|
|
Posts: 240
| Wow, I can't believe what has happened to the O'brien Muskie but facts are facts.
Very confused right now. I commend Dale for releasing his monster fish, but in ways, I wish he would have kept it. That fish would have ended this debate on what fish is the world record muskie.
Cory |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32
| what?
oh.....the other thread, just saw.
Why a new thread regarding it?
Edited by adamsnez 4/8/2011 12:13 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 240
| See how big that thread is. This would get lost in it. This thread is not to discuss the legitimacy of Ken's fish but on trying to get an answer on what the true weight to beat is.
Edited by Cory Toker 4/8/2011 12:30 PM
|
|
| |
|
| The WR should be left open starting at 60lbs. It's too bad that Williamson did not certify the weight, otherwise it would get my vote
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1207
Location: Pigeon Forge TN. | Like myself, he probably didn't want to end up with another contraversy as the others.
I commend him very highly for thinking of the musky and not himself and releasing it. HE knows what he caught and no one can take that from him.
MY HATS OFF TO HIM. |
|
| |
|
| You realize what will happen don't you? If some muskie die-hard lands a fish over 60lbs and decides to keep it, he will probably weigh it on the nearest thing to a legitimate scale, photograph it beside a ruler, have the fish mounted and never say a word to any body involved in this sport because nobody needs to deal with that kind of crap that is sure to follow. Or should word get out about this fish he may simply give all of the people assciated with the keeping of the records the single finger salute. I know it doesn't sound very nice but that is what I would probably do. Unless one has a big ego to feed who cares if anyone else knows about it. Be true to thine own self! That is really all that matters. |
|
| |
|
| That's such a BS thing to say! seriously, if you're fish is legitimate you have nothing to worry about. Do you really think that any of the three records that have been debunked were actually the size they were claimed? The O'Brien musky was exaggerated, pure and simple, so if you exaggerate the size of your fish that might be a different story. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 402
Location: Eagle River, WI | I caught the world record last year. I weighed it, measured it, took a picture and released it. I don't care if you don't believe me. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| I think we are all pretty well aware of the WRMA, WMA, or whatever they claim to be at the moment, and their agenda.
Do you think any other fish is ever going to be allowed? I am just wondering who their unimpeachable source will be next time an investigation is called for. Obviously, Ramsell cannot be sent to investigate any more fish, in my view he has a credibility problem of massive proportions, some of the other characters in the play are way too prejudiced to be trusted, and we would have to suspect poison in the king's ear if any of them said anything, so that really gets to be a problem. They need to have somebody that is less of a lightning rod, and more moderate, in the wings, waiting for the next big thing. They might send Sworrall, but they'll have to hurry up and catch it. We all know he is nearly dead himself...what?? Didn't he just turn 99???
|
|
| |
|
| 6' according to you in the past the WRMA agenda was only to throw dirt at real and legitimate fish. I'm so glad you alone can see all 3 of those fish were really everything they were claimed and the WMA's only motivation was to cause problems. Sure make a lot of sense to me -NOT-
|
|
| |
|
| FSF- it sounds like you are letting your personal dislikes of some of these guys get in the way of the facts they have come out with. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32901
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 99? That would be interesting. |
|
| |
|
| good luck on that one Steve  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 240
| And I still somehow, don't have my answer.
Cory |
|
| |
|
Posts: 116
| Just go for 70, you should be fine. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Cory, I think it would actually come down to this fish.
- Edward Walden / 61-9 / 1940 / Eagle Lake, ON
The Williamson fish was not weighed on a cert. scale so can't be recognised.
I believe the WMA is done with their investigations on the record fish so the Walden fish will not be looked at.
This fish has been on the books since 1940 and if not shown to be questionable, must be the record to beat.
JMO..........so get out here and fish!!
DougP |
|
| |
|
Posts: 567
| firstsixfeet - 4/9/2011 6:35 AM
I think we are all pretty well aware of the WRMA, WMA, or whatever they claim to be at the moment, and their agenda.
Do you think any other fish is ever going to be allowed? I am just wondering who their unimpeachable source will be next time an investigation is called for. Obviously, Ramsell cannot be sent to investigate any more fish, in my view he has a credibility problem of massive proportions, some of the other characters in the play are way too prejudiced to be trusted, and we would have to suspect poison in the king's ear if any of them said anything, so that really gets to be a problem. They need to have somebody that is less of a lightning rod, and more moderate, in the wings, waiting for the next big thing. They might send Sworrall, but they'll have to hurry up and catch it. We all know he is nearly dead himself...what?? Didn't he just turn 99???
I don't know a single soul in the NWA , the UFC , the WFAA , MWA , WRMA or any other record keeping organization but everytime I read about one of these org's "examining" a catch it's thrown out. It's giving us honest catcher's of large fish a bad name . I agree with you FSF , they have some agenda of some sort, I don't know what it is. disqualify everything I guess. (wi fish not included) signed musky fishing expert of 25 years MD |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| MD; you're right they DO have an agenda. It's been stated many times.
