Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
| Moderators: Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : 1 2 Now viewing page 2 [30 messages per page] Muskie Fishing -> General Discussion -> WRMA Delivers Report to Hayward Hall |
| Message Subject: WRMA Delivers Report to Hayward Hall | |||
ToddM |
| ||
Posts: 20211 Location: oswego, il | Guest, why don't you sign in and have a name? I thought the report was and is conclusive, time to recognize a new record fish. | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32882 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Guest: You've twisted what Mr. Newman had to say. I looked critically to see if it's remotely possible to get what you posted out of his answer, and IMHO, it isn't. It isn't necessary to point out where, that's a lock for anyone to figure out. I will ask you to be reasonable with your questions and debate. If you have a legitimate question, feel free to ask and when an answer is given, feel free to debate with facts, figures, and logic. If you can disprove clearly any section of or item in the report, then PLEASE, let's see the data. If not, and all one wishes to do is honk loudly, there are other places to do that than this board, and I'll ask that is avoided during this conversation. Have you, sir, ever had a document notarized? I have. I don't think the Notary function is anything more in this case than to indicate those who published this document are who they say they are. Nothing there untoward, far as I can see. Why would the World Record Muskie Alliance look into Pike records? For the record, Guest1 as we will identify him, asked all of these questions. I'll ask everyone leave raw emotion at the curb for this discussion. | ||
| BenR |
| ||
| I do not think the "guest" was being difficult, he simply put forth the idea that he had his own questions regardless if they affected the outcome...he even gave props to a job well done....BenR | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32882 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'Jerry Newman, let me get this right. It is ok for WRMA to nit pick every single detail of each affidavit, in sense calling each person a lair if they don’t remember the precise times that they landed the fish or how long they fought the fish, but if someone bring up a discrepancy that is favorable to Spray, it doesn’t matter? Real nice. ' It's possible you are correct Ben, but this is a tone I will steer this conversation away from to the best of my ability. | ||
| DocEsox |
| ||
Posts: 384 Location: Eagle River, Alaska | Very well done and comprehensive report. When the WRMA first formed I was asked to help in some small ways but after awhile became disillusioned as it seemed nothing would ever get done. It appears I was wrong.....the study was compelling and laid out very well. Although I have always been an admitted Spray nonbeliever I was prepared to accept any findings. Thanks to those who put so much time into this effort. Just an added note about Doug Petrousek. I met Doug online several years ago and have had many conversations over email about the Spray fish and taxidermy in general. I hope he doesn't mind me saying but Doug did NOT want to believe that these fish had been falsified. For him to come to the conclusions he did must have required a great deal of personal disillusionment to him but he appears to have let objectivity and fact determine his analysis. BTW his mounts are also the best I have ever seen....he is a fabulous taxidermist. From a long lost MuskieFirst devotee, Brian | ||
| JWB475 |
| ||
Posts: 80 | I finally read through the 90+ pages of the report, I found the section of the report comparing the fresh fish, and the skin mount fish to be the most interesting. The one minor question or concern I have, why didn't the WRMA have DCM conduct the photogrammetric analysis using an example of a fish that was of known dimensions as a control? Even though I am confident that the WRMA's findings are accurate, I feel it would cast asisde any doubt had they used the same photogrammetric analysis on another, more recent catch, such as the Wiliamson fish, or any other fish of known dimensions. Edited by JWB475 10/25/2005 8:45 AM | ||
| Jerry Newman |
| ||
| "The one minor question or concern I have, why didn't the WRMA have DCM conduct the photogrammetric analysis using an example of a fish that was of known dimensions as a control?" Great question JWB!!! Wow, someone is actually reading/studying the WRMA report and asking a valid question. Thank you! We are assuming you are not talking about the 1940 fresh fish, because there is obviously a man standing next to a 4' ruler as the control. The real question regarding the 1949 current world record. Mr. Mills (of DCM) used the photomodeler software that has been validated many - many - times, it has incredible accuracy because it is simply pure math. Further, Mr. Mills is a official training provider for the photomodeler software and teaches students it's various applications. In short, the WRMA considers Mr. Mills one of the worlds foremost authority's on the use of this software, just one of the reasons the WRMA put the entire report into cyberspace for a "world review" so to speak. The DCM peer reviewer, Mr. Reis of Imaging Forensics (who has never met Mr. Mills) was the gentleman who performed the peer review. He is well aware of this software's incredible reliability and most certainly agreed with it's novel application - his credentials are simply beyond reproach. Combined, these top professionals put an exclamation point on the WRMA Spray world record challenge in our opinion. "It is ok for WRMA to nit pick every single detail of each affidavit, in sense calling each person a lair if they don’t remember the precise times that they landed the fish or how long