|
|
| For those of you that have read Jim Saric's article entitled "As The World Record Turns" in the April/May Issue of Musky Hunter Magazine, how do you feel about Jim's challenge to the WRMA? |
|
| |
|
| Can you expound a little on what he said? I don't get the mag. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 7077
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | I dont get the mag either, and personally I'm ready for open water muskie talk versus the same winternet debates (WRMA, spearing, size limits, guides, etc), but I'm sure Jim has interesting insights into the WRMA vs. the Hall debate.
My interest in the magazine rests around the rumor that I got a mention in this issue (go me!). |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1220
| Personally, I don't think I could stand for something like the Musky Hunter magazine to exist without me having it-especially for $20.00 a year, cheaper than even one of most musky baits. Admittedly, an addict, I just have to read it the first day it arrives. The biggest way I would characterize myself as an angler is a person who has a lot to learn, but clearly wants to do so. If you don't "know it all" already, MH is a good place to add to your skills. I won't try to give a summary of the editorial, but the essence of the thing seems to say, "We deserve a better record." Marty Forman |
|
| |
|
Posts: 720
| Slamr,
I didn't know MuskyHunter had a police blotter section. |
|
| |
|
| For those that don't receive the magazine, here's part of what Jim Saric had to say: "I challenge the WRMA to take a look at the more recent muskies over 60 pounds that were caught and killed, such as the O'Brien and Williamson fish. Even though this isn't their center of focus, make a case based upon photogrammetric analysis as well as affidavits, etc., to verify the weight of the largest musky over 60 pounds. I would like to know what the WRMA believes to be the WR based upon available information, and have that made available to the public.
I think depending upon the results, the majority of musky hunters might be able to rally behind what appears to be the most defensible WR. Sure, we can let the Hall of Fame and IGFA maintain their records. At Musky Hunter, we might refer to them as "historical records" as they are part of the great and interesting history of musky fishing. The sport deserves a WR with much less controversy and suspicion."
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 676
Location: Wisconsin | I haven't gotten my copy yet.....arrrggghhhhh |
|
| |
|
Posts: 720
| Not trying to be a smarta$$. I don't have too. But you can read that very thought almost hundreds of times on this very site. I don't think Jim is coming up with anything new here and if I'm being honest about this. Jim should have asked this question long ago. Maybe before associating his name with WMRA. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2865
Location: Brookfield, WI | Slamr - 3/25/2010 9:03 PM
My interest in the magazine rests around the rumor that I got a mention in this issue (go me!).
I didn't know MH magazine had a volleyball or bacon section.
Kevin |
|
| |
|
| i thought Jim's point was a great one, and it's NOT one that's often heard as part of the online discussion: suggesting that instead of debunking certain fish, that the WRMA should go ahead and _validate_ what their tools demonstrate to be the largest muskie ever caught. start low and work up instead of starting at the top and working back?
i think it also adds a certain gravitas to the proposal when it comes from the editor of Musky Hunter magazine as compared to someone posting in an online discussion forum. as demonstrated by the fact that we're talking about it right here, Jim Saric carries a certain "E.F. Hutton" factor that BobFish1234 just doesn't quite have.
Edited by lambeau 3/26/2010 12:11 PM
|
|
| |
|
| In my opinion, Jim Saric should already consider the the records maintained by the NFWFHoF and the IGFA as nothing more than "historical". Why would he request photo analysis of the O'Brien and Williamson fish when the lengths have never been disputed? Why also would he request photogrammetry again be performed when he hasn't stood behind the results found on the historical records?
Everyone knows the O'Brien and Williamson fish are in the mid-50" range. The request to have thousands of dollars spent on something this obvious is absurd.
The WRMA has already stated that they would investigate O'Brien next. Whether or not photogrammetry is part of that investigation is up to them.
At this point, Musky Hunter Magazine should consider Ken O'Brien as the record holder as his fish is the largest of the two over 60 lbs.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2865
Location: Brookfield, WI | lambeau - 3/26/2010 12:08 PM
i think it also adds a certain gravitas.....
Nice. Most people will have to look that up.
Kevin
|
|
| |
|
| I don't see how the WRMA could possibly validate O'Brien withoutout first invalidating Spray and then Johnson. Now,if they end up validating O'Brien,that would be the end of it and we would have a record we could pretty much rally around. If they end up invalidating O'Brien, then they move on to Williamson and so on.
I for one would really like to see this mess cleared up and have a record the majority of Muskie anglers believes in, rather than the other way around. The sport does deserve a legitimate record but I think we are past being just "suspicious" of those records due to the WRMA research. The only real "controversial" part is that they somehow still remain records,not whether or not they were as large as claimed. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 307
| You guys are missing the point as to WHY Saric wants the O'Brien fish investigated. It is not to disprove how heavy it is, but to prove how accurate photogammetry is against a fish that is not disputed. That in turn can give us a baseline result for comparing disputed fish.
In the end I just don't know if I care that much about this stuff anymore. I used to think the WR was fairly important, but as time goes on it really does not turn my crank anymore. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 444
Location: Duluth, MN | The reason to do it on the O'Brien and Williamson fish is to prove to everyone that the technology your using works. If their findings match what we already know about the O'Bien fish than you have a better case proving that your findings of Spray and Johnson were correct.
GW - 3/26/2010 12:21 PM
In my opinion, Jim Saric should already consider the the records maintained by the NFWFHoF and the IGFA as nothing more than "historical". Why would he request photo analysis of the O'Brien and Williamson fish when the lengths have never been disputed? Why also would he request photogrammetry again be performed when he hasn't stood behind the results found on the historical records?
