (or maybe it can be x-rayed in the case)...do it!
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Muskellunge Historian for ALL of North America
www.larryramsell.com | |
| | |
Posts: 26
| The MH Cal Johnson Post on MH was locked before anyone could respond to comments by StanS regarding the Johnson Photogrammetric Solution. Just in case anyone is interested, here's my response.
StanS:
I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish with your post.
The Photogrammetric Solution of Johnson's fish clearly states that:
1)There was insufficient information in the photographs to complete a 3 dimensional photogrammetric analysis of the fresh muskie.
2) It was determined there were sufficient visible points to complete a direct scaling of the fresh muskie from the dimensions of the mounted muskie.
3)Dimensions from the mounted muskie were determined using a calibrated camera, known camera information, PhotoModeler software, and the display case that houses the muskie.
4) The tip of the snout to the eye and the tip of the snout to the top of the gill flap where it meets the body were measurements completed photogrammetrically using PhotoModeler software.
5) Since the head dimensions do not change appreciably during the mounting process, these dimensions were used to scale the fresh muskie.
The Photomodeler software provided a geometry solution for the mounted muskie. The Photogrammetric Solution of Johnson's muskie used available common target points visible on multiple images, namely; the length from the snout to eye and the length from the snout to where the gill flap meets the body, to determine the fresh musky's length by direct scaling.
You state that, you "find it difficult to believe that, with the exception of the intersection of straight lines, you would be able to identify these points to within 0.1 in on a curved surface. However, the tip of the upper jaw to eye length is given as 5.669 in. What is the source of this accuracy?"
I don't pretend to be a photogrammetrist but from reading the report I'd say the accuracy of the measurements result mainly from using a calibrated camera, known camera information, PhotoModeler software and the dimensions of the display case.
You say that, "the report also does not say if the 5.669 inches is the diagonal measurement between the two points or a projection along the length of the fish."
The report illustrates the distance as a straight line between points 41 & 42 and reports that it was determined photogrammetrically using PhotoModeler 6.
You state, "the report continues with the statement that the musky mount was 58.8” +/- ¼ in. It also states that the distance from the upper jaw tip to the top of the upper tail was 54.8” +/- ¼ in. Therefore, using photomodeler on the mount, the length of the mount is either 58.8 in or 54.8 in, a difference of 4 in."
I think you should read that section again. The report says the overall length was calculated to be 58.9" +/- 1/4" compensating for curvature of the mounted muskie. Using a two-point measurement between points 18 and 42 (snout to top of the tail) the measurement is 54.8" +/- 1/4". Look at the illustrations!
You take the following statement out of context, "if perspective is present between the fish and the film plane, the length would be overestimated" and ignore the key point...THE KNOWN DIMENSION THAT IS BEING USED FOR SCALE MEASUREMENT IS IN THE SAME PLANE AS THE SECTION THAT IS BEING DIRECT SCALED.
You make some comments about a possible longer length if the lower jaw was used as a measuring point but fail to recognize the Photogrammetric Solution adds that a closed mouth would have resulted in the bottom jaw extending past the top jaw much less than an inch.
Although not part of the report, in my opinion, a large muskie held vertically slightly overstates total length (a measurement that by definition is taken with the fish laying on a flat surface) due to pressure resulting from hanging weight held through the gills.
Finally, you add, "the report states that the fresh fish length is 50 to 51 inches. Any enhancement to mount length would have to be 9 to 10 inches long."...actually, 8 to 9 inches long, and that's the point of the Photogrammetric Solution.
Like I've said all along, a panel of scientists and mathematicians could resolve all of this.
Brad Latvaitis
| |
| | |
Posts: 2361
| I just don't believe it. Until you guys have some new information, I think this is pretty much a dead issue, since it has already been ruled on by the two governing boards for records. The name calling campaign and the photowatchamacallit so called science, might sway some public opinion, but I am of the opinion that other than a small internet musky camp connected to the internet and sympathizing with the WRMA, the court of public opinion will also weigh against you guys. If you have dead people's affadavits attesting to the weighing, you are going to go out and recruit scientists to call them liars, on top of the feuds obviously, and so clearly stated by those against the Johnson fish? And the root of those feuds seems to be petty jealousy that somebody might make a little money on what will amount to a Vanity Press book? It's really getting time to put this to bed. | |
| | |
Posts: 8821
| firstsixfeet - 1/25/2010 1:03 AM
[...] and the photowatchamacallit so called science, [...]
