|
|
| Simple poll: do you think the world record muskies caught by Cal Johnson and Louis Spray were as large as stated? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1202
Location: Money, PA | Lets just say, we will NEVER know for sure....those guys were all in a race to get the world record muskie and IMO they cheated. How many legit 60+ lb muskies have been certified since those days out on the midwest?? Especially with all the efforts of C&R and preservation of the species/sport in recent years....to some they should come a dime a dozen....Ummmmm NOT! World Record = Ken O'Brien 65+lbs St. Lawrence....sorry guys |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1916
Location: Greenfield, WI | Credible or not, we will never know. But it does make for great discussion material as we look out the window at the frozen tundra!
Simplistically, the question should be, "Does it matter?" |
|
| |
|
Posts: 143
Location: Lake of The Woods | Look's like common sense has voted.....  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 373
| Im with Steve Van Lieshout does it matter you really think the guys putting in all those hours on the water would keep a fish to get certified of this caliber? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2370
Location: Chisholm, MN | I couldn't tell ya. There is no way that I could judge cause I wasn't there. Somebody needs to catch the new world record and make it official! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8820
| Medinah13 - 1/9/2011 12:27 PM
Im with Steve Van Lieshout does it matter you really think the guys putting in all those hours on the water would keep a fish to get certified of this caliber?
Someone would. Maybe not the die hard anglers, but consider the amount of publicity and the amount of business a world record fish could potentially bring to the area in which it was caught. Suppose you owned a resort, and one of your guides/guests caught a potential record fishing out of your camp?
For the average angler, it might mean a few seminars, or maybe an interview or two. Potentially you could make a bit of money if you were the one who caught it, and you played your cards right. But for a resort, a town, the bars, restaurants, the local chamber of commerce, and the local guides? A world record fish is worth a lot more dead and verified than it is alive.
Edited by esoxaddict 1/9/2011 1:56 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 143
Location: Lake of The Woods | Medinah13 - 1/9/2011 12:27 PM
Im with Steve Van Lieshout does it matter you really think the guys putting in all those hours on the water would keep a fish to get certified of this caliber?
If it was a World Record i would think most would, some wouldnt. I think it does matter as there's allway's so much intesnse conversation about the subject and would lay to rest. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32
Location: Tower, Lake Vermilion | With all the crap people take about Big fish they post on the internet I doubt I'd be in a big rush to claim it, unless it was totally varifiable, and that would mean it would have to be dead. I also don't think anyone is going to get weathy just from catching a world record Muskie. There is so much jelousy and doubt in the Muskie world that at some point someone would try to disclaim it and muddy up the waters. Personally, it just wouldn't be all that important to me, even if I was lucky enough to be the guy that caught it. JMHO.
"Ace" |
|
| |
|
| If Jesus Christ himself caught an an eighty pound musky on opening day of the next season with the Supreme Court right there in the boat with him and Andy & Aunt Bea right there video taping the whole thing it would be hailed as the most wonderous occasion in the history of the world, unless it was caught outside of Wisconsin... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 463
| I'd keep it to break the record, hell I'd keep a state record to break that record.I live in the land of lincoln, and the Illinois record isn't even 40 lbs. Before everyone jumps all over my s***, I have never kept a fish before and would get a replica of anything less.
Edited by chasintails 1/10/2011 12:19 PM
|
|
| |
|
| esoxaddict - 1/9/2011 2:40 PM
Medinah13 - 1/9/2011 12:27 PM
Im with Steve Van Lieshout does it matter you really think the guys putting in all those hours on the water would keep a fish to get certified of this caliber?
Someone would. Maybe not the die hard anglers, but consider the amount of publicity and the amount of business a world record fish could potentially bring to the area in which it was caught. Suppose you owned a resort, and one of your guides/guests caught a potential record fishing out of your camp?
For the average angler, it might mean a few seminars, or maybe an interview or two. Potentially you could make a bit of money if you were the one who caught it, and you played your cards right. But for a resort, a town, the bars, restaurants, the local chamber of commerce, and the local guides? A world record fish is worth a lot more dead and verified than it is alive.
i highly i disagree,all the thing you are talking about is wrong,wr musky dosnt worth $%?&
its not appropriate to compared musky scene with bass scene.
hardcore musky fishermans are less than 1% of all the anglers.or lets say something like 3000 max. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| The Devil Made Me Do - 1/7/2011 11:54 AM
Simple poll: do you think the world record muskies caught by Cal Johnson and Louis Spray were as large as stated?
Yes! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20245
Location: oswego, il | I have seen Cal's mount many times. Never seen a fish "proportioned" like it before. IMHO it looks very altered in regards to the length and girth. I have yet to hear anyone question altering the head of the fish. It is interesting that Cal's mount is not left at the show unatended in the evening but removed from harper. I doubt anyone would ever sneak a backside look at the fish but just in case........ |
|
| |
|
Posts: 159
|
Ace,
I hope a guy like you catches it.
Just had this conversation with another guide who could catch state/world record fish----What do you do if your out at dark/after dark and your by yourself and you know you just caught THE FISH. What do you do?
My recomendation to him was keep it---Don't shoot---Have never kept a fish--And have argued publically for 100% catch and release. But for a stuggling guide who wants to get his name out there----what is the alternative? Basically if you don't keep it---like everyone says---It will just be discredited.
Interesting he suggested making a live pen on the lake where one could put a fish in the livewell and drop off for verification on certified scale and then release---Best of both worlds-- certified state/world record and a healthy release. It goes without saying this is my first choice.
Food for thought for those of us who fish trophy water. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| Storm Strike - 1/10/2011 4:20 PM
Ace,
Interesting he suggested making a live pen on the lake where one could put a fish in the livewell and drop off for verification on certified scale and then release---Best of both worlds-- certified state/world record and a healthy release. It goes without saying this is my first choice.
Food for thought for those of us who fish trophy water.
I can just about guarantee any fish handled in this manner would never be verified. Chain of evidence type thing. Length would be the only thing verifiable in this circumstance, imo. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 97
| No - - - Todd K |
|
| |
|
Posts: 43
| ToddM - 1/10/2011 2:45 PM
I have seen Cal's mount many times. Never seen a fish "proportioned" like it before. IMHO it looks very altered in regards to the length and girth. I have yet to hear anyone question altering the head of the fish. It is interesting that Cal's mount is not left at the show unatended in the evening but removed from harper. I doubt anyone would ever sneak a backside look at the fish but just in case........
Techniques for mounting were different back then, you couldn't buy forms ready made like now. Especially for a fish that size. Taxidermists made their own bodies. I would imagine some had more skill than others, the same as today. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 43
| Kirby Budrow - 1/9/2011 12:59 PM
I couldn't tell ya. There is no way that I could judge cause I wasn't there. Somebody needs to catch the new world record and make it official!
Agreed. But
Even if somebody did catch a new record there would still be a ton of people trying to discredit it out of boredom, jealously or just pure meanness. Human nature. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20245
Location: oswego, il | Buckey, have you seen the mount? I have many times. The body length and girth look altered. It ramps up behind the head and then ramps sharply down to the tail. Not much of a belly for that much girth either. Seen alot of oler mounts, none like that one. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| ToddM - 1/12/2011 8:36 PM
Buckey, have you seen the mount? I have many times. The body length and girth look altered. It ramps up behind the head and then ramps sharply down to the tail. Not much of a belly for that much girth either. Seen alot of oler mounts, none like that one.
Yes, but how many times have you seen it when sober Todd???  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 67
| Next time you have a chance if you are in Canada ,stop in at Musky Jakes Bar at the Gannanoque Inn and have a look at the O'Brian fish.. real mount , believeable dimensions and there is some other impresive mounts there as well , I think this gets beat to death every year but i do enjoy reading the responses  |
|
| |
|
Location: Sawyer County, WI | Has anybody ever seen the mount in The Stove Works fireplace store in Hayward ? I don't know exactly how big that fish is but it is enormous. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 81
Location: Toronto, Ontario | I'm not too worried about records but if there is one, it's the O'Brien fish.....best pictures, best documented and by far the most believable. |
|
| |
|
| I give the nod to the late Martin Williamson. His 61 lb 4 oz muskie is not mired in controversy like the O'Brian fish. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 81
Location: Toronto, Ontario | What controversy re: O'Brien Fish? Caught, then weighed after sitting in the bottom of a boat....65lbs, certified scale. The guy was fishing for walleye, he couldn't have given a #*^@ about a musky record. |
|
| |
|
| obrien fish controversy,have been made by someone somehwere who have said the belly was water loaded
so many jealous.......
|
|
| |
|
Location: Sawyer County, WI | Mackerel - 1/15/2011 9:33 PM
What controversy re: O'Brien Fish? Caught, then weighed after sitting in the bottom of a boat....65lbs, certified scale. The guy was fishing for walleye, he couldn't have given a #*^@ about a musky record.
Really ?
Check this link:
http://www.musky.ca/ontario-record-muskie-ontario-record-musky.htm
"O'Brien landed the fish during an annual (mostly fun) challenge muskie fishing match between two teams of anglers on Georgian Bay. No shortage of credible witnesses. "
Who intentionally fishes for walleye during a musky contest ?
If only the truth were easily differentiated from perception and hearsay..... |
|
| |
|
| Spray = No. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20245
Location: oswego, il | FSF, they do not serve alcohol at the musky show so it was every time. Now had they, I would have mentioned how both of Cal's fish looked augmented.
The mount was not there this year, they just had a general hayward tourism booth at the musky show this year which used to be a resort booth. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | You know it winter when this question comes up. You should separate Johnson and Spray because they are two different fish and there are many who think the Johnson fish is legit. I dont care about either one either way. What I believe is that there is a bigger fish out there that can be the undisputed world record. I also believe that if and when it is killed and verified that half of the jealous so called experts will dispute it. So whats the point of discussing it at all? No matter what fish is listed there be no lees than half of the musky world who will dispute it. Mike |
|
| |
|
| the lie is so big,never those bs record are gona be beated,after all those years,never a commercialy neted fish or a dead floater have pass the 69 lbs mark
keep dreaming |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| pepsiboy - 1/16/2011 2:57 PM
the lie is so big,never those bs record are gona be beated,after all those years,never a commercialy neted fish or a dead floater have pass the 69 lbs mark
keep dreaming :)
Sure pboy, THAT never happened...
Attachments
----------------
 malo.jpg (79KB - 262 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
| "THAT" didn't happen...it had a 5 1/2 pound northern pike "stuffed" in it before weighing! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 200
Location: Minnesota | TimG - 1/16/2011 7:38 AM
Spray = No.
I agree with this. Spray's fish doesn't look anything near its reported dimensions. Take a look at the picture. That's maybe a 50-53" fish, tops.
Johnson's fish looks legit. I've seen the mount a few times and not noticed anything fishy (haha) about it. |
|
| |
|
| There is one common characteristic shared by the Johnson mount and all the Spray mounts, noticeably small heads.
Reminds me of the scene in the movie "Beatlejuice" when the witch doctor sprinkles magic dust and the head of the safari hunter and his head shrinks down to the size of an orange... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 222
| What do think? 69 lber on left and 50 lber on right. Don't think so.
Attachments
----------------
larry2.jpg (46KB - 837 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8820
| Well... 19 pounds of lead sinkers would sure do the trick! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | I like this one 50 by 29 . 61 pounds found dying in december.
But wait they cant exceed more than half of their length in girth hmm I wonder who said that? Mike
http://www.fishingfury.com/20110107/incredible-new-brunswick-muskie... |
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | "do you think the world record muskies caught by Cal Johnson and Louis Spray were as large as stated?"
No, of course not, and it is probably closer to 99.9% don't believe. I can understand 11% wanting to "retain" these records, what is silly to me is that 11% actually "believe".
Common sense dictates that Johnson could not have caught a 33" girth fish in July, and a part-timer like Spray could not have been able to catch 3 WRs in 10 years. A post-spawn July muskie simply could not possess a 33 ½" girth, and a known bootlegger and hooligan like Spray could not have been able to predict (publicly) he would break the record later on that month.
In my mind, the only thing left to question is if Spray actually received a new car like Johnson when he falsified the record for the second time in 1949.
|
|
| |
|
| That New Brunswick musky doesn't come close to the formula weight and it doesn't look all that heavy to me either. It's certainly a big fish, just that something isn't adding up. That also got me thinking about Spray, 3 records in his lifetime? Consider his lifetime as 1 event, what are the odds? Sounds a lot like the Lawton's, Hartman's and Haver to me with lots of false entries. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| Jerry Newman - 1/18/2011 12:41 PM
"Common sense dictates that Johnson could not have caught a 33" girth fish in July, and a part-timer like Spray could not have been able to catch 3 WRs in 10 years. A post-spawn July muskie simply could not possess a 33 ½" girth, and a known bootlegger and hooligan like Spray could not have been able to predict (publicly ) he would break the record later on that month."
You can make an outlandish claim like this, but making the claim doesn't prove it.
I am surprised you even make a bizzarre bologna sandwhich like this. Your statements are not even related in a cause and effect manner. |
|
| |
|
| firstsixfeet,
Johnson's muskie couldn't of had a 33.5" girth regardless of when it was caught. The side width (depth) of the fish is not great enough relative to the length of the fish to support this claim. Even if this fish was perfectly round the girth would fall over 2" short of 33.5" even if the fish was 60.25" long. The fish would have to be wider than it is deep to possess a 33.5" girth which you know yourself isn't possible.
You want cause and effect, there you have it. |
|
| |
|
| This thread is becoming completely ridiculous.
For most of you here, if a seventy pound muskie fell out of the sky and hit you square in the face breaking your nose you would all stand around quarreling that it could not possibly be a seventy pound muskie and be completely oblivious that your nose is broken. |
|
| |
|
| A 70 pound misky would have to fall out of the sky.....there sure aren't any in our lakes or rivers!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8820
| Guest - 1/18/2011 4:20 PM
This thread is becoming completely ridiculous.
For most of you here, if a seventy pound muskie fell out of the sky and hit you square in the face breaking your nose you would all stand around quarreling that it could not possibly be a seventy pound muskie and be completely oblivious that your nose is broken.
If that were to happen it would be the first 70# muskie known to exist. |
|
| |
|
| I just think that all of the people saying that there is no way there can be a 70 lb fish are naive. Look at the amount of fish that we're hearing about that are caught that are really starting to challenge and exceed that 60 lb benchmark. Most of these fish are being caught in areas where people are fishing for them. If I were a 70 lb musky I would probably be a couple miles off shore in one of the Great Lakes chasing around schools or salmon or trout. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8820
| C'mon Now - 1/18/2011 5:02 PM
I just think that all of the people saying that there is no way there can be a 70 lb fish are naive. Look at the amount of fish that we're hearing about that are caught that are really starting to challenge and exceed that 60 lb benchmark. Most of these fish are being caught in areas where people are fishing for them. If I were a 70 lb musky I would probably be a couple miles off shore in one of the Great Lakes chasing around schools or salmon or trout.
I'd suspect that they are ALL being caught in areas where people are fishing for them.
Just sayin'...
It's not a stretch to believe a late fall muskie full of eggs could weigh 70# after a good meal. But the one they are calling 69# - 11oz.? No way. Not that fish, and not where it was supposedly caught.
You need a large body of water, significant sources of fatty pelagic forage, the right genetics, and the perfect timing of a fish that is not only full of eggs late in the fall, but has just consumed a rather substantial meal to make 70# happen. Such a fish would typically be inhabiting areas that would make it nearly impossible for us to catch them, and eating fish that are significantly larger that what a typical lure looks like. To top it off, it would also have to have a full belly to make 70#, which means it probably wouldn't eat.
Edited by esoxaddict 1/18/2011 5:30 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Let's get this thread back on track, the question is not if 70 lbs. exist.
The question is do you think the world record muskies caught by Cal Johnson and Louis Spray were as large as stated?
|
|
| |
|
| The answer from anyone with half a brain is still NO.
The Hayward area is the laughing stock of muskie fishing, clinging to these tired old lies doesn't help. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | By the sounds of it I think Addict has a world record fish he is holding out on us. He knows an awful lot about what it takes to create a 70 pound fish....I'm betting it is in his bathtub, since this fish is in an area that is near impossible to catch. I haven't seen many fish coming from Addict's bathtub. Quit holding out EA, lets see the pics! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8820
| Sorry to burst your bubble, Mike. But the only thing that ever comes out of my bathtub is me, and you SURE don't want to see pictures of that! Well, okay, maybe you DO?? Well, either way - you ain't gettin 'em!!
But since you're the resident biologist.. Other than lead or sand or one foot on the scale, what do YOU think it takes to grow a 70# muskie??
Edited by esoxaddict 1/18/2011 6:12 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| esoxaddict - 1/18/2011 5:25 PM C'mon Now - 1/18/2011 5:02 PM
You need a large body of water, significant sources of fatty pelagic forage, the right genetics, and the perfect timing of a fish that is not only full of eggs late in the fall, but has just consumed a rather substantial meal to make 70# happen. Such a fish would typically be inhabiting areas that would make it nearly impossible for us to catch them, and eating fish that are significantly larger that what a typical lure looks like. To top it off, it would also have to have a full belly to make 70#, which means it probably wouldn't eat.
Where do you guys come up with all these "facts". You and one of the many guests and Newman all have these paramaters for a record fish but absolutely no basis for them in fact.
Let me point out a few things.
#1 A record fish may very well have a genetic or pituitary disorder inclining it to be heavy, not required, but a possibility.
#2 It WILL be a fluke in any water, and it WILL NOT have a peer group.
#3 It may be a fish that never spawns. And in my experience, fat fish tend to be fat every day, not just in late fall.
#4 Diet can be varied as long as it is rich, plentiful, and easy to obtain. I don't think there is any "pelagic" rule.
#5 There may be a full belly requirment to reach the weight but it could be comprised of 2-3 recent meals, of unastounding size.
#6 It is wrong to treat probabilities as if they were cast in stone, for a fish that is way off the probability chart, and yet it seems to be the norm. |
|
| |
|
| Let's try to have some fun with this one because these records are laughable.
#1 A record fish may very well have a genetic or pituitary disorder inclining it to be heavy, not required, but a possibility.
>>>The genetic defect possibility is statistically possible but only happened with king Lou's fish.
#2 It WILL be a fluke in any water, and it WILL NOT have a peer group.
>>>It will never happen again because king Lou selfishly caught and killed the entire peer group. No wonder we have not seen hide nor hair of a 50lber in Hayward since then.
#3 It may be a fish that never spawns. And in my experience, fat fish tend to be fat every day, not just in late fall.
>>>and these fish don't even have to look fat to be fat either.
#4 Diet can be varied as long as it is rich, plentiful, and easy to obtain. I don't think there is any "pelagic" rule.
>>>The plentiful, easy to obtain diet can also be found in your garage. Scientifically speaking, winking at her body-I mean your buddy-rules.
#5 There may be a full belly requirment to reach the weight but it could be comprised of 2-3 recent meals, of unastounding size.
>>>It's astounding that they found nothing in the belly of these 2 records. WOW, how much would they have weighed if they had two or three recent meals?
#6 It is wrong to treat probabilities as if they were cast in stone, for a fish that is way off the probability chart, and yet it seems to be the norm.
>>>What about weighted down with stones, that seems to be all th falls within the probability chart.
This was hastily written in jest, hope it provided a chuckle or two?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| Ten anon posters on this page, and not one post worth reading amongst em.
No stones, no smarts, no service guys.
|
|
| |
|
| firstsixfeet do you believe there is some yeti and martian near your city? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 67
| First off lets keep this respectfull , I see some valid points from both sides , that being said i don't believe that there has been a 69 lb fish caught yet , that is just going by the pictures and info available today , but i do believe it will happen in the next couple of years ,here on the Larry with the invasion of round gobies all spieces of fish seem to be increasing in size , smallmouth that used to avg 2-3 lbs are now avg 4-5 lbs , walleye on the bay of Quinte that were avg 10-12 lbs are now avg 14-16 lbs and guess what all are full of Gobies , it would only make sense that Muskies will show the same increase in wieght gain ,in fact i believe it has already show this with the numbers of large fish being caught in the last two years , our chapter is awaiting the results from Dr J Casselman on a 51 in that unfortunatly did not survive a release , it will be interesting to see what the stomach contents were and the average size of the forage , when this information is released i will post the results
|
|
| |
|
| firstsixfeet,
What you are claiming is the same as saying 2 + 2 = 4 has absolutely no basis for being a fact.
(1) A genetic or pituitary disorder can be ruled out because as I pointed out earlier, Johnson's fish would have to be deeper than it is wide to possess a 33.5" girth which it isn't.
(2) Johnson's fish is NOT a fluke. It's proportions show nothing unusual.
(3) Whether Johnson's fish ever spawned or not is irrelevant because as stated above, it's proportions show nothing unusual.
(4) The diet Johnson's fish had is also irrelevant for the same reason as above.
(5) The belly on Johnson's fish was reported to be completely empty by the taxidermist that mounted it.
(6) "It is wrong to treat probabilities as if they were cast in stone, for a fish that is way off the probability chart, and yet it seems to be the norm." What is wrong is you confusing facts with probabilities.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1202
Location: Money, PA | World Record Legitimacy = The fish which were "Legitimately" weighed and registered...BOTTOM LINE! End of story.
These debates ONLY seem to occur in "DREAM LAND" |
|
| |
|
| World Record Legitimacy = The fish were NOT "Legitimately" weighed and registered...BOTTOM LINE! End of story.
These beliefs ONLY seem to occur in "DREAM LAND". |
|
| |
|
| Trophyhunter1958 - 1/19/2011 8:27 AM
First off lets keep this respectfull , I see some valid points from both sides , that being said i don't believe that there has been a 69 lb fish caught yet , that is just going by the pictures and info available today , but i do believe it will happen in the next couple of years ,here on the Larry with the invasion of round gobies all spieces of fish seem to be increasing in size , smallmouth that used to avg 2-3 lbs are now avg 4-5 lbs , walleye on the bay of Quinte that were avg 10-12 lbs are now avg 14-16 lbs and guess what all are full of Gobies , it would only make sense that Muskies will show the same increase in wieght gain ,in fact i believe it has already show this with the numbers of large fish being caught in the last two years , our chapter is awaiting the results from Dr J Casselman on a 51 in that unfortunatly did not survive a release , it will be interesting to see what the stomach contents were and the average size of the forage , when this information is released i will post the results
so you think musky near the wr are gona get cople of xtra pound because you think they feed at 3 inch gobie?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| Guest - 1/19/2011 11:03 AM
firstsixfeet,
What you are claiming is the same as saying 2 + 2 = 4 has absolutely no basis for being a fact.
(1) A genetic or pituitary disorder can be ruled out because as I pointed out earlier, Johnson's fish would have to be deeper than it is wide to possess a 33.5" girth which it isn't.
(2) Johnson's fish is NOT a fluke. It's proportions show nothing unusual.
(3) Whether Johnson's fish ever spawned or not is irrelevant because as stated above, it's proportions show nothing unusual.
(4) The diet Johnson's fish had is also irrelevant for the same reason as above.
(5) The belly on Johnson's fish was reported to be completely empty by the taxidermist that mounted it.
(6) "It is wrong to treat probabilities as if they were cast in stone, for a fish that is way off the probability chart, and yet it seems to be the norm." What is wrong is you confusing facts with probabilities.
Wow, spending all this time to try and tie a potential new record, to an established record, and once again regurgitating the same spiel that has failed before??? Can't somebody do better?
Since I view all "guest" posts on this subject, as nigh on imbecilic, I'll group this with the rest. You have managed to give a completely mangled response to two separate posts I have made. As to the photographic evidence continually cited by "guests" and others, I would refer you to the extra two views of the NB fish over on that OTHER board, specifically the pic where the fish is held hanging vertically. Quite a different perspective on the fish, such as it is. Without any of the historic fish here in front of us, and no lie detector results, and only a limited number of photos and perspectives, you "guests" can stay on your course of righteousness and timidity as you wish, but your photographic "evidence" is the equivalent of nonsense syllables, imo. And what I am saying, when responding in the later post, is that no one at this time has 2, or two, and thus cannot claim that it equals 4. Everyone wants to take the latest theory, espoused by whoever(usually not them), and treat it like those conditions have to be met, when in reality, it is only sky/pie theory until the next fish appears.
Hope you didn't spend too much of your day on your response "guest", it is extremely poor quality...heck, it borders on idiotic.
|
|
| |
|
| firstsixfeet,
Your post doesn't border on being idiotic, it IS idiotic. This thread WAS about how people feel about the legitimacy of the Spray and Johnson records, NOT about how they tie in with a potential new record.
Referring to the two extra views of the NB muskie over on the other board, I see a muskie being held vertically that should should look very much like Johnson's fish but it doesn't. It looks much deeper for it's length. The NB muskie has a girth to length percentage of 58.48% while Johnson's is very similar at 55.60%. The two fish held vertically should look very similar proportionally but they don't resemble each other at all. One of these two fish has a greatly exaggerated girth. We all know which one it is.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| Guest - 1/19/2011 3:02 PM
firstsixfeet,
Your post doesn't border on being idiotic, it IS idiotic. This thread WAS about how people feel about the legitimacy of the Spray and Johnson records, NOT about how they tie in with a potential new record.
Referring to the two extra views of the NB muskie over on the other board, I see a muskie being held vertically that should should look very much like Johnson's fish but it doesn't. It looks much deeper for it's length. The NB muskie has a girth to length percentage of 58.48% while Johnson's is very similar at 55.60%. The two fish held vertically should look very similar proportionally but they don't resemble each other at all. One of these two fish has a greatly exaggerated girth. We all know which one it is.
And of course another guest post. Wheeeee!
And what next? That all fish are built exactly alike, regardless of length? Then what, all people are built exactly alike, regardless of length? Incredible bunch of CS morons. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8820
| Well, we're at just over 11% of the muskie angling population at large that believes that Johnson's fish was as big as claimed. Clearly, based on the world record panel discussion at the Chi show, those who spend their lives on the best water aren't convinced either. More and bigger muskies are being caught all of the time, and even the giants we are seeing today don't lend any credibility to the current "records" being legitimate. Nor do the researchers, biologists, or guides. It seems to me that the more people know about this topic the less they believe the records.
Between all the reasearch, all the big fish being caught, all the time and effort put into analyzing how/why/where of the largest fish we know of today, we've still got nothing that would lead anyone to believe that the Spray and Johnson fish were as long, as thick, or as heavy as the records would seem to indicate.
One would think that during all of this time, SOMEONE could have come up with one good reason why the records could at least be believeable.
So those of you who actually believe them: Why? What makes you think, based on everything presented thus far, that the records are accurate?
|
|
| |
|
| firstsixfeet,
If two fish have the same girth to length percentages and carry their weight the same as each other they will look alike proportionally regardless of the length and this is a FACT. What was that you called yourself?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 67
| Pepsiboy , I did not state that Muskies were eating Round Gobies , the statment was ,as the size of the forage increases it would also make sense that the larger predators would increase in size as well ,this is not a fact, just an opinion. hope this clears up your misunderstanding my post
Tight Lines |
|
| |
|
| Trophyhunter1958
i think some anglers enjoy the gobies some not,i am one of them who really not enjoy these ''new''invaders,for now some are enjoying them because most of the game fish are bigger,but the main problem is they are top fry and eggs predators,i know some place on the eastern portion of the larry where you have some problem to locate the bottom,because there is millions and millions of them.
imho perfect musky sized prey number are already lower than ever ill let you guess why.
i just hope you dont think they feed on 5 lbs bass and 8 lbs walleye everyday
i'd like to be wrong
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 81
Location: Toronto, Ontario | dfkiii - 1/16/2011 12:03 AM Mackerel - 1/15/2011 9:33 PM What controversy re: O'Brien Fish? Caught, then weighed after sitting in the bottom of a boat....65lbs, certified scale. The guy was fishing for walleye, he couldn't have given a #*^@ about a musky record. Really ? Check this link: http://www.musky.ca/ontario-record-muskie-ontario-record-musky.htm "O'Brien landed the fish during an annual (mostly fun ) challenge muskie fishing match between two teams of anglers on Georgian Bay. No shortage of credible witnesses. " Who intentionally fishes for walleye during a musky contest ? If only the truth were easily differentiated from perception and hearsay..... I know at least one person who was at the Moon that day, saw the fish, witnessed the whole show. The fish was caught on a 4" Rapala in Blackstone Harbour by a guy fishing for walleye. That particular story is wrong. The biggest musky ever caught by a musky fisherman--which is the real record, IMO, is the Williamson fish. Martin recently passed away, unfortunately, but he holds the musky fisherman-caught musky IMO, for whatever that means. I fish those same waters and that same spot every fall hoping to find one just a little bigger! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Trophyhunter1958 - 1/20/2011 3:10 AM
Pepsiboy , I did not state that Muskies were eating Round Gobies , the statment was ,as the size of the forage increases it would also make sense that the larger predators would increase in size as well ,this is not a fact, just an opinion. hope this clears up your misunderstanding my post
Tight Lines :)
Or the prey is making it to this size because nothing is eating them. Could be a myriad of other factors as well. |
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | 6',
Along the lines of what Todd was saying...
I'd like for you to look at the head size difference on the Johnson/Spray fresh versus mounted fish pictures and provide an explanation why you think the heads on the mounted fish appear noticeably smaller.
Full disclosure, they have been professionally measured smaller percentagewise when compared to the bodies, so it can't rightfully be explained away as perspective.
Maybe you won't see that either?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 576
Location: Elk Grove Village, IL & Phillips, WI | For those who haven't seen it, here is the Johnson mount. Gotta love those pelvic fins!!
