|
|
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | I was watching the debate at another site and got to wondering how we really feel about the attempt being made to discredit past record catches. There is alot of talk now on cal johsons catch and if it was as big as reported. What you think?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8782
| Don... I don't really care who caught it. I don't care what their name is or was, or when it was caught. I guess I'd be interested to know where it was caught, just for curiosity's sake. What I DO want to know is how big a muskie can actually get, and what the largest muskie ever caught was. The best way to do that is to anal;yze the current records and either confirm them or dismiss them, using the technology and information we have available to us today.
When I look at the pictures of the Johnson fish, and I look at the length, girth and weight attached to it, something isn't right. I'd believe 54". I'd believe a 28" girth. I'd believe it if you told me it was 50 pounds.
But when I hear that it was pushing 70 pounds? I call crap. I've seen every big muskie picture that's been in the magizines and on the internet for the better part of the last 6 years. I've been through the Lunge Log. I've looked at the history of the fish caught in Hayward, and just about everywhere else over the last 6 years. I believe that there just might be a genetic freak out there, late in the fall, coming out of somewhere like Lac Seul, Georgian Bay, the St Lawrence, maybe even Green Bay one of these years that with a full belly could get close to the 70 pound mark. I think such a fish could possibly exist today. But iof it does, and it is ever caught, it will be like no muskie any of us have ever seen, and even the worst picture from the worst angle will not be able to clnceal the fact that that fish is a super freak of a muskie.
The Johnson fish?? Spare me the BS. It was a big fish. It was a nice fish, and it was probably the largest fish ever to come out of the area in which it was caught. The only way that record should stand is with a disclaimer attached that says basically "we can't prove it wasn't as big as claimed, because there's just no way to do that with the information we have."
All the research I have read leads me to believe that muskies just don't get big enough to ever have a 33.5" girth, and certainly not in the middle of summer. The same goes for their weight. How many legitimate 60# class fish are caught in a season? Now, how about 65#?...
If nothing else convinces you? Look at where the fish was caught. What the heck happened in that area where it's a long shot to even get a 50" fish from that area, let alone 50 pounds? And this one was twenty pounds heavier than that?
Sure, a world record is exceptional. But the Johnson fish blows right on past exeptional, and past highly unlikely, and falls somewhere in the realm between not in a million years, and freaking impossible.
I don't take sides in arguments between people with agendas, because I don't trust any of them. But this time? You'd have to be high to believe that fish was as big as claimed. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | Good reply addict. Ty for it....................Pfeiff |
|
| |
|
Location: Windy City | Hit the nail on the head. Very good reply. Thanks
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Let's try to look at this as the work was intended. There was no attempt to 'discredit' any of the records. The work done would have just as easily confirmed the records if they held up to scrutiny. Since they didn't hold up to scrutiny, the attempt has been to acquire at least acknowledgment by the record keeping organizations, and the ensuing battle between Larry and John erupted. Larry is not a member of the WRMA, he's a Muskie historian. The heart of the fighting isn't over the fact the data doesn't support the claims about the muskies in question, it's about the obvious conflict of interest RE: the Hayward Hall and John Dettloff et al.
So I say go ahead with the work until whatever 'reality' we choose to apply is settled upon. |
|
| |
|
Location: The Yahara Chain | Do I think Johnson's fish is as big as claimed? No
Do I think Spray's fish were as big as claimed? No
Isn't it the outfit in Florida that has the Johnson fish listed as the current world record? Yes
Isn't it the Florida outfit that denied the WRMA Johnson report? Yes
Didn't Ramsell and company start their own record keeping organization? Yes, but they don't even have a record fish. That seems odd to me.
Am I sick of hearing about all of the nonsense, over and over and over again? YES
How about this, why doesn't Ramsell's record keeping group continue to look at these fish along with the WRMA. They can determine what fish was biggest and then they can finally have a record that they believe in.
As long as they proclaim Martin Williamson the record holder, I'll go along with them.
These old records were just part of a fishing contest in Field and Stream magazine.
