|
|
Location: 31 | FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Contact: World Muskie Alliance
Contact Person: Jerry Newman
Company Name: World Muskie Alliance
Telephone Number: 847 494-0342
Email Address: [email protected]
Web site address: www.worldmuskiealliance.com
O'Brien Summary Report
*All Tackle Canadian Record Muskellunge / O.F.A.H. / Ontario Record Fish Registry
*Line class record / International Game Fish Association
*Power Trolling subdivision all-tackle record muskellunge / Freshwater Fishing Hall of Fame
Angler, Mr. Ken O'Brien
October 16, 1988
Length 58”, girth 30 ½”, weight 65lb. 0oz.
Georgian Bay, Ontario Canada
Woodstock, Illinois 4-3-2011 — Attached link ( http://worldmuskiealliance.com/WMA_OBrien_Summary_Report.pdf ) is the World Muskie Alliance (WMA) report on Mr. Ken O'Brien's Muskellunge Record as currently acknowledged at the Ontario Record Fish Registry / O.F.A.H. The International Game Fish Association / I.G.F.A. The Freshwater Fishing Hall of Fame / FWFHoF. The WMA O'Brien Summary Report questions the validity of Mr. O'Brien's Canadian Record with scientific and circumstantial evidence.
The WMA will allow a reasonable summarization and/or excerpts of the contents of this report. The entire report may not be reprinting without the expressed written permission of the WMA. This report is property of the World Muskie Alliance.
Formed in January of 2004, The World Record Muskie Alliance (WRMA) assembled a dedicated group of muskellunge anglers who felt strongly that the controversy over the legitimacy of the largest currently recognized muskellunge could be resolved by the use of modern technology and unbiased methods of authentication. This report completes the original mission set forth by the WRMA and the WMA redirection strategy can now begin.
(1) promote and maintain trophy muskellunge fisheries throughout the species’ native range by supporting ongoing scientific efforts to determine optimal species reintroduction strategies; (2) protect vital spawning and nursery habit to ensure integrity of designated trophy waters; (3) library and disseminate scientific data regarding muskellunge.
The WMA is a registered IRS 501 (c) (3) non-profit organization ID #75884.
Employer ID # 20-1741826. State of Illinois CO # 0145457. | |
| | |
Posts: 229
| What nobody complaining or arguing yet...  | |
| | |
Posts: 574
Location: Elk Grove Village, IL & Phillips, WI | The report only confirmed the obvious problems with this fish! | |
| | |
| I don't think there's anything to argue about? I think all the reports offer up sufficient proof but this one is the easiest one to interpret. | |
| | |
Location: Illinois | For the sake of George Castanza, did anybody consider SHRINKAGE??? | |
| | |
| The yardstick confirming the length of the fresh fish was falsified certainly rules out that possibility. | |
| | |
Posts: 1185
Location: Iowa | Just Fish!... | |
| | |
| Ridiculous!!!
The fish was measured and weighed and witnessed by many, many people including some veteran muskie anglers, and MNR personnel.
Larry was eight days late...eight days after it's throat was cut(loosing tonnes of blood), eight days after it had been wrapped, bound and stuffed in a freezer....
Now 22 years later they look to discredit one of, if not THEE best documented fish on their list.
Again Larry is late...April fools was 5 days ago. | |
| | |
| Sorry, the yardstick was held alongside the fish the day it was caught confirming the fresh fish was nowhere near the length claimed. | |
| | |
| The mold made by the Royal Ont. Museum also supports the findings of the WMA and the measurement by LR, not to mention the weight discrepancy found by Larry also.
The fish clearly was not as long, or as heavy,as purported to be......... | |
| | |
Posts: 785
| The sad part is it really that hard to measure a stinking fish. It just amazes me this wasn't all ironed out the day it was caught... | |
| | |
Posts: 743
| I think the WMA should put a known fish through this same process.
go out and catch a 49". Weight it in the boat with a good scale. write down the weight. kill it..take pictures of the fish in diffferent poses..etc..
then, run the pics and everything else thru these same formulas and see if results come back at exactly 49" and the exact weight. most sciencetic experiments have a controlled area. has the WMA tried this on a fish they caught or a controlled fish where THEY could weight before they put it thru these processes? | |
| | |
Location: Illinois | tomcat - 4/5/2011 4:05 PM I think the WMA should put a known fish through this same process. go out and catch a 49". Weight it in the boat with a good scale. write down the weight. kill it..take pictures of the fish in diffferent poses..etc.. then, run the pics and everything else thru these same formulas and see if results come back at exactly 49" and the exact weight. most sciencetic experiments have a controlled area. has the WMA tried this on a fish they caught or a controlled fish where THEY could weight before they put it thru these processes? +1
| |
| | |
| tomcat - 4/5/2011 4:05 PM I think the WMA should put a known fish through this same process. go out and catch a 49". Weight it in the boat with a good scale. write down the weight. kill it..take pictures of the fish in diffferent poses..etc.. then, run the pics and everything else thru these same formulas and see if results come back at exactly 49" and the exact weight. most sciencetic experiments have a controlled area. has the WMA tried this on a fish they caught or a controlled fish where THEY could weight before they put it thru these processes? The WMA paid someone to use a specialized tool to assess the size of these fish based on photographic evidence. So, you're essentially asking if photogrammetry is a valid and scientifically proven tool. So while the FWFHoF doesn't think so, it is a pretty widely used method that doesn't seem the least bit controversial when applied to other (more important) items. Google it. And of course when the photogrammetry says the same thing as a mold of the actual fish? Well, it walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck...hey, it's a duck!
Edited by lambeau 4/5/2011 4:27 PM
| |
| | |
| musky-skunk - 4/5/2011 3:32 PM
The sad part is it really that hard to measure a stinking fish. It just amazes me this wasn't all ironed out the day it was caught...
It was all ironed out that day.......Read the account of the actual day it was caught. The attendees were a veritable who's who of muskie fishing in that area.
Some people just can't stand things the way they are, and instead of looking for the good and truth in people....they look for the bad and deceit.
It's called pesimism....
What the WRMA is accomoplishing is the death of many non-record class fish. Just think...they are going to keep discrediting every fish until they get to a 50lb'er that can't be denied. Then you are going to have every Tom, DIck and Harry whacking every 40 pound fish there is cause they think it MIGHT be a new record at 50lbs 1 ounce.
Larry....I emplore you to put your biggest fish (57-56 I believe) through the same process...then tell us you are not a liar when the results come back at 53.
This is ridiculous.. | |
| | |
Posts: 639
Location: Hudson, WI | muskellunged - 4/5/2011 11:30 AM
For the sake of George Castanza, did anybody consider SHRINKAGE???
It was Canada for Christ's sake! The water was cold! | |
| | |
| Seems like a pretty big and unlikely conspiracy....the president of Muskies Canada, a couple of MNR biologists, one of the most prominent newspaper writers in Canada, and 400 other witnesses....that's a pretty big story that a lot of people are keeping quiet.
Also think if you stuffed me in a freezer and pulled me out a week later I might measure a little less than I do standing straight up. | |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Knock off the personal attacks. When Larry Ramsel made that trip there WAS NO WRMA. And, they don't 'look to disprove' anything. If the evidence supported the claims, the investigations might have supported the records.
I worked some with a taxidermist for several years. I can tell you for sure freezing a fish will not cause it to lose the kind of weight we are looking at here...not even close, especially for a short period of time like that with the fish wrapped. The fish will not 'shrink' either when it freezes, not enough to measure. In fact, water EXPANDS when frozen. Weight is lost after long ( as in months to years) periods of freezing without a reasonable wrapping as moisture is absorbed by the very dry freezer environment. Not in 8 days, no way.
I read the angler cut the fish to kill it. Was that before or after it was weighed?
| |
| | |
| sworrall - 4/5/2011 4:42 PM
Knock off the personal attacks. When Larry Ramsel made that trip there WAS NO WRMA. And, they don't 'look to disprove' anything. If the evidence supported the claims, the investigations might have supported the records.
It is not a personal attack by any means.
I know there was no WRMA when Larry made the trip.....but it was 8 days late.
If they aren't "looking to disprove anything" why are they looking?? To say that there is absolutely no bias, and nobody is going in with pre-conceived notions is just a little bit nieve of us all.
The evidence does support the claim. The evidence of the day it was caught and who was there to witness, weigh and measure it. Are they all frauds.....is the WRMA prepared to say that to them face to face?? | |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'It is not a personal attack by any means.'
Yes it was.
'I know there was no WRMA when Larry made the trip.....but it was 8 days late. '
How does 8 days effect this? Explain that to me please.
And there's no one rushing out to kill a non record fish. On the contrary, many truly large fish heave recently been released immediately with no desire what so ever to claim any record, and that's how it will remain because of the 'release ethic' in place now. So that doesn't work, either.
They are 'looking' for the reasons expressed in the mission statement. Read it. | |
| | |
| tomcat - 4/5/2011 4:05 PM
I think the WMA should put a known fish through this same process.
go out and catch a 49". Weight it in the boat with a good scale. write down the weight. kill it..take pictures of the fish in diffferent poses..etc..
then, run the pics and everything else thru these same formulas and see if results come back at exactly 49" and the exact weight. most sciencetic experiments have a controlled area. has the WMA tried this on a fish they caught or a controlled fish where THEY could weight before they put it thru these processes?
The important thing is to make sure you kill it lol, for the sake of the acid test. | |
| | |
Posts: 720
| Wow,
I really thought they WRMA was going to confirm this fish. I understand whats going on here at least I think I do. Or should I say I thought I did. There is no doubt in my mind this fish is the "World Record". Too many people, too many creditible people have signed on to this fish for it not to be in my opinion. I find it quite odd that the whole report was not released. Even on the WRMA website. Like I said this was a huge curve ball and while I appreciate all the work that went into this. I think its a little bit of a SNAFU not to have released the whole report.
The last couple of things I want to ask and I'm not trying to stir things up here. Just looking for clairification. Why did Mr. Ramsell wait 22 years to bring out the things he found out on his trip. As hard as he has pushed against Spray, Johnson and the others with recognized fish. He sits on very #*^@ing evidence on the largest fish caught in 45 years? Also in the report I read it mentions Larry and three other witnesses came up with a weight of 54lbs. Who were the other three people and why haven't any of them said anything for the last 22 years. Like I said earlier I'm not trying to start anything, but it makes me question whats really going on here. It doesn't make sense to me at all. | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Not to speak for Larry Ramsell, because he'll do perfectly fine on his own. But from what I know, this was brought to light by the WRMA--not Larry. As I recall (someone correct me please, if I am mistaken), he is not a member of the WRMA. And he did publish his concerns about that fish in his books, some time ago. So it doesn't exactly seem like he was "waiting all these years to drop a bombshell."
But I do agree that the whole thing seems odd in some ways. If all those people were there to witness the measurement, then how did they get it wrong? But still, for the fish to lose FOUR INCHES of length in only 8 days, just by freezing? I am not a taxidermist, but that seems like an awful lot of length to lose. And although I didn't verify the measurement myself through photo analysis of the picture in the report, it sure seems simple enough--and that didn't look like a 58" fish hanging next to the yardstick. So I'll agree that the whole thing seems rather odd.
The other thing to consider here is that the WRMA *has* to know that any report they issue after the Spray fish, is going to be met with a much higher level of scrutiny. Yet they still put this report forth and made their recommendation. So it would seem that they truly believe this report to be the most accurate science available. While others might not agree, I feel that's worth something.
In the end though, I am very glad that I am not interested in hunting record muskellunge...or which is the "real" World Record fish. But I am interested in the process, and in the science behind that process. So purely from this standpoint, I'm fascinated by the whole thing...
TB
Edited by tcbetka 4/5/2011 7:21 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 720
| Tom,
This is a bomb shell to me I've followed the threads on Spray and Johnson's fish and while it may have been brought up before I didn't see it. But I continue back to my original questions. He's hammered on those other fish on this very board. But the O'brien fish seem to get a glance and a pass. Why?
Like I said this is not what I thought I would see. Nothing more than that.
Edited by Hunter4 4/5/2011 7:59 PM
| |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Hunter4 - 4/5/2011 7:19 PM
Read Larry's post #49
I was writing my post when that link was posted, so I didn't see it until afterward. I'll go read it now though, as I don't believe I've seen it before.
TB | |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | ' Here is an excerpt from his book: (A Compendium of
Muskie Angling History, 3rd Edition, Vol. 1, p. 462)' and so on.
Larry wasn't 'sitting' on anything, he had concerns about the fish and reported same in his book.
I believe the WMA report was brief because of the recent capture, not because it is in any way incomplete.
'O'Brien Summary components
Part 1, DCM photo analysis / Part 2, photographs of the mold casts / Part 3, Mr. Larry
Ramsell's eyewitness account. Due to the recent capture of this fish, our research did not
require the type of extensive research as in our earlier reports. Therefore, the O'Brien
Summary Report only contains three basic components with a short summary and
recommendation.' | |
| | |
| sworrall - 4/5/2011 5:05 PM
'It is not a personal attack by any means.'
Yes it was.
'I know there was no WRMA when Larry made the trip.....but it was 8 days late. '
How does 8 days effect this? Explain that to me please.
And there's no one rushing out to kill a non record fish. On the contrary, many truly large fish heave recently been released immediately with no desire what so ever to claim any record, and that's how it will remain because of the 'release ethic' in place now. So that doesn't work, either.
They are 'looking' for the reasons expressed in the mission statement. Read it.
How was this a personal attack?? I have never met any of these people, however they have made themselves public figures...and are also open to scrutiny. This is not personal as it is an organization. An organization that seems to be making there recomendations on 1 sole piece of evidence and setting aside many, many others. The are baseing their entire decision on the photographic analysis, that may not be correct. I am not saying that photogrammetry is not accurate, it is when you are dealing with EXACT KNOWN measurements. How in the world can you tell me that they know exactly how far in front of the fish the "Canadian Meter Stick" is, or exactly how tall Ken or Marion is...the exact size of the posts on the stairs.......they don't. But the base their analysis and decesion on that and set aside the eye witness testimony of a very accredited, respected group of people, who have nothing to gain in this situation.
8 days affects this ALOT. They slit the fishes throat, hung it in the sun, then jammed it in a freezer. Has the WRMA accounted for the weight loss from, loss of all fluids due to the slit throat and dehydration....NO.** EDIT** I just flipped through the Compendium and it appears the Larry does actually acknowledge the weight loss via "evaporation".Allow me to quote " logical to assume the the deyhydration of the O'Brien muskellunge could easily be an accumulative effect of hanging for several hurs in the wind and sun, and excessive deydration due to being placed in a warm freezer and being frozen for eight days before being reweighed, not to mention the fishes "slime" weight loss; considerable on a fish of this size" In all reality had this fish been weighed BEFORE it bled out it may have actually weighed more than the 65 pounds it DID weigh the day it was captured.
Ken O'brien is not a muskie fisherman, he just lucked in to a HUGE fish. Do any of you really believe he cared before going out that day, whether he might catch a world record muskie?? Lets not confuse him with the likes of Spray, Johnson, Lawton, and Hartman. He had absolutely no reason to falsify anything. Neither did the hords of good honest people that were their to witness "the most highly scrutinized large mskellunge catch ever at the time of the catch"
Bollocks | |
| | |
| Sorry I forget to address your "no one is running out killing muskies.."
Just wait...if the actual record gets dropped to something like 55 pounds or less, how much are you willing to bet we will see a slew of dead muskies from potential world record chasers.
There is just way to much speculation in this entire thread..like the loss of inches from freezing. Is there a study out there that outlines how many inches a fish will shrink when frozen?? No...so we can't say it is wrong... or right.
Was the head and belly folded over at the slit when Larry measured it?? We don't know..he doesn't say. SO we can't say he is wrong...or right
Somebody finds the whole thing "odd" with the meter stick. Its a Canadian Meter Stick, that's whats odd. I don't know I always thought a meter was a meter, in Canada, the States, Mexico or Siberia.
What is odd is having the gall to drag good peoples names through the mud. I find the whole thing kind of shameful and self serving. | |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Guest,
Larry Ramsell is not a member of the WMA. Your comments were made directly to him, not the WMA, and were pretty rude if you consider the context, although somewhat...just a little..understandable if you assume Larry is a WMA member.
If the fish was weighed after it 'bled out', later dehydration would have been considerably less than if the fish was intact when weighed and then went through what it did, less moisture to evaporate. That's why I asked that question.
I wasn't there, and have no idea what happened. One thing I wonder about...with the curve of that fish's misshapen body, if one used a soft tape and placed it against the fish's body, the measure would be considerably longer than a bump board (straight line measure).
Debate the facts, and stay away from the personal crap.
Reelman, no way do you start that kind of fight. Don't like it? Use your mouse.
| |
| | |
| Boy I'm sure glad with all the problems we have in Wisco with tribal spearing, Mich. muskie spearing and Minns polititons trying to stop muskie stocking we have an organization that goes after whats importaint. What a crock, why don't we consentrate on what's importiant, the fish that are still ALIVE!
Dan Crooms 54 | |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Hey Dan, did you read the WMA mission statement and what Jerry posted in the first post of this thread, or just say something uniformed off the top of your head?
| |
| | |
| Yes but I don't see how this nonsense helps the future of muskie fishing? | |
| | |
| I was not aware that is not part of the WRMA.
Re: the weight loss...You are only accounting for blood which it would have lost beofre the 65 lb weight. Our bodies are anywhere between 50-75 % water....how much of a fishes body is comprised of water?? Certainly 9 pounds worth of it.
Re: The measurement discrepancy...Really...WHO CARES. The world record is based on weight.... The fish weighed 65 pounds. Whether it was 50 inches or 70 inches is moot. It weighed 65 pounds, that is really all that matters...Isn' it?? | |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Nonsense to you, perhaps. Some people do care about where reality might be in how big these fish really get. Not interested? Then don't read it, and don't belittle muskie fanatics who actually do have the same interests as you and are and will be (if you don't drive them away with your comments) actually as active as you and are your ally. Just because conservation is necessary and important and a tough fight doesn't mean folks can't be very interested in other aspects of the sport.
Guest, if that fish weighed 65 pounds, then yes. There's the rub, I guess. | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | It certainly doesn't look like a meter stick to me, judging by the pictures contained in the report; and Dan Mills states this in the report, as well. | |
| | |
| I realize people care, but at least the Obrien fish is in the realm of claimed weight. You can believe 65lbs and not look like an idiot. The other fish from WI/NY you cannot claim the same thing...BR | |
| | |
| tcbetka - 4/5/2011 8:30 PM
It certainly doesn't look like a meter stick to me, judging by the pictures contained in the report; and Dan Mills states this in the report, as well.
Really?? doen't "look like" a meter stick. Please post a picture of what a meter stick "should" look like.
As far as Dan Mills states in his report....Is Mr. Mills in possesion of said "odd" meter stick..has in been analized for accuracy??
Again WHO CARES about the length. It is not the determining factor in it being a record. | |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Well said, Ben.
Guest, take a breather. Seriously.
'I started marking numbers up and down from #16 since that was a
clear one to identify and begin marking from . Using that, zero ended at the top of
the ruler and the bottom increment was 36. It is a yardstick.' | |
| | |
Location: 31 | The O'Brien Summary Report is only nine pages total, except the contact information we submitted to the OFAH for verification purposes. After initially reviewing the evidence, we determined there was no reason to examine other photos, or question other witnesses. A professional identified it as a yardstick, and that same professional determined the max length of the hanging fresh fish. Unfortunately, the fish does not meet OFAH protocol regarding length verification, please reread that section of the report.
I think it's important for some of you to realize that Mr. Ramsell was obviously willing to give this fish every benefit of the doubt, exactly the same as he did with Spray and Johnson before we began compiling those reports. He has always answered every question, and we always had unfettered access to his library of information.
Frankly, I think we are lucky to have somebody like Larry who has spend his life documenting muskie history for us. I also think we are just as lucky to have had someone who was willing to drive 900 miles to get the "scoop" on O'Brien. I guarantee you that his only intention was to verify the fish, he obviously did not want to drop a bombshell some 20 years later. I personally know he finds the ridiculous state of the current records deeply upsetting... and this type of unpleasantness certainly gives me no satisfaction either. However, I am very proud of the reports and supremely confident we uncovered the truth with Spray, Johnson and O'Brien.
| |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Funny Stuff - 4/5/2011 9:05 PM
tcbetka - 4/5/2011 8:30 PM
It certainly doesn't look like a meter stick to me, judging by the pictures contained in the report; and Dan Mills states this in the report, as well.
Really?? doen't "look like" a meter stick. Please post a picture of what a meter stick "should" look like.
As far as Dan Mills states in his report....Is Mr. Mills in possesion of said "odd" meter stick..has in been analized for accuracy??
Again WHO CARES about the length. It is not the determining factor in it being a record.
Well, a meter stick...is one meter long. As in 100 centimeters. As in, numbered from 1 to 100. As in not numbered 1 to 36. As in, NOT the same thing as is pictured in that image in the WMA report. (You'll note the image on page 3 of the report, with the angler holding a stick with 36 equally spaced numeric graduations marked on it.)
I'm not interested in this fish's weight, because I (personally) am not interested in whether or not it's a record. I just don't care. But what I *do* care about, is the process by which this judgment has been made. I'm interested in the technique(s) and method(s) used to determine that in fact this fish is in all likelihood, about four inches shorter than the reported length...obtained in front of an estimated 400 people. That's a lot of wool to pull.
So you ask who cares about the length? Well, I'll throw it back to you--who cares about the weight? All the analysis in the world isn't ever going to put the fish back on a certified scale, in a fresh state, ready to again be verified. However if the stated length of the fish is indeed debunked, then it doesn't take much inference to surmise that the weight could be off significantly as well. In other words, once the length is debunked--then everything of consequence about the fish is pretty much also suspect.
THAT, is why I'm so interested in the length.
Apparently, there are a few individuals belonging to an organization based in Illinois, who are also quite interested.
TB | |
| | |
Posts: 20219
Location: oswego, il | I think one could argue that the fish was different and/or measured differently each of the three times mentioned in the report. The head of the fish as larry holds it frozen does not appear to have the head extended from it's separated throat.
The weight decrepancy cannot be explained.
It does now throw in some new interesting arguements. The hall has been using sworn affidavids as an excuse to keep the hayward records intact. Does this report now invalidate those arguements? | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Yes Todd, that may be...but the WMA report makes conclusions based on a length calculated from an image of the (hanging) fish with a yardstick, held by the angler himself. Actually, there were TWO lengths calculated from TWO images of TWO views of the hanging fish, pictured with a yardstick. And these lengths were within about an inch of each other; both *less* than Larry Ramsell measured about 8 days later.
Also, the fact that these two calculated values were based upon a hanging fish, pretty much precludes error based upon incomplete extension of the head. Sir Isaac Newton has seen to that...
TB | |
| | |
Location: 31 | Excellence posts Tom!
I think it is important to note that three completely different methods of the WMA length verification process all yielded startlingly similar results, each individual method effectively multiplied the reliability several times over.
Further, having someone of Larry's stature measure the fish at 54" (when he was expecting 58") is pretty telling too. Think about the logical thought process he would have went through when he first measured it at 54", yikes! He must have double-checked everything, and he certainly knew how to measure (and weigh) a fish accurately. Can you think of anyone else you would rather have verify a fish of this caliber?
On a lighter note, "You can believe 65lbs and not look like an idiot" was a great statement by Ben. The incredibly sad part for me is that this was truly a magnificent specimen, (certainly the largest of the big three) and we will never really know just how big it was. It will be interesting to see if the OFAH removes this record, and if so, under what pretense (length or weight). | |
| | |
Posts: 1185
Location: Iowa | Jerry Newman - 4/5/2011 11:08 PM
we will never really know just how big it was.
Someday we all will find out, in a better place...
Matt Percival
Edited by Big Perc 4/5/2011 11:38 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 280
| Big Perc, I think we have already found out. Understandably many people are dissappointed and upset.
The photogrammetry obviously is very damaging. However, the mold which was made from the thawed fish at the Royal Ont. Museum is , IMHO, just as damaging, if not even more so. The cast from the mold clearly shows the fish to be considerably shorter than claimed. It is very close to impossible to mold a 58" inch muskie and have the cast measure inches less without taking a section out of the fish b4 molding. Even so, why would anyone want to do THAT?? Museums tend to be very concerned with accuracy. The cast appears to be very well done with proper anatomy. Just look at the pic of the cast sent by Kevin Hockley.....
The other issue is weight. A weight loss of 9 lbs. in a period of eight days while the fish is frozen is inexplicable from a natural occurence.
Aside from the photogrammetry and weight loss, which is enough to discredit the length and weight, the cast from the mold speaks volumes AND is still in existence.
Doug Petrousek
Edited by fins355 4/6/2011 8:35 AM
| |
| | |
| I like what Doug said, pictures like that don't lie and the mold is still around and that 9 pound weight loss cannot be explained as something that happens naturally when you freeze something. Getting mad and pointing fingers at Ramsell or WMA is the equivalent of getting mad at a cop when you get pulled over for speeding. | |
| | |
Posts: 654
Location: MPLS, MN | So why is it OK to basicallly call all the eyewitnesses including the MNR liars but no one claims that maybe Larry Ramsell and his weights and measurments are false? Seems like he always has the agenda and wouldn't be past fudging numbers.
Edited by Obfuscate Musky 4/6/2011 9:50 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | After reading this thread three times, I thought I had better make a few comments. As is always the case with threads like this, it is upsetting to see the "snipers" come out and post anon...and almost always with incomplete information. After this post, I shall only respond to questions asked by those considerate enough to "ask" rather than "accuse" and sign their names. Anon's can go to, well you know.
First and foremost, I am not a member of the WRMA/WMA. I was briefly early on, but decided to drop out and keep my distance and see where it went. As Mr. Newman noted, I have always repsoned to WRMA questions and have always made my library of photos and information available to them.
I scratched down a few notes where I thought a reply was needed, but may have missed one or two...if so, ask (and sign) and I'll try and answer.
Muskellunged asked about "shrinkage". Having done a fair amount of checking, it is conclusive that "bones don't shrink". Other "stuff" might, but as Mr. Worrall pointed out, water and anything with water a part thereof "expands" when frozen a short time.
The question of the "measuring stick" has come up a few times...let me make it perfectly clear, the misconseption that it was a "Canadian meterstick" was MY error. I had mistakenly assumed that since it was deep into Canada, it would naturally be a "meterstick", since Canada is on the Metric system...as I and all of you learned just recently, the measuring stick was IN FACT, a US yardstick measuring 36 inches, not the 39.37 inches contained in a meterstick. That three and a third inches is about the amount of length "missing" when one factors the "plus" into the DCM maximum of 54.4 inches. Does this explain the discrepancy between affidavit length and actual length. I do not know. I do know that I measured the frozen fish at 54 inches and the molds confirm my measurement.
Yes, there were many credible people present that day in 1988. I have spoken to quite a few, including some closely involved in the process. Was there a "conspiracy" by a few or several as mentioned? I don't know, I had always thought it near impossible, but I did have a past Muskies Canada President (after the fact), who originally believed in the O'brien fish but hasn't for several years, tell me a few things after the report came out (with some editing):
"Well ,pictures dont tell a lie,
1) inflated and deflated stomach
2) Your weighing some weeks later (actually 8 days...LR) and 9 pounds difference (impossible for dehydration to occur)
3) XXXXX at XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX 'Knows the Truth' but is un-willing to speak about (it) due to reprisals and negative effects to his business
4) Certain MCI executives (at the time) determination to make The World Record Muskie " Canada's belonging" !!!!! Absolute BS
Said among many and MCI exec is not as credible or believable as some might make them to be (Personal experience)
The Law of 'Omerta' surrounding this fish is simply disappointing. Sadly dishonest people come and live everywhere and making such an impossible or improbable wight to attain is simply un-reasonable and defamatory to the sport."
WOW! Make up your own mind. Hope I didn't start a war.
In addition, one of the more important folks involved that day (who shall also remain nameless), when asked again recently, after the DCM O'brien photo analysis about this length discrepancy that he had originally confirmed to be 58 inches, became somewhat hostile and told the person asking the question (who shall also remain nameless) to "Leave it alone. It is what it is." You'll have to make up your own mind just what he meant, but he was an MCI Exec.!
As for the charge that I am "late", that too is incorrect. And again, I didin't do the investigation, the WRMA did. I have made these facts of length and weight discrepancy known right from the beginning...it is very apparent that those making these unfounded charges do not have complete information. In addition, it was me, that got the O'brien fish disqualified at one point several years ago due to what I thought was a discrepancy with the scale. I was in mistaken.
As has been pointed out, the WEIGHT is key in record determination of a world record, so let's approach that subject, which will no doubt keep this thread going for some time; Where did the NINE POUNDS (not eleven as one poster said...I weighed the fish at 56 pounds on two different scales, not 54) go? I have been tortured with that question since the day I weighed O'brien's fish (with his permission I might add before someone jumps on that). In my book I made an attempt to "justify" weight loss, but... At this point, I have NO DOUBT that 65 pounds weight registered on October 16, 1988 for the O'brien fish was accurate. What I am uncertain about, is if ALL OF THAT WEIGHT WAS LEGITIMATE. And so here goes another bag of snakes being opened...some questions to ponder;
1) Why did the fish go from "normal" to "bloated" and back to "normal" in that days sequence of photographs from J. Grisdale's dock, to G. Grisdales stairs, to G. Grisdales dock, in the photos taken that day?
2) What part, if any, did the "hose" in some of the photographs with the fish hanging, play? NOTE: I was told by an MCI Exec. that the "business end" of the hose was down at the dock, but in a re-review of the original photos, I found three that had the "business end" at the fish while hanging at the staircase, where the "bloated" photos occurred before and after the fish was weighed.
To answer Mr. Worrall's question about the throat being cut, that was done immediately after the fish was boated to kill it ("only way I knew" according to Mr. O'brien). In the original color photos, which I have, there is a pool of blood in the bottom of the boat. How much blood does a muskie contain? I don't know, but likely not too much. By the way, the muskies Heart is in the throat right where O'brein made his cut, so obviously the heart isn't too big.
As a bit of an aside, Mr. O'brien didn't really care or grasp the importance of his catch AND he did NOT even prepare the affidavits! In fact, he no longer even has the mount...it is on display in Gananocque, Ontario, away from where it was caught.
