|
|
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Modern Day Muskellunge World Record EstablishedThe International Committee of the Modern Day Muskellunge World Record Program (MDMWRP) is pleased to announce the acceptance of a recent muskellunge catch as its officail world record. The capture of a 58-pound "muskie" by Joe Seeberger of Portage, Michigan on the 13th of October, 2012 from Lake Bellaire, Michigan has set the new modern standard for the World's muskie anglers. Read More.
(Seeberger muskie 2 Lash photo (Copy).JPG)
Attachments
----------------
 Seeberger muskie 2 Lash photo (Copy).JPG (115KB - 383 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I suggest you look at the lengthy discussion on the Research board about this and other fish that didn't stand up to close scutiny, please. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | If you have a poor understanding of the facts, we cannot have any sort of intelligent discussion. Please read the lengthy discussions regarding this matter and direct your questions to Larry |
|
| |
|
Location: The Yahara Chain | The Williamson fish was never weighed on a certified scale so it can't be considered. |
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | As Bytor said, it has to be certified. The fish must meet these requirements:
http://www.modernmuskierecords.org/index.php?option=com_content&vie...
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Thanks gents.
He still needs to read the entire discussion. I've asked he do so via PM as well. Hopefully this will accurately answer his questions.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1247
Location: On the Niagara River in Buffalo, NY | I'm glad the MDMWRP finally set a mark to start at,look for a bigger muskie coming the fall of 2013. |
|
| |
|
Location: Minneapolis | Will the IGFA ever follow suit? |
|
| |
|
| What a great fish, the catch story on the web site was nothing short of amazing.
|
|
| |
|
Location: Sawyer County, WI | From the press release:
"The length of time that had passed with no fish entered in our program, indicated the real rarity of the species attaining such size. Our committee voted unanimously to slightly reduce the minimum weight requirement and begin the authentication process of the 58-pound Seeberger muskie."
muskyhunter47 - 2/2/2013 2:21 PM
i thought the fish had to be 60 pounds .This fish is a true monster but 2 pounds shy did the ruls change? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 42
Location: Ontario | Why this fish when the Barbosa fish beats that by a 1/2 pnd? |
|
| |
|
| keithtrophyfishn.com - 2/2/2013 2:48 PM
Why this fish when the Barbosa fish beats that by a 1/2 pnd?
the Barbosa fish was never weighed on certified scales and was 58x28.5
the Seeberger fish was 59x29 |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Actually guys the Barbosa fish was not a confirmed "beat". BOTH fish were OVER 58-pounds, but the closest readable scale weight graduation (by rule) was 58-pounds for both, hence the 58 "even" weight for the Seeberger fish. Both fish were weighed on certified scales, but the Barbosa fish did not meet rules requirements as it was weighed on a hand scale in the boat. Since it was released, it could not comply with additional MDMWRP rules either.
Another great fish, and kudo's to Mr. Barbosa for releasing it.
Edited by Larry Ramsell 2/2/2013 4:55 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Oh, forgot...The Seeberger muskie is "officially" 58 x 29 and 2012 Barbosa's fish was 54 3/4 x 30.5.
It was the 1994 Barbosa fish that was 58 x 28.5 and wasn't weighed. |
|
| |
|
| I would guess the 60# rule is gone based on the idea, they really don't get that big. BR |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Ben, that's right. From the release:
'After seven years with no entries, several of our committee members got together and recommended that we consider the Seeberger fish, after the fact. The length of time that had passed with no fish entered in our program, indicated the real rarity of the species attaining such size.'
I voted yes. I believe I was correct to do so considering the fact that none had hit 60# in 7 years, and this one was really a special fish. I hope one does break 60# some day. |
|
| |
|
| Not trying to be a smartace, honestly wondering if you think any of Hsmernick's.fish recently would have pushed this mark. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | rulesdummy: There is no way we'll ever know...they weren't weighed. They were dandy big fish to be sure, but judging weight by formula just doesn't work, so, once again:
'If you want to say it, you have to weigh it" or "If you don't weigh it, you shouldn't say it". |
|
| |
|
Posts: 556
| I like it--glad there is now a mark for others to shoot for--AND maybe a better understanding of what it takes to prove the weight of the fish. I am sure others may have been larger-- either unofficially weighed or many that were just released---but there is a 58lber on the books that is LEGIT !!!! A --60 will definately come someday. |
|
| |
|
| Congrats to the committee it is good to have a bar to target and set rules.
Michigan once again has the world record. If Wisconsin does not like it, they can go out and cacth a 60 pounder and measure it according to the rules. I think we will see this fall next couple years as now people have a recognized target in the muskie community.
|
|
| |
|
Location: Sawyer County, WI | It is indeed a good thing to see a world record that can be believed. The "records" that came from my neck of the woods are clearly fairy tales.
I can't speak for all of "Wisconsin", but I don't give a rat's @$$ where the world record is caught. I highly doubt it will be in Wisconsin, and all the better. The last thing I'd want to see is the lakes I fish turn into the zoo that LSC and the other "hot bite" spots have turned into.
Enjoy your 15 minutes Michigan. It's only a matter of time before some Canadian walleye fisherman breaks the "record".
Todd Booth - 2/3/2013 12:34 PM
Congrats to the committee it is good to have a bar to target and set rules.
Michigan once again has the world record. If Wisconsin does not like it, they can go out and cacth a 60 pounder and measure it according to the rules. I think we will see this fall next couple years as now people have a recognized target in the muskie community.
Edited by dfkiii 2/3/2013 12:56 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Chain Gang - 2/3/2013 11:46 AM
So just because it hasn't happened in seven years means it can't? What Pete rose did at the plate was astonishing but by the looks if this ruling it will be forgotten and untrue because it hasnt happened in seven years.... Get real
I think that's the point for the modern record, its 100% real! I don't really see why anyone is puttin up a stink over reducing the requirement by 2 lbs. It's not like they asked someone to kill a musky,and anyone who keeps one that size was likely already predisposed do do so anyway. Is 60 lbs attainable? I think so,and that seems to be the million dollar question being asked lately. Pete Rose? I think a better comparison is that cheat Lance Armstrong. Now they are asking us to to forget those records the same as we should be forgetting Spray,Johnson,O'Brien,and all the those other BS records. I think a fish like Williamsons gives us hope for a real 60 and I like the fact that if and when it happens we have these guys to make sure it's the real McCoy this time. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1901
Location: MN | Or Rich Clarke |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Please watch the tone here everyone, I'd prefer to keep this one out of the Recycle Bin. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 12
| sprays fish will always be the record to me. unless someone catches one bigger than 69lb 11ounces. which is unlikely. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2373
Location: Chisholm, MN | I hope this will truly become the standard and is recognized by the entire musky community at least. I think that this record can be broken easily now if someone decides to keep the big musky that they were so fortunate to have caught.