I don't think that I am in the minority in that I don't really care about this but I am very tired of all of the childish behavior. I believe that it gives us all a black eye. |
|
| |
|
| Most people who wish to Stop this foolishness won't even open the post so this is a very invalid poll. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 272
| sworrall - 2/1/2010 10:10 AM
Let's try to look at this as the work was intended. There was no attempt to 'discredit' any of the records. The work done would have just as easily confirmed the records if they held up to scrutiny. Since they didn't hold up to scrutiny.......
Nobody sets out to prove an existing record. My opinion, if the photogrammertry or whatever its called would have proved this fish to actually be as big as claimed, the folks with their name on the board of directors/founders of the WRMA would have REALLY have had to held their nose when endorsing these records. I'm sure that was an answer they weren't expecting to get.
Again, my opinion, but I would have to guess that most involved felt Spray, Johnson, etc., lied, and went into this endeavor with that notion. I don't know how anyone could reasonably claim otherwise.
I mean, seriously, all these high power fishing pros, writers, historians, et al, just decided to get together one night for a beer and some cards and said, "I know, let's just for the kicks work thousands of man hours and spend thousands of dollars to hire a team of math wizards to prove the Spray and Johnson existing record to be true."
I don't think so.
We don't test an athlete's blood because we think they DIDN'T dope. Pretty sure Craig Counsel is safe from people accusing him of using the juice. But we all wanted to know about Sosa, Bonds, McGuire, etc. Because there was doubt.
I'm not saying I disagree with the WRMA members' opinions on the Spray and Johnson fish, etc. I just think to continue to say they were objective, or that this could have gone either way, is just plain silly. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 129
Location: North Metro - Twin Cities | Esoxaddict, absolutely nailed it.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | muskie-addict,
You need to read more of the associated material before you make comments like that.
Dettloff unilaterally had Lawton's record thrown out. Several folks asked if Lawton's was 'worth' the investigation to prove/disprove, why would the rest of the standing records not be, by any reasonable measure?
The answer from the Hall? Go away; the Hayward records are accurate and need no investigation or attention at all.
The WRMA paid independent, unbiased experts to look into those fish and determine if they were what was claimed. If they were, as the Hayward Hall claimed, the experts would have said, yup, those records stand on their own merit. The WRMA even offered to PAY for experts the Hall hired to confirm/deny the WRMA study results. Again the answer was...Go away.
And there you have it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 619
Location: Verona, WI | All due respect but I think your referring to it is the "Hayward Hall" shows how this whole thing is going down - it's personal. Do you now refer to the IGFA as that "Florida Hall"? And since the Hayward Hall and the Florida Hall both rejected the WRMA claims for the same reason does that mean they are now in league?
It's obvious that photogrammetry does not meet the burden of proof for the "Hayward Hall" and the IGFA. After the IGFA turned down the Johnson fish challenge, the WRMA should have engaged them to determine what the burden of proof is to overturn a record and what type of analysis they would accept. That would allow for a series of next steps.
Instead the WRMA "ceased a working relationship" (their own press release). It sounds a lot like they took their ball and went home.
Edited by ShaneW 2/1/2010 4:05 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I refer to the Hayward Freshwater Fishing Hall Of Fame as the Hayward Hall because I can't type and it's easier and faster, all due respect returned. Thing is going down? 'Things' like what, exactly?
Cardboard silhouettes met the Hayward Hall's requirements just fine for Lawton's fish. No science at all, just one of the Hall's officers said so and out the record went. How is the WRMA response then and now personal? Everyone looking for the WRMA grassy knoll...there isn't one. There is no conspiracy, no backstage action...it is what it is, no matter what you want for dramatics. The fish didn't pass the tests, and the folks over there will not allow further investigation of the actual mount. Nothing personal at all. The WRMA even offered to pay for an independent examination by experts the Hall brought in...no dice.