And NO, Mr. Tollefson (Ob. Muskie), I have NO "AGENDA" here or with any other historical record fish, other than the TRUTH!! But thanks for your lack of confidence, even though you don't even know me.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell,
Muskellunge Historian for all of North America
Edited by Larry Ramsell 4/6/2011 10:01 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 654
Location: MPLS, MN | Larry Ramsell - 4/6/2011 9:50 AM
And NO, Mr. Tollefson (OM), I have NO "AGENDA" here or with any other historical record fish, other that the TRUTH!! But thanks for your lack of confidence, even though you don't even know me.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell,
Muskellunge Historian for all of North America
Obviously you lack confidence in the same way to the eyewitnesses and MNR officials that were there and verified it. Why should I trust you more than the MNR officials that were there? Do you know the eyewitnesses and the MNR officials that were there? If not, pot meet kettle.
Edited by Obfuscate Musky 4/6/2011 10:03 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | OM: If you knew even part of what I know, you too would now "lack confidence". I will say however, that I ascribe ONLY the witnessing of the weight to one of the MNR Officials. He witnessed what the scale "read". I have no idea whether or not he personally measured or witnessed the measuring. He did NOT sign the Affidavit. As for the other eyewitnesses to the Affidavit, YES, I do know them, as well as many of the other eyewitnesses that were there that day.
As an aside, I have pondered the question of the length discrepancy to one of the Scientists that viewed the fish at the Royal Ontario Museum where the first mold was made. I wondered why no one there noticed. I have recieved no response.
Edited by Larry Ramsell 4/6/2011 10:12 AM
| |
| | |
| Mr. Ramsell is entitled to his opinion, even though he once fought tooth and nail supporting the Spray as well as the Lawton and Malo fish. Up here most Canadians believe this fish to be the real deal. I know people who were there when this fish was caught and weighed as well as measured and they agreed with the original numbers. | |
| | |
Location: Illinois | Good work Mr Ramsell. Your dedication to find the truth no matter what the blow-back is, is admirable. Keep fighting the good fight! For every one of your detractors I'd venture a guess that twenty-five others who appreciate greatly your sacrifice to our sport! You exhaust every piece of information available and like any good sleuth remain objective and let the facts add up and then come to a conclusion. Your detractors are interested in something besides the truth, it appears. Thanks! Mike
Edited by muskellunged 4/6/2011 10:34 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Canadian Angler: My "opinion" is swayed and often changed by FACTS, particularily the science based report of the WMA with regards to the Spray and Johnson fish. In this case of the O'brien fish, you folks "up there" can choose to believe what you want, but you'll have a seriously hard time justifying O'brien's fish being 58 inches long when science and MOLDS prove otherwise, regardless what your "people who were there" say. Your only hope now is to make your case (using your name) for the 65 pound weight. That is yet to be settled to everyone's satisfaction, although the disappearance of almost 4 inches of length makes that case harder to make. | |
| | |
Posts: 280
| Rather than attacking the messenger, how about explaining the weight loss AND the mold that still exists.
This is no longer a matter of trusting eyewitnesses. It's a matter of FACTS that show the fish to be shorter AND lighter than claimed.
Believe what you like, but the FACTS remain and they discredit the fish
Doug Petrousek | |
| | |
Posts: 20219
Location: oswego, il | Just to clarify as well, the mounted fish is not at long as the claimed length? | |
| | |
Posts: 280
| Todd, as far as I know the mount has not been examined and is not part of the investigation.
The Cal Johnson fish sorta throws the credibility of a mount out the window.....
The MOLD is a "smoking gun".....with a red hot barrell!
DougP
Edited by fins355 4/6/2011 10:57 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 8782
| I have a few questions for all those who claim this is some sort of witch hunt, or an attempt to simply discredit old records:
What makes you believe that? Take a look at who participates in the WMA. What possible benefit would there be to intentionally discredit legitimate records? I've been following this for some time, and the only intent I've seen from anyone is just strictly for verification. Nobody is trying to re-create history, just to represent it accurately. And in the process, there has been overwhelming evidence that the current records were falsified. Why hold fast to old bogus records? Wouldn't you rather accept that we are in the middle of the best muskie fishing era in recorded history?
| |
| | |
| People should also consider that one of the requirements for record acceptance by the O.F.A.H. is a photo of the fish with a ruler held alongside it with the ruler and the fish being the same distance from the camera. The results of the photo analysis should be all that's necessary to disqualify this fish. | |
| | |
Posts: 720
| Why would Casselman not make mention of the size descrepencies? | |
| | |
| Mr. Ramsell you made the remark about me not signing my name, yet in your first posting you mention several people who you refer to as nameless. If it is your intention to be credible do you not think it would only be logical to name these individuals. By doing that, you can then prove your point and support your theory. Anyone can say "This person said this or that person said that." I applaud your effort as long as it is sincere. | |
| | |
| 400 people saw this fish - For people who actually have stayed in that area it would be impossible for 400 people to view the fish that day.
If you have actually stayed at Grisdales place, correct me if I am wrong but between his place and the marina just not enough people to come to view a fish. 50-100 people maybe since a tournament was going on. It was also October so not like heavy boat traffic at marina. It is also a long ways by car from the main road.
There is also the garden hose used to wash down the fish after slitting the throat. Maybe when they weighed it water was still in the fish - later water gone. Could have been by mistake. Why no photos of scale with 65 pounds with fish? There was 400 people right - cameras were around?
For a fish of this size and that a muskei tournament was going on you would expect to see photos of all angles including the 65 pound scale with no garden hose. I have stayed at Grisdales and have talked with him. Grisdale loves to promote his business. It was a big fish and we can all agree 56 pounds minimum.
The 61 pounder caught in 2000 should be Canadian record.
| |
| | |
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | CA: Even though you still refuse to acknowledge who you are, I will answer your post since it is valid and not an "attack".
First of all, this thread was begun by the WMA to disclose their finding on the O'brien fish. Anything over and above that has nothing to do with their report. As I have pointed out in my book, it is often necessary to "leave out names" for various reasons when doing record fish investigations. Since the science and conclusions were not mine, I don't feel I need to disclose names and create problems here...at this time. If you choose not to believe what I posted sans the names, that is entirely your choice...I'm not selling anything, merely trying to pass along additional information that I feel germain to the O'brien record fish story for you and the other readers. I am not making a case to the "record keepers", as they choose to ignore FACTS and SCIENCE anyway. Mine is not a "theory", but rather the gathering of information and the presenting of questions that may arise therefrom. Should the record keepers become interested in what I have presented and wish to have the names of the involved/unnamed individuals, I will then make them known. I will not however, name them here in this forum where they can be, prehaps unfairly, attacked without knowledge and ability to defend themselves and explain what truly happened that fateful October day in 1988.
My reason for asking for posters to "own" their posts, is that it tends to keep the anon. sniping at a bare minimum. Why are you afraid to post your name? You'll have to trust that my reasons are "sincere". If you cannot that is your choice. | |
| | |
| As I said before, the photos of MR. O'Brien's FRESH fish with the ruler do NOT confirm the reported length of the fish which is a REQUIREMENT for record acceptance by the O.F.A.H. This is a fact and not a theory therefore if the O.FA.H. wants to remain credible it must disqualify this fish. | |
| | |
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | "Guest" wrote: "...The 61 pounder caught in 2000 should be Canadian record."
LR: Off on another tangent, but I disagree. First of all, the Ontario/Canadian record prior to the O'brien fish was a 61 pound 9 ounce fish from Eagle Lake in 1940. While there is no certification extant for that fish, the fact that it held the record for 48 years rules AND the SMALLER, 61 pound 4 ounce fish caught in 2000 (by the late Martin Williamson from Georgian Bay), to my knowledge, was NOT weighed on a certified scale.
| |
| | |
Posts: 280
| Kinda hard to run away from the simplicity of the ruler..........or the mold.
DougP
Edited by fins355 4/6/2011 1:09 PM
| |
| | |
| POINT OF CLARIFICATION: I would hope that all readers realize that I am not trying to defend the O'Brien fish here, but rather merely countering a plethora of incorrect information or misinformation. If fulloflakewater truly does have what he claims above, I will be happy to assess it when he finally decides to quit playing games and post it here. And again, I covered the O'Brien fish in great detail in my book and included a wealth of new information there. All supported the O'Brien fish. It would be interesting to see new information/photos after 21 years. Hard to believe, if it truly exists, that it hasn't surfaced before!
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Muskellunge Historian
Must be the new information has arrived after 21 years, huh Larry?
 | |
| | |
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Response to a previous threads quote from fullof: Yes, fullof, or didn't you carefully read my previous posts in this thread? Actually "some" arrived and "some" was there all along and not "seen". And obviously you never did have what you had previously claimed, or you would have come forward sooner, correct? Or are you afraid your friends will ostracize you?
Edited by Larry Ramsell 4/6/2011 2:01 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 661
Location: Roscoe IL | http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arZdeg_fL-I | |
| | |
| fulloflakewater - 4/6/2011 1:20 PM
POINT OF CLARIFICATION: I would hope that all readers realize that I am not trying to defend the O'Brien fish here, but rather merely countering a plethora of incorrect information or misinformation. If fulloflakewater truly does have what he claims above, I will be happy to assess it when he finally decides to quit playing games and post it here. And again, I covered the O'Brien fish in great detail in my book and included a wealth of new information there. All supported the O'Brien fish. It would be interesting to see new information/photos after 21 years. Hard to believe, if it truly exists, that it hasn't surfaced before!
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Muskellunge Historian
Must be the new information has arrived after 21 years, huh Larry?
;)
Funny | |
| | |
| Just realized....does the Royal Ontario Museum have this on display labeled as a 58" musky and the actual measurement is 54?
| |
| | |
| Ok...so let me get this straight...
World Records can now be overturned by one group of individuals??
The criteria for over ruling can come from analyzing a picture
Molds (not the fish) are what they can base their measurments on (the smoking gun....ahh NO)
Speculation as to distance in a photograph are OK.
Speculating that a fish cannot lose 9 pounds from dehydration will be accepted
1 individuals word is greater than the masses
Heresay is acceptable
Certified scales do not matter any more
Actual certified weights hold no merit
Eye witness affidavits are useless
The ACTUAL mount of the fish will not be analyzed
Seriously I would like the WMA to a run a control on their photographic analysis. Take some known lenghts of fish you have caught and submitt them...See what the out come is.
With all due respect Larry I find no good reason why any one should take your word over the word of anybody else...never mind the individuals who were there THAT DAY. I can speculate on your agenda (sell more books, have your name known), thruth is I wouldn't know who you are other than for this. NONE of the people there that day had and agenda of their own.
| |
| | |
Posts: 280
| I'll say this.....the mold of the fish is an EXACT representation of THE fish itself. The mold has no agenda.
How would you explain the variance between what the mold shows and the purported dimensions of the fish?
How...and why, would Kevin Hockley or anyone, want to counterfeit the mold to a SMALLER size than what was claimed??
Again....say what you like.....disprove the yardstick next to the FRESH fish.
How do YOU know what motivations or agendas ANYONE who was present may have had?
DougP
Edited by fins355 4/6/2011 3:05 PM
| |
| | |
| Funny Stuff,
The photographic requirements were known BEFORE the photographs were taken. The rules for record acceptance by the O.F.A.H. clearly state that the ruler and the fish should be the SAME distance from the camera.
The mold will have the same measurements as the fish itself.
A fish cannot lose 9 lbs. due to dehydration.
The O.F.A.H. knows that having a ruler the same distance from the camera as the fish will result in an extremely accurate length assessment which is why they request this type of photo.
| |
| | |
Posts: 8782
| Funny Stuff - 4/6/2011 2:36 PM
Ok...so let me get this straight...
World Records can now be overturned by one group of individuals??
The criteria for over ruling can come from analyzing a picture
Molds (not the fish) are what they can base their measurments on (the smoking gun....ahh NO)
Speculation as to distance in a photograph are OK.
Speculating that a fish cannot lose 9 pounds from dehydration will be accepted
1 individuals word is greater than the masses
Heresay is acceptable
Certified scales do not matter any more
Actual certified weights hold no merit
Eye witness affidavits are useless
The ACTUAL mount of the fish will not be analyzed
Seriously I would like the WMA to a run a control on their photographic analysis. Take some known lenghts of fish you have caught and submitt them...See what the out come is.
With all due respect Larry I find no good reason why any one should take your word over the word of anybody else...never mind the individuals who were there THAT DAY. I can speculate on your agenda (sell more books, have your name known), thruth is I wouldn't know who you are other than for this. NONE of the people there that day had and agenda of their own.
Let's take these one at a time:
1. "World Records can now be overturned by one group of individuals??" World records can be overturned if that group of individuals uncovers legitimate evidence that the records were falsified. If that same group finds that the records were legitimate, no amount of widhing them to be gone will matter.
2. "The criteria for over ruling can come from analyzing a picture" It can if the photographic evidence shows the fish to be smaller than claimed.
3. "Molds (not the fish) are what they can base their measurments on (the smoking gun....ahh NO)" Without the actual fish, a mold can give a pretty good indication of the actual size. And if the mold of said fish is shorter than the claimed length? Well, there's only one way to explain that, and it's ain't "shrinkage".
4. "Speculation as to distance in a photograph are OK." Speculation? Photo analysis and speculation are not the same thing.
5. "Speculating that a fish cannot lose 9 pounds from dehydration will be accepted" Only if it's unreasonable to expect that a 9lb weight loss is likely, mor even possible.
6. "1 individuals word is greater than the masses" That depends on the individual and what they know. It also depends on the masses and what they know.
7. "Heresay is acceptable" Only if you don't want to know the truth. Need I remind you that heresay is why some of the records exist in the first place?
8. "Certified scales do not matter any more" That depends on who witnessed them, and what may or may not have been shoved inside the fish when it was weighed.
9. "Actual certified weights hold no merit" Not if there is overwhelming evidence that indicates they were falsified.
10. "Eye witness affidavits are useless" That all depends on whether those eyewitnesses were lying or not.
| |
| | |
Location: Illinois | muskellunged - 4/6/2011 2:58 PM Funny Stuff: Larry is a legend, you're some fool who won't own up to your own nonsense. I'll take the guy who signs his name to his words over an anonymous shmo. Larry's agenda: the TRUTH. Yours: mental masturbation
EsoxAddict 4/6/2011 3:29 PM Let's take these one at a time: 1. "World Records can now be overturned by one group of individuals??" World records can be overturned if that group of individuals uncovers legitimate evidence that the records were falsified. If that same group finds that the records were legitimate, no amount of widhing them to be gone will matter. 2. "The criteria for over ruling can come from analyzing a picture" It can if the photographic evidence shows the fish to be smaller than claimed. 3. "Molds (not the fish ) are what they can base their measurments on (the smoking gun....ahh NO )" Without the actual fish, a mold can give a pretty good indication of the actual size. And if the mold of said fish is shorter than the claimed length? Well, there's only one way to explain that, and it's ain't "shrinkage". 4. "Speculation as to distance in a photograph are OK." Speculation? Photo analysis and speculation are not the same thing. 5. "Speculating that a fish cannot lose 9 pounds from dehydration will be accepted" Only if it's unreasonable to expect that a 9lb weight loss is likely, mor even possible. 6. "1 individuals word is greater than the masses" That depends on the individual and what they know. It also depends on the masses and what they know. 7. "Heresay is acceptable" Only if you don't want to know the truth. Need I remind you that heresay is why some of the records exist in the first place? 8. "Certified scales do not matter any more" That depends on who witnessed them, and what may or may not have been shoved inside the fish when it was weighed. 9. "Actual certified weights hold no merit" Not if there is overwhelming evidence that indicates they were falsified. 10. "Eye witness affidavits are useless" That all depends on whether those eyewitnesses were lying or not. Jeff, you're paying a non registered poster credence he is neither owed nor deserves. Your basically letting him use your hand if you catch my drift! Keep it short and simple is my motto at least! Maybe he is a legend too, but who cares what he/she says if she he won't sign his/her name?? Larry, thanks for your tireless work in uncovering the truth about these false records. You have done so with the utmost integrity frfom everything I have seen and heard!! Mike Witowski
| |
| | |
| Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul | |
| | |
| This has gottin outa control. What is the purpose of this anyway? | |
| | |
Location: Illinois | Billy - 4/6/2011 3:56 PM Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul I'm stupid. You're smart. I was wrong. You were right. You're the best. I'm the worst. You're very good-looking. I'm not very attractive.
Edited by muskellunged 4/6/2011 4:08 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 661
Location: Roscoe IL | muskellunged - 4/6/2011 4:07 PM
Billy - 4/6/2011 3:56 PM Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul I'm stupid. You're smart. I was wrong. You were right. You're the best. I'm the worst. You're very good-looking. I'm not very attractive.
Now thats funny!
Figured I better sign..
Mike Kanaval | |
| | |
Posts: 1270
| Obfuscate Musky - 4/6/2011 9:49 AM
So why is it OK to basicallly call all the eyewitnesses including the MNR liars but no one claims that maybe Larry Ramsell and his weights and measurments are false? Seems like he always has the agenda and wouldn't be past fudging numbers.
Great question! And one that I've asked on this very thread twice and both of my posts were deleted right away. In both posts I was not argumentative or negative, just basically asking the same question as you did except I didn't even question Mr. Ramsell specifically.
I give this post about 5 minutes before it's deleted again with no explanation. | |
| | |
Location: Illinois | Great question! And one that I've asked on this very thread twice and both of my posts were deleted right away. In both posts I was not argumentative or negative, just basically asking the same question as you did except I didn't even question Mr. Ramsell specifically. I give this post about 5 minutes before it's deleted again with no explanation.
It's OK for you or anyone else to call Larry a liar, if you can back it up with scientific fact, like Mr. Ramsell does! But to simply trust people's words, no matter their stature, or number, is not good enough for a record musky!
Just my two cents, if it's worth even that
| |
| | |
Posts: 1270
| muskellunged - 4/6/2011 5:02 PM
Great question! And one that I've asked on this very thread twice and both of my posts were deleted right away. In both posts I was not argumentative or negative, just basically asking the same question as you did except I didn't even question Mr. Ramsell specifically. I give this post about 5 minutes before it's deleted again with no explanation.
It's OK for you or anyone else to call Larry a liar, if you can back it up with scientific fact, like Mr. Ramsell does! But to simply trust people's words, no matter their stature, or number, is not good enough for a record musky!
Just my two cents, if it's worth even that
Please note that I NEVER called anybody a liar. My original posts said that the WMRA was basically calling the people that witnessed the O'brien fish liars and wondered why questioning the WMRA was wrong if the WMRA could question all the witnesses.
| |
| | |
| "To answer your question, I feel that the Ken O'Brien 65-pounder should be the current world record of both record keeping organizations (IGFA & NFWFHF), particularily since both organizations certified the fish when caught! A simple "no brainer" really."
"Saric (again): Jim I am amazed that just the bit of information posted here, some factual and most not, has swayed you away from the O'Brien fish. You are far tooooo easy, LOL. You "really" need to read volume I of my book!"
Muskie Regards,
Larry Ramsell
Muskellunge Historian
Saric is right then, huh Larry?
| |
| | |
Location: Illinois | Esox65 - 4/6/2011 5:11 PM Hey, Funny her...I guess now that I am not an ANON that my words hold just as much value as all other registered user that have a screen name. Actually that would require that you put your REAL last name into either your profile or at the end of your post. Because I know some of the people who where there that day...good honest people, excellent muskie fisherman, and class act citizens. Many of who have led the charge in sustaining the natural muskie fishery in Canada that we all enjoy. Noone is denying that they are good or honest people. That's the beauty of SCIENCE. Just because you disprove someone, doesn't mean you are claiming they LIED. Your merely saying that the PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE SUGGESTS STRONGLY THAT THOSE PEOPLE WERE INACCURATE.
Anyways it obvious that many of you have a little bit of a Celebrity crush. Guilty as charged!! Call me naive, but I feel he's earned it!
They ABSOLUTELY UNEQUIVICALLY CAN NOT say without a SHADOW OF A DOUBT that that fish did not weigh what it was reported to. Right, but if the preponderance of the evidence all points to debunking the record, should everyone leave their heads in the sand???muskellunged
Edited by muskellunged 4/6/2011 5:33 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 8782
| I don't know, esox 65. I've known a lot of great muskie fishermen that lie through their teeth. They inflate lengths, they inflate girths... I've known others who just can't judge size or weight by looking at a fish, even when they have it in their own hands.
A crappy mold? I don't know much about making molds, but I can't figure out ANY way to make a mold of something and have it be SMALLER than the actual item in the end.
Celebrity crushes? Now THAT is funny! Has there ever been a celebrity in muskie angling?
Edited by esoxaddict 4/6/2011 5:40 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 1141
Location: NorthCentral WI | Oh JC already.
Explain to me how 400 people could have truly witnessed the measurements of length and weight.
Unless "witnessing" means standing 50 ft away as a few guys do the measurements and shout them out to the crowd. How could any one of those 400 people truly verify it? Oh yeah, they can't.
Larry even agreed in an earlier post that the weight that day was more than likely accurate on the scale... BUT, how many of the 400 people "witnessed" the suggested stuffing of the fish. I will bet that is a very tight lipped group of guys.
The fishes throat was cut as soon as it hit the bottom of the boat and prior to any weighing. So, is "evaporation" the only explanation for the weight difference? I'm not that naive.
The only explanation I can think of (thinking for myself esox65) is that the 65lb weight is an ESTIMATE of the live weight of the fish. When the fishes throat was cut it obviously lost weight in blood, etc... Considering one gallon of water weighs 8.35 lbs, and guessing that the fish certainly could have lost around a gallon of fluids. 65lbs sounds like a reasonable weight to me at the time it was ALIVE. Unfortunately, there is no way to verify the amount of lost fluids. Is it possible that the guys that day were trying to account for this loss and stuffed a bag of water into the fish?
I really don't see HOW anyone could dispute the length on the other hand. 58" is a lie. Like I read somewhere in another post, if it was a flexible tape or tape measure, it would be fairly easy to get an extra 4" by measuring the curvature of the fish. Possibly good intentioned poeple not even thinking about it at the time. Certainly not the same as a straight line measurment with a bump board. As far as "shrinkage" any idiot knows water expands when frozen!
IMO, good work Larry. The science does not lie. If the claimed dimensions of the fish were true, the mold would prove them. No questions asked.
Huge fish regardless. It is much more believable than the WI record fish but still doesn't completely add up. I believe the fish may have weighed 65 lbs alive but more than a pound or two lost from "evaporation" just doesn't make sense.
-Tyler Martin
Edited by MartinTD 4/6/2011 6:23 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 166
Location: Alexandria, MN | One thing is for certain, this entire thread is about the best possible argument for catch and release I have ever seen. Word to the wise: If you are fortunate enough to land a Muskie that you think might be a state, provincial, national, or world record, LET IT GO unless you are prepared to face a lifetime of wrath from nay-sayers, doubters, haters, and whistle blowers. | |
| | |
| Where can I go to catch this fish again? looks like a nice fish be it 53 or 98 inches. | |
| | |
Posts: 1141
Location: NorthCentral WI | "Considering one gallon of water weighs 8.35 lbs, and guessing that the fish certainly could have lost around a gallon of fluids. 65lbs sounds like a reasonable weight to me at the time it was ALIVE."
Tyler,thats unfortunately impossible,verified myself with 4 muskies that died upon capture or release and weighed em and weighed em after freezing some weeks later and gave to biologist whom will autopsy and weigh em again months late (6).
I do know one was weighed between death at capture and re -weigning from biologist it barely lost over 1 pound ,that fish bleed out from hook injuries
Fish lose far less fluid than one might think,a 50 inch muskie contains far less blood then one would even think,really not much
I get your point. But wouldn't you agree that a fish with a slit throat would likely lose much more fluid than a simple bleedout from hook injuries?
IMO, that is like stabbing someone with a pencil OR slitting thier throat - which would cause more blood loss? Obviously comparing a human to a fish can not really be done but you get the analogy. | |
| | |
Posts: 8782
| MartinTD - 4/6/2011 6:26 PM
[...]
I get your point. But wouldn't you agree that a fish with a slit throat would likely lose much more fluid than a simple bleedout from hook injuries?
IMO, that is like stabbing someone with a pencil OR slitting thier throat - which would cause more blood loss? Obviously comparing a human to a fish can not really be done but you get the analogy.
I suppose it would, but certainly not enough to account for 8 pounds. Look at it this way - the average 180# person has about 5 litres of blood. If you lost ALL of it, you'd be talking about 11 pounds. (presuming blood weighs the same as water) Impossible to compare a person to a muskie of course, but I don't think blood loss in this case would account for much more than a pound of weight. | |
| | |
| Mr. Ramsell
No need to worry, I am not Mr.Dettloff trying to debate you. I am just an angler and that is all. I have read your latest book and found it very interesting, entertaining and it is easy to see how much time and effort went in to its making. But to be honest with you sitting on the sidelines watching this unfold I find it interesting that once again we are at a crossroads with regards to a record fish. Every GREAT fish over 60lbs at one time or another you have taken issue with. Some of which I agree on your findings, but ,respectfully one can't help wonder if your bottom line is nothing more than reinstating the Lawton fish. All of a sudden after 20 years everything becomes clear. This may be a big deal to some, but many of us have grown tired of this never ending story. Fishing is supposed to be fun, plain and simple. Some on this furom may consider you to be a legend and beyond reproach. To me you are another muskie angler who wrote a very good book and I mean that with the greatest respect. Get two certified muskie one in the 30lb class and one in the 50lb class. With at least two photos from different angles of each fish. Hand them over to the people that preform these tests and lets see how close they really are. With the results of these tests made open to this forum. Then we will all know just how accurate this science really is. I hope very much that the moderator of this site lets this post stand. | |
| | |
| A yardstick confirming the length of a fish is not science. Anyone can test the accuracy of this approach themselves. If the yardstick and the fish are the same distance from the camera, extreme accuracy is guaranteed.
Measure the image of the yardstick and then the image of the fish. Then determine what percentage the yardstick is of the fish. You will find that the yardstick is 67.42% of the length of the fish in the photo with Mrs. Grisdale holding the yardstick. 36" / 67.42% = 53.4". Like I said this is not science and a pixel count isn't even needed.
The O.F.A.H. is aware of this and that's why they made this type of photo a requirement for record acceptance.
| |
| | |
Posts: 906
Location: Warroad, Mn | All that said (and it's a lot). Who's fish is the real one? I would guess Larry's opinion would be a good one. Doug Johnson | |
| | |
| JD
I am not refering to the use of a yardstick as a science my friend. I am refering to the science of photogrammetry on legitimate fish whose actual size and and weight are known. Except to those who are to perform the tests. Then let the experts have a go at it and see how close their results are to the real length and weight. | |
| | |
Posts: 20219
Location: oswego, il | I asked this before and I will ask it again. I know the mold is not 58" long. I am to assume the fish is not mounted at it's said length of 58" Why is that then? I am also curious in all the internet debates we have had over these fish over the last decade that the only thing ever stated against against the O'Brien fish previoulsy that is was possibly filled with lake water. Heck I even seen one person infer that perhaps the guy was a little light in his loafers, nothing about the mount or even what larry had put in his book about the fish.
The O'Brien investigation rally puts in perspective for me the arguements the hall has put into defending their fish. The affidavid arguement is completely out the window as is fin drift and all the other crap with the mounts not to mention that friends of the hall have put the lake water arguement out there, which tells me they did not believe this fish was legit anyway.
| |
| | |
| dougj - 4/6/2011 9:09 PM
All that said (and it's a lot). Who's fish is the real one? I would guess Larry's opinion would be a good one. Doug Johnson
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/videos/01.09.2010/2124/Larry.Ramsel...
Edited by pepsiboy 4/6/2011 11:41 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 8782
| 4amuskie - 4/6/2011 4:05 PM
This has gottin outa control. What is the purpose of this anyway?
Well, it was just for informational purposes originally from what I can gather.
Then the folks who want the records to remain in place (no matter what evidence comes to light) tried to convince us that everyone who disagress with them is stupid, including the people who are arguably the most qualified to make judgements on the actual size of those records. In fact I think they even tried to convince everyone that those of us that just want to know what the hell really happened are stupid, too.
If my experience in life has taught me anything at all, it's that the next step is that someone will get angry, say something along the lines of "I'm right, and everyone else is stupid!"after which they will take their toys and go home.
| |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| Suffice to say, since first it was the Lawton, then Spray, then Johnson, and now O'brien which a certain self-proclaimed musky expert and historian originally supported, then now dis-allows, what can one believe anymore?
I understand the goal is the search for the truth, but the basis as again enumerated in that video was conversations with those appropriate people involved within those 400 or so in attendance, yet the written affidavits of deceased people supporting those other fish were discounted. Seems the vehicle to the same destination changed colors and can be viewed as shifting to the current flow no matter where the waters had flowed.
For me, strike one, strike two, strike three and yer out!!!!
| |
| | |
Location: The Yahara Chain | I'd like to thank Jerry and the WMA for doing the O'Brien report. I never believed this fish weighed 60lbs, primarily because of the weight Larry got when he weighed the frozen fish.
Larry I would like to know how you resolved the weight difference? Last year you were adamant that you believed in this fish. I asked you on the thread that FOLW keeps referencing how you resolved this weight difference. Your answer was to read your book. I would really appreciate an answer to the question.
We are down to a fish from Eagle Lake that I don't know anything about. I still have all of my chips on the Williamson fish. I believe it is the only legit 60 lber ever caught. | |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Guest--
'self-proclaimed musky expert and historian'
Nope. The entire muskie community has recognized Larry Ramsell's life work, and Musky Hunter, both official symposiums, and most in the scientific community I have ever spoken to do as well. Larry and I don't always agree on things, but both of us are willing and mature enough to offer due respect. I suggest you grow up and do the same.
You seem to be missing an important point. Mr. Ramsell didn't conduct the investigation, is not WMA member, and didn't recommend the removal of the record. He offered only the evidence gathered from the folks involved which is and has been a matter of record. His opinion in the past or now on this matter has little bearing on what the WMA offers in this report.
| |
| | |
| Thank you Steve!
I can >almost< understand the people who are legitimately upset lashing out but not this fulloflakewater guy who seems to only want to attack Ramsell. He offers up nothing new, and has nothing intelligent to say even though it's obvious he's pretty bright.
For those of you who are legitimately upset and lashing out at Ramsell and the WMA for simply doing their job (whether self-appointed or not). I would like to see a return to the subject matter if you please. You should be over the initial shock and IF you can rationally explain how this fish mysteriously shrunk to 54" hanging when Wilkinson supposedly measured it at 58" flat, everyone here would be willing to listen.
It's not just Ramsell's measurement, the DCM measurement, the mold cast measurement, it is the combination of them that appears to be beyond reproach in this report.
| |
| | |
| Bytor, I think the answer is pretty simple, last year Ramsell did not have DCM or the mold cast, these are new developments that drastically changed his opinion. | |
| | |
| I dream of someday catching the new world record muskie...................NOT!!!!! | |
| | |
| Fulloflakewater -- i read that other (old) thread where you and Larry went at one another, and you claimed....