(Cal Johnson Hoax Mounted.jpg)
Attachments
----------------
Cal Johnson Hoax Mounted.jpg (48KB - 1280 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
| lol wisonsin home of the big muskies
anyone have a cabin for rent near courte oreilles? |
|
| |
|
| Martin Williamson's 61 lb. 4 oz. muskie wasn't weighed on a certified scale and doesn't meet the requirements of the O.F.A.H. / Ontario Record Fish Registry, Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. |
|
| |
|
| That"s funny!!! Those pelvic fins are easily 6 inches too far forward!! Either that or 6" was added to the rear end of the mount! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20245
Location: oswego, il | The picture was taken from below the fish and does not show well how the birth "ramps up" just behind the head or the odd angle as it "ramps down" at the rear dorsal. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1145
| Article is from 2006 but sums up the Spray fish pretty well. I've never seen either the Spray or Johnson mounts in person but I can see Todd's point about the fish being significantly fatter just behind the head and ramping back down at the tail. I was looking at all this bs for quite a while last night and IMO, the Williamson fish and the recent NB fish pictures have one thing in common - ridiculous girth - so I believe these to be accurate weights. The O'Brian fish was an absolute slob too. So who should rightfully hold the WR? I don't know. But I feel confident in saying niether Spray or Johnson should!
http://www.siam.org/news/news.php?id=981
Edited by MartinTD 1/21/2011 8:48 AM
|
|
| |
|
| Hayward "expert" John Dettloff "claims that the position of the pelvic fins is due to "Pelvic drift"! Must be so, as a taxidermist told him so. What Dettloff was then unable to explain (and I assume the taxidermist also, at least publicly) was if the pelvic fins "drifted" that far forward on the mount (nessary to obtain the "claimed" girth), then where did all the EXTRA SKIN "behind" the pelvic fins come from????????????????
Maybe Dettloff's taxidermist didn't explain it to him, but many others have. The "extra skin" behind the pelvic fins was ADDED to make the fish come out near the "claimed" length.
You won't be able to see it on the photo, but if you ever get a chance to look closely at the mount in the future, look closely at the fins and tail. ALL have also been added to to make them proportional to the "enhanced" body. Nearly 3/4" on the tail and 1/2" on the fins. WHY was that necessary "IF" the fish was really as large as claimed?
Simply, TAIN'T SO! |
|
| |
|
| Methinks it might time to move on and let this go |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| Still the record. Maybe you guys should form a comittee and get it overturned.
|
|
| |
|
| Non-believer - 1/21/2011 9:59 AM
Hayward "expert" John Dettloff "claims that the position of the pelvic fins is due to "Pelvic drift"! Must be so, as a taxidermist told him so. What Dettloff was then unable to explain (and I assume the taxidermist also, at least publicly) was if the pelvic fins "drifted" that far forward on the mount (nessary to obtain the "claimed" girth), then where did all the EXTRA SKIN "behind" the pelvic fins come from????????????????
Maybe Dettloff's taxidermist didn't explain it to him, but many others have. The "extra skin" behind the pelvic fins was ADDED to make the fish come out near the "claimed" length.
You won't be able to see it on the photo, but if you ever get a chance to look closely at the mount in the future, look closely at the fins and tail. ALL have also been added to to make them proportional to the "enhanced" body. Nearly 3/4" on the tail and 1/2" on the fins. WHY was that necessary "IF" the fish was really as large as claimed?
Simply, TAIN'T SO! Maybe it's a hybrid, half muskellunge and half puffer fish? |
|
| |
|
| firstsixfeet,
Any thoughts on why Johnson's mount wasn't at the Chicago show this year? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 576
Location: Elk Grove Village, IL & Phillips, WI | Probably because Dettloff wasn't there to guard it!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I do think FSF has a point. the HFHOF has rejected any and all information and evidence that the record is questionable, and as long as John is involved I suspect that will remain as is. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1145
| So I'm guessing John Detloff is the reason Larry Ramsell walked away. Or maybe they're good friends? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 73
| You’re getting near to the ‘hot coals’, and beyond the scope of this thread, Martin. But it is hard to talk at length about who does or does not believe in the current world record Musky claims without eventually touching on WHY it is the way it is at all…and who or what seems to be keeping it play. Steve’s eluding to John’s influence in the matter is close to the target. |
|
| |
|
| The Johnson record was upheld by the IGFA, NOT by John Dettloff or the NFWFHoF. What representative of the IGFA should be held responsible for this organizations decision with Johnson? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | the last living packer who played on the 1941 team is 91 years old and did a phone interview with our local newscaster. how long before the last living person who gives a crap about this argument is still alive? please say soon ... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4080
Location: Elko - Lake Vermilion | This muskie world record is a joke.
It's all controled by hearsay,lies,deception,cheating,and dead guys that,,ah,,well just weren't known for their honestly or ethics.
Will somebody just catch a 70 pounder ! Sheeesh !
Hard to believe that almost 12% thinks this record is legitimate.
Jerome |
|
| |
|
| An awful lot of people "give a crap" about this argument, in fact the overwhelming majority of those who fish muskies believe the "records" are bogus.
The reason it doesn't sit well with most is because most people are fundamentally honest and cannot bring themselves to accept as truth what they feel is lies and never will.
The "sad little minority" alluded to is not comprised of those who will not accept the Johnson fish, it is the two or three crusty old hold outs who waste away their time on barstools down at the Moccasin staring at that fakery in the glass case on the wall.
The rest of us have moved on, choosing to recognize the O'Brian fish, the Williamson fish or some other and we're O.K. with that. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1145
| Jim Munday - 1/21/2011 11:44 AM
You’re getting near to the ‘hot coals’, and beyond the scope of this thread, Martin. But it is hard to talk at length about who does or does not believe in the current world record Musky claims without eventually touching on WHY it is the way it is at all…and who or what seems to be keeping it play. Steve’s eluding to John’s influence in the matter is close to the target.
I'm really just trying to understand this whole fiasco and all aspects of the current WR controversey. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 7068
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | jonnysled - 1/21/2011 11:52 AM
the last living packer who played on the 1941 team is 91 years old and did a phone interview with our local newscaster. how long before the last living person who gives a crap about this argument is still alive? please say soon ...
Here's why I do care (not all that much, but I do):
Everytime I'm on Eagle Lake I'm looking for a monster. 99% of me knows that I'll never catch or see anything close to whatever the biggest muskie ever really was, but there's 1% of me that shoots for that goal. I'd like to know, as well as anyone can, what that goal is. I'd like to know what the biggest muskie ever caught and recorded, really was!
Does it really matter in the end? No, but we all know that "what if we do catch the WR" conversation comes up in the boat, and wouldnt it be good to know what you're actually shooting for?
|
|
| |
|
| I would still like to know who people feel is the influencing factor in the IGFA's decision to uphold Johnson as the record holder? |
|
| |
|
| I know that everybody doesn't care. And I hope that among those who do, most realize that it's not the most important thing in life by a long shot. But then again...even though it may not really matter who wins a super bowl and holds that record in the big picture of life...I tend to care about that, too.
It’s my observation that it's not just the ‘old-timers’ that are ‘soon to die’ who care. Many of today's 'young guns' and those in between don't like the inherent problem with the fact that is that no real-life Musky of even extreme proportions that are being caught today can be classified as a world record fish as long an illegitimate and unrealistic record is on the books. It’s an impasse that should be removed. But that will never happen without a persistent approach at getting the false records off of the books. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| Guest - 1/21/2011 12:20 PM
An awful lot of people "give a crap" about this argument, in fact the overwhelming majority of those who fish muskies believe the "records" are bogus.
The reason it doesn't sit well with most is because most people are fundamentally honest and cannot bring themselves to accept as truth what they feel is lies and never will.
Fundamentally honest whos' name are "guest"...
You guys are funny. |
|
| |
|
| And I'm sure it says "firstsixfeet" on your driver's license and mailbox too! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20245
Location: oswego, il | The world records are an embarassment if you ask me. When you take all that has happened, all that has been said and done to keep these records where they are, I am surprised they sit well with anyone. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | FirstSixFeet = Greg Ide = guided by Happy Hooker and supposedly can eat a lot of pizza
everyone knows him. |
|
| |
|
| ToddM,
The IGFA really didn't say or do much of anything to keep the Johnson record in place. All they said was they didn't feel a fish's weight could be determined by a two-dimensional photo even though they removed the Lawton record saying if another photo shows up they would be happy to reconsider their decision. I have no idea how anyone here could have more respect for the IGFA than the NFWFHoF. Why aren't people here blasting them like they do the NFWFhoF? At least the NFWFHoF provided a rebuttal to the WRMA challenge. The IGFA never even bothered. Evidentally they felt it wasn't necessary.
|
|
| |
|
| It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the mini surge in yes votes lately is a few desperate people peppering the poll to try to influence our general perception. It would be interesting to know what the real percentages would be if only registered users were allowed to vote, my guess is it would be somewhere over 95% NO based on the lack of supportive responses. Think about it, there's no way 12% of us educated musky fisherman would believe, and there is no other reason it would continue to tick up like this otherwise.
Editor's Note; Each registered user and guest may only vote once. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8820
| 99.9% - 1/21/2011 11:19 PM
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the mini surge in yes votes lately is a few desperate people peppering the poll to try to influence our general perception. It would be interesting to know what the real percentages would be if only registered users were allowed to vote, my guess is it would be somewhere over 95% NO based on the lack of supportive responses. Think about it, there's no way 12% of us educated musky fisherman would believe, and there is no other reason it would continue to tick up like this otherwise.
My guess:
5% are from Hayward, and
5% realize that if the ACTUAL records were recognized as such, big fish would be getting clobbered left and right.
That leaves slightly less than 2%. Those 2%? I don't know, maybe they ate too many paint chips as a kid? |
|
| |
|
| I guess if you are a guest on this side and are adamantly against the record you have free reign to carp all you want, but if you are a guest who signs his name and may have some respect for the record(s) you are banished.
And you talk about the Hayward Mafia. Take a peek in the mirror. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | What? Banished? You just posted...right?
Don't presume to lecture me about these guys from Hayward. I have been on the receiving end of the threats of violence, name calling, free for all bashing from these clowns who even dragged my son and family into the fray on Hayward based websites, and more, all because I caught and called out a few of these guys literally lying to the public and profiting from it...and in the process publishing absolute trash that was confusing the Muskie angling public and was damaging to a group of folks who didn't deserve it...one bit. The fracture between those clowns and a a few highly respected guides and muskie authorities in Hayward area and some folks who funded that mess will probably never heal up as a result, and the bull#*#* continues...all they did was switch subject matter.
CFMS, a total fabrication, and this guy was up to his butt in it. If he was misleading the public in an effort to profit from it then, and he was, how can we collectively believe anything he promotes now...especially since he published and sells a book on the subject?
AHHHH, I see, it's Esox Archeologist, our friend who has trouble playing nice. Don't be a jerk, and your posts will remain. Be a jerk, and they won't. That rule applies even to me, and Slamr sees to it.
|
|
| |
|
| THE PAST IS GONE.
Get over it.
The legitimate World Record Muskellunge will emerge soon, I predict within the next five seasons.
It will come from a large river in the northeastern reaches of the muskellunge range or the Georgian Bay expanse.
The Ottawa River, the Saint Lawrence River, The Niagara River, The Saint John's River, The Moon River, The Detroit River, Buffalo Harbor, Lake Saint Clair, Lake Erie, Lake Ontario or some such connected waters.
It WILL BE a Great Lakes fish. Period.
Big dogs on the porch here, everybody else go home. (and take your fake fish with you). |
|
| |
|
| Lake Ontario,lake st-clair??
wow |
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | I think most posts made by guests deserve a response. I do not differentiate much between a guest and a registered user (as long they remain respectful) because it's still a real person on the other end either way. Even somebody as undeserving as this "undercover" Esox Archaeologist deserves an intelligent response.
"but if you are a guest who signs his name and may have some respect for the record(s) you are banished."
EA, whoever,
Now that these records have been exposed for what they are, the educated muskie public can clearly see how they have been used like a circus sideshow attraction for over 60 years. Even though many are still willing to look the other way, it's still a basic instinct to detest liars and cheaters, particularly those who continue to pathetically take advantage of an unsuspecting and uneducated public. Something akin to swindling a 5 year olds lunch money in my opinion.
Anyway, your peers (assuming you're into muskies) will never have respect for these records, or especially the people who knowingly maintain the lies for profit. In sum, these records are completely undeserving of the muskie worlds respect, those days are long gone and you should just get use to the idea.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 20245
Location: oswego, il | Mr. Worrall offered just a small snippet of what I was referring to earlier and I mean a very small snippet! I don't think much of the ifga, gees, I just had to save that as a word on my droid, but they just wanted no part of it as I see it. They have not done the things the nfwfhof has done to protect the records. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Make no mistake, the IGFA had/has reasons to ignore the scientific report from the WRMA...they CHOOSE not to do anything in order to keep from riling the publishing world, especially Sports Afield. By the way, it was Dettloff who convinced them in the first place to remove Lawton and install Johnson (he wanted Spray in, but they found a way around that-politics at work at the time).
Now, after the WRMA's valid report, they decided to be AMAZINGLY HYPOCRITICAL keeping the Johnson farce as their record instead of reinstating Lawton...if they TRULY believe you cannot tell weight from a photograph as they stated at the time of their decision, then they cannot have it both ways. They should remove Johnson and reinstate Lawton or leave them both out. They choose to remain silent on the matter.
While the IGFA is 100 times mored highly respected as a world authority in fishing and records than the NFWFHF (mostly salt water-they didn't become involved in fresh water until a rift with the NFWFHF), they have plastered a big black mark on their name and reputation with the muskie world. They likely don't care, but the poll in this thread tells the story and until they decide to give the muskellunge record careful and due consideration, rather than make political and hypocritical decisions as they have done to date, that black mark won't be erased anytime soon.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell,
Muskellunge Historian
(Former 16 year IGFA Represenative) |
|
| |
|
| ToddM,
You say as you see it the IGFA just wanted no part of it. How can anything be worse than this? You are correct in that the IGFA hasn't done the things the NFWFHoF has done to protect the records. They have not offered ANYTHING to support their position for upholding the Johnson record which is far worse than anything the NFWFHoF has done. The IGFA removed the Lawton record because they claim a photo doesn't exist that supports the weight and at the same time they uphold the Johnson record claiming weight cannot be accurately determined from a photograph. It just doesn't get any worse than this.
|
|
| |
|
| That Dettloff is one powerful dude! Apparently he controls both the NFWFHoF and the IGFA. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Larry, you mention that the IGFA chose to ignore the WRMA report in order not to rile the publishing world and especially Sports Afield. What did you mean by that?
Why would a thorough review of the WRMA report and a reasonable reply in answer "rile" the publishing world?
DougP
Edited by fins355 1/22/2011 3:22 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Fins:
Cal Johnson wrote for Sports Afield for around 50 years. I think you can figure out the rest. If the IGFA did a "through review" of the WRMA report, Johnson's record would be gone! Politics in the realm of politics is bad enough, but in the fishing world...UGH!...Larry |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Guest:
Dettloff isn't "powerful" at all, he just caught the two record keepers off guard with his hidden agenda in the early 90's. Once bitten, the IGFA has apparently washed their hands of muskie records and the NFWFHF is definately still misguided and misled by Dettloff. Why should the NFWFHF board care...at the time they were all local business folks and had a vested interest and they "thought" the bogus records were still good for business.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell,
Muskellunge Historian |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Larry.........yeah, I guess I knew that. Thanks.
So, why wouldn't Outdoor Life, Field & Stream, Musky Hunter, Woods & Waters,etc.... be interested in the WRMA report? ? CJ didn't write for them.....isn't ANY publication interested in the TRUTH? What are they afraid of?
DougP |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8820
| Larry Ramsell - 1/22/2011 3:49 PM
[...] Why should the NFWFHF board care...at the time they were all local business folks and had a vested interest and they "thought" the bogus records were still good for business.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell,
Muskellunge Historian
Interesting to say the least. It's nothing most of us haven't thought of I'm sure. But when you think about it, it makes perfect sense. When your town and the livelyhood of the people in it depends on fishing tourism, most notably muskie fishing? "Home of the World Record Muskie" becomes pretty important to local commerce. And make no mistake - Hayward is a "muskie town".
I'd think that the father West you go in WI, the more "muskie revenue" is lost to MN, and with the fisheries in MN being what they are today I suspect WI is dwindling in popularity every year.
So maybe this is less about stubbirn egos and ignorance and more about simply trying to survive. Something to think about for sure. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Fins:
Problem is, most of today's outdoor writers try to be "politically correct" and don't wish to step on any toes, especially those where a fair amount of their information may come from; most don't follow muskies and don't really care. Outdoor Life had a chance last year to "find and expose the truth" but the writer involved chose the convient and easy way out. As for Musky Hunter, a serious voice for the musky angler, Mr. Saric just doesn't seem to care and Mr. Heiting chose to give the Hall a pass after their Spray fiasco-CLOSED press meeting. You'll have to ask him why as I'm confident he knows better. Maybe his boss said to leave it alone?
One might think Muskie's, Inc. should take a stand, but they too choose to stay out of it. Perhaps they and the other magazines/publications are afraid to upset anyone on either side, and without someone there that actually cares, don't. SAD!
Thank goodness for this open forum here on Muskie First!!!
Edited by Larry Ramsell 1/22/2011 4:20 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Larry, maybe some of these publications should be made aware of the fact that by trying not to upset either side they are losing credibility with their readership. Lots of credibility! Especially when one claims to be North America's Musky Authority. I'm sure you've done your part....
Actually, I think more musky fisherman need to demand a better accounting by some of these publications and there position on the WR.
As the saying goes; " All that is needed for evil to exist is for good men to do nothing."
DougP |
|
| |
|
| The IGFA agreed with Dettloff's findings on Lawton otherwise they wouldn't have removed him as the record holder. If they had felt they were caught off guard and bitten by Dettloff they certainly wouldn't have accepted the Johnson fish as their record.
I'm hearing Johnson's fish being referred to as a farce. Shouldn't the Lawton fish be considered the same? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| When Outdoor writers don't want to step on any toes.....they run the risk of feeding their readers with "useless pap" rather than the real skinny. Not a good foundation for a long and memorable career.
If a musky publication can't take a position on a challenge to the WR musky out of fear of retribution ...why should we put any faith in anything they may say.......
I don't know, just me.......
DougP |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Per current IGFA officials, IGFA did NOT agree with Dettloff's finding on Lawton including the day of my presentation to them basically debunking EVERYTHING in Dettloff's Lawton report, INCLUDING the photographs. They said at the time of "set-aside in the early 90's and later that the issue with them was the photograph, but changed their tune with regard to Johnson saying weight couldn't be determined from a two dimensional photograph. As I have stated, they cannot have it both ways and their current decision/position is hypocritical. The muskie world deserves better. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| fins355 - 1/22/2011 4:46 PM
Larry, maybe some of these publications should be made aware of the fact that by trying not to upset either side they are losing credibility with their readership. Lots of credibility! Especially when one claims to be North America's Musky Authority. I'm sure you've done your part....
Actually, I think more musky fisherman need to demand a better accounting by some of these publications and there position on the WR.
As the saying goes; " All that is needed for evil to exist is for good men to do nothing."
DougP
This whole thread is starting to get funny. It's a fish story, it isn't "evil", LOL.
It is sad to me that this whole drek parade was ever started. It should be ended and left as is. You guys spend way too much time and energy on this endeavor imo, but granted, it is YOURS to spend.
As I see it, the problem with MHM getting involved with the world record, or becoming active in the dispute, crosses the line from a news/journal reporting publication, to actually creating the news it is supposed to be unbiasedly reporting. When that happens, where is the leash that pulls MHM out of the fray, and where will be the trust in that particular publication? When they take a totally biased position, where is the truth in anything they might choose to do. Who you gonna trust when the publication FORMS the news it reports?? It isn't like FOX, where there are other networks available to take another view or support another idea. Taking a biased point of view, poisons their position and their neutrality, and ability to report fairly on a subject.
As for Muskies Inc., I'm not sure how the record dispute would be part of their purpose? I don't think it fits in to any of those goals? As others have stated and I have restated, there has been an awful lot of wasted energy that has gone into this record dispute and I don't see an end in site after knocking out a few more records, because I see problems with fish down the line also. So, where's it end at that point? I would hate to see MI get involved with all this, and I believe it would be a waste of resources and time for the organization.
Come on this site and crab and batch all you want, and make a bunch of anonymous BS statements every winter, and moan and whine, and cross the state line to get some cheese to go with if that helps pass the cold weather, but maybe its time to drop it and move on.....eh?
Edited by firstsixfeet 1/22/2011 8:43 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'As I see it, the problem with MHM getting involved with the world record, or becoming active in the dispute, crosses the line from a news/journal reporting publication, to actually creating the news it is supposed to be unbiasedly reporting. When that happens, where is the leash that pulls MHM out of the fray, and where will be the trust in that particular publication? When they take a totally biased position, where is the truth in anything they might choose to do. Who you gonna trust when the publication FORMS the news it reports?? It isn't like FOX, where there are other networks available to take another view or support another idea. Taking a biased point of view, poisons their position and their neutrality, and ability to report fairly on a subject.'
One very important point: MHM is not a News network or source and are not in the busness of 'reporting' same. They are, and always have been, a publication that is there to sell magazines to muskie anglers and bring in advertising revenue, and they frequently publish opinion that might or might not be one they share. HUGE difference. They most certainly could take a position if they chose to do so without any repercussions at all.
Esox Angler took 'positions' all the time, possibly to the detriment of some circulation, but I respected that even when I vehemently disagreed. Try it, it's liberating.
And, News networks take editorial positions frequently. That's how NPR acquired a definite left leaning reputation, and Fox News acquired a hard right leaning reputation.
I have absolutely no problem offering editorial position backed with facts and my experience with the players in this and other debates. That certainly doesn't mean I expect others should approve of my position without investigating all the information available, and after doing so some won't. That's fine with me, and I submit doesn't damage the reputation of this publication a bit.
If this bothers one on either side of the issue, use one's mouse to click on out of the thread. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| Yes, let me go pick up a copy of Esox Angler and check it out. Which newstand carries it? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Economy took them out, and that IS a fact.
As I said, if this offends, use your mouse. |
|
| |
|
| So Steve now that you have chimed in. What is your position on the record?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | M-H,
Chimed in? Seriously? I'm a card carrying supporting partner of the WRMA.
I am forced to ask...did you read this and the many other threads on the subject here? There's no question about my position on the current 'World Record'.
|
|
| |
|
| I'm not trying to put words in anyone's mouth here but just in case you haven't seen the mountain of evidence against? http://worldmuskiealliance.com/ |
|
| |
|
Posts: 73
| Guest - 1/22/2011 11:33 PM
I'm not trying to put words in anyone's mouth here but just in case you haven't seen the mountain of evidence against? http://worldmuskiealliance.com/
That's not putting words in anybody's mouth. You simply posted a link to one of the best written collations of evidence against either of these fish retaining world record status---by a very broad array of well-qualified individuals. It’s required reading for anybody who wants a more complete education on the matter. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20245
Location: oswego, il | Guest, nobody thinks the lawton record is any more legit than spray or johnson's fish. They should all stand, or all go.
Fins, retribution is the key and there will be retribution. The ifga decided to let it pass as quitely as they could and the nfwhof decided to deal with it about as opposit as you can get from that. Maybe Forrest Gregg was coaching them.
A few years ago I was walking through a sport show when a nice lady from the hayward toursism booth handed me a brochure and said "come to the chippewa flowage and catch a world record musky". I took the brochure, picked up my severed tongue and continued on.
Edited by ToddM 1/23/2011 12:59 PM
|
|
| |
|
| ToddM,
Your statement: "They should all stand, or all go." Do honestly feel letting them all stand is an option?
If the IGFA reinstated the Lawton fish as their record do you feel this would restore their credibility as a record keeper? This type of flip-flopping is more damaging to credibility than anything else.
Also keep in mind that Johnson's fish was NOT accepted as the IGFA record when they removed Lawton's fish. Johnson's fish replaced the O'Brien fish.
The IGFA has only ONE way of restoring their credibility, REMOVE the Johnson fish and leave Lawton right where he's at. Considering that fish size CAN be determined by professional photogrammetry, this is their ONLY option.
Obviously, regardless of what anyone says, the IGFA does whatever Dettloff wants. The only reason the Spray fish isn't the IGFA record is because it was shot during the landing process which is not permitted by the IGFA rules for record acceptance.
|
|
| |
|
| As far as the IGFA being 100 times more highly respected as a world authority in fishing and records than the NFWFHoF, what kind of a record keeper would "wash their hands" of their responsibilities as a record keeper?
By the way, recently the NFWFHoF reinstated the Mabry Harper walleye apparently as a way of saying thanks to the IGFA for upholding Johnson. Back in 1996 the NFWFHoF rightfully disqualified the Mabry Harper walleye record while the IGFA stubbornly hung on to this obvious hoax.
|
|
| |
|
| That's an interesting perspective. The timing of the reinstatement of that walleye does seem suspicious. A possible thank you from the Hall of Fame for not messing with one of their cash cows? My take on the primary purpose of the Hall of Fame is promoting tourism in the area and the IGFA is simply in the business of selling records, removing the Johnson record was probably just bad for business. I think both organizations are mostly doing good, but they are also willing to get a little dirty to keep the money flowing in. |
|
| |
|
| My take is the IGFA removing the Johnson record wouldn't have hurt their business in the least. Whatever record they "sell" is irrelevant.
I believe they upheld this record for John Dettloff. They obviously have done what he requested with Art Lawton and are doing the same with Johnson. |
|
| |
|
| Getting a "little" dirty is like getting a "little" pregnant. You either are or you aren't! No such thing as these organizations doing "mostly good". |
|
| |
|
| Like I said before, the WMA should assert itself as the official record keeping body where muskellunge records are concerned.
Just do it.
Do the NFFHoF or the IGFA have a charter from Congress designating them as the "official" bodies? No, they do not, they have simply proclaimed that they are.
Both have lost the confidence of the overwhelming vast majority of the public where muskellunge records are concerned.
The WMA, IMHO would certainly pass muster as being an acceptable body by the muskie fishing public. |
|
| |
|
| Not a bad idea. Anyone care to start another poll? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | OK. So now we've had a little WR or not WR discussion. Hmmm. Seems the ice still frozen. Rats! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8820
| I'm still waiting for someone to give us all one good reason why the Spray and Johnson fish should be believed to have been as big as claimed. 137 replies and not one good argument for why the records should be upheld. That tells me more than the poll #'s. 45 out of 367 people believe that at least the Johnson fish was legitimate. But out of those 45 people, not even one valid argument as to why, other than basically saying "It was a lot bigger than it looks"
Oh, and one guy who says one of the Lindners saw the fish and it was huge. When I was 7 years old, a lot of fish were "huge", too. That doesn't mean they were world records.
Nobody has ANYTHING that would lend any credibility to the claims? Bueller? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | esoxaddict - 1/25/2011 5:03 PM
I'm still waiting for someone to give us all one good reason why the Spray and Johnson fish should be believed to have been as big as claimed. 137 replies and not one good argument for why the records should be upheld. That tells me more than the poll #'s. 45 out of 367 people believe that at least the Johnson fish was legitimate. But out of those 45 people, not even one valid argument as to why, other than basically saying "It was a lot bigger than it looks"
Oh, and one guy who says one of the Lindners saw the fish and it was huge. When I was 7 years old, a lot of fish were "huge", too. That doesn't mean they were world records.
Nobody has ANYTHING that would lend any credibility to the claims? Bueller?
Innocent until proven guilty. Not guilty till proven innocent. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8820
| This isn't a court of law, Pointer. If it were, however, I believe the WRMA has proven guilt. Take a look at the poll. Safe to say the jury has made up their mind too. Beyond a reasonable doubt.
Edited by esoxaddict 1/25/2011 5:19 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | esoxaddict - 1/25/2011 5:14 PM
This isn't a court of law, Pointer. If it were, however, I believe the WRMA has proven guilt. Take a look at the poll. Safe to say the jury has made up their mind too. Beyond a reasonable doubt.
Take the same poll on whether or not OJ was guilty of murder. Bet you get the same results. OJ was just to dumb to stay out of jail.
Your jury is pretty bias on a musky web site. Keep in mind the jury wouldn't be all musky anglers.
You are also correct this isn't a court of law, which is another good reason as to why the record hasn't been overturned. |
|
| |
|
| That’s a fair point, Mike. All that the poll in thread actually indicates is that the majority of Musky anglers on this Musky website don’t believe that the Muskies on record are legitimate---which is about what you’d expect after several years of discussion on this site. And it’s also a fact that in the bigger picture, most of the ‘rest’ of the fishing world doesn’t even have a clue that there is an ongoing debate on the matter. I don’t hold much hope for the matter ever being ‘resolved’, considering the high level of the challenge that has already taken place, yet no change.
So where does that leave things? Perhaps nowhere more than indicating that for some there needs to be another option put into play for keeping modern day, accurate records. Sometimes I’d like to see more effort put towards that, rather than towards revising history.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8820
| Is it revising history if you expose the truth? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Innocent until proven guilty...the proof was clear and was ignored, unless it was DETTLOFF's personal and far less evidential proof to bring the record back to Hayward....then there was no issue. A double standard that seems to slip right by...why? Because so many don't even remember the New York record so recently removed, know how or why it was removed, and by whom.
If this went to court and the evidence was provided by both sides and the background information regarding the entire debacle from the removal of the Lawton fish to the actions we have seen since the WRMA investigation was completed were exposed to the light of day, I submit the jury would toss out the current record with little deliberation or, just to set historical records straight might...just might, reinstate the Lawton fish. The 'jury' would have to hear ALL the evidence, unlike the choice one has here to simply not read or listen to one side or the other while arguing one's position.