Maybe I shouldn't "easily broken" but definitely do-able.
Edited by Kirby Budrow 2/3/2013 8:23 PM
|
|
| |
|
| There has never been a 60lb to date, plenty mid-50lb fish, but never a 60. It will be interesting to see how long it stands. BR |
|
| |
|
Location: The Yahara Chain | The Williamson fish appears to be a legit 61 pounder , they just didn't get it weighed on a certified scale.
Speculation on my part is that he didn't take the time to find a certified scale because he thought he was 4 pounds short of the now proven to be bogus Canadian record.
Thinking that every musky angler in Wisconsin cares where the record came from is ridicules. Most of us don't care.
A record fish could come out of Green Bay. |
|
| |
|
| Doesn't matter, this is the record! BEAT IT! |
|
| |
|
| Kirby Budrow - 2/3/2013 8:21 PM
I hope this will truly become the standard and is recognized by the entire musky community at least. I think that this record can be broken easily now if someone decides to keep the big musky that they were so fortunate to have caught.
Maybe I shouldn't "easily broken" but definitely do-able.
x2 I think it already is and Larry said it best in the catch story with a record we can rally around, this is as true as it gets. thanks to all who made it possible. |
|
| |
|
| That is the best thing i have ever heard. Lots of people claiming weight when they have no right. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 285
Location: NE Wisconsin | First off, I must admit, I have not read all the official documents of this fish, but I think I am not alone. IMO I find it a little odd, the OFFICIAL length is EXACTLY 58" and the OFFICIAL weight is EXACTLY 58#. Not 58.1" or 58.3" or 58# 3oz or 57# 14oz, etc. What are the odds this fish's length is exactly 58" and exactly 58#!! Not saying this isn't a great fish, but when OFFICIAL measurements come out exactly at full inches and full pounds, it leaves a little doubt in the back of my mind. I am not a statistician, but I would like to now the odds of this happening.
John Aschenbrenner |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Johnnie: Apparently you haven't read all of this thread either, as I explained the "even weight" of 58-pounds on the first page. The fish DID weigh a bit OVER 58-pounds on the original certified scale, BUT the scale needle did not go to the next readable weight graduation on the scale and "intrepolation" isn't allowed by rules, so it became the even weight.
As for the length, I personally measured the thawed fish last tuesday. If you choose not to accept my personal measurement, that is your choice, but it was what it was.
Edited by Larry Ramsell 2/4/2013 8:10 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 572
| "measured the thawed fish last tuesday"
You mean the fish has been frozen since it was caught? Just curious of the story behind where and what has been happening to the fish after it was caught. Who owns the fish and controls what happens to it? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Muskie Bob:
Yes, it was frozen after initial weighing and then taken to taxidermist Jeff Lutz of "Lasting Memories" in Charlevoix, Michigan, where it was wrapped and frozen. 54 days after the catch, Will Schultz, one of the MDMWRP Committee members, went to Charlevoix and re-weighed the frozen fish on a certified scale. Then the fish was recently shipped frozen to John Metz of "Lake Country Replica's" in Hawick, Minnesota (Mr. Lutz does not do replica's). Lake Country will/has made a form from the fish and then re-freeze the fish and return it to Mr. Lutz for mounting. Joe Seeberger, the angler that caught it, owns and controls the fish.
Edited by Larry Ramsell 2/4/2013 11:21 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 910
Location: South-Central VA | I'm just happy that we have a baseline to go from now. After reading all of the 'discussions' over the last few years and reading through tons of info on the situation, I was pretty sure the only way forward was to erase the past records and start over. You can't please all of the people, but I think this was the only option given the circumstances.
jeremy
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 568
| Where does this leave a former # 8 or 9 fish on the top ten list ... was pictured off our dock on the Manitou ? Gene Borucki ( Sp ??) 56.4 pounds . |
|
| |
|
Posts: 568
| IF my memory serves my right it was frozen before officially being weighted.... I've caught a dozen or so that size but thought I was aiming for 68-70 pounds . now I know . MD |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Manitou Dan:
Gene Borucki's fish will remain in the historical listing but obviously will drop down a notch in future listings. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 456
Location: Kansas City BBQ Capitol of the world | Input was in Inches with a specified length of 58 and girth of 29
Standard weight calculation:
60.97lbs or 27.66kg
Wilkinson's weight calculation:
57.86lbs or 26.24kg
Crawford's weight calculation:
57.28lbs or 25.98kg
Casselman and Crossman calculation:
60.21lbs or 27.31kg
Doug Hannon's weight calculation:
69.68lbs or 31.61kg
Looks like Wilkinson's formula was the closest and a little lean, which is good. It will be interesting for me to see when the new biggies get weighed in if Wilkinson's formula is still the closest to the actual weight of the fish.
Ron |
|
| |
|
Posts: 456
Location: Kansas City BBQ Capitol of the world | Just out of curiosity I plugged in Dale McNair's 57X33 and under the Wilkerson formula it came up 74.10lbs.
If that formula is that close I'm thinking, like some of you that this Fall the new Modern day record of the current 58# might be broken. Still kind of sucks you have to kill the fish though.
Ron |
|
| |
|
Posts: 164
| Was the fish reweighed after being frozen to see how much weight it lost? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'Muskie Bob:
Yes, it was frozen after initial weighing and then taken to taxidermist Jeff Lutz of "Lasting Memories" in Charlevoix, Michigan, where it was wrapped and frozen. 54 days after the catch, Will Schultz, one of the MDMWRP Committee members, went to Charlevoix and re-weighed the frozen fish on a certified scale. Then the fish was recently shipped frozen to John Metz of "Lake Country Replica's" in Hawick, Minnesota (Mr. Lutz does not do replica's). Lake Country will/has made a form from the fish and then re-freeze the fish and return it to Mr. Lutz for mounting. Joe Seeberger, the angler that caught it, owns and controls the fish.'