It's not necessarily "science", which serves to explain things we do not fully understand.. Photogrametry is all about MATH, which basically works the way it works.
http://www.geodetic.com/Whatis.htm calculations based on a known value, or several known values
Math is not subject to interpretation or manipulated for any desired outcome. We're talking about known dimensions of objects and the relationships between them, which can only be fudged intentionally or miscalculated by a certain margin of error, even in the most extreme curcumstances. I believe that margin of error was accounted for in every photogrammetric study done to date. Certainly the known dimensions, the mount, and several pictures could certainly be enough to come close to the actual real measurements of the Johnson fish.
And as far as finding an unbiased source to analyze the knowns and extrapolate the unknowns? How difficult can that really be? Most people in this country probably don't even know what a muskie IS, much less care what the world record is, or who caught it or where it was caught it.
I also don't think the concerned muskie anglers of the world care who caught it either. I am pretty convinced everyone just wants to know what the biggest muskie ever known to be caught really is, and where that was.
Edited by esoxaddict 1/25/2010 2:16 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 2361
| Unfortunately in this case there is so much petty jealousy and antagonism amongst the complainants, taking it as a vendetta against another fisherman to overturn a record he has nothing to do with, that any "science" involved with this is already tainted and any inputs are also tainted. And the record, where it was caught and who caught it, is established, in the records of the IGFA and FFHOF. | |
| | |
Posts: 8821
| firstsixfeet - 1/25/2010 3:16 PM
Unfortunately in this case there is so much petty jealousy and antagonism amongst the complainants, taking it as a vendetta against another fisherman to overturn a record he has nothing to do with, that any "science" involved with this is already tainted and any inputs are also tainted. And the record, where it was caught and who caught it, is established, in the records of the IGFA and FFHOF.
So why not just find someone neutral to analyze the known dimensions, the claimed dimensions and weight, the mount, and the pictures, and settle it once and for all? You can't tell me an unbiased source doesn't exist. | |
| | |
| Esoxaddict...the problem there is just what "Settled once and for all" means. As far the two established record keeping agencies are concrened, it is ALREADY settled. Previous challenges (at least 'opinion pages') have been past submitted, considered, and were found lacking. How many more times should it be allowed to be challenged again? Once more? Twice more...three times?? Again for every 'new way' of analyzing 60 years old photographs??? Or simply as many times as it takes in order to rewrite history in the way those with a personal agenda want it to be written?
| |
| | |
Posts: 8821
| Hall Supporter - 1/25/2010 4:32 PM
Esoxaddict...the problem there is just what "Settled once and for all" means. As far the two established record keeping agencies are concrened, it is ALREADY settled. Previous challenges (at least 'opinion pages') have been past submitted, considered, and were found lacking. How many more times should it be allowed to be challenged again? Once more? Twice more...three times?? Again for every 'new way' of analyzing 60 years old photographs??? Or simply as many times as it takes in order to rewrite history in the way those with a personal agenda want it to be written?
It should be done as many times as it takes to get it done RIGHT, in an honest and unbiased way, by people with no vested interest in the outcome. | |
| | |
Posts: 2361
| Hall Supporter - 1/25/2010 4:32 PM
Esoxaddict...the problem there is just what "Settled once and for all" means. As far the two established record keeping agencies are concrened, it is ALREADY settled. Previous challenges (at least 'opinion pages') have been past submitted, considered, and were found lacking. How many more times should it be allowed to be challenged again? Once more? Twice more...three times?? Again for every 'new way' of analyzing 60 years old photographs??? Or simply as many times as it takes in order to rewrite history in the way those with a personal agenda want it to be written?
Exactly the case. They are going to keep on. It IS personal for a certain group. | |
| | |
Posts: 3504
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | FSF,
I don't know...that's an awfully strong statement to make about being personal for a certain group...
I have no stake in this, but I am definitely interested to see where it goes. I know there have been some highly personal "banterings" that have taken place, but from what they have found, I do feel they have put forth a pretty "sound" argument, which from what I have read they have shown there is quite a bit of misrepresentation about the fish. Although I do feel that weight is something could be very hard to be determined from a picture, there are some things of note in their argument that really do hold some mathematical proof that the fish is not as big as it has been stated (length and girth). And...in today's age and technological advancement if something is found to be misrepresented many feel that it should be scrutinized and put to the test, with peer review...
Steve | |
| | |
Posts: 20245
Location: oswego, il | I love the line found lacking or as it was manipulated by the hall? | |
| | |
Posts: 2361
| VMS - 1/25/2010 7:15 PM
FSF,
I don't know...that's an awfully strong statement to make about being personal for a certain group...