That said, I have said several times over the years I'd be delighted with the old records restored to where they were before Mr. Dettloff's 'new career' took off, call them 'historical records', and move on to a modern day record keeping authority now and into the future.
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/articles/02.22.2006/1012/Did.Former...
Pretty carefully researched. Tell me it wasn't.
http://www.chippewaflowage.com/records.html
(Copyright © Chippewa Flowage Resort Association 1996-2011. All rights reserved.)
Really?
Remember, this guy was offering seminars about the conclusions of the CFMS before there actually were any, trying to convince the Muskie world the Chippewa Flowage monster muskies were still around, just hiding from all the nasty anglers. (wolf packs, indeed...) We attended two of those seminars during our hard look at the evidence and interviews with the parties involved, by the way, just to be sure. The attached article shows him promoting...his Chippewa Flowage resort. Which, by the way, is a nice place and a great place to fish out of, well hosted by John, that's not the issue at hand.
Credibility of the witness would be a key, I'm thinking. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 70
| http://www.chippewaflowage.com/records.html
Detloff doesn't sound too professional with all those spelling and grammar errors |
|
| |
|
| "Some individuals have made the petty, and unfounded accusations that the National Freshwater Fishing Hall of Fame disqualified the Lawton muskie in an effort to "bring the record back home to Wisconsin." Talk about a total BS statement! It's kind of silly but while I was reading the deal the first thing that popped into my head was that old cartoon character named Dishonest John. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20245
Location: oswego, il | Amazing, have anything to add to back it up? |
|
| |
|
| No, the records are not legitimate. The ones who seem to think they are, in my opinion, want to keep that nostalgia from the past. We all love to resonate about the "glory days" or a particular time or sport. I guess in this case its not so much about the glory days, but of a time before most of us, when things were different. We see the same thing in sports. Being a Packer fan, I love to hear my dad and grandpa tell me stories about the glory days of St. Vince and the Packer's of the 60's. It just brings ya back to that time. Its the same thing with Western Movies. It'll just be nice when the record does finally get broken, and then all of this can be put to rest. |
|
| |
|
| "That said, I have said several times over the years I'd be delighted with the old records restored to where they were before Mr. Dettloff's 'new career' took off, call them 'historical records' and move on to a modern day record keeping authority now and into the future."
Problem is if the old records were restored they would never be called 'historical records' by anyone except the 'muskie community'.
Keep in mind the IGFA didn't have to remove Lawton as their record holder. They did what they felt was right. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Thanks Steve for redirecting readers to the Lawton article. Following are three more that are in the vein of this thread.
Go to the MuskieFirst home page; click on "News" at the bottom and pick the appropriate years to find these articles:
The Real Story of the World Record Muskie Controversies
by Larry Ramsell
5/1/2008
and: Muskellunge Record Program Press Release
by Larry Ramsell
5/19/2006
and: International Angling Rules and Requirements
by Larry Ramsell
5/19/2006
The latter two already do what several have asked for in this thread. Still waiting for a legitimate 60 pounder to be captured!
Guest: No, IGFA didn't have to remove Lawton, but I'll wager they would like to have a "do over"!! Read the first article above and see if you don't agree and also see the shennagian's Dettloff was up to.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Muskellunge Historian
Edited by Larry Ramsell 1/26/2011 11:10 AM
|
|
| |
|
| Mr. Ramsell,
Why do you feel the IGFA refuses to reinstate Lawton? Don't you consider Lawton's fish to be a farce just like the Spray and Johnson fish?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Guest (why are you afraid to sign your post?): I wish I knew the answer to your IGFA question. I suspect politics, but shant elaborate. That thought became much more enhanced when the IGFA hypocritically left the Johnson fish in place stating they couldn't determine weight from a photo, but used that very excuse (not Dettloff's report) at the time to set Lawton's record aside. Bizzare at the very least and a huge blow to any credibility they may have had in the muskie world (by the way, NY still recognizes the Lawton fish as their state record). As I stated above, I'll be they wish they had a "do over".
As for the second question, you'll have to read my book...it took several hundred pages to explain.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell,
Muskellunge Historian |
|
| |
|
| Mr. Ramsell,
The problem the IGFA has appears to be they want to please Dettloff but aren't able to do so without being hypocritical. They chose being hypocritical over disappointing Dettloff. They let him have his way at their own expense.
As for my second question, I'm not looking for an explanation, I just want a yes or no as to if YOU believe Lawton's fish is a farce?
|
|
| |
|
| igfa prove me 1 thing they have 0 credibility,all the others species must be revised specially the old one.i am sure there is a cople more laughable record.
larry did you try to contact the big media concern that story? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 426
Location: Perryville, MO | Forgive me for any ignorance I reveal in asking this question (I've read alot...but there's a ton of information out there). Is the legitmacy of Ken O'Brien's fish questioned? OK, sure it is by someone somewhere with a myriad of potential agendas. But I haven't come across anything that casts the pall of doubt over the size of that fish. I get re-directed on the WMA site when clicking on the O'Brien report. Is that because it hasn't been done or just a computer glich? Thanks in advance for simple answers to what I hope are simple questions (yeah, right!). |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | In a previous post I listed some additional articles in the NEWS section of this web site...I missed a very important one from April 2006. Check out the names of the committee members...seems to me this is just what many have and are asking for. Guess most missed it at the time:
Muskellunge Record Keeping Enters A New Era
Modern Day Muskellunge World Record Keeping
Larry Ramsell
Published April 2, 2006
Modern Day Muskellunge World Record Keeping Program
We are beginning a new chapter in muskellunge history; that of establishing
a highly verified International program for keeping muskellunge, and tiger
hybrid muskellunge, modern day world records. Due to problems with regard
to historical muskellunge records, and due also to the fact that some
current record keeping rules preclude several legal, legitimate and often
used methods of angling employed by todays muskellunge anglers. It has
been decided to begin a Modern Day Muskellunge World Record Keeping
Program. This is in no way intended to be derogatory to the other record
keeping programs, but rather a program designed for todays muskellunge
anglers, by todays muskellunge anglers, to keep verified, credible and
obtainable records for our favorite species and hybrid.
An old angling cliche says; There is no faster way to be called a liar than
to claim you just caught a record fish; and that is certainly true, for the
history of fish records is replete with false claims, distortions, lots of
unverified assumptions and indeed even some fraud.
All-tackle records for top game fish like muskellunge, smallmouth bass,
walleye and largemouth bass have at one time or another been under a cloud
of suspicion. Some have even been repudiated and disqualified. In the case
of many old record fish, photos and mounts themselves, never did, or no
longer exist. Also, the scales used usually were not verified by todays
standards. Even testimonies about the catch by other individuals regarding
the length, girth, weight, etc. can be under suspecion.
The problem of these old or even some more recent day records is that none
have been tested utilizing the great technology available to us today. For
example electrofloresis can tell you many things about the origins of the
fish. DNA also is a tool that didn't exist that many years ago. All this
being said, does not make any or all of these old records false. The
problem is that many can not be verified by modern technology, and that is
the crux of the problem.
By establishing a new set of standards which are verifiable, all questions,
problems and arguments that arise because of the lack of verification
evaporate.
These old unverified records need not be lost to posterity. They indeed can go into a special category of Historical and Legendary fish.
Many very high profile and well respected members of the muskellunge
community, from both sides of the United States and Canadian border, have
signed on to be a part of the Committee that has developed and will oversee
this program. The Committee will consist of both a Working Group and an
Advisory Review Group. All will review potential record applications.
Our Committee consists of:
Peter J. Barber, Treasurer, Muskies, Inc. International
Joe Bucher, Editor Emeritus Musky Hunter Magazine & Legendary Hall of Fame
Muskie Angler
Steve Budnik, Past President and Research Committee Chairman, Muskie's, Inc.International
Jim Bunch, Chairman, Muskie's, Inc. Members Only Fishing Contest & Muskie
magazine Lunge Log Editor
John Casselman, Ph. d., Adjunct Professor, Queen's University, Department of Biology, Senior Scientist Emeritus Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Applied Research and Development Branch, Member Muskie's, Inc. & Muskies Canada
Rich Delaney, Former President World Record Muskie Alliance & Member Muskie's,
Inc.
Terrie DuBe, Muskies, Inc. International Secretary & Professional Muskie
Tournament Angler
Brad Latvaitis, American Fisheries Society (AFS) Fisheries Professional
Emeritus, Owner, Environmental Solution Professionals; Enshrined, Fresh Water Fishing Hall of Fame 2006, Muskie Historian & Researcher,Contributing Editor Musky Hunter magazine
Mike Lazarus, Member Muskies Canada & Ontario and Quebec Muskie Guide
Ron Lindner, Publisher Emeritus In-Fisherman Communications Network & Hall
of Fame Angler
Pete Maina, Next Bite TV Show, Former General Manager/Co-owner Esox Angler magazine; Contributor Wisconsin Sportsman magazine & member Muskie's, Inc.
Diana Mindar, Former Member Muskie's, Inc. International Board of Directors &
Professional Muskie Tournament Angler
Jerry Newman, Founder World Record Muskie Alliance, Member Muskie's, Inc,
Muskies Canada & The International Game Fish Association (IGFA)
Steve Pallo, Management Programs Section Head Illinois Department of Natural Resources-Fisheries, American Fisheries Society (AFS), Certified Fisheries Scientist, Past Director-Research Muskies, Inc. International, Past Chair AFS Esocid Technical Committee, Life Member of Muskie's, Inc, Co-Chair of Fisheries Habitat Committee Muskie's, Inc
Gord Pyzer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (Ret.) Kenora, Fishing
Editor, Outdoor Canada Magazine, Field Editor, In-Fisherman Magazine and Television Co-Host, The Real Fishing Radio Show, President, Canadian Angling Adventures Ltd. & Outdoor Editor/Columnist, the Kenora Daily Miner and News, the Fort Frances Times, Just Fishing and Grainews
Larry Ramsell, Former Research Editor for Musky Hunter magazine and MUSKIE magazine, Muskie Historian/author, Dual Hall of Fame Muskie Angler, Past President, Muskies, Inc International, Former Representative International Game Fish Association (IGFA), Former World Secretary National Fresh Water Fishing Hall of Fame (NFWFHF) & Former World Record Advisor NFWFHF.
Jim Saric, Editor/Owner Musky Hunter magazine, Contributing Editor Fishing
Facts magazine,Contributing Editor, MidWest Outdoors magazine
Steve Sarley, Host of CLTV's The Great Outdoors television program - 2002
to 2005, Host of The Outdoors Experience radio program on Chicagos NewsTalk 560 AM WIND 2003 to present, Weekly columnist for Shaw Newspaper's Northwest Herald, Kane County Chronicle and other Shaw daily newspapers, Monthly columnist for MidWest Outdoors magazine - 1996 to present
Tim Simonson, Fisheries/Lake Sampling Coordinator, Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources (WDNR) Spokesman & Co-chair State Musky Committee, Wisconsin DNR
Marc Thorpe, Past President Muskies Canada & Ontario and Quebec Muskie
Guide
Steve Worrall, Owner Mukie First Internet Website & Member Muskie's, Inc.
The bar has been set at 60 pounds (27.22 kilograms) minimum for initial
muskellunge application, to prevent numbers of large muskellunge from being
kept just to set a record. Hybrid minimum for application is 40 pounds
(18.14 kilograms), since the two largest verified hybrids caught in the past 55 years were 40 pounds and 40 pounds 2 ounces. With these weight criteria, few fish will be ever be kept for record purposes. This new beginning will constitute a highly credible "International" program with realistic and obtainable minimums as a starting point, and very credible, but attainable records once they are established.
After a presentation to the International Board of Director's of Muskie's,
Inc. on April 1, the Muskie's, Inc. International Board of Director's voted
overwhelmingly to endorse and support this program.
The committee will proceed based on the overwhelming International support
that we now have, and we would like to take this opportunity to thank
everyone in advance for their support and cooperation in the establishment
of this great new muskellunge world record program. We sincerely believe
that its time has come, and that with this great International mix of
committee members from both the angling and scientific world of the
muskellunge, it will be welcomed and accepted by the world's muskellunge
anglers!
For more information, Contact: Larry Ramsell, Committee Chairman, 9407N Highline Road, Hayward, WI 54843. Phone: 715-634-9882 or email:
[email protected]
NOTE: Since the formation of this prestigious committee, we have yet to receive an entry, indicating just how rare 60-pound class muskies are!
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell,
Muskellunge Historian &
Committee Chairman
|
|
| |
|
| hawkeye...yes, there are questions about the O'Brien fish. Stay tuned...... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4080
Location: Elko - Lake Vermilion | Soooooo,.....
In the last 5 years no one has submitted a true 60lb. muskie to this committee ? Why? they do exist, don't they? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | "Why?" None caught and kept (and made public) OR none caught period. Releases don't count...If you don't (officially) weigh it, you can't say it!
Do they exist? Time will tell. The panel discussion on this subject at the Chicago Musky Show was interesting, but NONE of the panel have caught and/or weighed one that size!! Close, but close only counts in horse shoes and handgrenades. Yes, only five guys of many, but most of them are on GREAT muskie waters EVERY DAY of EVERY SEASON. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4080
Location: Elko - Lake Vermilion | With the great muskie fishing that we have these days it seems that there should be a few fish caught that challenges the so called world record'(s) ............. unless .........there never was a muskie of that size to begin with......... Hmmmmmm, Something smells fishy......... Real smelly.
Jerome |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| Top H2O - 1/27/2011 12:09 PM
With the great muskie fishing that we have these days it seems that there should be a few fish caught that challenges the so called world record'(s) ............. unless .........there never was a muskie of that size to begin with......... Hmmmmmm, Something smells fishy......... Real smelly.
Jerome
Or, the very minimal pool of that size fish, is even smaller than it was historically. |
|
| |
|
| I recognize 70 pounds as the record - until someone gets a 70 pounder there is no world record. Kind of like when excalibur was buried in the stone and the land had no king until Arthur came around.
The musky world is a community without a World Record.
The release record is a joke as well. A cutoff picture of a man holding a muskie is all that is needed. What a shame.
I do know that muskies have been planted in Europe so maybe they will grow to over 70 pounds there.
Todd Booth |
|
| |
|
| whats wrong with the obrien fish? i was sure that one was a true 60 pounder |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | Guest - 1/18/2011 2:22 PM
That New Brunswick musky doesn't come close to the formula weight and it doesn't look all that heavy to me either. It's certainly a big fish, just that something isn't adding up. That also got me thinking about Spray, 3 records in his lifetime? Consider his lifetime as 1 event, what are the odds? Sounds a lot like the Lawton's, Hartman's and Haver to me with lots of false entries.
The article states it was weighed on a certified scale. What this proves (to me) is that if a 50 inch fish can achieve a 29 inch girth and weigh 61 pounds then a 55 inch fish can weigh over 70. As trophy Muskie has stated the average size of forage fish are rising in his neck of the woods. Bigger forage should by all rights grow some heavier Muskies. The spray records dont mean anything to me. With the mount gone there is no real way to prove it either way. As for the Johnson fish? Im not an expert but that mount looks huge. If it was doctored thats pretty crappy.
But here is where I get cynical on the whole record argument. Every single record or claim of a super fish as called a lie by so many it is disturbing to me. Not even the Obrien fish has escaped attacks and now this 61 pound fish weighed on certified scale is being attacked as not adding up. Were they all lies evry one of them?
Larry, your book has pictures of fish not even talked about by anyone here. Some claiming to be 80 pounds. Tell us, is there a 70 pounder out there in November,December ,January, February March or April? Fully loaded female with eggs and a belly full of forage. I have to believe there is. Mike |
|
| |
|
| The head to total length percentages of the 'historical records' do not match the fresh fish they are supposed to represent. There never was a pool of fish of this size.
Art Lawton former world record was wisely never mounted. Ever wonder why the Lawton's would mount a muskie that only measured 57" but not mount the 64.5" world record? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 41
| Guest - 1/28/2011 11:39 AM
I recognize 70 pounds as the record - until someone gets a 70 pounder there is no world record. Kind of like when excalibur was buried in the stone and the land had no king until Arthur came around.
The musky world is a community without a World Record.
The release record is a joke as well. A cutoff picture of a man holding a muskie is all that is needed. What a shame.
I do know that muskies have been planted in Europe so maybe they will grow to over 70 pounds there.
Todd Booth Muskies in Europe ???
Do tell Todd, I would love to hear more about that! |
|
| |
|
| Kingfisher - 1/28/2011 11:21 AM Guest - 1/18/2011 2:22 PM That New Brunswick musky doesn't come close to the formula weight and it doesn't look all that heavy to me either. It's certainly a big fish, just that something isn't adding up. That also got me thinking about Spray, 3 records in his lifetime? Consider his lifetime as 1 event, what are the odds? Sounds a lot like the Lawton's, Hartman's and Haver to me with lots of false entries. The article states it was weighed on a certified scale. What this proves (to me ) is that if a 50 inch fish can achieve a 29 inch girth and weigh 61 pounds then a 55 inch fish can weigh over 70. As trophy Muskie has stated the average size of forage fish are rising in his neck of the woods. Bigger forage should by all rights grow some heavier Muskies. The spray records dont mean anything to me. With the mount gone there is no real way to prove it either way. As for the Johnson fish? Im not an expert but that mount looks huge. If it was doctored thats pretty crappy. But here is where I get cynical on the whole record argument. Every single record or claim of a super fish as called a lie by so many it is disturbing to me. Not even the Obrien fish has escaped attacks and now this 61 pound fish weighed on certified scale is being attacked as not adding up. Were they all lies evry one of them? Larry, your book has pictures of fish not even talked about by anyone here. Some claiming to be 80 pounds. Tell us, is there a 70 pounder out there in November,December ,January, February March or April? Fully loaded female with eggs and a belly full of forage. I have to believe there is.
Mike
Mike, I don't have believe. The New Brunswick musky is suspicious because it's dimensionally about the size of Tom Gelb's 51lber (that nobody questioned BTW) but claimed to weigh 10lbs more. There's also several good pictures of both fish and the girth does not look very impressive when compared to Gelb's, which is very impressive. We also have Martin Williamson's (God rest his soul) 61lber for comparison. I can only speak for myself, but dimensionally and visually the NBM is not even in the same league as Williamson's. Don't you find it at least a little curious that they are wanting to dispose the NBM like that. |
|
| |
|
| Lunge Master - 1/28/2011 12:28 PM Guest - 1/28/2011 11:39 AM
I recognize 70 pounds as the record - until someone gets a 70 pounder there is no world record. Kind of like when excalibur was buried in the stone and the land had no king until Arthur came around.
The musky world is a community without a World Record.
The release record is a joke as well. A cutoff picture of a man holding a muskie is all that is needed. What a shame.
I do know that muskies have been planted in Europe so maybe they will grow to over 70 pounds there.
Todd Booth Muskies in Europe ??? Do tell Todd, I would love to hear more about that!
I agree Todd! "The release record is a joke as well. A cutoff picture of a man holding a muskie is all that is needed. What a shame." That's another one of those Hall of Fame records that should not be on the books, a full picture of the fish is one of of their requirements even. Complete joke! With today's technology they should also simply require the fish be held alongside of a ruler.
|
|
| |
|
| I also believe the NB muskie is a hoax. In that article it says that muskies in NB have no specific season and are considered an invasive species and are not listed as a sport fish (non-gamefish).
They go on to say the fish cannot be mounted because it was taken out of season. Obviously, this is in conflict with what was said above.
They also say they doubt the cause of death will be revealed by the autopsy which doesn't make sense to me.
Them saying that after the autopsy the fish will be returned to the river to complete the "circle of life" sounds to me like 'getting rid of the evidence'. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Kingfisher wrote: "Larry, your book has pictures of fish not even talked about by anyone here. Some claiming to be 80 pounds. Tell us, is there a 70 pounder out there in November,December ,January, February March or April? Fully loaded female with eggs and a belly full of forage. I have to believe there is. Mike"
Mike, I have thought so for most of my life. As noted at the Musky Show panel, "IF" there is one that size it is a FREAK...an anomaly of epic proportions! As I noted at the show, based on what has transpired over the past 50 years, including the better/more BIG fish of the past 10 to 15 years, it is my personal belief that the AVERAGE maximum size, in the BEST of muskie fisheries, is around 55-56 pounds...not the "potential" largest, but the "average maximum". So, to set out with the intent to catch a new world record is considerably more than looking for the proverbial needle in a haystack! Williamson's 61-4, which by the way was NOT weighed on a "certified" scale, was said by the local biologist to be a sterile female and was putting all of its energy towards growth instead of eggs. It was only 17 or 18 years old. THAT is the type of muskie, albiet a little older and larger, that it will take to set the standard at 70 pounds.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell,
Muskellunge Historian
Edited by Larry Ramsell 1/28/2011 1:31 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Larry,
I just acquired a new book from a good friend, unopened except to sign by the author. I'm placing it with my other 'historical' muskie books and items in an ever growing collection.
'Before I Forget'
Fifty Years of Muskie Fishing
Len Hartman
Those were interesting and different times. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8820
| Thanks for your input, Larry,
That opinion pretty much mirrors what we've all heard time and time again from the guides and resort owners on all the trophy muskie fisheries of today. A "true giant" comes in at around 60" and/or 60#, and it's a fish of proportions that even the best anglers fishing the best waters will likely never encounter, much less catch. Looking at the names and accomplishments of those involved in the Modern Day Muskellunge World Record Keeping Program? I see no reason to believe any other claims to larger and heavier fish being caught, especially not in areas not currently known to support the kind of fish we see coming out of the top fisheries today. |
|
| |
|
| I would say the NB muskie at 50.875" and 61.5 lbs is a better example of a 'freak' than the Williamson fish at 55.5" and 61-4 lbs., especially since it was supposedly weighed on a certified scale which Williamson's wasn't. THIS is the type of fish that could potentially weigh 70 lbs. if it was a little older and longer. |
|
| |
|
| I by no means agree with the size of Spray's fish, but a thought just occurred to me. I think having this as the official world record is actually a GREAT thing. Think about how many more fish would be getting clubbed over the head if let's say the record was at 61 lb., or whatever the largest "legitimate fish is. I think that because the official record is soooooo big, that is it actually helps these fisheries by keeping many large "potential record" in the water and not in the bottom of the boat. |
|
| |
|
| Right now the 'bar' is set at 6o lbs. to enter a fish in the 'Modern Day Records Program' and there hasn't been any muskies killed even with this lower weight requirement.
John Dettloff probably LOVES your post! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4080
Location: Elko - Lake Vermilion | Wow 53 people thinks this is the real deal....... Someone in Hayward is networking. What a sham, er...I mean shame
Jerome |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8820
| 53 people out of nealy 400 just don't know any better. I think that's pretty much on par with the genral population when it comes to... Well, ANYTHING, really. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Steve:
Len's book made for an interesting read and definately was about different times! Len was driven by a need to FISH. Give him credit where credit is due for "coming clean" before he passed away. While he was alive and after his confession, I thought perhaps he should do another book..."Now I Remember". |
|
| |
|
Posts: 67
| Next year Larry , I predict the holy grail shall be found ! LOL |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Perhaps "captured" would be a better term, Bill! We know where she is, just have to be in the right place at the right time! |
|
| |
|
| I too give Len Hartman credit for 'coming clean' before he passed away. Too bad Art Lawton didn't do the same. |
|
| |
|
| Everyone here knows that if the general population voted on this poll the overwhelming majority would vote 'YES'. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| Kingfisher - 1/28/2011 11:21 AM
But here is where I get cynical on the whole record argument. Every single record or claim of a super fish as called a lie by so many it is disturbing to me. Not even the Obrien fish has escaped attacks and now this 61 pound fish weighed on certified scale is being attacked as not adding up. Were they all lies evry one of them?
Larry, your book has pictures of fish not even talked about by anyone here. Some claiming to be 80 pounds. Tell us, is there a 70 pounder out there in November,December ,January, February March or April? Fully loaded female with eggs and a belly full of forage. I have to believe there is. Mike
This is the "No Honest Man, Theory of Humanity", at work. All the fisherman were liars, and they had a group of co-conspirators that were liars, witnesses that were liars or duped, and all the fish were false, and the whole group kept their mouths shut except Len Hartman? If you didn't see the fish personally, caught landed and weighed, the guy must be lying, cause everybody knows fish don't get THAT big. Oddly enough, I can understand the inability to trust others that can motivate people to come to these conclusions, and I think it is more prevalent with the compression of the world that has taken place through telecommunications.
Now the NB fish is questioned, and a fish that really has no stake in much of anything, but it is "funny", something doesn't add up, it can't be that big because the Gelb fish looked such and such, and yet, here's a question, what scrutiny was the Gelb fish ever held to? Just out of curiosity, what validation process certified his fish was what HE claimed it to be? Everybody else lied, why wouldn't Tom Gelb lie in his later years hoping to make some claim on fame? How many 45 lb fish had he released before those two fish? How many fish that size had come out of THAT lake? Was that fish every scoped to see if there was a small slit in the belly through which water was added, after all a pints a pound the world around, and it's easy to slide a couple pints into a compartment that size. I have no idea of the validity of the Gelb fish, but then, it isn't an issue to me either, I don't care and I assume it was legit. But maybe you guys can see how fast doubt can be seeded on any fish, and add some skepticism and cynicism to the mix, and a reluctance to get "taken", and you soon have a formula for total doubt.
I always have a reluctance to take creedence from a single camera angle of a fish, and I just don't think that a real idea of a fish can be generated in a one dimensional photo. I have taken too many "bad" and conversely, "good", pics of fish to trust them(and more bad than good, I guarantee). For those of you who doubt the NB fish, you need to revisit the site, and check the additional two pictures out, especially the one with the guy and the vertical hold. That pic presents quite a different idea of the fish than the pics with it stretched out on the ground and held sideways, none of which, I believe truly indicate the massive dimensions of that fish. Hope the link can stay for purposes of seeing that other view
http://www.muskyhunter.com/forum/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=10... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Then the Lawton fish should stand. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8820
| Well, FSF... In Mr Gelb's case, I think it's pretty safe to say that "fame and fortune" are not really motivating factors. In fact it seemed to me like he may have been coerced (maybe not the right word) into his presentation at the CHI show, and would much rather just keep to himself. If not for a desire to pass on what he has learned in 50 odd years of muskie fishing, I suspect few of us would even have heard of him. There are certain types of people who just scream for recognition, and with that comes a strong motivation to lie. For those who really don't care much for recognition and attention? What's the motivation to lie about your catches?
As for the NB fish, and the questioning that goes along with that? Hmph. They found it floating. It wasn't caught, nobody can lay any claims to a record catch or any sort of accomplishment. It's an abnormally fat fish with an odd build. No reason to doubt the weight, because there's no reason for anyone to exaggerate it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| esoxaddict - 1/29/2011 12:05 PM
Well, FSF... In Mr Gelb's case, I think it's pretty safe to say that "fame and fortune" are not really motivating factors. In fact it seemed to me like he may have been coerced (maybe not the right word) into his presentation at the CHI show, and would much rather just keep to himself. If not for a desire to pass on what he has learned in 50 odd years of muskie fishing, I suspect few of us would even have heard of him. There are certain types of people who just scream for recognition, and with that comes a strong motivation to lie. For those who really don't care much for recognition and attention? What's the motivation to lie about your catches?
As for the NB fish, and the questioning that goes along with that? Hmph. They found it floating. It wasn't caught, nobody can lay any claims to a record catch or any sort of accomplishment. It's an abnormally fat fish with an odd build. No reason to doubt the weight, because there's no reason for anyone to exaggerate it.
You are missing the point I was making with the Gelb fish comparison. You did catch the drift with the NB fish but, read this thread, and read the thread on the other board and you will see a bunch of posts doubting it. It's just how the process seems to work these days. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| sworrall - 1/29/2011 11:55 AM
Then the Lawton fish should stand.
OK by me. I didn't start this merry go round. |
|
| |
|
| I disagree with the "no good reason to lie about it" theory. It could be tourism or a desire to get a musky program going there. Different people are motivated by different things, and although the fish may not be a lie, there are things that just don't add up with it to me either. In my mind there's a distinct difference between Tom Gelb and New Brunswick, everything adds up with Gelb, the same holds true with the MI record, pictures, dimensions and weight of that fish all add up. Does anyone here have any doubts on the MI record? That is the difference.
I was watching a sports program last night (Graham Bensinger) and a very informed guess said in no uncertain terms that he felt the Jamaican sprinters were using performance-enhancing drugs at the last Olympics. I was shocked but he sure made a lot of sense. I thought it was very interesting because even though he thought Bolt was the most gifted sprinter of all time, something just wasn't right about him breaking those records based on his previous run times. What he also cited was the women sprinters taking all 3 medals (sound like someone else we know?). He said what are the odds of a small country like that achieving that much success. I suspect that he would not have voiced any worthwhile suspicion of Bolt if it were not for the women sprinters crushing everyone too. Is he just being cynical or should the governing boards be taking a little closer look at the Jamaican's, just like they did with Ben Johnson?
I've thought about this long and hard and I think it's actually very healthy that we question everything up front and if things don't add up, it's our duty to dig a little deeper to find the truth. Firstsixfeet will probably disagree because he is so willing to take people's word for it, but if history teaches us anything, it's that taking people's word for it is pretty much a crapshoot, and didn't a lot of very smart people take Bernie's word for it only to find themselves part of the biggest Ponzi scheme in history?