From a couple posts above. Interesting the fish did not lose any weight, considering claims from the past. |
|
| |
|
| rjhyland - 2/4/2013 6:32 PM
Just out of curiosity I plugged in Dale McNair's 57X33 and under the Wilkerson formula it came up 74.10lbs.
If that formula is that close I'm thinking, like some of you that this Fall the new Modern day record of the current 58# might be broken. Still kind of sucks you have to kill the fish though.
Ron
Agree but nobody is making anyone kill the fish, they can just let them go. I also think anyone who keeps one that size was predisposed anyway like Seeberger. The cool part is we can start to put those fakearoos behind us and start a new beginning with something we can almost all agree on as a starting point. I liked the comparison of our situation to wiping the books clean of that cheat Lance Armstrong and I'm glad we have these guys making sure it's legit. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 518
Location: Cave Run Lake KY. | muskyschlott - 2/3/2013 8:50 PM
Sprays fish will always be the record to me. unless someone catches one bigger than 69lb 11ounces. which is unlikely. Louie Spray's fish is the true world record and if not Spray's fish what about Robert Malo's 70#er caught in 1954 or Cal Johnson's 67-8 1949 -Ken O'Brien's 65# 1988 - Spray's 61-13 1940 - Edward Waldon's 61-9 , 1940 - , John Colman 60-8 in1939 - Art Barefoot 59-11 in 1989 Louie Spray again in 1939 a 59-8, and Rubin Green's 58-8 # in 1945 , your saying all these fish that are all over 58# -- All listed in Larry Ramsell's Second Edition are all false. I don't think so if so, then Mr Ramsell should reimburse everyone that bought his book . |
|
| |
|
Posts: 415
| ChinWhiskers - 2/5/2013 12:06 AM
muskyschlott - 2/3/2013 8:50 PM
Sprays fish will always be the record to me. unless someone catches one bigger than 69lb 11ounces. which is unlikely. Louie Spray's fish is the true world record and if not Spray's fish what about Robert Malo's 70#er caught in 1954 or Cal Johnson's 67-8
Now if you want to debate some others legitimacy that's fine, but if one can't see how obvious of a farce Spray and Johnson's fish are then there's no point in trying to debate with you. Your mind is clearly made up and no amount of fact or reason will probably change that.
Edited by Ja Rule 2/5/2013 6:14 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 568
| I thought Art Barefoot's giant was well documented and weighted ? is it's only fault not being modern ? ( dang I'm getting old) |
|
| |
|
Posts: 5874
| sworrall - 2/4/2013 7:32 PM '' From a couple posts above. Interesting the fish did not lose any weight, considering claims from the past. I don't see that the fish didn't lose or gain any weight from the posts above. All I read is that it was weighed, frozen, weighed, thawed and weighed, and then frozen again? Hard to believe that not an oz gained or lost through that process? And on different scales to boot. What am I missing? But no matter. I've been saying for years they should jettison the record book and start new. That is now done. And I fully expect 58# to be broken in the next year or two. Probably from out east, possibly from the Great Lakes, maybe from one of the Canadian lakes. As for reimbursing for sold books? Never bought it, or read it, so you're even with me Larry!
Edited by Shep 2/5/2013 10:33 AM
|
|
| |
|
| Agree that some don't want to see how obvious of a farce Spray and Johnson's fish are, same with O'Brien even though it was at least big to start with. When I look at pictures of O'Brien, it's obvious to me that it's just a low 50" class fish without all the research. I'd guess Barefoot and some of these other giants like Williamson are just "farce casualties". Why would they bother getting their fish certified when they are not even in contention in the record books? I doubt that Seeberger weighed the same on all 3 scales, but I also think rechecking the weight and checking the stomach contents should be an important part of the modern day process too. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | To clarify a point in the last guest post...The Seeberger fish was weighed on just two scales...the original certified scale (Official weight, scales certified and re-checked accurate) and the MDMWRP certified scale, twice. Once frozen after 54 days in the freezer and again after a total of 108 days in a freezer, but after thawed. |
|
| |
|
| Johnnie - 2/4/2013 7:53 AM
First off, I must admit, I have not read all the official documents of this fish, but I think I am not alone. IMO I find it a little odd, the OFFICIAL length is EXACTLY 58" and the OFFICIAL weight is EXACTLY 58#. Not 58.1" or 58.3" or 58# 3oz or 57# 14oz, etc. What are the odds this fish's length is exactly 58" and exactly 58#!! Not saying this isn't a great fish, but when OFFICIAL measurements come out exactly at full inches and full pounds, it leaves a little doubt in the back of my mind. I am not a statistician, but I would like to now the odds of this happening.
John Aschenbrenner I am with you on this one John. Sounds a bit strange to me to accept measurments and weights that arent the actual measurements and weights for whatever reason. Lowering the standard so this fish fits into the record book also seems a bit strange. Re weighing and measuring a frozen fish one or two weeks ago to verify previous weights and measurements also seems a bit odd. Just my opinion is all but that sure is a strange way to start off a new modern day record to me. How about starting off with real weights a measurement instead of those you had to adjust. That doesnt sound modern at all.
Edited by 4amuskie 2/5/2013 2:13 PM
|
|
| |
|
| 4amuskie - 2/5/2013 2:12 PM
Johnnie - 2/4/2013 7:53 AM
First off, I must admit, I have not read all the official documents of this fish, but I think I am not alone. IMO I find it a little odd, the OFFICIAL length is EXACTLY 58" and the OFFICIAL weight is EXACTLY 58#. Not 58.1" or 58.3" or 58# 3oz or 57# 14oz, etc. What are the odds this fish's length is exactly 58" and exactly 58#!! Not saying this isn't a great fish, but when OFFICIAL measurements come out exactly at full inches and full pounds, it leaves a little doubt in the back of my mind. I am not a statistician, but I would like to now the odds of this happening.