- you had some pic that would reveal the truth (presumably that the o'brien musky is a fake).
- the musky at ROM isn't the real one???
So, where's the pic? And what do you mean about the musky at ROM not being the real one? Or did i misread or misunderstand? | |
| | |
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | I don't understand why anyone would be shocked at discovering that a fish's size has been exaggerated. This happens all the time. Whether it is the Spray fish or any number of fish.
I saw a number of obvious exagerations at the Minneapolis Sports show this weekend. One resort was claiming they had a 53.5 inch Northern Pike caught at their resort last year. Just looking at the picture, it was obvious the fish couldn't have possibly been over 48 inches or weighed much more than 25 lbs. The fish had minimal tail flop and guy was holding it with one hand. And it didn't look any larger than a number of mid-40 inch Pike I've caught. There is no way that was a 53.5 inch Esox.
Unfortunately, many, many fish are exaggerated every year. I hate to say it, but over-reporting fish by 3-4 inches is very common. Sometimes it is intentional and sometimes not. But it happens all the time.
I guess the size of the O'Brien fish does matter because it is the Canadian record and provides a great deal of advertising for where it was caught - just like the Spray fish does.
As for me, I had no plans to fish the Hayward area or Georgian Bay anyway. There are just as large or larger fish right here in the Twin Cities within minutes of my house - and Mille Lacs is only 90 minutes away.
Edited by Herb_b 4/7/2011 9:57 AM
| |
| | |
| This information is from December of 2009... I think there was ample concern about furthering the O'brien investigations long before this picture analysis. However, you can lead a horse to water, but getting them to drink is another matter.
12/22/2009 - gbfisher
"I find it truly hilarious that Obrien's fish sits at the ROM and no one cares to actually measure it or take pictures of it with a tape. There is no head with the mold but it's easy to see that the fish is no where near 65 pounds with measurements or by eye.
There are two different fish. The one everyone gets to see ISN'T Obrien's fish. I am talking about the fish we see in the case that goes around to all the fishing shows.
The truth be known is that MC and others decided with their ultimate wisdom to make a record that no one would ever beat."
12/22/2009 - Ramsell
"gbfisher: Andy I don't have to go the the ROM to know what O'Brien's fish looked like...I held it in the FLESH...better than a cast."
12/22/2009 - gbfisher
"You see Larry. That's what makes me wonder. If you saw it personally. I'm not so sure the fish you saw was indeed Obrien's fish. If you went to the ROM and asked the curator to see Obrien's fish. You might be surprised to see it looks nothing like the fish you held. I don't know you personally. I cant say anything negative towards you but and its a big but...Obrien's fish at the ROM, I can guarantee it will bring up many questions as to its legitimacy."
"Larry.
I didnt say it before but now remember that you didnt see the fish the day it was caught. Any thought to the fact that MAYBE you didnt actually see the fish that you believe is Obriens fish?
There's just to many stories behind it if you ask me and is why I say that you should go to the ROM and see for yourself. Im pretty sure you will feel differently about how it went down. Even many years later.
12/22/09 - Ramsell
"Larry: gb I am POSITIVE that the fish I saw WAS the O'Brien fish. I'm not sure what is at the ROM (other than a cast made later), but the fish itself isn't there. The skin mount is in Gananocque."
12/22/09 - gbfisher
"There's just to many stories behind it if you ask me and is why I say that you should go to the ROM and see for yourself. Im pretty sure you will feel differently about how it went down. Even many years later.
12/22/09 - Ramsell
"I don't see how looking at a cast made long after the fact could convience me of anything. I know what I saw."
12/22/09 - gbfisher
"You will see the original mold itself. The one made for the museum records. Not a cast or a skin mount. You will see the fish Obrien caught, not some facsimile.
I know enough to say that the fish they have at the ROM is not the fish we all see. That's my point.
There are people who have seen it but would not say anything as they thought at the time they would lose their business and reputation over a lie. Lots of people behind the Obrien fish.
I for the life of me can't understand how you can be so sure. Just doesn't make any sense from what I have seen. I'm not pointing any wrong doing on your part either.
Hope that helps explain myself..."
12/22/09 - Ramsell
"gb: I am aware that the ROM has an original mold. In my files I have a letter from Dr. Crossman about it. If I recall he said it wasn't very good. I recently moved and my files are in boxes, etc. but I will look for it. I know for a fact that he never indicated in any way shape or form that the fish was anything less than claimed!
As for the current skin mount, it is not something I would be happy about, but it is not a "facsimile" as you indicate. It is the original skin of the fish, regardless of how it is portrayed in the mounting process.
Your innuendo about folks losing their "business and reputation" for saying "something (whatever that would be...I assume you are inferring that the "mold" doesn't appear to be big enough) is a stretch. Got a photo of it with something in it for comparison?
Yes, there were, for good reason "Lots of people behind the Obrien fish." Over 400 people saw it the day of the catch.
I can be sure that the fish I held was the O'Brien fish because I know and trust those that made it possible for me to see it. This isn't a game. Obviously you didn't see the real fish and have doubts about the mold...so be it, I can't change that. "
12/22/09 - gbfisher
"I am not the only one who has doubts about the fish. Even guys who were there the day it came to the dock will say that there is a bigger story behind this fish. They have photos which I have seen as well that put any doubt to rest about the true size of it. Not a WR that's for sure. I'm trying to tell you if you looked for yourself you would change your mind about the fish you think is Obrien's. There's more to this. You say 400 people saw it. Ill trust you on that. I just don't think it was Obrien's fish they saw. I'm also saying if you saw the fish at the ROM you would agree that there is more to this story as well. I cant explain it any other way.
As for the ones in business still today. Hopefully they get a shot at putting the story to rest. Maybe once their business is sold one day.
I had a fish I caught right next to Obrien's fish to compare. It's too bad they didn't let me take a picture of the two of them side by side.Mine on top and Obrien's below. They didn't even want to tell me about who's fish was sitting on the floor because of what I am saying right now. Stretch or not there are a lot of people who know the truth but really couldn't care less.
I say lots of people have been duped!"
12/24/09 - Ramsell
""gb: I am aware that the ROM has an original mold. In my files I have a letter from Dr. Crossman about it. If I recall he said it wasn't very good. I recently moved and my files are in boxes, etc. but I will look for it. I know for a fact that he never indicated in any way shape or form that the fish was anything less than claimed!"
gb/andy: I found my letter from Dr. Crossman. In it he stated that he removed the stomach and the ovaries from O'Brien's fish BEFORE the ROM made the casts. Perhaps this is what is causing you concern as the cast is of an empty fish. And again, he made NO mention of the fish being anything less than claimed.
POINT OF CLARIFICATION: I would hope that all readers realize that I am not trying to defend the O'Brien fish here, but rather merely countering a plethora of incorrect information or misinformation. If fulloflakewater truly does have what he claims above, I will be happy to assess it when he finally decides to quit playing games and post it here. And again, I covered the O'Brien fish in great detail in my book and included a wealth of new information there. All supported the O'Brien fish. It would be interesting to see new information/photos after 21 years. Hard to believe, if it truly exists, that it hasn't surfaced before!"
12/24/2009 - gbfisher
"Both length and girth are what's in question. Not being empty. The mold is pretty good really and can be measure easily. Just doesnt have a head. I wouldn't ask you to go see it if there want any question to it's size.
I can guarantee you will be surprised. This way it will be you saying what you have seen."
12/25/2009 - Ramsell
"gb: "girth" will still be off since the innards were removed and to suggest that length can be determined without a head is to me a waste of time, especially since I saw the fish in the flesh. I'm not going to drive 1600 miles round trip just to see that cast."
12/25/2009 - gbfisher
"Larry.
I would not be on here asking you to go see it if there wasn't an issue here. You have to see it for yourself to understand. I can't explain it anyway else. Go see the fish. Saying you have seen the fish is not the issue. You have not seen the mold of the said fish.
It will not be a waste of your time. What you saw 20 years ago is not the fish of Obrien's. The mold is though. It will explain what I am yapping about.
If you choose not to see it...well...then the BS will continue.
What I cannot understand is why you of all people would not be interested in what I am implying. You want truth and history?!?!?! Its there for you to see except it is not what you think and a curator saying nothing about its size is not an excuse to not see it. The original curator is dead so you can't just ask him. I am not in a position so ask and take measurements of pictures of it but you are.
I hope this will convince you...."
| |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | OK, where was this information posted? | |
| | |
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Bytor/Troy said: "Larry I would like to know how you resolved the weight difference? Last year you were adamant that you believed in this fish. I asked you on the thread that FOLW keeps referencing how you resolved this weight difference. Your answer was to read your book. I would really appreciate an answer to the question."
Troy: Didn't mean to put you off then, but there really is a lot that goes into this whole thing. What you and most here (who haven't been around long enough) first need to understand about me and my historical record fish writings since way back in the 60's and 70's; my first edition book in 1982 and beyond, is that I had ALWAYS been a "reporter" of the known information extant. I always gave the fish the benefit of the doubt (wrong in hindsight) and in fact often attempted to "justify" record claims...never did I set about to discredit ANY world record muskie. The short version answer to your question (now hardly germain with the new findings of the WRMA report) is:
"It is logical to assume the the deyhydration of the O'Brien muskellunge could easily be an accumulative effect of hanging for several hours in the wind and sun, and excessive deydration due to being placed in a warm freezer and being frozen for eight days before being reweighed, not to mention the fishes "slime" weight loss; considerable on a fish of this size" In all reality had this fish been weighed BEFORE it bled out it may have actually weighed more than the 65 pounds it DID weigh the day it was captured."
As you can see, once again I tried to give the fish the benefit of any doubt by attempting to reconcile and justify the "supposed" weight loss. Again, obviously, the damage to the O'Brien fish credibility with the absence of almost 4 inches in length as reported in the WRMA report, that is undeniable, just cannot be overlooked. SOMETHING is AMISS and the weight loss needs better explanation!
As for you fullof...you are still fullof something if you do not produce the "supposed" photograph that you claim to have! As for your last post, gbfisher apparently was correct, since it is the ROM mold that the WRMA used in their report. gb may have also been somewhat confused on some of what he wrote, as there are TWO MOLDS extant. One made by the ROM and another made by a Taxidermist. REPLICA'S of the fish from that second mold (where another "head" was used) has been made and is likely what has been displayed at shows. As I noted previously, the SKIN mount still exists, in fact a friend just forwarded me a photo of ME measuring it in Gananocque almost 3 years ago.
| |
| | |
|
There are two different fish. The one everyone gets to see ISN'T Obrien's fish. I am talking about the fish we see in the case that goes around to all the fishing shows.
This part is true, the O'Brien replicas are actually made from a different "larger" fish. | |
| | |
Posts: 280
| Steve Worall and the Guest are on target.......Larry Ramsell is NOT the target.
The issue with the O'brien fish is the irrefuttable evidence with the yardstick next to the fresh fish in the photos and the measuring tape on the show side of the cast.
The weighing and measuring by LR 8 days after the catch lends supporting evidence but really doesn't matter.
All that is needed are the 2 pics with the tapes clearly showing the fish is not as long as claimed.
The evidence is on the table and has not been in any way refuted by the defenders of the O'brien record.
This fish needs to be removed from any record consideration
DougP
Edited by fins355 4/7/2011 10:59 AM
| |
| | |
| Hi Larry,
The WMA photo analysis seals the deal, doesn't it?
No sense beating a dead horse.
| |
| | |
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Here is the photo of me measuring the O'Brien mount.
Oops, darn file is too big, sorry.
Edited by Larry Ramsell 4/7/2011 11:05 AM
| |
| | |
| still not following this "other fish" thing?.... | |
| | |
Posts: 20219
Location: oswego, il | So if the mount is augmented I hope someone allows it to be examined. Why then fake a fish that is near but not bigger than the current world record? | |
| | |
| How long was the O'Brien mount? The pose that it's in appears to make an accurate length measurement rather difficult. | |
| | |
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | As I had hoped when this thread started, information is starting to flow both here and from a phone call I got while I was away a short while ago. Let me respond to some recent posts.
Guest
"still not following this "other fish" thing?...."
LR: After my phone call, this "other fish" was further clarified to me. The MOLD made at ROM is the first mold made and is of the complete O'Brien fish. It is what it is. That is the mold photo used by the WRMA. In addition, there are two more molds that are minus the head (don't know why). Initially, a head from a different big fish was used with one of those "headless" molds (I have photos) to make replica's. Apparently, the REPLICA's that exist now and are "promoted" to be of the O'Brien record fish, are of a different fish completely...so, REPLICA's seen at shows in a glass case ARE NOT replica's of the original O'Brien fish!!
ToddM
"So if the mount is augmented I hope someone allows it to be examined. Why then fake a fish that is near but not bigger than the current world record?"
LR: Todd, the O'Brien mount IS augmented girth wise (taxidermist method, not necessarily intentional), but not length wise, if the memory of my friend is sound...I failed to make notes, probably because I don't believe you can trust mounted fish...the Johnson mount is a classic example of what a good taxidermist can do. The only way further examination of the mount would yield any beneficial results would be to completely "de-mount" the fish and examine the skin and that certainly isn't likely to happen (as is the case with the Johnson mount after Dettloff advised him to leave it alone).
JD
"How long was the O'Brien mount? The pose that it's in appears to make an accurate length measurement rather difficult."
LR: JD you are correct that the pose of the O'Brien mount makes it very difficult to make an accurate measurement, another reason I don't put much stock in evaluating that mount further. Again, if memory correct, the mount was about 54 inches long, but don't take that to the bank, as noted I didn't make notes. Perhaps someone in GAN will stop by and try to measure it again.
| |
| | |
Posts: 8782
| So where does that leave us in terms of what fish actually IS the largest muskie ever caught and verified?? The Williamson fish? | |
| | |
Location: The Yahara Chain | Jeff there is an old fish from Eagle that would be next in line to be the new record for Ontario if they toss the O'brien fish. It's reported weight is slightly more than Williamson's. | |
| | |
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | esoxaddict asked: "So where does that leave us in terms of what fish actually IS the largest muskie ever caught and verified?? The Williamson fish?"
And Bytor wrote: "Jeff there is an old fish from Eagle that would be next in line to be the new record for Ontario if they toss the O'brien fish. It's reported weight is slightly more than Williamson's."
LR: esoxaddict, that is a very good question. It cannot be the Williamson fish, because it was never "verified" or "certified", nor was it weighed on a certified scale I've been told and it is too late now to have that scale checked.
Bytor, actually the Eagle fish would RETURN to the top spot by default, since it was the Ontario record for 48 years, although it in reality belongs in a "historical list" since there is no existing certification for it.
There are other purported 60 + pound fish on record, but absolute documentation is lacking on some of those too, other than Field & Stream Contest results, which no one today is much willing to accept based on the proven frauds that they had accepted in the past record years. Others with good documentation too, are suspect to many. So where do we go from here?
Edited by Larry Ramsell 4/7/2011 1:42 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 654
Location: MPLS, MN | Larry Ramsell - 4/7/2011 1:40 PM
So where do we go from here?
Hopefully fishing | |
| | |
| After reading through all of postings this is what it sums up to, An expert who believed this fish to be legit now says it is not. People who were witnesses at the time all decided to keep the real size a secret. The people from the MNR were duped, as was the taxidermist, and the biologist who measured weighed and opened the fish up. The scale which read 65lbs has no bearing. Some of the members of Muskies Canada were also in on this conspiracy and hid the true size as well. The owners of the resort didn't disclose the real size because they wanted to use this fish to increase business. The fish although mounted and on display for everyone to see cannot be accurately measured, because even if it is 58in long it would be inconclusive because possibly the taxidermist somehow added 4inches to the fish in order to reach its claimed length. | |
| | |
Posts: 280
| So you discount the photos showing the yardstick next to the fresh fish and the cast from the mold made by the R.O.M.........
Do you also believe all the witnesses to the Spray fish and the legitimacy of the Lawton fish?
DougP | |
| | |
| Go measure the fish at the ROM. It will tell the truth.
Larry said that there was no reason to because he has seen the fish.
He only "thinks" he's seen it!!!!!
I've seen it. It's Giant alright. A Giant Lie!
| |
| | |
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | "real": Not necessary, the WRMA report has the ROM fish with a tape measure on it and it does tell the truth, the O'Brien fish was NOT 58 inches long...period. When I handled and measured the "real fish", it measured 54 inches. The DCM photogrammetry and the ROM mold merely confirm and further prove that that fish wasn't 58 inches long. Hopefully soon, the referened "Omerta" will disolve and someone will come forward, OR, someone that was there that has some information and/or photographs that hasn't been made public will come forward. | |
| | |
Posts: 785
| Mr. Larry Ramsell,
With all respect for you and the findings found on this fish, seems like pretty solid evidence, I have a question. Did you (or others involved) not measure the fish when you went to see it back in 1988? Seems like that would have been an important part of the investigation. Also as the report above the picture of you holding the fish says you re weighed the fish? Why were non of these important facts discovered back than (8 dsys after the catch)? It just seems like it would have been easier to prove the fish a falsehood back in 1988 before it was made the new record than now in 2011. If this question was already answered on this thread or in the attached report a apologize. I read a lot but not all of it.
Thanks,
Andy | |
| | |
| Doug P
I see you only addressed a very small part of my statement. This has nothing to do with old Lou or Lawton. These were fishermen who had a record of stretching the truth so to speak, and it all came down to prize money. O'Brien had no reason to do any of those things. He wasn't searching for fame or financial reward. You still can't explain how everyone else from the MNR to the biologist missed the size and weight, and to try to insinuate that all those people were in on this and nobody ever let the cat out of the bag over the last twenty years seems pretty far fetched to me. As well as a very insulting implication to a great many people. If you don't believe that fish is a record that is fine with me. I can respect that, but this organized conspiracy is a bit extreme. Out of all those people who were there not one comes forward to say that it was only 54in, including those Muskie Canada fishermen, who are some very honest men. As far as Ontario laying claim to the record most Canadian muskie fishermen that I know could care less! Maybe someone should contact O'Brien or the biologist and see if they have something to say. If people are really searching for the truth their input might help clear the air. Post some other photos taken of this fish, maybe the one with the 4inch rapala in its mouth. That is just one fishermans opinion and I will leave it at that. Matt | |
| | |
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Musky-Skunk/Andy: You need to read the entire thread. This has been covered. If you would like additional information, it can be found FREE on my web site. | |
| | |
Posts: 280
| Matt, I understand your points. There IS a lot that can't be explained and I don't claim to have the answers. I don't believe that All or even any of the witnesses had a conspiracy to misstate the length or weight and I don't believe Ken O'brien cared one way or the other.
I do think that some people have some 'splainin' to do, however. Yes, the biologists and some others who actually handled and worked with the fish.
For me, it comes down essentially to the mold.
I will assume the mold was a plaster 2 part mold which was and is still used extensively in crime scene investigations which is allowed as evidence in courts of law and is also used in museum and commercial technique as well.
The mold that was made was a "study mold" used to replicate the natural appearance of the fish without any accentuated action such as an open mouth striking pose and drastic curves. Generally museums prefer very natural poses rather than that seen in commercial taxidermy. This type of mold will be THE most natural in representing the true size of the fish.
Unless it can be shown that the fish that was molded by Kevin Hockley at the ROM museum was NOT the fish caught by Ken O'brien, then the mold in existence is THE best evidence [probably valid in a court of law] that shows the true lenght of the fish. there is no getting around it......it is an EXACT duplicate of THE fish.
That , for me, is the end of the story. All the other evidence just ads to the weight.
I make no claims of any conspiracies....maybe just some incompetence.
just to clarify..... the picture of the fish from the ROM is a cast, aka a blank, from the mold made by Hockley. I assume the mold is still in existence in it's original form. The blank which was cast from the mold can be altered in any number of different ways, as in adding a larger head, etc.
DougP
Edited by fins355 4/7/2011 7:30 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 280
| Esox 65... I read what you posted and it really was a waste of your time....not worth responding to anyway.
DougP | |
| | |
Posts: 280
| Guys....IF the mold that was done by the ROM is a mold of THE fish caught by Ken O'brien there is really no where to go except to disqualify this fish. The mold is like a finger print....and it points the finger at a fish that is much smaller than claimed.
DougP | |
| | |
| Just for the record when O'Brien landed his fish it was taken to a resort owned by a Mr. G Grisdale. Grisdale had a 60lb scale which the fish bottomed out. The fish was then brought over to Deer Horn Lodge where it pulled the scale down to 65lbs even. This information came from The Toronto Star in an article written by outdoor writer Mr. John Power. I'm sure that O'Brien can substantiate this claim one way or the other. Among those present at the weighing of this fish was a Mr. P. G the president of Muskies Canada at the time who removed the cleithrum bone. ROM ichthyologist Dr. Ed Crossman the worlds foremost musky scientist will age the fish along with resident expert Dr. John Casselman who concluded this fish was 29 years old give or take a year. In my opinion these people are the real experts. If someone has doubts, these are the folks to talk to in an open forum. I will say no more. Thanks for allowing me to share my point of view. | |
| | |
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Esox65: I too read what you wrote and basically agree with DougP. Just for fun however, here is my response to your "historian" comment:
World English Dictionary
historian
— n
a person who writes or studies history, esp one who is an authority on it
Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition
2009 © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins
Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009
Merriam Webster Dictionary
Definition of HISTORIAN
1: a student or writer of history; especially : one who produces a scholarly synthesis
2: a writer or compiler of a chronicle
Matt: Just to "correct" your "Just for the record", I'm afraid you have it wrong. The fish first went to J. Grisdale's resort; then to G. Grisdales resort where it stayed. It was never taken to Deer Horn Lodge...the owner of Deer Horn Lodge, Derek Chantler brought his scale to G. Grisdales resort. The 60 pound scale that was at Grisdales was missing its weight indicator, but you are correct that the fish did bottom that scale out according to my information. However, I do not know where at in the whole process THAT attempt at weighing took place. It is moot, since we have already acknowledged that the fish registered 65 pounds on the Deer Horn scale. As I stated previously, I am unsure at this point if all of that weight was pure fish weight. At 54 inches in length, that is a bit of a reach and the "loss" of 9 pounds in 8 days still begs for explanation.
| |
| | |
| I think the main evidence lies with the with the 58" measurement taken by Wilkinson & Co. I know he is considered beyond reproach by some, but he is also the one who did the interview claiming he personally measured it lying flat at 58". In a word, impossible based on the WRMA evidence. If I were to reenact that day I would guess that the fish came in and there was a lot of excitement to begin with and everyone wanted to share in it. Understandable, but it's pretty obvious that whoever else agreed to stretch the tape to 58" would be interested in seeing to it that water was added via the hose before weigh in. From what I've seen of the before and after pictures, it already had water added to it hanging at the stair case, and 9lbs is no accident. The honest and reputable people that witnessed the 65lb. weight were flat duped, they saw the 65lbs but I would guess not the 58". Ken O'Brien was clueless, so let's rule him out as a suspect with both the tape and the water. If you are really interested in the truth, question the guys on the business end of that tape measure, not the people who witnessed the scale reading. Hope this helps and good luck.
| |
| | |
Posts: 8782
| Esox65 - 4/7/2011 9:03 PM
Please explain the posting permissions that where over the line?? Then maybe you can remove the parts that you deem to be unfit and re post the dismantling of the report....the vast majority of what I wrote was well within the lines.
Larry...that does not make you a Bonafide Historian..it may make you a student of history but not an actual historian. Calling yourself one is a slap in the face to all of those who actually are recognized by a degree as a Historian
I'd venture to say you have it backwards. A degree in this or that field is what makes you a student in that field, NOT the other way around. A law degree doesn't make you a lawyer, any more than a degree in accounting makes you an accountant. A degree in history? Makes you a student of history...
It's what you do in your career that makes you what you are, NOT what you studied in college. | |
| | |
| dcmusky - 4/5/2011 8:13 PM
Boy I'm sure glad with all the problems we have in Wisco with tribal spearing, Mich. muskie spearing and Minns polititons trying to stop muskie stocking we have an organization that goes after whats importaint. What a crock, why don't we consentrate on what's importiant, the fish that are still ALIVE!
Dan Crooms 54
And what's so wrong about it acovering all of the above bases? We've always got somebody like you to deal with the tribal spearing and political issues. The WRMA prefers to deal with the accuracys of records. To each his own. | |
| | |
| esoxaddict - 4/7/2011 9:20 PM
Esox65 - 4/7/2011 9:03 PM
Please explain the posting permissions that where over the line?? Then maybe you can remove the parts that you deem to be unfit and re post the dismantling of the report....the vast majority of what I wrote was well within the lines.
Larry...that does not make you a Bonafide Historian..it may make you a student of history but not an actual historian. Calling yourself one is a slap in the face to all of those who actually are recognized by a degree as a Historian
I'd venture to say you have it backwards. A degree in this or that field is what makes you a student in that field, NOT the other way around. A law degree doesn't make you a lawyer, any more than a degree in accounting makes you an accountant. A degree in history? Makes you a student of history...
It's what you do in your career that makes you what you are, NOT what you studied in college.
Does this apply to say doctors and enlisted military? | |
| | |
Posts: 8782
| BenR - 4/7/2011 10:04 PM
esoxaddict - 4/7/2011 9:20 PM
Esox65 - 4/7/2011 9:03 PM
Please explain the posting permissions that where over the line?? Then maybe you can remove the parts that you deem to be unfit and re post the dismantling of the report....the vast majority of what I wrote was well within the lines.
Larry...that does not make you a Bonafide Historian..it may make you a student of history but not an actual historian. Calling yourself one is a slap in the face to all of those who actually are recognized by a degree as a Historian
I'd venture to say you have it backwards. A degree in this or that field is what makes you a student in that field, NOT the other way around. A law degree doesn't make you a lawyer, any more than a degree in accounting makes you an accountant. A degree in history? Makes you a student of history...
It's what you do in your career that makes you what you are, NOT what you studied in college.
Does this apply to say doctors and enlisted military?
Ben, I'd say that applies to everyone. One of the first guides I fished with regularly had a full time guide business, tournaments, sponsorships, seminiars, pro staffers, the whole deal. 20 year career in the guide business. His degree was in theater. Does that mean he is an actor? I have a music degree. I run my own consulting business. Am I more of a musician than someone who actually makes their living at it and never got a degree in it? What about Jim Saric? He's got a degree in geology... does that make him geologist? It's like anything else - a piece of paper that you paid tens of thousands of dollars for doesn't make you ANYTHING. It's what you DO that makes you what you are, degree or no degree. | |
| | |
| How about a committee from Muskies Canada take a little drive up to the ROM and measure the mold. Easy enough? If the problem still exists, then determine who added 4" and take appropriate action. Arguing about the definition of a historian is not going to solve anything. | |
| | |
Posts: 20219
Location: oswego, il | I would hope that the actual mount could be looked at. Larry you stated that the skin would have to be removed and examined. Could the fish be looked at from the backside without destroying it? IMHO, it would seem by looking at photos and then the mount we would be able to know where to look for the augmentation. I was under the impression the Jonhnson fish could be looked at in this manner without it's destruction. | |
| | |
Posts: 8782
| Why look farther than the mold? Unless the fish was made out of lead, the mold should tell you everything you need to know about how much the fish would have weighed. And I STILL don't get why Mr Ramsell is mentioned in ANY of this. He didn't do it. I get that someone with information and knowledge and a desire to find the truth is a huge threat to the bull#*#*ters of the world, but as far as I know he was on the sidelines on this one...
Edited by esoxaddict 4/7/2011 11:53 PM
| |
| | |
| The picture they use for this measurement has the fish hanging with the gills cut. They say nothing about the cut gills though.
glen | |
| | |
Location: Illinois | Wilkinson mentioned it in an interview with Larry .
Edited by muskellunged 4/8/2011 1:47 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Todd M wrote: "I would hope that the actual mount could be looked at. Larry you stated that the skin would have to be removed and examined. Could the fish be looked at from the backside without destroying it? IMHO, it would seem by looking at photos and then the mount we would be able to know where to look for the augmentation. I was under the impression the Jonhnson fish could be looked at in this manner without it's destruction."
LR: Todd, I have looked at the actual mount. The way that it is mounted, one can see completely around it. Other than having stretched the girth slightly (not abnormal), the mount hasn't been "augmented" in the manner of the Johnson mount by adding 6 to 8 inches in length by adding additional skin. Make no mistake, as has been mentioned before, the O'Brien fish was a tremendous fish. The manner in which the mount was done actually makes it look somewhat grotesque...surreal if you will and doesn't do the fish real justice, no matter what the size was...impressive, yes, but lifelike, not so much due to weird curving of the body and the adding of eyelids...
esoxaddict wrote: " Why look farther than the mold? Unless the fish was made out of lead, the mold should tell you everything you need to know about how much the fish would have weighed. And I STILL don't get why Mr Ramsell is mentioned in ANY of this. He didn't do it. I get that someone with information and knowledge and a desire to find the truth is a huge threat to the bull#*#*ters of the world, but as far as I know he was on the sidelines on this one..."
LR: Good point EA...there becomes a point where weight per inch is beyond reason I suppose...this may be it. And thank you for asking why I keep getting sniped at...as you point out, I "didn't do it" or commission it. I suppose I should have been more diligent in the beginning and challenged the shortcomings I found more vigorously and been more diligent in checking out the "yardstick". But, as I have also noted previously, I haven't been prone to attempting to discredit past record fish, but when such things as valid, scientifically done findings such as have been done by the WRMA, it makes one take a more critical look at things and ask the hard questions and begin to compile the other obvious clues.
glen wrote: "The picture they use for this measurement has the fish hanging with the gills cut. They say nothing about the cut gills though."
LR: Glen, actually it wasn't the "gills" that were cut, it was the "throat (where the heart is) that was severed to kill the fish. Hanging, it can be seen in some of the photos a gap of about one inch, ADDING length to the fish if anything. THAT has been considered an additional benefit to the fish in the final analysis. | |
| | |
Posts: 341
Location: Passaic, NJ - Upper French River, ON | It's like anything else - a piece of paper that you paid tens of thousands of dollars for doesn't make you ANYTHING.
.... I think the statistics are that you make $1mil more over your working lifetime with a college degree. Buys a lot of expert analysis.
| |
| | |
| The mount is not the key as Larry indicated. So long as the stomach contents were not removed prior to the mold being made, fill the mold up with water, drain and weigh it if you think a 54" fish can weigh 65. | |
| | |
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | It is interesting that some things that are seemingly unimportant take on more importance during a somewhat of a brainstorming session such is taking place on this forum. For instance, after my previous post last nite, I realized while lying in bed that my two-part exchange with ToddM regarding the mount was even further unnessary. I realized that I had forgotten that in my files I have a color photo of the taxidermist with the freshly mounted fish before it was complete or painted...in other words, just the plain skin mounted on the form. From that it is very easy to see that there had been no hanky-panky with the length of the fish at that point. After that, length could only be affected minimally by adding a bit of length to the tail.
