|
|
Posts: 280
| In light of the WMA report, which IMO, shows the O'Brien fish to be less than what was claimed both in lenght and weight, what should happen with the record holding organizations? O'Brien is recognised by 3 different record keepers, the Ont. Fish Registry, FWFHF and IGFA.
I believe the Lawton, Spray and Johnson fish have been shown to be lacking record credibility. These were recognised by the FWFHF and IGFA. Unfortunately, both fish are still viable in these record books.
So, now we have another fish that needs to be removed from record book consideration.
In view of the reluctance of the FWFHF and the IGFA to take a credible position on obviously tainted records in the Spray and Johnson cases, what should happen now?
These orgs. have received copies of the WMA report on the O'Brien fish. When can we expect a response from them?
Maybe we need a petition signed by all of us interested in the truth in record keeping to be signed and sent to these org.'s demanding they respond to the challenges to these records.
Yeah.... the FWFHF is a waste of time for their own personal intersests, but are the others just as tainted?
I think we need to pound on their doors to get a reasonable response to a very credible challenge to records on THEIR books.
I dunno .....just me, I guess.
DougP
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 402
Location: Eagle River, WI | We don't have time for this now, we are all getting ready for the opener. If they are going to release something like this they have to do it in the beginning of winter, not at the end. It's called internetique. This will never get the proper over-scutiny that it deserves. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3861
| I just don't get whay people are so concerned over this sort of #*#*.
Experts, I ask, how many really big fish are never ever even hooked, and, how many of you guys don't share any info after you boat and release a real monster? I know some of you guys who have not bragged about 50"+ fish, never said a word.
Arguments about records is stupid bull#*#*. |
|
| |
|
| Lame excuse. Just how much time do all of you need to prepare for the opener? |
|
| |
|
| 8 days + 22 years. What exactly is the sudden rush???????? |
|
| |
|
| Lets talk about the prospects of catching live fish, for dead fish talk join Taxidermy.net |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8772
| never caught a dead one yet! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1286
Location: WI | Others persons fish are interesting, but I'm more interested in chasing my personal best. History is what it is. Obrien wasn't even a musky fisherman and didn't care about the record.
I understand the notion that the truth is important, but it was pointed out to me once (in one of my lesser moments)
that questioning someone else's fish does not show very good sportsmanship. Let it go.
|
|
| |
|
| Are you kidding? Lying about a fish in the first place is the bad sportsmanship, whether it be one of those bogus 60" fish in the MI contest, one of these records, or a cash tournament. I suppose they should not have been questioning those guys with the false floor in the bottom of their boat at the PMTT a couple of years ago either? Should they get a pass for that too, where do you draw the line? IMHO, we should always be interested in supporting the truth, no matter how much it hurts.
O'Brien should be removed, it will be curious to see what becomes of it though. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 572
Location: Germantown, WI | I usually avoid reading these posts as I know almost nothing about these controversial fish except for the name of the guy who caught them. So maybe my question is really dumb but what is the largest that no one has ever disputed, maybe it is even 10-15 lbs less than the 69 pounders, and maybe caught in last 15 years?
Maybe it is only the 10th biggest fish, but no one discredits?
This topic reminds me of steroids in baseball and how to compare two players or two fish when they are from different eras when unique technologies were or weren't around. Bonds and McGuire were incredible and most likely won't be in hall of fame. Phil neikro cheated and made the hall doctoring the ball for a living. There is no denying those fish of old were really big and should be admired. But I guess I am more interested in the modern era big fish.
Edited by dward 4/10/2011 12:40 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 149
| Now that the Malo, Lawton, Spray, Johnson and O'Brien fish have all been discredited or not been able to be verified beyond any shadow of a doubt the next 10 on down the list look like this:
- Edward Walden / 61-9 / 1940 / Eagle Lake, ON
- Martin Williamson / 61-7 / 2000 / Georgian Bay, ON (never weighed on a certified scale)
- John Coleman / 60-8 / 1939 / Eagle Lake, ON
- Art Barefoot / 59-11 / 1989 / Georgian Bay, ON
- Ruben Green / 58-8 / 1945 / Georgian Bay, ON
- G.E. Niemuth / 58-4 / 1932 / LOTW, ON
- William Fulton / 57-10 / 1917 / Georgian Bay, ON
- Gene Borucki / 56-11 / 1984 / Manitou Lake, ON
- Jack Collins / 56-8 / 1931 / LOTW, ON
- R.D. Shawvan / 56-8 / 1941 / LOTW, ON
If you're talking about semi-recent fish from say the 60's or 70's on forward we have several that are 55 lbs or better:
- Williamson 61-7 from 2000 that was never officially weighed (see above)
- Barefoot 59-11 from 1989 (see above)
- Boruki 56-11 from 1984 (see above)
- Sam Finsky 55-11 from 1963 Lake Kakagi, ON
- Joe Lyons 55-2 from 1972 Piedmont Lake, Ohio
- Gary Ishii 55-0 from 1981 Georgian Bay, ON
- Steve Albers 55-0 from 1985 Eagle Lake, ON
- John Ryan 55-0 from 1992 Georgian Bay, ON
There have been several recent releases that are almost certainly as large or larger than any on either of those lists, most notably the Dale McNair release in 2009 that was 57 X 33 which the 5 commonly used formulas average out to 70.74 lbs.
Edited by esoxcpr 4/10/2011 8:02 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 572
Location: Germantown, WI | thanks for the insight... didn't realize Canada had such a grasp outside of the top disputed few! |
|
| |
|
| That is interesting to consider, whether dead or alive fish like that are always intriguing to me. Thanks for posting. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 149
| The next 5 largest on the list from WI are:
- Arthur Ross 55-0 from 1942 Chippewa Flowage
- Myrl McFaul 53-12 from 1953 North Twin
- Emanuel Oberland 52-12 from 1929 Pokegama Lake
- Rita Hillenbrand 52-9 from 1969 Turtle Flambeau Flowage
- Harry Faulkerson 52-8 from 1950 Lac Court Oreilles
Next 5 on the list from MN are:
- Art Lyons 54-0 from 1954 Winnibigoshish
- Dave Unzeitig 52-4 from 1996 Leech Lake
- Karl Dobmeier 51-14 from 1996 Bemidji
- Mike Kelner 51-1 from 1973 Leech Lake
- H.C. Remele 50-12 from 1946 Woman Lake
Could be a few more recent on the list, like the Gelb 50 pounders from recent years from Vilas Co, WI. Also several from both MN and WI that were in the 50 pound class in recent years that were released. In recent years there was a 50 pound class fish caught through the ice and released in Vilas Co, WI and a 50 pound class fish caught by a walleye guy before the season on Green Bay / Fox River, WI. |
|
| |
|
| Iowa State Record is 50.6 lbs. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1270
| O'Brein's fish was caught in recent times and was weighed and verified by many people. I personally believe we have a group of people who are out to get any record over thrown, I do not believe the Lawton or Spray fish but the O'brien fish I do and that is what I will consider the record. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | It would be nice to hear a more thorough account of the events of the day of the catch, starting with when O'Brien made it back to the dock. I've heard bits and pieces over the years, but I am not sure that I have the entire time line straight. For example, I don't know how many people were present when the fish was actually weighed on the certified scale--and therefore, I am not quite sure how many people "verified" the measurement and weighing of the fish.
I will admit that the whole thing sounds a bit weird. If all those people were there and "witnessed" (as in, the fish was measured and weighed in front of them) the length and weight determination, then I cannot really understand how there is the discrepancy that we're seeing now. But I've read the DCM report a few times now, and ran their math, and even made screenshots of the two images of the fish with the yardsticks shown. After all that I have to agree with one thing--the fish in those two images does not look to be anywhere near 58" in length.
But other than that, I am perplexed on the whole incident. I certainly cannot explain the 8-9 pound loss of weight in the 8 days that passed before Larry Ramsell weighed it again--however I am not an expert on weighing dead muskies, or on how fast a muskie loses weight in the post-mortem period. It would be nice to hear the thoughts of a taxidermist on the matter, because maybe we could get a better idea of how much these things can change in a period of hours to days after death. Dead mammals should not change much in weight, for example, because they are no longer eating or voiding of course...but they aren't losing moisture through their skin or through the act of respiration, either. But these things aren't going to pertain to fish as much (other than eating or voiding), because they do not respire air or sweat like mammals do. Of course the fish can "dry out" to some degree after death, but to what degree does this occur--and is it ultimately affected by how fast the fish was frozen?
So while I am quite convinced that the fish in those two images in the DCM report is nowhere near the stated length of 58," it would be nice to hear more of that day's events. Having said that however, I have no interest in the process of certifying or discrediting angling records. I am very interested in the truth however, so I would like to hear as many details as are available. I've read Larry's book a few years back, so it might be good to go dig that up again. But knowing a little about Ken O'Brien from the many stories that were told after the catch, I find it odd that he would behind any sort of plot to falsify the fish's statistics in search of record status. I certainly would not expect that...
TB
Edited by tcbetka 4/10/2011 2:49 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| I'll say this...a 8-9 pound weight loss after 1 week in a freezer is IMPOSSIBLE!!
Can't happen.
The fish was wrapped in plastic, maybe not sealed well. If you left that fish in that freezer for a year, you wouldn't lose that much weight, unless you poured the gallon of water out of it b4 you put it in the freezer.
A 58" fish also does not lose 4" or so when it is molded and then a cast is made.
I've been mounting fish full time for 35yrs. and have had thousands of fish in my freezers for a year + in that time. A weight loss such as that IMO, is unheard of by natural dehydration in ANY freezer. I would be willing to bet you would not lose that much weight in an actual freeze drying machine in that period of time.
Either the fish that was put in the freezer and then weighed by LR and then
molded and cast and then examined by Dr. Crossman is a different fish than the one caught by O'Brien, orrr........if it IS the same as caught by O'Brien, it is NOT as large as claimed and should be disqualified from record book consideration.
DougP
Edited by fins355 4/10/2011 5:09 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Reelman...I think whatever personal grudge you may have against certain people involved in the WRMA/WMA is clouding your common sense judgement and not allowing you to absorb the FACTS!
None of those facts were created by anyone in the WMA!
They were just more closely examined and certain aspects verified.
But, if the truth offends you, by all means continue to avoid it.....
DougP
Edited by fins355 4/10/2011 4:31 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | esoxcpr:
Ya missed quite a few! Better dig a little deeper. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1270
| fins355, I don't know any of the people associated with the WMRA or Mr. Ramsell, there is no personal grudge against anyone. The facts as I see them are that a lot of people witnessed the O'brien fish being weighed and no one said anything at the time. 20 years ago was the time to bring this stuff up, not now. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | As I stated above, I don't know all of the facts behind the event...or the years that followed. However from the things I *have* heard, there have been a number of concerns voiced over the years. I guess my impression is that, until the WRMA/WMA, there has not been an organized effort to seek the truth on some of these old catches.
So perhaps THAT is why this fish hasn't been previously investigated? That sounds completely plausible to me, given everything that has gone down in the musky world in the past decade or so.
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 906
Location: Warroad, Mn | I'm pretty sure this mount still exists. If someone knows where it is why don't they go measure it? Doug Johnson |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | fins355 - 4/10/2011 4:11 PM
...SNIP
I've been mounting fish full time for 35yrs. and have had thousands of fish in my freezers for a year + in that time. A weight loss such as that IMO, is unheard of by natural dehydration in ANY freezer. I would be willing to bet you would not lose that much weight in an actual freeze drying machine in that period of time.
...SNIP
DougP
Wow Doug, I had no idea how experienced you were as a taxidermist. Excellent!
Knowing this, I would like to ask you to teach me something. I am especially interested in the length discrepancy seen. Can you think of any previous situation in all of your years in taxidermy, where there has been a significant change in length between the pre- and post-freezing of a large specimen of any kind?
I have no explanation for the difference in weight seen; but after running a direct-scale comparison on those two images myself, I just can't see how there was 58" of fish there. But let's say for the sake of argument that the fish *was* 58"...or even 57" as O'Brien himself apparently told Larry Ramsell. Could you see any situation, given all of your experience, where such a fish could lose 3-4" in length after 8 days in a freezer? I have no clue what the temperature was in the freezer, but let's assume normal 20-30 degrees Fahrenheit.
Is this at all consistent with your previous observations as a taxidermist?
TB |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI |
I'm pretty sure this mount still exists. If someone knows where it is why don't they go measure it?
Doug Johnson
I think Larry said that the mount DOES still exist, in Gananoque Ontario. I believe Larry has seen it, but I am not sure whether or not he's measured it...or if anyone has, for that matter.
But if there was some sort of a "conspiracy" (for lack of a better term) to exaggerate the size of the fish, then wouldn't the taxidermist have had to have been in on it? Isn't that one of the conclusions on the Spray fish--that one or more of those fish had been "enhanced" by the taxidermist? If so, then measuring it now would be somewhat futile, would be my guess.
I can't imagine people would still be arguing that the fish was 58x30.5 if the mount wasn't anywhere near that in size. So I'll bet we already know what the mount measures (actual or otherwise) before we even point the car towards that road trip.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 4/10/2011 6:35 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 906
Location: Warroad, Mn | Well, I'm certainly not a taxidermist, but I assume that the actual mount was a skin mount, since the fish was kept. The form was made so that replicas could be made for other folks who caught similar fish (or claimed to). I do have a somewhat limited experience with skin mounts dating back to the 60's when that was still the O.K. thing to do, and they all measure exactly the same length when mounted as they did when I caught them. For that reason I thought it would be good if someone had measured the mount. If they have I'd kind of like to know what they found out. Doug Johnson
Edited by dougj 4/10/2011 7:25 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Dr. Tom....I must admit to a certain disappointment in your not visiting my website to check some of my credentials after some of the "interesting" discussions we've been part of on C&R on other boards. LOL!!
That said, I guess my experience has been customers bringing me a frozen fish to mount that they said actually measured longer that the frozen fish when it was fresh. I get 22" smallmouth that only measure 20" when thawed. I get 48" musky that measure 46.75 when thawed. I get 16" crappie that measure 14.5 when thawed. I don't know I wasn't in on the original measurement. I usually call my customer and explain the measurement and allow him to decide how long he would like his fish.
I mounted Len Hartman's 47# 11oz. musky from Eagle Lake in '92. That fish is in the record book at 54"'s. When I thawed the fish it was again measured in the presence of Len Hartman and Len's friend Mary Socal. The fish was 54" long. It was also 54" long after the fish was mounted and finished. It was never reweighed by me.
I know this....I caught a 53" musky in 1995. I measured it on a fabricated bump board on a chest freezer top, wrapped it in wet towels and froze it. It remained frozen until about 2003-04 when I finally thawed it to mount. It measured 53" on the dot. I didn't weigh it again 'cause that was not important. It had been weighed in a certified scale 1/2 hr or so after it was caught. It weighed 36lbs. 15 0z. I gave it an extra oz. to make it an even 37#'s. 