The CFMS, which Mr. Dettloff was involved in selling...nothing personal there at all either. An investigation was undertaken, and it was clear the entire dataset was bull; we called it out as bull, and offered multiple opportunities to prove us wrong...and it remains to this day bull. So a huge attempt to re-write the 'literature' regarding Muskie behavior was disproved, to the benefit of the sport and those who try to understand our quarry. Likewise, I'd like to know how big these fish get. I'd have been DELIGHTED to find out the Johnson fish was legit. So far, I'm not delighted.
The attempts to make this look 'personal' are simply attempts to draw out more vitriol. I ain't biting, and I bet Jerry won't either.
The IGFA is the IGFA. Read their response to the WRMA, if you haven't.
Why is it the search for what the facts really are has to be a vendetta to be valid? It isn't and never will be, at least not for me. If it is for Larry, so be it, he's certainly entitled to whatever course of action he chooses, and if you ask him, he'll make it very clear he believes what he does based on his own investigative work, not just the WRMA results. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 619
Location: Verona, WI | I misunderstood the Hayward Hall reference - there's so much personal bias in this whole thing that it looked like something it wasn't. Too many Hayward mafia references from others I guess.
My bigger point is that the WRMA needs to go back and take a look at why neither group considered photogrammetry a reliable enough source. Okay, say the FWFHOF is completely supporting local fish. That holds water if the IGFA accepts photogrammetry...but it doesn't. So instead of disengaging this should lead to either more discussion about what methods it would take to overturn a record or simply a new record keeping organization supported by the musky fishing community. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | The WRMA did just that. I'll let Jerry answer that question if he cares to so I don't under or overstate it.
I have no personal bias against the Hall in any form. I have friends who have been inducted into the Hall as Legendary Anglers, and respect that position tremendously. I shot the entire induction ceremony for Steve Statland at the Tri Esox, and didn't see any nasty looks from the stage either, so I must assume the Hall et al has no personal bias against me or OutdoorsFIRST.
I know John doesn't appreciate my prying into the stuff he makes part of his living from, and I understand the WRMA data looks like a threat to his soon to be available book on Cal, but I bet a book about how the World Muskie records were all a bunch of friendly hype and were to the large part manufactured would sell better than what he's dealing now.
Either way, EA said it very well. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 536
| so correct me if I am wrong but it sounds like everyone agrees it is not a record fish other than the florida hall and the hayward hall sooo this should be settled then right cause I mean come on florida who gives a crap there they don't even have muskies and hayward is just trying to make themselves look good with a lie right! so it should be don then hah! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| They pretty much stop talking when you bring up the Florida Hall. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | FSF, some days you have more balls than anyone I know. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| sworrall - 2/1/2010 7:34 PM
FSF, some days you have more balls than anyone I know.
Now that's funny.  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20219
Location: oswego, il | Shane, the Hayward Hall re-affirmed Spray's record after they did what they did to the WRMA report. Unless you have a taped confession from Louie, they are not budging.
FSF, all I know at this point is the ifga does not accept photo analysis as a basis for record removal. Is there something else? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| I think it interesting that with the distinct choice of "continue the fight to discredit it" there is a majority of voters not making that choice. I would say that it pretty much shows the distribution of interest here, in spite of a voiciferous few that want the records torn down, I don't think it is a huge thing even among musky fisherman, let alone the rest of the fishing community. And as I have stated before and believe more strongly as this continues, this is a bad path for all of us. And taking down verified records is not in the best interest of fishing in general, period. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 73
| Just because an investigation might have some elements of being ‘personal’ to it does not exclude it from being objective. And I don’t know why the two would have to be separated. Many things done in life are spurred from passion, and that makes it personal. And that can be a passion for what is right---as I believe is the case with the WRMA and Larry trying to discover and reveal the truth, as to whether the claimed size of Cal’s fish and the Hall’s support of it are correct. And if it’s not, then it is a sham blocking the way for the true WR Musky to be recognized and recorded. I don’t think the matter should stop, or will stop until it’s RESOLVED.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | FSF,
IMO it is if the records are bogus.
