|
|
| Should the World Muskie Alliance (WMA) step up and assert itself as the official governing body of world records concerning sport fishing of muskellunge and tiger muskellunge? | |
| | |
Location: Eastern Ontario | I am very unlikely to catch a World Record so I really dont care. I hold the record in my boat but if one of my friends held it I wouldn't mind. If I caught a potential record I would take a picture for my own memories and hopefully watch the fish swim strongly off. The picture would not be shown except to very close friends and would definitely not show up on the web.
Edited by horsehunter 1/25/2011 6:11 PM
| |
| | |
| Why, then, should your last post? I get a kick out of people who post to the web bragging they won't post to the web...just sayin'.
That said, I'd like to see more of the WMA in action before making a decision like that. | |
| | |
Location: Eastern Ontario | I merly said I dont post pictures to the web , and I care little about records. | |
| | |
| Some prominent members of the WMA-
Richard Collin
Jan Eggers
Ross Fisher
Dave Fornara
Reid Frank
Mark Gostisha
Pete Maina
Dick Pearson
Jim Saric
Steve Sarley
Jason Schillinger
Will Schultz
Marc Thorpe
Steve Wickens
George Will
Steve Worrall
Yes indeed, rather inactive group I would say... | |
| | |
Posts: 73
| No. Let it suffice to say that Dettloff has tainted the water for being both the 'influencer' and 'keeper' of the records. There must be a 'checks and balances' system in place---where one group may help establish and maintain accurate record keeping...but at the same time is not an autonomous entity.
Which is exactly what I understand point #5 in the WMA Mission Statement to be expressing.
Edited by Jim Munday 1/25/2011 8:41 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | Tonight I say NO!
Maybe I misunderstand the WMA goal, or maybe I do. The WMA should focus on bettering musky fishing across North America. Doing things other organizations may not do becausre of politics. That was my take at least.
I question how is having a different record keeping entity going to improve musky fishing?
Perhaps I am jaded as I could care less about the world record. | |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I'd say no, and I'm a member. | |
| | |
Posts: 554
Location: WI | I guess I don't see what the world record has to do w/ better muskie management. Here in Minnesota, I don't think the people opposing the stocking of muskies in 5 new lakes were concerned much about the legitimacy of the current world records. I believe they were more concerned about muskies eating all their walleye and panfish, increasing pressure on their lakes and "nomadic" muskie fisherman spreading invasive species. | |
| | |
| Fortunately in MN there are 2 organizations working on educating people about Muskies and one helping with the political issues with our fishery. Muskies Inc and the Minnesota Muskie Alliance are dedicated to the fishery 100%; and they are partnering with many other conservation groups.
Unfortunately the rest of the Muskie world is battling issues such as Size limits, bag limits, land use, number of lines allowed and even spearing Muskies.
The world record fish is meaningless if she is over-pressured or harvested before sexual maturity, if she is dead or genetically pounded into a high density stunted fish situation, shes gone before she grew. Who really cares about something that can never happen; such as growing a giant.
I also believe many Muskie anglers in these areas dont get it, they may believe you can have it all and still catch a giant. Granted one may slip by for 20+ years before she is harvested but its hard for her to skin by with 4 to 16 lines straining the water and a 36 inch multiple fish limit; and the public perception that she is only good for hanging.
I heard a prominent angler complain about MN not allowing multiple lines; and in turn remark on how fish in his state average 35 inches with rare 40# fish caught every 10 or 20 years. So you have the ability to grow giants but its more important to fish 8 lines per person; with a 30 inch multi-fish limit day?, Great guy great angler just hasn't seen the connection.
Why is MN a magnet for these people and generating tons of interest? MN protects its fish to a higher degree overall. And we educate people on a large scale; so when the eye troller gets one he understands how important that fish is to the lake, anglers and local economy.
What important, the fish or paper. I hope these guys will do the right thing the right way.
fish>EGO
Edited by Muskiefool 1/26/2011 11:25 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | Don't confuse the WRMA with the WMA. I believe they will have completely different goals, and the WRMA will no longer exist. Those listed on the website currently may not necassarily be the ones that will be associated with the WMA in the future.
Someone please correct me if I am wrong. | |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I think the current record keeping organizations are capable of managing the data and correctly handling issues. At this point they simlpy refuse to do so. | |
| | |
| This thread is about whether or not the WMA should be the muskie record keeping body, NOT about the future plans of the WMA. If the 'muskie community' felt the WMA should have a world record division including the original WRMA members I'm sure they would do so. | |
| | |
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | Guest - 1/26/2011 3:11 PM
This thread is about whether or not the WMA should be the muskie record keeping body, NOT about the future plans of the WMA. If the 'muskie community' felt the WMA should have a world record division including the original WRMA members I'm sure they would do so.