The fish showed little sign of dehydration although the skin and flesh were tougher to separate. Over the years I DID rewet the towel to keep an ice coating on the fish. If this fish had lost 4-5 lbs in moisture over that time the flesh and skin would have been parially freeze dried and very difficult to skin. I'm not going to write an essay here but..........based on what I have seen on customer and my own personal specimens the claimed weight loss in said period of time is impossible from natural dehydration in a chest freezer. Especially when it was said to be wrapped in plastic, even if not well sealed.
I don't claim to be an expert, just have an informed opinion based on what I have seen.
I would challenge anyone to produce a credible mold maker that would say that if he was commissioned to mold a musky which measured 58" after capture that his mold and cast from that mold may only measure 54" unless the fish was a "potato chip" when he got it to mold. However, if said fish was 54" when he received it, the mold would reflect that...regardless of what it was claimed to have measured when first caught.
DougP
Edited by fins355 4/10/2011 7:51 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Esox 65,
I asume some of your concerns are answered in the above post by me.
I will say I don't pay much attention to weight b4 and after freezing. It has no bearing on what I do unless there is a drastic weight loss through dehydratiom and then it has a LOT of bearing on what I do.
I have stated my opinion based on my experience and that opinion stands.
Try skinning a fish that has been badly "dried" in the freezer to get a quality mount. You'll quickly see my point. Even to get a quality mold from a "dried" fish is difficult and would show wrinkles and shrinkage in the positioning for the mold. The mold would capture that dried appearance.
I agree with your point on the record. It is [unfortunately] not our/my decidsion.
DougP
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1030
Location: APPLETON, WI | reelman - 4/10/2011 5:54 PM 20 years ago was the time to bring this stuff up, not now. Yes, to this. Seems silly there's this amount of time and energy being wasted on something that could've and should've been thoroughly discussed at the time the fish was caught. I've got a feeling this is gonna get good.  |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | My apologies Doug! Now that you mention it, I have been to your website. It was a while ago, and I simply did not associate your current handle with "you." LOL. I haven't been all that active on the boards lately either, simply because of work, school and medical issues. I just had surgery this past week again, and so I find myself with extra time--and this wonderful O'Brien musky controversy with which to fill it! (It's almost like the WMA published it this week to coincide with my recovery, lol). Anyway, I remember being impressed by your work when I visiting your site in the past. You've certainly forgotten much more about taxidermy than I'll ever know.
As others have alluded, the concept of "freeze drying" has been suggested as a possible explanation to the loss of the weight in this fish. I don't know a lot about that process, but seem to recall that it involves reduced pressure and sublimation of frozen water in the organic material, so that it becomes "drier" than it was prior to the freezing process. Not being aware of the circumstances in which that fish was frozen, I felt it best not to comment on the possibility of the freezing process causing the weight loss. But there is the law of conservation of mass of course, which states that matter (including water) in a closed system can neither be created nor destroyed--but only converted in form.
So that all being said, I felt it was easiest to concentrate on that which seems to be easiest to verify or debunk...the length. If we are afforded the convenience of a legible object of known length, hanging next to a fish of some reported length, then it should be a relatively simple matter to verify whether or not that stated length is reasonable. If the object of known length is in very close proximity to that object of unknown length, then all it takes is some basic math. And I've been told that I'm pretty good at math...
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32882
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'I'll say this...a 8-9 pound weight loss after 1 week in a freezer is IMPOSSIBLE!!
Can't happen. '
This is a fact. It takes a MUCH longer time to 'dehydrate' a frozen fish than 8 days, and takes a freezer that's really running peak asnd an unwrapped fish...especially to the extent of this loss. I worked for a taxidermist receiving fish, freezing them, and delivering them to him for a few years, and I was curious enough to actually weigh a few before and after. A couple ounces, sure. Pounds? No.
'You are portraying yourself as an expert in this field with statements like "impossible"'
Esox65, you tend to be very argumentative and belligerent while going too far in challenging folks to the point of accusing and attacking, and this was one of your blandest posts.
Your trend has a red flag on your posts, almost all of which have been on this thread and the other covering this subject.
Doug is right on the skin mount issue unless the taxidermist did some augmenting. Shorter? No. I can't tell you how many tines a customer came in with a fish that was supposed to be a specific length, but when I measured it before writing up a ticket while it was still fresh found it to be shorter than the customer measure...odd, huh? |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | So you're saying that it is your understanding that the actual mount *is* 58" Steve?
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32882
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Good one, Tom...
I can say this..if it isn't, it never was. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Tom, LOL!! No apologies needed...  I'm glad we seem to be on the same side of the question here, eh? LOL!
I haven't been on the boards much until this issue either.
You are correct about "sublimation". As used in the freeze dry process it is the changing of a solid substance [ice] into a gasseous state without going through the liquid phase. Works very well but is not a "quick" process. It also requires a vacuum chamber to do it correctly. Dehydration can and does occur in freezers, of course, but is not really the same.
I actually did freeze dry in '83-'84 until I discarded it and went back to conventional taxidermy.
I admit to this whole "record book" thing being disappointing for me.......but I believe it is important to have a credible set of records.
I hope your recovery is going well...
DougP
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Steve...I believe it's possible to take a 54" fish and mount it w/o patching in pieces to reflect a 58" length without the average person picking up on the augmentation. That's why a mounted fish would have to be closely examined and not just taken as "gospel' if it measures 58".
It would not be "anatomically correct" but........58"
That's also why the dimensions of the C. Johnson mount would not really prove much to me ......unless it would measure 54" which it certainly does not. LOL!!
DougP
Edited by fins355 4/10/2011 8:42 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32882
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Agreed. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8772
| Esox65 - 4/11/2011 1:44 PM
[...]
Nobody, nobody!!! Can say that beyond a shadow of a doubt, unless they have personally caught a 65 pound muskie...weighed it...hung it in the sun, stuffed it in a freezer and then re-weighed it. It is IMPOSSIBLE to know that as fact unless you have done that as a controlled experiment....my guess is there isn't a single person on this forum who has. [...]
Using that line of thinking, nobody has ever caught a 65# muskie, either. Until someone actually has, it is impossible to claim that one exists, or ever existed.
You don't have to be an expert to figure out that the fish in question was not 65#, all it takes is the ability to read and a wee bit of common sense. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Sorry, you're still blowin' smoke...
There was no "basement analysis". LOL!
Photogrammetry was done professionally, all scales used were certified accurate, mold was done by a professional museum taxidermist, cast from mold done by same taxidermist and Dr. Crossman examined stomach contents.
The results shown from above do not support the 65#, 58" original findings.
Doesn't take a rocket scientist to deduct that somethin's fishy with this fishy....
BTW, I CAN say the weight loss is impossible......in fact, I did say it....so, don't believe me, that's fine with me.
If that fish "hung in the sun all day" as you say, the skin and fins would have been a dried out wrinkled mess. All the musky guys present would have let that happen, eh? Maybe they kept wetting it down to keep it from drying out? If so, I doubt if dehydration would have been a problem.
You're scenario's just don't make sense.
YOU can still believe in this fish and the others that have been discredited, fine with me.
DougP
Edited by fins355 4/11/2011 2:21 PM
|
|
| |
|
| 65, so what you're saying is in order for someone to really prove this weight loss theory "impossible", somebody must first have a 65 lb musky to begin with even though none that size has ever been weighed before. Are you just arguing to argue?
I suppose several 30-35 lb muskys only losing mere ounces and NEVER losing anything close to#4 1/2 lbs would not satisfy you either? Give it a minute................. How's this, O'Brien currently has many solid indictable counts against it and you can't come up with a single reasonably valid explanation for even one of them.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Guys....the 9lb. weight loss by the O'Brien fish is a smidge more than 14% of total body weight.
Do your own experiment with your freezer. Go buy 20 lbs of ice. Put that in your freezer after reweighing if you like, to get an accurate weight.
After 8 days re weigh your ice.......see if it has lost 2.8lbs which is 14% of 20 lbs .
If it did lose 2.8 lbs, then in 7 weeks it should disappear from your freezer.
Has anyone had ice in their freezer more than 7 weeks without it disappearing?
So at 14% weight loss per week, O'Briens fish would be a "fish chip" in 4 weeks LOL!!
Edited by fins355 4/11/2011 2:40 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Something IMO that is important hasn't been discussed yet. I'm talkin' about the girth.
Let''s say the fish was only 54". Larry said it weighed 56 lbs out of the freezer. The pics of it fresh and the pic out of the freezer are markedly different in girth. By the standard formula for a 54" fish to weigh in at 56 lbs. it would have to have a 29" girth. Larry's after freezing pic does not look anything close to a 29" girth.
Something happened to that fish between fresh and frozen and by Larry's own weighing it wasn't a garden hose.
|
|
| |
|
| I just don't see any way that fish could have weighed or measured what they said it did after reading the WMA website. I think the truth is always worth the effort, nice work guys! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 676
Location: Wisconsin | Ah yes, it's winter..
Attachments
----------------
 dead-horse.jpg (27KB - 333 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1080
| Muskiemetal - 1/17/2012 7:36 AM
Ah yes, it's winter..
It is? 60 degrees with lightning and thunderstorms here...no winter in sight this season... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32882
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Blizzard conditions here. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1080
| sworrall - 1/17/2012 8:38 AM
Blizzard conditions here.
I'm BEYOND envious~!!!!!!
I want snow down here in the biggest and worst of ways. I'm one of those that likes Winter, LOTS of snow and good, thick, safe ice on the lakes....none of which we have... :shrug:
Carry on with the fish debate....
|
|
| |
|
| It's all ridiculous. There is no reason to believe that a fish that is accepted as a record fish by state authorities, was anything less than what it was revcorded as being. This goes whether the fish was caught in the Georgian Bay, St. Lawrence River or the Chippewa Flowage. I would give credit where credit is due unless the angler is proven to be a fraud by admission; or the admission of a verifying witness. People just don't care that much that they are going to lie as to whether a fish weighed 55 pounds or 65 pounds. How many of the pros out there today lie to the state authorities about what they catch? |
|
| |
|
| It IS ridiculous! Nobody ever admitted that the Spray and Johnson fish were frauds either so these records should also remain in place. It's a good thing that the principle weight witness of Art Lawton's former world record DID recant his original statement otherwise this fish would still be recognized as the world record. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3479
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | Metal...
G d'it!!
You Killed Kenny!!
Edited by VMS 1/17/2012 1:56 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | Nothing going to happen the OMNR & OFHA say the record stands.....anyone wanting to dispute should not have waited over 20 years |
|
| |
|
| "Nothing going to happen the OMNR & OFHA say the record stands.....anyone wanting to dispute should not have waited over 20 years"
The thread is about what SHOULD happen with the O'Brien record, not what DID happen. Are you saying if fraud is discovered after going unnoticed for twenty years it's no longer a fraud? |
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | Ramsel held the fish 7 days after capture why did he not say somthing then. I personally know 3 people who were there I will accept their word. The skin mount on display at Muskie Mikes in Gan. does not look 58 inches but who knows what happens during that process, it's a lot bigger than my 54 inch |
|
| |
|
| Larry Ramsell Did say something about the fish. He said he measured it at 54" and that it weighed about 56 lbs. on two different scales. Larry wasn't there to challenge the fish, he only wanted to see it for himself. If he had wanted to challenge the fish at that time he would have found that the mold/cast of the fish supported his length measurement.
Words don't mean much without supporting evidence. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 380
Location: Michigan | Richard Clark's latest catch is the largest release in recent times imoho. Had he thumped it or not, I think it is the fish to beat. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 458
| Chasin50 - 1/17/2012 7:00 PM
Richard Clark's latest catch is the largest release in recent times imoho. Had he thumped it or not, I think it is the fish to beat.
x2 |
|
| |
|
| What does Rich Clark's latest catch have to do with what should happen with the O'Brien record now?
Besides, how can Rich Clark's recent catch be the fish to beat when it's true size is unknown? What it comes down to now is who has the most impressive photo and this is very deceiving as it may be due to perspective. Consider that many people felt the recent 55" x 29" looked larger than Rich Clark's recent catch.
|
|
| |
|
| horsehunter - 1/17/2012 3:08 PM
Ramsel held the fish 7 days after capture why did he not say somthing then. I personally know 3 people who were there I will accept their word.
You are just horsing around here right? If you look at the facts, it's just like the 3 people you know are telling you something is blk when you can see that it's white. Forget about the mold and Ramsell for a second and look at the picture of it hanging fresh on the day it was caught NEXT TO A RULER FOR GODS SAKE!
If they made it longer it's a pretty safe guess they could have made it weigh more too eh. |
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | Bottom line the record stands .........CATCH A BIGGER ONE...... I kinda wish Sal had harvested the 55 X 29 |
|
| |
|
| No, the bottom line is the fish is bogus and now you are supporting THEM because they are your friends. To use your line of reasoning, why stop at O'Brian while we still need to beat Louie? You should tell your friends to come clean and admit their mistake, otherwise it will just be another nagging thing that dogs them for the rest of their lives. What's so hard about the telling the truth? |
|
| |
|
| "Bottom line the record stands .........CATCH A BIGGER ONE...... I kinda wish Sal had harvested the 55 X 29"
Why would you wish that Sal had harvested the 55" x 29" if you believe O'Brien's fish was truly as large as your friends say it was? Since when is a 55" x 29" larger than a 58" x 30.5"? |
|
| |
|
| Guest - 1/18/2012 11:33 AM
What does Rich Clark's latest catch have to do with what should happen with the O'Brien record now?
Besides, how can Rich Clark's recent catch be the fish to beat when it's true size is unknown? What it comes down to now is who has the most impressive photo and this is very deceiving as it may be due to perspective. Consider that many people felt the recent 55" x 29" looked larger than Rich Clark's recent catch.
x2
i will add you weren't there ,so you have no idea if the fish was that long!
some guys can add a inch or two,that's the reason why fish have to be killed.
what you think is not gonna make any difference in the musky world
with respect |
|
| |
|
| "Guest" wrote that "It IS ridiculous! Nobody ever admitted that the Spray and Johnson fish were frauds either so these records should also remain in place. It's a good thing that the principle weight witness of Art Lawton's former world record DID recant his original statement otherwise this fish would still be recognized as the world record."
The truth is that Lawton's "principle weight witness" DID NOT recant...that was just a manufactured and bogus change perpetrated by John Dettloff to enhance his claims, so I guess according to these standards, Lawton should still be on top.
Horsehunter: O'brien's fish is at Muskie Jake's, not Muskie Mike's.