John Aschenbrenner I am with you on this one John. Sounds a bit strange to me to accept measurments and weights that arent the actual measurements and weights for whatever reason. Lowering the standard so this fish fits into the record book also seems a bit strange. Re weighing and measuring a frozen fish one or two weeks ago to verify previous weights and measurements also seems a bit odd. Just my opinion is all but that sure is a strange way to start off a new modern day record to me. How about starting off with real weights a measurement instead of those you had to adjust. That doesnt sound modern at all.
Really? Seems obvious that they just confirmed the weight, how else would you confirm it unless you reweighed it and check the stomach at the same time? Lowering it 2 lbs after 7 years seems reasonable to me too.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Before commenting, folks probably should actually read the release, the rules regarding entry of a fish, and how the process of confirming this fish was accomplished. Perhaps then none of this will seem 'odd'. In fact, just reading all of the posts here will assist most in grasping the facts. I believe it would be an extraordinary excellent idea to do both before commenting. |
|
| |
|
| I did read them. Doesnt make acceptance of weights and measurements that arent true weights and measurements acceptable to me. It might fit the rules of whoever formed the MDMWR but I am sure that Louie Sprays and Cal Johnsons rules also made those fish world record to them.
How about some real weights and measurements?
The MDWMR acceptance of anything but actual weights and measurements takes the word "record" out of the books for me.
Any acceptance other than the fact surely opens the door to political manuveuring.
The above is only my opinion and is not meant to reflect negatively or positively on anyone or any organization. I offer it only for digestive input. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 82
| ManitouDan - 2/5/2013 9:55 AM
I thought Art Barefoot's giant was well documented and weighted ? is it's only fault not being modern ? ( dang I'm getting old) This is a great point, how can a 14 pound test world record be bigger then your all tackle record. It's not like this is an old record that there are very few people alive to witness it. In fact its newer then the Obrian fish. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1901
Location: MN | 4amuskie, I think you are missing the point that Larry or whoever made earlier. They didn't "adjust' the weight. The scale that was used, the weight of the fish was above 58# but below the next gradation on the scale. What ever the scale's marks were, whether ounces or 1/4 pound marks or 1/2 pb marks or whatever, it was in between, and at that point you can't just "guess" what you think it should be. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Precisely, and it was stated clearly right here, posted in context as posted earlier comparing another fish that did NOT meet the rules requirements as it was released:
'Actually guys the Barbosa fish was not a confirmed "beat". BOTH fish were OVER 58-pounds, but the closest readable scale weight graduation (by rule) was 58-pounds for both, hence the 58 "even" weight for the Seeberger fish. Both fish were weighed on certified scales, but the Barbosa fish did not meet rules requirements as it was weighed on a hand scale in the boat. Since it was released, it could not comply with additional MDMWRP rules either. '
Paragraph number three under Scale, Weighing and Witness Requirements in the rules clarifies.
http://www.modernmuskierecords.org/index.php?option=com_content&vie... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 82
| So did Bearfoots fish not meet any of this criteria? How can a 14 LB test IFGA record be bigger than your guys? Am I missing something? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Relax Mr. Crooms, Larry will answer your question when he checks the thread again. Patience. |
|
| |
|
| Propster - 2/5/2013 4:33 PM
4amuskie, I think you are missing the point that Larry or whoever made earlier. They didn't "adjust' the weight. The scale that was used, the weight of the fish was above 58# but below the next gradation on the scale. What ever the scale's marks were, whether ounces or 1/4 pound marks or 1/2 pb marks or whatever, it was in between, and at that point you can't just "guess" what you think it should be. You might be right and I have re read this many times but I do not see where the weight was reduced from. Please inform me. Was it 58.1, 58.2? What were the length calculations reduced from. Thank you.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 456
Location: Kansas City BBQ Capitol of the world | I know that this is for a new benchmark in the modern area and in reading the rules and the procedures set forth I can accept the 58#er as the new benchmark and a good place to start. I think the committee did a good job, was well planned out and long over due.
I do have a question though. Do the same rules apply to State record fish? MDMWRP clearly states Word Record and if this is the criteria, will State biologists be informed of this new information on a State level? I know some good anglers looking for that "ONE" and I would hate to see it be in vain because of a rule that wasn't known or allowed.
Thanks,
Ron
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | The weight wasn't 'reduced' from any discernible mark. The 'next readable mark' above 58 pounds on the certified scale on which the angler weighed the fish was above the actual mark. The closest readable mark was 58 pounds. Therefore, the official weight is 58 pounds as per the rules.
From a post earlier by Larry:
'As for the length, I personally measured the thawed fish last Tuesday. ' |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | DLC wrote: "So did Bearfoots fish not meet any of this criteria? How can a 14 LB test IFGA record be bigger than your guys? Am I missing something?"
Mr. Crooms: The Barefoot muskie was not and could not be subjected to MDMWRP criteria. It was caught before our program began and therefore would not be able to comply with all of our rules for certification.
rjhyland & 4amusky: States have their own records criteria for setting state records. We have suggested that the angler confer with the state of Michigan regarding the length variable from the initial length measurement of 59-inches.
Edited by Larry Ramsell 2/5/2013 11:15 PM
|
|
| |
|
| What year was the Barefoot fish?
Who weighed it?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 332
Location: Michigan | Guest - 2/6/2013 11:57 AM
What year was the Barefoot fish?
Who weighed it?
Pretty sure it was 1989. Weighed at Lamouix meats in Alban. |
|
| |
|
| Slimeball - 2/6/2013 11:07 AM
Guest - 2/6/2013 11:57 AM
What year was the Barefoot fish?
Who weighed it?
Pretty sure it was 1989. Weighed at Lamouix meats in Alban.
What's the story on it? That seems pretty recent to me.
Sorry if this is a dumb question. Looked for it in the research section but the "search" function doesn't work for me, and I didn't see it in any of the thread titles. |
|
| |
|
| "The weight wasn't 'reduced' from any discernible mark. The 'next readable mark' above 58 pounds on the certified scale on which the angler weighed the fish was above the actual mark. The closest readable mark was 58 pounds. Therefore, the official weight is 58 pounds as per the rules."
The point is the scale indicator was slightly above the 58 lb. mark.
If another entry is submitted at 58 lbs. 1 oz it will top Seebergers fish even though Seebergers fish may have weighed 58 lbs. 2 oz.