I think this New Brunswick fish needs to be better substantiated just because it has tickled the elusive 60lb mark and casts huge doubt on the 800 formula. In light of the recent world record panels combined opinion regarding 60lbers, this New Brunswick fish is along the lines of what Bolt did. It may very well weigh 60lbs but a better explanation of why it's dimensionally smaller and the pictures do not support its weight should be better substantiated before we take it as gospel. Considering one of the reasons cited is that it's "big boned" should be a good reason for most of us to be suspicious enough to at least be allowed to question it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8820
| No, I get that FSF -- there are a slew of folks out there who look at any fish larger than their largest fish and they say "no WAY!!" and insist it couldn't be as big as they say it was. You know the type - "Somebody MUST be lying, because if they're not, that means I'm not as good of a fisheman as I like to think I am!"
I've known a few. Then you look at their pictures and they say "Here's one that was 52"!" and it all starts to make sense why they're so quick to accuse someone else of lying. That used to get under my skin until I thought about how little fun they must have fishing, when they have to lie about what they caught and how big it was. |
|
| |
|
| Top H2O - 1/28/2011 5:53 PM
Wow 53 people thinks this is the real deal....... Someone in Hayward is networking. What a sham, er...I mean shame
Jerome
It's not 53 people, it's 53 votes! What's really intriguing is the exponential increase in yes votes versus no votes in the last week or so. The Hayward mafias plan is probably to get it up to 50% by the musky open. LOL!
Can you say desperate? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 73
| Other polls have revealed that a small percentage of people believe in the existence of a Sasquatch creature, and that aliens helped make the pyramids. Makes sense that 10-15% could also believe in Muskies that never existed. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'Then the Lawton fish should stand.'
'OK by me. I didn't start this merry go round. '
Me too. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | I think perhaps my book's Editor Brad Latvaitis said it best when he said:
"...It is clear that several historic fish records do not meet the scrutiny requirements demanded by today's anglers. Nevertheless, world records which may appear suspect were often extensively evaluated by a sanctioning committee of highly qualified members. It is difficult, if not impossible, to definitively redefine world records that were sactioned in an earlier age under different standards. I believe that Historic World Records are a part of our Muskellunge angling heritage and their maintainance is in the best interest of all Muskellunge anglers."
Amen...Lawton back to the TOP of the "Historic List" and the new program for today's more discerning anglers. The rest can just rest!
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell,
Muskellunge Historian |
|
| |
|
Location: Sawyer County, WI | Guest - 1/29/2011 1:11 PM
Top H2O - 1/28/2011 5:53 PM
Wow 53 people thinks this is the real deal....... Someone in Hayward is networking. What a sham, er...I mean shame
Jerome
It's not 53 people, it's 53 votes! What's really intriguing is the exponential increase in yes votes versus no votes in the last week or so. The Hayward mafias plan is probably to get it up to 50% by the musky open. LOL!
Can you say desperate?
Man, this is starting to sound like an X Files episode. Who is the "Hayward mafia" anyway ? While it is clear a certain Chippewa Flowage resort owner has beaten this drum long and hard, people I've spoken with (resort owners, bait shop owners, guides, business owners) in the Hayward area don't believe the "world record" nonsense anymore than the majority of contributors to this forum. Even more ludicrous is the notion that they would recruit people to vote "yes" on a internet forum poll to boost tourism. The more likely explanation is a group of folks who love to stir the pot to watch passionate truth seekers/conspiracy theorists work themselves into a lather. |
|
| |
|
| I never thought exposing a cheat would be considered 'starting a merry go round'. I'm sure glad the IGFA saw things for what they were when they took a closer look at the photos of Lawton's fish. Dettloff's photo analysis easily convinced them just as it did me that this guy was the ultimate phony. |
|
| |
|
| Let's put Lawton back to the TOP of the list of CHEATERS. Maybe you guys should quit while you're ahead. |
|
| |
|
| Guest - 1/29/2011 11:03 AM
Everyone here knows that if the general population voted on this poll the overwhelming majority would vote 'YES'.
That's one opinion but I think it likely the general public doesn't give a hoot about musky records any more than the price of bananas in London.
Even if they did I doubt they would vote on this poll from home, from the office, from their neighbor's house, from their brother's house and anywhere else they could come up with for the sake of getting in as many votes as possible... |
|
| |
|
| The general population of fishermen may not give a hoot about the world records but the vast majority of them know what the muskie records currently are therefore they would vote for the fish currently listed. |
|
| |
|
| My point is the general population of fishermen is HUGE and would easily out number the 'muskie community' if they participated in this poll. There wouldn't be any need to round up participants or voting more than once. As can be seen the 'muskie community' itself already has dissention within the ranks. |
|
| |
|
| "Who is the "Hayward mafia" anyway ?" The principles are JD, EB, SA, and the ever popular CS. CS has designed a "king Louie" website and is into computer programming big time. He is well aware of computer downloads that change the IP address, and knows better than to add more than a couple votes a day. Why else would this poll be averaging 2-3 yes votes a day. Didn't the percentage stay over 90% no during the first week.
http://www.solidblogger.com/change-ip-address-instantly/
http://www.sitesurf.net/ |
|
| |
|
| The entire 'muskie community' may not have been aware of this poll during the first week. The anti- Dettlloff people that visit this website on a daily basis were likely the ones that caused the spike in the early days of this poll. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| Guest - 1/29/2011 2:37 PM
The link firstsixfeet provided for the NB muskie is just the beginning of that thread. Go to the other website and read the LATEST on this fish.
There is no latest, and the link I provided is actually to a separate later thread, with two additional pictures. I linked that because one of the pictures depicts an awesomely obese fish. Besides the thread deteriorating somewhat, you seem to suggest there is something going on, when in fact there isn't anything documented other than what is reported, the fish was found. Got some DS's asking how it is out of season, and I don't know, but maybe there is a closed season for all species in that area, and that would make it out of season. Not germane to the discussion anyway. Autopsy might prove something. Might be a waste of time other than to document appearance of the fish.
But wait, I'm sure there is a conspiracy here somewhere! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'The anti- Dettlloff people that visit this website on a daily basis'
What the heck is an 'anti-Dettloff' person?
I have no problem with John personally, it's what he tried to pull off that bothers me, and probably bothers others as well. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'Let's put Lawton back to the TOP of the list of CHEATERS. Maybe you guys should quit while you're ahead.'
Maybe you should lose the attitude and read more carefully.
My point was that Lawton's fish was dq'd by an image and a rank amateur analysis. The current 'record' was much more carefully looked into and debunked, and...there it is, still there. Got that now? |
|
| |
|
| The present day importance of the world record musky resonates a heck of a lot louder in Wisconsin than anywhere else. New York anglers have been polled elsewhere on the current status of world record muskies and the results were the same as here in this poll, the old records -including the Lawton fish caught in New York- should be disqualified.
On the whole New York musky anglers regard the Lawton fish as bogus and really don't much care about keeping the record in New York. The 1,000 Islands/ Clayton area can get along just fine without selling itself as the "home of world record muskies".
Apparently that is not the case with Wisconsin, hence the constant efforts to assert Wisconsin as the "home of world record muskies" and a profound silence from New York. New York could care less. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | "Apparently that is not the case with Wisconsin, hence the constant efforts to assert Wisconsin as the "home of world record muskies"
I'm from Wisconsin. It's not our fine state that's involved in this, it's the FFHOF. It's not 'Hayward', it's a few folks from that area who have special interest in this. |
|
| |
|
| sworrall - 1/29/2011 4:03 PM
"Apparently that is not the case with Wisconsin, hence the constant efforts to assert Wisconsin as the "home of world record muskies"
I'm from Wisconsin. It's not our fine state that's involved in this, it's the FFHOF. It's not 'Hayward', it's a few folks from that area who have special interest in this.
That is certainly fair, not an entire state, just a few who have a vested interest.
That vested interest is not necessarily the musky record but rather keeping fishing camps on the Chip booked with paying customers.
In other words, the legitimacy of the record takes a back seat to keeping the tourists coming to Hayward, the record simply serves as part of the sales image and keeping those paying customers coming is the foremost interest in play here. |
|
| |
|
Location: Sawyer County, WI | Guest - 1/29/2011 4:31 PM
sworrall - 1/29/2011 4:03 PM
"Apparently that is not the case with Wisconsin, hence the constant efforts to assert Wisconsin as the "home of world record muskies"
I'm from Wisconsin. It's not our fine state that's involved in this, it's the FFHOF. It's not 'Hayward', it's a few folks from that area who have special interest in this.
That is certainly fair, not an entire state, just a few who have a vested interest.
That vested interest is not necessarily the musky record but rather keeping fishing camps on the Chip booked with paying customers.
In other words, the legitimacy of the record takes a back seat to keeping the tourists coming to Hayward, the record simply serves as part of the sales image and keeping those paying customers coming is the foremost interest in play here.
I don't buy it. If a catch phrase like "home of the world record muskies" were required for tourist dollar success, why didn't other resort areas such as Eagle River and Minoqua dry up years ago ? Additionally, when the business of these "records" is put to rest and a new record holder is installed from Eagle, St. Clair, Mille Lacs, Vermillion, St. Lawrence, Lac Suel, LOTW, or some other fertile ground will people stop vacationing and fishing for musky in Hayward ? Hell no. Why ? Because despite what a very small amount of people believe, there is something about northern Wisconsin that draws people, and it isn't a potential record musky.
|
|
| |
|
| It's called "Chicago". Wisconsin is in easy driving distance from that large urban population center, like the Catskills and New York City. |
|
| |
|
Location: Sawyer County, WI | Guest - 1/29/2011 9:06 PM
It's called "Chicago". Wisconsin is in easy driving distance from that large urban population center, like the Catskills and New York City.
Really ? I see vastly more Minnesota license plates in northern Wisconsin than I do Illinois plates. Is that due to the lack of good fishing in Minnesota ? I think not. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 67
| In my opinion I do believe it makes a difference in having the claim to fame for a area , I look at the numbers of new boats on the Larry since the McNair fish and a few others were made public , do i think this is a bad thing no , but i do believe that a lot of the hardcore muskie guys are going to book their vacations where they believe they have the best chance at a big fish ,this could be remedied by promoting an area for what it has to offer OTHER than the world record , I am sure the good people of Hayward have a lot to offer ! . |
|
| |
|
| My advice for those coming east to fish the Larry for the first time is leave your boat at home and hire a guide. I do not doubt your fishing prowess, I am concerned for your safety. I am not kidding.
This is not an 800 acre lake protected from prevailing winds by surrounding hills, this is big mean water that can suddenly make you feel like you are about as big as a grain of sand when five minutes before all seemed well.
There will be no boats for rent past Labor day and those available during summer are typically too small for the forty or anywhere else on the river come November. You also have seagoing international traffic to contend with, not party barges.
There was a Bass Masters tournament on Lake Erie out of Dunkirk harbor in the early nineties that saw weather which quickly turned, more than eighty bass boats were swamped miles from shore.
Don't mess with the great lakes or head out thinking you know you're stuff. Hire a guide and go in his boat. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | There is a very impressive number of folks here who know very well how to handle really big water. |
|
| |
|
| "The current 'record' was much more carefully looked into and debuked, and...there it is, still there. Got that now? My point was that Lawton's fish was dq'd by an image and a rank amateur analysis,"
The current 'record' was NOT more carefully looked into and debunked. The analysis of the current 'record' was also based upon an IMAGE. And let me add that the IGFA also believed the IMAGE of Lawton's fish showed it to be bogus. They obviously feel the IMAGE of Johnson's fish shows it to be legit and this fish was analyzed by the same photogrammetrist that did the Spray fish. Apparently both record keepers consider DCM to be crooked.
If you have a beef it should be with the IGFA. If they hadn't removed Lawton's fish it would have put a lot of pressure on the NFWFHoF to reinstate it.
Also consider that neither of the record keepers want anything to do with a 'historical' category so what's the point in talking about this?
As far as I'm concerned that poll on the other thread is a lot more indicative of how people feel about the legitimacy of the Spray and Johnson records than this one. I'm also very disappointed that Lawton's fish wasn't included in this poll.
If you truly feel these 'historical' records are bogus I don't understand why you would want things to go back to the way they were.
|
|
| |
|
| Guest---The Johnson fish was not ONLY discredited by an accredited organization's analysis of the photo. But there is also the existence of a skin mount of the Johnson fish displayed at the Moccasin Bar in Hayward which has obvious distorted proportions like no other Musky due to what many believe to be augmenting the mount by the taxidermist. That challenge which could be easily proven one way or the other by simply removing the mount and x-raying it. But the option has been refused by the owner, based on a claim that the display case cannot be opened without damaging it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | The current 'record' was NOT more carefully looked into and debunked.'
You need to read more. I'm not talking about the IGFA.
You're not understanding what I am trying to say to FSF is not a surprise. |
|
| |
|
| The NFWFHoF and the IGFA have spoken. Obviously they aren't concerned about what others believe. How they view the distorted proportions of the mount is their business.
Once again, I say if you have a beef it should be with the IGFA. The IGFA upheld the Johnson record, NOT the NFWFHoF. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | What? |
|
| |
|
| I've read everything there is to read about what happened with the NFWFHoF. If the IGFA hadn't removed Lawton we wouldn't even be talking about this. |
|
| |
|
| You mean you are not aware that the IGFA was responsible for upholding the Johnson record? |
|
| |
|
| The arguement has always been if the bogus Spray and Johnson records are to remain in place, then the bogus Lawton fish should be reinstated out of fairness.
This makes no sense whatsoever. If a criminal is wrongly released, should all the other criminals be released out of fairness?
|
|
| |
|
| Guest - 1/30/2011 3:00 PM The NFWFHoF and the IGFA have spoken. Obviously they aren't concerned about what others believe. How they view the distorted proportions of the mount is their business.LOL! Only as you see it...
Once again, I say if you have a beef it should be with the IGFA. The IGFA upheld the Johnson record, NOT the NFWFHoF.[/QUOTE]
The 'beef' with the NFWFHF is the Spray fish, remember? |
|
| |
|
| As I said, BOTH record keepers obviously believe that DCM is crooked. Therefore you can't fault them because you have no way of proving they're wrong. The NFWFHoF believes DCM is wrong about the Spray fish while the IGFA believes DCM is wrong about the Johnson fish. BOTH record keepers believe the Lawton fish is bogus so you can't expect them to treat this fish the same as they do the others. |
|
| |
|
| But there's more,
Only as I see it? I'm talking about how THEY see it!
As far as the 'beef' with the NFWFHoF being about the Spray fish, why? The NFWFHoF feels DCM is crooked and you have no way of proving they're wrong. The IGFA also feels DCM was wrong about the Johnson fish so why even argue about this? The main thing is BOTH organizations feel Lawton's fish is bogus and they are the ones making the decisions.
|
|
| |
|
| But there's more,
Your first post was about the Johnson fish which is the IGFA record which was upheld by them. The NFWFHoF was not involved in their decision. Why would you bring up the Johnson fish and then mention the 'beef' being with the NFWFHoF and the Spray fish? When referring to the Johnson fish shouldn't YOUR 'beef' be with the IGFA?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 909
| Page 8! Talk about beatin' a dead horse! Oh well, its winter time. What the heck!
Brian |
|
| |
|
Posts: 73
| muskie24/7 - 1/30/2011 5:23 PM
Page 8! Talk about beatin' a dead horse! Oh well, its winter time. What the heck!
Brian ;-)
What's the current record on a similar thread's page-count anyway, sworrall?
The good news here is that there's a new sheriff in town, as indicated by Mr. Ramsell's post on page 6 of this thread. The higher standards that are being put into play for evaluating the legitimacy of future claims to the WR position should help eliminate the need for our kids to be engaged in similar threads. (Catch a big one soon, somebody!) |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| I just wish the mill rate for keeping this thing alive for 10,000 posts was a little higher. My January check from M1 would be sweet!
As it is, barely keeps me in free baits. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20245
Location: oswego, il | The NNFWFHoF thought the DCM analysys was crooked? What was the mathmatical analysis the NFWFHoF used in the records defense then? Didn't one of the mathmaticians say the fish was not as big as it was claimed to be? Didn't they say the hall misused their analysis? wow! |
|
| |
|
| You should've contracted to get paid by the 'view', with posts being secondary. |
|
| |
|
| Anyone with half a brain can see for themselves there is no way Johnson's musky could've had a 33" girth and there is no way Spray could have caught three #60 muskys in 10 years that coincidentally happened to break the wr by a couple pounds each time. May be just use a little common sense here and not take it to the 9th? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'The argument has always been if the bogus Spray and Johnson records are to remain in place, then the bogus Lawton fish should be reinstated out of fairness. '
This has nothing to do with what is fair. It has to do with what motivated the removal of the Lawton fish and what motivates the keeping of the current 'record'. If one 'bogus' fish was removed while others obviously remain, then let's just leave the 'historical' records as they were before John began his new career manipulating the records and recognize them as JUST that; historical records. |
|
| |
|
| Here Here , I agree lets leave them as hysterical , oops i mean historical records ! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 158
| Why are so many people posting as "Guest" in this thread?
It takes about 20 seconds to register, then sign in. |
|
| |
|
| What motivated the removal of the Lawton fish is that the NFWFHoF felt it was bogus and the IGFA agreed.
What motivates the NFWFHoF to keep the Spray fish in place is that they feel the fish is legitimate and that DCM is corrupt.
What motivates the IGFA to keep the Johnson fish in place is that they also feel DCM is corrupt and that this fish is legitimate.
In the eyes of the record keepers only ONE of these fish is bogus and that is the Lawton fish.
The record keepers will NEVER classify these fish as 'historical' and neither should anybody else.
Why should the 'muskie community' recognize these fish as anything but bogus if that's what they feel they are?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | While everyone is eititled to their own "opinion", you "guest" are wrong on all counts:
Quote: "What motivated the removal of the Lawton fish is that the NFWFHoF felt it was bogus and the IGFA agreed."
LR: This is totally incorrect/false and couldn't be further from the truth. The IGFA said at the time and again a couple of years ago that they did NOT buy the Dettloff investigation of Lawton, rather were "uncertain" that an appropriate photograph of the fish existed...period!
Guest: "What motivates the NFWFHoF to keep the Spray fish in place is that they feel the fish is legitimate and that DCM is corrupt."
LR: This too is an absolute falsehood! Neither organization has EVER said they thought DCM was "corrupt". You are nearing libel.
Guest: "What motivates the IGFA to keep the Johnson fish in place is that they also feel DCM is corrupt and that this fish is legitimate."
LR: SEE ABOVE, plus the FACT that even though the IGFA hypocritically "set-aside" the Lawton record due to photograph, they stated with regard to the Johnson fish that weight could not be determined from a phototgraph...have you read all of the above posts?
Guest: "In the eyes of the record keepers only ONE of these fish is bogus and that is the Lawton fish."
LR: Nice try, again SEE ABOVE.
Guest: "The record keepers will NEVER classify these fish as 'historical' and neither should anybody else."
LR: Do you know something no one else in the muskie world knows? I seriously doubt it. Never say "never", stranger things have happened.
Guest: "Why should the 'muskie community' recognize these fish as anything but bogus if that's what they feel they are?"
LR: I don't recall the readers/posters of this forum electing you to speak for us? I don't recall a Lawton poll here, so I'd assume you are guessing huh? I think most folks can speak for themselves and don't need you to ANON. sit behind your computer and spout off! In fact, I challenge ALL to post using their name if they wish anyone to give any credibility to what you say.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8820
| How, in the eyes of the record keepers, can it be okay to dismiss one fish based on photo evidence, and then turn around and say "we can't determine the size of a fish based on photo evidence" and uphold that record???
It's like Clinton's famous line -- "That depends on what your definition of 'is' is"..
As for what the "muskie community" recognizes? Well, most of us have seen enough big fish to look at a picture of one and come pretty close to the actual size and weight, give or take a few pounds and a few inches. Clearly, 85% of the people who actually fish for these things are convinced the records are bogus, and with good reason. Opinions aren't what matters here, what matters is the truth. Clearly, that is something that many folks would like to evade.
Does it MATTER? Well, it's not going to change my life, or my fishing. But as most others, I'd really like to see the records represent reality. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'The record keepers will NEVER classify these fish as 'historical' and neither should anybody else. '
Why not? It's obvious the record keeping groups are not able to dodge the politics and manipulations by John and a couple other folks, so there it is. I have no personal issue with the FFHOF, in fact OFM was the only media company present to videotape the recent inductions at the America's Outdoor Show. I DO have an issue with their inability to address and correct the huge blemish the conflict of interest from the Dettloff manipulations have created, and how that damages their otherwise reasonable credibility.
One reasonable resolution is for both organizations to admit the record keeping back then was a lot more than 'suspect', and simply keep the 'historical records' for Muskie as listed before John had the Lawton fish removed. The Hall and IGFA need to then come up with a real and provable record from whatever list is chosen...and stand behind that choice with more than a 'because we say so' burden of proof. |
|
| |
|
| Nice try but no soap. The IGFA did NOT remove the Lawton record due to an uncertainty. They were CERTAIN that they did not have a photograph of this fish that they felt supported the size of the fish, PERIOD!
No, neither organization came right out and said that DCM is corrupt but their actions speak for themselves.
Maybe a poll should be started about the Lawton fish? I don't know anyone but you who thinks this fish is legitimate. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | 2 legit. 2 legit to quit. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Guest,
Seriously, do you actually ever read the posts before responding?
Larry: 'SEE ABOVE, plus the FACT that even though the IGFA hypocritically "set-aside" the Lawton record due to photograph, they stated with regard to the Johnson fish that weight could not be determined from a phototgraph...have you read all of the above posts?'
Your response:'Nice try but no soap. The IGFA did NOT remove the Lawton record due to an uncertainty. They were CERTAIN that they did not have a photograph of this fish that they felt supported the size of the fish, PERIOD! '
Duh?
|
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | Guest - 1/31/2011 12:54 PM I don't know anyone but you who thinks this fish is legitimate. The trouble with guests... I agree with Larry. I also think you need to re-read everything that Larry wrote, and based on this comment I can see that you havent done that yet. From what I've read the point isn't that the Lawton fish is legit, the point is that if the IGFA is going to set aside one fish but not apply the same logic to the next then they are being hypocritical and should put the Lawton fish back as #1. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8820
| Guest - 1/31/2011 11:54 AM
Nice try but no soap. The IGFA did NOT remove the Lawton record due to an uncertainty. They were CERTAIN that they did not have a photograph of this fish that they felt supported the size of the fish, PERIOD!
No, neither organization came right out and said that DCM is corrupt but their actions speak for themselves.
Maybe a poll should be started about the Lawton fish? I don't know anyone but you who thinks this fish is legitimate.
Using that line of thinking... How could they possibly be certain they had a picture of the Spray fish that DID support the measurements, then? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 576
Location: Elk Grove Village, IL & Phillips, WI | No one is saying the Lawton fish is legit, either let them all stand or DQ them all. They should all be held to the same scrutiny. If a photo can DQ one, why not all? |
|
| |
|
| The IGFA did NOT hypocritically set aside Lawton. At the time there was NOTHING hypocritical about their decision. Their hypocrisy was expressed with the Johnson fish which was obviously a poor choice of words on their part.
Why do you think the IGFA removed the Lawton fish? Duh?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Wow. Stop and think...please. You are either absolutely totally and completely missing the point, or are unsuccessfully trying to spin your comments against Larry's and mine...hard to tell which.
The claimed hypocrisy is that they set aside the Lawton fish based on photos, then proclaimed it's not possible to determine the size of a fish by a photo on the Johnson fish.
No one is arguing the Lawton fish was legit. The argument is that the standing FFHOF record is just as ridiculous to leave as a record.
I think you need to read more or stop arguing, but that's me. |
|
| |
|
| Will Schultz,
Being you have been a WRMA member I'm surprised to hear this coming from you. I thought you were only interested in the truth about these fish. Reinstating Lawton will definately not make everything RIGHT in the muskie world. Make no mistake, I've read everything out there about these fish and will be speaking shortly to Jason Schratwieser about the Lawton review. I will do everything in my power to see to it that this fish is NEVER reinstated. Some of the things I've uncovered will amaze you as well as the IGFA. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | CP/CG,
Apparently you are still having interpretation issues .
Do you honestly think anyone here really expects the FFHOF to disallow Dettloff's new career and reinstate the historical records or the IGFA to adjust the record? Everything in your power won't have to be very much.
You are yelling at the wall, dude, please stop. |
|
| |
|
Location: SE Wisconsin | Strong feelings on this topic...
Edited by Sam Ubl 1/31/2011 12:51 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | Guest - 1/31/2011 1:33 PM Will Schultz, Being you have been a WRMA member I'm surprised to hear this coming from you. I thought you were only interested in the truth about these fish. Reinstating Lawton will definately not make everything RIGHT in the muskie world. Make no mistake, I've read everything out there about these fish and will be speaking shortly to Jason Schratwieser about the Lawton review. I will do everything in my power to see to it that this fish is NEVER reinstated. Some of the things I've uncovered will amaze you as well as the IGFA. I think everyone knows the truth but that's not the point. The point is that if the IGFA are willing to set aside one record using a photo but then say they are not willing to use a photo, well, which is it? Is it OK or not OK? If it is not OK then they should put the Lawton fish back. If it is OK (keep in mind they set the precedent with Lawton) then they need to reconsider their decision on the Johnson fish. FWIW - I do find it insulting that you post as guest. |
|
| |
|
Location: SE Wisconsin | Well, since everyone has their own opinions that matter very little... Let me say that in my opinion, all three (Lawton fish, Johnson fish and Spray's fish) are no where near the estimated sizes... nearly 70 pounds? c'mon, 57 inchers caught this year by a few look bigger than those fish. Are there any mid-60lb fish that have been verified since color photography?? Here are their pictures... these are not 65-69" fish, nor are they nearly 70lbs.
Attachments
----------------
thumbnail.jpg (18KB - 487 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Location: SE Wisconsin | Kyle Anderson's 55" 50lber looks bigger than all of the above!
Attachments
----------------
1muskie.jpg (70KB - 2571 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 100 pounds, at least. |
|
| |
|
Location: SE Wisconsin | I was gonna say 90, but I'll side with you on that one, Steve |
|
| |
|
| "Do you honestly think anyone here expects the FFHOF to disallow Dettloff's new career and reinstate the historical records or the IGFA to adjust the records?"
Didn't I just hear "Never say "never", stranger things have happened."?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Guest Number ?? wrote: "My apologies. I meant to say when Lawton was 'set aside'. As far as I'm concerned this was just a nicer way of saying disqualified."
LR: Lawton was "disqualified" by the NFWFHF and was only "set-aside" by the IGFA and to my knowledge, the IGFA's position remains the same..."Now if Lawton supporters can come up with a new photo they find somewhere, we'll be happy to reconsider" (Then IGFA President Mike Leach quote).
Former "Field & Stream" Fishing Editor Ken Schultz said at the time that in his opinion, ..."that there's not enough evidence to throw the Lawton record out. I don't think they've (Dettloff and/or the IGFA) proved 'Field & Stream' certified the wrong fish..."
And the beat goes on...
Can't change stupid and can't change the facts!
Edited by Larry Ramsell 1/31/2011 2:05 PM
|
|
| |
|
| What difference does the 'opinion' of a former 'Field & Stream fishing editor make?
The statement by Mike Leach CLEARLY points out that he is NOT satisfied with the photo representing Lawton's fish.
You are correct, you can't change the FACTS! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Apparently, C, you don't understand the influence the 'big three' and especially Field and Stream had back then.
'School' him please, Larry.
|
|
| |
|
| Will Schultz,
Being the IGFA 'set the precedent' with Lawton their duty is to remove the Johnson fish, NOT to reinstate Lawton. If they reinstated the Lawton fish all the work done by the WRMA was for nothing.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 73
| I was wondering, now a days when someone catches a fish and it is weighed on a certified scale do they cut the fish open to examine the stomach contents? I just got done reading a book about the fishing Derby held out at Martha's Vineyard every year and I know that for the stripers weighed they cut the fish open. The book is called "The Big One" and its by David Kinney. If any of you want to read a good fishing book, this is definitely one of them. Some of these guys are so secretive and insane that it makes musky fisherman look mild. |
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | Guest - 1/31/2011 3:01 PM Will Schultz, Being the IGFA 'set the precedent' with Lawton their duty is to remove the Johnson fish, NOT to reinstate Lawton. If they reinstated the Lawton fish all the work done by the WRMA was for nothing. Would it really be for nothing? Wouldn't the IGFA simply look foolish if they reinstated the Lawton fish because they had to live by their own standards? The point is they need to pick their stance and live with it. Sometimes you need to play the lawyer type games to get the correct end result. Oh and yes, I'm still offended that you are posting as "guest". Maybe we should all sign off and post as guest. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Guest Number ?? wrote: "What difference does the 'opinion' of a former 'Field & Stream fishing editor make?"
LR: Field & Stream was the entitly that ESTABLISHED the Lawton World Record in the first place! I believe what their Fishing Editor had to say about the decision was quite germain, since as sworrall pointed out, they were one of the "big three" (outdoor magazines and a HUGE influence in the angling world)!
Guest cont.: "The statement by Mike Leach CLEARLY points out that he is NOT satisfied with the photo representing Lawton's fish."
LR: Correct, and ergo, the current dilema of the IGFA's hypocrisy with regard to their decision on the Johnson fish. They simply cannot have it both ways; you cannot tell "weight" by a photograph, hence Lawton should not have been removed in the first place OR Johnson should have been removed in the second place after the WRMA protest. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Same guest, Larry, and yes, we know who the guy is. Not uncommon for him to get riled up about this sort of issue, he usually does. Why he's not logging in is anyone's guess, but we do not require he does as long as he remains civil. |
|
| |
|
| sworrall - 1/31/2011 2:10 PM
100 pounds, at least.
of course if you put them all on the same scale |
|
| |
|
| Obviously the IGFA feels that Field & Stream WRONGLY accepted the Lawton fish as a world record.
