|
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | As I rub my temples after reading most of the WR post, it got me wondering what the fishery would be today if those unattainable records didn't stand? Also, how will our future fishery be if they fall?
You may think "what does it matter", but think about it if the real record is truly in the high 50# range. Would we as muskie anglers still have the same C&R ethics? How many more fish would have been bonked? When the record was 69# we all knew that ALL the fish we caught were off the mark and we just went on with our daily lives.
Now what if the records do fall and we do settle on a fish in the 50# range. How many people are going to be bonking fish shooting for the record? Will it set the muskie fishery back? Would have a lot of these really big fish that have been CPR'd lately still be swimming? I really don't know, maybe.
If you notice I didn't add my personal opinion to the question in this post as I don't know if I have a strong one either way. Maybe we would have ended up in the same place as today and maybe not. If they're shot down we may continue down our current conservation minded fishing ethics or maybe not. Just one more topic to debate with 6+ months to go until MN opener.  | |
| | |
Posts: 1663
Location: Kodiak, AK | Records are about #389 on my list of concerns muskie fishing. I know the name Louis Spray and that's about it. And that tells me that if I caught it, how many guys would know my name a year after I caught it? I've fished with Bob Brunner a couple of times this year (85 year old FHOF'er here on LSC) and he and I are pretty good friends. He's very much into C&R, but he tells me each time we go, "now Jeffrey, if we catch the record, she's going back with us!" We're not client and guide, we're just two dudes in the boat, so I'm afraid I'd have to argue with him about it and since it's my boat, I'd win. But he'd be peeed. Now Bob has somewhat of a known name made, and like I say is in the HOF, so it may be different for him. But for me, records are of no merit. Not out of nobility or anything like that, it just wouldn't do anything.
All that brings me to my reply: I don't know, and I can't say I care. As such, I don't know what effect they have on our fishing. I don't fish or release in pursuance of a record or future record. I fish for big fish and I release so I can catch more fish, and hopefully they'll be bigger. But a record? Even a state record? It doesn't drive me, so the record could be 50# or 100# and I'd not be able to tell you the difference. | |
| | |
Posts: 1289
Location: WI | The fake records are an injustice to the authentic catches and their captors. Let the fake ones fall like rain. | |
| | |
| Removing the present musky records will not hurt most musky waters as far as killing fish goes in the Midwest,but if NY State removes the Lawton Record there will be a lot of bonking as each person jocky's up a lb or two to get the New Record.I'm for setting aside all present muskie records as Historical Data and starting over,but the muskie that is on top of the new starting point has to be either the OBrien or Williamson fish so that we start above 60 lbs.Anything less then 60 lbs will make for muskies needlessly being killed in the Ottawa & St."Larry"area.My hats off to those from the Northeast that are Releasing very big muskies,most are only seeing a handful of pictures and those are not the biggest ones at all.These guy's do not care about records,they care about protecting their fishery.What ever New Musky World Record that is going to be agreed upon needs to be set before next season starts,OBrien or Williamson,get it done!
Capt Larry D. Jones
| |
| | |
Posts: 1530
| thanks larry for the correct language in a critical situation. | |
| | |
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | The short answer is "no". But we don't want phoney records either...in addition to the great comments above, the current phoney records impact muskellunge management negatively and of course tourism positively (unfortunately) here in Wisconsin. The latter is why the Hayward puppetmasters are working so hard to protect Spray and Johnson.
Additionally, these phoney Wisconsin "world records" impact negatively the great work going on in Minnesota. I believe the C&R ethic is so strong in MN that "getting REAL" with the world record would have almost zero affect there, but having the bar set artifically high isn't doing that program justice either.
As for "bonking" fish under 60 pounds, it would do no good as far as the new world record program we developed a few years back wherein we set the bar at a MINIMUM of 60 pounds for application. There have been no takers yet, but I'm not all that certain a few of that caliber haven't been caught and released!