A "modern day" record program" should require the use of a "modern day" scale.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 415
| Guest - 2/6/2013 11:55 AM
"The weight wasn't 'reduced' from any discernible mark. The 'next readable mark' above 58 pounds on the certified scale on which the angler weighed the fish was above the actual mark. The closest readable mark was 58 pounds. Therefore, the official weight is 58 pounds as per the rules."
The point is the scale indicator was slightly above the 58 lb. mark.
If another entry is submitted at 58 lbs. 1 oz it will top Seebergers fish even though Seebergers fish may have weighed 58 lbs. 2 oz.
A "modern day" record program" should require the use of a "modern day" scale.
To me this is just nitpicking. There's obviously people out there for whatever reason (still convinced Spray's was real, they have a beef with someone on the panel, etc) that just won't/can't accept any amount of logic or fact. Reading through this debate makes me think of squabbles between Democrats and Republicans. Both sides are so firmly entrenched in their believes debating it only makes them more firmly dug into their position, no matter what new information may come to light. I have no dog in this fight. I don't personally know a single person on the MDMWRP, or anyone who has caught or even seen any of these fish in question. All things considered I feel like the program has done a decent job. Whether you still believe in the old "traditional" records or not, something had to be done about the "records" in musky fishing. We will never know the 100% truth behind the old records, so I feel what the MDMWRP is trying to do is the best possible solution. No it won't please everyone, but absolutely nothing they could do would!
Edited by Ja Rule 2/6/2013 12:15 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 572
| "If another entry is submitted at 58 lbs. 1 oz it will top Seebergers fish even though Seebergers fish may have weighed 58 lbs. 2 oz. "
Guest, you will have to read the rules and regulations...........
"A record weight must be bested by at least 4 ounces to establish a new record." |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | Yeesh. Glad I don't worry about records.
I do find it odd that the rules indicate needing at least a 3' section of nylon or nylon coated leader if using wire line for the health of the fish when the fish needs to be bonked in order to qualify for a record.
I also do not see where it states a fish from the past must be within the timeframe of when the MDMWRP was formed in order to qualify, but there was a lot of info so I could have missed it.
I am not huge on worrying about records, but having multiple record criteria for a fish seems odd as well. I would think there should be a consistent set of rules for IGFA, state, and MDMWRP. By not we are just making ourselves (musky community) that much more elite by saying "We don't agree with your rules and therefore will just create our own."
Records are good though as it gives us something to discuss. 
Edited by CiscoKid 2/6/2013 12:51 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Cisco Kid (Travis) wrote: "I also do not see where it states a fish from the past must be within the timeframe of when the MDMWRP was formed in order to qualify, but there was a lot of info so I could have missed it."
Travis, one of our rules requires that an MDMWRP Representative be present when the fish is cut open (and re-weigh it at that time as well to assure original weight). This is to assure that there has been no artifical weight added to the fish internally. Simple and "almost" foolproof. And therefore impossible for historical fish.
Also Travis, here is our reason for coated leaders: The “intent” of this rule is to prevent any external damage to muskellunge captured while using wire line, should the fish roll on the lure or bait while being played by the angler.
Basically, we are trying to discourage the use of wire leaders for all trolling.
Guest wrote: "A "modern day" record program" should require the use of a "modern day" scale."
It does and we do! See our rules...
Scale, Weighing and Witness Requirements:
1) The fish must be weighed on a digital or balance beam scale legal for trade and certified for accuracy within the previous twelve months. Spring type scales are not allowed. Scale certification details must be included on the application. The weighing should be done by the owner of the scale, who is familiar with its operation. If a scale has not been certified within the previous twelve months, it must immediately be re-certified. Any scale deviation found at that time must be applied to the “official” weight of the fish taken at the time of the original weighing. A full written, signed and notarized explanation of this process must be included with the application. Photographs of the entire process would be helpful. A photograph of the scale is required and must be submitted with the application.
It is strongly recommended that even if a scale has been certified in the previous twelve months, a re-certification be made after the official weighing by an appropriate agency. This can only help speed the application acceptance process, and if done, full documentation must be included with the application.
THE COMMITTEE RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REQUEST THAT ANY SCALE BE RE-CERTIFIED FOR ACCURACY AND, BASED ON THE RE-CERTIFICATION RESULTS, RESERVES THE RIGHT TO ADJUST WEIGHT ACCORDINGLY . FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS REQUEST SHALL BE GROUNDS FOR THE COMMITTEE TO REJECT THE APPLICATION.
IT IS STRONGLY RECOMMENDED THAT A FISH BE WEIGHED “ONLY ONCE” ON A CERTIFIED SCALE. ADDITIONAL WEIGHINGS ONLY TEND TO CONFUSE THE ISSUE, HOWEVER, IF MORE THAN ONE CERTIFIED SCALE IS USED, “ONLY” THE SCALE WEIGHING THE “LESSER AMOUNT,” IF ANY, WILL BE ACCEPTED AND CONSIDERED!
3) No weight “estimation” or scale “interpolation,” also known as “visual fractionalizing,” shall be permitted. If a scale is used that shows only pound or half-pound (or kilogram) increments and the weight indicator falls between two of these graduations, THE LOWER OF THE TWO GRADUATIONS SHALL BE THE ONE USED FOR OFFICIAL WEIGHT DETERMINATION. There shall be no exceptions to this rule. A photograph showing the fish on the scale and another photograph showing the actual scale reading is required and must be submitted for scales having less than one-ounce graduation with the application and is recommended with all scales.
Edited by Larry Ramsell 2/6/2013 1:14 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 568
| So the problem with the Barefoot fish was that a member of the committee was not around when it was cut open... ? If thats so then it makes it pretty easy to throw out all fish before 2010 or 2011 .. Im not complaining about that .. just curious if ALL previous big fish were basically written off because obviuosly a member of a committee not yet formed could be there . |
|
| |
|
Location: SE Wisconsin | Makes sense to me.. otherwise all were left with is a record that is up to speculation because rules and guidelines hadn't been established by a licensed organization yet. |
|
| |
|
| ManitouDan - 2/6/2013 2:09 PM
So the problem with the Barefoot fish was that a member of the committee was not around when it was cut open... ? If thats so then it makes it pretty easy to throw out all fish before 2010 or 2011 .. Im not complaining about that .. just curious if ALL previous big fish were basically written off because obviuosly a member of a committee not yet formed could be there .