Another flashback that I had was my initial reaction when I first open the fish after removing it from the freezer in 1988...I thought to myself, this fish doesn't look much bigger than the one I had just caught less than a month previously; a 52 inch, 44 1/4 pounder. I quickly realized however when I picked it up after unwrapping it, that it was considerably heavier...nearly 12 pounds more as I later learned upon weighing it. The length was much closer to mine when I measured the frozen fish at 54 inches.
For what it is worth...
Edited by Larry Ramsell 4/8/2011 8:49 AM
| |
| | |
| How did the girth of O'Brien's frozen fish appear to compare to the girth of your 52", 44 1/2 pounder? | |
| | |
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | JD: Quite similar and slightly larger...both were "hawgs". | |
| | |
| Thanks Larry. By the way, what was the girth on your 44 1/2 pounder? | |
| | |
| 54" X 30.5" = 62.8 lbs. The actual girth is more imortant than anything. | |
| | |
| I would say that if the girth on O'Brien's frozen fish appeared quite similar and just "slightly" larger than the girth of Larry's 44 1/2 pounder then the girth of O'Brien's fish was nowhere near 30.5". | |
| | |
| JD - 4/8/2011 9:46 AM
I would say that if the girth on O'Brien's frozen fish appeared quite similar and just "slightly" larger than the girth of Larry's 44 1/2 pounder then the girth of O'Brien's fish was nowhere near 30.5".
Yet probably the most prominent historian in musky records believed until recently that it was a 65 lb fish. I have to think he was pretty impressed with the size of this thing to believe it was substantially more than his 44 lb fish (which is also a giant)
Whether filled with water/lead/bricks whatever, the O'Brien fish was super fat. Look at the pics. | |
| | |
| JD
Makes reference that the girth is probably not near 30 inches. Some years back I put a fish in the boat with a 27.5 inch girth that weighed in at almost 50lbs even. I am not a so called EXPERT, but one thing, I will bet anyone on this forum that the girth on that muskellunge is 30inches. By the way, part of my income was made by way of taxidermy, no one added 4inches to that fish. You could pick that out by simply looking at it, if you know what to look for. I'm still curious if Mr. Ramsell plans on talking to the biologists you examined this muskie and ask them why they were unable to measure or weigh the fish correctly. Two of the best in their field yet they both got it wrong. I klnow if I was searching for the truth that I would certainly like to hear their side of the story. Matt | |
| | |
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | JD: I measured my fish's girth at 25 inches fresh out of the water and the taxidermist later measured it at 26 inches.
Getting back to the length of O'Brien's fish, I just dug out my earliest notes, made when I first got the call (an hour after the catch) and my phone interview with O'Brien himself...in both cases, I was told that the length of the fish was 57 inches. So, the confusion deepens.
Matt: The MNR biologists were NOT signatories to the O'Brien affidavit and the claims of weight and length contained therein. Also, I have no personal knowledge that either was in fact directly involved in the measuring or weighing O'Brien's fish, even though they were present and what, if any investigation they did while there at the time. It is the claims on the affidavit that are in question.
Edited by Larry Ramsell 4/8/2011 10:39 AM
| |
| | |
| rook,
You hit the nail on the head. The fish WAS super fat until the water ran out of it. Larry clearly stated the length AND girth appeared very similar and just slightly larger than his 44 1/2 pounder at the time he examined the fish. Supposedly there was a massive amount of eggs found inside this fish AFTER Larry weighed it at 56 lbs. Being there was only minimal stomach contents found inside the fish AFTER it was weighed by Larry, what other than water could have contributed to an additional 9 lbs. in weight and that huge bloated belly? | |
| | |
| I thought this was perfect.
"if the stated length of the fish is indeed debunked, then it doesn't take much inference to surmise that the weight could be off significantly as well. In other words, once the length is debunked--then everything of consequence about the fish is pretty much also suspect. "
Assuming the length has already been debunked? No reason to even debate the girth because it will always be suspect right along with the weight. | |
| | |
| I don't have a lot to go on because i have never seen the fish other then pictures.
Is it agreeable that i can i use the picture with the ruler as fact??? Experts are telling me the fish is 52"-53" long using that pic. Did they account for the cut throat? If not take off another 1" or 2". The fish is getting real short now. For me this fish is no longer the world record. | |
| | |
| What I find interesting is that there were minimal stomach contents found when the fish was examined by Dr. Crossman and yet the belly of the fish appears full in the photos. Whatever was in there, where did it go?
There was also an article in the June / July / Aug. 2001 issue of Esox Angler by Steve Wickens who said the taxidermist that mounted this fish said it had over 10 lbs. of bullheads in it which is in direct conflict with what Dr. Crossman said. Dr. Crossman said he removed the stomach contents of the fish BEFORE the fish went to the taxidermist and that it had minimal stomach contents.
| |
| | |
| JD - 4/8/2011 11:26 AM
What I find interesting is that there were minimal stomach contents found when the fish was examined by Dr. Crossman and yet the belly of the fish appears full in the photos. Whatever was in there, where did it go?
There was also an article in the June / July / Aug. 2001 issue of Esox Angler by Steve Wickens who said the taxidermist that mounted this fish said it had over 10 lbs. of bullheads in it which is in direct conflict with what Dr. Crossman said. Dr. Crossman said he removed the stomach contents of the fish BEFORE the fish went to the taxidermist and that it had minimal stomach contents.
Minimal stomach contents, or minimal "identifiable" stomach contents? I thought there were a couple of bullheads and a bunch of parts of partially digested fish that they didn't identify.
| |
| | |
Posts: 720
| Guys,
Please forgive me for the stupid question here: Is the world record determined by weight or length? If its weight and O'brien's fish was put on a certified scale at the time of capture or shortly after. Isn't that good enough to be recognized? Not trying to be navie with this just can't believe that with the affidavits and Larry Ramsell say that he has no doubt that the fish was 65 pounds when it was weighed. Who cares how long it was.
Again just trying to understand this stuff.
Thanks | |
| | |
| Guest,
One recognizable bullhead and a probable second recognizable bullhead and a lot of disarticulated bones which wouldn't weigh much of anything and wouldn't contribute a significant increase to the girth.
When I said "minimal" I was referring to the weight of the stomach contents.
Keep in mind that these stomach contents were in the fish at the time Larry weighed it at 56 lbs. | |
| | |
| Hunter4,
The length being falsified on an affidavit destroys anything else it contains including the weight.
| |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | A 54" musky could in the 65-pound neighborhood, I suppose, given it's girth of course.
Take a look at the screenshot of the output of my fish weight estimator program. I used 54x30.5", as I seem to recall seeing 30.5" listed for the girth. At this girth however, the major variations of the weight estimation formulae do not show it getting to 65 pounds.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 4/8/2011 1:05 PM
Attachments
----------------
 weights.jpg (263KB - 310 downloads)
| |
| | |
Posts: 280
| Doesn't matter IF it could be in the "neighborhood. The fish is NOT as long as claimed which taints the record potential. Not to mention the 9lb. weight discrepancy.
DougP | |
| | |
| We saw 58" listed for the length too and how much weight did that carry? | |
| | |
Posts: 280
| All the "if's" and "what about's" are irrelevant. Prove the mold by ROM to be of some other fish. Prove the 2pics of the fresh fish with the ruler to be false. Prove these or there is no point in if's or maybe's.
DougP | |
| | |
Posts: 280
| Tell ya what...IF the cast from the mold at the ROM measured 54" to tip of tail on the show side and 62" on the reverse side, that would average 58" allowing for the curve. IF Larry weighed the fish frozen 8 Days later and it weighed even 63.75 lbs or so and IF the yardstick alongside the fresh fish showed the fish to be 58" this fish would stand as legit.
NONE of that happened.................!
No one...as yet....has been able to discredit the findings of the WMA...
DougP
Edited by fins355 4/8/2011 1:25 PM
| |
| | |
| Esox65,
"It takes more than a few hours to go from fat to thin...it takes months or years."
With O'Brien's fish it only took 8 days.
By the way, what do you think happens to a fat guy's waistline if his stomach is FULL of pizza?
| |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Here are the numbers for the stated size of O'Brien's fish (58x30.5), followed by the stated size of Dale MacNair's fish (57x33). As you can see, Dale's fish would blow away the O'Brien fish. I don't know Dale MacNair, or the guide he was fishing with when he caught the musky--but I don't have any reason to doubt their reported measurement. Thus it appears as though the true World Record musky just might be swimming near the 40-acre shoal.
Attachments
----------------
OBrien_fish_stated.jpg (103KB - 307 downloads)
MacNair_fish.jpg (112KB - 300 downloads)
| |
| | |
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | anon Esox65 wrote: ..."Re: the girth.....why does the fishes belly have to be full of fish for it to be fat??? Makes no sense.... A fat guy is still a fat guy even if his stomach is not full of pizza, poutine and ice cream. It takes more than a few hours to go from fat to thin...it takes months or years."
LR: The problem with the O'Brien sequence photos has the fish fresh caught in the bottom of the boat with normal belly, as is the first dock photo at J. Grisdales. Then in the staircase photos (some showing the business end of a hose) the fish is suddenly tremendously "bloated". Then at the last sequence at G. Grisdales dock with the fish again being held vertical by O'Brien, the belly is back to normal. The dock shot with O'Brien sitting also shows the belly greatly bloated, which is understandable the way O'Brien is holding the fish and causing the extension of the belly. So, the stomach contents found by Dr. Crossman have no bearing, as they were still in the fish when I re-weighed it, leaving a lack of explanation of where the missing 9 pounds (water???) and "bloat" went.
Hunter4 wrote: "Guys, Please forgive me for the stupid question here: Is the world record determined by weight or length? If its weight and O'brien's fish was put on a certified scale at the time of capture or shortly after. Isn't that good enough to be recognized? Not trying to be navie with this just can't believe that with the affidavits and Larry Ramsell say that he has no doubt that the fish was 65 pounds when it was weighed. Who cares how long it was.
Again just trying to understand this stuff."
LR: Hunter, I believe you misintrepret some of what I said. Yes, the WR is based on weight, but I said that I believe the scale REGISTERED 65 pounds at the time of weighing, but that I was uncertain if all of that weight was legitimate. When an important item such as length is misstated on an affidavit, obviously intentionally (as noted, O'Brien himself told me originally that the fish was 57 inches, which too has been proven inaccurate by nearly 3 inches), then the entire affidavit becomes suspect. And again, O'Brien did not prepare the affidavit himself, it was done by a Muskies Canada official!
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
MUSKELLUNGE HISTORIAN for all of North America
Edited by Larry Ramsell 4/8/2011 1:42 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 280
| It still only measures 54"..............tops.
Edited by fins355 4/8/2011 1:36 PM
| |
| | |
| Esox65,
A 1" ruler / fish difference would have an insignificant effect on the DCM result. Don't start making assumptions unless you are familiar with projective geometry and photogrammetry. | |
| | |
Posts: 280
| Esox 65 says
"That mold has been around forever and a day, no body ever questioned it before. Now it's in question because of the DCM report....which may or may not be correct. Why the silence on the mold until now???"
Why the silence? Because no one has picked up the ball and investigated the fish as did the WMA.
Pretty simple really.
Why was Lawton on the books until '92 when Detloff decided to investigate?
DougP | |
| | |
Posts: 280
| ESOX65...we don't need DCM's findings on the yardstick and we don't need geometry. We have the mold, the fingerprint if you will. That is DEFINITIVE. All the rest is just icing on the cake.
Prove that mold to be of a different fish and you may have something. However THAT would open a whole NEW can of worms that would still call for the O'BRien fish to be discredited.
DouGp | |
| | |
Posts: 574
Location: Elk Grove Village, IL & Phillips, WI | I wish we could see the sequence of all of the photos. I know I have seen most of them here and there, but it would help prove the extra bulge in the tummy!! | |
| | |
Posts: 280
| SHEESH.....if the mold is not of the O'Brien fish but another fish that is only 54".....could Crossman have done an autopsy on the wrong fish??
MMMM...Nah....I don't think so.
I think Dr. Crossman was more concerned with the science and biology of the stomach content and not the record potential of the fish. The length and weight probably was not a big concern.
I would think Kevin Hockley was more interested in creating an accurate mold of the specimen for the museum and not the reported length the fish. The fish was what it was when Hockley made that mold. How could that fish possibly be 58" long as claimed and come out to be only 54" when the cast is measured from the mold. It CAN'T!! From the pic of the cast the mold looks very well done and anatomically accurate.
DougP
Edited by fins355 4/8/2011 2:10 PM
| |
| | |
| Esox, your passion is commendable, but you should consider giving up already, at least here. Either that, or head over to the ROM and try to prove the mold cast measurement was somehow falsified by the WMA. The important thing is the length, unless you can disprove the 58" as sworn to on the affidavit, nothing else really matters because everything else becomes tainted. | |
| | |
Posts: 574
Location: Elk Grove Village, IL & Phillips, WI | I like these 2 side by side. What happened?
Attachments
----------------
O'brien evidence.jpg (10KB - 669 downloads)
| |
| | |
| KenK - 4/8/2011 2:17 PM
I like these 2 side by side. What happened?
Hmmm. Nothing fishy there huh esox65?
If anything it looks like that fish should have gained 9 lbs after being caught. Interesting how that belly filled right out. | |
| | |
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | Oh, come on everyone. It is obvious what happened here.
First, while the fish was hanging there, an isolated thunderstorm came up that dumped about a gallon of water right down the Muskies throat. It was a VERY isolated thuderstorm of course.
And then some kid took the measuring stick and removed a four-inch section from it and then glued it back together. Dang kids are always doing stuff like that. Give a kid some glue and a knife or saw and one never knows what they will do. One just hopes they destroy something cheap.
Or maybe someone tried to revive the fish and filled it up with water in an unsuccessful attempt to bring it back to life. Could have happened.
Doubtful though. Most likely someone saw an opportunity of some sort...
I bet that little extra water helped tourism over the years. I wonder how many people drove all the way to Georgian Bay and spent hundreds or even thousands of dollars in the vain hope to catch a fish like the one that wasn't? Anyone on this forum? Hmmm?
It seems there may have been a few "suckers" involved in this whole thing. Reminds me of all the people who run out every year and buy the new "hot" lure. Muskies like "suckers" all right. | |
| | |
Posts: 720
| Thanks Larry
| |
| | |
Posts: 280
| Esox 65......give it up..............
DougP | |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Odd one doesn't see that in all the record fish...plenty of vertical hold images of big dead fish from that era. | |
| | |
| Esox65,
You are correct in that it is impossible for that 1" not to have an effect. However, it takes more than a 1" ruler / fish difference to cause a SIGNIFICANT effect. The pixel count of the ruler would increase very little being 1" closer to the camera. The difference in the two photos DCM analyzed was only 1.1" and this difference was caused by the ruler being over 2.5" closer to the camera in the photo showing the shorter result.
There is no possible way that ruler could be far enough in front of the fish to understate the length by 4.6". That ruler is almost, if not touching the fish and it would have to be over 13" in front to understate the length by 4.6".
This coupled with the fact that the DCM results are supported by the length of the mold and Larry's own personal length measurement.
Time to throw in the towel! | |
| | |
Posts: 8782
| Esox65 - 4/8/2011 4:56 PM
KenK - 4/8/2011 2:17 PM
I like these 2 side by side. What happened?
All those precious organs we protect when we hold the fish horizontally, have slide down the fish after being held vertically for hours... [...]
Slid down into WHAT? The empty back 1/3 of the fish that's usually hollow? | |
| | |
| Hey Larry and Steve W.....if you guys want to just fish, give me a holler. Muskie season is open here in Ohio. I nabbed my first OH muskie of the season yesterday. LOTS more fun than dealing with mis or un-informed folks. I won't even MENTION this thread........promise!
ErieBoy75 (Fran Stack) | |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | VERY tempting.... | |
| | |
| JD,
I have to disagree with you on your comments. The line used to measure the fish extends from the tip of the lower jaw to the tip of the tail. The ruler is clearly offset from this line by a considerable distance, probably close to 1 ft. Part of that distance is lateral offset; however, the line representing the length of the fish is also further from the camera than the ruler. A difference in distance of 6 inches between the fish and ruler will result in an apparent reduction in the length of the fish of more than 4 inches.
| |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | While I am no expert in photometric analysis, the ruler and the horizontal axis (long axis) of the fish, look to be about the same distance from the camera to me. Thus it should be a pretty good scale to compare the fish's length. Actually, both images seem to be about like that--the ruler and the average midpoint of the fish along its horizontal axis at about the same distance from the camera.
I can't see how DCM's analysis isn't a pretty good estimation of the total length of the fish, to be honest.
EDIT: OK, I actually ran the numbers on the lengths of the fish in those two photos. Using my Mac, I grabbed a screenshot of each image, and then zoomed in as close as I could get without causing significant pixelation artifacts. Here are the numbers I got:
Image #1 (O'Brien + fish)
fish: 791 pixels
stick: 547 pixels
Estimated fish length = (791 / 547) * 36 = 52.06"
Image #2 (woman + fish)
fish: 985 pixels
stick: 684 pixels
Estimated fish length = (985 / 684) * 36 = 51.84"
So my lengths are actually shorter than those calculated by DCM. However I had to do my calculations by eye, determining the measure points from a screenshot blown up as far as possible; whereas DCM had higher-resolution images to work from, as indicated by the stated pixel counts in their report. So I would definitely favor their results over mine. I just thought it was interesting that I actually got results that were *smaller* than those reported by DCM!
Very interesting, indeed...
TB
Edited by tcbetka 4/8/2011 8:33 PM
| |
| | |
| Guest,
I have no idea what you're talking about. The line being laterally offset will have no bearing on the pixel count of the ruler as long as the ruler and the fish are the same distance from the camera. Also, a distance of 6" between the fish and the ruler will NOT result in an apparent length reduction in the length of the fish by more than 4". And how do you come to the conclusion that the ruler is 6" closer to the camera than it is to the fish? | |
| | |
| The amusing part in all of this is that the O.F.A.H. requests that a photo be submitted with the ruler and the fish being the same distance from the camera and yet we are being told that both Mrs. Grisdale and Mr. O"Brien failed to provide what was requested. | |
| | |
| In the most recent large specimen of the larger musky species, Ken O'Brien's 1988, 65-pounder, Dr. Lebeau found over 85,000 eggs.
1996 Musky Hunter's Almanac That may account for some extra weight, no one has mentioned that possibility. | |
| | |
| Matt, the eggs were in it when Ramsell weighed it. It wouldn't matter if it was 2 million eggs, #56 is still #56, and 54" is still 54". | |
| | |
| If the yardstick is in front of the fish, it's apparent length will be increased by a factor equal to the ratio of the camera distances. For instance, if the camera is 8' from the fish but only 7' from the yardstick, the apparent length of the yardstick would change to 36" / 7/8 (.875) or 41.143". This would cause the length of the fish to be understated by 5.143". For every inch the yardstick is in front of the fish, the fish would be understated by .429". Therefore, if that yardstick is 6" in front of the fish, the length of the fish would only be understated by 2.57", NOT more than 4" as claimed by the "Guest".
I find it amazing that some people feel their opinion carries as much weight as a professional photogrammetrist.
| |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | JD - 4/8/2011 10:32 PM
If the yardstick is in front of the fish, it's apparent length will be increased by a factor equal to the ratio of the camera distances. For instance, if the camera is 8' from the fish but only 7' from the yardstick, the apparent length of the yardstick would change to 36" / 7/8 (.875) or 41.143". This would cause the length of the fish to be understated by 5.143". For every inch the yardstick is in front of the fish, the fish would be understated by .429". Therefore, if that yardstick is 6" in front of the fish, the length of the fish would only be understated by 2.57", NOT more than 4" as claimed by the "Guest".
I find it amazing that some people feel their opinion carries as much weight as a professional photogrammetrist.
Also, this particular professional photogrammetist doesn't state that the yardstick was in front of the horizontal plane of the fish's midline. There is nothing at all mentioned about a scaling factor in Mr. Mills' statements. He just does the math, which implies that no scaling factor was needed, which further implies that the yardstick and the midline of the fish are in the same plane--at least enough so for his satisfaction. And it certainly looks that way from gross inspection of the images.
He states:
"Taking measurements from the image with O’Brien I get 52.3” +/- 1”. In this image, the 36”ruler is 2901 pixels long and the muskie is 4215 pixels long. (4215 pixels X 36”) / 2901 pixels = 52.3”.
Taking measurements from the image with the woman I get 53.4” +/- 1”. In this image the 36” ruler is 3001 pixels long and the muskie is 4452 pixels long. (4452 X 36”) / 3001 pixels = 53.4”.
Sounds like he's pretty satisfied of it to me (edit: especially for the second image, with the woman holding the yardstick). So although I certainly cannot explain the discrepancy between the weights (or the fact that the 58" length measurement was obtained in front of a whole bunch of people), I'd have to say I agree with his assessment. It seems like very simple math here to me.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 4/9/2011 5:47 AM
| |
| | |
| There are some who say that people knew the fish wasn't that big and they mislead the public in order to promote business to their area. You had the president from M.C. there to view the fish, members from Muskies Inc there who saw the fish, the biologists who , if there were examining this fish surely would have taken down length and girth and weight measurements for their logbooks and all the other people hanging around. Doesn't it seem odd that for those involved in this cover up would then openly let Mr.Ramsell measure and weigh the fish. When some of them knew it wasn't really that large. For twently years Mr. Ramsell knew the fish measured 4 inches short and 9lbs light yet just last year openly declared it a record. I think it would be in our best interest if we let the Canadians worry about their records and we should worry about ours. | |
| | |
| JD,
Another swing and a miss. As an amateur photogrammetrist you showed your lack of understanding again. Your calculation of 41.143 as the apparent length of the yardstick is ok for the eight ft distance (I used seven ft in my calculation). Your statement that “this would cause the length of the fish to be understated by 5.143 inches” would be correct if the fish was one yardstick length long. However, the fish is 1.5 yardsticks long. That length understatement now increases to 7.714 inches (1.5x5.143). If the yardstick and the centerline of the fish are offset by 6 inches, the understatement of length is 3.857 inches (using my seven ft assumption, the understatement of length is 4.154 inches).
TCBETKA,
The photo of the casting with a ruler can be used to get a indication of the depth of the fish (approximately 10.75 inches). The photo of O’Brien with the fish shows the following:
(1) the fish is rotated between 45 and 60 degrees so that the belly of the fish is pointed toward the camera
(2) the ruler is in front of the right fin of the fish (this fin is hidden by the ruler)
(3) the distance between the top of the ruler and the tip of the lower jaw is approximately 8 inches (use the yardstick to measure this distance)
When the fish is hanging vertically, the center of gravity of the fish will be directly below the point where the rope is attached (see picture provided by KenK which shows a side view of the fish hanging vertically). It is clear from KenK’s picture that, when hanging vertically, there is a considerable offset between the belly of the fish and a line that passes through the rope attach point and is parallel to the gravity vector. It is clearly well over half the 10.75 inch depth of the body. This data suggests that the line used to measure the length of the fish can easily be 6 inches further from the camera than the yardstick.
| |
| | |
| TCBETKA,
Refresh my memory. Is this the same professional that used the length of a thumb hidden by a leather glove to calculate the length of a fish and claim an accuracy of 0.1 inches?? | |
| | |
Posts: 280
| Guest...explain the measurement of the cast from the mold. Seems to support the photogrammetry very well.
DougP | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | I disagree with this, Mr. Guest.
All we are interested in here is imaginary line from the tip of the snout to the longest portion of the tail; which is the horizontal axis of the fish. This is exactly the same thing as the horizontal axis of an aircraft, which is the imaginary line from the tip of the aircraft's nose, to the very back of its tail. This is NOT influenced by the center of mass/gravity, and as such we couldn't care less about the center of mass of the fish either. An aircraft rolls about its horizontal axis, as does this fish when suspended as it is in those images. Because gravity holds both the ruler and the fish in relatively vertical orientations with respect to the ground, any such rotation of the fish simply does not effect its horizontal axis. So if horizontal axis of the ruler remains roughly parallel to the horizontal axis of the fish (thanks to gravity), then we're good to go. In other words, the rest of the fish simply doesn't matter.
Now, since the ruler appears to be about even with the tip of the lower jaw, then at the very least that end of the yardstick is in the correct plane. Thus the worst case scenario here is that the lower end of the ruler is slightly out of plane with the horizontal axis of the fish. Thus we would need to employ some trigonometry to determine this differential. However since the upper half of the yardstick does appear to be in the same plane as that imaginary line, and one of the premiere photogrammetrists in the world doesn't seem to be worried about it, then I would argue that the discrepancy simply wouldn't be as large as you are making it out to be.
Don't believe me? I don't really care--because Dan Mills evidently does, for the most part. Otherwise, he would have been forced to use some sort of scaling factor to account for the discrepancy between the planes of the yardstick and the fish. As it is however, he simply states a margin of error of +/- 1" to account for "perspective and the possibility of the fishes tail touching the ground." I don't know why he chose that degree of accuracy, but since he has undoubtedly forgotten more about photogrammetry than I'll ever know, I feel pretty comfortable accepting his margin of error.
So my point is that it really doesn't matter what the rest of the fish is doing. The fish can be rotated 45, 60 or even 90 degrees--and as long as the horizontal axis of the yardstick is very close to being parallel with the horizontal axis of the fish, then that yardstick can be used as an accurate measuring device in these photos. But the +/- 1" margin of error specified in this case still puts the length of the fish nowhere near the stated length of 58 inches, as Mr. Mills so nicely illustrates.
TB
EDIT: I was writing this post when Mr. Guest posted about the gloved thumb. I know nothing about this, so Mr. Guest will have to enlighten me in this area, please.
Edited by tcbetka 4/9/2011 7:56 AM
| |
| | |
| JD - 4/8/2011 10:32 PM
I find it amazing that some people feel their opinion carries as much weight as a professional photogrammetrist.
None of this explains the mold measurement, but anyone notice......
- the photogrammetrist's first measurement falls well short of LR's actual measurement?
LR's measurement at 54 included the head a overlapping the neck (from the cut). Presumably it was frozen with a bit of a curve as well (unless perfectly straight)....yet he came up with 54.
Not 51. Not 52.
So the guy is not perfect. | |
| | |
| Guest (esoxarchaeologist)?,
Nobody ever claimed an accuracy of 0.1" from a thumb hidden by a glove. I recall + /- 3".
| |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | I consider Larry Ramsell to be a very good friend of mine, and have the utmost respect for his body of work in the musky world. However although I find his measurement eight days after the fact to be most interesting, I don't necessarily feel that it is relevant in this case. What I mean is that Larry's measurement simply isn't needed to discredit the stated measurement (58") of this fish. It appears as though the photogrammetry is really all that is needed to disprove this stated length, and in one sense, Larry's measurement only introduces a potential confounding variable--the degree of head deformity imposed by the throat having been cut.
Don't get me wrong here--I do feel that Larry's inspection of the frozen fish is very valuable in the sense that he has a tremendous amount of handling large fish during his career. Therefore if his impression was that the fish is not consistent with it's stated size, then that definitely means a lot to me. However I think it's unfortunate that people are bringing up the issue of "degree of overlap" due to the throat being cut; when a simple analysis of the two images included in the WMA report should be more than adequate to show that significant concern exists as to the true length of the fish.
TB | |
| | |
| JD - 4/9/2011 8:20 AM
Guest (esoxarchaeologist)?,
Nobody ever claimed an accuracy of 0.1" from a thumb hidden by a glove. I recall + /- 3".
Nope - rook.
And claim was +/- 1".
| |
| | |
| Guest,
1940 Spray fish... + / - 3". Better do your homework. | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Is this what you guys are talking about?
"The final lengths for each of the Muskies were found to be:
1940 Muskie length – 54.8” +/- 3”
1940 Muskie width – 9” +/- 1”
1949 Muskie length – 53.6” +/- 1.5”
1949 Muskie width – 8.7” +/- 0.5”
Obviously both fish fall well short of the 59-¼” X 32 ½” and 63 ½” X 31 ¼” claimed by
Mr. Spray. Though the length discrepancy is glaring, the claimed girth is equally
overstated - and just as troubling."
I don't see any 0.1" accuracy claims in there, but didn't peruse the entire Spray report. Maybe Mr. Guest can cite the page number for us?
TB | |
| | |
| JD - 4/9/2011 8:42 AM
Guest,
1940 Spray fish... + / - 3". Better do your homework.
Talking about O'Brien fish.
| |
| | |
| Guest,
How does a thumb being hidden by a glove relate to the O'Brien fish? | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Guest - 4/9/2011 7:29 AM
TCBETKA,
Refresh my memory. Is this the same professional that used the length of a thumb hidden by a leather glove to calculate the length of a fish and claim an accuracy of 0.1 inches??
Please cite the source where this degree of accuracy is claimed. I cannot find any reference whatsoever to a gloved thumb/hand in the O'Brien report, or to a 0.1" degree of accuracy. Please stop being evasive with your answers.
Notwithstanding your unwillingness to use your real name in this thread, any remaining credibility you have in this discussion is fading fast. So please either cite your source on this reported degree of accuracy, or retract your statement.
TB | |
| | |
| I find it interesting that supporters of these bogus records try to make a point by questioning somebody's credentials like this instead of working at disproving the data. The case against O'Brien is about as cut and dried as it gets, unless you're in the camp of.
1. The DCN expert calculations are off.
2. There's some hanky-panky going on with the mold measurement.
3. Larry Ramsell didn't know what he was doing, or lied about what he found.
4. The above closely matching body of evidence showing it was 54" is just some freak coincidence.
A trip to the Royal Ontario Museum with camera and tape measure in hand is all you really need.
| |
| | |
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Matt wrote: "There are some who say that people knew the fish wasn't that big and they mislead the public in order to promote business to their area..."
LR: Matt it is very obvious that you are unfamilar with that area and Mr. Grisdale. Little promotion is done and Mr. Grisdale, unless someone has provided him with one, still doesn't have a scale capable of weighing a fish of that caliber. His place is small and normally full, so promotion is unnessary.
Matt continued: "You had the president from M.C. there to view the fish..."
LR: Let's visit this "M.C. President" (Muskies Canada) thing. Again, I'm not going to name names, but if you wish to research it further, I'd guess you can find out...Yesterday I got another email from a PAST (after the fact) M.C. President. Here, edited, is part of what he has to say: XXXX XXXXXXXX (President of MCI) (at the time of the O'Brien catch...LR) was the one who exclaimed "the WR should be in Canada". Strong statement!