Everyone knows the O'Brien and Williamson fish are in the mid-50" range. The request to have thousands of dollars spent on something this obvious is absurd.
The WRMA has already stated that they would investigate O'Brien next. Whether or not photogrammetry is part of that investigation is up to them.
At this point, Musky Hunter Magazine should consider Ken O'Brien as the record holder as his fish is the largest of the two over 60 lbs.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1764
Location: Ogden, Ut | MuskyHopeful - 3/26/2010 11:27 AM
lambeau - 3/26/2010 12:08 PM
i think it also adds a certain gravitas.....
Nice. Most people will have to look that up.
Kevin
I thought he was talking about the bad guy on 3-2-1 Penguins...  |
|
| |
|
| I think the record is important if only to establish how big they actually get. If that's indeed what Jim is asking,it seems strange because it's about the equivalent of validating whether or not fingerprinting is a valid means to identify someone. The WRMA photo technology is a tried and true method and the results were even subjected to peer review. Besides that, any one of us can easily look at Johnson's record and see that it is only a low 50" fish for "validation".
|
|
| |
|
| As the "Guest" stated, the technology used by the WRMA (photogrammetry) has been proven to reliably determine the size of ANY object in a photograph. Saying you need to prove it works on fish is ridiculous. This science is admissible in a court-of-law and has been validated in numerous scientific journals. It's not something that needs further testing on anything. Determining the length of a fish being held vertically is no different than determining the length of a board being held the same way. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Or, for that matter, a broad. (sorry, Sue) |
|
| |
|
| I think the WRMA should offer this challenge to Jim Saric. If the WRMA agrees to do the photogrammetry on the O'Brien fish and the results coincide with the reported length, Jim MUST accept the findings and consider the current records nothing more than "historical". If he wants the WRMA to needlessly spend their money, he better give the WRMA his word that he will stop riding the fence on this issue. All he offered in his "Editors Line" is that Musky Hunter MIGHT consider the current records as nothing more than "historical". The WRMA should require a guarantee from him considering the amount of money involved.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 566
Location: Elgin, IL | sorenson - 3/26/2010 2:56 PM
MuskyHopeful - 3/26/2010 11:27 AM
lambeau - 3/26/2010 12:08 PM
i think it also adds a certain gravitas.....
Nice. Most people will have to look that up.
Kevin
I thought he was talking about the bad guy on 3-2-1 Penguins... ; )
Or something new at Taco Bell. |
|
| |
|
| I want to see people start taking split rings off hooked fish to make it "easier" to remove hooks; as was explained in the "How to Make your own stone tools article".
I think you guys missed all the taters and gravy of that issue if you haven't explored indulgence in the thoughtful fish friendly wisdumb of the "knowing".
WRMA talk is a smokescreen to pull you away from the "Big split-ring news" so you dont get a info overload on the cortex.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 136
Location: Chicago | I read the MH intro by Saric and didn't think he was talking about some of the stuff you guys are posting here. From what I got out of it he's sick and tired of all the internet bantering like the majority of us. Plain and simple he said someone should go out and catch the WR and put all the garbage to bed. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Simple answer to that...don't read the 'internet banter'. One must click on it...and read it..to get sick of it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | MuskyHopeful - 3/27/2010 10:14 PM
He doesn't like Internet banter? That's weird. Doesn't he have a website that has a forum? It's a football site. I think.
Kevin
Actually it's a Brett Favre site. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 227
Location: Maple Grove | I'm not sure Jim Saric has posted here so who knows what he likes or dislikes. One thing I'm sure of is the MH board is as much a Musky board as this one is. Although the Golf guy who likes to talk about Muskies enjoys the football stuff.
Joe Olstadt
Edited by WI_guy_turnedMudDuck 3/27/2010 10:40 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Jim posts here every once in awhile, and visits often. By the way, I was addressing jaycbs74. |
|
| |
|
| i wonder what Al Gore thinks of the World Record banter.
he invented the internet.
Edited by lambeau 3/28/2010 9:07 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | He officially supports it being warmer in Hayward. Yep. |
|
| |
|
| jaycbs74,
You say you didn't think Jim was talking about some of the stuff that was posted here? What I posted was a direct quote from his article and what he said could not be misconstrued. What exactly is it that you don't understand about Jim's challenge to the WRMA?
For you to say, plain and simple, he said someone should go out and catch the WR and put all the garbage to bed is very misleading. He said a lot more than that.
The "garbage" that needs to be disposed of are the current records that the record keepers stubbornly hang on to. What Jim clearly stated is that we deserve a DEFENSIBLE record that is not suspect. The problem is he and Musky Hunter Magazine continue riding the fence and haven't taken the position of considering the current records nothing more than "historical". He challenges the WRMA to do further expensive photo analysis without offering them any guarantee the results will change his position even if the results are satisfactory to him. What kind of a challenge is this? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 227
Location: Maple Grove | sworrall - 3/28/2010 8:47 AM
Jim posts here every once in awhile, and visits often. By the way, I was addressing jaycbs74.
I wasn't addressing you Steve and I meant this thread specifically. Looks like the response I was addressing was removed.
Joe Olstadt
Edited by WI_guy_turnedMudDuck 3/28/2010 3:11 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| Plunker - 3/26/2010 2:11 PM
You guys are missing the point as to WHY Saric wants the O'Brien fish investigated. It is not to disprove how heavy it is, but to prove how accurate photogammetry is against a fish that is not disputed. That in turn can give us a baseline result for comparing disputed fish.