By the way, word has it that a close personal friend of John Power's, principal signatory to the O'brien affidavit for weight has come forward to say that Power told him before he died that O'brien's fish was bogus, dispite the fact that he signed the affidavit!! I assume more will come forth in due time regarding this, which was a major point in the letter from the President of Muskies Canada in a recent issue of Musky Hunter magazine. Stay tuned folks, it ain't over yet! |
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | Your right it is Jakes what ever the name the food is great. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8772
| I don't care who said what or who did what or who lied to whom. I want to know how big they can get. The largest fish being caught today seem to be it. Today we have more fish in more places, more people fishing with better methods, better electronics, better gear, better fisheries, less harvest, and better size limits. Seems to me that muskie fishing is the best it has ever been. One would think that if the historical records were accurate we'd be beating them. |
|
| |
|
| ea
are you sure about less harvest?
like you say electronics is better,info can be found way more easier whit internet there is no more secrets. 1 thing you have to consider is all those good info and better gears are not just available to guys that are practicing c&r,i also have to mention there is thousands and thousands more musky anglers wich=a lots of floaters.
i dont like when i read in the same paragraph more people fishing with better methods & muskie fishing is the best it has ever been.
for me it's a nonsense maybe i am wrong |
|
| |
|
| the record should be removed, and the sooner the better. I agree with ea and would like to know just how big they really get. |
|
| |
|
| "The truth is that Lawton's "principle weight witness" DID NOT recant...that was just a manufactured and bogus change perpetrated by John Dettloff to enhance his claims, so I guess according to these standards, Lawton should still be on top."
I wouldn't call an affidavit signed by the principle weight witneess saying he did not weigh or measure the fish just a manufactured and bogus change.
"By the way, word has it that a close personal friend of John Power's, principal signatory to the O'brien affidavit for weight has come forward to say that Power told him before he died that O'brien's fish was bogus, dispite the fact that he signed the affidavit!! I assume more will come forth in due time regarding this, which was a major point in the letter from the President of Muskies Canada in a recent issue of Musky Hunter magazine. Stay tuned folks, it ain't over yet!"
Let me get this straight. A close personal friend of John Power's has come forth to say that Mr. Power's admitted to him that he lied on his affidavit? I wouldn't think a close personal friend would do such a thing to his buddy! Why would Mr. Power's incriminate himself? Falsifying an affidavit is serious business! This close personal friend of Mr. Power's obviously doesn't have a problem destroying the integrity and reputation of his buddy now that he's dead. And why didn't this information come out sooner? How long ago did Mr. Power's pass away?
|
|
| |
|
| Is a scale from 1930 or 1940 even a reliable enough scale? |
|
| |
|
| John Power passed away Feb. 22, 2010. If he wanted to clear his conscience he should have provided an affidavit saying O'Brien's fish was bogus before he passed away just like Walter Dunn did with Art Lawton's fish. Admitting the fish was bogus to a close friend wouldn't accomplish anything and makes me wonder why and if he really did it. This "close friend" could say anything he wanted to after Mr. Power passed away and he could never be proven guilty of fraud. The words or affidavit would have to come from Mr. Power in order to have any value. |
|
| |
|
| Certified Scale - 1/19/2012 11:33 AM
Is a scale from 1930 or 1940 even a reliable enough scale?
If its certified, of course. Not that it matters much as we have seen, they just fill em before putting them on the scale anyway  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 177
| John power a liar over a fish that he never caught wow anyone who has followed his career and has met and spoke with him as I have knows that's a real longshot . |
|
| |
|
| And with Art Lawton's fish, the person actually weighing the fish is unknown...LOL! If anyone can identify who actually weighed Art Lawton's former world record muskie please do so here.
What should happen to the O'Brien record now is the same thing that happened to Art Lawton's fish. It should be promptly removed. |
|
| |
|
| "John power a liar over a fish that he never caught wow anyone who has followed his career and has met and spoke with him as I have knows that's a real longshot ."
The evidence should support him if he was telling the truth in his original affidavit. |
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | The same should be said for Loyd (I think ) Thurston a MNR employee |
|
| |
|
| I agree. The evidence should support him too but the reality is it doesn't support either one of them. These people could have witnessed a scale reading of 65 lbs. and they wouldn't be lying if they were unaware that 9 lbs. of it was water. But anybody claiming the fish was 58" long and saying so on an affidavit is in trouble. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 720
| Wow, this again. The same "guest" and people yelling and screaming the loudest about this fish and that fish being a fraud. Are ususally same folks the are screaming the loudest for 100 percent catch and release. None of this is going to change until somebody thumps one of those giants out east. Or someone will catch and kill a monster and in 2030 something declare it was a fraud and all the witnesses were lying. I see debating the fish on its own characteristics just on what Mr. Ramsell has seen. What I can't get over is all of the eyewitness accounts. How do you call that many folks liars? The fish is huge no question and in my mind there is enough witnesses and evidence to cautiously disagress with the need to remove it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20211
Location: oswego, il | Hunter4 what I get from what is being said here is this. Wisconsin witnesses good, Canadian witnesses bad. |
|
| |
|
| hoaxhunter - 1/19/2012 5:48 PM
I agree. The evidence should support him too but the reality is it doesn't support either one of them. These people could have witnessed a scale reading of 65 lbs. and they wouldn't be lying if they were unaware that 9 lbs. of it was water. But anybody claiming the fish was 58" long and saying so on an affidavit is in trouble.
I don't see any yelling or screaming????? I think the only people who should be called "bending the truth" should be the ones who measured the beast. Anyone know who weighed and who measured? We send gov. officals to jail but can't question the MRN dude? Okay...............The evidence should support, and it don't. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8772
| not sure - 1/19/2012 6:26 AM
ea
are you sure about less harvest?
like you say electronics is better,info can be found way more easier whit internet there is no more secrets. 1 thing you have to consider is all those good info and better gears are not just available to guys that are practicing c&r,i also have to mention there is thousands and thousands more musky anglers wich=a lots of floaters.
i dont like when i read in the same paragraph more people fishing with better methods & muskie fishing is the best it has ever been.
for me it's a nonsense maybe i am wrong
It IS the best it's ever been, because we have size/slot/creel limits and effective stocking, and muskies in places where there were none before. And we've got catch and release. 20 years ago you could fish your whole life with no hope of ever seeing a 50" fish. Now you can catch a 50" fish in places that didn't even HAVE them when I was growing up. |
|
| |
|
| Hunter said; "Or someone will catch and kill a monster and in 2030 something declare it was a fraud and all the witnesses were lying." The only problem with your little theory happening in 2030 would be that it would have to be a fraud in the first place like Lawton,Spray,Johnson,O'Brian are.
If the witnesses are telling the truth all that is needed is for someone to find a problem with the facts the WMA put together. From my seat here unless the WMA made things up regarding the mold and photo work, the witnesses to the length of O'Brian are lying. But, the witnesses to the weight either looked the other way or were witnessing a loaded fish without knowing any better.
Anyone who is supporting the size of O'Brians fish is also saying the WMA and Larry Ramsell are lying, did you ever consider that Horse? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 720
| LOL Todd,
You guys my point is as long as there are witnesses and no fish to back them up. It will always be questioned. I don't agree or disagree with what the majority of you are writing. But the fact is that O'brien's fish is way bigger than anything that is hanging on a wall claiming to be a record. Please note I said claiming to be a record. I'm not saying it is or isn't. So, in so much as that is not going to change. I don't see O'brien's fish being removed until somebody kills and presents a fish of undisputed larger size to displace it. While you and I might not agree with the fishes place in the record books who cares what we think. We don't make those calls and the folks that don't agree with that position.
Edited by Hunter4 1/20/2012 7:40 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1202
Location: Money, PA | Start fresh! LOL! |
|
| |
|
| Hunter4 said in part..."I don't see O'brien's fish being removed until somebody kills and presents a fish of undisputed larger size to displace it."
Problem with that Hunter4, as well as the bogus records of the IGFA and NFWFHF is that it is entirely possible that muskies DON'T grow that big, ergo, it will be impossible to do what you suggest. THAT my friend, is what all of this record stuff is about. We NEED a credible world record that IS attainable and believable.
As suggested, the best thing to do is start over, but politics within the two above mentioned organizations just won't allow it. Shame on them for protecting and promoting records that have been scientifically proven false. |
|
| |
|
| The O.F.A.H. (Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters) should also be mentioned along with the IGFA and the NFWFHF. These people never even addressed the evidence presented to them about the Canadian record. |
|
| |
|
| How could they do that when the fish was prepared at the Royal Ontario Museum? The most convincing part for me is the 54" mold coming from a supposed 58" fish, not possible The people at the OFAH are questioning the competency of the workers at the museum then, crazyness because Crossman and Cassleman were working there then I think. |
|
| |
|
| "How could they do that when the fish was prepared at the Royal Ontario Museum? The most convincing part for me is the 54" mold coming from a supposed 58" fish, not possible The people at the OFAH are questioning the competency of the workers at the museum then, crazyness because Crossman and Cassleman were working there then I think."
So the O.F.A.H. had a decision to make. Are the witnesses telling the truth or are the workers at the Royal Ontario Museum, including Crossman and Casselmn incompetent? The O.F.A.H. upheld the fish so what is that telling you?
|
|
| |
|
| Guest - 1/18/2012 10:33 AM
What does Rich Clark's latest catch have to do with what should happen with the O'Brien record now?
Besides, how can Rich Clark's recent catch be the fish to beat when it's true size is unknown? What it comes down to now is who has the most impressive photo and this is very deceiving as it may be due to perspective. Consider that many people felt the recent 55" x 29" looked larger than Rich Clark's recent catch.
That photo was distorted in some manner. Muskie Hunter interviewed the fisherman and the picture looks real http://www.muskyhunter.com/general/st-lawrence-monster-boated/ |
|
| |
|
| Fact is that SOME PEOPLE think anybody who has reported a fish bigger thann THEY caught must be a liar!!! |
|
| |
|
| That new photo is a much better representation of the true size of that fish but it doesn't change the point I was making. Another guy pointed out the problems with that photo on another thread and everyone got irritated!
Having the most impressive photo does NOT mean Rich Clark's fish is the one to beat. Another photo of this fish may look entirely different. Case in point, a 48" muskie will appear to be about 55" long when compared to the size of anything 12" behind it.
But as I said before, what does any of this have to do with what should happen with the O'Brien record now?
|
|
| |
|
| So how do all of you feel about the O.F.A.H. choosing to support the witnesses instead of supporting the competency of the staff at the Royal Ontario Museum which included Dr. Ed Crossman? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4080
Location: Elko - Lake Vermilion | What photo's Can I see, Huh..., huh,,.... can I ,can I ??? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | I guess it shows you if you don't want to be put under a microscope with doubters on huge catch............THump and no more questions. Thats the only sure way to have it verified. |
|
| |
|
| And if you thump it and have a mold/cast made from the fish itself the mold/cast had better match the "verified" length measurement.
|
|
| |
|
| It happened in Canada, that being the case I've never heard anyone up there sreaming about how the Lawton fish was a fake and should be removed from the record books. What right do we have to tell them about managing their records. |
|
| |
|
| JS - 1/21/2012 2:05 PMWhat right do we have to tell them about managing their records.
None really. |
|
| |
|
| "It happened in Canada, that being the case I've never heard anyone up there sreaming about how the Lawton fish was a fake and should be removed from the record books. What right do we have to tell them about managing their records."
They couldn't very well scream about Lawton's fish being fake when the one they have as their record is fake as well. A fake is a fake and should be treated as one regardless of where it came from.
|
|
| |
|
| You just made my point, maybe we should worry about cleaning up our own backyard before we worry about everyone else.
Secondly the fish did have a 30inch girth so it is possible it was over 60lbs when first caught. There was a large fish a few years back that was found floating barely alive in New Brunswick with a huge girth. It weighed it at 39lbs or something. When it was removed from the freezer a number of weeks later it weighed 4lbs less at 35lbs give or take. The article is in MHM from 2010. |
|
| |
|
| Sorry it is in the Apr/May issue 2011 |
|
| |
|
| JS,
You make it sound like O'Brien's fish was the only one that's been challenged. You certainly know this isn't true.
As for the 30" girth (actually it was reported to be 30.5"), keep in mind that if the fish had a 30.5" girth at the time it was re-weighed it would have weighed over 56 lbs. And if the girth was 30.5" at the time of the fish was initially weighed it should have been close to that during the re-weighing. There's no possible way the fish could have lost 15% of it's weight due to dehydration and freezing and John Casselman would be the first to tell you this.
Also, the explanation given by John Casselman for the weight loss of the NB muskie was that the fish had absorbed water during the time it was floating just before it was originally weighed. The same was true of the pike he had in his data. There was no "water absorbtion" with O'Brien's fish unless it was from the garden hose.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 229
| Wasn't there alot of blood lost from the Obrien fish as its throat was cut? Could this possibly explain the loss in weight? Yeah I know a lot of these past fish are bogus. But the alliance behind proving these records false just rubs me the wrong way...
John |
|
| |
|
| "Wasn't there alot of blood lost from the Obrien fish as its throat was cut? Could this possibly explain the loss in weight? Yeah I know a lot of these past fish are bogus. But the alliance behind proving these records false just rubs me the wrong way..."
No, O'Brien's fish had bled out before it was weighed.
|
|
| |
|
| hoax hunter I wasn't refering to the 60lb fish out of the St.John read the MHM article. A 39lb fish was taken and weighed, later after it was pulled from the freezer it weighes 35lbs. I find that interesting because of all the debate relating to weight loss, that is all. Read the article, doesn't mean I believe the O'Brein fish was 58in long or 65lbs. I'm just pointing out a documented report of a fish coming out of a freezer weighing less then before it was put in. |
|
| |
|
| That 39lb fish was still barely alive when it was found, so in that case there was no arguement for water absorbtion. |
|
| |
|
| I thought that there was a new musky world record organization that was created a couple of years ago. How is that one working out?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32882
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | That group looks at new potential records, not the historical records. |
|
| |
|
| "That 39lb fish was still barely alive when it was found, so in that case there was no arguement for water absorbtion."
The NB 60.5 lb. muskie was also said to have been "barely alive" when it was pulled from the water and yet John Casselman still said it may have absorbed water before it was originally weighed. Read the article in the current issue of MH.
O'Brien's muskie was in good shape when it was pulled from the water so no arguement can be made for water absorbtion.
Why don't you ask John Casselman if a muskie could lose almost 15% of it's weight due to the conditions O'Brien's fish was subjected to? |
|
| |
|
| "I thought that there was a new musky world record organization that was created a couple of years ago. How is that one working out?"
No entries have been submitted.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 208
| http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7j-MPZtj42g&feature=related
maybe if this would have stayed hooked?
 let the fun begin!
Edited by Trollindad 1/24/2012 11:16 AM
|
|
| |
|
| "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7j-MPZtj42g&feature=related
maybe if this would have stayed hooked?
let the fun begin!"
Let the fun begin on another thread!
|
|
| |
|
| "hoax hunter I wasn't refering to the 60lb fish out of the St.John read the MHM article. A 39lb fish was taken and weighed, later after it was pulled from the freezer it weighes 35lbs. I find that interesting because of all the debate relating to weight loss, that is all. Read the article, doesn't mean I believe the O'Brein fish was 58in long or 65lbs. I'm just pointing out a documented report of a fish coming out of a freezer weighing less then before it was put in."
JS,
If you read that article you should also have noticed that the fish you were referring to was originally 25.75" x 43" and after being frozen 19 months and badly freezer burned it was still 25.5" x 43" (they said it was 41" but admitted that this was due to much of the tail being broken off due to being freezer burned). So here we have the fish only losing 1/2" in girth and they are claiming it lost 4.3 lbs. when a 1/2" loss in girth should represent just slightly over 1/2 pound in weight on a fish of this size.