I honestly don't care if anyone else is interested or not, I am interested and will continue to dig and see what can be uncovered and support the WRMA in the same efforts. If indeed a consensus is reached by those in the fray, I'll either decide to accept it or not. The new article posted in the Research forum describing Scott Allen's activity with the Spray fish sure doesn't motivate me to drop the issue; I read snippets in emails and the like, but this article defines it more clearly. See my earlier post in the moved thread for reference about my past experience with Scott and John.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 619
Location: Verona, WI | Todd.
That's kind of the point that I was getting to. If neither record keeping group will accept the analysis done by the WRMA then the only choice is either let it go or form a new record keeping group that the community will get behind. That means the musky clubs, Musky Hunter, the bigger sites like this one, etc. all need to support it.
Edited by ShaneW 2/1/2010 9:12 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| Sworrall,
We view this from distinctly differing points. I have no history with any of the main characters in this teacup. I have no problem believing a musky has the potential to hit nearly 70 lbs. I haven't seen anything to dissuade me that this is true. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | And, as I said earlier...there you have it! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20219
Location: oswego, il | FSF wrote:
"And as I have stated before and believe more strongly as this continues, this is a bad path for all of us. And taking down verified records is not in the best interest of fishing in general, period."
FSF, you including lawton's fish in this statement? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| As hindsight is 20/20, yes, that was the original sin. And the sin was committed by the record keeping groups. It was not the guy who challenged it, if it were, I would call the WRMA blasphamers and heretics, but it was wrong of the halls to ever give up the verified records of the day. What? The statute of limitations on most everything but murder is crossed at 7 years, is it not? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8782
| firstsixfeet - 2/1/2010 8:45 PM
[...] And as I have stated before and believe more strongly as this continues, this is a bad path for all of us. And taking down verified records is not in the best interest of fishing in general, period.
Why is this a "bad path" for us??
And why would taking down records that were shown to have been fabricated not be in the best interest of fishing in general?
Are you afraid that if the actual records were verified once and for all they would be within a range of attainability for many people, and it would result in large number of fish being caught and clobbered as opposed to caught and released?
I aksed you this once before and you never answered me, FSF. What is the motivation behind your position on this? You are very firm in your position, but I fail to see it justified, other than punctuating it with the statement "period"....
Edited by esoxaddict 2/2/2010 11:57 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | I just wanted to know if how you all felt to my question. I think we have been through all this crap several times now and nothing has changed. Someone please wave a magic wand and make it go away. I do thank you all for your feedback anyway, Some really good ones,thanks
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | If you don't want to be part of the debate on either side, or are bored with it or don't care...then how about using your mouse and joining in on topics you are interested in? It's amazing how many thousands of views this topic has in the threads here....just a point. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 7
| You are forgetting that other fish came off of another location and that there are photos of it around. It is a darn monster only the mount and the photo match....and the Johnson mount and the photos do not match.
This thing is huge and the photos reflect it. It is perhaps the best photo I have ever seen, close to body, about side-by-side and so forth. I have no understanding about why this is excluded in any books or such. You ever get to see this and your mind is going to change. It has all the original teeth, and is not foraged.
I am not posting something that is not real either. It hung in Draper for a long time.
Edited by musky53dat 2/5/2010 10:31 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I know of another monster speared out of Enterprise back then, truly as big fish. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 7
| I read your article the CFMS situation. It was a "tribal study". The mounted fish I saw and did today again is the only musky of 60 inches that matches the photo. It has a head on it that is something else. I hope we do not go too far with this and not value the input of the Native American people spearing or not. You know, another long debate. He just got a little too far ahead of himself with the mount, but God the teeth in that creature! Its the big fish of this caliber where the mount and photo match.
I just finished a video about how things get bigger in a photo, taking side-by-side objects bringing one forward. It already changed a few minds. I might post it but would rather test the waters first. |
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | Shane's question from page one:
"It's obvious that photogrammetry does not meet the burden of proof for the "Hayward Hall" and the IGFA. After the IGFA turned down the Johnson fish challenge, the WRMA should have engaged them to determine what the burden of proof is to overturn a record and what type of analysis they would accept. That would allow for a series of next steps. Instead the WRMA "ceased a working relationship" (their own press release). It sounds a lot like they took their ball and went home."