In the end I just don't know if I care that much about this stuff anymore. I used to think the WR was fairly important, but as time goes on it really does not turn my crank anymore. I would not leap to any conclusions about the O'brien fish. Who claims that fish is undisputed?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2865
Location: Brookfield, WI | WI_guy_turnedMudDuck - 3/28/2010 3:08 PM
I wasn't addressing you Steve and I meant this thread specifically. Looks like the response I was addressing was removed.
Joe Olstadt
That was my post. It was a little joke that had several layers. I didn't think it was too offensive, assuming Jim Saric has a sense of humor, but since Slamr got mentioned in Saric's magazine, I'm sure he wanted to make sure Jim wasn't offended. Understandable, since they've never allowed any bashing of this site, or Slamr's moderating, over on MH.
Kevin |
|
| |
|
Posts: 272
| I'm just surprised that the comment in the editor piece is (to use a valley girl phrase) sooooo last season.
This is going on, what, 4 or 5 years ago now that this topic started and the WRMA began? I realize alot of stuff has come to light since then, but it was quite a while ago that the Hall basically said, "Yeah, uhhh, no."
I'm to the point now, and I think alot of people are too, where it's all kind of falls into the "who cares" category, except maybe when we're bored at work and see a thread to click on.
-Eric |
|
| |
|
| Being tired of the squabbling is one thing but the Johnson record is actually a current issue Eric. If you were keeping abreast of it you would understand that both Johnson and Spray are intertwined and with Johnson being recently debunked the dynamics have changed. Whatever meager following the Hall had in the musky community after Spray is now completely lost. IMHO, that is why Jim Saric wrote about it and is now willing to call them historical records once the WRMA finds a legitimate record.
As an aside (if history teaches us anything) a cover up like this will eventually unravel, it's just a matter of time. The Hall of Fame can is fighting a fight they are eventually going to lose (and basically already have lost). I agree with Jim that these records should be removed from serious recognition (call them whatever you like) and we deserve a better world record.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 272
| Alright.
I'm almost definitely uninformed on the topic. But I think the "why," is I feel like I already know what happened. Its a Yes/No stalemate. I don't see that changing. So its dropped off the radar for me because I'm no longer interested in an outcome I already know.
My point is, that as a former newspaper man, the old saying in the media is to 'strike while the iron is hot.' The editor's section, letter to the editor, forum, whatever each respective form of media calls it, is reserved for the most current "stuff."
To use another old newspaper phrase, the "Hey Martha, come look at this" factor, is just not up there that high on this anymore. For me.
I agree with what Jim said in his piece.
-Eric
|
|
| |
|
| Eric you are right about Spray, but you seem to have missed the relevance with Johnson and Spray. Like I said, the dynamics of changed wherein Jim was willing to "respect the Hall of Fame's decision" with Spray but now wants to call both of them "historical records" with the debunking of Johnson. Like somebody else said, when E.F. Hutton speaks, IMHO "historical" is just a nice way for him to say "phony".
Perhaps the news is that Musky Hunter has changed their alliance with the Hall of Fame and is no longer willing to respect their decision? Either way, I still think it's very relative to many of us fishing Green Bay (now with Johnson gone) that the WI state record belongs just north of 50lb. |
|
| |
|
| My problem with Jim's article is he says we DESERVE a defensible world record that is not suspect and yet he won't commit to anything. The WRMA and everyone else DESERVES to know his, and Musky Hunter Magazines OFFICIAL POSITION on the current records if the photogrammetry on O'Brien's fish proves satisfactory to them. We don't want to hear what they MIGHT do, we want to know what they WILL do.
Maybe if Jim would be kind enough to gives us a response the WRMA may have the photogrammetry performed on the O'Brien fish like he wanted. Otherwise it would seem to be a waste of money.
The support of Musky Hunter Magazine is crucial if we are ever to have a defensible world record. If a defensible world record is what Jim truly wants he needs to speak up.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 458
| I think the best thing would be for someone to just go break the record and put this to bed! So go break the record. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1901
Location: MN | Problem is when I break the record (yeah right) it won't count 'cause I'll let her swim. I sort of see your logic GW in terms of support from MHM, but not sure they are the proper authority no matter what Jim believes. Just because they would voice their opinion one way or the other, is that enough to make another body fight the fight again? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 12
| Seems like there's lots of interest in that editorial. Thank you for that. I think most people appear to understand what I wrote and meant in the editorial. Don't dissect every word or sentence, I didn't put that kind of effort into it. There were no hidden messages, etc.
It's interesting in that some people think that Musky Hunter's position one way or another regarding the WR will make a difference. Personally, I don't think it really will, as Musky Hunter is not a record keeping organization.
I don't disrespect what either record keeping organization did regarding their decisions to not accept the WRMA reports. That's their own decision. Further, as I indicated those decisions were based upon more than photogrammetry. That's why I don't think they will ever get overturned. There's just too much baggage associated with the Spray, Johnson, Lawton and even Hartman fish.
I still think it would make sense for the WRMA to look at the Obrien and Williamson fish. I have heard rumors about a water hose being stuck down the throat of the Obrien fish, and that the Williamson fish didn't receive any type of record scrutiny. The WRMA seems to have the time, interest and ability to research all of this, that's why I suggested they do it. I think it would be more productive if they were to develop a report based upon, photogrammetry, affidavits, etc. for a fish they believe to be the WR.
Now regarding the challenge by the WRMA for MuskyHunter to accept their findings to justify such an investigation and expense, I find that unrealistic and irrelevant. I have no idea what the report will say, or how it will be written. Again, MuskyHunter is not a record-keeping body.
I guess ultimately, I hope someone catches a new WR, but I also thought that if the WRMA was to produce a report that they believe validates a fish that they believe should be the WR that might be something everyone can rally behind.
That might ultimately be what all musky anglers would want.