You already told the IGFA they cannot have it both ways and what was their reply?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Will:
Just reflecting on your WRMA "for nothing" comment with regard to Lawton. Actually, the WRMA did NOTHING with Lawton! I know they think it unnessary, but then I am aware of work with the same program that DCM used (photomodeler) that apparently indicates that the Lawton fish is close to the length claimed!
While I applaud the work the WRMA did, I (and others apparently from previous posts on this board) don't feel that the WRMA has completed their mission, yet. In my mind, that should include a DCM ananlysis of the Lawton fish.
To respond to the post above this one, which was posted while I was making my latest: The IGFA's response to my hypocrisy charge was somewhat normal for them...they chose to not respond. Understandable, what could they say? Still bet if they could go back to the early 90's and have a "do over", they would!!
Edited by Larry Ramsell 1/31/2011 3:07 PM
|
|
| |
|
| I have enjoyed reading most of the 9 pages on this topic. Real easy to end the debate...Ken O'brien, Oct 16, 1988, Georgian Bay, 65 lbs, 58" End of story. This IS the real world record. I think most musky fishermen would agree. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | guest - 1/31/2011 3:08 PM
I have enjoyed reading most of the 9 pages on this topic. Real easy to end the debate...Ken O'brien, Oct 16, 1988, Georgian Bay, 65 lbs, 58" End of story. This IS the real world record. I think most musky fishermen would agree.
wasn't that the garden-hose fish? i get them all confused.
i agree that hundred pounder with the guy in the camo pants looks like the biggest of all of em. that MUST be the real world record |
|
| |
|
| O'brien fish was killed, certified, ect. ect. ect. He was fishing for anything that would bite... Lets face it as musky fishermen...we all stink! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 426
Location: Perryville, MO | And again I ask...What's the beef with the O'Brien fish? Or at least simply, why do I get some goofy link when I click on the report from the WRMA site? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20245
Location: oswego, il | Dd defender on another site and others claimed that the obrien fish was filled with water. There is a picture of the fish hanging vertically with it's throat detached. I have seen no proof offered other than their claim in that particular photo and I raised the question along time ago perhaps it separated under the weight from hanging vertically but no one responded to that just like they did not respond in this thread to why their hired mathmatician said spray's fish was not as big as be claimed.
Edited by ToddM 1/31/2011 3:59 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | This "guest" post got me to thinking about this whole mess and going back to the Lawton chapter in Volume I of my book:
"If you are making a claim that the photomodeler software has been used to determine the length of Lawton's fish it is imperative that you identify the person using the software. Accurate results using photomodeler depend to a large extent upon the competency of the person using it."
LR: First of all, the WRMA should have DCM do the photomodeling for consistency, not rely on someone else who "may" have done so or may or may not be qualified.
Second of all, I have come to the conclusion that photo analysis for LENGTH means relatively nothing, since World Records are estaablished by WEIGHT! Based on work that I did in my Lawton review left me with this comment in my book:
"The range of calculated fish lengths from these three photographs illustrates the difficulty in accurately scaling fish size from photographs, even when the same pose is used at similar times with the same camera, vast differences in fish length were obtained. Not taking into account the subjective actual points where the measurements were taken, which can greatly affect the results, camera distance and photo size also affects the ultimate result. In the example above (pages 421-424), depending on which determined board size is used, results in the length of fish calculated from these photographs vary from 54.83 inches long, to 65.54 inches long; a difference of 10.71 inches, using the same subjects (Lawton and fish), the same pose and the same camera at about the same time. When factoring into this the variability in determining and manually reproducing exact measurement points, the questionable accuracy of manually determining fish length from photographs is apparent.
"Conclusion:
"What I found most fascinating in this exercise, was the fact that photo subject image size and the minor differences of distance of subjects from the camera, had a tremendous impact on the final calculation of fish size. Trying to determine fish length by scaling photographs, even with precision measuring instruments, is not a sound method."
And since it is weight that determines records, the only reliable determinent of past records should be scale and witnesses and the respected record committees that reviewed them. In the case of Lawton and Spray, Field & Steam was responsible. Johnson's fish was NOT reviewed to record standards since Spray userped him before their contest year was over. With regard to the Lawton weighing, there were many witnesses. With Spray's catch, there was only ONE witness to the weighing other than Spray himself and his two boat partners. Still, both met record requirements of the day and were accepted by Field & Stream. Both were weighed on certified scales.
Again, it's weight, not length. Disprove WEIGHT and the discussion can continue, otherwise, we are merely chasing our collective tails, making for an interesting and fun winter discussion, but having little affect on records. The record keepers however, need to look in the mirror and decide if they wish to continue playing games with photos and length, or concentrate on what matters, the WEIGHT of the fish.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell,
Muskellunge Historian
Edited by Larry Ramsell 1/31/2011 4:07 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | ToddM:
The reason the throat of O'brien's fish is "detached" is because he slit it with a filet knife to kill it. He had no other way to do so.
As noted in another post, there is a problem with the O'brien fish. I'm told a report will be out before spring. However, it has to do with fish length and not weight (note: the "hose theory" has never been proven). Here we go again!!
|
|
| |
|
| If the throat was slit, I could see how that could definately affect a length measurement of the fish. On the other hand, that would also affect the weight of the fish in a negative manner. That fish had to loose a significant amount of blood, fluids etc. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 426
Location: Perryville, MO | Thanks Todd and Larry...I found the thread on another site discussing the "issues" surrounding the O'Brien fish and I understand that a report is still forthcoming. I now understand the "stay tuned" statement made earlier in the thread. I see that I have to "stay tuned" until the Spring. Well, I'll be fishing come the end of Feb so I'll find out the results next winter I guess.
Edited by hawkeye9 1/31/2011 4:48 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | John Powers and Paul Gasparino witnessed the weighing of the Obrien fish their word is good enough for me.
Gaspar told me the fish was still alive when weighed.
Frank Shelton
Tweed Ontario |
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | Larry Ramsell - 1/31/2011 4:01 PM Will: Just reflecting on your WRMA "for nothing" comment with regard to Lawton. Actually, the WRMA did NOTHING with Lawton! Those were not my words, those were the words of "guest" that said the WRMA work would be for nothing if the IGFA reinstated Lawton. I'm well aware that WRMA did nothing with Lawton. The point was/is the IGFA ruled they wouldn't do anything with Johnson based on a photo but the IGFA set aside Lawton based on a photo. Thus making their Johnson ruling hypocritical. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 6
Location: Inverary, Ontario | Obrien's fish appeared to be a freak, and full of bullheads, which helps explain the extreme weight.
Spay, Lawton,Johnson, not even close.
Up till now,(given the chance) always thought I'd keep the WR, but the controversy that would follow, not to mention the added fishing pressure, not sure I'd want it.
We musky fisherman are obsessed... |
|
| |
|
| O'briens fish is in Gano bar. Why its in 40 acre shoal area and not Georgian Bay have no idea.
I touched it for good luck drunk one night. Very easy for someone to measure it for length. Probably could take it home if you really wanted to as the place is usually empty. Surprised it has not been stolen yet. Unless I was drunk and its a replica I was told its the real fish.
I think the guy with the camo pants has the world release record easily bigger than the current catch and release record and by looks of the photo I think the guy in the camo pants released it as well. Surprised people do not complain about the world record release photo. That is worse than the Lawton and Johnson fish. Can someone post that photo. Will be good for at least another 50 replies to this thread.
Go out and catch a 70 pounder. Otherwise no world record. Want release record go get a 64 incher. Until than can we stop complaining and man up and get it done.
Todd Booth |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1145
| Sam Ubl - 1/31/2011 1:08 PM
Kyle Anderson's 55" 50lber looks bigger than all of the above!
I totally agree. Can hardly believe that fish only weighed 50 lbs. Then again, it doesn't look like Kyle is much more than 5' tall, if that. IMO that is the most impressive picture of a recent catch. However, the size of the angler has a big effect.
Edited by MartinTD 2/1/2011 7:10 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Maybe we should lobby to have all the of the 'new' records recorded millimeters. If big numbers make you feel good, the metric system is for you!
“I caught a 914mm Musky today that weighed 4535 grams.” (Sounds huge, doesn’t it?) |
|
| |
|
| let us all agree on one thing ... Spray fish=fake
Johnson fish=fake
Lawton fish= fake
Now lets all take a break until a real 70lb fish is caught and landed |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Might be a very long break. |
|
| |
|
Location: Sawyer County, WI | One that I'm sure would be welcomed by most. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Really? Look at the views on this thread. |
|
| |
|
| I have been told by those who I have no reason to doubt, men I have known for years, one of them affiliated with a "national magazine" and two of them guides with well respected reputations that fish have been caught and released in Ontario and New York in more than one area (not limited to one water way) that have easily gone over 70 pounds.
Why no news then? Go figure!
Who wants all the trouble and the mobs that follow?
There exists a mentality these days, a playground mentality of "Go kill the guy with the ball" and these guys just don't want to play that game. They know what they caught and are happy with the memories and the private photos, I have seen some of them. More than one fish I assure you.
I can't blame them for their privacy, it's their business. They are into fishing.
Pretty much that's it. They are into fishing and don't much care to bring down a storm on themselves.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | And then I woke up. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8820
| Guest - 2/1/2011 11:36 PM
I have been told by those who I have no reason to doubt, men I have known for years, one of them affiliated with a "national magazine" and two of them guides with well respected reputations that fish have been caught and released in Ontario and New York in more than one area (not limited to one water way) that have easily gone over 70 pounds.
Why no news then? Go figure!
Who wants all the trouble and the mobs that follow?
There exists a mentality these days, a playground mentality of "Go kill the guy with the ball" and these guys just don't want to play that game. They know what they caught and are happy with the memories and the private photos, I have seen some of them. More than one fish I assure you.
I can't blame them for their privacy, it's their business. They are into fishing.
Pretty much that's it. They are into fishing and don't much care to bring down a storm on themselves.
Hmph. The dozen or so "reputable guides" I've fished with over the years (many of whom are from Ontario, and put multiple 50" fish in the boat every year) seem to think muskies just don't get that big.
"Easily" over 70#? It's easy to call a fish 70#, but I suspect your friends would be dissapointed to see what those fish really weighed.
Edited by esoxaddict 2/2/2011 9:49 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 6
Location: Inverary, Ontario | Had the pleasure of netting and releasing a 58" ST. L. fish last year, it looked and felt like 60 at the time, but likely less. Have yet to see pics of anything close to seventy, in spite of some claims to it.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 158
| I was looking through some old Musky Hunter magazines and found the article they ran about Lawton's overturned fish, and the two magazines that ran the article, "In Defense of Louis Spray". EDIT: I don't buy the size of the Spray fish, but I do admit, that there is a picture in one of those articles of him standing to a mount of his fish, and the angle and picture do make the fish look bigger than in the typical picture we are all used to.
Edited by LonLB 2/2/2011 11:04 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| Guest - 2/1/2011 11:36 PM
I have been told by those who I have no reason to doubt, men I have known for years, one of them affiliated with a "national magazine" and two of them guides with well respected reputations that fish have been caught and released in Ontario and New York in more than one area (not limited to one water way) that have easily gone over 70 pounds.
Why no news then? Go figure!
Who wants all the trouble and the mobs that follow?
There exists a mentality these days, a playground mentality of "Go kill the guy with the ball" and these guys just don't want to play that game. They know what they caught and are happy with the memories and the private photos, I have seen some of them. More than one fish I assure you.
I can't blame them for their privacy, it's their business. They are into fishing.
Pretty much that's it. They are into fishing and don't much care to bring down a storm on themselves.
LOL. Exactly why guest posts are so highly disregarded on this forum.
I have started to think all guest post carry the same weight. But, that's just me. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20245
Location: oswego, il | I have not seen much meat coming from the pro hayward guest posts, just one sided stuff. For example, the guest post who wished lawton would have come clean like hartman did. No mention that the guest wish spray or johnson would have come clean too. It's always the same with the pro hayward guest posts, dance around the facts. |
|
| |
|
Location: Sawyer County, WI | sworrall - 2/1/2011 10:22 PM
Really? Look at the views on this thread.
Look at the circulation of the National Enquirer. |
|
| |
|
| I wish they ALL would have come clean like Hartman did. But then, this will be disregarded because I'm an anon poster. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | This ain't the National Enquirer. If you are not a muskie angler, even if you are very computer savvy, it's doubtful you would visit this place. Conversely, if you are a muskie angler and have a computer, it's likely you will. Big difference. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 67
| Todd i do get your point , but i think it would be much better worded "the pro Spray or Pro Johnson guests ", I do believe that there are a lot of fine people in Hayward and i don't think that a few bad apples spoil the lot .Imagine how you would feel if someone from your area tainted your reputation and you could do nothing about it , and just so you know I'm not from Hayward and have never been there
Bill |
|
| |
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | The world record(s) have no more legitimacy than people give them. If the vast majority do not give them legitimacy, then they have none. It is that simple. It is no different for anything else. For instance, the hot dog eating world record has been disputed at times. Not only that, but the hot dogs are bigger in the USA than other countries. Of course one can eat more over-seas.
A much more difficult world record might be the time required for a man to take his attention off a good football game and listen to his wife when she unexpectedly comes up and asks him something - like where he put something or, worse yet, how she looks in some article of clothing. How fast can a man be expected to switch gears like that? Five, ten minutes?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 20245
Location: oswego, il | TH1958, that is true. Hayward is a wonderful place for sure. been there, been on the Chip. it is a beautiful body of water and will forever remain in mine and my kids memory as the first place we went on vacation. My oldest son's first pike. I should have not mixed the two.
I don't have any issues with most guest posts. Only the attack ones. Some people don't like any of them and I get some reasons for anonymity based on who that person is and to discuss the issue without sidetracking the thread. |
|
| |
|
| Three simple words....Visual Geometry Solution...why are you so afraid of the truth?????
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Context. Doesn't mean anything on it's own. Tell the entire story to allow proper rebuttal. |
|
| |
|
| by the way, I'm not trying to be a jerk, but that post has been deleted two times. Thanks for letting it stand. Seriously, Steve. Its appreciated.
The simple story is that the model is already made and available for use. Why don't you use it?
Or if you're not going to use it; meaning the WRMA or WMA or whatever iteration it is being called these days; then let someone one else use it. Geoffrey Cross is willing to let an independent third party use the model if the "rights" to the model are released. Perhaps, a buy-out?
As you know, the story has already been told; there is an entire group of photogrammetrists who simply disagree about the effectiveness of photomodeler and how it can be used in certain situations. That statement is not conjecture, it is fact.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I'm pretty sure very few people have a clue what you are talking about. Clear it up, please. |
|
| |
|
| Hey CS maybe I can clear this up in "three simple words"....save your usual song and dance. THREE WORLD RECORDS....LMAO! Everyone knows same likelihood him catching those records as Green Bay not watching the Super Bowl this Sunday. How about you just come clean and admit that 3 muskies in his day is closer to the truth, that's pretty generous because this includes the ones "KING LOU" shot off bridges. Give it up already, your king has no clothes. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4080
Location: Elko - Lake Vermilion | Ok,
You people who log on as Guest are really starting to tick me off !!! you need to man up and state your NAME ! Otherwise what you say means very little....... When someone with a Name has an opinion,..... that adds creditability to an issue ......
Quit hiding, and MAN UP........ Be creditable. State your name, man .
Jerome |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Know what? Length still seems to be the issue when it is weight that counts. So, perhaps we should forget about ALL the photographic "solutions" that have been done and concentrate on that. Besides, Spray didn't "catch" ANY of his three records unless the poachers he got them from (the first one never was paid) tossed them to him!
Chew on that for awhile. |
|
| |
|
| If the measurements have been falsified on an affidavit the stated weight also becomes meaningless.
Chew on that for awhile. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20245
Location: oswego, il | Let's not muddy up the debate by attacking unregistered users. I think many of us know who they are anyway. This is great discussion and as long as the unregistered guests are civil does it matter? Imho if they did post their names it would sidetrack all discussion on the issue. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 73
| Larry Ramsell - 2/3/2011 8:04 AM
Besides, Spray didn't "catch" ANY of his three records unless the poachers he got them from (the first one never was paid) tossed them to him!QUOTE]
Elaborate on that matter, Larry. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | CS said: "If the measurements have been falsified on an affidavit the stated weight also becomes meaningless."
LR: So true CS, so that tosses all of Louies fish out and Johnson's too for that matter! Measurement falsified AND not even caught by the anglers...how blind is the NFWFHF re both Spray and Johnson and the IGFA re Johnson?
Jim: Simple elaboration; I talked to the poacher that provided Spray's first "record" fish (AS HAS DETTLOFF!) and his brother provided the second one. They weren't involved in the third, but knew who was. They were also involved in the taking of the Malo fish, so there goes that one too CS, sorry.
So, that leaves Lawton still at the top; fish caught; properly measured, weighed and witnessed and accepted by Field & Stream, the "original" establisher of that world record, dispite what Dettloff tried to conjur up to get rid of him to make way for king louie the liar...SAD part is that Dettloff KNOWS Spray's fish are bogus!!
As an aside, if you feel the need for some kind of world record, just stay at Dettloff's resort and he'll help you get it like he did in 2009 with the shared all-tackle and 20 pound line class record released tiger muskie. Even the folks that hang around Indian Trail said that fish was mid to upper 40 inch class, NOT the 53 inches submitted for record. John knew better, but heck, when it comes to publicity for Indian Trail, the Chippewa Flowage and Hayward, what's a few inches here and there? In fairness to the angler involved, many folks figured he just made an honest mistake in remeasuring the "rope" he used to obtain length since he had no measuring device with him. And where was Hall director Emmett Brown's head when he accepted the fish for record...no mistaking the size discrepancy when looking at the photograph, which appeared in the Hayward paper.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell,
Muskellunge Historian
Edited by Larry Ramsell 2/3/2011 1:13 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Now we all know why Lawton's fish was disqualified by the NFWFHoF and why it was 'set aside' by the IGFA. Because LENGTH is just as important as weight and neither record keeper felt Lawton was honest about the length. They both felt the length was falsified on the affidavits. |
|
| |
|
| Just so you know, I'm in full agreement about the record tiger muskie release. That fish is nowhere near 53" and the NFWFHoF should be ashamed of themselves for accepting this fish as a 20 lb. line class record. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | CS: Your comment is purely conjecture and of course you cannot prove what you say. The TWO Lawton affidavits speak for themselves and one was prepared and witnessed by a Field & Stream representative. THAT sir is unrefutiated FACT. THe supposed third Dunn affidavit was prepared by Dettloff and said exactly what HE wanted it to say 35 years after the fact of Dunn's two affidavits done at the time of Lawtons Field & Stream entry. Dettloff showed no shame in his attempt to discredit Lawton for the glory of his "God" Spray! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | Larry ... could you research your records and let us know how many days before/after groundhog's day this subject pulls you into the web forums? ...
i think you could set your watch to this argument each season |
|
| |
|
| Dettloff showed no shame in his attempt to discredit Lawton for the glory of his "God" Spray! i don't for one second think the Spray fish is legit. that said, i sometimes wonder who's more obsessed with it: Dettloff or Ramsell. you may not worship Spray but you visit his church more than most, Larry... |
|
| |
|
| I don't have to prove what I say, the record keepers have proven it for me. |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | this argument is beyond a joke....anyone who has caught or been in the boat with a few low to mid 40 lb fish knows with 100% certainty the Spray fish was nowhere NEAR 69 lbs....I'm betting the 68 votes are a mix of people that have never been around 40 lb fish ...or part of the Hayward mafia! ;o)
Winternet. Luv it. Not. |
|
| |
|
| And that holds true for the Lawton fish as well. Who lied about more 60+ pounders? Lawton or Spray? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 691
Location: nationwide | Dettloff . . . .because he has lied about all of them. Oh sorry did I spell his name wrong.
Corey Meyer
Edited by muskymeyer 2/3/2011 3:38 PM
|
|
| |
|
| I think that sprays fish was not even close to being legit. However there is a pic of a musky caught by a net in butternut lake that could be way over 69 pounds. I think Spray wouldve tried to claim that fish but the pic was from the late 1800's. Looking at that pic is what makes me believe that the record could fall anytime.I have seen alot of pics and caught a few fish, but this fish makes them all look small. Maybe it had a giant gene disorder or something. Its amazing that nobody ever talks about that pic, knowing alot of you guys saw it. My two cents worth!!!! |
|
| |
|
| The lying was done by the anglers who supposedly caught the fish. No need to bring anyone else into this.
|
|
| |
|
| I think that sprays fish was not even close to being legit. However there is a pic of a musky caught by a net in butternut lake that could be way over 69 pounds. I think Spray wouldve tried to claim that fish but the pic was from the late 1800's. Looking at that pic is what makes me believe that the record could fall anytime.I have seen alot of pics and caught a few fish, but this fish makes them all look small. Maybe it had a giant gene disorder or something. Its amazing that nobody ever talks about that pic, knowing alot of you guys saw it. My two cents worth!!!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Why not, Chris? Back awhile ago we challenged this guy the guy for what amounted to trying to profit from a complete fabrication (CFMS) and there seems to be a pattern there.
The very REASON the WR is now from Hayward is this guy's actions. How can you separate the actions of this guy from this debate? He's the very basis for the debate, plain and simple.
Not the first time some pretty 'broad' ( nice way to say stretching the truth) statements have been made to draw tourists to an area and a specific business, but this one messes with the World Record Muskie, which isn't and that makes some folks fairly angry. Now, that doesn't mean that any of the other standing or fallen records of the era are any better or worse, but the underlying story here isn't that one or the other was real, it's the motivation, actions, and clear conflict of interest involved in bringing the record back to Hayward. |
|
| |
|
| I completely agree with what you're saying about the CFMS. However, the reason a Hayward fish is the IGFA record is because they believe Johnson's fish is larger than O'Brien's or Lawton's. They removed the Lawton fish for the SAME reason the NFWFHoF did. The ONLY reason the IGFA doesn't recognize the Spray fish as being the largest of all is because it was shot during the landing process which is not acceptable by them for WR recognition. The Spray fish would be listed as the record by BOTH record keepers if it hadn't been shot during the landing process.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'do you think the world record muskies caught by Cal Johnson and Louis Spray were as large as stated?'
No.
And a few folks disagree, quite a few agree.
And there you have it. |
|
| |
|
| Steve,
Do you feel Lawton's fish was as large as claimed? Yes, or no? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 337
Location: Central WI | 110 pounds....
Attachments
----------------
110lb-musky.jpg (95KB - 636 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Sled: It varies with the severity of the winter, alignment of planets etc., so no set time frame. Besides, we're between muskie shows.
Sworral: VERY well stated. Had it not be for Dettloff's messing with records to clear the way for louie the liar, we wouldn't be having these discussions.
CS: Being shot is not the only IGFA rule that Spray's fish violated. The "claimed" six hooks he was using on his supposed sucker rig was a violation too, even though legal at the time, as was shooting, although since he didn't really catch the fish, that too was a moot point.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Personally, I do not.
the guy weighs 110 maybe... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 337
Location: Central WI | srugots4u - 2/3/2011 3:40 PM
I think that sprays fish was not even close to being legit. However there is a pic of a musky caught by a net in butternut lake that could be way over 69 pounds. I think Spray wouldve tried to claim that fish but the pic was from the late 1800's. Looking at that pic is what makes me believe that the record could fall anytime.I have seen alot of pics and caught a few fish, but this fish makes them all look small. Maybe it had a giant gene disorder or something. Its amazing that nobody ever talks about that pic, knowing alot of you guys saw it. My two cents worth!!!!
Where's the pic at? I like looking at old black and white musky pics.
Edited by bobtodd 2/3/2011 4:51 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Bobtodd: That "HOAX" was actually perpetrated in 1908. Fun stuff, but not so! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8820
| sworrall - 2/3/2011 4:34 PM
Personally, I do not.
the guy weighs 110 maybe...
Put that 110# muskie in the books with this 42" 30# walleye...
Edited by esoxaddict 2/3/2011 4:39 PM
Attachments
----------------
29.5.jpg (232KB - 403 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 73
| I know the fish your talking about out of Butternut. I saw it in a book that John from Smokeys let me borrom. I remember thinking to myself that is was by far the biggest fish I've ever seen. If I remember right I think it was netted out of there right at the turn of the century. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 337
Location: Central WI |
Edited by bobtodd 2/3/2011 4:50 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Guys, the Butternut Lake "monster" is merely another of Spray's photographic hoaxes. Spray grew up around Butternut Lake and says he caught his first monster of 46 pounds from the in the very early 1900's. His entire life was a sham and his criminal exploits were well documented by HIM in his book; Bootlegger; house of ill-repute, game and fish out of season or captured illegally, etc. Some guy to look up to as a record holder...not! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| Larry Ramsell - 2/3/2011 4:51 PM
Guys, the Butternut Lake "monster" is merely another of Spray's photographic hoaxes. Spray grew up around Butternut Lake and says he caught his first monster of 46 pounds from the in the very early 1900's. His entire life was a sham and his criminal exploits were well documented by HIM in his book; Bootlegger; house of ill-repute, game and fish out of season or captured illegally, etc. Some guy to look up to as a record holder...not!
So, you're sayin if there is dishonesty in a fellas past, he can never be trusted in anything? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8820
| Liars don't typically become honest men when there is every reason for them to lie some more. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| lambeau - 2/3/2011 3:16 PM
Dettloff showed no shame in his attempt to discredit Lawton for the glory of his "God" Spray! i don't for one second think the Spray fish is legit. that said, i sometimes wonder who's more obsessed with it: Dettloff or Ramsell. you may not worship Spray but you visit his church more than most, Larry...
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1207
Location: Pigeon Forge TN. | This thread is exactly the reason why, that if I should EVER, be lucky enough to catch one big enough that I thought it would be a record of ANY kind, nobody would know besides my self and whom ever may be with me at the time and I would have the only pictures of it and it would stay alive to die of old age. I feel that no matter which route one took to have it weighed and measured certified or not, it would still bring about another thread like this one and heavy scrutiny would follow as it is now. There is just no pleasing everyone out there period. Other than that, I keep my beliefs and comments to myself. I don't need the noriety ( spelled wrong but you know what I mean) at all of any kind.
No offense meant to the guests but I do sign my name. That is ones right to do so or not.
Tight lines to all,
Edited by Stan Durst 1 2/3/2011 6:52 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Stan, You have to remember that these fish getting scrutinized are ridiculous exaggerations, almost total fabrications. I haven't see anybody questioning one thing on Tom Gelb's or Kyle's MI record, and for good reason.
If you caught a new world record (or anything over 60 lbs
for that matter) the photograph would support the claim and it would be the biggest looking muskie of all time. How hard would it be to take 50-60 pictures and have a news crew film the fish being measured and weighed?
Seriously, if somebody gets a legitimate 60lber they should immediately contact Larry Ramsell for entry into the modern-day records program so at least us muskie fishermen can have a realistic record to be proud of. |
|
| |
|
Location: Sawyer County, WI |
Hey Larry,
First, thanks for your efforts to expose the truth. Keep up the good work.
Two questions for you:
You said: "LR: So true CS, so that tosses all of Louies fish out and Johnson's too for that matter! Measurement falsified AND not even caught by the anglers...how blind is the NFWFHF re both Spray and Johnson and the IGFA re Johnson? "
Question one: Are you suggesting that Johnsons fish was caught by someone other than Johnson ?
Question two: is "unrefutiated" a word ? :-D
Hope to get a chance to talk with you again at Pastika's this summer. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 67
| i wish i could say that i have been enlightened by some of the debate on this thread , but it is not to be , I will have to side with Larry on this one , the Lawton fish is the only one of the historical records that is even half believable , I really hoped that there would be some new facts come out after years of debate, how about if we all agree on the Lawton fish , but say it was caught at Johns resort LMAO Now let the games begin the first true sixty is waiting to stir the pot ! Bill |
|
| |
|
| Steve,
When you said "Personally I do not" directly below the 110 lb. hoax photo you were referring to my yes, or no question about if you believe Lawton's fish was as large as claimed, correct?
I just want to make sure there is no misunderstanding here. If this is correct I highly appreciate you giving me a straight answer.
|
|
| |
|
| Larry Ramsell - 2/3/2011 4:51 PM
His entire life was a sham and his criminal exploits were well documented by HIM in his book; Bootlegger; house of ill-repute, game and fish out of season or captured illegally, etc.
Some hero you have there 6'! That hooligan did nothing in this life that should be believed. It's not like he did these bad things when he was a kid, his exploits are well documented before, during, and after his claims on these records. Did you know that it his illegal liquor establishment mysteriously burned down the night before it was set to be rated (He received a tip), and that his over insured Frankenstein fish mounts conveniently burned up in a fire just after he closed his bar (didn't need them anymore)? The guy was as crooked as a hockey stick, and everyone in Hayward knew it.
Before Louie the liar was exposed for what he really was, Dettloff used to make a pretty good penny writing articles and doing seminars. It was quite a bonanza for him because not only did he make money off of the articles and seminars, he also was able to promote his resort at the same time (how convenient). I remember one of his seminars was called "an afternoon with Louie Spray" LOL, better hold tight to your wallet if you're going to spend the afternoon with Spray and Dettloff!
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1207
Location: Pigeon Forge TN. | To take all those pictures, the fish would have to die which I don't want to happen personally, but that is the way I am. I have no problem with someone harvesting a fish for food. But to kill such a beauty for pictures or a record, just isn't me.
I don't keep any kind of fish I catch, they all go free. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4080
Location: Elko - Lake Vermilion | Good for you and all who believe like you do......But if I catch a 70lbr. it dies, and Smoked Muskie we will have.......At 70lbs., that fish is going to die soon anyway ! and then we will have to argue about global warming or the Packers and Bears more. A world record Musky will have to be killed in order to prove it.