So Treats and Larry Jones, your concerns, while well founded, have no merit at this point as the two "record keepers" currently listing BOGUS record muskies don't seem likely to change anytime soon and we're not lowering the bar below 60 pounds! | |
| | |
| Larry,I hear ya on the 60 lb mark for the Musky World Record. But the problem would be the NY State Record if they removed the Lawton Muskie,where would they start for the New Record for NY State? This is where the bonking would take place. I'm personaly for setting all the old records aside as historical record data and starting over at 60 lbs or the OBrien or Williamson muskie!
I hope you have a Nice Christmas Holiday!
Capt. Larry | |
| | |
| Larry R.,Other then Lawton and Hartman muskies from NY State are there any others that are realy above 60 lbs that can be varified as certified? Guess it would not be a problem if there was a certifiable muskie 60 lbs or heavier to take the Lawton Muskies place if they remove it in the future.
Capt. Larry | |
| | |
Posts: 8788
| Shawn.. I have mixed feelings about this.
I am pretty certain that quite a few large fish would be whacked for some time after that until new records were established. What I don't know is if those same poeple catching those same fish aren't whacking them anyway to hang on the wall as a trophy.
I've read the WRMA reports and the commentary from both sides, as well as some of the history in MR Ramsell's Muskie Compendium, and I will leave my personal opinions of that whole affair out for now...
That said? If someone is calling something a world record or a state record, I would prefer that it be legitimate. I would prefer that any records that are questionable be srutinized by whatever scientific methodology that exists, and if they are proven to be false, they should be removed, and the actual records be put in their place.
I don't think people are out there specifically looking to catch a world record. I DO think that having the largest fish out there year after year falling 10 pounds or more shy of the "records" that were set many decades ago is a bad thing. It creates a percieved lack of quality of today's muskie fishing that diminishes the work people like you are doing. Muskie fishing is better than it has ever been and it is still improving. The hard work out there that is being done, and the time and money that is being spent building and maintaining these muskie fisheries is amazing. When our best fish fall so far short of the "records"? I can see where a lot of opposition to size limits, stocking, etc. could come out of that, from people who look at the records and think we're wasting a lot of time and money trying to attain something that we are unable to attain.
Now, if we were catching fish in these same places that were 3-5 pounds short of the world record? That's when results speak for themselves.
I guess what I am trying to say is that having false records out there really undermines the perceived quality of the fisheries that so many people have worked so hard to build. It also creates an unrealistic impression of what sort of muskies you are likely to catch out there, and that I believe that is driving people away from the sport. | |
| | |
| If the present world records are removed, why would ANYBODY care what the New York State record is? The goal will be to top whatever world record is in place after the present ones are removed.
Further, what's the point of "setting aside" all present world records as historical data when they have been PROVEN bogus? They should be DISQUALIFIED and labeled "Muskie Crimes of the Century" and treated as such.
Trying to protect a lie out of fear of a few muskies being bonked is not fair to a person that truly did catch a world record as this fish would have been NEEDLESSLY released. There ARE people out there that dream of catching a world record and they should not be denied this goal if they truly acheive it. | |
| | |
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Guest - 12/19/2009 3:49 PM
"Muskie Crimes of the Century"
What exactly is the punishment for such an evil crime? | |
| | |
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Capt. Larry:
As is the case with the IGFA and the Hall, I don't think there is any reason currently to believe that NY will remove the Lawton record. As noted in my book and an article on this web site, they took a dim view of the attempt of Dettloff to have Lawton overturned.
That aside, if they did choose to set it aside for whatever reason, it would be up to them to put in place a requirement that its replacement be in excess of 60 pounds to prevent the needless killing of smaller fish. That is where folks like you and John Farrell come into play. There are no "certified" muskies, except other Lawton muskies that have been caught in NY that "supposedly" exceeded 60 pounds. They would have to start over. | |
| | |
| Shawn Double up
4 oz bourbon whiskey
4 dashes Angostura® bitters
2 splashs water
2 tsp sugar
1 maraschino cherry
1 orange wedge
Just do it trust me on this lol | |
| | |
| In my opinion, the Cal Johnson and Louie Spray fish are not even close to stated weights. I think they should be discredited.