Also consider that this fish was frozen 19 months for these changes to occur while O'Brien's fish was only frozen for 8 days! Do you honestly feel it's possible for O'Brien's fish to have lost 9 lbs. in weight and 4" in length in 8 days? Do you think you should even be making this comparison of the two fish? Also consider that the 39.5 lb fish didn't lose any length at all after being frozen 19 months!
Also notice in the beginning of that article it says that the 60.5 lb. NB muskie was "almost lifeless" when it was pulled from the water which puts it in the same category as the 39.5 lb fish you were referring to that was "barely alive".
You really must read the latest issue of MH and see what John Casselman had to say about water absorbtion and the 60.5 lb NB muskie.
|
|
| |
|
| hoaxhunter - 1/24/2012 10:46 AM
Why don't you ask John Casselman if a muskie could lose almost 15% of it's weight due to the conditions O'Brien's fish was subjected to?
it's pretty hard to believe that 15% lost
especialy when i am looking at a video like this one!
so listen at 4.40 and listen WELL!!!!!!
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/videos/01.09.2010/2124/Larry.Ramsel...
now we have something to talk!
so let's talk but with respect |
|
| |
|
| OH BRYAN,
Again, why don't you ask John Casselman if a muskie could lose almost 15% of it's weight due to the conditions O'Brien's fish was subjected to?
That video was made before Larry saw the WMA O'Brien report. I see no problem with him changing his position.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Personally, despite what I said on that interview BEFORE I knew the results of the WMA's report, I think the record keepers should take another look. Something is sadly amiss. In fact, a close friend of the key witness Stan (the muskie man) Nowocin, has recently said under oath that John Power admitted to him that O'brien's fish wasn't legitimate and in fact didn't even weigh 60 pounds! That correlates with my findings 8 days after the catch that found the fish weighing just 56 pounds. The photograph of O'brien with the yardstick alongside the fish also PROVES that it couldn't have possibly been 58 inches long. Most know that a hanging fish is longer by at least an inch in that size fish, not to mention that with the cut throat and showing a one inch gap hanging, the case just gets stronger that the fish was no where near the length claimed. SO, I have changed my mind. As I have ALWAYS maintained, show me proof contrary to what I believe and I'll change my mind...I did. The record keepers, OFAH, IGFA, NFWFHF, should do a better job of cleaning their houses, give adequate and fair review to record protests and not be hypocritical from one decision to the next!
As an aside, the MNR person involved in the weighing, Lloyd Thurston, merely witnessed the weight hanging on the scale (he arrived late). He did NOT investigate the fish, its contents or to my knowledge even measure it, nor did he sign any of the affidavits for record claim. He was involved later in getting the scale properly certified, but he would have been unaware had the fish been loaded with water, either by accident or on purpose, prior to weighing.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Muskellunge Historian
|
|
| |
|
| Larry is not challenging the record, he is only part of the WMA report because he reported that the fish only weighed 56lbs/54” in an article in Musky Hunter in 1988. So, I will throw it right back at you, with that information provided back in 1988, shouldn't Muskies Canada have gotten to the bottom of this discrepancy back when he reported it? Why is it now Ramsell's fault that this fish came up short when he reported that from day one and is not even challenging the record?
It's not about Ramsell, the WMA, or even the witnesses at this point. All this new affidavit does is prove that affidavits in general are pretty much worthless, particularly when they fly in the face of hard physical evidence. Which affidavit are you Muskies Canada guys going to hang your hat on now?
It seems to me you've got it totally backwards because you should be mad at the people who originally took a beautiful 50lb fish and defiled it. Seriously, if you're going to be mad about anything, be mad at the mold cast and picture next to the ruler. Why don't you man up and find a problem with either of those instead of lashing out at Ramsell.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 67
| There is no world record period . I believe that both Larry and Paul are honorable men , anyone can be decieved or caught up in the moment and anyone has the right to change their minds with the introduction of new facts , I see the Obrian mount quite often and it is a monster by anyones standard but with all the doubt and contraversy surrounding it kind of voids the claim of world record just as the Johnson and Lawton fish , If there is to be a claim to fame it will have to be judged by the new panel who will be above reproach , All the others well.........Great fish ! |
|
| |
|
| The O'Brien fish stays right where it has been, behind the Johnson and Spray fish. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32882
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Into obscurity as either at best generous exaggeration or at worst, outright hoax. |
|
| |
|
|
"As an aside, the MNR person involved in the weighing, Lloyd Thurston, merely witnessed the weight hanging on the scale (he arrived late). He did NOT investigate the fish, its contents or to my knowledge even measure it, nor did he sign any of the affidavits for record claim. He was involved later in getting the scale properly certified, but he would have been unaware had the fish been loaded with water, either by accident or on purpose, prior to weighing.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Muskellunge Historian"
Question: If Lloyd Thurston never signed any of the affidavits for record claim how can he be considered an official weight witness? Shouldn't an MNR person's signature be required for the fish to be accepted as a record? Being he did supposedly witness the scale reading why wouldn't he have signed an affidavit confirming what he saw? He saw to it that the scale was properly certified and yet failed to provide his signature as a weight witness? The accuracy of the scale doesn't mean much without this MNR person's signature officially confirming his own scale reading.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Curious: Great question. I'm not sure just who placed him in that position. Yes, he was involved in the official weighing process but did not sign any affidavits to same. Perhaps since an MCI member "prepared" the affidavits on O'brien's behalf, he/they did not wish to involve Mr. Thurston in a false document?!
Record requirement at the time was for a fisheries scientist to "verify species". That was done by Dr. Ed Crossman. The only other signatories to the affidavit were one of O'brien's fishing buddies and John Power and of course, Ken O'brien as applicant. |
|
| |
|
| Thanks Larry. I would think Lloyd Thurston would have WANTED to sign an affidavit and MCI would have wanted him to sign one as well. Something just isn't right here!
|
|
| |
|
| Larry,
I saw that the MCI person who prepared the affidavits for O'Brien told you in an interview that he didn't remember the name of the biologist that he called in from Perry Sound or if this biologist was present during the weigh-in. You were also told that Lloyd Thurston "supervised" the weighing along with John Power.
Question: The MCI person you interviewed also told you that the biologists supervisor was Lloyd Thurston. From that we know that the biologist must have been the person who actually weighed the fish. So how could the person you interviewed not know if the biologist was present? Or not know his name for that matter?
And why hasn't the biologists name ever been mentioned by ANYONE? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Curious:
Actually, no the unknown (field) biologist did not weigh the fish. Mr. Thurston did, along with John Power. It is unknown to me if the field biologist stayed around for the weighing or not.
Edited by Larry Ramsell 1/28/2012 1:59 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Hi Larry,
I was just going by what the person who prepared O'Brien's affidavits told you in the interview. He said Lloyd Thurston "supervised" the weighing along with John Power. This makes me wonder who Lloyd Thurston and John Power were supervising if it wasn't the biologist. To me, to supervise means to watch over someone else.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Wouldn't be much to "supervise" other than the hanging of the fish on the scale and "reading" the weight. I imagine he meant they called out the weight reading.
As I recall too, I was told the fish went directly from the "hanging on the porch" to hanging on the scale without being lain on the ground...so, if there did happen to be accidental or purposeful water within the fish, it stayed there.
"IF", the 65 pounds was indeed the TRUE weight of that fish, WHY would they add to the length dimension when records are kept by weight? Just doesn't make sense. And of course too, we now know John Power admitted to a close friend that the weight too was bogus...end of story. |
|
| |
|
| "Wouldn't be much to "supervise" other than the hanging of the fish on the scale and "reading" the weight. I imagine he meant they called out the weight reading."
With all due respect Larry, calling out the weight reading sure doesn't sound like "supervising" to me. To me it sounds more like he was making sure the weighing was done the way he wanted. How did you come to the conclusion that Lloyd Thurston did the weighing? Did you hear a different story from someone else?
I also feel we shouldn't be so quick to exonerate Lloyd Thurston. Lloyd not only saw to it that the scale was properly certified but also apparently saw to it that no photos or video were taken of the fish hanging on the scale or the fish being measured. You were also told in the interview by the person who prepared the affidavits for O'Brien that most people were taking photos and the event was even video taped and yet no known photos or video has ever appeared of the most important parts of the event. To me this is incredibly damaging! I would think both Muskies Canada and the MNR would have wanted people to see the scale reading as well as the fish being measured.
|
|
| |
|
| "As I recall too, I was told the fish went directly from the "hanging on the porch" to hanging on the scale without being lain on the ground...so, if there did happen to be accidental or purposeful water within the fish, it stayed there."
Very interesting! This would work out perfectly for them. They could fill the fish with water and then say they didn't want to get the fish dirty which may add to the weight. Whoever weighed the fish must have also taken care to keep the fish in an upright position after removing the rope that was used to hang the fish. Remember you were also told in the interview that the rope was removed before the fish was weighed. All the more reason for the people involved not wanting the weighing to be photographed or video taped.
"IF", the 65 pounds was indeed the TRUE weight of that fish, WHY would they add to the length dimension when records are kept by weight? Just doesn't make sense. And of course too, we now know John Power admitted to a close friend that the weight too was bogus...end of story.
My take Larry is that they figured a 58" length would be more appropriate for a 65 lb. muskie. |
|
| |
|
| I do know what you mean though Larry. IF the fish truly weighed 65 lbs. it wouldn't matter how long the fish was and like you say, it would be senseless to falsify the length and taint an already legitimate record. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | Why on gods earth would anyone want to claim a world record in Musky fishing??????????????????????? Good Lord people, Spray, Johnson , Lawton and the list goes on ,all liars, all cheats and now Obrien's in question as well. Why would anyone want to put one forward today when 500 men are going to challenge it? I cant think of one fish over 60 pounds that is not beaten down and attacked every year. This is the one thing that is ruining this sport. The jealousy, the self proclaimed experts and down talking of anyone who puts forward a potential world record. Its killing this sport. Of all the things in this sport that are fantastic this topic ruins it completely. Leave it alone people. |
|
| |
|
| Where is Magnum PI when you need him |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Sorry Kingfisher....the dark fingerprints on the muskie community are the bogus fish that have been claimed to be "records" when they have now been shown to be questionable at best and bogus at worst. The truly sad thing is that the muskie community has not stepped up and demanded that the organizations which sanction these undeserving fish remove them and search for a qualified "record"which should hold the record.
The "leave it alone mentality" does nothing for establishing integrity in the muskie record keeping. Musky record keeping has been and is now shown to be a joke by a group [WMA and supporters] looking for the truth and many of you want to discredit them rather than placing blame where it belongs.
Unfortunately record keepers of WR muskies specifically; NFWHF, IGFA and now OFAH have chosen to disregard professionally prepared evidence challenging their muskie records without even so much as a well presented convincing rebuttal to the damaging report by the WMA. For reasons known only to them they have accepted record fish which have been shown to be smaller than claimed. This should cast a shadow over the integrity and motivations of these organizations and the membership should demand a "house cleaning" to bring them back from the "dark side' and into the sunlight where they can stand scrutiny from the musky community without any fear of being accused of incompetence, cronie politics or simple coverup and fraud.
DougP |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Curious (George):
Your post after my last post is reaching and making unfounded statements and I refuse to go there. There has been absolutely no evidence or indication that Mr. Thurston had any part in any possible foul play in this matter.
DougP: You are right on target! Sorry Kingfisher Mike, just concentrate on your lure making and maybe someone will catch a legitimate giant on one of your lures. |
|
| |
|
| Larry,
What exactly did I say that you considered far reaching? If people are going to photograph and video tape an event does it make sense to leave out the most important parts of that event? Who was it that prevented the weighing and measuring from being photographed and video taped?
The person you interviewed told you that Lloyd Thurston "supervised" the weighing along with John Power. Your statement: "I imagine he meant they called out the weight reading." is what I would call far reaching. Lloyd Thurston could not "supervise" himself therefore could not have weighed the fish!
There was obviously an agenda here and the fish becoming the record was obviously a joint effort and whether or not you want to believe this is your decision.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Curious wrote: "What exactly did I say that you considered far reaching? If people are going to photograph and video tape an event does it make sense to leave out the most important parts of that event? Who was it that prevented the weighing and measuring from being photographed and video taped?"
LR: First of all, I think you are making too much of the word "supervise". Mr. Thurston and John Power weighed the fish, period. And who said that the weighing and measuring wasn't photographed? In fact, Mr. Gasbarino stated that a late friend of his did photograph the measuring. I'm sure too, someone photographed the weighing, although no photos of same have come forward...but then what would that prove? If the scale "read" 65 pounds, it read 65 pounds. The scale nor the photos would "know" what was in the fish. I have a copy of one video tape, but the weighing and measuring was not included. I don't know why other than the possibility that the person that shot it wasn't there for the weighing and measuring as it appears to be at the end of the episode.
Curious wrote previously: "With all due respect Larry, calling out the weight reading sure doesn't sound like "supervising" to me. To me it sounds more like he was making sure the weighing was done the way he wanted. How did you come to the conclusion that Lloyd Thurston did the weighing? Did you hear a different story from someone else?"
LR: HERE Curious is one instance of "far reaching". You seem to be saying you KNOW that Mr. Thurston "controlled" what was and what wasn't done during the process. You have no basis in fact. I was told that Thurston and Power did the weighing, I never said Mr. Thurston did it alone.
Curious also wrote above: "I also feel we shouldn't be so quick to exonerate Lloyd Thurston. Lloyd not only saw to it that the scale was properly certified but also apparently saw to it that no photos or video were taken of the fish hanging on the scale or the fish being measured...
LR: Here again you "reach" and condemn Mr. Thurston with NO basis in FACT!
Curious ended above with: "You were also told in the interview by the person who prepared the affidavits for O'Brien that most people were taking photos and the event was even video taped and yet no known photos or video has ever appeared of the most important parts of the event. To me this is incredibly damaging! I would think both Muskies Canada and the MNR would have wanted people to see the scale reading as well as the fish being measured."
LR: Agree that this aspect is damaging and correct. I find it amazing that no one has come forward with additional photos or video, but again, other than the measurement, which we KNOW is incorrect, what would they prove UNLESS someone has a photo of the measurement that "conclusively" shows the fish to be 58 inches long. I suggest that no such photo or video exists. The photo the WMA submitted to DCM analysis, along with the two molds, proves beyond doubt that the fish could not have been as long as claimed. Any one with a modicum of common sense can see this.
Curious' last comment: "There was obviously an agenda here and the fish becoming the record was obviously a joint effort and whether or not you want to believe this is your decision.".
LR: You apparently misunderstand my position. I AGREE with this assessment. I don't however, agree that Mr. Thurston was a part of this seeming "joint effort" conspiracy. I believe it was three MCI members, two of which aren't now talking and the third helping to spread a heavy "smoke screen", and the late John Power, the Toronto Star reporter who confessed to Stan Nowocin that the O'brien fish was bogus.