100% correct Dan!
Regarding Barefoot, it wouldn't matter if it was weighed on 10 certified scales because the stomach contents were not checked. Same reason that a released fish will never be eligible is because the stomach contents and weight cannot be checked by a committee member.
Regarding these other weight questions; I'll try to help explain this as thoroughly as possible because after reading through the rules and other information provided it still has to be slightly complicated for those who are only curious and skimming. I am not a spokesman for them, so take it for what it's worth (and I'm sure Larry will correct me if I'm wrong) but it appears that there are two separate blurry weight questions.
#1 The Seeberger fish was weighed on a certified scale the day it was caught at slightly more than 58 pounds but because the scale did not read in ounces the “slightly more” cannot be guessed at or otherwise interpreted and was willingly forfeited by Seeberger. Certainly there is nothing suspicious about this and hopefully everyone understands the modern-day records program had not even entered the picture yet when this weight was established. And yes, According to the rules Seeberger would lose the record if somebody registered a 58-4 even though his fish *may* have weighed that much.
#2 From the press release, "after the fact"; a couple of the modern-day committee members recommend that the then pending Seeberger state record be considered even though it was 2 pounds short. The fish was only reweighed to confirm, it was not adjusted by Larry or the modern-day records committee. Obviously everything checked out 100% and now we have a record with nothing left to chance, and we didn't have to *take somebody's word for it* this time around.
Thanks Larry! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Lots of "guests" here:"Show me a modern digital or balance beam scale legal for trade and certified for accuracy within the previous twelve months that shows only pound or half-pound increments?"
Scale graduations are usually based on the weighing capacity of the scale. The scale in question had 1/4-pound weight graduations.
Next guest: "Being that's the case is another entry at 58 lbs. 3 oz. considered a tie?"
Yes, a tie. 58-4 to set a new record.
And I almost forgot Manitou Dan: "So the problem with the Barefoot fish was that a member of the committee was not around when it was cut open... ? If thats so then it makes it pretty easy to throw out all fish before 2010 or 2011 .. Im not complaining about that .. just curious if ALL previous big fish were basically written off because obviuosly a member of a committee not yet formed could be there."
Dan, that is but one of several reasons why the Barefoot fish and many other from the past cannot be considered. In some cases, there is scant evidence remaining and many of the rest have been proven to be less than claimed. When we developed our rules, we attempted to cover all bases, however nothing is ever perfect But we, our esteemed Committee (check our our web site if you haven't yet seen whom they are: www.modernmuskierecords.org), have done everything humanly possible to assure that our records will be credible. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 717
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | Guest - 2/6/2013 12:55 PM
A "modern day" record program" should require the use of a "modern day" scale.
So, it's a good thing that the actual scale used was bought and calibrated less than a week before Will Schultz went to weigh the fish, eh?
Guest - 2/6/2013 5:33 PM
If a scale is used that shows only pound or half-pound (or kilogram) increments and the weight indicator falls between two of these graduations, THE LOWER OF THE TWO GRADUATIONS SHALL BE THE ONE USED FOR OFFICIAL WEIGHT DETERMINATION.
Show me a modern digital or balance beam scale legal for trade and certified for accuracy within the previous twelve months that shows only pound or half-pound increments?
The ONLY type of scales that show pound or half-pound increments are spring type scales.
It says "IF" the scale only goes to 1/2 lb increments. The brand new digital scale that was purchased was more accurate than just 1/2 lbs.
Larry, can I just post the link to the scale that we purchased so the questions about the scale stop?  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 717
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | I believe these are the specs of the scale that was purchased and used:
88 lb x 0.02 lb
40 kg x 20 g
Accuracy: Better than 0.2% of full scale
Tare: 10% of rated capacity
Safe Overload: 200% of rated capacity
Ultimate Overload: 500% of rated capacity (SGS)
Display: 128 x 64 LCD dot matrix
Display Rate: 10Hz
Resolution: 2000:1
Data Sampling Rate: 25Hz
Power: 4.5V (with three 1.5V “AA” batteries)
Key Pad: Membrane-style (On/Off, Hold/Units, Tare/Zero
Conformance and Compliance:
CE Safety (BS EN 61010-1:2001)
CE Generic Immunity (BS EN 61000-6-1:2007)
CE Generic Emissions (BS EN 61000-6-3:2007)
Operating Temperature: 32o to 104oF (0o to 40oC)
Storage Temperature -4o to 104oF (-20o to 40oC)
RoHS Compliant: Yes
WEEE Compliant: Yes
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Jim: It is not that scale that the Michigan Muskie Alliance Chapter of Muskies, Inc. purchased that is being discussed, it is the original scale the fish was first weighed on. The scale you purchased for the MDMWRP (Thank you! by the way again), is a digital scale that reads in one-hundredths of a pound. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Larry,
The multiple 'guests' were actually one person with the exception of the less than accurate statement about the scales, and obviously this person is not someone either willing to learn about the process or accept any explanation of the facts.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 568
| been a good discussion and certainly sets the bar .. just kinda sad to throw out all previous big catches ... I understand why , just dont like that it had to be done . On the surface it seems heavy handed , but with several of these big catch's there are legit questions . Larry , you did list " several reasons" on AB's fish .. what were the other reasons .. seems like that fish was very well documented and weighted down to the ounce. thanks MD |
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | ManitouDan
Please read the rules and regulations for submission and your question about "several reasons" will be answered. www.modernmuskierecords.org
Previous fish aren't being "thrown out", they simply can't qualify as the MDMWRP record. If that's not clear go back to the above sentence.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1145
| Larry Ramsell - 2/6/2013 5:51 PM
The scale you purchased for the MDMWRP (Thank you! by the way again), is a digital scale that reads in one-hundredths of a pound.
It's great that we have a legit record that we can all believe in without question. So don't get me wrong, but if we're talking about records here, I'd think it would be important to weigh the fish on a scale that reads to the nearest hundredth or the very least, tenth of a pound.
So my understanding is the weight on the original scale did not meet the next graduation but days later when Will went to weight the fish, that scale did in fact read to the hundredth. However, at this point he was only verifying the weight, so despite the fact he had a more accurate reading, that could not be used as the 'official' weight?