That being said, the Hayward Mafia is a joke and they are hanging on to these records barely... For now at least...
The WRMA and associates needs to take the high road here... From what I have seen from some of their associates, they have not. Don't shoot the messenger on that one, take that comment for what its worth... Current tactics are not earning you any additional support...
I have watched this closely and impartially for the last couple years and would like to see the records discredited... But I have problems with the WRMA, its associates and how they go about business. Sorry gentlemen but that is how I and others impartial observers see you. Time to stop being defensive and reassess your strategy. And if further distancing yourself from individuals that have a personal stake in this is the only option, then you must decide what is best for the cause.
John | |
| | |
Posts: 32890
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'John',
If I offer an opinion here, it's editorial to this publication, and is not necessarily the opinion of the WRMA, it's other members, or founders. I won't back away from addressing inaccurate, misleading, or otherwise unacceptable articles, comments, or presentations made in the continuing effort to diminish the results offered by the WRMA investigations to date. I learned long ago that if no one offers the 'other side' of the story in the media in general and especially on the web, the only side offered is the one accepted. Opinions of those not directly involved require no argument, but occasionally I might offer my opinion or mediate here a bit.
If you wish to see a list of members of the WRMA from a listing on the WRMA website, and hold them to whatever standard you choose, here they are:
Jack Burns
Richard Collin
Jan Eggers
Ross Fisher
Dave Fornara
Reid Frank
Mark Gostisha
Pete Maina
Dick Pearson
Jim Saric
Steve Sarley
Jason Schillinger
Will Schultz
Marc Thorpe
Steve Wickens
George Will
Steve Worrall
If you have a desire to speak with any of the members and advise them on future tactics, it's probably best to do so directly and personally. I have a tendency to take anonymous posts like yours pretty lightly, as I have no reason to assign any more weight to those comments than I would to anonymous comments from any side of this issue. And, you chastise and suggest the high road, while you take the alternative in reference to the 'Hayward Mafia', and interesting dichotomy.
You may notice the decision by the Hfof and IGFA were not democratic in nature.
I do not see why the WRMA should be held responsible for the comments of the general public be they the average guy or a well known 'public figure' like some who have posted here, just like the HFOF should not be.
I'm not sure why you addressed the WRMA in this thread, I don't see a single 'prominent member' posting here as of yet, until this comment.
| |
| | |
Posts: 123
| For whatever reason, people in America have just become overly competitive. It doesn't matter what the situation is, it's just become a way of life. We have everything from "Employee of the month" to Top Chef, American Idol, The Biggest Loser, and the list just goes on and on. It's quite strange when you think about it. Being as competitive as we are at everything possible to judge ourselves by, a byproduct that has come from that is that we want accuracy. We want to be the biggest and the best and we want it detailed and unquestionable, and it's now trickled down to fishing. I suspect people back in the day knew the truth about some of these fish, but at the time their mentality was simply that it wasn't that big of deal to be concerned about. There were probably more important issues at hand. Personally I'd like to see a clean slate and go from there.
Other World Records have been disqualified and the sun still rose the next day. I know they did a photo analysis of the WR Walleye and found it to be falsified a few years ago. The angler who caught it had even given length and girth measurements in, I suppose, an effort to be more "believable". If you did the standard weight calculation by the numbers he gave the fish should have weighed just over 41 lbs., not 25lb or whatever it was.
Catch & Release has become so popular at this point that I expect many fish caught that would even be remotely close to the WR in size will be returned to the water after a few snapshots, such as Dale's fish. Maybe that's what everyone should do instead of having this need to one-up their neighbor all the time. 
Edited by Lens Creep 12/20/2009 1:54 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 8788
| Lens creep...
It's biological. We're designed to compete for food, for shelter, for mates, etc. just like every other animal. We're hard wired to compete, basically for survival purposes. The issue is that by and large we've moved so far beyond having to compete for our basic needs of food water and shelter, that we're left competing for nonsense. At the end of the day, most of what we compete for is meaningless. That endless pursuit of one-upmanship drives people to lie, cheat, steal, and sabbotage so they can prove to themselves that they are superior to everyone else. Kind of funny when you think about it. It will probably lead to our undoing as a species one day.