Edited by Larry Ramsell 1/30/2012 12:31 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Hurrah Kingfisher You make great lures and a great point. Course you dont make a livin tearing people down. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Simple fisherman....it's too bad you think this effort to find the truth is about character assasination. The fact is that the WMA, previously the WRMA had a stated mandate to scrutinize the current WR muskies. It would be more helpful and interesting to this thread if you actually had something to add in the defense of any of the WR fish held on the books in spite of the thorough debunking by the work of the WMA. Those who hold with perpetrating any old and new hoax are the real black eye to this or any sport. Those who stand in the way of the truth and perpetuate falsehoods are those who should be shunned by true sportsmen and women. Do you hold these records up as standards for our younger generation to admire and aspire to? I think not. The record keeping organizations and any organization not willing to do their utmost to find the truth should be ashamed of themselves and be called out. The decisions by the various record keepers and the silence by chapters of M.I. and M.C.I. and various publications concerning these bogus records is depressing.
DougP |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8772
| I'm just afraid that our fisheries folks/DNR might use the current records as a reason to steer their management strategies away from trying to create trophy fisheries. If they can point to this or that record that far outweighs anything being caught today, it's not a stretch for someone along the way to jump to the conclusion that current practices aren't working, and that the money and time should be directed to other areas. |
|
| |
|
| Larry,
Unless a photograph or video comes forth showing the weighing and measuring what Paul Gasbarino told you is meaningless and no assumptions should be made regarding the existence of such things.
A photograph or video showing the fish weighed 65 lbs. would CONFIRM that's what the fish did weigh while it was on the scale and that IS important because it would at least confirm what the witnesses saw. Same with the measuring.
Do we agree that the fish would have to remain vertical in order for 9 lbs. of water to remain inside the fish? If so, consider that Lloyd Thurston was the one who took O'Brien's fish down from display to wrap and place in George Grisdale's freezer. In doing so he would have noticed much of the water running out as only a small amount remained when you unwrapped the fish.
Interesting don't you think?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Curious:
You are STILL off base! First of all, Paul Gasbarino has told me NOTHING.
Your second paragraph basically says what I've already said and maintained on several occasions. I don't think anyone here doubts what the witness "saw" during the reading of the scale weight. It is merely the supposition that "all that glittered wasn't gold". Personally, I now have no doubt that there was sufficient water within the fish during the weighing to register 65 pounds on the scale. Probably not the entire 9 pounds, but a lot. And again, no photos of the weighing have come forth.
And yes, I agree that the fish would have had to "remain vertical" after hanging in order for any amount of water to remain inside the fish during weighing, and I have reported that is in fact what transpired according to what I was told. And where, may I ask, did you discern the "fact"(?) that it was Mr. Thurston "...who took O'Brien's fish down from display to wrap and place in George Grisdale's freezer." There is zero evidence to support YOUR claim here as well. Hence, your statement: "In doing so he would have noticed much of the water running out as only a small amount remained when you unwrapped the fish." is once again REACHING and unfounded, when there is no evidence of this either!
In fact Curious, the video and the "series" of photographs that I have clearly indicate that the fish was handled considerably AFTER the weighing and before the fish was placed into the freezer. THIS "placing in the freezer" was not done by Mr. Thurston, he only again became involved when he removed the fish from the Grisdale freezer after my visit 9 days later, and delivered it to Dr. Crossman at the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto.
So, "Interesting don't you think?", no. Please get your facts straight if you wish to continue this discussion. |
|
| |
|
| It must have been kinda tricky to get 9 pounds of water into a fish with 40 people standing around......it takes very little water to flush a fishes stomach contents. |
|
| |
|
| "You are STILL off base! First of all, Paul Gasbarino has told me NOTHING."
LR: In fact, Mr. Gasbarino stated that a late friend of his did photograph the measuring.
He may not have actually told you this but you sure made made a point about what he stated!
"And where, may I ask, did you discern the "fact"(?) that it was Mr. Thurston "...who took O'Brien's fish down from display to wrap and place in George Grisdale's freezer. (Note: I got the information from your latest Compendium for crying out loud!) There is zero evidence to support YOUR claim here as well. Hence, your statement: "In doing so he would have noticed much of the water running out as only a small amount remained when you unwrapped the fish." is once again REACHING and unfounded, when there is no evidence of this either!"
Zero evidence? The person you interviewed told you that Lloyd Thurston did indeed take the fish down from where it was being displayed after the weighing and then placing it in George Grisdales's freezer. Are you now saying that everything this person told you is a lie? And you say I need to get my FACTS straight?
You claim Lloyd Thurston and John Power weighed the fish. There is now an affidavit out there that claims Power admitted the fish was bogus. How could John Power know the fish was bogus without Lloyd Thurston knowing the same thing?
You have absolutely no way of proving anything I've said isn't true. Until you can prove me wrong I'd think twice about writing off anything I've brought out.
I thought we were on the same side but I'll let you figure out everything on your own from this point.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Curious George: We're about done since it is obvious you merely want to debate unfounded minutia that you cannot prove. I do stand corrected about Mr. Thurston placing the fish in the freezer, but unlike your version, it was done long after the weighing. Nothing was said about him "taking the fish down". You obviously didn't read my book real close.
It is obvious too, from this thread and others, that you merely wish to continue to make trouble via unfounded hypothesis that can neither be proven or dis-proven at this point. Yes, we are on the same side, re the record, but I'm not on the "dark side" with you! I'm done with your rants. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | Larry Ramsell - 1/30/2012 9:26 PM
Curious George: We're about done since it is obvious you merely want to debate unfounded minutia that you cannot prove. I do stand corrected about Mr. Thurston placing the fish in the freezer, but unlike your version, it was done long after the weighing. Nothing was said about him "taking the fish down". You obviously didn't read my book real close.
It is obvious too, from this thread and others, that you merely wish to continue to make trouble via unfounded hypothesis that can neither be proven or dis-proven at this point. Yes, we are on the same side, re the record, but I'm not on the "dark side" with you! I'm done with your rants.
Larry you know Im not tossing stones at you. You and I have had this discussion face to face. What I find just insane is that every fish over 60 pounds have been called out as fakes. I have read your book through and through and I have to believe some of those guys were telling the truth. Some were obviously lying. Obrien's fish was a Pig. Williamson's fish was a pig. The constant onslaught is what I find to be a huge turn off. This is taking away from the excitement. It takes away from the chase, the folklore and mythology of these grand beasts.
I just sent 72 Brand new 8 inch Magnum Slashers up to Joe McComber (Joe Flo) in Quebec. Maybe we do see that monster on one of ours. I send a lot of baits up there. But no matter. I find the attacks on the old records to be tiring and over done .
(To everyone) But more important is this, Anyone bringing one forward today would be insane. He or she will be torn to freaking pieces by these wolves. I want so badly for a legit 70 pound Musky to be killed Just to shut them all up. This needs to happen . I want to see it in my life time. Mike |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Mike:
I understand and share your frustration. No one hates it more than I do, but I also want to know the truth and just what is the "real" potential growth of the species. These "grand beasts" just do not seem to attain the size required to weigh 70 pounds.
I resent being called a "Wolf", but I shan't let that deter me from the pursuit of the truth in Muskie record matters. And, not ALL 60 pounders have been taken to task, at least from my end or perspective. Yes, O'brien's fish was a pig, but it just was not 58 inches long and likely didn't weigh 65 pounds. Williamson's fish too was a pig and I don't believe anyone has said it didn't weigh 61 pounds 4 ounces. It just wasn't a "certified" weight. He likely didn't pursue certification because of the bogus fish, supposedly larger, already on the books!!
I think your frustration, as noted by others, should be directed at the record keepers, who choose to put their collective heads in the sand and ignore the obvious. I don't think you want to chase a "ghost" that doesn't exist. "Folklore and mythology" is fun, but it isn't REAL.
Mike, I hope you get your wish, but God forbid you or someone using one of your lures catches a legitimate 62 pounder and is denied a record because the record keepers choose to ignore science and common sense and continue to list bogus fish...and even they cannot agree on what the record is! THAT is where your anger should be directed. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32882
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Exactly. |
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | Even if someone catches a 70 lb fish and it is certified by John Cassleman, Larry Ramsell and the Pope, at a public weighing in Yankee Stadium they will be crucified on here because they didn't release it |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32882
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | No, that person will not. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | esoxaddict - 1/30/2012 2:00 PM
I'm just afraid that our fisheries folks/DNR might use the current records as a reason to steer their management strategies away from trying to create trophy fisheries. If they can point to this or that record that far outweighs anything being caught today, it's not a stretch for someone along the way to jump to the conclusion that current practices aren't working, and that the money and time should be directed to other areas.
I highly doubt this would ever happen. We don't care what the records are and for the most part don't even know what they are without looking them up. We aren't in the business of producing world records. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | Larry Ramsell - 1/31/2012 12:51 AM
Mike:
I understand and share your frustration. No one hates it more than I do, but I also want to know the truth and just what is the "real" potential growth of the species. These "grand beasts" just do not seem to attain the size required to weigh 70 pounds.
I resent being called a "Wolf", but I shan't let that deter me from the pursuit of the truth in Muskie record matters. And, not ALL 60 pounders have been taken to task, at least from my end or perspective. Yes, O'brien's fish was a pig, but it just was not 58 inches long and likely didn't weigh 65 pounds. Williamson's fish too was a pig and I don't believe anyone has said it didn't weigh 61 pounds 4 ounces. It just wasn't a "certified" weight. He likely didn't pursue certification because of the bogus fish, supposedly larger, already on the books!!
I think your frustration, as noted by others, should be directed at the record keepers, who choose to put their collective heads in the sand and ignore the obvious. I don't think you want to chase a "ghost" that doesn't exist. "Folklore and mythology" is fun, but it isn't REAL.
Mike, I hope you get your wish, but God forbid you or someone using one of your lures catches a legitimate 62 pounder and is denied a record because the record keepers choose to ignore science and common sense and continue to list bogus fish...and even they cannot agree on what the record is! THAT is where your anger should be directed.
Larry, I consider you one of the leading experts on the species. You were not included in my wolf comment. As I said I am not throwing stones at you. I was venting in general because every year its the exact same thing. First Spray, then Johnson, and on and on and on and on. One of these guys had to be telling the truth. Unless of course all fishermen are Liars and in that case all records for all species are suspect. There is no way to change these old records because there is no way to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that they were falsified. I just don't buy(all) the evidence presented. We have dead people who cant defend themselves, Field and Stream , old beam scales versus newer digital scales and testimony recorded. I am sure there was a Liar or two in the bunch but I just don't believe they were all Liars.
A world record is not a fish that is easily found and caught. It cant be. It must be a mythical one in a million monster. Just because Mike and Marc have not caught one doesn't mean they don't exist. Mother Nature has a way of turning scientists and our best experts and fishermen into buffoons all the time. My guess is about the time this industry gets the record reduced to say 62 pounds a 70 pounder will be caught. It will be contested by no less then 500 guys who simply will not believe it. For anyone to say they simply do not get that big is daring Nature to slap them down. There are no absolutes in Nature.
Look at the farce with Global warming. Man spent trillions of dollars trying to curb emissions and One volcano erupting wiped out all the trillions we spent. Nature has a way of humbling men. It always has, always will.
Larry , if you say the record keepers are at fault Ill buy that. I think there is merit in that. I don't think any of them at field and stream had any Idea of the microscope their records would be put under. Just let me say, After all this fighting over these records when the 70 pound fish is weighed and certified please give me my due. On that day all this will be a huge waste of time, money and Aspirin. Until then, good luck to you all. As for us we are sharpening hooks, tuning lures and making plans to travel for our first trip to the Mighty St. Lawrence. My wife has that uncanny knack for getting the one in a million fish. Maybe her luck holds out and she waltzes into Larry's next book. Tight lines. Mike
|
|
| |
|
| larry why dont you put that video on youtube ?i am sure a lot of guys would like to see that
tks |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Kingfisher/Mike wrote in part: "...There is no way to change these old records because there is no way to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that they were falsified. I just don't buy(all) the evidence presented..."
LR: Mike, I and MANY others beg to differ. You either aren't looking at the evidence with an open mind or you haven't seen it all. Buy it or not, the science cannot be denied.
Mike continued in part: "...A world record is not a fish that is easily found and caught. It cant be. It must be a mythical one in a million monster..."
LR: Mike, I have always said, "Never say never." I, like you, like to dream and "hope" that it is true and not "mythical"!
More Mike: "...
For anyone to say they simply do not get that big is daring Nature to slap them down. There are no absolutes in Nature..."
LR: I hope you are correct Mike, but to date, history and scientific proof says otherwise.
pepsiboy wrote: "larry why dont you put that video on youtube ?i am sure a lot of guys would like to see that tks"
LR: If I had even the slightest clue how to do so, I would, but you don't know what you are asking of this technologically challenged old timer! LOL
Actually, the VHS video doesn't do much of anything to relieve this debate, other than to demonstrate that "Curious George" doesn't have a full grasp of the facts and sequence of events of that fateful day and therefore, as I noted previously, I will ignore his last post where additional suppositions without basis in fact are put forth and will not answer his questions based on his hypothesis. I know the answers, but it would only lead to further baseless hypothesis on his part. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32882
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | That is crap. Login, and argue the in at least some realm of reality. |
|
| |
|
| larry i am sure someone can help you,fake wr or not i think those vids have something that is a part of HISTORY,i hope someone is gonna help you. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20211
Location: oswego, il | The Hayward folks are loving this discussion. Like I said in an earlier post, Hayward witnesses good, Canadian witnesses bad.lmao |
|
| |
|
| sworrall - 1/31/2012 1:23 PM
That is crap. Login, and argue the in at least some realm of reality.
sworrall - 1/31/2012 1:23 PM
That is crap. Login, and argue the in at least some realm of reality.
It's refreshing to see somebody in Steve's position without milk bone underwear for a change. Pretty much like Finn says, too many of our higher profile people and magazines are not doing enough because they're worried about damaging their reputation or circulation. This is all sad, very sad in fact, because the WRMA was originally assembled to find the truth and end the bickering that was going on about these records way back when (I'm guessing Kingfisher wasn't online then because it was really nasty). I can distinctly remember people getting shouted down on Musky Hunter if they said Louie Spray’s three records were bogus (like somebody's going to catch 3 world records from 3 different lakes just a short drive from his house around Hayward LOL).
Dick Pearson, Jim Saric, Pete Maina, Muskies Inc., and Steve here were among the majority of so-called “wolves” that Kingfisher has a problem with, so he should probably start here. I can distinctly remember Muskies Canada guys cheering when Spray was exposed too. O'Brien was hoisted up as the fish to beat, mainly because Johnson was so obvious (33 ½” girth in July LOL).
Unfortunately, it's now just as obvious there's no way that O’Brien’s fish could have weighed in at 65 pounds. So Kingfisher, what was the WMA supposed to do, be part of a conspiracy, or report what they found. Seriously think about that for a second and I think you'll agree that Finn is spot on with the anger being misdirected at the WMA. Definitely the record keepers should be the ones held accountable, I would also add the people in charge of Muskies Canada now at this point because they are obviously denying reality.