And my answer is NO based on what the WMA has already indicated will be their mission in the future. Granted perhaps they can change their goals, but I ask again what importance is records keeping to the improvement of muskies? Why should time, energy, and money be wasted on something that doesn't directly impact the improvement of musky populations, habitat, and our experience on the water chasing them? I don't believe this group will have full time jobs on the WMA board, and thus their time is limited on what they can concentrate on.
Again, how does record keeping improve fisheries?
It is high time someone like the WMA is formed to start trying to have ORGANIZATION in the musky fishing community. Something that has been lacking as a whole. Well at least in WI. I commend the individuals that have put forth the effort to come up with the WMA and what it plans to do in the future.
I guess I just don't get why having to know who caught the largest musky is so dang important. We need to be spending our time trying to get goals accomplished to improve the fisheries.
Edited by CiscoKid 1/26/2011 5:47 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Spot on, Travis. | |
| | |
Posts: 280
| I guess I'll weigh in on this....record keeping IS important to many people in the musky community and the general fishing public. If not, why have the FWFHF OR the IGFA? Record keeping was never meant " to improve fisheries". It was meant to report the largest fish recorded by different means of angling. The all tackle WR musky is one at the top of the list. If it's not important to you, then move on to a thread that is of interest and importance to you. Simple.
The WMA is an outgrowth of the WRMA which had an initial mandate of investigating the current musky records as recognized by the FWFHF and then the IGFA..... AND, supposedly to follow the yellow brick road to what is an "undisputed " WR, if that is possible.
Now, the WMA seems to want to move on to some other mission for the health and welfare of the fisheries.
I would prefer that they stayed with the original target of the record book muskies. That was the original goal which is not nearly finished. I'm disappointed to see them loose focus and drift off into some "greenpeace" mission which is undefined and probably destined for the scrap heap of good intentions and lofty ideals.
Get the original job done!! Spray and Johnson are fakes....OK, who's next?
Ken O'Brien is next. Let's chew on that and come to a conclusion, eh? If it's legit, then the mark to beat is his. If it's bogus.....then go to Williamson.....etc, etc.
Let's find out!!
Edited by fins355 1/26/2011 6:27 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 243
| I think it will be very difficult to "set the record straight once and for all" because a number of people believe those Spray (and other) fish were as big as reported and are not willing to bend on it. I am not one of those people, but there are more of them out there than I thought. Some are more "informed" than others about the history and what's probable, but taking over record management would mean creating yet another faction and and the us versus you mentality. I'm a little fuzzy on the specifics of the WMA still, but I think the general idea is to bring people who care about musky fishermen together on common issues. And you probably need to have some credibility in place at this point to be the caretakers of a record like that.
That being said, I personally DO care about what the biggest fish out there are. It's part of what makes the sport fun to me. Some people care about it, some apparently don't. But tearing a guy down that says he would keep a 70 pounder that would set the record seems a little ridiculous to me. A sport caught world record? Heck yeah I'd want to see it and have it verified just to know it's out there. The best thing about what I consider to be false records is that fish smaller than those are released because they're not The One.
I'm not sure why you wouldn't want to share that fish with the world---other than the fact that you would get absolutely murdered on a website like this for killing a fish. And if you let it go and it was a record, you'd have a zillion guys saying there's no way it was that big based on their expert opinions from viewing the picture. How do you win? Somebody questioned Hamernick earlier this year for saying his reported 52 pounder looked like it was only in the 40s. Really? Some fish are obviously overstated, but it's pretty tough to make a call like that on others. So I guess the poor fella that wins the musky lottery and catches Girthra better have pretty thick skin and be willing to go into a witness protection program. | |
| | |
| The WMA is an outgrowth of the abdication of responsibility the WRMA claimed in the original mandate of investigating the WR's. | |
| | |
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | I guess I should have looked at the website, as well as the original poster of this thread.  The few conversations I had about the organization prior to the announcement never mentioned the record keeping part, and so I didn't believe they were doing it. I also don't see mention of it in the announcement here on the second page of M1.