It's unfortunate that we've managed to turn what is supposed to be a fun relaxing and enjoyable pastime into a competition. World records used to be something that we found amusing. "wow, look at that!!" Now it's all "Hey, look at ME!!" Yeah, look at 'ya. You caught a fish. Good for you!
| |
| | |
| Steve:
I guess I did not take the high road when I referred to the Hayward Mafia. Point well taken.
As far as the WRMA is concerned, I stand behind my statement that I feel they need to reassess their tactics and associates if they truly plan to accomplish their goal. I wish them the best of luck in their efforts- as I did during the Spray report fallout.
John | |
| | |
Location: Ohio | What was concider to be a WR record at it's time should be left alone if our former muskie fisherman and record keepers felt that these fish was this size who are we to question it. This is supposed to be a sport for fun and recreation not who is the best and look at me. There's good fishermen and better fisherman and what is a relly big fish for some should not be put under a magnifieing glass and question. Because we all are supposed to be fishing for muskie's because we enjoy it not for the sole purpose of the next WR, if it happens let it happen but always have fun when you are out there. | |
| | |
Posts: 32890
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | As I pointed out, neither the HFHOF or IGFA used any 'democracy' in their decision so I hardly see any reason for a PR campaign to win them over, it will not happen IMO. The report and science behind the conclusions within were rejected out of hand.
I submit too many people in America have forgotten entirely how to compete or at worst, no longer have the drive.
That said, the WRMA effort to accurately define what the real World Record Muskie is has nothing to do with 'competition'.
| |
| | |
Posts: 699
Location: Hugo, MN | Treats you make some excellent points especially folks bonking fish that are "new" records. Personally, I'm a bit tired of the bickering this subject brings. With that said I believe the best option for everyone, IMHO, would be to establish a historical division or whatever name they want to give it and a modern record as well. In addition I would like to see the DNR or Muskies Inc work to establish partnerships with resorts on trophy waters such as LOTW, Mille Lacs, etc. so that if such a record fish were caught there would be the utmost effort to verify and successfully release said fish after weighing and verifying. Merry Christmas to everyone. | |
| | |
| Trying not to throw this off or anything but I don't think Spray's fish should count becouse it was shot. Even IF that fish was that big do you really think he could of brought something like that in with the gear they used in those days? The time of year that they got it was the time when allot of the bigger fish start going real shallow and I still think they shot it then grabed it, but I wasn't there so who knows.
Dan Crooms 54 | |
| | |
| Guest, yes you do not live in New York so you would not care.But in New York waters and in Canadian waters there are more numbers of Bigger Muskies being caught & released the last few years,some are over 50 lbs and some are pushing close to 60 lbs.The number of fishermen coming to these area's to try for the bigger fish has also substantialy increased.If it were your State you would worry about the State Record as well. | |
| | |
| Larry Jones,
My point is why would ANYBODY care about the New York state record when they could have a WORLD record with a smaller fish? If the NFWFHF and the IGFA recognized fish that were smaller than the New York record, NOBODY would give a hoot about what fish the state of New York recognizes.