I've actually read this entire thread and see no official comments from the WMA, they released the information on O'Brien and that's that. I don't see how the truth should “rub someone the wrong way” or why the WMA should be called “wolves” for following through and doing exactly what they said they would. As a matter of fact, in light of all the flak they've taken, following through and doing exactly what they said they would do demonstrates a lot of courage and fortitude in my humble opinion. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| DITTO!! Great post!
DougP |
|
| |
|
Location: The Yahara Chain | ToddM - 1/31/2012 4:18 PM
The Hayward folks are loving this discussion. Like I said in an earlier post, Hayward witnesses good, Canadian witnesses bad.lmao
How come you don't spew as much venom towards the Canadians as you did towards the Hayward crowd?
I actually find it hilarious that several Canadians that went off off on spray's fish are in denial on the O'brien fish.
Muskie Canada's response to this whole thing is a joke. The fish was 54" that is indisputable.
My personal belief all along has been that the Williamson fish is the largest fish ever caught. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20211
Location: oswego, il | Bytor, I am in agreement with the wma findings that the o'brien fish was not as big as claimed. I think for most of us we believed this one was legit. As far as the venom goes I , nor anyone else will match the venom that has come and will come from Hayward regarding the record fish.
On a humorous note, I had to save Bytor on my smart phone as it changed your name to Nutley.
Edited by ToddM 2/1/2012 12:39 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8772
| I don't understand why there's any animousity towards the WMA at all. They didn't set out to discredit or disprove anything, or drag any names through the mud. The entire purpose of their research was simply for verification and authentication. So why the anger? Because the truth turned out to be something other than what you had hoped? If you want to be mad, be mad at the people who falsified the records in the first place. Be mad at the fact that the ACTUAL world records are being caught today, and it means absolutely nothing, because too many people are full of crap and just pushing their own selfish agendas. I get it - everybody wants to be able to claim that a world record came from their lake or their resort. But in the case of most, it DIDN'T. The truth sucks, you lost, get over it or get out of the way. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | Bytor = Nutley
makes sense ... |
|
| |
|
| Larry Ramsell - 1/30/2012 11:51 PM
Mike:
I understand and share your frustration. No one hates it more than I do, but I also want to know the truth and just what is the "real" potential growth of the species. These "grand beasts" just do not seem to attain the size required to weigh 70 pounds.
I resent being called a "Wolf", but I shan't let that deter me from the pursuit of the truth in Muskie record matters. And, not ALL 60 pounders have been taken to task, at least from my end or perspective. Yes, O'brien's fish was a pig, but it just was not 58 inches long and likely didn't weigh 65 pounds. Williamson's fish too was a pig and I don't believe anyone has said it didn't weigh 61 pounds 4 ounces. It just wasn't a "certified" weight. He likely didn't pursue certification because of the bogus fish, supposedly larger, already on the books!!
I think your frustration, as noted by others, should be directed at the record keepers, who choose to put their collective heads in the sand and ignore the obvious. I don't think you want to chase a "ghost" that doesn't exist. "Folklore and mythology" is fun, but it isn't REAL.
Mike, I hope you get your wish, but God forbid you or someone using one of your lures catches a legitimate 62 pounder and is denied a record because the record keepers choose to ignore science and common sense and continue to list bogus fish...and even they cannot agree on what the record is! THAT is where your anger should be directed.
"He likely didn't pursue certification because of the bogus fish, supposedly larger, already on the books!!"
I agree that Williamson's fish should probably be the Canadian record now. If Muskies Canada would start by cleaning their own house, maybe there's some possibility we could rally together and make this the honorary record. Does anyone know if the scale used is still in existence, or is it too late to have certified now?
|
|
| |
|
Location: The Yahara Chain | jonnysled - 2/1/2012 12:59 PM
Bytor = Nutley
makes sense ...
Whatever Mr. NYU |
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | Muskies Canada is NOT a record keeping organization. The origional records were a yearly big fish contest based on weight only and run by a brewery ( Molsons ). When the contest was discontinued the grandfathered records were taken over by the OFAH |
|
| |
|
| Bytor - 2/1/2012 11:35 AM
ToddM - 1/31/2012 4:18 PM
The Hayward folks are loving this discussion. Like I said in an earlier post, Hayward witnesses good, Canadian witnesses bad.lmao
How come you don't spew as much venom towards the Canadians as you did towards the Hayward crowd?
I actually find it hilarious that several Canadians that went off off on spray's fish are in denial on the O'brien fish.
Muskie Canada's response to this whole thing is a joke. The fish was 54" that is indisputable.
My personal belief all along has been that the Williamson fish is the largest fish ever caught.
It may very well have been!!........ but it too has issues because it was not weighed on registered scales or did anyone around that fish that day know that they could be holding a record. All because of Obrien's over sized fish story.
One person (Stan)said when they held it that it was hard as a rock, no flabby belly.
It's sad to know Williamson is not around to know he held a record. |
|
| |
|
| horsehunter - 2/1/2012 4:49 PM
Muskies Canada is NOT a record keeping organization. The origional records were a yearly big fish contest based on weight only and run by a brewery ( Molsons ). When the contest was discontinued the grandfathered records were taken over by the OFAH
Frank Shelton, you know that's a total copout because it was some prominent Muskies Canada members who got out of line and were responsible for this fish being exaggerated in the first place.
Not only that, it's certainly within YOUR (as in you personally) power to put up a stink within the organization today, so please don't come on here with a Muskies Canada denial because you are a member of an organization that has the power to TRY to undo this wrong.
Let's hypothetically say that Muskies Canada put up a stink at the OFAH, and they still kept it, then this denial of yours would be plausible. Until then you can stow it because YOUR involvement is no different than knowing a friend burglarized your neighbor's house, when questioned later, you just shrug your shoulders and say you saw nothing and there's nothing you can do.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Seems like "pretty obvious" really nailed it.
DougP |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| The sad thing is that so many "groups" that could be of help in getting the record keeping organizations to clean the bogus fish from their list have done nothing. In effect they have become "enablers". Most, if not all, of us who have read the WMA reports know in our heart that these 3 fish that have been investigated are "tainted", to put it mildly, to the point of being "unacceptable" for any record keepers who are interested in maintaining integrity in the fish listed in their record book. By keeping quiet and not getting involved our respected organizations such as M.I. and M.C.I. enable bogus fish to occupy positions of respect and admiration when those spots should rightly belong to someone else.
I think it to be shameful that more publications and groups and clubs have not stood up to challenge these bogus records. It does not speak highly of the respect for honesty and integrity in these organizations.
I don't know....seems we could do a better job in handing over our record book fish to our younger generation.
DougP |
|
| |
|
| horsehunter - 2/1/2012 4:49 PM
Muskies Canada is NOT a record keeping organization. The origional records were a yearly big fish contest based on weight only and run by a brewery ( Molsons ). When the contest was discontinued the grandfathered records were taken over by the OFAH
Then what is this all about horsehunter? Oct. / Nov. 2011 Musky Hunter magazine: "Muskies Canada Responds to WMA's O'Brien Challenge."
|
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | They may have responded I didn't see it, but they are not the organization that keeps the records .
I DO NOT SPEAK FOR MUSKIES CANADA only my own opinions
The fish at some point must have weighed 65 pounds on a certified scale (the criteria for the Molson Big Fish Contest )
How do you get 10 pounds of water into a fish with 40 people milling around?
I believe the fish was mis measured
It bothers me that the challenge comes 20 years after the fact when the principals are no longer around to defend their selfs
At the time I was disapointed that the record was set by a Walleye fisherman with a 5 inch bait rather than someone targeting muskies |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Shouldn't bother you if you're not bothered that the Lawton fish was debunked 35yrs after being caught and the Spray & Johnson fish were effectively discredited over 55yrs. later. Do u believe those fish are legit.....if not then O'Brien should be subject to the same scrutiny.....
DougP |
|
| |
|
| "How do you get 10 pounds of water into a fish with 40 people milling around?"
How does a fish lose 9 pounds of water after being frozen 8 days?
|
|
| |
|
| "I believe the fish was mis measured"
If so, Muskies Canada members were the ones responsible as they measured the fish.
|
|
| |
|
| Then what is this all about horsehunter? Oct. / Nov. 2011 Musky Hunter magazine: "Muskies Canada Responds to WMA's O'Brien Challenge."
It should have read "Ian Young Responds to WMA's O'Brien Challenge"
Unfortunately he is President of Muskies Canada, so the logical connection is that he was speaking on behalf of Muskies Canada. This is not the case. He let his own personal feelings get to him and spoke out to defend some of his friends that were there that day. I am a member and I can assure you he was not speaking on my behalf. Though I may not agree with Larry or the WMA.
Muskies Canada NEVER WAS, OR EVER WILL BE, a record keeping organization....EVER. PERIOD. Can't be more clear about that. They have absolutely no leverage in either keeping or abolishing records. It is not even mentioned in our Mandate or Mission Statement. This was a Gaff on Ian's part that know has MCI dragging through the mud because of his own personal feelings.
MCI has done a TONNE of good for the Canadian fishery that you all come to enjoy....be thankful for that.
|
|
| |
|
| Guest - 2/2/2012 4:31 PM
Then what is this all about horsehunter? Oct. / Nov. 2011 Musky Hunter magazine: "Muskies Canada Responds to WMA's O'Brien Challenge."
It should have read "Ian Young Responds to WMA's O'Brien Challenge"
Unfortunately he is President of Muskies Canada, so the logical connection is that he was speaking on behalf of Muskies Canada. This is not the case. He let his own personal feelings get to him and spoke out to defend some of his friends that were there that day. I am a member and I can assure you he was not speaking on my behalf. Though I may not agree with Larry or the WMA.
Muskies Canada NEVER WAS, OR EVER WILL BE, a record keeping organization....EVER. PERIOD. Can't be more clear about that. They have absolutely no leverage in either keeping or abolishing records. It is not even mentioned in our Mandate or Mission Statement. This was a Gaff on Ian's part that know has MCI dragging through the mud because of his own personal feelings.
MCI has done a TONNE of good for the Canadian fishery that you all come to enjoy....be thankful for that.
If you don't agree that O'Brien's fish should no longer be the Canadian record then Ian Young is speaking on your behalf. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 225
Location: Ontario, Canada | I love all the bashing of Muskies Canada by people who are too cowardly to post their names!
Dax Jacklin
Edited by pigeontroller 2/2/2012 8:19 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Muskies Canada has done an amazing job with our muskie fishery and working with the MNR. Yet many of you gentlemen seem to do nothing but sling mud. I'm a Canadian angler and I muskie fish. I belong to no club or organization as I am sure that many of you on this forum do. I am also quite sure that the reason so many of you fish our waters is because you realize that is the best chance you have at a real trophy. But for those of you who want to go to the extra mile to find fault with us and paint us all with one brush. If I felt the way that you do, why bother coming up here, and I do agree that the OBrien fish was 54inches. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32882
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | OK, now people are reading into the argument and coming up with all sorts of 'perceptions' that are not relevant or even there. Enough of that. Debate the facts and leave the rest to gossip...elsewhere. |
|
| |
|
| I think everyone is pretty much in agreement that this fish was 54”, and a 54” muskie cannot weigh a legitimate 65lb.
The bottom line is that some Muskie Canada Inc. members are responsible for this tainted fish being on the record books in the first place and the president has publicly defended those same people. Not only that, he used the good name of MCI to petition the OFAH to keep his record as part of the cover-up. Like it or not, if you are a MCI member, you are now part of this O'Brien conspiracy thanks to these recent actions of your president.
I'm sorry but this cannot be reversed by saying this mudslinging, a gaff, or it's a great place to fish, now let's move on. Like it or not, your president and some irresponsible members have put MCI between a rock and hard place by publicly denouncing the WMA report and petitioning the record keeper to maintain this record. This is no different than what John Dettloff did at the Hall of Fame when he influenced the board to keep Spray as part of the cover-up, and for his own personal reasons.
It is incumbent upon MCI to properly address the WMA allegations against O'Brien and make a recommendation to the OFAH based on fact, not friendship. Full disclosure, I have been a past member of MCI and made donations to worthy MCI projects. I am definitely not a coward, I would simply like to remain anonymous for the time being. |
|
| |
|
| MCI Friend,well put
The fact that Ian Young, President of MCI officially spoke without consent of his members,ultimately obligates him and MCI to review the findings with an open mind ,without influence from those involved and set an example for the entire Muskie Industry.
Marc Thorpe |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Thank you Marc. I agree with MCI Friend and your well stated position. We need more people such as yourself to speak out for bringing some integrity and reality back to the musky record books.
DougP |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | What many may not know, is that Marc IS a past MCI President and at the time did agree with the O'brien fish...he now does not.
Obviously, Ian Young didn't speak for all within MCI or Canada for that matter and as Marc said, MCI should now take a "serious" look at the WMA report/evidence and do the right thing. The "conclusion" HE came to in his Musky Hunter letter can only further hurt MCI, not help. As more truths come forward, HIS position only gets more shameful. Time for more truths. |
|
| |
|
| I agree Marc, Ian Young has placed MCI in a tough spot by defending the O'Brien fish and has morally obligated MCI to repair the damage caused by a few rogue members. MCI must follow through with what was started and do a proper review this time, otherwise it will always be a black eye for them.
Does Ian Young really think what John Dettloff did at the Hall of Fame with Spray is acceptable, because he's doing same thing. I'm guessing Dettloff is living his life in regret for being so dishonorable (maybe not?). He traded an otherwise honorable legacy for a lie, and will never have any respect from his peers because of his selfish acts. I sincerely hope that Ian Young considers his legacy before he makes his next move. At the very least, I hope MCI management does not ignore this O'Brien situation for too much longer because it's only going to get worse. |
|
| |
|
| pigeontroller - 2/3/2012 4:11 PM
This is the last I will say on this. You will not here anymore from MCI or its President on this. Why, because we don't care...You annonynous posters can whine, and sling mud all winter for all we care. All Ian Young did was defend the honor of some of MCI's founding members. Muskies Canada did not petition the OFAH for anything. We are not a record keeping organization. The O'brien fish is considered the Ontario record Muskie, that has nothing to do with us...And as far as Marc Thorpe, ex-MCI president goes, he seldom has anything positive to say about MCI, or any of the 3 Presidents that succeeded him. So his opinion isn't held in too high of regard.
What Muskies Canada and its members (including its very dedicated President) do is spend thousands of hours in volunteer time involved in conservation and research projects, running Canada's only Muskie Show of which ALL our profits go directly back into the fishery. Slinging mud at an 600 member 35 year old fishing club that does alot of good things just makes ALL Y'ALL look pretty petty and narrow minded to me.
Dax Jacklin
Education Director
Muskies Canada Inc.
Wait just a minute there cowboy, you are calling us petty and narrowminded because we want MCI to be truthful and do an honest review this time? The truth is that Ian Young used his position to defend his friends who got caught red handed, there is nothing honorable about that.