Then again, I can't speak for everyone, I was just throwing in my 2 cents like everyone else. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Jim:
With all due respect, I believe you sell yourself and Musky Hunter short, dispite the fact that MH is not a "record keeping organization".
Your comments: "I don't disrespect what either record keeping organization did regarding their decisions to not accept the WRMA reports. That's their own decision. Further, as I indicated those decisions were based upon more than photogrammetry. That's why I don't think they will ever get overturned..." only further shows your self-admitted lack of total knowledge of what has transpired with Muskellunge world records since the early 1990's. THAT is the case with MOST Internet "posters" and only further slants the picture.
As so many do, you fail to even acknowledge the travisty that transpired when amatuer John Dettloff managed to convince the Hall to toss out and the IGFA to "set-aside" the Lawton record with FAR LESS PROFESSIONAL evidence than the WRMA presented on both the Spray and Johnson "records" and the shameful job both record keepers have done in upholding these bogus records while ignoring the hachet job they did on Lawton.
As for the WRMA doing further work on O'Brien and Williamson, what would be the point if YOU fail to recognize the peer-reviewed science of Photogrammetry. And why both, when only the largest need be examined if valid...AND I'd like to let all know that both the Hall of Fame and The IGFA certified the O'Brien fish when caught and the IGFA even listed it as their all-tackle record until Dettloff convinced them to replace it with the unvetted Johnsnon fish!
Further you wrote: "I guess ultimately, I hope someone catches a new WR, but I also thought that if the WRMA was to produce a report that they believe validates a fish that they believe should be the WR that might be something everyone can rally behind. That might ultimately be what all musky anglers would want." What you are asking them to do, aside from the photogrammetry (and the "length" of the O'brien fish has never been suspect or questioned), has already been done ad nauseum...you really need to avail yourself of Volume I of my Compendium!! Do those FACTS really "need" the WRMA's blessing to get YOUR blessing???
Get off the fence Jim and take a stand that MOST musky hunters will accept, embrace and "rally behind".
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Muskellunge Historian for ALL of North America
www.larryramsell.com
Edited by Larry Ramsell 3/31/2010 9:32 AM
|
|
| |
|
| I beg to differ with Jim that he has only “two cents” worth, considering his position and influence it has to be way more than that. Not only does Jim sell Musky Hunter’s influence short, the lack of commitment basically ensures the Hall of Fame can continue to disgrace our sport. In effect, Musky Hunter becomes an enabler much like citizens who watch crimes being committed without getting involved. Although Musky Hunter isn't obligated, it should be something they should want to get involved in for their interested readers. I'm not saying Musky Hunter should be like Clint Eastwood in the movie “Gran Torino” but speaking up *or* at the very least taking a position against something as obvious and wrong as this seems apropos. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Larry Ramsell - 3/31/2010 9:29 AM
As so many do, you fail to even acknowledge the travisty that transpired when amatuer John Dettloff managed to convince the Hall to toss out and the IGFA to "set-aside" the Lawton record with FAR LESS PROFESSIONAL evidence than the WRMA presented on both the Spray and Johnson "records"
I find this part amusing. You basically state that an amatuer is able to accomplish more than you. Or maybe he isn't as amatuer as your personal attack makes him out to be. Just saying. You kind of make yourself and the WRMA sound incompetent when you can't overturn some bushleague amatuer work. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | PP,
Larry isn't a member of the WRMA, he's an independent Historian when it comes to the world records and has written a few books on the subject.
Mr. Dettloff IS a board member of the FFHOF.
There's your sign. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | I don't disagree that Detloff's hands are dirty on the subject as a whole. I'm merely pointing out that calling a guy amatuer when he's got his desires in place suggest that he isn't as 'amatuer' as made out to be.
How big of an influence does the FFHOF have on the IGFA? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Guest:
You hit the key word..."influence". If Musky Hunter truly IS "North America's Musky Authority" as stated on the cover of the magazine, it should cover all facets of our sport, including the world record!
Bolinski: You too fail to totally grasp what has transpired and just WHO had/has control of the Hall of Fame and badgered the IGFA into the mistake they made and won't now correct...Dettloff. "Incompentnt" has nothing to do with it. He basically hijacked the Hall for HIS purposes and the Hall board, to their shame (local business folks), let him get away with it. The IGFA, for reasons known only to them (hypocritical photo DQ for Lawton but can't/won't use photo's with Johnson) won't correct their mistake or at least go back tto O'brien. I'll guarentee you if Hall founder Bob Kutz, and former IGFA President Elwook K. Harry were still alive, things would be different. There ARE good reasons why I resigned from the IGFA after 16 years as an Internationl Representative and after 35 years as Hall of Fame World Record Program developer/World Record Secretary and World Record advisor!!
If you are happy with the situation with the "Holy Grail" of our great sport, fine, but I'll wager most aren't and I'll guarentee you if Musky Hunter took a firm stand, we'd AT LEAST have a consensus record people could live with instead of the bogus records now shamefully in place.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Muskellunge Historian for ALL of North America
www.larryramsell.com
Edited by Larry Ramsell 3/31/2010 12:27 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Pointer, what Larry has effectively shown is that there is an obvious bias and double standard shown by the IGFA. The Lawton fish was set aside by amateurish photo evidence while the Cal Johnson fish was protected and not removed even in the face of professional photogrammetry and undeniable mathematical proof. Why would that be? Hmmm....
It is unfortunate that MH and Muskies Inc. both the International and all the chapters have not gotten on board with the WRMA to demand that these bogus fish be set aside. More than unfortunate, I think it is shameful.
There are two bogus fish each holding #1 spots in the FWFHF and the IGFA.