More from Matt: ...members from Muskies Inc there who saw the fish, the biologists who , if there were examining this fish surely would have taken down length and girth and weight measurements for their logbooks and all the other people hanging around..."
LR: Matt, you speak as if you "know" what the folks there, including the biologists, did or know/knew. What is YOUR source or proof?
Matt continued: "...Doesn't it seem odd that for those involved in this cover up would then openly let Mr.Ramsell measure and weigh the fish. When some of them knew it wasn't really that large..."
LR: Matt you make assumptions that you have no knowledge of. Those there had no idea I would make the trip up there to check out the fish. I did so with the permission of Mr. O'Brien, after I had interviewed him on the phone. "Those involved" as you infer, had no idea or control at that point.
Matt finishes: ...For twently years Mr. Ramsell knew the fish measured 4 inches short and 9lbs light yet just last year openly declared it a record. I think it would be in our best interest if we let the Canadians worry about their records and we should worry about ours."
LR: And for all of that time, my findings had been made known...as far as "openly declared it a record", I merely went with the status at that time. I had no knowledge of the WRMA findings or that the mold photo existed. I had, as I have always done initially, given the benefit of "my" doubt to the fish...I always have wanted to believe and always will, but I will let the FACTS dictate the TRUTH!
As is the case with the misguided IGFA and NFWFHF, the OFAH willl have to make up their own mind, but it is now apparent that something isn't right with the O'Brien Canadian record. All of this amatuer photogrammetry going on here isn't going to solve a thing, the MOLD doesn't lie, and remember, even O'Brien said the fish was shorter than 58 inches right after the catch!! Splain that... | |
| | |
| TB,
Also consider what the "Guest" said about the yardstick. He claimed my results were only valid if the fish was 36" long. This isn't true. 36 / 7/8 (.875) = 41.143". This is the length the yardstick will appear regardless of what it is being compared to 12" behind it.
The apparent length of the yardstick is what is being affected by being 12" closer to the camera. The ratio of the camera distances is what affects the perceived length of the yardstick. It has nothing to with the length of the fish.
This guy is just trying to confuse everyone. | |
| | |
| The fish is hanging by its lower jaw with its throat cut. Experts are telling me the fish is 52"-53" long using that pic.
Did they account for the cut throat???? | |
| | |
| YES, it's stretched out even longer with a slit throat and belly full of water. Heck, you can pretty much just look at the pictures and see it's nowhere near 58". | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Right... This isn't even "photogrammetry" really, it's basically just simple geometry.
With respect to the two images that show a yardstick that is essentially in the same plane as a fish of a stated length, it's a very simple matter to use the ratio of the unknown length (fish) to the known (yardstick) length, and determine the maximum length that the fish could be. If part of the yardstick is farther away from the camera and part of it is closer to the camera, one can argue that it's probably just a wash--and at least get a basic idea of a *reasonable* value for the length of the fish.
All we're really doing here (and all Dan Mills did) is to simply show that the fish could not have been 58" as reported, with any reasonable degree of certainty. Again, this is a basic test of "reasonability," and it sure doesn't look like this fish can pass muster in that regards.
TB | |
| | |
| TCBETKA,
Let me try again. Go to the picture that KenK provided which shows a side view of the fish hanging. (Incidentally, the center of gravity of the fish determines how the fish will hang. It is always directly below the support point.) Draw a vertical line from the point where the rope is attached to the ground. Look at the distance from the belly of the fish at the lower fin to the line you just drew. That length is more than half of the 10.75 in depth of the fish. If the photograph of O’Brien with the fish were taken with a belly on view of the fish, that would be the distance between the ruler and the line which represents the length of the fish. That distance is clearly more than half the 10.75 inch depth of the fish. Since the photograph shows the fish rotated between 45 to 60 degrees, this length will be reduced by the sine of the rotation angle. The sine of 45 degrees is 0.707 and the sine of 60 degrees is 0.866. Multiply the offset from the side view by these values to determine the additional distance from the belly of the fish to the fish measurement line. It is simply wrong to assume that the ruler and the measurement line of the fish are at the same distance from the camera.
I stand corrected, the hidden thumb measurement stated accuracy was +/- 3 inches (see page 15 of Spray report). The 0.1 in uncertainty was derived for the same fish using the assumed height of Spray (see page 9 of Spay report) and represented inaccuracy in marking point variations. The approach was to assume a 10 pixel variation in the accuracy of the marking points used for scaling. That would equate to an approximate 0.289 inch accuracy in defining each of the marking points (including the top of Spray’s head covered by a hat). The 10 pixel uncertainty was then incorrectly added and subtracted from the total pixel lengths for both the fish and Spray simultaneously and the length of the fish computed. The resulting fish lengths varied from 59.42 to 59.52 inches (59.47+/- 0.05 inches). If that approach to dimensionl tolerancing was used to design and build any mechanical system, most of the parts would not fit together.
The reason that the “thumb in glove” was brought up was to point out the items that are suspect from the experts previous work.
JD,
You’re out!! The fish length is approximately 1.45 yardsticks long. If the ruler and the measurement line are the same distance from the camera the fish length is 52.3 inches (1.45x36) (per WRMA report). If the measurement line is 6 in further from the camera than the ruler the fish length is 55.8 inches (1.45*38.4). If the measurement line is 12 in further from the camera than the ruler, the fish length is 59.8 inches (1.45*41.14). All of these calculations are based on your 8 ft distance.
| |
| | |
Posts: 280
| All this is very interesting.......but, I'll just go with the dimensions shown on the existing cast from the Kevin Hockley mold.
Pretty much destroys the 58" length.
How are ya gonna discredit that?????
DougP
| |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | ...and I'll just go with the two images of the fish, shown with yardsticks, that Dan Mills used to determine that 58" was not a *reasonable* value for this fish. I don't even care about the mold. And as I mentioned, Larry Ramsell's measurement, although certainly supportive to Mr. Mills' calculations, really isn't even necessary.
I'll have to go back and look at the other picture that Guest mentions, because I haven't looked at it in that context. But I still don't feel that it's necessary to do anything other than use the two images I mentioned above. Given that the yardsticks shown in each image were truly 36" long, then I don't see any way that the fish could have been 58". It's pretty simple really, as has been repeatedly stated before.
TB | |
| | |
| TB,
What I was referring to was projective geometry and how far the yardstick would have to be in front of the fish in order for the fish to be understated by 5.143".
The DCM results are 52.3" and 53.4". Obviously 5.143" added to either of these results would put the fish in the 58" range. However, I think everyone should agree that there's no possible way the yardstick is 12" in front of the fish in either photo and that's what would be required for the fish to be as long as claimed.
Keep in mind this was with the camera being 7' from the yardstick and 8' from the fish. The yardstick then appears to be 41.143" in relationship to the length of the fish instead of 36" causing the 5.143" understatement.
| |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Guest - 4/9/2011 11:14 AM
TCBETKA,
Let me try again. Go to the picture that KenK provided which shows a side view of the fish hanging. (Incidentally, the center of gravity of the fish determines how the fish will hang. It is always directly below the support point.) Draw a vertical line from the point where the rope is attached to the ground. Look at the distance from the belly of the fish at the lower fin to the line you just drew. That length is more than half of the 10.75 in depth of the fish. If the photograph of O’Brien with the fish were taken with a belly on view of the fish, that would be the distance between the ruler and the line which represents the length of the fish. That distance is clearly more than half the 10.75 inch depth of the fish. Since the photograph shows the fish rotated between 45 to 60 degrees, this length will be reduced by the sine of the rotation angle. The sine of 45 degrees is 0.707 and the sine of 60 degrees is 0.866. Multiply the offset from the side view by these values to determine the additional distance from the belly of the fish to the fish measurement line. It is simply wrong to assume that the ruler and the measurement line of the fish are at the same distance from the camera.
WARNING: Long response forthcoming...
I think I see what you're getting at here Guest--but I think it's still irrelevant. If the center of mass of the fish is sufficiently off its horizontal axis, it might swing a bit--so as not to hang directly vertical. I would agree with this. However there are two things you need to consider: First, the center of mass is likely to be closer to the horizontal axis of the fish that you might think, because this axis is located ventral (towards the abdominal cavity) to the backbone. Hence there will be mass located dorsal to the horizontal axis as well--and thus the center of mass will not be far enough from the horizontal axis to give enough of a moment arm to create that much of a discrepancy. Put more simply, the fish hangs more vertical than you think.
The second point, and the more important of the two, is that as long as the horizontal axis of the ruler is still in the same plane as that of the fish, it shouldn't matter much *how* much the tail swings due to an off-axis center of mass. If the yardstick is held parallel to the long axis of the fish, then the yardstick is still a valid device on which to base the fish's length.
So, looking at the first image of the fish with Mr. O'Brien, about the only thing that might be a bit off (given your argument) is the distance from the plane of the rule to the plane of the fish's horizontal axis. But as I mentioned before, since the tip of the rule is very close to the lower jaw of the fish, this is really only off near the tail of the fish. Thus I do not believe that the degree of parallelism seen between the axes of the yardstick and the fish deviates excessively between the upper end (at the jaw) and the lower end of the "extended" yardstick, where it would be if it was long enough to extend the entire length of the fish. And from that picture (since it is only 2D) we simply cannot say that there is significant enough deviation between those two axes to matter whatsoever--and Dan Mills obviously did not feel there was, because he does not employ any scaling factor to correct for any such error. In fact, to properly account for any such (increasing) deviation as the ruler neared the caudal end of the fish, I would argue that one would actually have to integrate this distance, and then average it along the length of the fish, to achieve a scaling factor. This then could be used to determine how much of a differential there was between the *average* distances from the camera to the fish and the yardstick. But then you'd have to do the exact same thing for the yardstick, unless it was hung on a stationary support and allowed to hang perfectly vertical; only under the influence of gravity.
While this is an interesting discussion however, I still do not see that there is going to be enough of a difference in the average distance along the fish's length, to change the perspective enough to account for the 4+" length error between the stated length of the fish, and Mr. Mills' calculated values. So I think his results are acceptable to cause the fish's reported length to fail the test of reasonableness. Furthermore, I think it's highly unlikely that you could ever come up with enough distance between the two axes to account for enough of a differential in perspective, to make the fish scale to 58". I just don't think it will happen.
And by the way--for all you (or I) know, Ken O'Brien made a conscious effort to hold the yardstick parallel to the "slope" of the fish as it hung...thus making this whole discussion moot. Then enter Larry Ramsell and his 54" post-mortem measurement, and then throw in the cast made of the fish...and something smells a bit "fishy" around here.
I vote for a length of approximately 54".
TB | |
| | |
Posts: 8782
| So let me get this straight:
1. We have two pictures of the fish next to a yardstick that clearly show the fish to be around 54" at most
2. We have a mold of the actual fish that shows the same thing
3. The fish was actually weighed at 9 pounds less than the stated weight
4. Photographic analysis and all of the research done by the WMA show the fish to be significantly smaller than claimed
5. Larry Ramsell, independent of the WMA/WRMA, has uncovered evidence that shows similar results on his own
On the other side we have:
1. People who claim the WMA is on a witch hunt to debunk legitimate records for the sole purpose of inflating their egos
2. People who claim Larry Ramsell's research shouldn't matter because, lacking a degree in "fish size determination" he's not an "expert". (nevermind the fact that he's dedicated more years of is life to musky research than many of us have lived)
3. So and so who knows so-and-so who was there and would never lie or make a mistake, honest.
4. A few other people trying to baffle everyone with a lot of facts and figures and calculations, none of which can explain the photos OR the mold
5. The "just leave it alone" crowd, who tell us to just "believe", because they would be happy if the WR muskie was listed at 95 pounds, so nobody would ever be tempted to kill another one, anywhere, ever again.
That about sum it up? | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Surprisingly, that about does it.
And if it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck and walks like a duck...
Edited by tcbetka 4/9/2011 1:14 PM
| |
| | |
| Guest,
Why are you playing games? The length of the yardstick is the only thing known in the photo and it's 36" length will appear to be 41.143" in relationship to the image of the fish if it is 12" in front of it.
And why are you using the smaller of the two measurements? Dan Mills clearly states that 53.4" best represents the length of the fish. He also never said that the yardstick was EXACTLY the same distance from the camera as the fish. | |
| | |
Posts: 8782
| tcbetka - 4/9/2011 1:11 PM
Surprisingly, that about does it.
And if it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck and walks like a duck...
I am guessing that this will be the last post on this topic before it gets locked down. I believe this video is oddly relevant.
http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/the-meaning-of-life/ff7da06c... | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | I see what he's trying to say JD. He's saying that the big belly swings the fish far enough from the plane of the yardstick, that there might be a resultant discrepancy in perspective enough to account for the 4+" length differential. That would be pretty tough when only the bottom half of the fish (below the center of mass) swings out to any degree; and it's only gravity accounting for the swing.
Needless to say, I disagree with his theory.
EDIT: Interesting duck video. It is "odd"...I'll give you that.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 4/9/2011 1:37 PM
| |
| | |
| TB,
I see what he's trying to say too and I also totally disagree with his theory. What I find interesting is that he avoids any discussion about the length of the mold of O'Brien's fish made by Kevin Hockley at the ROM. As Doug P. has pointed out, a cast made from the mold of the fish itself is like a fingerprint and a 58" fish (cast) is not going to become 54" unless someone removed a section from it.
He also writes off Larry's 54" measurement that is confirmed by both the DCM results and the length of the cast made from the original mold.
He also hasn't mentioned the 9 lb. weight loss that everyone knows isn't natural.
I think this guy just enjoys irritating people.
| |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | You're probably right on all accounts. I don't mind exerting a little effort to debunk arguments like that either though, because it never hurts to explore (and exhaust) all possibilities. When you exhaust all other possibilities, then whatever is left (however improbable) becomes the best explanation. But it never hurts to hear all of your opposition.
In this case the best explanation is likely the fact that this fish, although witnessed by a lot of people, is probably not as large as it was once made out to be.
TB | |
| | |
| It is sad when someone puts out an open and honest counterpoint without being insulting only to find out it has been deleted. This forum loses credibility when you have to fight Larry's battles for him. I urge you to put up my posting and let him answer it for everyone to see. Matt | |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | You need to push your chair back and argue your points without the personal vitriol. We don't, never have, and never will allow personal insult and infighting here, and offer absolutely no apology. We openly encourage open and reasonable debate ----while ensuring here will BE no 'battles' or train wreck fights to distract from the real issues.
If you want to rumble with Mr. Ramsell, use your email.
The credibility of OutdoorsFIRST as a publication has been based on forthright and reasonable exchange for a decade, and that's why this discussion is taking place on MuskieFIRST. | |
| | |
| TCBETKA,
I believe that you are completely missing the point that I am making. The KenK photo with the side view of the fish clearly shows that the lower fin is a considerable distance from the vertical line that runs from the tip of the lower joint straight down to the ground. This distance is more than 50% of the 10.75 inch depth of the fish. In the image with O’Brien holding the yardstick, the yardstick obscures this fin meaning that it is in front of the fin and has to be further away from the reference measurement axis of the fish then the offset shown in the KenK photo. This offset would probably be in the 6+ inch range. Since the simply geometric calculations that I presented show a significant sensitivity to this offset distance, it should have been accounted for in the Dan Mills analysis. I find it amazing that the same people who don’t think it is important in this case thought it was the driving issue with regards to the Spray fish.
Incidentally, you are misusing the term horizontal axis. The horizontal axis would be to the left/right. The vertical axis is up down.
| |
| | |
| Guest,
Obviously the 52.3" result means the yardstick is further in front of the vertical plane of the fish than the 53.4" result meaning it could be tossed out. However, a difference of only 1.1" is quite minor and does show consistency.
53.4" calculations: Yardstick 12" in front (41.14" / 67.42% = 61.02"), yardstick 6" in front (38.4" / 67.42% = 56.96"). From this I can understand your position. However, I feel the other evidence dismisses the possiblity of any of this actually taking place.
| |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | EDIT: This is for Guest
Actually, I did not miss your point...and I disagree with you on BOTH accounts.
First, since the fish is normally horizontal in the water, it's horizontal axis, by convention, would run the longest distance of its body. This is from a two-dimensional X-Y coordinate system, where the X-direction is labeled horizontal. Maybe the term "longitudinal axis" would be more descriptive, but those two names (horizontal and longitudinal) are commonly used interchangeably in a two dimensional coordinate system. And since we don't typically consider yaw movements in fish, I took a liberty. But with that said, in respect to a hanging fish it is the longitudinal/horizontal axis that points upwards--just as the longitudinal axis of an aircraft points up and down (vertical) when it is going straight up or down. In other words, the direction that the body is traveling or oriented at a given instant has no bearing on the nomenclature of its axes. So I disagree with your assessment that this should be called the "vertical axis" of the fish. By convention, that is incorrect. (If you prefer, we can use "craniocaudal," "rostrocaudal" or "anterioposterior" to describe the longitudinal/horizontal axis, and "dorsoventral" to describe the axis oriented 90 degrees to that first axis. Technically speaking, these would all be correct...but I think you'll agree that they are a bit more cumbersome.)
Now with respect to your comment about the fin in KenK's photo...no, I believe I got your point. But you need to consider the PLANE that the fish's rostrocaudal axis lies in. The axis can be thought of as being only a pinpoint in diameter, running the entire length of the fish from the longest point of its snout, through it's tail. And the fish can be rotated around it in any orientation--just as an aircraft can be rotated about its anteroposterior (longitudinal) axis in any orientation. But the longitudinal axis is the longitudinal axis, no matter how the fish (or the aircraft) is pointed. It's simply a pinpoint line that runs through the object from nose to tail.
So in the case of a hanging fish, if the yardstick and the longitudinal axis of the fish are coplanar, and the two are sufficiently close together while the camera is at a much greater distance from either, relatively speaking, and perpendicular to the plane that the fish & ruler both lie in, then you can essentially consider the two (yardstick and fish) to be at the same distance from the camera. They don't even have to be parallel to be useful--as long as neither extends so far (relative to the distance from the camera to the plane they lie in) as to become nearer to or farther from the camera. So while there may be an issue with curvature of a fish's back that might confound a straight line measurement, you should be perfectly able to use a device of known length to determine the length of an unknown object such as this fish; providing they are coplanar and are sufficiently close together. It doesn't even have to be a ruler, as long at its length is known. It's a simple ratio! If they are *not* in the same plane, then you have to do some fancy photogrammetric science, and that's what guys like Dan Mills are for. Otherwise, any dipstick such as myself can easily figure this out with some simple geometry.
Therefore my argument is that the rotation of the fish in the O'Brien picture simply doesn't matter. As long as the ruler is held roughly parallel to the fish and in the same plane as it's longitudinal axis, then you're golden. Measure away.
I certainly hope this ends our little debate on this issue, because the horse is long-past dead on this one. You seem to be the only person remaining with any significant doubt that Dan Mills' calculations are valid. I think he's done an excellent job, and although I got different values (because I used images with lower resolutions) I can find no reason to doubt his results.
So the last word is yours, good sir.
TB...out!
Edited by tcbetka 4/9/2011 5:44 PM
| |
| | |
| TCBETKA,
I will accept the longitudinal axis terminology that you are referring to as horizontal axis. That is the terminology that is used in the aerospace industry for all missiles, aircraft and spacecraft.
Ok, try this. Place a ruler, parallel to the longitudinal axis of the fish, alongside the fish in the KenK picture at the lateral location of the lower fin (approximately 6 inches from the longitudinal axis of the fish). Now place three cameras at eight feet distance from the longitudinal axis of the fish to take pictures from the side, back and belly of the fish. For the side view, both the longitudinal axis and the ruler are at the same distance from the camera and the direct scaling approach can be used. For the back view, the distance to the fish longitudinal axis is 8 ft but the ruler is at a greater distance, approximately 8.5 ft. For the belly view, the distance to the fish longitudinal axis is 8 ft but the ruler is closer, approximately 7.5 ft. The only case where direct scaling is appropriate is in the side view. The back and belly view will yield incorrect results, if direct scaling is used. A correction must be made. In the O’Brien photo the image is not a side view, it is closer to a belly view. A correction must be made to get a correct length.
| |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | I understand what you are saying. It's a shame it took several pages to understand that you meant "direct scaling," as I am well aware of that term...lol. I apologize if I contributed to the confusion in that sense. I know I said my last post was my last with you on this, but since we got the misunderstanding resolved, I'll give it one last shot.
If you look at the picture of the fish, it's rotated at about 45 degrees or so, towards the camera. Now look at the angler himself, and where on the fish he is holding the yardstick. He is NOT holding it at the front edge (nearest the camera) of the fish, nor does he appear to be holding it at the back edge (furthest from the camera) of the fish. Rather it looks as though he's holding it at about the midpoint (front edge to back edge) of the fish--which is about the approximate position of the longitudinal axis of the fish. So one could argue that even though the fish is indeed rotated, its longitudinal axis and the yardstick are still coplanar in a plane perpendicular to the camera's viewpoint. And since the two appear to be very close together with respect to the distance from the camera, I think it's safe to assume that you can simply use direct scaling to determine the "approximate" size of the fish (given the stated margin of error). At least that seems to be the assumption made by Mr. Mills as well, given that he didn't employ a scaling factor. So when you consider that the ruler and the fish's longitudinal axis are quite close to being in the same plane, the 1" margin of error seems very reasonable.
Also remember something here that's VERY important--all you really have to do is determine (using this technique) that the stated length of 58" is not reasonable. Once you've established that, then the rest of the stated measurements on the fish are suspect--and the fish is essentially discredited. So even if the ruler and the fish's longitudinal axis are not perfectly coplanar and perpendicular to the camera, the differential looks to be quite small--small enough to yield results within the stated margin of error.
Now you might not agree with my argument in the first paragraph above, and it is completely within your right to disagree. However when you consider the supporting evidence (Larry Ramsell's measurement of 54" and the length of the cast of the fish), I'd say Mr. Mills has done a fine job, and the evidence seems to support my argument more so than it does yours.
Anyway, I should add in closing that I appreciate the opportunity to have debated this with you rationally, and I must say that I have been pleasantly surprised that you didn't resort to the typical "anonymous poster" BS. So thanks for that!
Of course you can feel free to disagree, and (again) have the last word.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 4/9/2011 8:11 PM
| |
| | |
Location: Eastern Ontario | Could a 54 inch fish tape 58 inches if laid on a dock and measured over the body in the same manner that the center line length of a boat will be much less than the measurement around the gunnel. The New Brunswick fish weighed 60 lbs at just under 51 inches. Is it correct tha LR weighed the fish using a bathroom scale. | |
| | |
| horsehunter,
The person that measured the fish at 58" said the total length was the length of the fish along the flat surface of the dock and was taken with a tape measure from the tip of the longest jaw to the tip of the tail.
The two scales Larry used to weigh the fish were determined to be accurate by Ontario Weights and Measures.
| |
| | |
Posts: 567
| Hopefully not opening up any new can of worms because it's not my intention but has Mr Ramsell ever documented the capture of a historically large ski and found the story to be true ? everything he examines gets washed away from what I've witnessed (20 plus years does that make me an expert ?) lastly a jab at the scientific community who sets rules that are accepted as the gospel because their colleague's say so (see the entire global warming hoax) I see a bunch of that mentality on this discussion. Joe at State U studies this stuff it has to be true. MD | |
| | |
Posts: 280
| I would like someone to show me how a 58" muskie is professionally molded and cast and the cast measures 54" tops........is still in existence and anatomically accurate.
Seems that no one wants to explain that.....
DougP | |
| | |
Posts: 567
| 1) the cast was wrong 2) the cast was of a different fish 3) the taxidermist was hammered drunk 4) the taxidermist was a WMA member ? | |
| | |
Posts: 280
| Good answers.....LOL!!
No cigar.....you lose! LOL!! | |
| | |
Posts: 280
| Actually your #2, if proven, is the ONLY explanation.
| |
| | |
| ManitouDan, was the person who took the picture with O'Brien and the woman also a member of the WMA? Come on man, open your eyes.
You do bring up a good point referencing all these big muskys that the stories (Actually the size of the fish) just didn't checked out on. For those not keeping up with it, it's in fact EVERY kept musky over #65 has now been debunked!
Rather than suspect some diabolical and sinister plot by the WMA or Ramsell, is it possible muskys just don't get that big? | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | @ManitouDan...
So you're saying:
1) The taxidermist who made the cast made a significant mistake, or was just plain inept.
2) The taxidermist who made the cast was careless (or just plain stupid), and didn't take the time to verify that he was working with the correct fish. (How many other 58" fish do you think he was working with at the time, by the way?)
3) The taxidermist who made the cast was drunk for *days*, because although I've never made a cast of a large fish myself, my guess is that it takes more than a few hours (or a day) to get it completed. So apparently he wasn't sober enough to figure out he got a little thing like the SIZE wrong, at any time during this period?
4) I may be mistaken here, but I don't believe that the WRMA/WMA existed until the late 90s; or maybe after the year 2000. So it seems highly unlikely, unless you believe in time travel, that the taxidermist who made this cast had anything whatsoever to do with the WMA.
But other than that, these are some very interesting theories you have there sir.
Edited by tcbetka 4/11/2011 12:19 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 8782
| I'd bet if you asked Larry, the researchers, and everyone in the WRMA/WMA they would ALL tell you that they wished the O'Brien fish (and all the others) held up to the scrutiny. It probably would have been much easier for everyone involved if all the results supported the records being accurate. I'd also venture to say that nobody involved was happy to find out that muskies really do not grow as big as we all like to think.
Fortunately we have people who are willing to put forth a great deal of time and effort to find out the truth as it pertains to the actual sizes of said fish. Considering the response from the believers, and the personal attacks that have followed? Would YOU be willing to stick your next out and disclose such information? | |
| | |
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Last first: esoxcpr, you have hit it right on the head...I HATE the fact that so many record fish didn't "measure up" (no pun intended). I always gave them the benefit of the doubt for many years. What a can of snakes was opened in 1992! Now we apparently have no clue how big these durn fish can get, although not all muskies over 60 pounds have been debunked (see following).
"Guest" in responding to Manitou Dan wrote: "You do bring up a good point referencing all these big muskys that the stories (Actually the size of the fish) just didn't checked out on. For those not keeping up with it, it's in fact EVERY kept musky over #65 has now been debunked!"
LR: This is just not so...photogrammetry has never been done on Art Lawton's 69-15, nor Ruth Lawton's 68-5, nor Art's 65-13, which even John Dettloff, who is responsible for starting this entire "debunking mess", could find a problem with it. Could one of those three fish just possibly be our World Record? (This should start some more/new "fun"!).
Or, how about the two Eagle Lake fish???
Oh, forgot another of Manitou Dans questions...YES Dan, there have been many big fish I have written about that are still true! Your 20 years of reading must have been very selective.
Edited by Larry Ramsell 4/11/2011 3:52 PM
Attachments
----------------
65-13 Art 1959.jpg (7KB - 643 downloads)
| |
| | |
Posts: 567
| Larry I didn't intend to harass you about your passionate love of muskies and of the history of the sport. Personally speaking it just gets old hearing how nearly every famous fish was a hoax or the anglers were such jackwagons they couldn't measure NOR weight a fish correctly . (or at worst just plain ol liars) It's like a high profile case that heads to jury and EXPERT lawyers swear to testimony that are polar opposites of one another. MD
Edited by ManitouDan 4/11/2011 3:48 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Manitou Dan wrote: "gotta love floating the idea that the Lawton fish just might legit LMAO ! if nothing else at least 1 reader finds this thread great entertainment."
LR: Tell me Dan, just what proof or evidence do you have that Lawton's fish wasn't "legit"? I think I made a pretty good case for it when I debunked Dettloff's "investigation" of Lawton's record and it can be read free on my web site. Have you read it?
Dispite the fact that the IGFA was hypocritical leaving the Lawton record in "set-aside" status due to photograph but leaving the Johnson record intact because they said determination couldn't be made from a photograph, the state of New York still recognizes the Lawton fish as do many anglers. What is the real truth? | |
| | |
Posts: 1247
Location: On the Niagara River in Buffalo, NY | Larry's article on Art Lawton Disqualification.
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/articles/02.22.2006/1012/Did.Former...
Capt. Larry | |
| | |
| newbie to this history, so help me out here.....you (LR) think that OBrien (most documented/witnessed WR catch in history?) was a fraud, but Art and Ruth Lawton caught 3 fish north of 65??
| |
| | |
| How about SIX north of 60? | |
| | |
| rook - 4/11/2011 7:28 PM
newbie to this history, so help me out here.....you (LR) think that OBrien (most documented/witnessed WR catch in history?) was a fraud, but Art and Ruth Lawton caught 3 fish north of 65??
I think he is saying that in his findings you can say the Obrien fish is not as large as claimed. Then he said there are still fish that have yet to be disqualified and why not give them the benefit of the doubt until they are also most likely disqualified. Just helping out a rook...BR | |
| | |
| Lawton's 69-15 HAS been disqualified and rightfully so. Why hasn't another thread been started about this? | |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | There have been. Several, over the years. | |
| | |
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Thanks for that link Capt. Larry, but it isn't the whole story...which is available on my web site.
rook wrote: "newbie to this history, so help me out here.....you (LR) think that OBrien (most documented/witnessed WR catch in history?) was a fraud, but Art and Ruth Lawton caught 3 fish north of 65??"
LR: rook, I said no such thing re O'Brien, but the evidence makes it suspect. Re Lawtons, I merely said they haven't been disproven and no photogrammetry has been done on them.
Guest wrote: "How about SIX north of 60?"
LR: Same answer as above re the Lawton's.
BenR responded to rook: "I think he is saying that in his findings you can say the Obrien fish is not as large as claimed. Then he said there are still fish that have yet to be disqualified and why not give them the benefit of the doubt until they are also most likely disqualified. Just helping out a rook...BR"
LR: Ben, you almost have it correct...the O'Brien "Summary Report" is NOT mine. Re the Lawton's you may or may not be correct.
Guest wrote: "Lawton's 69-15 HAS been disqualified and rightfully so. Why hasn't another thread been started about this?"
LR: Guest, did you read what I posted above regarding that Lawton "disqualification"...hardly concrete and therefore, not "rightfully so." If you wish to start another thread, do so, but have enough balls to "own it" and sign your name (real one please).
sworrall wrote: "There have been. Several (threads), over the years.
-----
Steve Worrall
OutdoorsFIRST Media
www.outdoorsfirst.com
F7 wrote: "LR, When I or one of my buddies catch the WR in GB dont even bother to try and contact us. You will get nothing from us, not a thing, not a picture not ameasurement nothing, not even a call back.
LR: Bryan that is your choice, but you'd better give me your last name and the names of your buddies, so I don't bother you.