I will release a 60lbr. or smaller
Jerome
Stan Durst 1 - 2/3/2011 8:02 PM
To take all those pictures, the fish would have to die which I don't want to happen personally, but that is the way I am. I have no problem with someone harvesting a fish for food. But to kill such a beauty for pictures or a record, just isn't me.
I don't keep any kind of fish I catch, they all go free. |
|
| |
|
| I re-posted over here since the response below was originally replied to based on Steve's query. Plus, I would like to follow-up with a question and comment in a subsequent post or two -- thanks.
Steve - you were kind enough to ask for some context under the guise that very few people on this board would understand what I was talking about.
I would like to conclude your request and I hope you appreciate why someone might post as simply a guest. I think anyone who is interested would find it informative:
My best micro - Cliff Notes version since I am remote. Apologies in advance for any editorial, but this is the way I see it:
On or about 10/2003, two very fine musky anglers started a campaign to authenticate or disprove the existing records as they stood at that time. Initially, there was an idea of disputing past records based on probability. The case went something like this....the mathematical impossibility is that no one will ever be able to catch so few fish (less than 50?) and have 3 60lbers without having any high 40s or other 50s. To catch multiple muskies over 50lbs, you need huge numbers.......
Never mind, a whole litany of baseball records that still exist from the 30's and 40's, and the recent update on the Linder's catch of 28 muskies in 6 days on Lac Court Oreilles (sp?), but perhaps the best agrument against this initial case was made by Roy Crawford who stated one of the key elements of catching big fish is that they have to have existed at the time and location caught. To believe that Spray caught these records, you have to believe that Cal Johnson's and Robert Malo's big fish were real. If so, then it appears that big fish did exist in Hayward in those days. By the way, I'm not interested in debating this, it's just a chronology from one persons vantage point.
Anyway, fast forward to on or about 9/2004, WRMA began a campaign drive to help fund the photo analysis being conducted on various record fish. As I understand it, the the first firm that was formally engaged by WRMA was a group called Visual Geometry Solutions, which is located in England and a team of maybe two or three people was headed by Geoffrey Cross. VGS was provided with various Spray photographs and the initial intention was to start with the early record and work their way up to the big enchilada.
Puportedly, Larry Ramsell inadvertently provided VGS with the reported dimensions. Some some reason that I never understood, but purpostedly the WRMA felt this tainted the entire process and model that they had already built and funded.
That logic never seemed right to me on many levels and can be debated some other time.
Again, fast forward, the WRMA then found DCM.
In speaking with Dr. Geoffrey Cross is is my understanding that they could complete the original analysis that they were commissioned to do. It sounds to me as if they are operating under a non-disclosure agreement (my assumption) or that they have some very high professional standards / ethics, which would be commendable.
To conclude, if the WRMA would release their rights in the model, it could then be used by an independent third party. In fact, there was an offer to buy the rights to the model from WRMA (at one point), which is why I made the buy-out comment in the post above.
Hopefully, that is enough context.
Respectfully.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | CS,
Yup. |
|
| |
|
| Larry:
Given that the above seems to be a reasonable proxy for the truth, I was wondering if you could go on record to answer two questions?
I am simply seeking to understand:
1.) Could you say whether or not VGS ever completed a test or model on any of Spray's fish? A yes or no would be fine.
2.) If yes, could you say whether or not the model authenticated or disproved the length of the particular fish in question?
The reason I ask is "implicit" in the Cross conversation was that VGS may have completed a modeling for one of the Spray fish. I say implicit because when asked that direct question, they did not reply with an outright no we did not, but rather answered ambiguously to the effect of they would rather not say without permission.
Again, with all due respect, thanks. |
|
| |
|
| One final thought about photo analysis and length. At the end of the day, even those most ardently opposed to Spray's fish will admit that the all class tackle record could very well be a fish that goes 58". If that is the case, then the argument is +/- 5 inches.
In my opinion, there is no way for someone to tell that difference based on a photo. 5 inches is the length of an eight year's old hand. 7 inches is the length of a thirteen year old hand.
I'd say it is incredibly tough to discern that difference from visual observation of a photo.
That's why the photo analysis is the last and only frontier left (assuming a bona fide witness or affidavit signer is not forthcoming).
Thanks for letting me post and sharing that thought |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20245
Location: oswego, il | In order for that fish to be 110lbs the rear pelvic fins would have to drift right behind the front ones on the mount!
I do not believe IMHO that the ifga upheld the johnson fish because they thought it legit. I think they did not want to be a part of the controversy.
Edited by ToddM 2/3/2011 10:08 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin |
'I'd say it is incredibly tough to discern that difference from visual observation of a photo. '
I wouldn't. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | lambeau - 2/3/2011 3:16 PM wrote: "i don't for one second think the Spray fish is legit. that said, i sometimes wonder who's more obsessed with it: Dettloff or Ramsell. you may not worship Spray but you visit his church more than most, Larry..."
LR: lambeau, it merey seems like it since Dettloff doesn't have the gonads to come on here and defend himself and his diservice to the muskie world. Besides, he is busy writing another book, this time about his other Hayward hero, Cal Johnson and what a fine, upstanding citizen he was (and he probably was, except for the "mistake" of trying to help Hayward tourism after the war and "develop" yet another Hayward world record). No one I know or have talked to has EVER seen a "mud muskie" (dark water) caught out of Lac Couderay...of course his taxidermist Kahmann took care of that when he painted the fish in a striped pattern after he got done adding to the length (Dettloff's "pelvic drift" nothwithstanding).
Dan wrote: "First, thanks for your efforts to expose the truth. Keep up the good work. Two questions for you:
"You said: 'LR: So true CS, so that tosses all of Louies fish out and Johnson's too for that matter! Measurement falsified AND not even caught by the anglers...how blind is the NFWFHF re both Spray and Johnson and the IGFA re Johnson? '
"Question one: Are you suggesting that Johnsons fish was caught by someone other than Johnson ?"
LR: Good catch, I mispoke on that one, as I believe Johnson likely caught his fish, but NOT from LCO. Just prior he was seen fishing a nearby river and the night before his claimed "catch date" he was in a local watering hole proclaiming that "tomorrow I'm going to catch the world record". Hardly a smart thing to do, but then liquor often loosens the tightest of lips.
Dans "Question two: is 'unrefutiated' a word ? :-D
LR: Why not?
"Guest" wrote: ..."Puportedly, Larry Ramsell inadvertently provided VGS with the reported dimensions."
LR: Evidently this is the case. I checked with the WRMA and it seems that one of the early record Spray photos I loaned to them for VGS analysis had them on the back...oops, unintentional I assure you, but it wasn't the current record fish.
"Guest" wrote: "Larry: Given that the above (post) seems to be a reasonable proxy for the truth, I was wondering if you could go on record to answer two questions? I am simply seeking to understand:
"1.) Could you say whether or not VGS ever completed a test or model on any of Spray's fish? A yes or no would be fine."
LR: No, I could not, since I personally had no dealings with VGS. That was handled entirely by the WRMA.
"2.) If yes, could you say whether or not the model authenticated or disproved the length of the particular fish in question?"
LR: The answer was "no", so I cannot answer this question.
Guest cont: "The reason I ask is "implicit" in the Cross conversation was that VGS may have completed a modeling for one of the Spray fish. I say implicit because when asked that direct question, they did not reply with an outright no we did not, but rather answered ambiguously to the effect of they would rather not say without permission. Again, with all due respect, thanks."
LR: While this is something you will have to take up with the WRMA, your intrepretation of that conversation may be incorrect. I again stress that photo analysis is at best marginal and basically moot (unless horribly off) since records are established by weight.
ToddM wrote: "I do not believe IMHO that the ifga upheld the johnson fish because they thought it legit. I think they did not want to be a part of the controversy."
LR: Todd, I sincerely believe you have hit it directly on the head!! I found that to be true even when I was dealing directly with them as an IGFA Represenative for 16 years. If they didn't wish to become involved in something, they merely did not respond.
Edited by Larry Ramsell 2/4/2011 7:27 AM
|
|
| |
|
| LR: I again stress that photo analysis is at best marginal and basically moot (unless horribly off) since records are established by weight. wow...and you accuse Dettloff of taking positions based on his own self-interest? it's somewhat curious that you would dismiss a useful tool as moot even when it would add supporting evidence to your own point of view. well, Larry let's not forget that it's in your self-interest to refute and repudiate (note the spelling) an OBJECTIVE model because it's a threat to your cottage industry of using a SUBJECTIVE historical research approach. you've got your own fame and books and speaking gigs to consider too. you're right when you say that photo analysis about the length of a fish doesn't automatically prove or disprove the weight of said fish. however, if that fish was claimed to be much longer than the photo analysis proves possible, it's self-evident that the claimed weights are bogus too. thus the photo analysis is a perfectly reasonable approach for qualifying or disqualifying certain fish based on their claimed lengths. once you have a fish length that's possible according to the objective photo analysis and a weight claim that is well-supported by other subjective documentation, you've got a winner. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | lambeau: I didn't "dismiss" photogrammetry as you will notice in my previous post, but for less than greatly exaggerated length claims it isn't that reliable; and note, all of Spray's fish and Johnson's fish were greatly exaggerated and fairly easily exposed by PROFESSIONAL photogrammetry. And as I proved with my review of Dettloff's Lawton photo examinations, he wasn't even in the ball park with Lawton's record fish. With Spray's records, there is a LOT more material than just photo analysis to debunk his frauds and of course the Johnson mount pretty much speaks for that fish (and is still extant and "could" be examined, but Dettloff advises against it). Lawton's documentation and 9 witnesses say Dettloff is full of prunes with regard to Lawton's fish, especially the next door neighbor whom Dettloff interviewed and even prepared an affidavit for stating Lawton's fish exited and was legit...why did he ignore that???
You are extremly incorrect if you think any of this is a threat to my "cottage industry", but if you are so certain, quit your job and I'll give you the meager pittance I earn from it and see how long you last. As for my "fame", I've earned it over the past 40 years and am proud of it. And as for my book sales, it wouldn't buy your groceries...in fact I had no problem publishing much of Volume I HERE on this website in order to inform folks that care without them having to purchase my book. What have you contributed? Speaking gigs of any substance are a thing of the past before the Spray fiasco, so again, you'd go hungry relying on that.
I'll assume from the latter part of your post that you agree that the Spray and Johnson fish are bogus.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell,
Muskellunge Historian
|
|
| |
|
| And as for my book sales, it wouldn't buy your groceries... that knife cuts both ways, Larry...you bag on Detloff for being motivatated by money but then deny the money related to this issue is meaningful. for Detloff it's all about selling his books and bringing tourists to Hayward and his resort, but that doesn't apply to you because there's no money in it? i'm guessing his book sales buy even fewer groceries than yours, and i for one wouldn't want to live the life of a resort owner! i think there's more indications that Detloff is a True Believer; personally i think that's kind of sad since i can understand if there was a real financial motivation but believing in nonsense? ha! i guess i'm suggesting that focusing on the fish is more meaningful than focusing on the maneuvering or motivations of the people involved, including yours. for example, who cares if the fish was shot, or if it was poached, or what lake it was caught from; what matters is how BIG the thing is or isn't. I'll assume from the latter part of your post that you agree that the Spray and Johnson fish are bogus. those fish are as legit as the day is long...on December 21st. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | lambeau: I never said Dettloff was in it for just the money (but I'll guarentte you that he has made far more from it than have I). Only he can tell you if it has been meaningful. What I really think is at the crux of the matter is that John wants so badly to believe that Louie's fish are real that he has lost all touch with reality and in his heart he knows that Spray's fish (and Johnson's for that matter) were simply not as large as claimed. He truly loves the Chippewa Flowage and intends to spend the rest of his life there and he needs louie to hang on to to make it all good, dispite the fact that he has yet, after 30 some years, failed to catch himself even a 50 incher, let along one over 60!! Sad but true.
You're comment: "i guess i'm suggesting that focusing on the fish is more meaningful than focusing on the maneuvering or motivations of the people involved, including yours. for example, who cares if the fish was shot, or if it was poached, or what lake it was caught from; what matters is how BIG the thing is or isn't." seems a bit off base.
I think folks do care if the fish was shot, or poached and what water it came from. As for "how big", that too is important for those that care, because they want to know that they may have a ligitimate shot at catching a new world record. If past records are bogus and being upheld by the record keepers, then the bar is set artificially high and likely will not be beaten. Since it will NEVER be conclusively proven which of the past historical record fish may have been legitimate, it is a simple matter to consider them "historical" and start anew...that has been done in the minds of many and the new record program is still awaiting one that exceeds even 60 pounds, let alone 70.
|
|
| |
|
| Steve,
Thanks again for the response. What I find interesting is very few here believe Lawton's fish was as large as claimed which lends a tremendous amount of SUPPORT Dettloff's analysis! I totally agree with you that what Dettloff did with Spray is wrong. I just wish that somebody other than Dettloff would have began challenging these records. I wonder how satisfied the 'muskie community' would be if Dettloff had never began his new career and Lawton's fish was considered the world record by BOTH record keepers? Challenging world record fish is nothing new. The IGFA was brought to their knees about the smallmouth bass record after 'Bass Master' magazine took them to task. Evidentally the 'bass community' is more interested in having legitimate records than the 'muskie community' which I don't understand. If Bass Master magazine was willing to get involved with the IGFA and win why wouldn't Musky Hunter magazine take it upon themselves to do the same?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8820
| CS - 2/4/2011 10:55 AM
[...] If Bass Master magazine was willing to get involved with the IGFA and win why wouldn't Musky Hunter magazine take it upon themselves to do the same?
Why WOULD they? It's a flaming bag of crap, but it's on someone else's doorstep. While I can't speak for the folks over at MH, I'd have to guess they don't want to get involved because there's simply nothing good to come out of it for them or their magazine. It would be akin to going out to a farm and stomping around the cow pasture just to see what happens. Why create a stinking mess for yourself and your organization when there's no benefit whatsoever? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'Thanks again for the response. What I find interesting is very few here believe Lawton's fish was as large as claimed which lends a tremendous amount of SUPPORT Dettloff's analysis'
No, it doesn't. |
|
| |
|
| LR..."What I really think is at the crux of the matter is that John wants so badly to believe that Louie's fish are real that he has lost all touch with reality and in his heart he knows that Spray's fish (and Johnson's for that matter) were simply not as large as claimed."
'Somebody' apparently has the SAME problem with all the Lawton 60+ pounders. |
|
| |
|
| esoxaddict,
Nothing good to come out of it for their magazine"? No benefit whatsoever? Isn't a legitimate record a tremendous benefit?
|
|
| |
|
| What I really think is at the crux of the matter is that John wants so badly to believe that Louie's fish are real... He truly loves the Chippewa Flowage yes. strong or exceptionally passionate beliefs about something DEFINE a lack of objectivity. on BOTH sides of an issue. neutral analysis from folks who don't write muskie books and don't teach fishing schools and don't own resorts is what's needed. like photogrammetry from overseas. You're comment... what matters is how BIG the thing is or isn't." seems a bit off base. when it comes to WR potential, the simple fact that a fish of that size existed is the only thing that matters. if it was shot or poached, but it was really that big? it would still mean the potential is there! the important thing from my perspective is setting a reality-based bar for record size potential; the methods employed at the time may be important to those interested in "qualifying" the record such as yourself, but they're completely irrelevant to whether or not fish of a certain size are biologically possible.
Edited by lambeau 2/4/2011 12:14 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Steve,
If you and the majority of people here feel Lawton's fish was not as large as claimed, doesn't this jibe with Dettloff's feelings about this fish? And the IGFA's too I might add? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20245
Location: oswego, il | I do not believe the bass guys will suffer the same backlash for challenging records that the muskie guys have. Is there a tabloid dedicated to those directly and even indirectly associated with investigating the records? |
|
| |
|
| ToddM,
You don't believe the bass guys WILL suffer the same backlash for challenging records that the muskie guys have? The bass guys never received any backlash at all! The IGFA are the ones that had their reputation tarnished.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'If you and the majority of people here feel Lawton's fish was not as large as claimed, doesn't this jibe with Dettloff's feelings about this fish? And the IGFA's too I might add?'
No. Mr. Dettloff apparently feels that fish should be DQ'd using grade school analytics, and Spray's should remain despite far advanced challenges. I don't much give a hoot what the IGFA thinks. Give it a rest, you are preaching to the Choir.
|
|
| |
|
| ToddM,
Your statement..."I do not believe IMHO that the IGFA upheld the Johnson fish because they thought it legit. I think they did not want to be part of the controversy."
The reason the IGFA gave for upholding Johnson's fish CREATED controversy!
The IGFA would never have accepted Johnson's fish as their record if they didn't feel it was legit.
|
|
| |
|
| Steve,
I will do as you request and ask you no further questions. Keep in mind I do understand what you're saying about Dettloff and I fully agree.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 20245
Location: oswego, il | They accepted lawton's fish as the record because they thought it was legit too. Removing johnson's fish would cause more controversy for them than turning a blind eye to a challenge. Nfwfhof would have been all over it like a blitzing defense on cutler.
Edited by ToddM 2/4/2011 1:18 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | lambeau wrote: "'Somebody' apparently has the SAME problem with all the Lawton 60+ pounders."
LR: Not at all Mr. Winther. It is quite obvious you only read from my posts what you wish to retain and obvious you haven't read the material on this site from my book. In addition, as an addendum to your previous "cottage industry" charge, have you stopped to realize that everything I have done/published of a historical nature was to do my best to accurately report our sports history and not one of attempting to re-write muskie history as has Mr. Dettloff, to suit his wishes/needs? Sure doesn't seem like it. My goal has ALWAYS been to find and report the truth, as well as correct past reporting inaccuracies when found, not to change history for a personal agenda. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8820
| CS - 2/4/2011 11:25 AM
esoxaddict,
Nothing good to come out of it for their magazine"? No benefit whatsoever? Isn't a legitimate record a tremendous benefit?
Having a legitimate record in place would be a benefit to the muskie angling population at large, but I fail to see how MH involving themselves in the matter would help their magazine or their TV show. I also fail to see what benefit there would be in the whole controversy for someone with a reputation to uphold (i.e. Jim Saric and Steve Heiting) to throw their proverbial hats into the ring. There are more than enough people involved already. Why muddy the waters at your own expense? |
|
| |
|
| Larry Ramsell - 2/4/2011 12:32 PM lambeau wrote: "'Somebody' apparently has the SAME problem with all the Lawton 60+ pounders." LR: Not at all Mr. Winther. It is quite obvious you only read from my posts what you wish to retain... My goal has ALWAYS been to find and report the truth, as well as correct past reporting inaccuracies when found, not to change history for a personal agenda. Larry...perhaps you're the one who should read more carefully, and learn how the "quote" function operates on this forum. the words that you attribute to me above about your views of the Lawton fish were from a guest poster: "CS", whoever that is. i didn't accuse you of a personal agenda, although i did (and do) suggest that you're far from impartial. your agenda may be to get to the Truth - you've been a Champion of that effort - and i also think it's perfectly alright to make a few dollars along the way with books or speaking gigs or whatnot. i was just trying to point out that it's hypocritical to imply Detloff has certain nefarious money-making motivations for his actions (writing books, for example) but then claim that same standard doesn't apply to yourself because you're interested only in the Truth. perhaps Detloff is really just interested in the Truth as well, but his view is radically different than your own? you're an endless and mildly entertaining amusement park ride of hints and innuendos on this subject. too many years of "but wait! there's more!" and "stay tuned!" or "he owns a resort that would benefit!" type statements have exhausted most peoples' attention spans. and in the end? none of that matters. it's the FISH that counts, we'd all be better off with an objective focus in that direction (such as the photogrammetry that you laughably describe as a "moot" approach) rather than on his/your personalities.
Edited by lambeau 2/4/2011 1:17 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | lambeau: I mildly attempted to define "moot", but apparently you are missing it. As I have stated, PROFESSIONAL photogrammetry of length, wherein the "fudged" amount is significant, is fine and usable, but in and of itself it still does not determine weight. As you infered or noted, significant deviation from claimed length gives some credibility toward falsification, and in the case of Spray's records, combined with many other facts can lead one only to the conclusion of misrepresentation, unless, one choses to ignore pertinent facts.
Yes, it IS the FISH that counts and whether or not they can obtain the sizes ascribed to the historical records. As I have noted before, it is my personal opinion that the "AVERAGE maximum weight" of Muskellunge (Esox masquinongy) is around 55-56 pounds and that anything above that is an anomaly and/or a freak, but that weights that approach or exceed "historical" world records certainly are possible. It is just that none have ever been hung on a certified scale...anywhere, at any time in past history, taken by any means, including DNR netting and those found dead! |
|
| |
|
| LR...""As i have stated, PROFESSIONAL photogrammetry of length, wherein the 'fudged' amount is significant, is fine and usable, but in and of itself it still does not determine weight"
It doesn't have to. Like I said before, if the measurements are falsified on an affidavit the stated weight becomes meaningless. If the length is falsified it does MORE than lend credibility to falsification, it makes it a CERTAINTY! |
|
| |
|
| esoxaddict,
Having a legitimate record in place would not hurt the staff at Musky Hunter or their magazine and TV show. Their reputation would likely be ENHANCED just like Bass Master magazine. |
|
| |
|
| ToddM,
Your statement..."Nfwfhof would have been all over it like a blitzing defense on cutler."
How could they? The IGFA says they don't have a photo that supports the size of Lawton's fish so the fish is OUT! This is what the NFWFHoF wanted.
If the IGFA would have removed Johnson they would have done so for the SAME reason they removed Lawton.
|
|
| |
|
| Overall this latest discussion is a lot more interesting than debating the legitimacy of Spray and Johnson. It's ridiculous to think that anyone who reads those WRMA reports could conclude anything other than those fish were bogus. I wouldn't hesitate to bet the farm that they are complete hoaxes.
I think Lambeau's point about "all that really matters is the fish" is a good one, particularly if you think in terms of 150-200 years from now. We are only going back about 60 years now, but what about future muskie generations? What will be our sports legacy? Hopefully not that we stood by and idly accepted lies of that magnitude.
Besides that, I'm curious to know what the all-time longest and heaviest muskies were too and I'm looking forward to when they finding this out. I think it would also be beneficial for biologists and fisheries personnel to know what the largest specimens are strictly from a management point of view. |
|
| |
|
| esoxaddict - 2/4/2011 12:55 PM
CS - 2/4/2011 11:25 AM
esoxaddict,
Nothing good to come out of it for their magazine"? No benefit whatsoever? Isn't a legitimate record a tremendous benefit?
Having a legitimate record in place would be a benefit to the muskie angling population at large, but I fail to see how MH involving themselves in the matter would help their magazine or their TV show. I also fail to see what benefit there would be in the whole controversy for someone with a reputation to uphold (i.e. Jim Saric and Steve Heiting ) to throw their proverbial hats into the ring. There are more than enough people involved already. Why muddy the waters at your own expense?
It's a known fact that Muskie Hunter did a little more than "report" the news when Lawton was DQed. They were all over it, even ran a series of Detlofs articles "In the defense of Louie Spray" when they were rightfully questioned back in the early 1990s. I would even go as far as to say that they were eating out of Detlofs hands and then spoon feeding that crap to us. I think if you helped to make the cow pies like MH, you should at least help to clean them up. |
|
| |
|
| The Butternut lake fish is on page 31 of his book. Could someone please post it? Maybe its a lie about where the fish came from but you cannot argue the size of that fish.Thats what makes me think for sure the record will fall!!!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8820
| Guest - 2/4/2011 3:04 PM
esoxaddict - 2/4/2011 12:55 PM
CS - 2/4/2011 11:25 AM
esoxaddict,
Nothing good to come out of it for their magazine"? No benefit whatsoever? Isn't a legitimate record a tremendous benefit?
Having a legitimate record in place would be a benefit to the muskie angling population at large, but I fail to see how MH involving themselves in the matter would help their magazine or their TV show. I also fail to see what benefit there would be in the whole controversy for someone with a reputation to uphold (i.e. Jim Saric and Steve Heiting ) to throw their proverbial hats into the ring. There are more than enough people involved already. Why muddy the waters at your own expense?
It's a known fact that Muskie Hunter did a little more than "report" the news when Lawton was DQed. They were all over it, even ran a series of Detlofs articles "In the defense of Louie Spray" when they were rightfully questioned back in the early 1990s. I would even go as far as to say that they were eating out of Detlofs hands and then spoon feeding that crap to us. I think if you helped to make the cow pies like MH, you should at least help to clean them up.
The first time it's a mistake. The second time? It's stupid. My guess is that they're staying as far away from this as possible. Self preservation it is, and rightfully so. |
|
| |
|
| ToddM,
The IGFA INHERITED the Lawton fish as the record from Field & Stream. They did NOT accept it themselves like they did the Johnson fish. The IGFA later determined they didn't have a photo of Lawton's fish that supports the size of the fish Field & Stream accepted so the fish is out.
All the IGFA would have to do is admit that THEY were wrong in accepting Johnson's fish as the record after seeing the WRMA report. Their credibility would have been maintained and all we'd have left is the Spray fiasco.
|
|
| |
|
| esoxaddict,
Do you consider hypocrisy as a way of 'self preservation'? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8820
| As I said before - I can't speak for MH. Whatever decisions they make as to their involvement (or lack thereof) in this are business decisions. One needs to look no further than their list of field editors to see why involving themselves in this would be a bad idea. The benefits likely outweigh the risks. Like I said - it's a flaming bag of crap, and it's someone else's bag of crap. Would YOU want it? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20245
Location: oswego, il | I can't t speak for them either but at the time detloff was the historical editor for the magazine when he "debunked" lawton and the political climate as much different with the spray and johnson challenges. |
|
| |
|
Location: Sawyer County, WI |
Hi Larry,
Have you seen the fish in Stove Works on County B ? Is there a known story about this fish ?
Thanks in advance. |
|
| |
|
| ToddM - 2/4/2011 7:06 PM
I can't t speak for them either but at the time detloff was the historical editor for the magazine when he "debunked" lawton and the political climate as much different with the spray and johnson challenges.
These days Johnny is just hysterical... (and still editing) |
|
| |
|
| lambeau - 2/4/2011 2:02 PM
Larry Ramsell - 2/4/2011 12:32 PM lambeau wrote: "'Somebody' apparently has the SAME problem with all the Lawton 60+ pounders." LR: Not at all Mr. Winther. It is quite obvious you only read from my posts what you wish to retain... My goal has ALWAYS been to find and report the truth, as well as correct past reporting inaccuracies when found, not to change history for a personal agenda. Larry...perhaps you're the one who should read more carefully, and learn how the "quote" function operates on this forum. the words that you attribute to me above about your views of the Lawton fish were from a guest poster: "CS", whoever that is. i didn't accuse you of a personal agenda, although i did (and do) suggest that you're far from impartial. your agenda may be to get to the Truth - you've been a Champion of that effort - and i also think it's perfectly alright to make a few dollars along the way with books or speaking gigs or whatnot. i was just trying to point out that it's hypocritical to imply Detloff has certain nefarious money-making motivations for his actions (writing books, for example) but then claim that same standard doesn't apply to yourself because you're interested only in the Truth. perhaps Detloff is really just interested in the Truth as well, but his view is radically different than your own? you're an endless and mildly entertaining amusement park ride of hints and innuendos on this subject. too many years of "but wait! there's more!" and "stay tuned!" or "he owns a resort that would benefit!" type statements have exhausted most peoples' attention spans. and in the end? none of that matters. it's the FISH that counts, we'd all be better off with an objective focus in that direction (such as the photogrammetry that you laughably describe as a "moot" approach) rather than on his/your personalities.
lambo if you think you can do a better job go!
otherwise leave him alone,nobody did a quarter of the work he has accomplished
|
|
| |
|
| lambo if you think you can do a better job go! otherwise leave him alone,nobody did a quarter of the work he has accomplished Larry's body of work is not something i'll ever question. it's entirely worthwhile and the respect he has as a result is well-deserved.
at the same time, it's reasonable to make observations about his online antics as well as to point out that it's hypocritical to accuse Detloff of having personal financial motivations but deny any such motivation when he does the same exact thing, such as writing books. for John it's money but for Larry it's a Holy Quest for Truth? c'mon...it's okay to make money, and it's also possible that John believes in spite of all the evidence against Spray. forget Detloff, forget IGFA, forget the FWFHoF and focus on the fish. |
|
| |
|
| Wow, 13 pages but someone finally got it, thanks Lambeau! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'forget Detloff, forget IGFA, forget the FWFHoF and focus on the fish.'
Without the above, there's nothing to focus on. Without Dettloff the record would still be 69#15 ounces. Without his actions and influence with the Hall, Spary's fish would be resting in the same place as Lawton's. If it's so important to you to focus on the fish, then try to do so.
Good luck separating the players from the game.
Journalistic tenants for story:
Who: FFHOF/Dettloff/Lawton/ Spray/WRMA/Larry Ramsell/Muskie Community at Large
What: The World Record Muskie
Where: Hayward, specifically the Chippewa Flowage
When: Historical records, time line of actions of the above first two players changing same, continuing to present
How: Changes and challenges occurred strictly due to actions by the above players.
Why: There's the sticker in this story. In fact this IS the story and that's why it drags on, and on, and on.
I've been in the barrel with this exact same group of folks on a similar Muskie story Musky Hunter WAS involved with. It took me over a year and a half to get close enough to the parties involved to get the truth, and that truth supports what Larry has said. Larry took some serious heat during that time and was truly angry (that's an understatement) with me, and it was heat it turned out he didn't deserve except for the fact he allowed his name and reputation to be attached to that mess and defended the entire process for awhile without watching the project closely enough to protect his interests. I suspect he's as passionate now as he is because of what happened last time; sort of a 'once shame on them, twice shame on me' thing.