Muskies are thought to be one of the most prestigious of freshwater gamsfish, yet the record books are a sham and the WRMA is the only group to step up to the plate to set the record straight.
When is MH and MI going to show some backbone and demand that these records be removed?????????? |
|
| |
|
| The WRMA has the proof. It has NOT been satisfactorily refuted by either FWFHF or the IGFA.
The next step should be a lawsuit against both organizations.
This needs to be settled in a court.
Let the FWFHF and the IGFA answer to attorneys and a judge instead of a message board.....
The WRMA has invested in professional photogrammetry now it's time to invest in an attorney to get something done. Let all bring their evidence into a court of law.
Time to get serious about following through. |
|
| |
|
Location: SE Wisconsin | Who's chasing the WR? Why the uproar? Why use MH as a means of satisfying YOUR cause?
Edited by Sam Ubl 3/31/2010 12:52 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | There's no real basis for a lawsuit. The issue is an organization recognizing something and choosing not to recognize something else, and there's no case law I'm aware of to support a suit....basically an 'if you don't agree with them, get them to adjust their stance or ignore them' scenario. |
|
| |
|
Location: SE Wisconsin | I see. |
|
| |
|
| Pointerpride 102 has a very valid point. The IGFA accepted John Dettloff's photo analysis plain and simple and they are not affiliated with the NFWFHoF. They also rejected Larry Ramsell's "Lawton Review" which had nothing to do with the WRMA.
The only conclusion that can be drawn is that the IGFA feels John Dettloff had a better case than Larry.
I would like Larry to explain how John Dettloff "badgered" the IGFA? |
|
| |
|
| There's no real basis for a lawsuit. The issue is an organization recognizing something and choosing not to recognize something else, and there's no case law I'm aware of to support a suit....basically an 'if you don't agree with them, get them to adjust their stance or ignore them' scenario.
neither you nor I are lawyers, so i'd be interested to hear what an attorney would have to say about whether or not there's a basis for a lawsuit.
Hayward interests and John Dettloff specifically make pretty strong use of the Spray fish for promotional purposes. i could see a pretty plausible argument that notes the FWFHoF is a universally recognized record-keeping body which is mis-using its status and authority for the personal financial gain of it's board members...as appealing as the "ignore them" option may be, it isn't always the right answer, especially when money is on the line.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | I believe O'brien or Williamson could have a case, as they may have missed out on potential earnings that come from being a world record holder. Maybe. Just a guess.
Maybe anyone who can prove they caught a bigger muskie than spray can sue. There'd be a lot of lawsuits.
Edited by Flambeauski 3/31/2010 2:38 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Great point lambeau. This is definately something that needs looking into. This would certainly remove the arrogance currently being shown by the record keepers and would force them into offering some kind of defense. It would also finally bring this matter to a close which is what all of us want.
|
|
| |
|
| lambeau is right on target. I would like to see the WRMA get an attorneys opinion. I think there are a number of ways to approach a lawsuit.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Who is paying this attorney? I don't foresee pro bono work being done on a fish record. |
|
| |
|
| Well, the WRMA had offered to pay for a photogrammetrist of the FWFHF's choice to get another opinion. The FWFHF refused , naturally. So why not at least consult with an attorney to see if there is a case. That should cost nothing. After that the money that would have been used for the photogrammetry could be used, eh.
Take the step!! Nothing ventured, etc......... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | To clarify;
I don't believe there's a basis for the WRMA to sue. Others might have a civil suit of some sort, but I don't think it's the WRMA bringing any legal action. |
|
| |
|
| OK Steve, I think you're wrong, but I would like the WRMA to get a legal opinion on this. Otherwise I think the whole challenge and all the effort put forth over these years has been in vain.There is no where else to go. The FWFHF is entrenched in their decision along with the IGFA. Soooo, where else can we go ?
Is the WRMA serious about their mandate or not?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 720
| Larry did you really type this response to Jim's quote?
Get off the fence Jim and take a stand that MOST musky hunters will accept, embrace and "rally behind".
How smart would that be on his part? Probably not a very good move on his part. First of all who cares what Jim has to say about the world record (no disrespect intended Jim). Most level headed adult musky anglers no that Spray's fish along with the others are not what they claim to be. Jim throwing his two cents in either way would be nothing more than throwing fuel on an already out of control fire. Secondly, while you may sell more books. This would not put more magazines in circulation. If anything I think it would hurt their sales. When a person buys MuskyHunter they look for helpful fishing information the where's, why's and what for's. Its about the sales of useful information. Not a compendium about the history of mystic fish of mythical size. Its interesting the number of times you tell us to avail ourselves of your writings. Sometimes I think these threads turn into the Larry Ramsell Musky Compendium commercials.
Jim has managed to stay out of the fray by being on the fence. I find that refreshing. We all know what the game is and it always seems to be the same players blowing their own horns. You talk about influence and taking a stand. I don't know about you but I'll be willing to bet that most if not all of the readers of MuskyHunter and of your books are quite capable of making a decision regarding these travesties all by themselves. And I'm not speaking for Jim but I'm willing to bet he feels the same way.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | CSI,
There is no mandate. What is in play is an attempt by an organization (WRMA) to verify the actual size of a couple muskies claimed to be larger than quite a few folks believe they were. The WRMA feels that goal has been accomplished, and the record keeping organizations disagree. Someone needs to indicate how that becomes an issue for the Courts from the WRMA perspective; I just don't see it happening. A suit by another angler who feels there is a civil case as lambeau describes, maybe, but that isn't the WRMA.