F7 continued: "What gives "YOU" the right to scrutinize, what gives "YOU" the right to discredit the people who were actually there at the time not 8 days later. What credibility do you have LR???? A license, a degree, a doctorate certificate.....must have something."
LR: For the umteenth time Bryan, I DIDN'T PREPARE THIS "O'BRIEN SUMMARY REPORT. I have discredited no one! I only provided MY findings and photographs to the WRMA. My "credibility" is one of a muskellunge historian of over 40 years and a journalist, sent there to get the story for Fishing Facts Magazine.
F7 rants on: "Really WHO are you??? What qualifications do you have?? Nothing Zilch. In my books you are a nothing, a nobody!"
LR: And anon. "Bryan" who are you really??? Obviously nothing more than an anon. sniper that is afraid to own his post and put his real name to it!!
Bryan finishes: "Eat your heart out boys the record is the Obrien Fish from GB and I got just as much credibilty to say that than LR who has waited 20 plus years to discredit."
LR: Could "possibly" be Bryan, but you and your buddies have some "serious" explaning to do to justify that comment...and for the last time, I haven't discredited anyone...the FACTS may have however.
Edit: I see by the time I finished this resonse, F7's post had been removed, and justifiyably so, but my skin is fairly thick and I didn't mind responding to someone that is obviously upset...albeit with the wrong person(s). It shall be up to Mr. Worrall whether or not he edits this post as well.
Edited by Larry Ramsell 4/11/2011 8:36 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | You know after 9 pages and dozens and dozens of posts, it just simply amazes me (and others) just how many seem to overlook the most obvious and also the most damaging thing in the WRMA report...THE MOLD! All the rest is merely secondary. Disprove the mold and the "bloat" in many of the photos and the O'Brien fish should remain atop the Canadian heap. To do otherwise is merely an exercise in futility and a venting of frustration, something I can identify with, regardless of what some of the posters here think of me. | |
| | |
Posts: 280
| Geeezzz, Larry ... I hung my hat on that all along!
The mold and cast is the most damaging evidence IMHO....it's just like a finger print. This was a well done mold, anatomically correct, which corraborates all the other negative info.
WOW!! who's this F7 guy...?????
DougP
Edited by fins355 4/11/2011 9:00 PM
| |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Yes, I would agree. There seem to be a number of folks getting all worked up about a report that simply states the opinion of a group of people. It doesn't carry any "official" weight with any of the record-keeping bodies, who can simply ignore the information and leave the fish in the record books.
So I can't figure out why people get so irked at this stuff? If you don't like it, don't read it. Or, better yet, maybe try to understand the argument in an objective fashion, as presented by the people you don't agree with. Who knows--they just might be right! Of course, I can't imagine that a fisherman would ever exaggerate the size of a catch!?!?
Sort of reminds me of the line... "The stars might lie, but the numbers never do."
Prophetic, if you ask me.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 4/11/2011 9:22 PM
| |
| | |
| BenR,
You ask, why not give the Lawton fish the benefit of the doubt?
LR: "I always gave the fish the benefit of the doubt (wrong in hindsight) and in fact often attempted to "justify" record claims... ."
Should this same mistake be repeated?
| |
| | |
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | "Guest": My comment you refer too pertained to ALL record class fish, SOME of which we now know are bogus and perhaps SOME were ok. All haven't been PROVEN to be bad! | |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Larry didn't undertake the investigation to gather evidence on the O'Brien fish, the WMA did. | |
| | |
Posts: 8782
| Someone please explain the mold. | |
| | |
| LR: What a can of snakes was opened in 1992! Now we apparently have no clue how big these durn fish can get... .
We have a lot better idea of how big they can get now than we did before 1992. | |
| | |
Posts: 574
Location: Elk Grove Village, IL & Phillips, WI | Bill Hamblin, Larry's old Almanac partner showed up on MHM and he says he is in possession of a VHS tape of the fish hanging and Muskies Canada guys going over the fish. I wonder if anyone even knew that tape existed! That would be interesting to see!!
Edited by KenK 4/12/2011 2:09 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 280
| esoxaddict......there are many ways to make a mold. However, I believe this mold was probably a 2 part mold made from molding plaster.
Basically the fish is thawed, cleaned and the body cavity may have to be filled with something to eleviate wrinkles and lack of muscle tension. Air may be injected into the cavity to fill out the void.
I'll try to keep it simple.
Step 1, position fish in a bedding material built up to the 1/2 point of the body. The pelvic and ventral fins are removed and molded separately. The caudal, dorsal and anal fin remain attached.
Step 2, pour initial splash coat of plaster on side of fish. This is a thin coat meant to pick up detail. After that has set up, a thicker reinforced layer of plaster is applied.
Step3, the fish is then turned over to mold the other side in much the same way.
Step4, after plaster has set hard, the 2 sides are separated and the plaster allowed to cure.
Step 5, After curing for maybe a week or 2 or more depending on temp and humidity the plaster mold is cleaned and prepared for the casting. Casting was probably done using a polester resin [fiberglass] which is poured and swished in the mold and allowed to cure. Each side is done with a coat of resin or two and the more is applied and the two halves are joined to set up hard.
When sufficient hardening time has elapsed, the plaster halves are separated and we have the cast [or blank] of the fish in the exact dimensions prior to molding.
There's a lot more to it but those are the basics.
Molds are used in forensic science and criminal investigations and in general science extensively.
When done properly they are about as good as a fingerprint, an EXACT duplicate of what was molded.
Kevin Hockley's mold appears to be very well done which one would expect from a museum taxidermist.
DougP
Edited by fins355 4/12/2011 2:25 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 280
| Ken...it would be VERY interesting IF someone had video of the measuring and the weighing,eh?
DougP | |
| | |
Posts: 574
Location: Elk Grove Village, IL & Phillips, WI | That would be very interesting indeed! | |
| | |
Posts: 8782
| Thanks, Doug!
So how is it possible for the end result to represent anything other than the exact length and girth of whatever (fish in this case) you made it out of? | |
| | |
Posts: 280
| Well EA, it's NOT possible for the end result to have a shorter length than what the fish actually was.
The girth is more variable because of what may or may not have been in the belly at one time .
I don't see how the mold evidence can be overcome unless it can be proven that the mold was not of the O'Brien fish.
The skin mount could be studied but that is a little more "iffy".
DougP
Edited by fins355 4/12/2011 3:39 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Ken:
I too have a copy of the video you mentioned, but it isn't much help re this situation. | |
| | |
| Where did the pic of Larry w/ the frozen fish go? | |
| | |
Posts: 8782
| SV - 4/12/2011 6:53 PM
Where did the pic of Larry w/ the frozen fish go?
Left it in the freezer too long, it evaporated away to nothing... | |
| | |
Posts: 574
Location: Elk Grove Village, IL & Phillips, WI | Look in the report on the first post. | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | fins355 - 4/12/2011 2:20 PM
...SNIP
Molds are used in forensic science and criminal investigations and in general science extensively.
When done properly they are about as good as a fingerprint, an EXACT duplicate of what was molded.
Kevin Hockley's mold appears to be very well done which one would expect from a museum taxidermist.
DougP
Wow Doug, I had no idea how involved that process was. It does sort of suggest that the fish that went into the molding process, is the exact same one that came out.
So I wonder if anyone has actually asked the taxidermist's opinion about the stated size of O'Brien's fish? Surely someone must have, but I probably missed it somewhere. Larry probably knows, I'll bet...
TB | |
| | |
| Tom, I don't see how examining the skin mount, or asking for a taxidermist's "word on it" could have been any more beneficial for the purpose of this report. I think this short report contains everything he needs, and should put the fishing world on notice that you should not trust a persons word over hard scientific evidence.
In my mind, if something like this can happen onshore with lots of people present and fish in hand, where does that leave the status of the line class and released records. My thinking is that they will all eventually be dominated by the best/worst liars, even more so than the weight divisions. | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | I cannot argue with most of that, I guess...
It is a shame though, this "pursuit of records" mentality. Not that all record holders go out and consciously pursue a World Record specimen, but it seems as though some do...at least in the Musky world. I have no issue with a person who is in search of the largest fish of a particular species--more power to them, especially if they should be good enough (and lucky enough) to catch it. But it sort of just illustrates another ugly vice that many humans seem to have: Greed.
How else can you explain conscious efforts, perpetuated ad infinitum, to misrepresent something like this for one's own gain? I hate World Records. I don't even see why we need them, to be honest. Never have, never will.
Having said that however, if I were wealthy and had the means to not need to work, I'd launch on a 20-year mission in search of the World Record musky. I'd travel to the "best" big fish spots, talk to the "best" local anglers, see the sights that these places have to offer. And I might even wet a line now and then!
At the very least, I'd have a reason to go fishing and remind myself how nice it would be to not have to work...
TB | |
| | |
| Agreed, especially the having to work part! I think the research provided was not only beneficial in finding the record (or rather not finding it), but more importantly determining the optimum size the species can acheat... I mean achieve:)
I would think that as a man of science and muskie researcher for MI, this no 70lb muskie revelation is of particular interest to you. It will be interesting to see how biologists and fisheries personnel interpret this new found information. | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | On the contrary...I feel quite strongly that muskies can reach weights of 70 pounds, given the right ecosystem (like Green Bay, for example). Combine good genetics, an unlimited forage base, no natural predators and a HUGE expanse of water to hide in, and I think we could see a true blue 70-pound fish come from the bay system. In fact, there are many people who believe that Ryan Dempsey's April 2005 fish (caught out-of-season while walleye fishing) was that record fish. If you run the numbers, it's certainly feasible.
I don't want to hi-jack this thread, so I'll stop here. But if you want to read more about the potential of the fish we have here, skip on over to the Research forum, and search for some topics I posted in. There's one in particular about growth rates using the current growth model (which I and many others feel to be under-estimating the true potential), that will open your eyes a bit. Don't let the calculus in there scare you though, lol.
Back on point... While I am quite convinced of the weight potential of these fish here, I am not entirely convinced of the potential of reaching 62, 63 or even 64 inches in length. That remains to be seen here; and anywhere really. If you look at my math in that thread, it does go into how long the fish keep growing in length, but there was an article by Minnesota Fish Biologist Rod Ramsell a few years back, where he talked about the point (age) at which the fish--especially females--stop devoting much energy into somatic growth, and start shunting it into gonadal growth. I'd like to find the paper because I don't have it any longer, but it was a very interesting article. But the take-home message is that I don't believe it will take a 60" fish to break 70 pounds...not here in the Green Bay system, anyway. It will be VERY interesting to see what this population does after a few generations of fish have passed though. We're still on the first generation, for the vast majority of stocked fish, and of course we're not at all sure how/where/if they are reproducing to any great degree.
But that's a discussion for another thread though.
TB
EDIT: Here's the thread if you care to review it:
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=50...
Edited by tcbetka 4/13/2011 1:11 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Tom:
Thanks for posting that link...somehow I missed that thread. I see the age of the Williamson fish from Georgian Bay was corrected by bytor. According to recent correspondence with Dr. Casselman, the O'Brien fish, also from Georgian Bay, was the oldest female he has handled and he is confident now it was 30 years old...Also, he noted that he had a MALE from the St. Lawrence River that was also 30 years old!! And he noted, that it had "scars" from several encounters of being caught/handled.
As for the Green Bay giants/spawners showing up in the fall, several tracking studies from Quebec (Ottawa River); NY/SE ONTARIO (St. Lawrence River); ON (Stoney Lake), have shown that muskies return to their "spawning areas" in the late fall, where they overwinter, which likely explains your GB situation.
Edited by Larry Ramsell 4/13/2011 1:47 PM
| |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Right...I've read a few of those same studies, I think; and I believe this is now why the DNR plans to stock (when the stocking is re-started; I'm not sure when this is planned) in several other areas of the bay system. If we have lots of water to support muskellunge, then I say we take advantage of as much of it as possible to reduce angling pressure on some of these fish.
TB | |
| | |
| The O'Brien fish doesn't appear to jibe very well with the von Bertalanffy growth model. It was supposedly 30 years old and yet only 54". | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Well, that VbL model was for Green Bay fish...while O'Brien's fish was from Georgian Bay. There is a different curve for that population. I have it someplace, or at least a more recent one, and I could dig it up tonight if I get the time.
I haven't checked his fish against the curve, but my guess is that 58" would fit better than the 54" does.
TB | |
| | |
| So if the 54" length doesn't fit the curve, how does that affect the reported age? | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Well, if the cleithrum was aged at 30 years, then I'd say it doesn't! I've never aged a cleithrum before, but my understanding is that it's quite sensitive and accurate, unlike scales which have annuli that get pretty rough and ratty as the fish ages past 9-10 or so. The annuli also get closer together, making it harder to interpret distinctions between them--and also making it more difficult to back-calculate annular growth rates from the data.
I am not entirely sure to what age the cleithra are felt to be accurate though, now that I think about it. I am certain that they are more useful for older fish, but I am not sure *how* old they are useful to. But Dr. Casselman apparently was able to determine the age of the O'Brien musky out to 30...so maybe age isn't a significant limitation like it is with scales.
TB | |
| | |
| With muskies, length is a product of age. At this point, from what we now know about the length of O'Brien's fish, I would say the age is also suspect. | |
| | |
Posts: 726
Location: Eau Claire, WI | Huh. I thought I had heard Cassleman say that weight is a product of age while length basically stops many years before. You may pick up fractions of an inch over time later in the life cycle but the weight goes up until a point where the body deteriorates with age as any body will.
I think I have it on a VHS tape somewhere. It came from a presentation he made in Eau Claire when we hosted a Muskies Inc. Board Meeting.
Can anyone help me out with a confirmation?
Jono
| |
| | |
Posts: 280
| Jono, I think length is certainly a product of age, at least to a certain point when length may cease to a large degree and weight may continue.
You wouldn't expect to see a 50" fish in 5yrs. Age must be reached for a certain length to be viable.
DougP
Edited by fins355 4/13/2011 5:10 PM
| |
| | |
| weight diminishes after Peak life period,like most living matter
Fish dont continuously grow till death,some attain great lengths some dont,just like all living matter
actually I covered it in a piece I wrote about "Muskies limitations" which Sean Lansdman and many others important biologist concur to limitations of most if not all species and living matter
marc | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Actually, I believe that I have read that fish continue growing until they die, basically. I am not sure of the reference though, so I'd have to look it up again--but it's less likely to be true for very old fish, as Marc alluded. But the thing is that they apparently devote different amounts of energy into somatic growth, versus gonadal growth. I sent Rod Ramsell an email this afternoon, asking for a copy of that paper. If I can get one from him, I'll summarize it here for everyone--unless he points me to a publicly available version, and then I'll link to it.
Two other points of interest though:
1) Different fish have different growth potentials. The von Bertalanffy growth curve for the female fish in Green Bay shows the estimated length at a given age for the average female fish. This means of course that there are fish that grow faster than the average, and there are fish that grow slower. That's the definition of the term 'average,' for the most part. So the O'Brien fish could have been a slow-growing older fish, and Dr. Casselman's age assessment could be right on the money. I'd wager that he's forgotten more about the biology of muskies than most of us will ever know, so I for one am giving him the benefit of the doubt on the age assessment for that fish. I find it HIGHLY unlikely that he would have falsified his age estimate to support a misrepresented fish. His credentials are beyond reproach as far as I am concerned, so if he says the fish was 30 years old...it was 30 years old. Enough said.
2) The other thing is that, if you differentiate the von Bertalanffy grow curve with respect to time, you'll get the average rate of change of length per unit of time. In other words, you'll get the growth rate. From one of my posts in that other thread (for the Green Bay fish, using the original model developed by Kapuscinski et al), you get these values:
dLt / dt = 12.72mm per year; t = 14.33 years
dLt / dt = 1 mm per year; t = 29.29 years
So the average female fish in that population (at least according to that model) are growing at about one-half inch (12.7mm) per year at 14.33 years old, and only 1 mm/year when they are 29 years old. Now, given that the model was based on an immature population, this might all change. In fact the model has since been updated, but I don't have a copy of the new equation--so I don't know how different these growth rates would be now. Also, don't forget that the female fish in Georgian Bay have a different growth model, so you cannot compare the average growth rate of those fish to the average growth rate of the fish in Green Bay, unless you use the appropriate model for that population.
Incidentally, according to the model, the average female muskellunge would be 47.1" at 10 years of age, as can be seen in that other thread. So Doug's statement certainly bears out in the Green Bay population.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 4/13/2011 6:00 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Tom:
What would the growth curve look like for a 54 inch fish KNOWN to be 10 years old? Bet that would be a dandy. Happened in Wisconsin...with Minnesota fish! | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | What a freak! That thing had a pituitary disorder; or else someone was hand feeding the thing Ciscoes laced with Growth Hormone, lol!
Sheesh...
TB | |
| | |
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Actually not Tom. It was only the largest (38 pounds) of several 10 year olds that were over 50 inches! And this was in a lake the WDNR said had a low forage base (no cisco's) and an over population of stunted northern pike!! | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | That girl was on a diet at only 38 pounds! Either that or there's not much fat on a stunted pike...
TB | |
| | |
| John Casselman says the average maximum length for Georgian Bay is 52.8" and the ultimate maximum length is 58.5". According to him big waters consistently produce thick-bodied muskie with slow, steady growth rates over a long lifespan. Besides girth, length is the most important factor determining weight, and length comes with age. O'Brien's fish was a female, 58 inches in length (147.3 cm) and 30 years of age.
So, the true length of O'Brien's at 54" suggests the fish wasn't 30 years old and that it was just slightly above the average maximum length for Georgian Bay. Being it came from Georgian Bay also suggests it had a slow, steady growth rate.
| |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Don't forget that there is a confidence interval built around that average maximum length value--probably a 95% interval. In other words, if the average maximum length is 52.8 inches, then the biologists will have calculated an interval around that value, such that an "average" fish can be expected to fall within it 95% of the time--or with a 95% (0.95) probability. So the probability that an average fish wouldn't fall within the interval is 0.05, or 5%.
I am recovering from surgery and not getting around very well quite yet, so I haven't gotten a chance to dig through my library and find the reference with the von Bertalanffy models for the various water bodies. So without the actual equation, I cannot say how long the average 30 year-old female fish would be expected to be. But we may find that, since 58.5" is the average ultimate length (AUL), a length of 54" is well within the interval outlined by the model. I will try to dig this up within the next day. EDIT: This AUL might actually be the top of the 99% CI, I am currently researching this.
Another possibility with these calculated lengths, because they are obtained from equations built on models from gathered data, is that the data is incomplete...or just plain wrong. In fact this is exactly what we've argued in Green Bay, because the vast majority of the fish used to build the model, were stocked in 1989 or later--obviously within one generation, in terms of a musky's lifespan. However since there have been muskies in Georgian Bay for many, many years, I would expect the growth model for that population to be about as accurate as we are going to get. If you want some background on these growth models, here is a link that gives some basic info on the fellow who developed the concept:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Bertalanffy
While it's been a number of years since I've studied the background theory of this general model, I do seem to recall that it is most accurate when applied to a stable population. This would seem to make sense I suppose, given that the complete size structure may not be fully represented in samples gathered otherwise. And while this could very well be the case with the early Green Bay models, I wouldn't expect it to be so with the model from Georgian Bay. Note that I am not criticizing the Green Bay data in any way however--it's just that I feel the data gathered there thus far is from an immature population. The accuracy of the model will only improve here, as more fish are added...especially large fish.
TB
EDIT: By the way, the 95% CI for female fish in Green Bay in the Kapuscinski (et al) model was 46.2" - 60.4". Not exactly going out on a limb in terms of pinning down how large the fish could ultimately get, but I believe the model may have been since revised--so that interval might have tightened somewhat.
Edited by tcbetka 4/14/2011 3:47 PM
| |
| | |
| 54" is much closer to the average maximum length of 52.8" than it is to the ultimate maximum length of 58.5" therefore the probability of the fish being less than 30 years old is much greater than it being 30 years old. If 54" falls within the interval outlined by the model I don't feel it has much value. John Casselman hasn't even aged any other muskies at 30 years old. I'm not saying it's impossible for the fish to be 30 years old, just highly unlikely. | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | OK, one thing I just found, is that just as the average maximum length (AML) has a confidence interval around it, as does the average ultimate length (AUL). They are both mean values, as their names state. Therefore each could have a confidence interval calculated for it. Now I just need to find the relationship between the AUL and the top of the confidence interval (either 95% or 99%) for the AML. I thought that there was one, but now I am not sure and I haven't found it just yet. But I did find my reference, so I just need to spend some time digging through the papers, and I should be able to find the published model for the Georgian Bay population.
By the way, the reference that I am using is the compilation of manuscripts from the 2005 MI Muskellunge Symposium. So if you can lay your hands on a copy, you will probably have all the Georgian Bay data as well.
TB | |
| | |
| It just seems to me that a muskie reaching 30 years of age in a body of water having a maximum ultimate size of 58.5" should be longer than 54". The odds are either it was aged wrong or it was 58". | |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'It just seems to me that a muskie reaching 30 years of age in a body of water having a maximum ultimate size of 58.5" should be longer than 54". '
Not necessarily. Getting old doesn't necessarily equate to getting big; that depends on each fish and everything that's happened to that fish in it's lifetime.
Although I am getting old, and WAS recently growing allot. Now I'm shrinking. Not as fast as I grew, but there you have it. | |
| | |
Posts: 8782
| Guest - 4/14/2011 4:32 PM
It just seems to me that a muskie reaching 30 years of age in a body of water having a maximum ultimate size of 58.5" should be longer than 54". The odds are either it was aged wrong or it was 58".
Or maybe every fish in the system doesn't reach the maximum ultimate size in 30 years, if at all... | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Guest - 4/14/2011 4:32 PM
It just seems to me that a muskie reaching 30 years of age in a body of water having a maximum ultimate size of 58.5" should be longer than 54". The odds are either it was aged wrong or it was 58".
Hmmm...know any little old ladies?
If Casselman says it was 30 years old, then I'd bet it was 30 years old. If the photogrammetry, mold analysis and Larry Ramsell's measurements are in agreement that it was about 54", then I'd bet it was about 54". Whatever is left, however improbable, must be the answer.
And don't forget about the missing 9 pounds of weight.
TB | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Guest - 4/14/2011 3:42 PM
54" is much closer to the average maximum length of 52.8" than it is to the ultimate maximum length of 58.5" therefore the probability of the fish being less than 30 years old is much greater than it being 30 years old. If 54" falls within the interval outlined by the model I don't feel it has much value. John Casselman hasn't even aged any other muskies at 30 years old. I'm not saying it's impossible for the fish to be 30 years old, just highly unlikely.
It doesn't work that way, as I understand it.
If you've ever studied the von Bertalanffy growth curve, these lengths are essentially oriented vertically for a given age...not on the same line. What I mean is that the "Average Maximum Length" is essentially the length the average female fish would get if she could grow for an infinite number of years. In other words, its an asymptote. So 52.8" *is* the longest length on the growth model. But since this is an average maximum length, there must be a confidence interval around it--and the width of this interval is inversely proportional to the degree of confidence you want. So if you want to be able to say how big the average female fish will grow with 95% confidence, then that range would have to be wider than the range you'd need if you only wanted to be 75% confident. The 95% interval is basically what the standard is for scientific reproducibility, and it has to do with standard deviation and the like. I haven't had statistics for years, so I cannot explain it more clearly than that right now--but the information is readily available online. Suffice to say that the 95% interval is a widely accepted standard for scientific study; thus it is what most research seems to use. However, I have also seen reference to a 99% confidence interval as well, in various medical literature--and Casselman uses that as well, in his paper on how to set muskellunge size limits (pp137-154 of the reference I mentioned above).
So if you could see the von Bertalanffy growth curve, you would see a curve that represents the model for length (y-axis) for the average fish, plotted against time (x-axis). And the 52.8" point would be at the right edge of the curve, at whatever age they plotted out to in order to represent "infinity." Then you would see several other curves that surround the mean line, with diverging intervals as time marches on. So the confidence interval represented by these other curves is narrowest when the fish are young, and widest when they are oldest. This is no different than for humans--we all start life very close in physical size, but diverge from the average size at different rates as we grow/age.
Finally, if you draw a vertical line through the AML of 52.8" to intersect the CI curves, you can define additional values--and as I recall, one of those would be this 58.5" you referenced. But I simply cannot recall exactly what actually defines that 58.5" point--i.e.; which upper confidence interval is it, if that is indeed where it comes from. It's not a simple concept, and I am not yet fully able to explain how it's derived. I don't use this stuff everyday, so I simply have to revisit it from time to time, to re-fire those neurons.
But the take-home message for Mr. Guest, is that I do not believe you can say:
"54" is much closer to the average maximum length of 52.8" than it is to the ultimate maximum length of 58.5" therefore the probability of the fish being less than 30 years old is much greater than it being 30 years old."
I believe this is completely invalid, for the reason(s) I explained above.
TB | |
| | |
| TB,
I also feel your point is completely invalid. There's a big difference between an average ultimate length and an ultimate maximum length. An ultimate maximum length is NOT an average. It is the UPPER LIMIT.
Average length at age 7 for Georgian Bay...37.7"
Average ultimate length for Georgian Bay...52.8"
Ultimate maximum length for Georgian Bay...58.5"
John Casselman stresses that these figures represent 99 per cent of the female muskie population. A few will grow larger, but record fish form a miniscule proportion of the total population.
I feel there is a high probability that the ultimate maximum length for Georgian Bay was derived from the O'Brien fish and the reported age of 30 years is supportive of the fish being at the ultimate maximum length.
Growth models are nothing more than speculation and should be considered as such. A suggested weight of 70 lbs. from a growth model has never been proven in the real world. Only after a true 70 lb. muskie shows up can we say these growth models are useful.
| |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Guest - 4/15/2011 10:56 AM
TB,
I also feel your point is completely invalid. There's a big difference between an average ultimate length and an ultimate maximum length. An ultimate maximum length is NOT an average. It is the UPPER LIMIT.
Yes, I would agree with your point about the "ultimate maximum length" being the upper limit--that's why I said I didn't know where it came from, and was further researching it. I'm still doing that, but I believe you are correct. I apologize for any confusion arising from my error in using the correct terminology. As I said before, some of these neurons have rusted a bit...
...SNIP
John Casselman stresses that these figures represent 99 per cent of the female muskie population. A few will grow larger, but record fish form a miniscule proportion of the total population.
Fair enough, but I haven't finished reading that particular paper yet, and therefore am not ready to further discuss the significance of the 99% value. But it's clearly published in his writings, I will agree to that.
I feel there is a high probability that the ultimate maximum length for Georgian Bay was derived from the O'Brien fish and the reported age of 30 years is supportive of the fish being at the ultimate maximum length.
Do you have any evidence of this, because you may be correct. However this reference
Growth and Ultimate Length of Muskellunge from Ontario Water Bodies published in the North American Journal of Fisheries Management (19:271–290, 1999) reports an L_infinity of 128.7cm (50.7") for Georgian Bay female muskellunge. Therefore this does not seem to include O'Brien's fish, even though that catch: 1) occurred some 10-11 years before this article was published; and 2) was necropsied by Dr. Casselman himself, as I recall from reading the WMA report. Thus I am not quite sure where you are getting this 52.8" value for the AML, because the von Bertalanffy model published in that paper (Figure 9, p280) clearly uses the smaller 128.7cm (50.7") value for the length at infinity (i.e; the asymptotic average maximum length).
Therefore please cite your reference on those values (52.8" and 58.5"). It's not that I am saying that I do not believe you, I just simply am not finding the same values you have stated. But until we establish *which* average maximum length we should be using, I cannot comment further on your speculation.
Growth models are nothing more than speculation and should be considered as such. A suggested weight of 70 lbs. from a growth model has never been proven in the real world. Only after a true 70 lb. muskie shows up can we say these growth models are useful.
I would agree with this, in general terms. However, certainly in Wisconsin, much weight is placed on these growth models in managing muskellunge. I'll agree that in Canada (ironically) it seems to be less so. I certainly could have missed something in the past few years, but to my knowledge Dr. Casselman has never made the case for anything above about 48-50" for a muskellunge size limit, using (it appears) that 99% interval around the ultimate size. Yet Canada has many examples of a 54" size limit on muskellunge! I find that very interesting indeed...
Great stuff here Guest, I appreciate the debate. I have my references in hand, and will be reading them all weekend! Let the fun begin...
TB | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Here's an interesting quote from the paper (page 288) I referenced in my last post...
"Some sources had adequate samples, with length-at-age data having moderately narrow confidence limits; however, the ranges were very broad. This was especially true for Georgian Bay females. Indeed, ultimate size calculated from these data appeared to be somewhat lower than we and others (G. Morgan, French River Cooperative Fisheries Unit, personal communication) expected, given the number of large, old fish in the sample. We suspected that the results were an average of fish from two different sources or growth stocks, one from the open water of Georgian Bay (bay stock) and the other from the mouths of the French and Pickerel rivers (river stock). Subsequent analyses, which applied the growth–sex discrimination technique to additional samples that were unsexed, increased the number of available samples, making it possible to show with discriminant function analysis that there were actually two growth stocks, effecting the underestimation of ultimate size of muskellunge from Georgian Bay (Robinson and Casselman, unpublished report). Riverine fish had a low growth potential, whereas Georgian Bay fish had a higher growth potential and larger body form."
While this doesn't fully pertain to our current debate, I found it very interesting and so I wanted to share it in this thread. It does seem to reinforce the fact that they did indeed find several older fish represented in the samples donated to the Cleithrum Project from Georgian Bay anglers. It also seems to speak to what Mr. Guest stated about how these models can sometimes only give a hint of what the fish population is actually capable of--something we've also argued for the past 3-4 years, for the Green Bay fish. I fully agree with Guest on that point...
TB
Edited by tcbetka 4/15/2011 12:54 PM
| |
| | |
| Hang a fish and it is longer! I did it for years and got the most out of my measurements when looking for better point value in MI. Allmost ALLl of my 3000 + document musky were slightly longer when held verticle. I also have an Ontario fish (biggest in the Ottawa River Study) that lost 6" according to the orignal measurement by MNR several days after death. When the dead fish was held vertically it grew to only 3" short. Explaine that? I know... I have the the radio transmitter, pictures and hard evidence.
Hang a fish verticle and measure it next time you catch one.... then put it horizontal on the same board. It will be longer held vertically. Before you say it hurts or kills fish I will tell you for many years i tagged fish and many... many of those fish are still caught today and reported.
This whole BS makes muskie fisherman look like fools.
 | |
| | |
| steve R,
The official measurement of O'Brien's fresh fish was taken along the flat surface of a dock with the fish lying down, NOT hanging. I agree with what you're saying about a muskie being "slightly" longer when hanging. However, your own experience should prove to you that they don't stretch 3". As far as a muskie losing 6" several days after death, I would say this is impossible because bones don't shrink. | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Well, interesting. I'll take your word for it on the "vertical holds don't hurt fish" point, because I won't be trying that myself.