| |
| | |
Posts: 444
| Yes we want it Discredited, it's total BS. That simple. | |
| | |
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | I actually wouldn't mind seeing it stand. What else would you people complain about during winter? This is certainly less nausiating than listening to people whine about spearing, though I'm sure that is next on the docket. | |
| | |
Posts: 123
| I don't have any issue with fish that were shot, as that was the accepted practice of the day and within the law I believe. What if 20 years from now laws were changed that would limit muskie fishermen to using single hooks instead of trebles? Would prior fish caught on treble hooks then be disqualified? I do find it strange that so many huge fish were caught in these particular waters back in the day using equipment far inferior to what is available now, while at the same time not having as many lakes containing muskies and a catch & release practice that was all but non-existant. The fishing seems far better now in MN while it seems worse than what it was at one time in WI, or am I wrong? The numbers just don't seem to add up for me. | |
| | |
| Guest,There are a good number of us in Canada and New York State that could care less about who has the Musky World Record.We only care about protecting our fisheries and the brute stock genetic strain of our big fish so there here for our kids and others in the future.Because all the bigger muskies from New York Waters were caught and then released this decade there are no muskies certified over 60 lbs to take the place of the Lawton fish.So if the Lawton musky is removed by New York State there will be fishermen that would be more then happy to bonk one for the New York State Record.If the old records all fall,the next world record will be the O'Brien or Williamson fish from Ontario,with the possability of it being beat by another fish from Ontario,Quebec or New York.So its very easy for you to say no one cares about New York,you do not live here. Most likely you have not released,touched or up close seen any muskies over 50 lbs ever,but your an expert in measurement after the fact! | |
| | |
Posts: 8788
| Lens Creep - 12/21/2009 5:24 PM
[...] I do find it strange that so many huge fish were caught in these particular waters back in the day using equipment far inferior to what is available now, while at the same time not having as many lakes containing muskies and a catch & release practice that was all but non-existant. The fishing seems far better now in MN while it seems worse than what it was at one time in WI, or am I wrong? The numbers just don't seem to add up for me.
The numbers don't add up for ANYONE. The fishing is better in MN, there's no doubt about that. Most of the lakes in WI just can't support a population of muskies like what you see coming out of MN. Combine that with low size limits, a "catch and eat" mentality that still prevails today, tribal harvest, and a different management strategy, and it's not difficult to see why.
Size limits can be changed, attitudes can be changed slowly over time, and management practices can be changed. Tribal harvest/treaty rights will never change. Say what you want about how it affects the fisheries, but that's the way it is.
That said? Muskie fishing in WI (and elsewhere) is the best its ever been. Why don't you see the sizes of fish coming out of Northern Wisconsin that you see in the record books? Logic and reason should lead you to the ovbious answer: They aren't there. They never have been. A brief look through the lunge log should tell you everything you need to know about where the big fish are.
As for the records? It's also pretty easy to see why folks in an area whose entire economy depended on tourism dollars would have wanted to have a few world record fish to their claim. It's even easier to see why the people in that area today want to hold on to those records for dear life. MN is sucking up WI's muskie fishing tourism dollars like a vacuum. Muskie anglers aren't dumb -- they're going to fish where the big fish are. Between the magazines, the TV shows, and the internet, there aren't may secrets in muskie fishing anymore. People know where big fish are being caught within days, and those who want to catch fish don't stick around areas where they aren't being caught.
| |
| | |
Location: Contrarian Island | simple answer Treats is yes...I wish all the old bogus records are discredited as they simply are not accurate records or fish that were that big...it would be nice to have a goal that is attainable for anyone...those fish simply were not as long or as heavy as claimed...it would be great if they were discredited, and someone did catch and keep a fish in the low 60 lb range ...certified, verified and not filled w/ sand in the belly so we all know just what the bar is set at....I like the idea of it being set at 60 minimum as noted above..I think that is attainable...but 69 or whatever it is now? not likely.
Edited by BNelson 12/21/2009 9:50 PM
| |
| | |
| Larry Jones,
You have either O'Brien or Williamson as the world record holder before these fish have even been researched by the WRMA! What if the true world record turns out to be a fish UNDER 60 lbs and this fish is recognized by BOTH the NFWFHF and the IGFA? Then the NY record you're so worried about wouldn't stop people from bonking fish from the waters you fish, right? This situation would also make the 60 lb. minimum for the "Modern Day Records Program meaningless also. It just might be that there has never been a muskie taken over 60 lbs and this is something for you to consider.
| |
| | |
| Guest,Yes,you could be right,but the O'Brien muskie has been gone over with a fine tooth comb in the past,but nothing came out as true facts to change the certified weight.The Wiliamson muskie may have a problem with the certification of the scale used to weigh it as well.There is also the posability of a Ceritied Unknown Muskie at 60 lbs being out there!What ever happens we will have to deal with it.Just do not need your who cares about New York attitude while we wait. | |
| |
|
Do we as muskie fishermen really want the WR's discredited?