An observation; if Mr. Saric had desired to 'stay out of the fray', no editorial comment would have been necessary. He had something he wanted to say, and got it done. |
|
| |
|
| Steve, the mandate, the authorization to proceed, was given to the WRMA by the membership. As one of the notable members, you gave your OK to proceed with the mission which was to investigate the current WR muskies. The WRMA has provided scientific challenges, peer reviewed, which are acceptable in a court of law. Both the FWFHF and the IGFA have refused these challenges without disproving the evidence. The WRMA has proved, IMO, the Spray and Johnson fish to be smaller than claimed. They remain on the books as WR, however, and the state of WI, the FWFHF, the town of Hayward, the Moccasin Bar and John Detloff reap the benefits of an undeserved WR musky. That sounds like fraud to me. Unless and until these bogus records are removed from the books of the recognised record keeping organizations the mission of the WRMA is incomplete, IMO. To stop at this point would be a waste of all the effort that has been put into the investigation and challenge. I ask that the WRMA consult with attorneys for a legal opinion. If there is no legal recourse then I would accept a "game over" mind set and just drop the concept of investigating any remaining muskies since one just needs to say that; "I don't accept your scientific and mathematical evidence that shows this fish to be smaller than claimed. I choose to ignore the facts and will believe this fish to be as big as claimed. " If that's the case the WRMA is shooting blanks and might as well just pack up and go home.
Just my humble opinion offered for the WRMA and the boards consideration. |
|
| |
|
| Scenario......the "Illinois World Record Keeping Organization" has been formed and recognises a 88lb 5oz. musky caught by Joe Potzivoken as the "Official World Record Musky'. The town of Fantasyland, IL where the fish was caught in Stixx Lake is now the home of "World Record Muskies". You can view the mount of this fish at Wallyworld Bar and Grill in Fantasyland. Read the story of this fabuluos catch in Johnnie Gotcha's new book on the newstand now.
Do you think there might be a legal issue with this scene? |
|
| |
|
| I for one am glad Musky Hunter doesn't tell me what I should think. They have covered the issue and left it up to their readership to decide how each of them personally feels about the matter. I once subscribed to another publication that told me what I should think issue after issue so I let that subscription die. I see that publication is no longer in business so others must have agreed with me.
I also agree that that Mr. Ramsell goes overboard when "WRMA In Cincinnati" discussions come up. It sure looks like he's trying to sell his books. Not only does he want to tell me what to think he wants me to buy his books to find it out. No thank you. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 65
| To Jim Saric:
For what it's worth I am very impressed with your handling of this fiery subject both in the magazine (which I LOVE) and on this board. Especially in the face of some fairly disrespectful comments that have come your/Musky Hunter's way, which I thought were both shameful and surprising. I say stay the course and keep up the good work! Fishing season can't get here soon enough... |
|
| |
|
Location: SE Wisconsin | What are these records worth? Money and popularity? That's not why we fish, not all of us anyways.
Musky Hunter Magazine is a publication for the fisherman to learn tactics and learn/hear what's current in the Musky world. Understandably, some of you feel very strongly about this topic and believe it should be one way or another, but assuming MH should involve themselves in Musky politics seems selfish. Ultimately, this isn't MH's battle, it's the individuals, such as Mr. Ramsell, who have dedicated much of their life to the topic at hand.
Edited by Sam Ubl 4/1/2010 10:25 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 720
| Sam,
I completely agree with what you just wrote. But sometimes don't you just feel like you're "#*^@ed if you do and #*^@ed if you don't" with this subject. If you agree that the records are wrong than you're spitting in the face of history. Or if do believe the sizes of Spray's, Johnson etc. than you're an idiot and a Dehtloff simp. Hell I can even spell the mans last name. Saric, Ramsell, Brown, Sworrall and many others deliver their opinions very eliquently. But when its all said and done what has this disscusion and the reports from the WRMA gotten us as a whole. Nothing. Nothing at all. This is not a I'm sick of this talk post because honestly I find it very entertaining. I also feel its important. But someone or some group needs to change the direction of these conversations. Because its not changing anything. The records still officiall stand and unless somebody comes up with a better approach than I feel everything will stay the status quo. |
|
| |
|
| Sam Ubl - 4/1/2010 10:23 AM
Ultimately, this isn't MH's battle,
If my memory serves me right, MHM printed a lot of Dettloff/Ramsell articles that defended these records back in the day and John Dettloff was commended by MHM for his undercover work which opened the door for the removal of other records. The involvement probably helped get rid of that Perry? fake MI state record too, and that made way for a legitimate record last fall. If there's a fair chance MHM could make a difference then I'm for their involvement. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 576
Location: Elk Grove Village, IL & Phillips, WI | I find it odd that all 3 of these players all work at the same magazine. I'm not saying there are any shennagins taking place, but there is a definate conflict there. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 458
| Agree 100% with this statement. |
|
| |
|
| Musky Hunter bills themselves as "North America's Musky Authority". As NAMA they take no position on what the actual World Record musky is....? They have the WRMA reports available to them. I'm sure they've glance through them. Seems to me if you are going to claim title to being "North America's Musky Authority" you should take a solid position on wether the current records are valid or not. The FWFHF and the IGFA are not "musky authorities". They keep records, bogus ones at that. The musky authorities should step up and help to set these records straight and not just sit on the fence.
The WRMA had a good idea and followed through with solid info that incriminates these records. The mission has failed, however, because of lack of support from the industry.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Guest(s) and Hunter4:
I do not do this to sell books...in FACT, you can find FREE, articles on this subject on this website and almost ALL of Volume I of my Compendium (pertaining to THIS very subject...about 400 pages) also FREE on my website (www.larryramsell.com). I have done this not to sell books, but rather to get the COMPLETE truth out there for ANYONE to read!!! I sent Saric an advance copy...he hasn't read it. He has the WRMA reports...he hasn't read them. Time to "bone up" and take a stand. When one reads the entire senario, it becomes very apparent how Dettloff has influenced and revised History and made the Hall and the IGFA guilty by association and lack of any consistency in their decision making processes.