Without Larry and John's books, the entire story would perhaps be lost to the dust of revisionist history. The motivation for writing those books is sometimes as hotly debated as the rest of the story.
Emotions run high with this battle, because the story line runs much deeper than just the WR issue and goes back about 35 years. I once read a book called Bass Wars. That was nothing compared to the Historical and Modern Day story one could write about the above players and those who were involved with them. I wonder who will write THAT book...
|
|
| |
|
| sworrall - 2/5/2011 9:31 AM 'forget Detloff, forget IGFA, forget the FWFHoF and focus on the fish.' Without the above, there's nothing to focus on. Without Dettloff the record would still be 69#15 ounces. Without his actions and influence with the Hall, Spary's fish would be resting in the same place as Lawton's. If it's so important to you to focus on the fish, then do so; you took as many personal shots the last couple days as anyone. Good luck separating the players from the game. am i using the quote feature wrong?
it sounds like you might be missing my point. Larry spends inordinate amounts of time and energy online attempting to discredit Detloff. what does that accomplish? it comes off as a personal vendetta and it doesn't change anyone's mind because those who already see reality about the Spray fish just nod and move on and the FWFHoF simply ignores him anyway. complete waste of time. imho, providing objective information about the fish is the only strategy worth pursuing. and again imho, i think this was already done by the photo analysis process forwarded by the WRMA. by ignoring reality, the FWFHoF and IGFA have recused themselves from being legitimate record-keeping bodies for muskellunge. further efforts to change their position simply lends them legitimacy that they no longer deserve.
the "Modern World Records" idea is a great one. the problem is that the bar was set too high. if it's a modern record, why does it have to be 60lbs or more to even qualify, thereby ensuring NO modern record is in place? designate a 50lber as the current record and let people submit claims to beat it - there's already plenty of well-certified weighed fish out there that could claim the honor. or even better, since muskies are a released sport fish, just forget weight and establish a modern length record. a well-publicized effort with good visuals online would gain enough support to simply make the FWFHoF irrelevent for muskies.
Edited by lambeau 2/5/2011 10:20 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'if calling a spade a spade is a "shot", then i'm guilty. Larry's responded to the issues and hasn't seemed to take offense? regardless, i think you're missing my point. Larry spends inordinate amounts of time and energy online attempting to discredit Detloff. what does that accomplish? it comes off as a personal vendetta and it doesn't change anyone's mind because those who already see reality about the Spray fish just nod and move on and the FWFHoF simply ignores him anyway. complete waste of time.'
That's where you miss my point. What you are objecting to IS the story, or at least has been for about 14,000 views.
'Calling a spade a spade' is YOUR personal interpretation of this debate, which carries only the weight your personal experience researching the facts and skills in swaying opinion presenting them will allow.
It isn't that the current world record is so much or less believable than the last, the voters on this poll reflect what muskie anglers visiting this website believe. That should be the end of the story, but as you point out, it isn't.
I don't like the tiny print the quote feature uses. |
|
| |
|
| What you are objecting to IS the story, or at least has been for about 14,000 views. essentially, yes. sometimes it's hard to tell if folks (esp. Ramsell) are REALLY interested in any resolution, or prefer to just keep the drama going and the story alive. it does garner a lot of attention, doesn't it? so if that's the goal...any publicity is good publicity, right? sigh.
I don't like the tiny print the quote feature uses. larger print would be a nice upgrade! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I'm pretty sure the vast majority of those reading and participating in this thread, don't much care if you, I, or anyone else approves of what has been written. That's the beauty of community discussion, within limits. If you look at the record, CS and a few others have kept this thing going for the last few days.
As far as the upgrade is concerned, stand by.... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | dfkiii (Dan) wrote: "Have you seen the fish in Stove Works on County B ? Is there a known story about this fish ?"
LR: Dan, that fish is well covered in Volume II of my book (the fun stuff!). It is the Barber speared fish that was sold to an old buddy of Louie Spray; Widmer Smith. He wasn't supposed to have it, so he "sat" on it for eight years before he cut it apart and mounted it, adding several inches of length (ala Karl Kahmann with Johnson's fish and Spray's first two fish). It fooled some for awhile when it was "claimed" to be 71 pounds 5 ounces, which of course it wasn't. The big tip off was that the "extra skin" added, was done behind the head rather that behind the pelvic fins as Kahmann had done. Had he moved the front fins forward or put the extra skin behind the front fins instead of in front of them it would have been more believable.
It was not claimed as a record and it was made clear by the first owner that put it on display that it had been speared. It was a huge fish when taken, but nowhere near what was later claimed. The fish then disappeared from public view for awhile and later turned up at the current location.
And that is the rest of the story.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell,
Muskellunge Historian
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | lambeau wrote: "the "Modern World Records" idea is a great one. the problem is that the bar was set too high. if it's a modern record, why does it have to be 60lbs or more to even qualify, thereby ensuring NO modern record is in place?"
LR: I don't like the quote feature either, and sorry for mixing you up with CS awhile back (sworrall, you should identify who's quote you are using). At any rate, I'll address this part of one of your posts in sections. First of all it wouldn't matter if we had set the bar at 20 pounds, there would have been no record UNTIL one was properly certified with the new committee.
lambeau continued: "designate a 50lber as the current record and let people submit claims to beat it - there's already plenty of well-certified weighed fish out there that could claim the honor."
LR: NOT SO! Name me one fish out there that has been certified to the new programs criteria...hasn't been one. Therefore, we decided to set the bar at 60 pounds to prevent the potential killing of several 50 pound class fish just to establish a new record. Personally, I believe that no one will take a new record seriously anyway unless it is at least 60 pounds.
lambeau finished: "or even better, since muskies are a released sport fish, just forget weight and establish a modern length record. a well-publicized effort with good visuals online would gain enough support to simply make the FWFHoF irrelevent for muskies."
LR: This would never work unless every applicant had EXACTLY the same measuring board, the board was coded and submitted with the entry. Just don't see it happening. By the way, you forgot the irrelevency of the IGFA as well.
lambeau's response above to sworrall: "essentially, yes. sometimes it's hard to tell if folks (esp. Ramsell) are REALLY interested in any resolution, or prefer to just keep the drama going and the story alive. "
LR: I'm amazed that you find it hard to believe that I AM "interested in any resolution". I have done nothing for the past several years but attempt to get at the truth, set it straight and attempt to repair the damage done to record keeping, that apparently the record keepers care little about. As for "keeping the drama going", you can count on me being there as long as I can breathe in order to keep the truth and facts out there and dispell any of the BS put forth by the small group that has managed to make themselves look bigger by manipulating the poll on this thread including those that simply haven't taken time to research and read the massive amounts of information extant that tells the entire story that leaves little to doubt; obviously there are some that just love the flowage and WANT to believe.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell,
Muskellunge Historian
Edited by Larry Ramsell 2/5/2011 11:47 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 73
| I’d be EXTREMELY surprised if this matter were ever to be resolved, in that the records would be changed (again). There are gallons and gallons of water under the bridge over many, many years now. People on both sides are dug in so deep that they just WON’T say ‘uncle’.
It’s unlikely that Winternet will never get it any closer to resolution, but I don’t think anybody really expects it to. The main thing that these discussions do is highlighting WHY there has been some new measures developed for verification and record keeping in the future.
Edited by Jim Munday 2/5/2011 12:18 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Sorry, but if you took a look at various polls that have been conducted on other sites over the years, they were much more representative of what you see here. How do you know that this poll isn't being manipulated. I recall editors on others sites indicating that they knew posters were well known guides writing under aliases; so don't think for a minute that it doesn't happen or that it takes place on only one side of the equation.
I've repeatedly asked about VGS because it has been well documented that the vanishing points used in the Spray analysis were either extraordinary weak or didn't even exist. In the Spray analysis, there is only one good right hand vanishing point and it was not the one used in the challenge. In my opinion, the Spray report was rather thoroughly deconstructed on another site, which truly called the results into serious question.
Since there is another photogrammetric solution that exists and is contrary to the public one, my suggestion is to have the WRMA release their rights to the VGS model.
It seems to me that they tested their model back in 2005 / 2006 and believe that it would be conclusive.
I will volunteer to pay for the test.
I am sorry to offer a contrary viewpoint, but it happens to be my substantiated belief at this time. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1207
Location: Pigeon Forge TN. | Good explanation Steve, but it still won't end there sorry to say. |
|
| |
|
| Guest, if you seriously want to try to disprove the WRMA photo analysis, you should make a fresh start and just have a new expert review the WRMA body of work. Otherwise you run the risk (assuming the results are different), of just having the 2 experts wash each other out, it would be far better if you could have the WRMA analysis debunked. I'm guessing you're really not interested in the correct way to go about this though and just trying to waste our time with more smoke and mirrors.
Seriously, if it's such "bad science" (as Emmett Brown claims), it should be a cakewalk for you guys to disprove it with any number of other experts. Another thing, it doesn't make any sense that the Hall of Fame didn't already check into this by now.
Let me explain this to you like you're 6 years old, the only way to restore the credibility of the Hall of Fame is to remove these BS records and fire John Dettlof and Emmett Brown. I'm guessing that's probably not an option you're interested in either? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | CS: Your comment that..."ALL the previous 60 lbers. are considered suspect is about as ridiculous as it gets.", is a bit off base, at least if comments re same on Internet boards are any indication. For instance, I have yet to see any negative comment regarding the 1939 and 1940 muskies from Eagle Lake, Ontario.
John J. Coleman's 1939 fish weighed 60 pounds 8 ounces and was the first ever verified/recognized 60 pound muskie. It was 58 1/2 inches long and had a 31 1/2 inch girth and certified as a world record by Field & Stream.
The other, caught by Edward Walden in 1940 weighed 61 pounds 9 ounces and was 59 inches long and had a 31 inch girth. It too, was certified by Field & Stream.
Even Dettloff has been mute on these two fish and the first one topped his hero Spray in 1939! Then too there have been a few released fish in the past couple of decades that many feel could have touched that magic 60 pound mark had they been kept. So, perhaps having the bar set at 60 pounds isn't a "ridiculous" as you think.
Again, fishery first. I don't feel it necessary to have a bunch of 50 pound class fish bonked when there isn't much doubt in the muskie world that they can indeed reach the 60 pound mark! |
|
| |
|
| If the NFWFHoF hired a new photogrammetrist and they disagreed with DCM it would be no different than if VGS did. Therefore, I see no reason not to supply them with the rights to use that model. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | lambeau wrote: "there haven't been any to the "program's criteria" of a second weighing by biologist or committee member because there haven't been any 60lbers caught! why would anyone bother to do so with a 50lb class fish? sum ergo sum! that said, there HAVE been a few fish weighed on certified scales with plenty of the photographs and other requirements the committee requires. the committee could have reasonably picked a well-supported previously caught fish and designated that the initial record. subsequent submissions would have to follow the committee's criteria. by having NO "Modern World Record" fish for 4 years since the program was announced, i fear it's being forgotten."
LR: I disagree that starting a program with a fish that does not meet rules critera would/could be a good thing and that "NO 'Modern World Record" is better. Can't comprise the new program's rules just to get it going. Having said that, and for the sake of the fun of contiued debate in a bit of a different direction, how about you start a list of candidates that you think should have been/should be considered?
LR's previous post: "Therefore, we decided to set the bar at 60 pounds to prevent the potential killing of several 50 pound class fish just to establish a new record. Personally, I believe that no one will take a new record seriously anyway unless it is at least 60 pounds."...and lambeau's response:
lambeau: "an understandable approach, but if you're going to establish a harvest record it comes with the territory i suppose? which is taken less seriously: a sub-60lb record or NO record?"
LR: Covered above I believe. I understand what you are saying, but it was the unamious concensus of our respected committee that the bar be set where it is.
From a previous LR post: 'lambeau finished: "or even better, since muskies are a released sport fish, just forget weight and establish a modern length record. a well-publicized effort with good visuals online would gain enough support to simply make the FWFHoF irrelevent for muskies." LR: This would never work unless every applicant had EXACTLY the same measuring board, the board was coded and submitted with the entry. Just don't see it happening.'
lambeau's response: "personally i think it's actually MUCH more likely that top anglers fishing top waters would purchase and carry a program-certified bump board (and submit it for examination after catch) than it is that they would harvest a 60lb fish. a "Modern Release Record" frees you and the angler from the loaded politics of harvesting fish, would increase the likelihood of getting submissions, and then people could argue during the winter about a 60" skinny fish versus a fat 58" fish!
LR: You likely have a valid point, at least among top anglers, but what about the average Joe that doesn't put in much time relative to the "top anglers" but, like FAR TOO MANY anglers in the past, just happens to be in the right place at the right time and doesn't have a "program-certified bump board"? Immediately there would be an instant uproar and demand that an exception be made to the rules. Not a hassle I care to get involved with. On the other hand, perhaps MuskieFirst would like to begin such a program and have some boards made up and sell at cost plus a modest profit...Steve?
|
|
| |
|
Location: Sawyer County, WI | Larry Ramsell - 2/5/2011 11:20 AM
dfkiii (Dan) wrote: "Have you seen the fish in Stove Works on County B ? Is there a known story about this fish ?"
LR: Dan, that fish is well covered in Volume II of my book (the fun stuff!). It is the Barber speared fish that was sold to an old buddy of Louie Spray; Widmer Smith. He wasn't supposed to have it, so he "sat" on it for eight years before he cut it apart and mounted it, adding several inches of length (ala Karl Kahmann with Johnson's fish and Spray's first two fish). It fooled some for awhile when it was "claimed" to be 71 pounds 5 ounces, which of course it wasn't. The big tip off was that the "extra skin" added, was done behind the head rather that behind the pelvic fins as Kahmann had done. Had he moved the front fins forward or put the extra skin behind the front fins instead of in front of them it would have been more believable.
It was not claimed as a record and it was made clear by the first owner that put it on display that it had been speared. It was a huge fish when taken, but nowhere near what was later claimed. The fish then disappeared from public view for awhile and later turned up at the current location.
And that is the rest of the story.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell,
Muskellunge Historian
Thanks very much Larry ! I appreciate the info.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | lambeau wrote: "that same person is pretty likely to be unaware of and violate the extensive certification rules of the harvest record process as well. whether by failing to document with enough pictures, using a spring scale, or whatever."
LR: You are correct, as you were when you said that without a record the new program may be forgotten (which, if you go back in this thread aways, seemed to be the case). Either way, "average Joe" has a high percentage chance of failing to meet either criteria. What is needed in either case, should a release record program be initiated, is better media coverage by outdoor writers and publications not directly involved with muskies (although more coverage by Musky Hunter surely couldn't hurt and even though Mr. Saric is on the committee, coverage there is sadly lacking. Here on MF, Mr. Worrall has been kind enough to publish what I have released re same, but it ends there.
I guess what is needed here is another poll on whether or not muskie anglers want to support the new program; want a new "release" based program or just don't care. Since I have no clue on how to start a thread with a poll, I guess if anyone is interested, they will have to do it or the management of this site could kick it off.
lambeau also wrote: "in addition to top anglers, i think charter captains and guides on trophy waters might get on "board" if they had a release record program to chase."
LR: I think you are probably right, but unless there is a poll/thread that says so or someone begins a release program acceptable to the masses and it takes hold, we'll never know for sure.
|
|
| |
|
| The Canadians call Martin Williamson's fish (61 lbs 4 oz.) 'unofficially' the SECOND largest ever to come out of Canada. I can understand this because the O'Brien fish at 65 lbs. is listed as the Canadian record. Now my question is why isn't Ed Walden's fish (61 lbs. 9 oz.) considered by the Canadians 'officially' as the second largest ever to come out of Canada?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | CS: I don't know if it is the Canadian's so much that called the late Martin Williamson's fish the second largest (officially or unofficially) than it was Williamson himself on his web site. Some years back I pointed out this discrepancy to him but he failed to make any correction on his site. At any rate, Walden's fish WAS the Canadian record for 48 years prior to O'brien's catch in 1988. It is unlikely he was even aware of the Walden fish when he made his claim. Why he chose not to make the correction is something we will likely never know. As an aside, Williamson's fish apparently was not weighed on a certified scale.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell,
Muskellunge Historian
Edited by Larry Ramsell 2/5/2011 5:39 PM
|
|
| |
|
| It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the steady increase in yes votes vs. no votes is a few people influencing the voting. There's no way this poll goes from page 4, 12% to page 14, 16% without the Hayward Mafia doing their usual misdeeds.
It would be interesting to know what the real percentages would be if only registered users were allowed to vote, it would have to be over 90% NO based on the responses. Is there any way Muskiefirst can monitor a different poll that would be based only on registered users? I would register then.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Some folks may be recruiting to get the number of yes votes up, that's not unusual. A couple percent isn't a game changer one way or the other. |
|
| |
|
| I like Steves take as well, he has a lot of good points, I think the answer will be found in ice cream, Maybe Jerry Garcia has the answer? All points of view should be welcome, that is if they are really doing it for the right reason, and not just to line their own pockets. But those dudes have to sleep at night as well. So I have no problem hearing all sides. |
|
| |
|
|
Newcomer to the thread, and I have a question that is likely answered elsewhere but I'm missing it.....
If someone brings a 60 lb fish to the WRMA and it passes all tests, are they/you then considering that the new "modern" world record? Would it be more legitimate than Williamson's fish?
(not saying Williamson's is the biggest, but as far as i know there is ZERO controversy on its weight). |
|
| |
|
| I dont have that answer, but sounds like a good place to start |
|
| |
|
| Down by the Bay
By John Power
Publication: The fishing News
Issue: Jan 15-Mar 15 2001
The Fishing News "In November, Toronto angler Martin Williamson successfully landed the second-largest muskie ever caught in Canada."
This isn't Williamson talking. Williamson being an avid muskie fisherman would almost surely have known about the Walden fish. Why do you think Williamson chose not to make the correction on his website even after you mentioned the Walden fish to him? The only logical reason is he didn't believe the Walden fish was legit.
I have yet to find a single person from Canada who believes Walden's fish had a 31" girth, or a 59" length. The photo of his fish clearly shows this to be impossible.
|
|
| |
|
| The Spray fish was 'certified' by Field and Stream and accepted by them as a world record. 83.48% of the people here believe the fish isn't as large as claimed which indicates that Field & Stream 'certification' has about the same credibility as 'certification' from the contest sponsored by Fleet Farm.
Just because Field & Stream 'certified' the Coleman and Walden muskies doesn't make them any more legit than Spray's fish. In fact, I would say Field & Stream certification is meaningless based upon the results of this poll.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | CS: Either Power mispoke (he had my book to refer to and published an article on the top 10 Canadian muskies in Ontario Out of Doors using photos he got from me that included the Walden fish) or Williamson had told him that and he failed to do research, rather taking Williamson's word for it during the rush to deadline...to say Williamson knew about or didn't believe in Walden's fish is merely conjecture on your part. He never indicated any such thing to me. For you to say "The only logical reason is he didn't believe the Walden fish was legit.," is merely personal opinion on your part and has no basis in fact.
My point of noting both Eagle Lake fish were F&S certified was merely to show that both underwent scruitny and passed and, again, not even Dettloff has had any problem with them, nor has there ever been any other problems associated with either fish that I am aware of, aside of course, from your comment "I have yet to find a single person from Canada who believes Walden's fish had a 31" girth, or a 59" length. The photo of his fish clearly shows this to be impossible."
And CS, just how large was this "poll" of yours regarding the Walden fish? Apparently you have just joined the Dettloff amateur ranks of determining fish size just by "looking" at a photograph, unless you have professional photogrammetery credintials. Do you? And if yes, what are you using in that photo to base the analysis upon?
Williamson 'may' have been an "avid muskie fisherman", but for how long? And what makes you so certain he would have known about the Walden fish? He certainly was UNAWARE of how total length should be measured (he used fork length measurement) and that he should have gotten his fish to a certified scale for validation, so it isn't unreasonable to think that he may not have known or cared about past muskie records for Canada.
Edited by Larry Ramsell 2/6/2011 3:48 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Sorry Larry -- if someone brings a 60 pounder to the WRMA and it passes all tests, is it your claim that it should be the new "modern" world record?
|
|
| |
|
| Whoops - meant "So Larry", not "sorry" |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Guest wrote: "So Larry -- if someone brings a 60 pounder to the WRMA and it passes all tests, is it your claim that it should be the new "modern" world record?"
LR: Guest, you must have missed some sailent points throughout this thread. The WRMA is NOT administering the new Modern Day Muskellunge World Record Program. The committee referenced in the 2006 articles in the "NEWS" section of this web site will be making the decision on a new modern day record. It is felt by the committee, that none of the past catches that would have qualified by weight would meet the stringent new (and I might add "demanded" by today's discriminating muskie anglers) rules requirements.
So, I believe the answer to the basis of your question is yes, if someone catches a muskellunge of 60 pounds or over and it "passes all tests", it will become the new programs world record.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell,
Committee Chairman
|
|
| |
|
| larry i have a lil question for ya,i have listen to a video with you.
sworrall or someone else have asked you a question.the question was what fish is the true wr? your answer was obrien's fish meat all the criteria.
so my question is why the next 60 pounder will be the wr??
tks |
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | For many years fork length was the accepted way to measure fish in Ontario and size limits were based on fork length. Not exactly sure when it changed to total length but I think within the last 20 years. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | pepsiboy: My response was not with regard to the rules of the Modern Day Muskellunge World Record Program as O'brien's fish could not comply and therefore won't be considered. My video response was based on the fact that both record keeping organizations had sanctioned his fish and in fact IGFA listed it as the all-tackle record after Lawton was "set-aside". Now however, there appears to be a problem with it and I suspect the WRMA will make their findings known before spring. |
|
| |
|
| Put a fork in it already !!!
This whole thread has been hashed into mush.
If we get breaking news that some angler has caught a legitimate 70 pound muskellunge and it is vetted, weighed, sniffed over, photographed, videotaped, witnessed by the multitudes and goes down as the next irrefutable world record there will still be pillow biters out there who just can't stand it and will still gripe.
That will still prove to be a glorious day because once and for all MOST OF US WILL SHUT UP.
Oh ya, BTW... all those fish "I caught" were lies. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | Larry, I love one of your statements in this thread. You said if we ever have a 70 pounder it will be a freak. I totally agree. And that is what a world record should be. A Total freak. Not an average or above average Fish. It should be a total freak. Like the worlds fattest man, The worlds biggest dog, the worlds tallest human etc etc etc . The world record is out there. Its a total freak. Its a 61 to 65 pound Fish that is one 7 to 9 pound pike away from being over 70 pounds. Timing is everything and Luck is the determining factor. Skill will most likely not land this fish. Its a Late fall or early Spring fish when her fat content is at its peak and she is packing it on for the winter. She may or may not be egg laden but she will be freak of nature. Not an average or even above average fish. And I am sure she will be disputed by more than half of the known musky world no matter how much proof is provided. Now quit the bickering and go catch her. Mike
Edited by Kingfisher 2/7/2011 11:20 AM
|
|
| |
|
| LR..."My point of noting both Eagle Lake fish were F & S certified was merely to show that both underwent scrutiny and passed and, again, not even Dettloff has had any problem with them..."
Spray's fish was also F & S certified and underwent scrutiny which this poll indicates is meaningless. And since when has Dettloff's opinion become important to you? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | CS: Dettloff's opinion isn't important to me. I was just making the point that when he was on his crusade to eliminate most of histories top muskies, he never touched either of the Eagle Lake fish, even though Coleman's fish topped Louie's first record before the ink was dry. And again, no one has had any problem with Walden's fish but you. Why didn't you answer the rest of my questions?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | CS,
The horse you have been beating is officially dead, and I bet Larry is wearying of the constant twisting around of the same questions. Enough already. And, watch your tone and remain at least borderline respectful of everyone else in the conversation, please. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8820
| sworrall - 2/5/2011 11:10 PM
Some folks may be recruiting to get the number of yes votes up, that's not unusual. [...].
Really??! That's something, but I'm not even sure what. And despite their efforts, 86% of us still believe the records were falsified. I think we've gone through enough reasons why, so here's a chance for the believers to chime in:
If you believe the spray and Johnson fish records are legitimate, WHY?
I've never seen anything that even made me raise an eyebrow and think for a moment that those fish were as big as claimed. So where's the proof? Where's the evidence? Where is the science behind it? |
|
| |
|
| It should also be noted that at the time Martin Williamson caught his fish measuring to the fork of the tail was NOT the accepted method. In fact, the size limit was increased to 54" (total length) shortly after he reported his fish as being 53.5". This is likely the reason why the 'fork length' story was started. |
|
| |
|
| esoxaddict,
Your statement: "If you believe the spray and Johnson fish records are legitimate, WHY?"
Because they are F & S certified! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8820
| CS - 2/7/2011 3:08 PM
esoxaddict,
Your statement: "If you believe the spray and Johnson fish records are legitimate, WHY?"
Because they are F & S certified!
So... despite #*^@ing information from a variety of credible sources, despite all the research by the WMRA and others, despite the fact that the biggest fish being caught today that are quite obviously larger than those "records", despite EVERYTHING that has transpired since then, the fact that they are "F&S certified" is enough to convince you? Even though the guides, resort owners, and even the biologists will tell you that they just don't get that big, and none in recent years have even come close to being that big...
Interesting.
Sooo... If a 100# Muskie was "F&S certified", would you believe THAT too? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 337
Location: Central WI | CS - 2/7/2011 3:08 PM
Because they are F & S certified!
lol...he must be just messing with people. |
|
| |
|
| LOL, Sprays record was shot down by their own experts!
The world record muskie controversy
Douglas N. Arnold, Ph.D., Professor of Mathematics
and Director, Institute for Mathematics and its Applications
* Letter of 2/1/06 from Arnold, Gallian, and Goldfeld to Emmett Brown. (This letter calls for the creation of an independent panel to examine all the evidence. The Duluth News Tribune front page story reported on it on February 23, 2006 and put this question to their readers in the day's Quick Poll. After 48 hours and 242 votes, the results were 77% in favor.)
Background. According to the National Fresh Water Fishing Hall of Fame, the all tackle world record muskellunge (Esox masquinongy) was caught by Louis Spray on October 20, 1949. Recently the size of Spray's fish has been disputed and the record brought into question. More information can be found at the National Fresh Water Fishing Hall of Fame website and at the website of the World Record Muskie Alliance.
On November 28, 2005, Scott Allen of the Executive Board of Trustees of the National Fresh Water Fishing Hall of Fame contacted me. He sent several copies of a single photograph of Spray with the record-winning muskie and asked if it were possible mathematically to estimate the fishes height from the photo, given that Spray was 6' tall. He wrote: "We need someone of highly credible mathematics background (preferably a Dr. of Mathematics) to do the calculation of the length of the fish in the photo. We expect the entire process to take less than an hour. Unfortunately, we cannot offer any compensation accept a big thank-you in our monthly publication (called The Splash) distributed nationally to all of our members, and the media."
Here is my memo responding to the query. (The memo includes several diagrams and photos, shown in low resolution below. Click any image to see a higher resolution version.)
It is important to note that I was provided with only a single photo (and this photo did not contain any of the parallel lines that were critical to the analyses made by others using other photos).
Update. On January 16, 2006, the Hall of Fame announced that it was upholding the record. Three mathematicians were quoted in the Hall's report, Professor Joseph Gallian of University of Minnesota at Duluth, Professor Dorian Goldfeld of Columbia University, and me. We are all three concerned that the Hall did not fully understand the results of our analyses and also are all concerned by the manner in which the Hall chose to communicate with us. On February 1, 2006 we wrote this letter to Emmett Brown, the Executive Director of the National Fresh Water Fishing Hall of Fame, about this. We have not yet had a response from Mr. Brown or anyone else at the Hall. In the interest of furthering understanding of what mathematics has to contribute to the determination of the validity of this record, we are sharing our conclusions with all interested parties. Some key points from the letter are:
* There is no disagreement among Professors Gallian, Goldfeld and myself in this matter.
* None of us is willing to say, based on the limited information made available to us and the limited investigations we have made thus far, whether or not we believe the record is valid.
* The credibility of the results of our analyses depends not only on the mathematics, but also on the assumptions that we were asked to make, or chose to make and explicitly state.
* We believe that a much more definitive result can be obtained from the photos which are available.
* It is our recommendation that an independent group, including experts on mathematics and photogrammetry, be impaneled, supplied with the all known photos of the fish in original format, and allowed to pursue the evidence as they feel most justified.
Two other university professors were quoted in the Hall's decision: Bonnie Higgins of the Department of Technological Studies, Bemidji State University, and William F. Brown of the Department of Art at University of Evansville. After the letter was made public Professor Higgins wrote me, saying "I support your letter of February 1, 2006 to Emmett Brown, and, in particular, the recommendation than an independent group of experts be impaneled, provided with the full information available and allowed to pursue the evidence as they feel most justified," and Professor Brown wrote me that "n reading all the related materials I would agree to your thoughts of requesting another review from outside sources."
Last modified February 21, 2006 by Douglas N. Arnold, [email protected] |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | The NFWFHF's response exactly paralled that called upon by their experts in the Lawton examination; i.e., obtaining the use of outside photogrammetry experts to have the photos examined. Likewise the result was the same; The NFWFHF failed miserably by failing to heed the advise of their experts. In the Lawton case they chose to toss it out without further review and in the Spray case they chose to keep it in without further review...Think the FIX was in, in both cases? I certainly do! The NFWFHF is a disgrace to muskellunge record keeping. |
|
| |
|
| Here's another article that probably makes John Dettlof want to puke.