Obviously this is the first entry, but once a few more are caught, the difference of fish this caliber may be less than a pound or two. In this case, every ounce is critical at least when we're talking about records.
Edited by MartinTD 2/7/2013 12:46 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 568
| Thrown out vs " cant qualify " sounds like semantics to me . And I'll pass on reading the lawyer talk . I dont fish for records .. I already know If I catch one above 50 pounds I'm bonking it . MD
Edited by ManitouDan 2/7/2013 12:55 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | MartinTD - At the time the angler weighed the fish there wasn't a concern about accuracy down to the tenth of pound or even ounces. The best scale available was used and that scale reads in 1/4 pound increments. Finding a certified scale capable of weighing a 58" 58# fish isn't as easy as some would think. Most fish of this size are going to end up on meat or grain scales that are capable of weighing 250+ pounds and few of those are digital scales and many read in 1/4 or 1/2 pound increments.
The MDMWRP weight is only to verify the weight on the application is legitimate and not to be used as the actual weight of the fish. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | MartinTD: I understand what you are saying, but have you ever tried to find a certified scale period, let alone one that reads in one-hundredths of a pound? There are very few out there commercially, in areas where these size fish may be caught. I tried to put together a list of places anglers could go to get a record class fish weighed, but didn't get very far. There is always the Post Office...if they are open and "if" they would weigh a large, slimy fish! Same with a grocery, but most of them use only smaller weight capable scales.
As for when Will did his check, it was 54 days after the catch; the fish had been wrapped in plastic by the taxidermist before he put it in the freezer and it was not/could not be removed without damaging the skin/scales of the fish. Our primary goal at that point was to see if the weight was still close to claim and doucument for future use, weight loss if any, for whatever reason. There appeared not to be, as with the "unknown" ounces over 58-pounds, along with the plastic wrap, the weight was in excess of 58-pounds. So no, this weight could not be used as the official weight.
Edited by Larry Ramsell 2/7/2013 1:07 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | ManitouDan - 2/7/2013 1:54 PM Thrown out vs " cant qualify " sounds like semantics to me . And I'll pass on reading the lawyer talk . I dont fish for records .. I already know If I catch one above 50 pounds I'm bonking it . MD No not semantics at all, "thrown out" would mean that they were actually "in" at some point. However, we know that couldn't be the case since these fish can't meet the requirements of the MDMWRP. The regulations of submission are a good read and not lawyer talk. it's good info to review for anyone that could ever catch a fish to top this one, better to know ahead of time what one will face than to find out too late. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8824
| The whole idea of a "Modern Day Record" to me implies that you have to start somewhere. Since 7 years passed with nobody beating the original benckmark, I'd say this is a perfectly good place to start.
Not sure what there is to argue about anymore. It's done. It's in the books. Go forth and fish. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 566
Location: Elgin, IL | Bingo. Now give that man another Suick. |
|
| |
|
| Manitou Dan, which is it?
From page 2...“I've caught a dozen or so that size but thought I was aiming for 68-70 pounds . now I know . MD”
From page 3...“I dont fish for records .. I already know If I catch one above 50 pounds I'm bonking it . MD” |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1767
Location: Lake Country, Wisconsin | Karl - 2/7/2013 2:23 PM
Manitou Dan, which is it?
From page 2...“I've caught a dozen or so that size but thought I was aiming for 68-70 pounds . now I know . MD”
From page 3...“I dont fish for records .. I already know If I catch one above 50 pounds I'm bonking it . MD”
I'm thinking ya missed the sarcasm there bud |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1145
| Larry Ramsell - 2/7/2013 1:03 PM
MartinTD: I understand what you are saying, but have you ever tried to find a certified scale period, let alone one that reads in one-hundredths of a pound? There are very few out there commercially, in areas where these size fish may be caught.
Never tried to find one I guess. We have digital scale where I work that I believe reads to the hundredth, definitely to the tenth at least and a max. of 500#. We also have an outside contractor come in and certify all of our scales every year. But then again they are probably few and far between; and it was probably very expensive. Not worried about anyone catching a record around me though...
...along with the plastic wrap, the weight was in excess of 58-pounds. So no, this weight could not be used as the official weight.
Got it. I think it will be broken relatively soon but remember...
If you want to top it, you've got to bop it! Lol
Edited by MartinTD 2/7/2013 3:29 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | MartinTD - 2/7/2013 4:26 PM
If you want to top it, you've got to bop it!
I like that and I might even steal it |
|
| |
|
Location: Grinnell, Iowa | From someone who deals with metrology and gage calibration for a living, I can tell you that the word "certified" is term that is used with caution. There are a lot of companies out there that will "certify" any type of gage or instrument you have for the right price. However, they have no traceablility back to a national standard. In the world of metrology, if the instrument is not certified by a fully accredited lab with traceability to a national standard, the measurment is considered "suspect". I only bring this up because there is a lot of discussion on this post regarding the scale or scales being used and the answer always is the scales are certified. Has the MDMWRP defined a standard to which MDMWRP scales are to be certified to or will any certification be acceptable? Just trying to put the scale issue to rest. I support and recognize the MDMWRP and the new record established. But also agree we shouldn't forget about the great fish caught in the past; both the myths and the legends! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Roy: Interesting points. By "certified" we mean "Legal for Trade".
And, the myths and legends will always be loved! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1828
| Johnnie - 2/4/2013 7:53 AM
First off, I must admit, I have not read all the official documents of this fish, but I think I am not alone. IMO I find it a little odd, the OFFICIAL length is EXACTLY 58" and the OFFICIAL weight is EXACTLY 58#. Not 58.1" or 58.3" or 58# 3oz or 57# 14oz, etc. What are the odds this fish's length is exactly 58" and exactly 58#!! Not saying this isn't a great fish, but when OFFICIAL measurements come out exactly at full inches and full pounds, it leaves a little doubt in the back of my mind. I am not a statistician, but I would like to now the odds of this happening.