So, if you are really serious about this subject, READ THE ENTIRE STORIES...first before running off half-baked on these forums. READ THE ENTIRE STORIES and THEN make up your own mind about what you believe and don't just rely on the bits and pieces from various forum threads.
And as one recent "guest" pointed out, Musky Hunter published MANY Dettloff articles about Lawton and the other records he got out of Spray's way (Haver-2 and Hanser...Hartman took himself out). Why not now publish additional/new, scientific, peer-reviewed material on the same subject. Was Bucher more interested when he was MH editor? Apparently.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Muskellunge Historian for ALL of North America
www.larryramsell.com |
|
| |
|
Posts: 720
| Once again Larry you can't resist the urge to get hoof and mouth.
Let me explain to you something. First off I own or posess everything you written for publication. I've enjoy reading it and I've paid a lot of my hard earned money doing so. But sometimes Mr. Ramsell you amaze me with some of the stuff that comes off your computer or typewriter. So while you are allowed your opinions I and others are not? Is that correct?
Simply amazing Larry. I'm absolutely dumbfounded by your huberous. |
|
| |
|
| I'm still waiting to hear how John Dettloff "badgered" the IGFA into removing Lawton. To claim that the IGFA removed Lawton just to get Dettloff off their back is remarkable. They believed 100% in his photo analysis then and continue to do so today. |
|
| |
|
| So you say the IGFA believed in Detloff's amateur photo analysis and continue to do so but reject without explanation the WRMA professional photogrammetry and math science.
What's wrong with THIS picture????????? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 999
| My thoughts on the records are at least Minnesota has a state record that is attainable to break. As far as Wisconsin goes, Tom Gelb and Gene Allen's fish are the records to break as well. The Ramsell/Detloff fued is getting SO OLD!
Mr Musky |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | It appears that I have once again touched a few sensitive nerve endings…sorry if I have offended anyone with my passion…this has been ongoing for a long time and it seems that most of the time the same information is covered without most knowing the real basis of why. It is this that I have most often tried to address, as an “insider” with knowledge that few other have/had. As always, my goal has been to put forth complete and truthful information so that readers may make an informed decision. I shall continue to do so as long as I can breathe. If that offends anyone not in the Dettloff camp, I apologize now and in advance of anything further. As Mr. Worrall has pointed out however, no one really has to read these threads if they “really” don’t care. Having said that, I shall address some of the more recent posts:
Hunter4 (Dave) “Once again Larry you can't resist the urge to get hoof and mouth.
Let me explain to you something. First off I own or posess everything you written for publication. I've enjoy reading it and I've paid a lot of my hard earned money doing so. But sometimes Mr. Ramsell you amaze me with some of the stuff that comes off your computer or typewriter. So while you are allowed your opinions I and others are not? Is that correct? Simply amazing Larry. I'm absolutely dumbfounded by your huberous.”
LR: Dave, I’m not sure why you think I have stuck my foot in my mouth, but perhaps it is just your perception. Thank you for being a gatherer of my writings and I’m glad you have enjoyed same. As I have noted, my passion and more often my frustration causes me to write-off have cocked…most of the time I ponder for a bit and often “try” to sleep on things (which I have done here) before posting, sometimes not and that gets me misunderstood…one of the downsides to the Internet. Then too, folks often interpret what I write in a manner not intended. I try and correct that whenever I can. I certainly didn’t mean to infer that you weren’t entitled to your opinion…quite the contrary and in fact have said folks should avail themselves of all available information and make up their own minds. In my last post I should have qualified that as a good portion of that post was not directed at you. As for your last sentence, I’ll have to dig out my dictionary before I respond, but it won’t be tonight (3 or so in the morning).
Guest: “I'm still waiting to hear how John Dettloff "badgered" the IGFA into removing Lawton. To claim that the IGFA removed Lawton just to get Dettloff off their back is remarkable. They believed 100% in his photo analysis then and continue to do so today.”
LR: “Guest”, normally I don’t respond to apparent or obvious anon posters from the other camp, but I’m not certain of your bent, so I’ll give you a brief answer that you probably won’t peruse. The information you have now requested twice is in my book. Go to my website (www.larryramsell.com) and on the left side click on “Current information on World Record Muskie Controversies” and then read the Lawton section…your answers are there.
CSI: “So you say the IGFA believed in Detloff's amateur photo analysis and continue to do so but reject without explanation the WRMA professional photogrammetry and math science. What's wrong with THIS picture?????????”
LR: CSI, this post, as have been all of your posts, is right on target. In this the IGFA has been extremely hypocritical. They say they set the Lawton record aside due to the photograph(s) and then tell the WRMA that they don’t believe weight can be determined from a photograph in their Johnson review. Well which is it? They just can’t have it both ways, just as the FWFHF can’t have it both ways accepting Spray’s documentation but rejecting a more thorough and complete Lawton documentation, especially when several of the witnesses came forward and reconfirmed their initial affidavits!
lambeau: “…ummm...Larry? Jim Saric is a "prominent member" of the WRMA.
and as the editor of MHM he used his column to generate thought and discussion about an issue - and hey, guess what? it worked! his column has resulted in renewed discussion of an issue that had gone flat. since you care so much about the issue, perhaps you should be thanking him instead of accusing him of not taking a stand. just saying...
personally, i agree with your perspective on the currently recognized fish and the incestuous relationship between local business interests and the FWFHoF. that being said, your argumentative and at times obnoxious style makes it difficult to pay any attention to you...you come across as a hollow gong, even for those of us who support the ideas. if you SHOUTED MORE in your posts i'd be less likely to read what you write. but not by much.”