I have no stake in this, but I am definitely interested to see where it goes. I know there have been some highly personal "banterings" that have taken place, but from what they have found, I do feel they have put forth a pretty "sound" argument, which from what I have read they have shown there is quite a bit of misrepresentation about the fish. Although I do feel that weight is something could be very hard to be determined from a picture, there are some things of note in their argument that really do hold some mathematical proof that the fish is not as big as it has been stated (length and girth). And...in today's age and technological advancement if something is found to be misrepresented many feel that it should be scrutinized and put to the test, with peer review...
Steve
I don't think that the statement you referred to is particularly strong. I am thinking it is simply a summation of what is coming across pretty clearly out of all this. It is interesting too, where the editorial snipping of threads occurs, what stuff is allowed and left in, and what stuff is removed off the boards as a matter of course. John Detloff can be called names, and painted ugly, but one musky site that supports the records cannot even be linked to any thread on this board, (PM me for the site) though after going there I thought it odd that it would be banned. So, there is definitely some "personal" stuff going on. Math can be manipulated pretty easily, particularly when a certain result is wanted and you can dial through ambiguos inputs to start your formula.
All in all this is pretty mild except for some of the main characters(they seem to take it real seriously,LOL). The Malo fish is probably the real record, and yet, you don't hear a peep out of em about that fish. Nobody wants to go there, measure the girth on that one, or even start a dialogue. It doesn't fit into the plan of things. They would have a fit if their "science" was applied to the Malo fish and proved it to be the weight stated.
It gives em all something to do until spring anyway. | |
| | |
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Jay,
You may have missed the fact MuskieFIRST is a copyrighted publication, not an open source blog. There will be some editorial stances taken, make no mistake, and in Dettloff's case, it'll be driven by what he bought and paid for in his group's very public dealings with us in the past.
Had it not been for Mr. Dettloff's incredible conflict of interest RE: the Hall and the WR, his books, the CFMS, his resort, his seminars and more, maybe I'd cut the guy some slack.
We caught this guy red handed selling ( yes, selling, as in making money) a PACK of crap; heck, he and his group of folks even had Musky Hunter printing that stuff as if it was gospel. It wasn't.
He and his sidekick Scott did their level best to cause me no end of grief, but...because we presented the facts and published them here and in Esox Angler in an article written by Robb Kim and I... and the facts as we presented them proved out to be absolutely true, he lost that round big time. It took me almost two years to get an audience with the Tribal Leaders who's best interests and good intent were misused the most, but I got one, and that sealed the deal on us closing up the story about the deception.
SO yes, there's some personal issues here, I don't trust that guy for very very good reason. It goes to threats on my safety, my family, and attacks on my son who had nothing to do with this on Pastika's website and elsewhere. It goes to years of this gent reinventing the history and overall reality of our sport and profiting from it, while doing everything he can to damage the reputation of those who disagree with him in the process. He ain't no white knight protecting the WR, he's watching out for his own pocketbook...period.
We leave what Larry posts alone to the large degree, and same same with John. Note John only posted once here, and that a promotion for his new book, plain and simple. Those two have a thing or two to disagree on, and that's a fact.
Mr. Dettloff took on and tossed out the WR in New York. Since he did, and literally butchered the guy in the process, it only makes sense to take it to the next logical step, which the WRMA did. John took it personal immediately, and much of the vitriol you now see is reaction to what he did and said a few years back and to date. What was he THINKING as an Officer of the Hayward Hall...he shouldn't be in ANY way involved in discrediting ANY record, or defending any when writing and selling books about both records he supports. Bad...bad business. At the very least, the appearance screams out conflict of interest even to those who do not know the background.
As to the Malo fish and your accusation the science behind the WRMA examination was biased, I have no comment other than..REALLY? And you have spoken to whom to confirm this before posting your accusations? Jerry? The folks who performed the tests? Anyone? Didn't Jerry just offer to pay for an examination by an expert hired by the Hall? Well, there's the difference, I guess. Jerry can address that if he sees fit to; as he clearly said and you obviously choose to ignore, he's the sole spokesman for the WRMA.
In the meantime, the Hayward historical fish IMO are not larger than Dale McNair's fish, and I'd bet not larger than Jody Dahm's, either. But that's my opinion, and I'm stick'n with it.
That said, this one has run it's course, and I feel it's time to retire it to the archives. Only the future will tell where this goes. | |
| |
|