My question to you is why the EDUCATION DIRECTOR does not have a problem with the president penning a misleading letter in Musky Hunter? Is this the kind of education you want to provide for your children?
|
|
| |
|
| "This is the last I will say on this. You will not here anymore from MCI or its President on this. Why, because we don't care...You annonynous posters can whine, and sling mud all winter for all we care. All Ian Young did was defend the honor of some of MCI's founding members. Muskies Canada did not petition the OFAH for anything. We are not a record keeping organization. The O'brien fish is considered the Ontario record Muskie, that has nothing to do with us...And as far as Marc Thorpe, ex-MCI president goes, he seldom has anything positive to say about MCI, or any of the 3 Presidents that succeeded him. So his opinion isn't held in too high of regard.
What Muskies Canada and its members (including its very dedicated President) do is spend thousands of hours in volunteer time involved in conservation and research projects, running Canada's only Muskie Show of which ALL our profits go directly back into the fishery. Slinging mud at an 600 member 35 year old fishing club that does alot of good things just makes ALL Y'ALL look pretty petty and narrow minded to me."
Dax Jacklin
Education Director
Muskies Canada Inc.
So lets get this straight you and Ian Young (President of MCI)are defending the founding member that was witness to the event.
Sounds like partisanship ,This is not about partisanship!!!!!
So by doing this MCI (Ian Young/honorary witnessing member)and yourself are questioning the validity of the ROM measurements that were taken by leading scientist?Funny the Rom and Larry Ramsell happen to share the same measurements.
I dont see Mr Marc Thorpe throwing Mud,just simply pointing out accountability on behalf of your President and his position to speak out on behalf of its members without authorization ,support or consent.
I suspect being past President he is very familiar with MCI protocol and the role of President.Evidently MCI is placed in an embarrassing situation due to your current President's actions.If I am not mistaken Mr Thorpe is quite involved in Conservation and a leading influence in Canada,very much respected.
I recall reading he is the lead crew member in the largest tagging study that may ever be done in North America.Data that could never be gathered by none other than those he assembled.Looks more like sour grapes to me on your behalf.
You are the education director????? and post your position after such a post
Nice way to propagate and represent education mr Jacklin as an MCI Official.
Its probably best you dont participate anymore
The old saying goes,you can sit, stay quiet and look foolish or open your mouth and remove all doubt.You have removed all doubt.
Shameful thing about all this ,its becoming rather obvious that Ken Obrien was innocently dragged into this by some very misleading people (in this case MCI honorary members),this in itself is very disappointing and shameful on behalf of those that took part.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| The FACTS speak for themselves sir. It matters not whose name is or is not attached to communicating that. The facts have not and cannot be refuted. I spoke personally with the taxidermist who made the mold of the O'Brien fish at the ROM and he told me that the O'Brien fish was no longer than 54", if that long, his words. The mold speaks volumes and should be all that is necessary to remove the fish from record book based on what was obviously a falsified application to the OFAH.
Respectfully,
Doug Petrousek
DOUGLAS TAXIDERMY
ELBURN, IL
www.douglastaxidermy.com
Edited by fins355 2/3/2012 6:10 PM
|
|
| |
|
| As far as I know at the time the record was determined by weight only, and the certified scale registered 65 pounds.
I fail to understand how a fish could hold 9 lbs. of water without flushing the stomach contents or how this could be done in the presence of so many bystanders.
I DON'T THINK the fish was 58 inches but I don't think that mattered at the time as far as setting the record .
A mistake could have been made in the measurement ( I don't know I wasn't there but I have known 3 of the people that were fo 20 plus years and they have never done anything to make me believe they are liars.) Just a supposition but if a tape was run over a fish rather than under you would get an exaggerated length I have seen people do this on occasion. John Cassleman says he can tell you the length of the fish from the cleithrum far more accurately than you can measure the fish.
What the record is or who holds it means little to me ( it will never be me) but I don't like peoples names being dragged through the mud 20 years after the fact when they are deceased and unable to defend theirselfs......(one dead guy said another dead guy lied )
I think this record could be beat and some of the recent fish from the Larry are contenders. Catch a bigger one and good luck getting someone to sign as a witness.
Any large group will always have its personal frictions and politics but in MY opinion
Mark Thorpe is one of the top 5 muskie fishermen and most knowledgeable conservationist in Canada.
I will not respond to anonymous posters
Frank Shelton
Tweed Ontario |
|
| |
|
| Hi Dax,somewhat disappointed by your response,but alas
You might understand a little more my post
In 2003 when I presided MCI and the WRMA was founded ,it was proposed to MCI'S Board of Directors whether MCI should get involved
(Support or what have not in the matter of records)
Which is the constitutional way of approaching the matter or subject which regards all members.
It was reject Unanimously.
Ironically Mr Ian Young took upon himself to Involve MCI and Defended the personal involvement and personal agenda of Mr Paul Gasparino. A constitutional breach on his part.
Like he said in a personal email,he took upon himself to position himself as Official spokesperson of MCI.
Well as long as its approved by its members ,he is
In this case,the decision should have been taken by its members not the NEC nor Its President
In doing so,I direct you back to my post in which Mr Ian Young President of MCI inevitably by issuing a public statement on behalf of MCI in a North American Publication without its members or NEC consent, involved MCI in matters in which in 2003 was voted against.
Its obvious he over stepped his responsibilities and constitutional powers and now is accountable and has made the organization accountable for his actions and plunged the organization in a public fiasco of embarressement.
Not ME
so I refer you to my original post
"The fact that Ian Young, President of MCI officially spoke without consent of his members,ultimately obligates him and MCI to review the findings with an open mind ,without influence from those involved and set an example for the entire Muskie Industry."
May I suggest,prior to taken defense of anyone or anything,be sure you have acquired the Knowledge of the matter,issue ,agendas and people involved at hand.
In this case the only person who is miss-informed about the issue and blindly defending the actions of others which obviously are driven by personal agendas and misleading innocent people is yourself and Ian Young President of MCI
May I suggest the organization review the data ,findings and information collected without partisanship of those involved and defending the personal agenda of some.
In this case MCI and Ian Young are inevitably questioning the Integrity of the ROM and those who documented the fish at the ROM.
Sadly my conclusion to all of this is :
the victim of all of this is Ken Obrien
those involved should be ashamed of taking advantage of his innocence
I fully understand why he has kept his distance and separated himself from the fish
Marc Thorpe
|
|
| |
|
| Frank 1 gallon of water weighs 8 pounds give or take
it weighed 56 pounds 9 days later
Total loss in 9 days 9 pounds
1 pound average mortality loss for a fish of that size and 8 pounds of questionable evaporating weight |
|
| |
|
| Frank,quite honestly biologically,muskies simply cant grow that big
They have limitations
May I suggest you read this
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Marc-Thorpe/155636717834539#!/note.ph...
|
|
| |
|
Location: The Yahara Chain | Marc Thorpe - 2/3/2012 7:40 PM
Sadly my conclusion to all of this is :
the victim of all of this is Ken Obrien
those involved should be ashamed of taking advantage of his innocence
I fully understand why he has kept his distance and separated himself from the fish
Marc Thorpe
Marc thanks for reminding everybody that Mr. Obrien is an honorable man.
I always enjoy it when you participate on this forum. What are your thoughts on the Williamson fish?
|
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | No one has yet explained to me how this water was put in the fish and then hung on a scale in the presence of so many bystanders.
I truly believe this record WILL be broken |
|
| |
|
| What 'record'? The O'Brien fish is one of probably 30 or 35 different individual state or provincial records. It's no more or less important than the South Carolina state record musky or the Idaho state record musky. Big deal - time to move on. |
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | Mark
I have just rewatched the presentation Dr. Cassleman gave to the Gan Chapter a couple of weeks back and am totaly convinced this record can be broken. The largest fish collected during the VHS die off was 59.8 inches if this fish had been caught in late November after the egg mass had begin to develop it would be possible. The fish left after VHS are faster growing. If global warming increased the temp of the Larry by one and a half degrees it would be the optimum temp for muskie growth. The Williamson fish was only 18 years old with lots of potential growth left. Some year classes are faster growing fish.
I want to see this record fall
|
|
| |
|
| Hi Frank,I have been briefed of DR Casseleman's presentation and Theory.
Very plausible but we must apply the laws of all living matter.
Having handled fish in excess of 55 inches to 58 on a yearly basis,more so than anyone in exception of 1 other person
There is Life expectancy : maximum life leading inevitably to death
Peak life period : maximum growth period,length and size during the fishes peak life period ,in muskies used to be 15 to 24 ,now 12 to possibly 24
Species limitations: expectancy during seasonal and lifetime growth
Not all fish live to 30 years of age and not all fish grow to to 60 inches
My write up was based on the sciences of existence of all living matter
Faster growing cold blooded species age faster and do not have the same life expectancy than those under normal growing conditions
Which means due to faster growth ,some fish will grow faster but the limitations of life expectancy is shorten.In other words the maximum age may be reduced over time as evolutionary populations replace the current populations.
as a fish ages,"some" fish continue to grow in length but loose mass as they age
Principle of all living matter
we and all living matter shrinks as it ages
to further undertsand, although not a fair comparison
lets use Humans grow from birth til 40 or 50s,from a young age we grow and gain height and weight into sexual maturity.
when reaching sexual maturity( peak life period),we can develop our bodies or physical mass (muscle mass) into size that are astounding by exercising.
Most case the surpassing of maximum growth rates (muscle mass not fat mass)is achieved with growth hormones (Steroids).
Upon reaching our mid life 40 or 50,we can no longer develop this mass,simply beacuse our biomechanism cease this growth and begins is decrease.
Now we are talking about warm blooded animals not cold blooded animals which growth is dictated by their surrounding environment and its temperatures
so what I am saying is a fish that reaches in excess of 55 inches,generally in exception of Williamson fish( no one is quite sure about the accuracy of the dimension that were taken and their accuracy) has passed its peak life period and,if we apply the laws of all living matter,will cease to grow over all in mass.
but may continue to grow in length some,but no longer carry the weight they once did during peak life period.
egg development ceases at a certain temperature in late fall and the last stages of development are done in early spring just prior to spawning (Dr Bernard Lebeau).
In which body fat is consumed during the winter due to lack of regular feeding activity.
the problem with the human species is always wanting bigger and better
But the laws of all living matter does not apply to Humans wishes,its has its limitations.
wished I could have been there,was invited and would have gladly raised question in which I am sure Dr Casselman would enjoy to further gather info to apply to his theory.
With the many scientist and biologist I work or collaborate with,most if not all agree with Life expectancy,and species limitations.
after all ,it is theoretical,thus far un proven that fish can attain and surpass 60 or even 70 pounds
Unfortunately he has never applied the formula of all living matter and peak life periods to his theoretical growth charts,which skews the theory of maximum growth potential
This in no way is disrespecting him,its juts he has not applied some elements to it
we are getting off topic
Marc Thorpe
|
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | Marc so what your saying is neither Michael or I have done this so it can’t be done.... or all the 60 pound class fish are bogus
Edward Walden / 61-9 / 1940 / Eagle Lake, ON
- Martin Williamson / 61-7 / 2000 / Georgian Bay, ON (never weighed on a certified scale)
- John Coleman / 60-8 / 1939 / Eagle Lake, ON
- Art Barefoot / 59-11 / 1989 / Georgian Bay, ON
- Ruben Green / 58-8 / 1945 / Georgian Bay, ON
- G.E. Niemuth / 58-4 / 1932 / LOTW, ON
- William Fulton / 57-10 / 1917 / Georgian Bay, ON
Recent Times
Williamson 61-7 from 2000 that was never officially weighed (see above)
- Barefoot 59-11 from 1989 (see above)
- Boruki 56-11 from 1984 (see above)
- Sam Finsky 55-11 from 1963 Lake Kakagi, ON
- Joe Lyons 55-2 from 1972 Piedmont Lake, Ohio
- Gary Ishii 55-0 from 1981 Georgian Bay, ON
- Steve Albers 55-0 from 1985 Eagle Lake, ON
- John Ryan 55-0 from 1992 Georgian Bay, ON
any of these fish if legitimate with a couple of good sized whitefish (or other prey species) could challenge
Or there could be a genetic freak like the 101 pound lake trout (born without gonads) at the R.O.M.
Or the one no one has yet seen
I will continue to believe and I hope you catch it.....( sorry I shouldn’t wish that on anybody) |
|
| |
|
| Frank,has nothing to do with me or mike,its not about guides ,destinations,lodges,outfitters
Its about real life and some 60 000 of the finest anglers fishing muskies ever
We are living in the era of the most largest and the largest captures ever
There has never been a time with more quality anglers capturing monumental fish
No one has yet succeeded,from Known anglers ( there are so many great anglers out there )to the discreet (some of the best)
we have gone through and are living the peak of all times.
Our ressource is declening due to many reasons
ex:pharmaceutical contamination,invasive species,disease, diminishing species populations.
Frank,I have formed this view from conversing with folks in science that are not attached to muskies but study various elements of life,matter,fish limitations,biology and inquire and ask questions about certain things.Read allot also
Many things in life matters can be bridge from one species to another or one living matter to another.
I also indulge myself in muskie matters and science
Limitations is one em
when I weight trained,I wanted to be big like Lee Haney
Rich Gaspari said to me.at 5.7 feet nor you or I will ever be that big!
Some of us are tall,some of us short,some chubby,some swarthy
Same goes for Muskies,any living matter also
In exception of gigantism,a disease found in warm blooded animals(Humans being one em),not in all species
I wish someone would capture and properly document a fish,I really do
I did believe at one time
With all those elements and factors,we may very well have seen the pinnacle of it all
we should have a conversation about this in 10 years and see how far off I am
I suspect some of those fish may be tainted also
The essence of all this,is having an attainable objective/record for someone who may actually capture a fish that may exceed a little over 60 pounds (that I suspect is possible given all the right elements converge)
Its moral and social obligation
Tks for chat,I've said what I have had to say about the subject
Its up to those that can make things right to do so
be good
Marc Thorpe |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32882
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Marc's point is an excellent one. Never in the history of this sport have so many accomplished anglers with the advantage of technology that takes this to a whole new level ever fished as many waters across the range of the Muskie. Fishing now is better for big fish than it has ever been. If muskies reached 60 to 70 pounds with any consistency anywhere on the planet, the last few years is when those fish should have shown up.
I do believe a record that will break all records exists. I believe that fish lives in the St. Lawrence. What I believe will not even get you a cup of coffee. |
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | I'll buy you a coffee Steve is Tim Hortons ok or do you want Starbucks |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Marc: Excellent posts!! Should answer a LOT of questions.
Horsehunter (Frank) wrote: "No one has yet explained to me how this water was put in the fish and then hung on a scale in the presence of so many bystanders.
I truly believe this record WILL be broken."