I asked IGFA Conservation Director, Jason Schratwieser the following question on January 27, 2010: "Is the IGFA interested in reviewing new information regarding Mr. Johnson's record?"
Jason Schratwieser's answer: "I’m afraid that our executive committee is not interested in revisiting this again. I can assure you that I was being honest when I told you that your report was vetted at the highest possible level at our organization."
The bottom line is that the IGFA will not even consider "new information", let alone a series of "next steps". We were not surprised at the disinterest from the IGFA last month considering the way they handled our report to begin with. Unfortunately, there is simply no recourse for the WRMA with either sanctioning body at this time.
Sincerely,
Jerry Newman
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Rather than offering to pay for another independent photogrammetry review, the WRMA should just file a lawsuit against the Hall and the IGFA. Bring the information into a court of law. That would be the end to all this nonsense by these groups and I believe, the end of these bogus records. WRMA money would be better spent with this approach. You [WRMA] have a very solid case with irrefutable evidence. Use it in a venue devoid of all this silliness.
Edited by fins355 2/14/2010 8:38 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 550
Location: So. Illinois | Mr. Sworral's comments put this whole topic of discussion into the proper perspective. Ongoing efforts are not meant to discredit but to scrutinize and validate. The other concern is the obvious conflict of interest. I believe the ongoing efforts of the WRMA are credible and necessary and I look forward to the first validated record that holds up to scrutiny as it will provide valuable data regarding the true potential these fish can achieve.
R, Jerry (aka AFChief)
sworrall - 2/1/2010 10:10 AM
Let's try to look at this as the work was intended. There was no attempt to 'discredit' any of the records. The work done would have just as easily confirmed the records if they held up to scrutiny. Since they didn't hold up to scrutiny, the attempt has been to acquire at least acknowledgment by the record keeping organizations, and the ensuing battle between Larry and John erupted. Larry is not a member of the WRMA, he's a Muskie historian. The heart of the fighting isn't over the fact the data doesn't support the claims about the muskies in question, it's about the obvious conflict of interest RE: the Hayward Hall and John Dettloff et al.
So I say go ahead with the work until whatever 'reality' we choose to apply is settled upon. |
|
| |
|
| I apologize if this is out of line, but why is there so much effort in this? I understand people have different feelings about things, but this is something I have no interest in and frankly I can't believe that there is this much put into it. I love to fish, love to fish muskies, but before I read this page I had no idea who held the record or how much it weighed. Is it too much to let this go and just enjoy the sport for what it is? Before I get deluged with heckles, I don't know anyone involved in this mess nor do I care to. Maybe I'm alone in my opinion, if so fight on!
FF |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3480
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | Hi FF,
Not out of line at all....you are one of many who do not carry an interest in the records and it is to be expected that there are many many more that carry the same feeling. There are many others, though, that wish to see legitimized records that can be verified and hold up under scrutiny many times over. At this point, the WRMA has been working toward this and have met quite a bit of resistance to say the least. Understandable, but in order to find records that hold up, some toes need to be stepped on. To effect change in this area will take people....LOTS of them to voice their feelings and be heard. Currently as Jerry said, neither body is willing to even listen to the case let alone change it. It doesn't leave much to work with, which is a very sad thing!!
I will go on record as one who wishes to see the records scrutinized and verified. For one, with all the big fish being caught in the past few years, I feel many would like to know just how close to the record their fish might be. Could it potentially cause more fish to be killed?...maybe.... Hard to call on that one, although many would argue yes and feel it would kill the fisheries. That point might be valid too, so it just cannot be passed over. Tough calls here...
Steve |
|
| |
|
| Thanks Steve, I appreciate you taking the time to respond back. You cleared it up a bit for me, I still have very little interest but at least I know a little about what's going on. Thanks and good luck! |
|
| |
Pursuit to overturn cal johnsons record catch