Anyway direct from the website:
Mission Statement
The WMA is dedicated toward using modern scientific methods and technology to:
(1) promote and maintain muskellunge fisheries throughout the species’ native range by supporting specific management efforts
(2) determine optimal species reintroduction strategies and protect vital spawning and nursery habitat to ensure long-term integrity of designated muskellunge waters
(3) library and disseminate scientific muskellunge record data
(4) continue the search for a legitimate world record muskellunge
(5) establish and maintain a proper record keeping agency to establish the legitimacy of future potential record muskellunge
Sure I get records are important to some people. What I evidently have not gotten across though is is it more important than having fisheries that can even get you to the WR? Also what is wrong with the current record keeping agencies? Just because some may not like it? Some may not like how the WMA does it. Can't please everyone. The other record keeping agencies are good enough for all other species but muskellunge...Boy that just solidifies how "elite" some in the musky fishing community feel they are. No wonder anglers targetting others species don't care for musky anglers. | |
| | |
Posts: 906
Location: Warroad, Mn | Well! I reluctantly voted yes, but with many reservations. First I never joined the WPMA for many reasons, mostly I didn't feel that anything the was 50 years old could really be straightened out to everyone's satisfaction. The WMA now wants to be involved with muskie things (mostly legislation) and I feel that they may become a force (hope so and I support this)! But to involve them with being the judging and ruling body for world muskie records would seem to take a lot more expertise than what currently exists in the organization. However, if they can set the proper rules and regulations and have a non-bias board that can spend the time and money to properly do this it would be a step up from what we currently have. Time will tell what they have planned. If they eventually do become a force in the muskie world and end up with a large number of members. And if the WMA is really doing something for muskies through work with various DNR's or legislatures that are really helping the fishery. And if they can end up with a clear program for submitting and recognizing world records for muskies, then I think they should be in charge. In the short term and until the WMA is a going and doing something organization I suspect that we should just put up with what exits. Doug Johnson | |
| | |
Posts: 41
| CiscoKid - 1/26/2011 3:35 PM
Don't confuse the WRMA with the WMA. I believe they will have completely different goals, and the WRMA will no longer exist. Those listed on the website currently may not necassarily be the ones that will be associated with the WMA in the future.
Someone please correct me if I am wrong.
I am the one who started this poll.
First of all I would like to say the whole "Guest" thing on this website has run its course and gotten pretty stale. There is an old saying, "House guests are like fresh fish, after three days they stink".
We need some fresh air in here.
I was unaware that there were two entities in existence, the WRMA and the WMA, I was under the impression that it was the same group, one group, and the designation was changed, dropping the "R". My bad.
Now we have this schism going on where we are getting away from the point of the poll. The point I intended was should there be an emergence of a body to recognize the muskellunge world records, apart from the two current bodies engaged in such matters, which is comprised of people who are regarded in the world of muskie fishing as being capable of upholding that ideal because they are a group of personages beyond reproach and generally in such high regard that their cumulative opinions derived as a panel could once and for all put an end to the murky waters we are now immersed in as a community.
That, as I see it, is the only way out. To have those who are regarded as the foremost in the sport, because of their individual reputations, as a committee arrive at a final outcome we can all live with.
My name is Dan O'Hare, I live in New York. I do not pawn myself of as a "fishing expert", I am an average recreational angler and do not make any money off of fishing. If you have any questions, come see me. I live at 30 South Parkway in Leicester, New York.
I do not hold up any old fishing record as being sacred, being I am from New York please do not assume I hold up the Lawton fish with reverence because it was caught in this state, that supposed event occurred ten years before I was born and I wasn't in the boat at the time. I never met Art Lawton. I hold his claimed fish as being subject to the same scrutiny as much as the Spray fish, the Hartman fish, the Haver fish, the Johnson fish, the O'Brian fish, the Martin fish and any others I am not aware of.
Truth is truth and truth cannot be watered down, in the end it comes out in the wash in pure form.
All of those old records are as trustworthy as hearsay. The public will have the truth when science winnows the chaff from the wheat and we may not have the technology yet here in this day and age to arrive at such conclusions which are beyond reproach. Time will tell.
Who knows, maybe any one of them will be cleared once and for all as the true record but for now all those names are mud.
We have no record.
There is also not any small amount of collusion in play where the muskellunge world records are concerned. New York still recognizes the Lawton fish. Wisconsin makes great hay from world records as well. There is a lot of money involved.
Lies are the sort of thing that get people rankled and where the world record muskellunge is concerned not a small number of people want the truth.
Where the world record muskellunge are concerned today we do not yet have the truth.
Time will tell, it may prove to be later than sooner but time will tell.
Daniel. 
Edited by Lunge Master 1/27/2011 2:23 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Here is an article (updated) I missed on the other WR thread (April 2006 in the "News" section on this web site). 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
| |
| | |
| Absolutely not. Many (not all) of the principles in the old WRMA are as biased regarding this matter as those at the NFWFHOF. The WRMA's reports on the record fish were loaded with conjecture that hurt their case rather than helping it. Of course, none of that mattered because the NFWFHOF was keeping the Spray record no matter what.
Now that the WRMA has morphed into the WMA, it appears the organization wants to be a "new" Muskies Inc. Maybe I'm wrong but that's how it looks.
The committee spelled out by Ramsell appears balanced. I hope they'll be able to meet someday and put their stamp on a new WR......not that it will matter to the NFWFHOF. But at least muskie fishermen will feel better about it.
| |
| | |
| Larry Ramsell - 1/27/2011 9:31 AM
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.
And there you have it, MI is the official record keeper, all we need is a 60lb musky. | |
| | |
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | Guest - 1/27/2011 1:39 PM Larry Ramsell - 1/27/2011 9:31 AM
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. And there you have it, MI is the official record keeper, all we need is a 60lb musky. No, Muskies,Inc. is NOT the official record keeper. An endorsement and support is NOT a claim of being a record keeping organization. | |
| |
|
Should the WMA be the muskie record keeping body?