LR: Frank, while I wasn't there, I do have a considerable number of photo's taken of most of the senario (except the actual weighing and measuring). A few of the photo's reveal and GO AGAINST what I was told and published in my book. My reasonably valid thought is that AFTER the fish was hung, it was hosed off. I have 3 photo's that, on close examination, show the nozzle of the hose close to the hanging fish, when I was told that wasn't the case. At that time, either accidently, or on purpose, water was introduced into the fish during the "washing off" process (a gallon isn't much on a fish that size and easily accounts for most of the supposed weight loss). When the fish was weighed it was not laid down, so any water within the fish stayed there. NOTE: The entire sequence of photos from the boat, to first arriving on shore, til the last ones were taken, show a fish that went from a reasonable belly shape before hanging, to grossly bloated hanging and back to reasonable again not hanging.
guest wrote: "What 'record'? The O'Brien fish is one of probably 30 or 35 different individual state or provincial records. It's no more or less important than the South Carolina state record musky or the Idaho state record musky. Big deal - time to move on."
LR: How wrong you are guest! When one discounts the bogus and scientifically discredited records of the IGFA and NFWFHF, the O'brien fish is next in line and in fact was at one time the IGFA All-Tackle World Record and it is the Canadian record, not just a province record. It was long believed legitimate. It has now been proven not. So in one respect, we are "moving on" and wondering just what the legitimate World Record is and just how big the species can really grow. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 225
Location: Ontario, Canada | I love it! You guys get to post annonynously, drag a great organization and its dedicated President over the coals, free reign for you guys, I come on, post my real name, defend us and our President and my posts get removed. The credibility in this thread is getting pretty thin...guests.... |
|
| |
|
| horsehunter - 2/3/2012 7:10 PM
As far as I know at the time the record was determined by weight only, and the certified scale registered 65 pounds.
I fail to understand how a fish could hold 9 lbs. of water without flushing the stomach contents or how this could be done in the presence of so many bystanders.
I DON'T THINK the fish was 58 inches but I don't think that mattered at the time as far as setting the record .
A mistake could have been made in the measurement ( I don't know I wasn't there but I have known 3 of the people that were fo 20 plus years and they have never done anything to make me believe they are liars.) Just a supposition but if a tape was run over a fish rather than under you would get an exaggerated length I have seen people do this on occasion. John Cassleman says he can tell you the length of the fish from the cleithrum far more accurately than you can measure the fish.
What the record is or who holds it means little to me ( it will never be me) but I don't like peoples names being dragged through the mud 20 years after the fact when they are deceased and unable to defend theirselfs......(one dead guy said another dead guy lied )
I think this record could be beat and some of the recent fish from the Larry are contenders. Catch a bigger one and good luck getting someone to sign as a witness.
Any large group will always have its personal frictions and politics but in MY opinion
Mark Thorpe is one of the top 5 muskie fishermen and most knowledgeable conservationist in Canada.
I will not respond to anonymous posters
Frank Shelton
Tweed Ontario
"John Cassleman says he can tell you the length of the fish from the cleithrum far more accurately than you can measure the fish."
John Casselman says O'Brien's fish is the oldest muskie he has ever aged and we KNOW it was only 54". If John says you can tell the length of the fish from the cleithrum this obviously proves him wrong.
|
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | How does this prove him wrong he dosen't say what the length was ( less than 58 I would guess. I have examined the skin mount several times it is less than 58". I have caught 54 inch fish and it is a lot bigger than mine ) only that he knows from the cleithrum the length.What he did say is that the length of a fish is EXACTLY 10 times the length of the cleithrum. You wont stand behind your name but want to question the findings of a PHD in fisheries science who has worked with esocids since the 60's and worked his way through school guiding on the Larry. AT THE TIME RECORDS WERE DONE BY WEIGHT and even if mismeasured length does not mater only wether or not the weight was accurate
Edited by horsehunter 2/4/2012 11:52 AM
|
|
| |
|
| horsehunter - 2/4/2012 11:42 AM
AT THE TIME RECORDS WERE DONE BY WEIGHT and even if mismeasured length does not mater only wether or not the weight was accurate
Horsehunter, I'm guessing you did not read the WMA report but are in agreement that this fish was only 54”. If you go back and check you will see that part of the OFHA criteria is for the fish to be pictured alongside a ruler for verification purposes, this record should be removed because it does not meet the requirements. Even if Paul Gasbarino measured over the curve of the fish, there's NO WAY he could have honestly came up with 58”, with that said, everything else (including the weight) becomes suspect. If this thing really weighed 65lbs, why would it be necessary for him to lie about the length? Not only that, IF a 54” musky could weigh 65lbs, we would have seen more than this single 65lber don’t you think?
There is little doubt that MCI members are responsible for desecrating Ken O'Brien's musky, and now you're president has publicly defending these actions. What has everyone up in arms is that MCI has taken the lead in defending this thing without properly reviewing the evidence. It is understood that MCI is not a record keeper, but that didn't prevent MCI from taking a position based on friendship, not fact. It's pretty obvious acknowledging the truth is going to hurt, but without a proper review by MCI, this thing will always be hanging over the organization like a dark cloud.
I'm guessing someone will say that an anonymous coward is calling Paul Gasbarino a liar, when in fact it’s the physical evidence calling him a liar, and that is definitely not anonymous.
|
|
| |
|
| So what you're saying is John Casselman should know the length of O'Brien's fish from the cleithrum which means he should also know that the fish wasn't 58". The question then becomes why would a man with a PHD in fisheries science who has worked with esocids since the 60's and worked his way through school guiding on the Larry not support the findings of the WMA and admit that the length was falsified?
Guest 1
|
|
| |
|
| horsehunter,
Paul Gasbarino certainly knows how to properly measure a fish. If he measured over the curvature he is as guilty as if he flat out lied.
Guest 1
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32882
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | pigeontroller - 2/4/2012 10:45 AM
I love it! You guys get to post annonynously, drag a great organization and its dedicated President over the coals, free reign for you guys, I come on, post my real name, defend us and our President and my posts get removed. The credibility in this thread is getting pretty thin...guests....
Debate the matter without attacking other folks posting to this thread. The people involved in the incidents that lead to the record of this fish are part and parcel of the debate.
If they decide to speak for themselves they certainly can, and we'll see to it they will be treated fairly by all in the process. If not, it's fair to say those who have opinions on the matter will present them, and those who debate and disagree with those opinions may offer theirs.
Do so without attacking each other. If you use a name in a non logged in post on this thread, use that name consistently for all future posts. Those of you doing otherwise know who you are. |
|
| |
|
| Will do, thanks for letting us have this little debate here Steve. If MCI is willing I would like to see the membership vote on MCI doing a proper review of the WMA O'Brien report, or are they going to be shut out too. |
|
| |
|
| FACT: We know Dr. Casselman has examined the cleithrum from O'Brien's fish because he determined the age of the fish from it.
FACT: If Dr. Casselman says the cleithrum is the most accurate way of determining the length of a muskie then he certainly knows the length of O'Brien's muskie.
FACT: Dr. Crossman (Dr. Casselman's partner and mentor), was the person that gave Dr. Casselman the cleithrum from O'Brien's fish to examine. Dr. Crossman also participated in the making of the mold from the same fish that had the cleithrum. The mold / cast of O'Brien's fish was 54".
Fact: Dr. Crossman received the cleithrum from Paul Gasbarino who claimed the fish was 58".
FACT: WE KNOW Dr.Casselman wanted the records left alone because he said so at the Symposium.
Any thoughts on this guys?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32882
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Yes, he said what he said and that is that. No one drags him into this debate and that's final. I spoke with him and several other top fisheries folks at the Symposium. They would prefer the 'lore' of the muskie left alone as 'historical' for their own reasons and preferred not to be engaged in the debate.
I disagreed with the former and agreed to the latter, and we left it at that. |
|
| |
|
| I understand Steve and thanks for not removing my post. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32882
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | No worries, just keeping my promises. |
|
| |
|
| Rich Gaspari said to me.at 5.7 feet nor you or I will ever be that big!
Wahhahhahahahahahaha 5'7" more like smurf size at 5'2" !!!
Come on guys, you all wishthat it was you that caught the fish, jealousy tsktsk' |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8772
| Guest - 2/6/2012 3:57 PM
Rich Gaspari said to me.at 5.7 feet nor you or I will ever be that big!
Wahhahhahahahahahaha 5'7" more like smurf size at 5'2" !!!
Come on guys, you all wishthat it was you that caught the fish, jealousy tsktsk'
Are you kidding me? I wouldn't want that flaming bag of crap. And that's all it would be, would be a giant flaming bag of crap, unless it absolutely dwarfed all of the other historical "records", such that nobody could deny that it was indeed the largest muskie ever known to be caught. And even if that WERE possible, and even if that DID happen, you'd have to clobber it and call NASA and the Smithsonian to whisk it away to an underground bunker to be weighed, measured, aged, dated, DNA samples, scale samples... And if God himseef came down and said it was the biggest muskie ever caught? There'd still be a bunch of idiots going on and on about how it was only 54" and not even 50#, and that they caught a bigger one last year. (likely in a place not known for producing large muskies)
No thanks. It would be way more fun to let it go and just post the pictures, sans any length or girth or weight measurements. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Well...I would have loved to catch that fish...I would have kept it, measured it, weighed it, mounted it and have a nameplate made saying it was 54" long and weighed [about] 58lbs. I would hang it in my house enjoy it along with family and friends for our lifetime and beyond. One thing I wouldn't do is to try to pass it off as a 65 lb. 58" Canadian record. That's where the trouble began. It took a long time but these bogus fish are finally being called out.....because of the findings started by John Detloff with Art Lawton and continued by the WMA [WRMA]. I say good for them....it's about time we got some truth to the records...
DougP |
|
| |
|
| fins355 - 2/6/2012 4:31 PM
Well...I would have loved to catch that fish...I would have kept it, measured it, weighed it, mounted it and have a nameplate made saying it was 54" long and weighed [about] 58lbs. I would hang it in my house enjoy it along with family and friends for our lifetime and beyond. One thing I wouldn't do is to try to pass it off as a 65 lb. 58" Canadian record. That's where the trouble began. It took a long time but these bogus fish are finally being called out.....because of the findings started by John Detloff with Art Lawton and continued by the WMA [WRMA]. I say good for them....it's about time we got some truth to the records...
DougP
I was about to post something very similar. A 54", 58 lb. muskie is truly a magnificent specimen. |
|
| |
|
| LR: ... A few of the photo's reveal and GO AGAINST what I was told and published in my book. My reasonably valid thought is that AFTER the fish was hung, it was hosed off. I have 3 photo's that, on close examination, show the nozzle of the hose close to the hanging fish, when I was told that wasn't the case. ...
Just goes to show that you can't believe everything you hear. |
|
| |
|
| Also, in the photos with O'Brien holding the fish horizontally that were supposedly taken two to three hours after the fish was caught and just before the fish was placed in the freezer, notice the clarity of the fish's eyeball. One of the best indicators of the freshness of a fish is the clarity of the eyeballs as well as the color of the gills. If this fish had experienced any dehydration at all the eye would be the first place to show it.
|
|
| |
|
| Of further interest is that at 30 years of age, O'Brien's muskie IS one of the oldest, if not the oldest muskie on record. At 54" in length, this fish would also be the slowest growing 54" muskie on record.
|
|
| |
|
| I love this place!! Steve's sagely and firm editorial hand combined with top anglers and brilliant biologists. Who needs TV? don't watch it anymore.
I'd like to see the big record settled in an undisputed manner. My money is on Steamboat. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Edit...
New thread started in the "Research" area, to stay on-topic.
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread-view.asp?fid=15...
TB
Edited by tcbetka 3/22/2012 11:00 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 18
| As a past M.C.I. member know that they have nothing to do with records, but they can and should influence the Ofah to investgate the O'Brien fish. As for the southerners coming up here to fish what M.C.I. has helped to make better, most US fishermen come to northwestern Ontario where our fishery is self sustaining with the help of regulations . NOT with the help of M.C.I. they do nothing outside of southern ontario, but troll for membership fees! |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | I cannot comment on how MCI runs its business, but I would like to go on-the-record as offering my congratulations to their very own Hedrick Wachelka for being formally listed as a co-author on Sean Landsman's recent article in Fisheries Research. As I understand it, Mr. Wachelka was instrumental in the success of the study--as were donations from both MCI and Muskies Inc.
Here's the paper...
http://fishlab.nres.uiuc.edu/Documents/Landsman_et_al_Muskellunge.p...
Not to de-rail this (dead) thread or anything, but I'd say that this sort of peer-reviewed research speaks very well about those who undertook the effort to make it happen...especially Sean Landsman, who earned himself a Masters Degree with it. Congrats all! Let's see more of these original papers in the next 3-5 years.
TB |
|
| |
|
| Hedrick, is a fantastic human being and some what of living legend around here.
He was with Sean almost every single hour while they caught, tagged and tracked fish. He has done more for the fisheries in the Ottawa area than anyone could even think of accomplishing. Has been with Muskies Canada from inception and has worked thousands of ours for the club.
Great to some somebody recognize him. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 225
Location: Ontario, Canada | wabigoonie - 3/23/2012 9:20 AM
As a past M.C.I. member know that they have nothing to do with records, but they can and should influence the Ofah to investgate the O'Brien fish. As for the southerners coming up here to fish what M.C.I. has helped to make better, most US fishermen come to northwestern Ontario where our fishery is self sustaining with the help of regulations . NOT with the help of M.C.I. they do nothing outside of southern ontario, but troll for membership fees!
You are mis-informed. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1529
| who really believes musky fishermen anyhoe.
in my humble opinion canadais where the record belongs,and yes this issue thru the years has become a territorial issue. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 18
| You are mis-informed
WHATEVER |
|
| |
|
Posts: 225
Location: Ontario, Canada | Great comeback....
Edited by pigeontroller 3/24/2012 12:43 PM
|
|
| |
|
| 2007 Larry Ramsell: (Note: The previous photo of me with the frozen fish shows the head in a "bent down" position, likely overlapping the cut in the fish's throat).
Source: A Compendium of Muskie Angling History, 3rd Edition, Volume 1, P. 473.
2011 Larry Ramsell: 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!!
Source: P. 13 of the discussion of the "WMA O'Brien Summary Report" currently located in the Muskie Research Forum.
Note: The photo in the "Compendium" is the SAME photo as the one in the "Summary Report".
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | "and certainly isn’t hiding 4 inches of fish length!!"
And your problem is???...;
Edited by Larry Ramsell 4/27/2012 7:31 AM
|
|
| |
|
| What was the purpose of your 2007 statement? |
|
| |
|
| Larry Ramsell - 4/27/2012 7:28 AM
"and certainly isn’t hiding 4 inches of fish length!!"
And your problem is???...;
If you truly feel this is true why were you supporting this fish in 2007? Did the photo appear different to you then than it does now?
Also, in 2007 what was the purpose of identifying the type of measuring stick O'Brien was posing with in your latest "Compendium"?
And finally, you consider the mold a revelation and that it changed your opinion. How do you figure the cast made from the mold could possibly be anything different than the frozen fish you measured? |
|
| |