SIAM NEWS
Fish Story: Math Weighs In, Muskie Comes Up Short
July 6, 2006
Michelle Sipics
In 1949 a two-time record holder for muskie fishing caught another monster of a muskie: Put on the books as 63 and a half inches and 69 pounds, 11 ounces, the fish set another world record. It's doubtful that the angler, Louis Spray, could have predicted that his 1949 catch (nicknamed Charlie) would be at the center of a heated debate 57 years later.
What's most intriguing about the controversy over 57-years-dead Charlie and a fisherman who died in 1984 is that the director of the Institute for Mathematics and its Applications is right in the thick of it.
Late last year, IMA director Douglas Arnold was contacted by Scott Allen of the National Fresh Water Fishing Hall of Fame, which oversees many world records, including those held by Spray. Allen sent Arnold a photograph, black and white and a bit grainy, of Louis Spray holding his 1949 prizewinner.
He had a bit of an odd request.
Allen asked Arnold to estimate the length of the fish, given two pieces of information: the photograph, and the fact that Spray was six feet tall. Anglers often use the known length of a fish to determine whether a claimed weight is reasonable, based on loose ratios of length to weight. A human comparison: If a medium-build man claimed to weigh 200 pounds but was only 5'5", the weight claim has a good chance of being inaccurate. It seems that Spray was suspected of that famous fisherman's habit: exaggerating the size of his catch.
Arnold, himself an avid fisherman, decided to tackle the problem. His conclusion probably wasn't as definitive as Hall of Fame officials would have liked. Mathematics, he said, couldn't absolutely answer Allen's question based only on the photograph and Spray's known height. But it could provide an upper bound on the muskie's length: "The only conclusion that we can draw with certainty," he wrote in a memo to Allen, "is that the fish is shorter than 63 inches, perhaps considerably so." Basic projective geometry showed that Charlie hadn't eaten his Wheaties---not 63 and a half inches worth of them, anyway. And if the muskie's length fell short of Spray's claim, its weight would almost certainly be well below the record as well.
This wasn't a surprise to the World Record Muskie Alliance, which had already submitted a 93-page "Spray Summary Report" to the Hall of Fame in October of 2005. The group's conclusions? Among other things, Spray's behavior pre-Charlie "points to the Spray all tackle 1949 World Record being completely bogus." The report indicates, for example, that photographs of Spray's 1940 and 1949 record fish are mislabeled on Spray's personal stationery, on postcards he had printed, and in his autobiography, with the 1940 catch being listed as the 1949 muskie, and vice-versa. The report also cites numerous other photo "mix-ups," and in regard to one such error involving his 1940 catch, states that
We at the WRMA feel it a greater likelihood that a muskie angler be unable to properly identify pictures of his own children before being unable to distinguish an alleged photograph of his second world record fish from one supposedly representing a much smaller specimen.
In other words, in the opinion of the WRMA, Spray's record claims are almost certainly false. In addition to their investigation of Spray's character, the group commissioned a private company to perform a photogrammetric analysis---the determination of measurements and camera positions from photos---of multiple images, including Spray with his 1940 and 1949 catches. According to their results, Charlie was even shorter than Arnold's upper-bound estimate: They placed the muskie's length in a range of approximately 52 to 55 inches.
The Hall of Fame disagrees (in fact, the two groups even disagree about the spelling of "muskie," with the Hall of Fame preferring "musky"). The Hall's decision---regardless of Arnold's "muskie memo," WRMA's objections, and continued debates---is that Spray's record will stand.
The decision has riled not just anglers, but many mathematicians as well. Scott Allen, it turns out, also contacted Joseph Gallian of the University of Minnesota Duluth and Dorian Goldfeld of Columbia. Curiously, Arnold and Goldfeld were given completely different photos, and Gallian eventually received both. While the three mathematicians drew different numerical conclusions from the evidence they were given and the assumptions they were asked to use, all three were angered by the Hall's decision---as were many others.
"A bunch of people sort of took up the call," Arnold says. "There have been calls and newspaper articles and things like that, but the Hall has basically said, ‘We've done our analysis and we don't foresee looking into it any further.'" According to Arnold, the Hall has actually changed its rules: A $1500 filing fee is now required for any challenges to its records.
Is mathematics being ignored in a situation where it could provide a valuable service?
"I think it's slightly worse than that," the IMA director says. "I think it's being manipulated . . . that there's an attempt, by giving out limited evidence and going to different people, to come up with a point of view that supports a decision that perhaps they had already come to in any case."
Arnold cites the Hall's giving different photos to the three mathematicians, instead of providing all three with all available evidence, and asking the mathematicians to accept what he considers dubious assumptions. The mathematicians, moreover, have received no response to their suggestion that an independent commission of experts be formed to examine the matter. The WRMA has put its weight behind that recommendation, stating that it would abide by such a commission's conclusions.
It's unlikely that the question of Charlie's size will ever be answered with absolute certainty. The building that housed the mounted fish was destroyed in a fire in 1959, and Spray committed suicide in 1984; at any rate, it is doubtful that his testimony would shed any additional light on the matter. Still, Arnold believes that an independent commission given all the evidence could actually settle the controversy, using both geometry and photogrammetry.
"I think if you were to look at all the evidence, you might well be able to get something fairly definitive. Of course it's not guaranteed," he says. "But I think that good math and good science could pretty much put the issue to rest, if people were willing to pay attention to it."
For the record: IMA director Doug Arnold demonstrates that the same 48" plank, held by the same 5'10" man, can appear substantially larger or smaller, depending on the angle and position of the camera.
***
Spray described his fishing career in an autobiography titled Looking Back At That Phase Of My Muskie Days. The interested reader can purchase the book, albeit at a high price: One of the 2000 copies reportedly printed sold for more than $1000 on eBay in 2004.
Those unwilling to make a financial investment in the debate can consult the following resources:
Doug Arnold's documentation of the debate: http://www.ima.umn.edu/~arnold/muskie/;
The National Fresh Water Fishing Hall of Fame's Web site: http://www.freshwater-fishing.org/; and
The World Record Muskie Alliance Web site: http://www.worldrecordmuskiealliance.com/.
Michelle Sipics, a student in the graduate program in science writing at MIT, is spending the summer as an intern at SIAM News.
|
|
| |
|
| I find it remarkable that the "Yes" vote count on this poll, remember this began as a poll, is now at 79. That is well up from where it had stood stagnated at 12 votes for so long while the "No" votes remain steadily where they have been.
Suddenly we have a large influx of new people on this thread interested in casting votes on this poll who were previously not there?
-OR-
We have folks chiming in with multiple votes from their cell phones, no IP, or a different location on a PC with a different IP address in order to spin the reality that had been established and stood at a stable number for quite a while. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Yep. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | I never voted at all. I tend to think Johnsons fish is (more legit then sprays) But dont really have an opinion of either. So could not in good conscience cast a vote either way. The Johnson fish looks like a freak to me. If the mount was not doctored the fish could have been legit. But I dont know any facts so I didnt vote. It sure is a big mount. But I dont have an opinion either way. Mike |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8820
| Guest - 2/7/2011 11:27 PM
I find it remarkable that the "Yes" vote count on this poll, remember this began as a poll, is now at 79. That is well up from where it had stood stagnated at 12 votes for so long while the "No" votes remain steadily where they have been.
Suddenly we have a large influx of new people on this thread interested in casting votes on this poll who were previously not there?
-OR-
We have folks chiming in with multiple votes from their cell phones, no IP, or a different location on a PC with a different IP address in order to spin the reality that had been established and stood at a stable number for quite a while.
Wow. Talk about grasping at proverbial straws. That's desperation at it's finest, right there. "Keep voting, we're up to 15%!!"... Ummm...
The poll numbers obviously don't represent reality, not by any stretch. If even ONE person really believed the Spray and Johnson fish were legitimate, they'd have spoken up by now, and been able to provide at least one half-baked reason why the two fish were believeable. I've been waiting this whole time for something, ANYTHING that would make me think "hey, you know what? Maybe they WERE that big!" because I really want to believe it's possible to catch a 70# muskie in Wisconsin. I actually came here hoping someone could convince me, despite all the information that's out there that even someone who has never seen a muskie would have a hard time disputing.
It's been weeks. Hundreds of posts, from everyone on both sides of the issue. Articles, history, photo analysis...
One would think that someone so bent on upholding these records would at least try to come up with a convining argument, but there's been none. That tells me that they've got nothing. They can't even lie well enough to convince anyone, or even make an attempt. Short of being able to manipulate the poll to show slightly less than overwhelming evidence that nobody believes records? I'd say the folks in the "they really were that big" camp have failed. Miserably. AGAIN.
I guess the old saying is true: "it's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt"...
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| firstsixfeet - 1/10/2011 2:00 PM
The Devil Made Me Do - 1/7/2011 11:54 AM
Simple poll: do you think the world record muskies caught by Cal Johnson and Louis Spray were as large as stated?
Yes!
Still here, still believe it, all of it, the stories, the myths, all true! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | esoxaddict, I think I love you! XOXO...LOL. Beautifully said and in the 10 ring of the bullseye!!
Your quote "it's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt"... also nailed Dettloff during last years debate over Johnson's mount on MH when he tried to convince everyone that the pelvic (rear) fins on the mount were so far forward of the anal fin due to "pelvic drift"during mounting. Obviously, the only reason the pelvic fins would need to be moved that far forward by the taxidermist is to obtain an unnatural girth dimension. Of course after John failed in that meager attempt, he opted to follow your quote when I asked him then to explain why if "pelvic drift" did occur, then where did ALL THE EXTRA SKIN in the mount behind the pelvic fins come from...he has remained silent to this day and I think that pretty much says volumes.
Kingfisher Mike: I'm surprised that while you spent several days in front of the Johnson mount at the musky show you didn't take a closer look at it. The crack above the pelvic fins where skin was added; greatly enhanced fins and tail with backing by the taxidermist to the tune of 1/2" of length for the fins and 3/4" of length and height to the tail fin, along with maximizing all other movable features of the mount like jaw spread; upper lip extension to the sides by over 1/2" etc. But then John didn't turn the light in the mounts case on to allow too close of scruitny to the unknowing masses.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | FSF,
I like stories too. Like....Star Wars, and Avatar in movie form, and Lord of the Rings in book form. Middle Earth was a cool place as one can tell from the illustrations, and believe me; Frodo lives! In my heart of hearts, this is a truth.
Led Zeppelin even wrote a song mentioning Mordor and Gollum. It's a classic.
Monster, even Beast WR class for certain Muskies in the Chip, hanging out in the deep deep water far, far away from all human contact, avoiding all anglers like a plague, and hunting in wolf packs up on the bars at night in what the Master of the Math Requests of the Great Hall described as a Spooky Fashion; assuredly those recent creatures of the Chip even were hunting occasionally (literally) a few hundred yards to a half mile up into the woods quite often according to the Machine That Plots The Track, which may, according to some sources, explain the reduction of the King's deer herd in recent years. Those fish are truly mystical creatures, intelligent to a fault and able to avoid capture of any kind by all but a couple amazing Warriors back in the remember whens of Muskie lore, stories still whispered around the fires of the Annointed Association Inns late into the night, but long after the young children have gone off to their night's sleep.
Yet according to the one who is the great Teller of the Stories and Traveler on little strips of carefully formed wood across the long, cold winter snows of the Deep North of the Hay Ward, it only takes one cast on the Mythical Mysterious Chip to capture one even larger than that mythical monster of Lore, as long as one stays in the magically endowed Resort Association Inn and has read the Life and Times carefully. Very carefully.
We were told by other Tellers of the Story, for many Years of Our Lord, that the place some called the New of York had similar and perhaps even mightier beasts, but the Teller of the Stories from the Hay Ward has stricken that beast down from the great stories during a Great Quest for the Truth. He alone was appointed to this task by those who did not believe the Great New of York Monster was as mighty as the Wolf Pack Monsters of the Mystical Chip. It to this day is a mystery who the great warriors and leaders of men were who sat at the Table of that great Council of the Chip and commissioned the Teller of the Stories to Quest to the New of York in search of their Great and Personally enriching Truth.
Though many new Warriors have now taken up the the Quest to capture and contain, even for just a while, at Great Personal Risk and Expenditure a like monster to the Great Chip's legendary beasts, alas none are to be found across the world, not even in the legendary and treacherous reaches of the Georgina, the Water Named After The Great Predatory Bird the Eagle, yea even the mysterious and Murky Depths of the Wabi Goon of the Great White North, not on the waters where those of the Great White North's Council of the Pinnacle of Muskie Knowledge proclaim the beast to be to this very day as told to the masses during the Great Second Meeting of Great Muskie Minds in the place some call the Indiana. This Great Meeting was commissioned by the Lords of the Muskies Of Inc to tell what is the Truth of it all, and though they told of the possibility, that yes, those VERY waters of the New of York were to possibly hold that Beast...alas, none are to be found.
It seems the Age of the Legendary Beasts has passed, and the Reign of the Much Smaller Beasts time has come. The Warriors of the Great Chip had surely vanquished the Beast.
Or perhaps, as the Led Zeppelin once sang; Gollum, and the Evil One, crept up and slipped away with her.
It IS obvious Gollum likes fish. He lives as well, under the new moniker of DD. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| Now you're starting to get it.
Without the mystery, there is no reason to cast and cast again... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | Larry,All I saw was a huge mount. I dont know squat about fin drift or anything to do with how someone would add length to a mount. It looked real old and cracked to me. Color was yellowing and in all fairness it looked like a Musky to me . The reason I said it is more legit then Sprays is because there is mount to study. But Like I said before , I dont have an opinion either way. If it was indeed doctored then it should be tossed out. I have no way of proving anything so I just dont consider either spray or Johnson in my view. Im waiting for the freak. I think Dales fish was a freak but we will never know because it went back. I think the New brunswick fish was a freak. I dont look at records and mounts and try to disqualify them. I enjoy the lore, the mythical creature stories, and the chase as it is. Lets all just go fish. Mike |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | FSF,
I always understood that. The mystery is just a bit smaller for me than it was years ago, but what's really real big is really real big. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Kingfisher wrote: "I dont look at records and mounts and try to disqualify them. I enjoy the lore, the mythical creature stories, and the chase as it is. Lets all just go fish. Mike"
Mike, I never did either, in fact in my first "Compendium" I tried to find anything I could to substiantiate the record class fish; ALL of them. But then along came a young, self-proclaimed "ex-pert" (former drip under pressure), named Dettloff, that was smooth talking, but he had a hidden agenda and upset the record applecart. Well, that is except for the fish of his Hayward hero's. He didn't play fair and now he has dug himself and the NFWFHF (and the IGFA with the Johnson fish)) into a deep hole with regard to muskie records, and that my friend is one heck of a sad state of affairs. A disservice to muskie anglers that FAR exceeds anything Spray and others may have done!
|
|
| |
|
| esoxaddict,
Your question: "Sooo..., If a 100# muskie was 'F & S certified' would you believe that too?"
Why don't you ask Larry that question? In the Lawton review he used this as a MAJOR selling point.
Editor's Note: Because he asked YOU, so knock it off. Last request. |
|
| |
|
| The Professors hired by the NFWFHoF recommended the creation of an indepenent panel because they themselves couldn't say one way or the other if Dettloff was right or wrong. If they had agreed he was wrong they would have said so themselves. In no way, shape, or form did they agree with the results obtained by DCM.
Editor's Note: They were not asked to. They definitely DID say enough to alert the Hall something was very wrong with the fish, and they were not at all happy with the way the communications were handled and information exchanged. It's also clear the Hall 'misinterpreted' the results they offered, and ignored the pleas to pay appropriate attention. |
|
| |
|
| As far as the former Canadian record by Edward Walden being legit, consider this:
Edward Walden fish...31" x 59"...Girth is 52.54% of the length
Ken O'Brien fish...30.5" x 58"...girth is 52.59% of the length
The photos of these two fish should appear strikingly similar and yet they don't resemble each other at all. O'Brien's obviously is very fat for it's length while Walden's is a supposedly a "snake" with a 31" girth.
Photogrammetry is obviously unnecessary in this case. |
|
| |
|
| The story I've heard is that the lower fins were removed on Johnson's fish during the mounting process and were reattached in the wrong location. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Not possible unless the taxidermist was either trying to stretch the fish or doing something else to augment the mount. If one 'removes the fins' which is just plain stupid, the resulting holes in the skin leave little doubt where they go when re-attached.
Ever been around a skin mount in process?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | CS wrote: "The Professors hired by the NFWFHoF recommended the creation of an indepenent panel because they themselves couldn't say one way or the other if Dettloff was right or wrong. If they had agreed he was wrong they would have said so themselves. In no way, shape, or form did they agree with the results obtained by DCM."
What is it CS that you failed to understand from Professor Arnolds comments: "A bunch of people sort of took up the call," Arnold says. "There have been calls and newspaper articles and things like that, but the Hall has basically said, ‘We've done our analysis and we don't foresee looking into it any further.'" According to Arnold, the Hall has actually changed its rules: A $1500 filing fee is now required for any challenges to its records.
"Is mathematics being ignored in a situation where it could provide a valuable service?
"I think it's slightly worse than that," the IMA director says. "I think it's being manipulated . . . that there's an attempt, by giving out limited evidence and going to different people, to come up with a point of view that supports a decision that perhaps they had already come to in any case."
"Arnold cites the Hall's giving different photos to the three mathematicians, instead of providing all three with all available evidence, and asking the mathematicians to accept what he considers dubious assumptions. The mathematicians, moreover, have received no response to their suggestion that an independent commission of experts be formed to examine the matter."
LR: CS I see nothing in Professor Arnolds writing critical of the DCM photo analys, but rather see a very strong condemnation of the Hall by its own experts! The Hall got what they wanted to use from them and then refused to listen to them further to get at the real truth. Shame on the NFWFHF board.
Your statement: "The photos of these two fish (Walden and O'brien...LR) should appear strikingly similar and yet they don't resemble each other at all. O'Brien's obviously is very fat for it's length while Walden's is a supposedly a "snake" with a 31" girth. Photogrammetry is obviously unnecessary in this case."
LR: And just where is it written that two muskellunge with similar measurements should look the same? Do you have access to some science that I do not? Doubt that seriously. Your OPINIONs are getting further and further off base. And again, you are sounding Dettloffean in your ability to analyze a photo without photogrammetery...What were your qualifications again???
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | And CS, just whom did you hear this from?: "The story I've heard is that the lower fins were removed on Johnson's fish during the mounting process and were reattached in the wrong location."
LR: Either Dettloff or one of his henchmen I'll wager. sworrall nailed it in his reply above, and if you would have bothered to look at the Johnson mount closely, you would note that those fins are exactly "in" the skin where they grew. They were NOT cut off, but rather just "drifted" when the taxidermist stretched the skin and then had to add more skin behind them to obtain the "claimed" length of the fish. |
|
| |
|
|
Larry - all argument aside, which fish do you believe were legitimate? OBrien's? What do you see as the top 3 fish you believe in?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Guest, my personal beliefs have nothing to do with this. All "historical" muskie records have not been treated equally nor fairly by the NFWFHF or the IGFA. It is as simple as that and I'm still mad as hell about it. I have made my position clear in my book; Historical records should be left alone and deemed such. And now we need a modern day fish captured that we can all believe in. Those historical fish that weren't recognized as world records when caught may come out a bit on the short end of the stick if they were legit, but we have to start somewhere and recognizing past catches that cannot meet today's criteria isn't the place to do so. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20245
Location: oswego, il | Not to mention Arnold also said he did not feel that Spray's fish was as big as claimed. Guess thy left that out too. |
|
| |
|
| Larry Ramsell - 2/8/2011 1:12 PM
Guest, my personal beliefs have nothing to do with this. All "historical" muskie records have not been treated equally nor fairly by the NFWFHF or the IGFA. It is as simple as that and I'm still mad as hell about it. I have made my position clear in my book; Historical records should be left alone and deemed such. And now we need a modern day fish captured that we can all believe in. Those historical fish that weren't recognized as world records when caught may come out a bit on the short end of the stick if they were legit, but we have to start somewhere and recognizing past catches that cannot meet today's criteria isn't the place to do so.
Larry -- your personal beliefs do matter in that you've studied this stuff more than anyone else, and you seem to have strong opinions on it. Whether or not the proof is conclusive either way, you must have some opinions. Just based on what you know, and its not excluding others you don't know enough about, which ones do you personally feel pretty confident were as large as stated? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | NOTE: I see that as I wrote this response, CS's last three posts were pulled. Sorry if it adds a bit of confusion, but at least his main quote is responded to:
CS: Your attempts to support your buddy John are growing weary and getting further afield, and your taxidermy comments are just plain, well.... Most of the rest of your latest I won't bother with, but feel I must respond to the following:
CS wrote: "Show me where the Professors said they agreed with DCM's findings? You say that you see nothing in Professor Arnold's writing critical of DCM photo analysis but I see nothing in Professor Arnold's writing saying anything positive about the DCM photo analysis either. What I do know is that the Professors didn't feel there was sufficient information in the Spray photos to obtain a definitive answer."
LR: This just shows how little you know about this matter...The professor's were never asked to critique DCM's findings and in fact were NOT presented with them, so just how would you expect Professor Arnold to say anything, positive or otherwise? And furthermore, two of the professors were initially supplied with only one photo, and a different one at that! What kind of Hall BS was that??? ULTIMATELY, they all agreed that the Hall misused their initial comments and disgracefully, the Hall ignored them and did no further due diligence...they had their minds made up before the professor's were even contacted!!! I know, as I was there for the initial decision to consult them. Get over it.
Guest. Sorry, I'm not going to head this thread off in that direction.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8820
| CS, it seems to me that you were convinced of that long before you made your first post on this thread. You may have made a good attempt at twisting around the comments of others to help validate you firm stance on your side of the fence, but let's not pretend you were ever actually ON the fence about any of this. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | CS,
This isn't your personal blog, it's a copyrighted publication. I asked you to stay within our posting permissions more than once.
I'm sure no one is surprised by your 'side of the fence' selection; I'm certainly not. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20245
Location: oswego, il | EA you could have left just a little nail for us to hit! CS, so you believe the hall's validation of spray's record was on the level? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 67
| Steve ,that has got to be the best written post on the subject i have ever read , you missed your calling ,i can see Hollywood calling you up for the movie rights , the big question is who will play Detloff, and in the end will the mythical beast be captured LMFAO Bill |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | Larry Ramsell - 2/8/2011 10:51 AM
Kingfisher wrote: "I dont look at records and mounts and try to disqualify them. I enjoy the lore, the mythical creature stories, and the chase as it is. Lets all just go fish. Mike"
Mike, I never did either, in fact in my first "Compendium" I tried to find anything I could to substiantiate the record class fish; ALL of them. But then along came a young, self-proclaimed "ex-pert" (former drip under pressure), named Dettloff, that was smooth talking, but he had a hidden agenda and upset the record applecart. Well, that is except for the fish of his Hayward hero's. He didn't play fair and now he has dug himself and the NFWFHF (and the IGFA with the Johnson fish)) into a deep hole with regard to muskie records, and that my friend is one heck of a sad state of affairs. A disservice to muskie anglers that FAR exceeds anything Spray and others may have done!
Larry, I love your book. It gives me dreams of screaming drags and busted tackle. Mythical monsters over 100 pounds and legends that keep me looking for the Freak. I am confident that someone is going to end all the debate. Im sending my best lures to every corner of the Muskies range in an attempt to be the guy who lays claim to that record(as a lure builder) . She is there right now fat like an oil tanker. Ill bet she ate a 6 pound Whitefish today I cant for the life of me see my way through the old records. So many claims, so many huge fish, so many legends and so much lore. Its the greatest mystery in the world of fishing. I love it!!!! ha ha ha ha . Take care my friend. Mike |
|
| |
|
| >What I said I'm able to prove and the NFWFHoF is going to welcome what I will be providing them with.< CS…I’m pretty certain that if this was a criminal case and you were my lawyer, my butt would be going to jail. You boast about “what you can prove’. But I seriously doubt that your ‘opinions’ carry the weight you would have us believe, as you have offered neither qualifying credentials nor substantiating evidence for making tjhose claims. Larry has consistently shared with the reader both WHAT he believes and WHY, based on well-explained circumstances and situations from reality. Yet you have continued to challenge him to debate on a juvenile level of discussion. Sigh. Steve may feel the need to delete this post because it is a bit negative towards another poster. But I find your ‘gamey’ style of posting on this subject, even after several requests from the ‘Editor”, to be annoying. Larry has stated clearly more than once that his interest lies NOT in endless debate of whether the historical records are legitimate or not but in establishing a new system of verifying and recording modern records, and letting the past ‘historical records’ alone as they are. What part of that are you not getting???? Frankly, whether you're on board or not---things are moving forward, not staying frozen in time! |
|
| |
|
| LR..."My point of noting both Eagle Lake fish were F & S certified was merely to show that both underwent scrutiny and passed (so did Spray and Johnson) and, again, not even Dettloff has had any problems with them..."
Dettloff will definitely have problems with them after I'm through. And these aren't the only ones he will develop a problem with. There are many more left for him to debunk.
What I'm going to provide Dettloff with will enable him to completely debunk ALL the work done by DCM. The media is going to have a field day with this just like when the NFWFHoF upheld the Spray record.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | And just why CS, if you are able to do so much and are so quailified, why not just do it yourself instead of continuing to use threats about what you think you know but have done nothing to prove? First step however would be to identify yourself instead of continuing to hide behind an anon board name and then put your cards on the table. We don't need Dettloff or the NFWFHF to further muddy the water. If you are so sure or yourself, then let's hear it instead of, as was noted above, continuing to "debate on a juvenile level of discussion." Whatever you have, real or imagined, isn't going to get any stronger coming from someone beside you. Stand up and take credit for your "work"...or continue your bluff or not, at Steve's choice. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20245
Location: oswego, il | The hall has already validated the records. Only an impossible confesssion could change that. What could you possibly provide them that will change anything. All I gather from you is that the records are bogus and the status quo is the acceptable conclusion. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 576
Location: Elk Grove Village, IL & Phillips, WI | Is there a timeframe for this great revelation and will all others fall except the untouchable Hayward fish? |
|
| |
|
| LR..."And just why CS if you are able to do so much and are so qualified, why not just do it yourself instead of continuing to use threats about what you think you know but have done nothing to prove?"
I'm leaving it up to the NFWFHoF because THEY are the ones in control. I don't have to prove anything to you, only to them. And I can guarantee you they will like what they see.
ToddM,
What I will be providing them is information that will lead to the debunking of ALL the remaining 60 lbers as well as information that will support the validity of the Spray and Johnson fish. There are many things they overlooked in the work performed by DCM that I'm sure they will want to make public.
KenK,
The time frame will be whenever the NFWFHoF decides to release the information.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 337
Location: Central WI | CS - 2/9/2011 3:29 PM
What I will be providing them is information that will lead to the debunking of ALL the remaining 60 lbers as well as information that will support the validity of the Spray and Johnson fish. There are many things they overlooked in the work performed by DCM that I'm sure they will want to make public.
This guy is full of crap.....I think he's just having fun messing with people. |
|
| |
|
| bobtodd,
I'm sure the others know better. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8820
| So let me get this straight...
1. You've found "evidence" that will debunk ALL the 60# fish.
2. Not one fish in 5 years of the best muskie angling the world has ever seen meets the WRMA's 60# criteria for the modern day records program
3. You say the Johnson fish and the Spray fish were legitimate, and you can prove it?
Well go ahead then!!
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | The last time you insisted you had inside information nothing happened. Not hard for me to do a search as to every post you have ever made here by your two Minnesota based IPs.
I'm thinking that is what will happen in the future. Convince me otherwise with data and facts, not buzzing noise. You come off as a conspiracy theorist offering all sorts of wild generalizations and absolutely zero facts or data to support them.
Start a new thread and offer facts and data; show us what you claim to know. I'll keep that thread between you and I only, no one else will post on it.
If not, do us all a favor and can it until this revelation hits the 'media'.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | I can't help but wonder, if the Hayward area is the only place that can grow 60 lb Muskies, why is it that the biggest Muskies caught every year all come from somewhere else? How long has it been since a 50 lb class Muskie has been caught in the Hayward area - much less a 60 lber? Now compare that to other waters like Green Bay, Georgian Bay, St. Lawrance, Mille Lacs, Vermilion, Eagle Lake, and LOTW where 50 lb class Muskies are caught every year.
The Hayward area is a fun place to visit and has some good fishing, but is not a WR class Muskie destination. The entire WR debate is really about tourism and keeping up the bogus claim to a WR to help bring tourism dollars into the Hayward area. That is what John D is all about - making sure people come to his resort. Without the WR being attached to the Flowage, he loses one of his big selling points.
It would not surprise me at all if CS was, in fact, John D. If it looks like a horse and smells like a horse and sounds like a horse, then it just might be a horse.
|
|
| |
|
| esoxaddict,
I'm glad you've got it straight. And I want to remind everyone that all of my posts that have been deleted will be in Dettloff's 'grab bag'. |
|
| |
|
Location: SE Wisconsin | J.R. ? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Oh NOOOO, he'll have a bunch of weird, off the wall, zero real content drivel attacking Larry!!!
Revelations galore.
What the heck will that do for his debate? Nothing.
Listen, this guy was charging for seminars offering HUGE revelations and conclusions from the Chippewa Flowage Musky Study before the study--which wasn't what they claimed in the first place-was anywhere near finished; in fact there was no conclusions to talk about except what was fabricated. Sounds familiar. I'd welcome the opportunity to have at it with this crew again. |
|
| |
|
Location: SE Wisconsin | Uh oh... The cat's out of the bag now
...Whoh, look how quite this discussion got.
Edited by Sam Ubl 2/9/2011 4:25 PM
|
|
| |
|
| As I said, I don't have to prove anything to you, or anyone else on this thread. You have a track record of deleting anything you don't want others to see anyway so why even bring this up? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Time to put this to bed. |
|
| |