LR: lambeau, yes, Jim is a prominent member of the WRMA, but he has “admittedly” not read their reports (or Vol I of my book). Yes, he has generated thought and discussion and for that I do thank him, but I sincerely believe that he should “take a stand” and also follow in his predecessors shoes and print all of the parts of these stories, not just the ones Dettloff conjured up and that now have the muskie world totally confused as to just what is our world record. MH “is” the North American Musky Authority and again, I sincerely believe they need to take a stand. Fence riding may be the easy thing to do, but it doesn’t solve the problem. I am in hopes that Jim has read all of these posts and taken many of the suggestions from all to heart…most muskie angler really would like to know what our “Holy Grail” is (even those that continue to protest…me thinks they protest too much…they don’t really have to read these threads if they don’t really care).
Thank you for agreeing with my perspective on the FWFHF…it really is sad and it only serves to give our fine area more of a black eye rather than the intended increase in tourism…just too bad the Chamber of Commerce and the Visitor’s and Convention Bureau can’t see this and adjust. As for my “argumentative and at times obnoxious style”, sorry, that is just me and my frustration. I’ll try and do better. As for my “SHOUTING”, actually it is just for “emphasis” and not really shouting…although at times I do shout here in my office and tear at what is left of my hair…
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Muskellunge Historian for ALL of North America
Edited by Larry Ramsell 4/2/2010 3:39 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Larry, great post. Thanks for your perspective.
I just gave up and cut off what little hair I had left.
 |
|
| |
|
| I read everything you had to say in your book and on your website and I find NOTHING that explains why the IGFA tossed Lawton other than John Dettloff's photo analysis. The IGFA is NOT affiliated with the NFWFHoF and no amount of "badgering" should be able to influence their decision.
If all it takes is a lot of badgering to get the desired result from the IGFA, why didn't YOUR badgering result in getting Lawton reinstated? If you claim you didn't badger them, why didn't you?
Listen up WRMA. Maybe some major badgering is all that's needed to get Johnson disqualified.
|
|
| |
|
| I agree, excellent post! I think we are lucky to have had Larry dedicate his life to the musky. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | "Guests" you need to start numbering yourselves in lieu of backing up your posts with your real names (although I fail to see why you choose to remain anon, unless you don't have the convictions to back up your statements, claims and questions).
Again, I shall respond to anon merely as additional points of clarification, as I realize my book is a "tough read" and difficult to follow and sort out in the long run (probably why Saric didn't read it, LOL).
Guest one (above) wrote: "I read everything you had to say in your book and on your website and I find NOTHING that explains why the IGFA tossed Lawton other than John Dettloff's photo analysis. The IGFA is NOT affiliated with the NFWFHoF and no amount of "badgering" should be able to influence their decision."
LR: First of all folks, you need to understand that in the case with both record keeping organizations, there were different regime's in place at the time of the Lawton debacle. Second, the IGFA did not, I repeat for emphasis, did not "toss" the Lawton record...they merely "set it aside" as the regime in charge at the time was "uncertain" that a proper photograph existed and left the door open should a photograph surface that satisfied them of the Lawton fish. Regardless, the fact is that the current IGFA regime has stated that they feel "weight" cannot be determined via photograph...therein lies the dicotomy and double standard by them. When presented with another photo by me, the "current regime", regardless of the fact that the previous regime left the door open, refused reinstatement of the Lawton fish. One has to wonder why if they truly feel "weight" cannot be determined via photograph (new or old) and they have refused to acknowledge the scientific, peer-reviewed photogrammetry "proving" that the Johnson fish was nowhere as "long" as claimed and therefore by default could not have weighed the claimed weight!
Guest one cont.: "If all it takes is a lot of badgering to get the desired result from the IGFA, why didn't YOUR badgering result in getting Lawton reinstated? If you claim you didn't badger them, why didn't you?"
LR: Guest one, here you make an incorrect assumption. I never said that Dettloff badgered the IGFA to get the Lawton record set-aside. Where the "badgering" took place, and it is in my book, was when the IGFA refused to put Dettloff's hero Louie Spray in the top spot and instead "promoted" the O'brien fish to all-tackle record status. Failing to get his way with Spray, dispite considerable badgering, Dettloff then settled into badgering the IGFA to replace O'brien's fish with the "unvetted" Cal Johnson fish. And I claim "unvetted" dispite the considerable rhetoric put forth by Dettloff recently. IGFA's second mistake and one they, for reasons known only to them, have chosen/failed to correct. I chose not to badger them for obvious reasons and remember, it wasn't this regime that set the Lawton fish aside and aquessed (sp?) to Dettloff's desires re the Johnson fish dispite the lack of its vetting! I have however, made it clear to the IGFA that I believe the actions of this current regime regarding the muskie reccord are highly hypocritical and their two decions are at odds with each other.
Guest two, thank you for your kind words and thank you to the many who have called, emailed and PM'd me via this site thanking me and telling me to "stay the course". Your support, even if behind the scenes, is very much appreciated!!!
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Muskellunge Historian for ALL of North America
Edited by Larry Ramsell 4/2/2010 12:12 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 7077
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | This one appears to have run it's course, as usual. If anyone would like to continue this discussion with Larry, see his contact information on his profile or by clicking on his website. |
|
| |
April/May Issue of Musky Hunter Magazine