John Aschenbrenner
This is the worst reason to challenge the legitimacy of the fish. The probability that the fish is "exactly" 58 in and "exactly" 58 lb is EXACTLY the same as the fish being exactly 57 in and 59 lb, or 60 in and 58 lb. I'm talking just in terms of numbers, not actual probabilites of fish reaching such sizes. If you had two 60-sided die (or 600-sided, or whatever you want), the probability of rolling a 58-58 is the same as rolling a 3-47, a 31-32, or a 1-1.
Additionally, it was already explained clearly that the fish was neither exactly 58" nor 58 lb, but that the rules don't allow interpolation, and those were the nearest graduations on the measuring devices.
Had they said the fish had a length of 1473 cm and a weight of 258 N, would you still be skeptical? Why not? It's the exact same size.
I realize tons of other posts occured since this one. It just bugged me, so I had to comment on it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 40
| Jaultman,
Yes the probability of rolling exactly 29-29 are the same, but the probability of rolling a 58 is not the same as rolling 2. Had to edit my post b/c I didn't translate yours correctly the first time.
Edited by BretRobert1 2/8/2013 9:40 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2059
| please edit your above post again because it doesn't make sense.....he was talking about making two rolls of a 60 sided dice....the chance that 58 comes up twice is just as likely as a 58 and a 2? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 151
Location: IL | Thats one hell of a fish! |
|
| |
|
| scot - 2/8/2013 9:49 AM
Thats one hell of a fish!
Agree, even though the pictures aren't as flattering as some of these recent C&R fish, it isn't being pushed forward at the camera either. Congratulation to Joe Seeberger for catching the modern-day record! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 568
| Brian -- you got my back brother LMAO ! MD |
|
| |
|
| I'm a proud Canadian and think we live in the best country in the world, I also think we have the best Musky lakes in the world, but Its funny when we as Canadians talk about O'Brien fish everybody gets all poofy chested and think O'Brien,s is the record. I'm also a MCI member, I find it funny that when the fish was caught there where 100's of MCI or allot of MCI guys on site that all seen this fish with there own two eyes some even held this fish but yet not ONE single person will come forward and say this fish was legit not ONE, and the one that did come forward was so full of it and was caught in piles of lies, get over it O'Brien was was a glorified 55lbs at best, so please stop the crap. move over fakes we have a true record, a true rock solid record that we all as musky anglers should be proud of.
Great job Larry and all who where involved in this as I'm sure there was lots of work involved. |
|
| |
|
| "I'm also a MCI member, I find it funny that when the fish was caught there where 100's of MCI or allot of MCI guys on site that all seen this fish with there own two eyes some even held this fish but yet not ONE single person will come forward and say this fish was legit not ONE, and the one that did come forward was so full of it and was caught in piles of lies, get over it O'Brien was was a glorified 55lbs at best, so please stop the crap. move over fakes we have a true record, a true rock solid record that we all as musky anglers should be proud of."
So not one single person will come forward and say the fish was legit but yet one of them DID come forward and said it was?
How many of the on site MCI guys have come forth and said the fish is NOT legit?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Take that argument elsewhere, please.
Here's a good place to continue that point/counterpoint:
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=81... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | I worked in a shop that has a certified balance beam scale. Certification is really quite simple. A known weight is weighed on the scale. Each scale has an adjustment which is set to the exact weight. For instance we used a 30 pound steel weight for zeroing our scale. When the scale read exactly 30 pounds using the Known 30 pound weight we knew our scale was accurate. Certification uses several known weights to test the accuracy of said scale. An accurate scale reads exactly zero with nothing on it and must be within its factory % tolerance at its maximum weight. We used to zero our scale every day to make sure our weighed products went out as stated. So there is a standard for certifying all scales used in legal trade. They have to be accurate. Kingfisher |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1660
Location: central Wisconsin | Kingfisher - 2/9/2013 11:14 AM
I worked in a shop that has a certified balance beam scale. Certification is really quite simple. A known weight is weighed on the scale. Each scale has an adjustment which is set to the exact weight. For instance we used a 30 pound steel weight for zeroing our scale. When the scale read exactly 30 pounds using the Known 30 pound weight we knew our scale was accurate. Certification uses several known weights to test the accuracy of said scale. An accurate scale reads exactly zero with nothing on it and must be within its factory % tolerance at its maximum weight. We used to zero our scale every day to make sure our weighed products went out as stated. So there is a standard for certifying all scales used in legal trade. They have to be accurate. Kingfisher
I worked in Quality Control for 20 years including calibration. The issue with the way you are doing this that the 30# weight has to be verified traceable back to a National standard or else it is meaningless. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | Jeff78 - 2/11/2013 4:02 PM
Kingfisher - 2/9/2013 11:14 AM
I worked in a shop that has a certified balance beam scale. Certification is really quite simple. A known weight is weighed on the scale. Each scale has an adjustment which is set to the exact weight. For instance we used a 30 pound steel weight for zeroing our scale. When the scale read exactly 30 pounds using the Known 30 pound weight we knew our scale was accurate. Certification uses several known weights to test the accuracy of said scale. An accurate scale reads exactly zero with nothing on it and must be within its factory % tolerance at its maximum weight. We used to zero our scale every day to make sure our weighed products went out as stated. So there is a standard for certifying all scales used in legal trade. They have to be accurate. Kingfisher
I worked in Quality Control for 20 years including calibration. The issue with the way you are doing this that the 30# weight has to be verified traceable back to a National standard or else it is meaningless.
Correct, Ours was from a weigh master. It is solid brass (not steel as I stated before) My brother still works there. This weight has a certification stamp on it dated 1948. It is not exact due to wear but very close. It was and old HOWE scale and needed to be fixed several times while I worked there. They get sticky with age. The company that came in to certify the scale had several weights in a nice case that he used to test the scale from zero to max plus he tested the 100 to 1 ratio we used for weigh counting parts. These guys are thorough . The fact that there is a national standard was my point.
Edited by Kingfisher 2/14/2013 9:24 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Gents;
Take the debate over the MCI and O'Brien fish to this thread and keep it reasonable.
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=68...
|
|
| |
|
| In response to the comment about Spray's being the record, I have always considered the Malo musky the true World Record and always will. I truly believe it was bigger than Sprays and have seen and read enough evidence to back that up. So anytime I get asked what is the world record musky I say it was caught by Robert Malo and never even mention Spray. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Sorry Dylan, the Malo fish is Bogus too! |
|
| |