That being said, I would first way...holy CRAP! 3000 fish?!?! Awesome man! (and I am being serious, by the way.)
Then I would say that the fish that supposedly measured 58" laying down, doesn't even appear to be more than 54" while hanging. In fact, according to Mr. Mills' assessment, it isn't even 54". It would be one thing if the fish was claimed to be 58" while hanging, but it doesn't even come within 4" of that with it's throat cut!
(3000 fish? #*^@, man...I need to go fishing with you! No vertical holds though, OK?)
TB | |
| | |
| TB,
The source of my information is from an interview with John Casselman by Blair Dawson entitled, "Finding the next world record muskie". John Casselman provided a chart that lists 14 Ontario muskie waters and the average size, in inches, expected at maturity for females, along with the average size at age 7, the usual age at which muskie spawn for the first time. Casselman stresses that these figures represent about 99 per cent of the female muskie population. A few will grow larger, but record fish form a miniscule proportion of the total population. | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Well, that certainly sounds like the paper I referenced above (and just finished reading this afternoon), but the 52.8" and the 58.5" lengths are inaccurate. In fact, the 58.5" length isn't even mentioned in that paper...in terms of a maximum ultimate length. And I actually find it a bit strange, because (as I mentioned before), the O'Brien fish was caught 11 years before this paper was published. So there was at least 9-10 years in there, that he would have known about the fish. The other thing is that, according to Larry Ramsell, Dr. Casselman initially had felt the fish to be around 29 years old; and then Larry just posted the other day that Dr. Casselman had sent him an email (recently, as I took it), stating he now felt the fish to be closer to 30 years old. I might have the sequence of events askew here but if not, then it seems even less likely that the O'Brien fish was the 30 year-old Georgian Bay fish in that 1999 paper I referenced above. He would of reported it as being 29 years old, I would think. So I wonder if in fact there was another 30 year-old musky in his data?
There is another paper I have, that I alluded to earlier, where he writes about using the growth model to establish size limits. That's where the 99% limit comes in. I plan to read that one tomorrow. I won't lie to you--it's a tough paper to get through, because the man is brilliant when it comes to the science of these fish. I essentially find myself re-reading many paragraphs he writes, because there is so much detail. So it will take a fair amount of time tomorrow to get through, I'll wager.
TB | |
| | |
| WMA GO AWAY | |
| | |
Posts: 8782
| SIMPLE - 4/15/2011 3:49 PM
WMA GO AWAY
WHY?? | |
| | |
| Sorry TB but you're wrong. The chart I have in front of me has 52.8" and 58.5". You should find it a bit strange that O'Brien's fish was caught 11 years before what you're reading was published. Why wasn't O'Brien's fish included in the material that you're reading? O'Brien's fish is definately the oldest muskie John Casselman has ever aged. All this confusion should be a red flag to you.
| |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | I'm wrong? LOL! I'm wrong why...because the chart you have in front of you says something that the scientific REFERENCE (as in published in a peer-reviewed journal) states something that, as I reported, is different than what your reference says? Tell me then, where exactly was this chart you are holding published? I know you reported it came from a personal conversation with someone who interviewed Dr. Cassleman, but if it wasn't published in a peer-reviewed journal...then how would I know it?
So once again, cite your source. Two can play at your game, kind sir.
And how do you know it was the oldest musky he's ever aged, by the way? If he told that to you personally, then please direct me to your comment stating such in this thread, because I obviously missed it. How else am I supposed to know this for a fact?
So let's have some intelligent discussion, using published data. If there's something Dr. Casselman has stated to you personally, then state it as such including the approximate date and the context of the conversation. But if it was "in an interview he did with so and so..." then show me the interview. I am going on published literature, which I would expect you to be using as well...if you have the sort of training that you are suggesting you do, with your analysis of the "average maximum length" and "ultimate maximum size" terminology. You're insisting we debate the issue using facts not yet established as factual evidence.
I may be many things my friend, but I'm not clairvoyant.
TB
EDIT: By the way--did you ever think that he might have *upgraded* the model for Georgian Bay, since the 1999 paper? It's entirely possible that you ARE right--I am not saying that you're not. I'm simply stating that your numbers are not stated in the reference I cited, and that is all. Don't believe me though...get the reference and read it for yourself. I've given you the page number and everything, LOL.
Edited by tcbetka 4/15/2011 4:39 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Hard to have an intelligent discussion with this guy over the long term, Tom. He has a history of tossing unsubstantiated 'info grenades' into conversations with no end of sensationalistic tripe attached, derailing what should be a good conversation with his 'I'm right, you are wrong, no added info necessary' style. He may actually have the information...heck, I don't know...but his style in similar conversations hasn't been too forthcoming.
CG/CP, login and site your sources and in the process debate with Tom reasonably or leave the conversation.
WMA GO AWAY---SF, broadly intelligent and substantive submission to the subject matter. If you haven't something to add that's constructive... | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Agree Steve, agreed.
As I've stated before, I really don't mind debating an anonymous poster--as long as it's a respectful and honest debate, and not a simple attempt at character assassination. However the tough part is knowing that the first "Guest" is actually the same "Guest" that posts the second time...or the 50th time!
It's too bad that the log-in system can't somehow tag these anonymous posters in such a way that they can remain anonymous in accordance with the MuskieFIRST policy of allowing anonymous posters (which I am not trying to debate here, btw), but still give some indication of uniqueness.
TB | |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Tom, We'd have called that out if it was multiple folks, not hard to track it back to the registered user using the IP. | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Unless they spoof it, or use an IP proxy. I don't know how deep your forensic tools go...
TB | |
| | |
Posts: 8782
| I think we've gone beyond what anonymous guest posters with no credible evidence to show can dispute anyway. Casselman's work is fascinating, and nobody is arguing whether or not Georgian Bay COULD produce such a fish anyway. The question is whether O'Brien's fish was one of them. I think the mold answers that question.
So now we're arguing about whether or not research supports 58" as a possibility for a 30 year old fish... Even if it DOES, and O'Brien's fish WAS 30 years old, that does not mean that the fish had grown to 58" or ever would have. Even if you can prove that 58" is possible by actually CATCHING a 58" fish out of Georgian Bay, it doesn't change the O'Brien fish one bit. It either WAS or it was NOT, and all the evidence so far seems to indicate that it definitely was closer to 54" if not smaller.
| |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Well when you're right, you're right. But it's the thrill of the chase...
| |
| | |
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Here are a couple of quotes that may or may not help clarify some of this exchange:
Excerpted from a letter from Dr. John Casselman to Martin Williamson: "Martin:
Special thanks for sending me the picture, beautifully framed, of your muskellunge. It's nice to see such a beautiful, authentic fish, confirming much of the science that I know about muskellunge growth potential. I never have hung pictures of caught fish. This is the first one. So it will reside on my office wall and I emphasize the reason why I want to do this because I think it will contain a very interesting and fascinating story. Thanks again.
The reason why the fish is special interest to me is because the measurements describe the fish exactly. In 1964, when working on the St. Lawrence River, we tagged a female muskellunge that was 54 inches long, weighing 54 pounds. It was taken a spawning time. I don't know whether I mentioned to you, but males that were caught at the same time by electrofishing and tagged were subsequently recaptured a considerable distance away adn at a larger size, one after eight years. The proportions of these two fish - yours and that one - are very similar.
I very much look forward to obtaining the cleithral bone from your fish. I leave it to you, Larry Jones, and Arunas to organize. As I mentioned, I'm particularly interested in year-class. In other words, in what year the fish hatched. Large trophy muskellunge have a very interesting synchrony in these year-classes. They almost invariably come from the strong El Niño years produce strong year-classes of these largest muskellunge. Particularly important years were, in order of summer temperature, 1955, 1959, 1973, 1975, 1995, 1998. I very much look forward to an independent age assessment of your fish to see where it falls - whether on one of these. Just as an aside, I'll enclose a copy of a recent e-mail on a muskellunge that was found dead in the Ottawa River. You'll see there how important it is to have accurate age assessments and how we are still trying to get more resolution on these age assessments, because with these older fish, we are really only accurate, at the best, plus or minus one year. We are working on developing some mathematical methods of improving this. Incidentally, the 1980s was a decade of frequently El Niño years just below the extremes, and as you may know, 1983 was specially warm. Muskellunge fishing in the past couple of years has improved tremendously. Since our age assessments on younger fish are more reliable, we know the 1980s produced exceptional reproduction. This also goes hand in hand with the value of catch and release and increased size limits. Fortuitously, in the mid-1980s, Ontario size limits were increased, and about that time, organized muskellunge anglers were promoting catch and release - Muskies Inc. and Muskies Canada, for example. So not only did we have increased egg production (in fisheries we call it reproductive capactiy, or potential), but climatic conditions were favourable for the production of strong year-classes. We have some ideas how this works, but I won't elaborate on it right now.
A couple of other points of interest: Mathematically, we can estimate from growth of trajectory of ultimate size. I will include a copy of a paper we published recently for Ontario. It's a little heavy on the science, buy you may find it of interest. The female muskellunge that I tagged years ago on the St. Lawrence River and your fish fall almost exactly on the the average ultimate size. The can get larger than this, but not very much. When recent size limits were discussed, mathematically we recommended that waters that produce large-bodied muskellunge go to a minimum ultimated size equal to the lower 99% confidence limits. What that means is that if females live indefinetely, 99% of them will reach this length limit. It is, without looking up exact numbers, for large-bodied populations usually in the 48-to-50-inch range, not exceeding the latter. By deciding to go to 54 inches, this means that probably half of the females will eventually never be harvested. .."
In an email exchange I received that appeared here "briefly", participant 1: "Considering one gallon of water weighs 8.35 lbs, and guessing that the fish certainly could have lost around a gallon of fluids. 65lbs sounds like a reasonable weight to me at the time it was ALIVE."
Participant 2: "Tyler,thats unfortunately impossible,verified myself with 4 muskies that died upon capture or release and weighed em and weighed em after freezing some weeks later and gave to biologist whom will autopsy and weigh em again months late (6).
I do know one was weighed between death at capture and re -weigning from biologist it barely lost over 1 pound ,that fish bleed out from hook injuries
Fish lose far less fluid than one might think,a 50 inch muskie contains far less blood then one would even think,really not much *****this occurred in 2010."
LR: I might note here, that participant 2 made an additional note to me that those 4 fish and another 6 did NOT loose any length...especially not 6 inches as alluded to above by Steve R...that I find extremely at odds with anything known. 3000 fish or not, I submit there was a mismeasurement somewhere along the line. If I'm incorrect Steve, please post the proof, but bones just do not shrink that much.
| |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Tom:
Not many folks try to use a proxy, and those who do to cause trouble end up disappointed, because it's easy to see through that and simply delete the posts and block the IP range. The same computer has sent every message but one today from Guest, and we have it to the desk if we need to. Of course, in this case there's no reason for that, but we can list the location, city, ISP, and IP range, local area code, and address in a single search. Plus, if he's ever logged in using a registered username from that IP, we identify the IP cross referenced with all logins and posts through the history of the website and every visitor who's ever logged in from that IP is displayed. An excellent tool to ferret out someone trying to use multiple registered identities or two or more people using the same computer or smart phone trying to represent as one person.
Not much real anonymity, if one is a registered user and tries to snipe from an IP they've used before.
| |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | I had no idea you could hone in on someone to that degree. Sweet!
(Note to self: Don't try to spoof an IP on MuskieFIRST...)
TB
Edited by tcbetka 4/15/2011 6:29 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 280
| Larry you mention...."In an email exchange I received that appeared here "briefly", participant 1: "Considering one gallon of water weighs 8.35 lbs, and guessing that the fish certainly could have lost around a gallon of fluids. 65lbs sounds like a reasonable weight to me at the time it was ALIVE."
I received an interesting email from a friend that addresses that issue, as follows;
These three Canadian muskies were frozen before they were weighed and were under 60 lbs. in the frozen state.
Ken O'Brien.........56 lbs. (Frozen 8 days)
Gene Borucki......56 lbs. 11 oz. (Frozen 3 days)
Art Barefoot........59 lbs. 11 oz. (Frozen 18 days)
Does this mean if they were all weighed fresh we would have the following?
Ken O'Brien........65 lbs.
Gene Borucki.....65 lbs. 11 oz.
Art Barefoot........68 lbs. 11 oz.
O'Brien's fish supposedly lost 9 lbs. from fresh to frozen. If this was true, shouldn't the same be expected of the other two fish?
So, if we can rationalize O'Brien losing 9lbs. in 8 days, the Barefoot fish was frozen 2x as long. In that light, could we reasonably expect maybe a 15-18lb. weight loss while in the freezer?
That would put the Art Barefoot fish live weight @ 74lbs. 11oz - 77lbs. 11oz.
Hmmmm, I think not, eh? LOL!!
What's fair is fair...........
DougP
Edited by fins355 4/15/2011 6:35 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 720
| Can somebody explain the comments Larry Ramsell made in an interview with Andrew Golden in the spring of 2010 at the Chicagoland musky show? Not only does he say that O'brien's fish is a world record or as close as we're going to get. But he goes on to explain why. I very confused now and I'm a little put off by the fact that WMA would not address this in their summary. I would think that the very man whose eyewitness the fish and says it measured 54" and lost 9 pounds. Yet still Mr. Ramsell says it was 65 lbs and is the world record. Wouldn't that be a conflict of interest give Mr. Ramsell comments in the video as late as twelve months ago.
| |
| | |
| I think that's pretty straightforward. That interview was well before the WMA compiled the report, obviously when faced with the evidence Larry changed his belief in the validity of this fish. There would be no reason for the WMA to address what he said in that 2010 interview because that was his opinion, not fact. Larry has been unwavering in what he recorded back in 1988, and therefore the only thing of true relevance (to the WMA apparently) is that he measured it at 54", and weighing it at 56lb. BTW, that is not the only thing that proves the length was only 54", hope this helps? | |
| | |
Posts: 720
| Guest,
So twenty years later with new photo evidence he saw changed his opinion? He measured and weighed the fish personally. What possibily could he have done any different to not believe this fish was a fraud? If I was witness to a fish that you said was 50" and weighed 40 pounds but it only measured 47" and weighed 35 pounds. I would say just that and not claim otherwise wouldn't you? Just not sure why the differance in public statements. You also say this interview as conducted before they started working on the summary. I thought that the WMA has putting this summary together for the last three years? I'm inclined to believe that Larry was aware of the fact that the WMA was investigating this fish. I just don't get the change in position when you've personally weighed and measured the fish and its not anywhere near what you were told it was. I just don't understand it. | |
| | |
Posts: 280
| Hunter....I think the only answers to your questions need to come from LR. His opinions however, have no affect on the report by the WMA.
That report is pretty solid and no one has been able to show any of it in error.
Regardless of what LR says or has said, the weight discrepancy and measurements just do NOT add up to what was claimed.
DougP
| |
| | |
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | There is nothing new here that I haven't clarified in earlier posts "somewhere" in this massive thread. Guess you'll have to search, because I'm not going to waste my time writing it again. | |
| | |
| Here is a pic of the fish still in the boat. Blood is from the slit throat. The girth is there even though no garden hose or even any water for that matter.
[IMG]http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u314/muskiemachinery/obrein.jpg[/IMG] | |
| | |
| Something I haven't seen anyone bring up......Does anyone really think these MNR/MCI guys would lie and stake their substantial reputations on this fish and then send it to the ROM to be studied by scientists?
Wouldn't one assume the scientists would weigh and measure it, and they'd be publicly embarrassed for a fish caught by someone they didn't even know?
If it was 54 inches (which i still find hard to believe) isn't it more likely that the fish was mis-measured (stretched temporarily after hanging for hrs) and lost some fluid from the cut throat?
| |
| | |
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | SV wrote: "Here is a pic of the fish still in the boat. Blood is from the slit throat. The girth is there even though no garden hose or even any water for that matter."
LR: SV, the photo didn't come thru, but since I have an original of it, it was easy for me to see that "most" of the liquid in the bottom of the boat is water. The girth, while impressive, simply does not match the vastly bloated photos of the fish hanging. In some photos it appears that the belly is nearly twice as wide as the back of the fish, but in the later photos it is back to the shape in this photo and the original dock photo. This continues to beg for explanation. Bones don't shrink, but skin does expand, hence the length loss confusion and the "bloat" and weight loss confusion.
Guest: The photogrammetry photos, with the yardstick, were taken after the fish had hung and was hanging AND the throat visibly cut and with about a 1 inch spread and it still came up nearly 4 inches short.
Edited by Larry Ramsell 4/17/2011 11:14 AM
| |
| | |
| Larry Ramsell - 4/17/2011 11:11 AM
SV wrote: "Here is a pic of the fish still in the boat. Blood is from the slit throat. The girth is there even though no garden hose or even any water for that matter."
LR: SV, the photo didn't come thru, but since I have an original of it, it was easy for me to see that "most" of the liquid in the bottom of the boat is water. The girth, while impressive, simply does not match the vastly bloated photos of the fish hanging. In some photos it appears that the belly is nearly twice as wide as the back of the fish, but in the later photos it is back to the shape in this photo and the original dock photo. This continues to beg for explanation. Bones don't shrink, but skin does expand, hence the length loss confusion and the "bloat" and weight loss confusion.
Guest: The photogrammetry photos, with the yardstick, were taken after the fish had hung and was hanging AND the throat visibly cut and with about a 1 inch spread and it still came up nearly 4 inches short.
Larry - the photogrammetry photos came up short of your own measurements. I don't put any stock in them compared with the other stuff.
Also, if you are saying the girth in the photos (which you've had for 20 yrs) don't match up....why were you so sure a year ago that this was a legit fish?? | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | I think that Mr. Mills did a fine job, actually. I put a lot of stock in them--especially in light of Larry's measurement, and then the mold of the fish.
The two photogrammetric measurements are pretty close to the 54" value that Larry got, when you consider the stated margin of accuracy. The first one was 52.3 +/- 1", but this picture had the fish at an oblique angle to the camera, making it much more difficult to see where the tail ended exactly. The second image shows the fish more clearly from a lateral view, and the end of the tail is more clearly defined. Thus the 53.4 +/- 1" measurement agrees more closely with Larry's 54" measurement.
Check out this picture I found on another site. I read that Mr. O'Brien was about 5'8" (68") tall, but I don't have any way to verify that other than hearsay. But when you see that both he and the fish are approximately in the same plane (at the edge of the steps), the discrepancy in their lengths appears quite significant.
TB
Attachments
----------------
Obrien_hanging1.jpg (135KB - 820 downloads)
| |
| | |
| I agree with your assessment of Mr. Mills body of work, every bit of it.I see Musky Hunter finally shut the O'Brien thread down when things got out of control.Imagine that?Thank goodness because Esoxarchaeologist was back attacking the work Mr. Mills did on Sprays 1940 record.Pathetic.I would like to see archaeologist put that picture of drunken Louie up here and try to convince us that fish was a even 40lbs let alone 60. He has posted here before and I would bet my boat he reads these.I double dare you!You might be able to go about your "attack the messenger theme" over there because those folks let that go and overlook the obvious.Nice job Mr. Mills! | |
| | |
Posts: 8782
| Pathetic is right...
The only explanation for the mold is that the fish SHRUNK? Seems the taxidermists (who would KNOW) all say that's not possible.
The explanation for the 9lb weight loss is from loss of blood? It's not a cattle, it's a muskie. 9 pounds? Pick up a gallon of milk. YOU wouldn't lose that much blood if someone removed your head!
The people who were there would never lie? Of course not. Not musky anglers, they're the most honest bunch of folks out there!
And whenever anyone points any of that out, they say you can't tell the size of a fish from a picture, and therefore the photogrammetry is meaningless... It wasn't meaningless when the Lawton fish was DQ'ed. What changed???
And then we have a guy who is tossing around everything that was wrong with the Spray fish investigation.
All that nonsense aside... If ANYBODY out there had ANYTHING that could dispute the findings of the WMA, it would have been plastered all over every website and every magazine by now. They'd be shouting it from the rooftops instead of sitting here attacking everyone who is just trying to find out what the biggest muskie ever caught actually WAS.
Makes me wonder if maybe they just don't want to find out how bit they REALLY can get because they'd have to stop telling everyone how many 55"x30" fish they've had in their boat...
| |
| | |
Posts: 20219
Location: oswego, il | It is interesting. Most of us believe Spray's, Johnson's and Lawton's fish to be short. They too had sworn affidavides. Did they all lie or maybe not closely witness the length and weight measuremts? | |
| | |
Posts: 720
| They all lied! | |
| | |
| I just went over and reread that silly explanation on MH. The fish shrunk LMAO! I can just hear them scheming now yeah yeah CS we'll get Al to say it shrunk and then attack Mills credibility, that worked pretty good with Johnson they'll never figure out who is hehe. Its pretty funny how somebody researched "shrinking Al" and found he guided at John Deloffs Indian Trail Resort. If you think about it, probably the only desperate angle that they could argue in light of the WMA evidence against. They are pathetic! | |
| | |
| If they didn't closely witness (positively see) the length measurements and the weights they had no business signing the affidavits. | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Well, I read that thread over there as well--and could certainly see why it got locked. This is one of the MAIN reasons I dislike records. That being said, I believe I know who you're talking about. I don't know Mr. AH, but I thought that one of the posts he wrote raised a couple good points.
As I've stated previously in this thread, I couldn't really care less if O'Brien's fish is the WR or not. I am simply not interested in the record. However I would have liked to have seen the WMA report include two things, both of which Mr. AH mentioned: First, I would have liked to have seen an independent evaluation of Mr. Mills' work. Not that I think he's wrong mind you, because I do not. But I knew it was only a matter of time before someone pointed out that there was no peer review, and criticized the WMA for it. Of course it is by no means too late to have this completed now, but the horse has gone over the dam on that one...if you'll excuse the mixed metaphors. I've done a (very) rudimentary check on Mr. Mills' size estimates, simply as a "sanity check" on the values--and indeed, they seem reasonable to me. But I'll be the first to admit that as a photogrammetrist, I make a good doctor.
But the second thing that I'm a bit uncomfortable with (as I've said several times) is that I simply cannot explain how all those people were there--yet the measurements (length and weight) still got messed up apparently. Whether this was done intentionally or accidentally, is not for me to decide. I will admit that I do not know the history of the events of that day, other than what I've pieced together from various sources on the Internet. However I would have liked to see the WMA's report include interviews with a few people who actually witnessed the measurement of the fish. Before someone points out that these people (included in the report) could have simply lied again...I realize that. However at the very least, it would have given the majority of the people who are not familiar with events of that day, a better idea of just how things went down after the catch. There's too much speculation and misunderstanding, and it only leads to more of the same.
All this being said, the pictures do not support the stated length of 58" in my humble opinion. I agree with the WMA report in that aspect. And while I have no interest in what fish is truly the World Record musky, my interest in this case is in finding the truth. People keep telling me how the musky industry isn't large enough to warrant much money for research to benefit the species. Well, no matter how large our sport is or isn't within the entire fishing industry, we'll never get anywhere unless we can demonstrate that we are taking steps to police ourselves. These WR fish debates are ugly, no doubt about it. And many people say that the WMA's continued effort(s) gives our sport a black eye. I respectfully disagree. I would argue that if anything, it shows that there are people within the sport who aren't afraid to go against the grain a bit, if it means that we can get to the truth.
Of course, anyone can feel free to disagree.
TB | |
| | |
Posts: 574
Location: Elk Grove Village, IL & Phillips, WI | Shrank is right up there with pelvic fin drift!! | |
| | |
Posts: 280
| Good post Tom, however, I don't think a peer review is really needed here. The rules of the OFAH state that the ruler must be along side the fish in the same plane.
If this was violated that's another problem withthe fish.
As far as interviewing witnesses I think that would only cause more problems since then it would be MORE of personal credibility attack which some people seem to object to.
Here's what we have;
#1...3 weighings on 3 different scales that have been shown to be accurate. One scale showed a 65lb. weight witnessed and viewed by we don't know how many and haven't heard from ANY. Two of those scales show the fish to weigh 56lbs. by LR after frozen for 8 days. A 9lb. discrepancy.
#2.A measurement submitted for record book taken lying flat on dock @ 58".
#3. A measurement 8 days later by LR while frozen showing 54"
#4. A measurement taken from a mold/cast made at the ROM showing a max 54" measurement.
#5. Photogrammetry showing fish to be no more than 54.4"
So, we have 2 of the 3 scales used showing the fish to be lighter than claimed.
We have 1 measurement [record book] by, was it Warren Wilkerson [?], or someone yet to be determined, who we haven't heard from, to claim the fish was 58"
We have 3 measurements by 3 independent parties to show the fish to be no more than 54.4". The mold by the ROM being the most accurate.
The 9lb. weight loss cannot be logically explained to be caused by any natural occuring event.
The 4" length loss cannot be expained.
The mold cannot be explained.
Why any of the witnesses have not come forward...cannot be explained.
The claimed record at 65lbs and 58" cannot be explained......
'cause it was never that big.
DougP
Edited by fins355 4/18/2011 5:59 PM
| |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | While I certainly agree that the fish appears less than the stated length, I think a number of your points are argumentative. At the very least, I would like to have seen additional steps taken to address objections that were sure to come. I mean, I support the conclusion that the fish wasn't 58"--yet I have these questions. What is to be expected from those who do NOT support the conclusion?
I am only stating my opinion, but I simply think that there could have been more effort in some areas: For instance, to provide a narrative of the events of the day. I believe I've heard about as many different theories for how the hose was involved, as I have for the Grassy Knoll conspiracy. What would it have hurt to lay it out? Who measured the fish to be 58" laying flat? Who signed the affadavits to certify these things?
My point is simply that the three-pronged attack of the WMA has left many questions unaddressed; and I think that's unfortunate, because I think they might have missed opportunities to dispel some of their criticism before it even gained momentum. Thus I think their work seems underwhelming to many folks, and that truly is unfortunate. There seem to me to be too many points left open to interpretation, when it comes to the "eye witnesses." That has bothered me from the start, and still bothers me.
But in the end, I guess it is what it is.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 4/18/2011 6:12 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 280
| I guess I don't see which points are "argumentative".
DougP | |
| | |
Posts: 280
| I don't think the points you mention Tom are the responsibility of the investigation.
Events of the day....who's gonna admit to augmenting???
Seems like anyone who was there....ain't talkin'!
Edited by fins355 4/18/2011 6:22 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 280
| BTW, I think most/all of the "criticism" of the report has been pretty much "hot air" with no substance at all.
DougP | |
| | |
Posts: 280
| Tom you ask what is to be expected from those who don't support the WMA conclusions.
I would expect a reasonable rebuttal to show the evidence to be in error.
We haven't had anything close to that!! NOTHING!! LOL!! | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Well I'm not an attorney, but for starters how about these:
1) We have 1 measurement [record book] by, was it Warren Wilkerson [?], or someone yet to be determined, who we haven't heard from, to claim the fish was 58"
2) The 9lb. weight loss cannot be logically explained to be caused by any natural occurring event.
3) The 4" length loss cannot be explained.
4) The mold cannot be explained.
5) Why any of the witnesses have not come forward...cannot be explained.
You are contending that, because these things have not been satisfactorily explained in support of the fish, they add up against the fish. However the lack of evidence doesn't mean that evidence doesn't exist.
Again, I do not believe the fish is of stated size. I've gone on record (several times) saying just that...and I truly believe it. But that is my personal opinion. However I am a scientist, and strive to look for all possibilities. The photo evidence is very problematic to those supporting the fish, in my opinion. And I happen to agree with several of your conclusions, argumentative or otherwise. But since I don't know enough about some of them to formulate an opinion, I would rather not speak out on those either way.
Look, I'm not trying to be difficult here--but I'm only suggesting that there could have been more done to discredit potential criticism *before* it even occurred. But as I mentioned many posts ago, the WMA published this report (in its brevity) knowing full well that it would be met with a higher level of scrutiny given the history of their previous reports. That tells me that they are very confident in their case, and that means something. I just think there could have been more included (as noted above) to paint the picture with a little more definition for the rest of us, is all.
But it is what it is.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 4/18/2011 6:41 PM
| |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI |
BTW, I think most/all of the "criticism" of the report has been pretty much "hot air" with no substance at all.
DougP
I would agree with this, for the most part. Except for a very few solid counterpoints, I haven't heard much other than speculation and supposition.
So I'll certainly give you this one.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 4/18/2011 6:44 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 280
| Tom, I agree........except...LOL!!
I just think it would have been a real mess for the WMA to try and interview witnesses that may have been present that day. I wouldn't even know how they would begin to do that.
There was going to be a "loyal opposition" to the report. I think it was much better to do the investigation based on the salient points and let the rest sort itself out.
There are certain facts that just can't, or at least haven't, been explained to even consider a possibility of this fish being legit.
Although there is evidence in favor of the O'Brien record, the preponderance of the evidence discredits it, to a very large degree, IMO.
There is also evidence in the Lawton and the Spray and the Johnson and the Haver fish....etc., yet I believe those all to be bogus also.
To their shame, some of the record keepers have used very selective reasoning and choice in their removal of some of these fish from the record books.
Edited by fins355 4/18/2011 7:28 PM
| |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Fair enough. I don't share the same opinion, but it matters very little at this point. The report has been published, and the dust is still settling. The court of public opinion is in session, and it remains to be seen what the final outcome will be...
TB | |
| | |
Posts: 280
| Sadly, I think the records will remain the same.......the "informed" public opinion may see the fish as less than claimed.
I guess I was hoping for more from the "record keepers"......silly me!
Dougp | |
| | |
| So.....who signed the affidavit? | |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Seriously?
| |
| | |
Posts: 280
| Not that easily explained.....I'm sure many of the "high profile" musky people that were present are very much aware of this site, the WMA report AND the discussion.
Many of the Canadian guides have already mentioned that they know people who were present. Tell me they haven't felt the neeed to contact any of them??
Seems we haven't heard from anyone....yet. | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Absolutely they are aware of the controversy.
I was surfing for this issue over the weekend, and found a Canadian fishing forum site. As you might imagine, they discussed this fish a lot--in fact they discussed it a lot back in 2008 even. A more recent thread I saw also discussed the fact that there was a lot of discussion elsewhere on the Internet.
They know...
TB | |
| | |
Posts: 280
| I had to do a little research about the witnesses and the measurement.
I went to Larry Ramsell's World Record Compendium Vol.1 on page 472, re: an interview with Warren Wilkinson.
Larry asks Warren; "The affadavit for the O'Brien's fish measurement is 58- inches. Was that a hanging measurement? "
Warren answers; "No, the total length was the length of the fish along the flat surface of the dock and was taken with a tape measure from the tip of the longest jaw to the tip of the tail."