The agenda is to find the truth about these record fish. Simple idea.
These fish unfortunaley haven't stood the test of modern scrutiny.
DougP |
|
| |
|
| "(wi fish not included)" actually the last 2 were both WI fish! I find it incredibly intriguing that this O'Brien Musky was witnessed by so many people in the late 1980s and was still exaggerated. I can understand people being upset with the results, what I can't understand is people denying the results. Have you actually read the report? For those who can't or don't like to read, there's plenty of pictures too 
Undeniable, unless you're in a state of denial? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| It is aggravating that all the chicken#*#* guests are allowed to post on these types of discussions, and particularly irritating their allowed to make off the wall comments stating views for other posters that don't exist. Can't do anything about it but I will say, most of the people on the comittee, I have NOT met. I have met Larry Ramsell and actually think he is pretty likable, even though I don't view this whole clusterduck the way he does. But.......whether I like him or not, I feel he has developed a credibility problem in his big fish investigations. He is probably more rational and balanced than some of the others in the group(only from how I interpret their posts and writings on the subject), but the credibility problem is there. I seriously believe that future investigations would best be carried out by someone else, and I hate to say it, but with some of the history here, a non biased, unimpeachable source is going to be as hard to identify as that first 70 lb fish.
It is odd that every time this subject comes up, the weasel anons slink around biting ankles with all the credibility of a pile of cowflop, but only a smidgin of the weight. I cannot value any anon input as meaninful, or worthwhile on this subject. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32901
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | FSF,
If you think THAT'S bad---
The end of all things as we know them is near. Big fish are being caught on a Coot...a square board with a couple blades and a couple hooks.
I hope you don't self combust reading THAT thread--- that'd be hard to put out and the firemen just don't deserve such a terrifying spectacle.
99 indeed. And still sharp as a baseball...:) |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Would that be a "regulation" baseball?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 906
Location: Warroad, Mn | FSF: There's a 72 lber waiting for you on the LOTWs. I see them all the time, but they are too smart for me. Doug Johnson |
|
| |
|
Posts: 567
| The coot is a credit to the ugly hunks of wood/plastic FSF likes |
|
| |
|
Posts: 143
Location: Lake of The Woods | dougj - 4/11/2011 9:10 PM
FSF: There's a 72 lber waiting for you on the LOTWs. I see them all the time, but they are too smart for me. Doug Johnson
How come im the only angler that has not caught a 60 incher on LOTW? I must be doing something wrong....  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 240
| Heard other Customers in Ryan's shop, (Figure Eight Baits) come in and talk about 80 pounders they have seen! Must be doing something wrong.
Cory |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8795
| I like when you're fishing somewhere and someone says they saw one that was at least 6 feet long, or when they hold their hands out and say "it was this big around!!" while you're thinking "really? I'M that big around!!" And believe me, I'm pretty big around these days! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 906
Location: Warroad, Mn | Me too! Biggest fish I've ever seen on the LOTWs in nearly 50 years of fishing is 55.5", which I actually caught. Might be bigger ones somewhere, but I've been looking for a long time. Lots of 48"-52" fish, but above that they get scarce. Doug Johnson
Edited by dougj 4/14/2011 6:18 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | I can't hold a candle to your experience Doug, but have found the identical thing to be true. "Lots of 48"-52" fish, but above that they get scarce". It's interesting that you pick that 52" plateau because I think I would've picked that same number myself... 53-54" are sure hard to come by comparatively speaking! I would add that it's pretty amazing how the scarcity increases with every 1" increment from 48" (or pick a number), in other words lots more 48-49" than 50-51".
|
|
| |
|
| "I like when you're fishing somewhere and someone says they saw one that was at least 6 feet long, or when they hold their hands out and say "it was this big around!!" while you're thinking "really?"
My favorite are the guys who have a huge follow and can see the head of the fish on one side, tail on the other side of their boat simultaneously. Unless they were fishing from a canoe... LOL! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 238
Location: Rhinelander | Guest - 4/19/2011 11:05 AM
"I like when you're fishing somewhere and someone says they saw one that was at least 6 feet long, or when they hold their hands out and say "it was this big around!!" while you're thinking "really?"
My favorite are the guys who have a huge follow and can see the head of the fish on one side, tail on the other side of their boat simultaneously. Unless they were fishing from a canoe... LOL!
I have seen this before......with sturgeon, fishing in my jon boat. |
|
| |
|
| Funny that this was brought up. I live far from LOTW and have never fished there but the same thing is happening in the east. Lots of BEAUTIFUL fish we have measured in the 48 to 52 inch range and a very few measured over that. Things that make you go...HMMMMMM! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1901
Location: MN | It's the same with hunting. Every buck my dad has ever seen is the touchdown buck. And I have another buddy who if he sees a deer it's an 8 pointer. If it actually has horns, it's a ten. |
|
| |
Will the True Record Muskie Please stand up!