Warren goes on to say that "WE also measured the girth at the same time at 30.5 inches."
So in saying WE, I would assume there was more than one person who witnessed the actual measuring. I don't know who they might be, but I think Warren may be able to tell us.
He also may be able to explain the discrepancy between HIS measurement and the cast from the mold ......maybe, maybe not.
Dougp
Edited by fins355 4/18/2011 9:44 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 8782
| For what my opinion is worth: (which ain't much)
What good are witnesses??? Unless they actually measured and weighed the fish themselves, or were close enough to either process to have actually seen the meaurements or the weight, simply being there and seeing the fish when it was caught doesn't mean a thing. Why would the WRMA interview people who had nothing more than their opinions to go on? That's not sound science, and that's not studying the evidence. That's just relying on the opinion of someone who saw the fish from a distance and is no more qualified to judge the length, girth, or weight than anyone else who just fishes for them.
I suspect, though I don't know for sure, that the people involved with the record keeping organizations probably wouldn't know a 65# muskie if it bit them on the ass. I suspect many of them have never fished for muskies, seen a muskie, caught a muskie or held one in their hands. So they're at the mercy of someone who says this or that fish was such and such a size and weight...
When you apply science and math to something like this, you have to trust the people whose JOB it is to make such calculations, because quite simply, they know a hell of a lot more than YOU.
It's like ANYTHING. The people who know, KNOW. The rest, no matter how hard they try to pretend, do NOT.
I trust that the folks involved in this investigation know more than the rest of us, buy the simple fact of who they are and what they have done.
Here's a question for those who are attempting to discredit the science, math, and the work of the WMA/WRMA:
How many muskies have you actually seen in real life, handled, weighed, measured, etc. that are 65#? None? What about 55#? Still none? How about 50#? LEGITIMATE 50# fish... Bueller??? Anybody who can raise their hand, and say they've actually been within 10 feet of more than one 50# muskie in your life, raise your hand!
If there actually IS anyone out there that meets those criteria...
What do YOU think about the O'Brien fish, based on what you have experienced??? | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Actually, interviewing witnesses IS science. Science involves observation and reproducibility. Science involves searching for the truth, and if interviewing witnesses is what it takes, then that's what you do. The problem is in finding the people to talk to, and getting them to talk. If there are several (many, in this case) people involved, then this can get very time-intensive, and also very expensive. But eyewitness reports are indeed a form of evidence--as long as those reports are credible. The problem is that you have to talk to the witnesses to make that determination; to sort through just which observations are credible (and thus yield "reproducible" results), and which are not credible. Wouldn't you be interested in the observations of 50 people, for example, if 48 of them didn't actually see the fish weighed or measured but were simply told about it by the two that did see it? The only way you're going to know that though, is by talking to those 48 people.
TB | |
| | |
Posts: 444
| An eye witness is worthless IMO, how many dudes are serving 20 to life because of eye witness testimony only to be let free years later due to DNA...which I'm pretty sure DNA is some kind of fancy science stuff that trumps eye witness testimony...
one, two or thousands of people can be duped into believing something pretty easily...IMO | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | fins355 - 4/18/2011 9:17 PM
...SNIP
Warren goes on to say that "WE also measured the girth at the same time at 30.5 inches."
So in saying WE, I would assume there was more than one person who witnessed the actual measuring. I don't know who they might be, but I think Warren may be able to tell us. He also may be able to explain the discrepancy between HIS measurement and the cast from the mold ......maybe, maybe not.
Dougp
Very good point Doug...very good indeed. It would be very good to find out how many people actually did the measuring/weighing. The other thing that I unclear about is when the cast of the fish was made. Was this before it was frozen or after? Does it matter for the outcome? You'll know much more about that than I will.
But NOW you're talking like a Scientist!
TB | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | thescottith - 4/19/2011 6:56 AM
An eye witness is worthless IMO, how many dudes are serving 20 to life because of eye witness testimony only to be let free years later due to DNA...which I'm pretty sure DNA is some kind of fancy science stuff that trumps eye witness testimony...
one, two or thousands of people can be duped into believing something pretty easily...IMO
I'm not saying that eye witness reports trump everything else--for just the reason you mentioned (they can be wrong). But they are certainly part of the investigatory process. If the witness is credible, the value of their testimony (which is based upon their observations) can be very significant indeed. Also, don't forget that witnesses can be discredited based upon the reports of *other* witnesses. What if you could show, through interviewing a bunch of witnesses, that there were a group of folks there that day that conspired to present this fish as something it wasn't--would you consider that to be worthwhile? I certainly would. I'm not at all saying that's what happened, because I simply don't know. But that's my point...you won't know, if you don't ask. How could you know? Any attempts to say "these witnesses were mistaken or lying" is purely argumentative. Prove it.
Just because someone presents himself as an "eye witness" to an event, doesn't automatically make him credible. If that person is shown to be misleading the process (either intentionally or unintentionally), then that's one more piece of evidence in the case.
TB | |
| | |
Posts: 280
| Tom, I agree that interviewing the witnesses could be an interesting part of the investigation. I just think the logistics for the WMA would be [nearly] impossible.
After all is said and done it would still come down to the weight and the length discrepancies which can't be explained.
You asked; "The other thing that I unclear about is when the cast of the fish was made. Was this before it was frozen or after? Does it matter for the outcome? You'll know much more about that than I will. "
According to Larry's interview with Warren Wilkinson [WW] in his WR Compendium, Warren said;
"After most folks had left, Lloyd Thurston [LT]wrapped the fish and plsced it in George Grisdales freezer where it remained until you [LR] removed it 8 days later. After your visit, LT then took the fish to Dr. Crossman at the ROM in Toronto. Immediately after the catch, Paul Gasbarino removed a cleitherum bone and got it to Dr. Crossman as well for aging."
WW went on to say that the fish was taken to Dr. Crossman on We. the 24th, right after LR's visit to see the fish at Grisdale's resort.
In a letter to LR, DR Crossman said; "I removed the stomach contents from O'Brien's fish when we were preparing it for the model's we made here at the ROM. The mold for those models was made before the fish went too the taxidermist."
DougP
| |
| | |
Posts: 280
| Esox65.....you may be right in saying that some witnesses may have contacted the respective record keepers. Then again, maybe not.
As far as I know, even the record keepers have not acknowledged receipt of the O'Brien report although I have been told they have sent copies when the report came out.
Courtesy would require a reply to acknowledge receipt of the challenge I would think.
Opinions of the "resident experts" are, I agree, just opinions.
However, there are facts on the table that have NOT been adequately explained which are, by themselves, enough to discredit the reliability of the original info provided for record consideration, IMHO.
The O'Brien fish has been challenged with solid photo evidence of the fish and the mold. The record keepers need to respond to this challenge.
DougP
Edited by fins355 4/19/2011 7:59 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Ok, for those still interested, here is some more regarding three of the major witnesses, some of which is still unfolding.
On the Muskies Canada website/message board a member made a comment that Paul Gasbarino, Muskies Canada President at the time, was present when Ken O’Brien caught his claimed 65 pound by 58 inch muskie in October of 1988. Paul’s response:
“Frank is right! I WAS THERE! However, as this was not a Muskies Canada member who caught the fish, we deferred to others for the official weight, and length measurements. We DID measure the fish afterwards, and I removed the cleithrum bone. I believe my few pictures, before I ran out of film, are much better than any others that I have seen, particularly none with a yardstick being held up, which means absolutely nothing. The throat cutting was through cartiledge material, underneath the jaw, and there was zero blood-loss. Someone mentioned weighing on a bathroom scale, and that's what Larry Ramsell did. One of my photographs, with Ken O'Brien, will clearly indicate this, and is one of the reasons why a frozen O'Brien fish would appear shorter, as that throat section was inserted inside its' mouth, and the head bent over to make it fit in the freezer. When we measured the fish for our own interest, and to confirm the length and girth measurements, it was lying on the dock. The head and throat area were aligned as if it wasn't cut. Unfortunately, the person who photographed these measurements, as I was removing the bone, has passed away, and they are not available for comment. Although I think the overall discrediting process is totally unfair, there is nothing we can or should do about this, as it is really none of Muskies Canada business. It's too bad that the person who signed this affadavit now look like a deliberate exaggeration - and it was NOT!! If there was a dispute over the authenticity, it should have been done years ago, when the people who signed the affadavit were still alive!! We should NOT pursue this matter any further.
Paul (Gasbarino)”
LR: Interesting he so easily dismisses the yardstick! As for the head being bent over when I remeasured the fish, all one need do is look at my photo in the Summary Report., the lower jaw is in line with the fork of the tail and certainly isn’t hiding 4 inches of fish length!! And it didn't need to be "bent over" to fit into the freezer it was in. As for the photos of the “measurements”, I’d submit that although that “person” has passed away, the photos should still be extant. I’d also submit that it appears that he is trying to sweep it under the rug saying “…it is really none of Muskies Canada business.” As for …”the person who signed the affidavit, how about this comment I received regarding one of them in an ongoing email. It is referring to Toronto Star Outdoor Writer John Power and what he supposedly told the “X” person referred to (nameless for now, but a good friend of Power’s):
“I had a chat with XXXX this passed weekend. I talked to him about Obriens fish and how it was proven to be a lie....He chuckled and says. ' Powers told me it was a lie way back when'. Its funny how people hold things back without mention. He's known all along about it and never gave it a second thought…”
Lastly, I’d like to remind you what the person in my book, Warren Wilkinson (previously unnamed in my posts, but noted by DougP recently) when asked last winter by a friend of mine what he thought about the WRMA/DCM photo analysis re the yardstick. He became somewhat “hostile” and told my friend to “Leave it alone. It is what it is.” You can make up your own mind what he meant, but Warren is the one who claimed the 58 inch length measurement, the 30 ½ inch girth measurement AND is the one who PREPARED THE AFFIDAVITS FOR O’BRIEN!!!!!!
Now, does ANYONE have ANYTHING positive or affirmative to add on behalf of the O’Brien fish…so far there has only been supposition. It WAS a GIANT fish (I watched the video again yesterday), but it certainly doesn’t appear even there to be close to 58 inches long. The weight and girth I can’t speak to, but then the approximately 9 pound weight loss has yet to be satisfactorily explained.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell,
Muskellunge Historian
Edited by Larry Ramsell 4/19/2011 7:59 AM
| |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | fins355 - 4/19/2011 7:45 AM
Tom, I agree that interviewing the witnesses could be an interesting part of the investigation. I just think the logistics for the WMA would be [nearly] impossible.
After all is said and done it would still come down to the weight and the length discrepancies which can't be explained.
Agreed. It would be very difficult, and expensive. As I am not part of the organization, I have no idea of their financial means in this regards. Keep in mind that I meant no disrespect to them by stating that I would like to have seen other things included in their report. They know more about this than I do, because I just came into the mix a week or so ago. Thus I am only looking for as much fact as I can find on this matter.
You asked; "The other thing that I unclear about is when the cast of the fish was made. Was this before it was frozen or after? Does it matter for the outcome? You'll know much more about that than I will. "
According to Larry's interview with Warren Wilkinson [WW] in his WR Compendium, Warren said;
"After most folks had left, Lloyd Thurston [LT]wrapped the fish and plsced it in George Grisdales freezer where it remained until you [LR] removed it 8 days later. After your visit, LT then took the fish to Dr. Crossman at the ROM in Toronto. Immediately after the catch, Paul Gasbarino removed a cleitherum bone and got it to Dr. Crossman as well for aging."
WW went on to say that the fish was taken to Dr. Crossman on We. the 24th, right after LR's visit to see the fish at Grisdale's resort.
In a letter to LR, DR Crossman said; "I removed the stomach contents from O'Brien's fish when we were preparing it for the model's we made here at the ROM. The mold for those models was made before the fish went too the taxidermist."
DougP
Ah...thanks. For some reason, I have not been able to lay my hands on his books. I don't know where they are. I have two or three of them, but do you think I can find them right now? I cannot get around too well yet after surgery 12 days ago, so I haven't been able to go down to my basement and go through my entire library. So I appreciate your quoting those sections for me, as it helps a lot...and does refresh my memory. I'm sure I read those sections before, but it's been some time.
TB | |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 65,
'Yep Seriously....this is a pretty good example or the ignorance I was referring to. '
Apparently, you have no sense of humor. And, I've already warned you about being rude and insulting. I won't offer that courtesy again.
You have absolutely no clue how large this community is. That is also obvious.
'Why would they care to come on here and rumble with the resident "experts" whose opinion's mean squat. '
There's absolutely no reason why they wouldn't and several that they might, especially if there is something definitive to offer that clearly defends and helps prove out the original claims of length and girth of this fish. And there would be no 'rumble' if these folks were, unlike you, reasonable and straightforward offering something of substance. | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Larry Ramsell - 4/19/2011 7:57 AM
Ok, for those still interested, here is some more regarding three of the major witnesses, some of which is still unfolding.
....SNIP
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell,
Muskellunge Historian
VERY interesting stuff Larry. Very interesting indeed! Thank you for posting, as it helps me tremendously.
TB | |
| | |
Posts: 280
| WOW!!
This gets more and more incriminating...................
There is yet more to come... me thinks! LOL!!
DougP | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | sworrall - 4/19/2011 8:12 AM
...SNIP
There's absolutely no reason why they wouldn't and several that they might, unless they had something definitive to offer that clearly defends and helps prove out the original claims of length and girth of this fish. And there would be no 'rumble' if these folks were, unlike you, reasonable and straightforward offering something of substance.
Not to stick my nose in this, because that's not my intention. However I can tell you that in the two years I recently spent as VP Research for MI, I talked to MANY people on the phone or via email, from coast to coast of North America. I talked to people all across the range of the muskellunge. I cannot tell you how many times guys from Washington state, or eastern Canada would tell me they read my posts on MuskieFIRST, or other forums. People throughout the industry read these message boards, you can bet on it. I don't have to tell you Steve, as you know far better than I. But for anyone else reading this post, there are WAY more people paying attention to these threads than you might think. It isn't just a WI, MN, IL, MI thing at all.
Are there local boards for areas like Georgian Bay and the St. Lawrence river? Sure there are. But that doesn't mean that the same people don't keep tabs on what's going on here. The Internet is boundless, especially when it only takes a few milliseconds to access a website. Guys want to know what's going on throughout the industry, and this is one of the best places to find out.
TB | |
| | |
| I've been following this whole thing right from the start. I spoke with Mr.Ramsell earlier on in this forum. ( And disagreed with his findings at the time) After all has been said and done, as well as speaking to some MC members who have been around for a long time, what they had to say to me and taking into account the photos with the yardstick. I must sadly admit that something isn't quite right. I have seen the mount, though it was years ago, the girth is very large and the length hasn't been tampered with ( it doesn't look like the Johnson mount) but it is reasonable to believe this fish is 54inches long. Maybe it's time we all found something else to talk about. Musky fishing is supposed to be fun and bring anglers together. It would be best I believe if we all tried to remember that. No fish is worth this much aggravation. Just my 2 cents. | |
| | |
Posts: 280
| CA, I'm glad you agrree that there are "issues" with the O'Brien fish.
I don't find this to be aggravating at all. I find it to be very interesting. I, and I'm sure many, many others, would like to know just how big these fish really get. I would like to have truth in the records.
I'm glad you follow this, just sorry you find it to be less than fun.
DougP | |
| | |
| Thanks Canadian angler, that pretty much echoes what Larry said. I noticed Jody Mills said "amen" over on MH, and if anyone should know, he should because he's right there in Woods Bay. I think the best way to put a permanent end to this would be if one of those witnesses recanted. There's not much doubt now who that should be, and him trying to sweep it under the rug is not going to make it go away. But an admission of some of the guilt allows for forgiveness, and that would allow an end to the petty squabbling once and for all. It would be pretty much like Len Hartman then IMHO, everyone has long ago forgiven him. | |
| | |
Posts: 8782
| Sadly, I don't think any of this is going to go away until someone catches a fish that absolutely dwarfs everything that's been caught to date. Unfortunately, when that happens, there's only going to be one way to verify it, and that process starts with a tire iron. | |
| | |
Location: Eastern Ontario | Iam really confused and don't know what to think but either way it puts no money in or takes any out of my pocket.
I have talked to three of the witnesses and they say they know what they saw
Most of the MC guys had caught large 50"plus fish and knew what they were looking at
At some point it must have pulled a certified scale down to 65 lbs
I was pi$$ed off that it wasn't caught by someone targeting muskies as I'm shure were others
The picture beside the porch does not look to be 58 inches
The Toronto Star picture with the horizontal hold looks much bigger than my 54 inch fish (mine was skinny)
In this picture I could believe 65 lbs
Pictures of some of my 48 and 50 inch fish look bigger than my 54
Although I have never killed a musky that I know of I almost wish Dale McNair had kept his fish
Crossman had the fish in his possession and as a scientist and department head didnt question it
Musky season opens in 6 weeks and I can get back outside and off the winternet | |
| | |
Posts: 280
| I believe it's entirely possible that some witnesses saw the certified scale read 65lbs. That isn't really the issue. The fish may have weighed 65lbs at some point....before it lost the bloated belly.
No one has refuted the mold/cast, the fingerprint....
DougP
| |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | For those who argue that they wouldn't submit a potential record fish if they caught it, that's your choice I guess. But it seems like success would depend upon the steps you take to document the fish.
With O'Brien's fish, there were people there with a video camera. All that would have had to have happened is for one of the tens (if not hundreds) of people there to say "why don't we videotape the certification process?" Voila, problem solved...it's on video. As long as the scale is certified and the ruler is true, then it's as plain as the nose on your face. We might argue whether or not the thing was filled with water to bolster its weight before certification--but that would be a GOOD problem to have now. At least we'd know that the length is as stated. We don't even have that now.
This isn't rocket science here folks. At some point, a conscious decision was made by someone who was present that day to submit the fish for WR consideration. That same someone should have made sure that the fish was beyond reproach. Cross the T's and dot the I's...twice. Ask one of your buddies: "What else could go wrong with this? What have I forgotten?" Shoot, ask two of them. What can it hurt?
They apparently didn't think to do this however, and thus here we are.
TB | |
| | |
Posts: 8782
| Doug, I think we could put everything else aside and have all the evidence we need just from the mold. No matter what anyone says or thinks or saw or did, the mold will tell you the true length and girth of the fish. Using that, it's just a matter of using the formulas to determine the approximate weight. If it comes within a reasonable margin of 65#? Fair enough. If it's closer to 55#? Well, it's still a giant fish, no doubt. But it's not a world record, and it never will be. | |
| | |
| esoxaddict,
The mold was made AFTER Larry weighed the fish at 56 lbs. The two scales Larry used to weigh the fish were confirmed to be accurate by Ontario Weights and Measures. There certainly isn't any need to use weight formulas on a fish that was already weighed. The length of the mold CONFIRMS the length of the fish to be far less than what was reported. The length being falsified on an affidavit is enough in itself to warrant disqualification. | |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I think this one has matured. Not much left to say, so it will be moved to the research forum. | |
| | |
Posts: 280
| That's cool Steve, but we haven't heard the last of this yet. LOL!!
There are still a couple shoes that are gonna drop.
Stay tuned guys....!!
EA, you're right saying that the mold is all we need. But as JD says there is really no need to use any formulas for an application for record book that was incorrect.....
DougP | |
| | |
Location: Eastern Ontario | I think at the time weight was the only requirement for the Molson Big Fish Contest where the fish was orrigionally entered | |
| | |
Posts: 280
| Well, somehow it made it to the O.F.A.H. Ontario Record Fish Registry where a correct measurement is required along with a pic with a ruler alongside the fish in the same plane......
The FWFHF & IGFA have similar requisites.
I don't think anyone cares much about the Molson contest.
DougP
Edited by fins355 4/19/2011 4:50 PM
| |
| | |
Location: Eastern Ontario | OFHA grandfathered the old Molson records | |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | If there's more to talk over, then we'll leave the thread where it was... | |
| | |
| The fish was weighed on a certified scale at 65 #s. Whether it was 58,56 or 54" doesn't matter. To discredit this fish, you have to go after the scale and prove it wasn't cerified. You also have to go after the people that signed the weight affidavit and get some to recant. The water hose theory does not cut it. The girth looks just as "bloated" on the stairs as it does in the boat w/ the stupid gaff still in her face.
When you think about it, what makes more sense, a 58" - 65# or a 54" - 56#. I and some of you out there I'm sure have probably caught 54". Personally I have never had one heavier than the mid to upper fortys. 56# on a 54" fish is pretty hard to swallow.
I think the grey area in this ordeal is more who froze the fish, was it the O'brein fish that Larry reweighed and measured and was it the OBrien fish that ended up at the ROM. More room for doubt along that evidence trail than the trail you guys are following IMO. | |
| | |
Posts: 280
| Thanks Steve.......
horsehunter.....do you know what year the OFAH took over the Molson records?
Edited by fins355 4/20/2011 7:43 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 280
| SV.....actually, the length does matter if the record book application is shown to be innaccurate in measurement. The weight discrepancy over the 8 day period is incriminating and unexplained.
Your chain of custody theory is very weak at best. Warren Wilkinson explains that Lloyd Thurston wrapped the fish after it was displayed for 2-3 hrs. and placed it in George Grisdales freezer where it stayed until LR reweighed it 8 days later. After LR's visit , Thurston took the fish to Dr. Crossman at The ROM. It was NOT reweighed by Dr. Crossman [there is no indication of it being remeasured] but he did examine the stomach contents which contained 1or 2 bullheads and a lot of disarticulated bones.
Dr. Crossman seems to indicate that he was present when the mold was being made just after removing the stomach contents.
DougP
| |
| | |
Posts: 661
Location: Roscoe IL | Off topic, I would like to say that Steve Worrall without question created a world record forum. This has been a very interesting discussion, and I continue to visit to see whats next. | |
| | |
| I agree with toothy, this is a really big deal to a lot of us and it needs to be talked about. Nice job M1st! | |
| | |
Location: Eastern Ontario | Don't know the exact year and see nothing on their website. I know it was still going in 1989 | |
| | |
Posts: 280
| It's my understanding that the OFAH WAS the record keeper in '88 and were the sponsors of the Molson contest.
Not 100% on that but I'll go with it until I learn different.
Seems that since O'Brien and M. Grisdale made a point of being photographed with a yardstick next to the fish that the record app. would be going to OFAH since that picture was one of their requirements.
DougP | |
| | |
Location: Eastern Ontario | Interesting to note that in the list of contacts sent with the challenge to the OFHA none of the Muskies Canada witnesses that were actually there were listed seems they were very selective in their list
Edited by horsehunter 4/20/2011 11:45 AM
| |
| | |
| SV,
"56# on a 54" fish is pretty hard to swallow."
That just so happens to to be the weight and length of the fish at the time Larry weighed it with three witnesses present. As was mentioned earlier, both scales were confirmed to be accurate by Ontario Weights and measures.
Why do you find this difficult to swallow? The fish was said to have contained a massive amount eggs at the time it was weighed by Larry. A 54" muskie with a massive egg mass could easily carry a girth that would support a weight of 56 lbs. However, it would be next to impossible for a 54" muskie carrying a massive egg mass to weigh 65 lbs unless it's stomach also contained an additional 9 lbs. of forage which we know wasn't the case.
| |
| | |
Location: Eastern Ontario | The New Brunswick fish was 60 at 52 | |
| | |
| horsehunter,
And what exactly was found inside the NB muskie that contributed to this reported weight?
| |
| | |
Posts: 280
| Seems we have no info forthcoming on the autopsy that was supposed to performed a few weeks ago on the NB fish.
I think once they put a knife to it just deflated!! | |
| | |
| SV,
If you find 56# at 54" hard to swallow, how do you feel about the NB muskie being 60# at 52"? | |
| | |
Location: Eastern Ontario | Information will not come quickly we have waited 2 years for results on a St. Lawrence fish and we had to come up with the money for the testing | |
| | |
| SV,
"When you think about it, what makes more sense, a 58" - 65# or a 54" - 56#."
A 30.5" x 58" and a 28.4" x 54" have the same girth to length ratio of .5259.
30.5" x 58" has an 800 formula weight of 67.44 lbs., 2.44 lbs. heavier than the reported weight of 65 lbs. 28.4" x 54" has an 800 formula weight of 54.44 lbs., 1.56 lbs. less than Larry's reported weight.
Now, why do you feel a 58" - 65# makes more sense than a 54" - 56#?
I also find it interesting that both the 1998 (p.105) and 1999 (p. 210) Musky Hunter's Almanacs have the girth of O'Brien's fish listed at 28".
| |
| | |
| JD, it is interesting too that the length stated for O'Brien's fish on those two Almanac's you referenced had it at 56.5 inches....hmmm. | |
| | |
| We're shooting the NB fish now?.....
- wasn't angler caught (no one is claiming a big victory)...it was a dieing fish
- guy weighing and holding it in those pics is a ministry guy
- take a look at the thing. Abnormally round, but its consistent through the body.
| |
| | |
Posts: 280
| Just waiting for the promised autopsy report on the NB fish.....
Also waiting for some forthcoming info on the O'Brien report....
Dougp
Edited by fins355 4/20/2011 8:54 PM
| |
| | |
Location: Eastern Ontario | They ddn't promise YOU a report they said they would do autopsy on their schedual and like I have said we have been waiting 2 years for one and had to pay for it.
Edited by horsehunter 4/20/2011 8:54 PM
| |
| | |
Location: Eastern Ontario | The OFHA have never had a record challenged especially 20 years after the fact .....this may take some time | |
| | |
Posts: 280
| hh, you're right...I'm nobody...but, the autopsy was supposed to be done on 4-8-11. Steve Heiting from MH said he would post results asap. Hope we don't have to wait as long as you...LOL!!
I can't imagine waiting 2yrs! | |
| | |
Posts: 280
| hh,
I'm hopin' we will have some surprises in store.....stay tuned!
| |
| | |
Location: Eastern Ontario | I don't know how many qualified people there are who could actually determine cause of death, anyone could examine stomach contents. I believe the one I refered to had to go to Queens University | |
| | |
Posts: 280
| hh...not sure what they're lookin' for with the NB fish other than to verify weight, length , age, etc. This fish just looks bloated to me, very unusual and not natural.
The whole idea of putting it back in the river to "complete the cycle of life"....jeeeezzz!!! I think it could be made of better use than to feed the turtles.....do you guys have turtles over there???? | |
| | |
Posts: 280
| Probably shouldn't divert this thread from O'Brien.
I might be wrong, but I think there will be some more news about this coming shortly.
There are many questions that need to be answered and some may be answered soon.... | |
| | |
Location: Eastern Ontario | New Brunswick wishes that muskies had not moved in from Quebec they are Trout and salmon focused. I think the clieth would have to be dried and probably sent to John Cassleman for aging | |
| | |
Location: Eastern Ontario | What have you got against turtles | |
| | |
Posts: 280
| Nothin'....turtles have to eat too, eh? LOL!! | |
| | |
Posts: 280
| Yeah, I know people out west had problems w/pike introduced into trout waters and they killed off the waters w/rotenone to try to get back to their pristine trout waters....
Good point about the ageing and cleith.... would still be nice to get a "heads up" about weight issues, if any........ | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | horsehunter - 4/20/2011 9:10 PM
I don't know how many qualified people there are who could actually determine cause of death, anyone could examine stomach contents. I believe the one I refered to had to go to Queens University
Judging from the look of that fish, I'd bet a dollar that it died of atherosclerotic heart disease and an acute coronary event precipitated by diabetes mellitus and hyperlipidemia. I'd raise my wager to two dollars if someone could confirm she was a smoker.
(Of course she might have choked on a chicken wing too...I heard they fish muskies with chickens in Minnesota. And I even saw a video of it on YouTube!)
But WOW...that gal is plump!
TB | |
| | |
| That NB girth is sure plump but does not look to be any greater than Tom Gelbs 50lb musky to me, I'd like to know where that extra 10lbs came from too. | |
| | |
| From the Muskies Canada rebuttal to the WMA O'Brien Summary Report now being shown in the Oct / Nov issue of Musky Hunter magazine:
"The WMA's investigative work was done 22 years after the the fish was caught in October 1988, on a frozen and deliberately shortened and dehydrated fish. In addition, no contact was made with the surviving eyewitnesses who were present when the fish was caught and who verified its length and weight."
"This length measurement was about four inches less than when the fish was caught because its pelvic girdle had been cut and folded inside the lower jaw, shorttening the fish by at least four inches, so that it could be squeezed into the taxidermists freezer. This is supported in the picture of Larry Ramsell holding the frozen fish whose head is pointed downward. The weight loss can be accounted for by the massive loss of blood due to the mishandling of the fish and damage to its gills, the significant loss of fluids and dehydration during the several hours it lay on the dock and elsewhere before it went into the taxidermists freezer, dehydration in the freezer, and whatever else happened to the fish between when the frozen fish was later checked."
Questions for Muskies Canada:
(1) Why is there no mention of the yardstick being held alongside the FRESH hanging fish confirming the fish to be at least four inches shorter than what was claimed?
(2) Why is there no mention of the mold made by Kevin Hockley at the ROM confirming the fish was no more than 54" with the head pointed STRAIGHT FORWARD?
(3) How can you claim weight loss of NINE POUNDS due to blood loss and dehydration especially considering that the eggs and stomach contents where inside the frozen fish during the reweighing?
(4) Why do you feel the living witnesses should be contacted under these circumstances? This would put them in a very embarassing situation!
| |
| | |
Posts: 280
| MI Canada is simply doing a "tap dance" trying to explain away the very comprehensive and damaging report by the WMA with nothing but nonsense. It doesn't work. This response by MI Canada is very amateurish and without merit. They need to answer the questions posed by the Guest above.
Edited by fins355 10/5/2011 11:50 AM
| |
| | |
| "This length measurement was about four inches less than when the fish was caught because its pelvic girdle had been cut and folded inside the lower jaw, shorttening the fish by at least four inches,"
This is a ridiculous statement (grasping at straws) because the the head would have to be turned at almost a right angle for it to lose 4"! Inconceivable while the spine is still attached.
I can understand the Muskies Canada president wanting to save face but this attempted cover-up just makes matters worse. I also noticed in the complete article that he appears to be trying to speak for all of Canada while most of the Canadian Muskie anglers I know do not believe in the validity of this fish. | |
| | |
Posts: 2361
| zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.... | |
| | |
Posts: 366
| Apparently someone saw this horse twitch and thought it could use a few more kicks for good measure?
| |
| | |
Posts: 3240
Location: Racine, Wi | Fishwizard - 10/5/2011 11:08 PM
Apparently someone saw this horse twitch and thought it could use a few more kicks for good measure?
hahahahahahahaha. My thoughts exactly. | |
| |
|