they fought the fish, but if someone bring up a discrepancy that is favorable to Spray, it doesn’t matter? Real nice." Guess 1. The WRMA picked at every detail simply because we felt it a requirement to prove the case, there are many "forces out there" that want to retain the record at all costs. Please bear in mind that we had cowardly people calling the IL Attorney General on us and the FRV Chapter of M.I. just last year! To us, this certainly did not give the outward appearance of people who truly believed the record was authentic and beyond reproach. We honestly can see no possible explanation that the testimony you are referring to could possibly help - in any way- support the Spray record. Doc Esox. Our choice of Doug Petrousek was for the very reason you mentioned, we strongly felt that he would give every benefit of the doubt to the Spray mounts. We were correct, and he did just that... and they failed miserably. Thank you on behalf of the WRMA... another early supporter who dropped out said it best when he first read the report and said "wholly follow threw" before rejoining the WRMA group. We would of course welcome you as our "newest member" too Doc. Jerry Newman WRMA membership director | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32882 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Doc Esox! Good to see you still lurking on the boards now and again, how's the fishing in Paradise?? As an aside I agree with you Doc, this one was done right. | ||
| esox-dan |
| ||
| I have read the report and see it being accurate but, I am just playing an advocate here with a few thoughts and curiosity questions, along with getting educated. First I would like to commend the WRMA for putting together such a nice report. I will start with a big question first: Why did you wait 56 years to the day to do so? Technology has since evolved, but is it the real issue for attempting to change the records now? Also, how long since it was official contested last? I can make assumptions on these questions, but would like to hear from someone directly involved. Having worked extensively with photogrammetric and GIS Services for a major mapping company. I found it very interesting utilizing it for such an issue. I understand the control issue. I also understand the Spray’s fish falling short of expectations with control used. The control basically used in the 1949 fish was Louis’s height based on a 1934 medical examination. To verify control or height is there any documentation of his wife’s height for a comparison in Figure 3? I am not defending any of the Spray’s fish but how did these get into the record books to begin with? Yes, I understand the times were not of today’s standards. It seems that the constantly changing new world records between 1939 and 1949 wouldn’t someone at least verify these fish before submitting them knowing the times of fraud and economic hardships were at hand? The entire scenario just seems a bit bizarre. Unless I overlooked in the Document that there is no affidavit for the photo’s of the alleged world record muskie. It is likely that Louis may have caught many large muskies in his day. Are we sure that the Record muskie pictures that we all know are in fact the one’s in question? Which would require an affidavit? I apologize if I overlooked it in the report. I am asking these questions just to eliminate much of the conditional evidence that this report is generally based. I would like to see History confirmed regardless of the outcome of this report. Sincerely, Dan White | |||
| Jerry Newman |
| ||
| Thank you for your observations and questions Mr.White. The fact that you have extensive photogrammetric experience and find the report accurate should speak volumes to anyone who may have raised an eyebrow at the DCM study - the spearhead of the WRMA report. Considering the vast majority of us are not experts, the best analogy might be to compare the DCM report to a radar gun. In that, we have no idea how the number "got there", just that it is correct and admissible in a court of law. It is a feather in the cap of the DCM study to have yet another expert (who understands how that number "got there" ) who is willing to attest to it's accuracy. Your experience in this specialized field explains the nature of your questions... we continue to welcome all questions. So; "I have read the report and see it being accurate but, I am just playing an advocate here with a few thoughts and curiosity questions, along with getting educated. I will start with a big question first: Why did you wait 56 years to the day to do so?" >>>The simple answer is this record fraud is so obvious that it should not have been on the books for 56 years, it's a shame that it took this much effort to force the truth out into the open. As far as the 10-20 WRMA release date, please consideration the peer review was not complete until 10-10-05. It took time to then organize the report - send it off to the printer - put it into binders - then over to the FWFHF. Truth be known... we were working on the details up to the last day and really scrambling to get it on our web site in time for a 10-20 public release. Our major deadline was to have this report available at the recently concluded muskie symposium. We understand it was part of final panel discussion today at the symposium. "Technology has since evolved, but is it the real issue for attempting to change the records now?" >>> It is not about just "changing the records", not for a second, it is about authenticating the top record for a variety of reasons. Please visit our web site and check out the section entitled, "beyond the records". "Also, how long since it was officially contested last?" >>>We are aware that another group officially challenged the record as recently as a couple years ago. Unofficially, the Spray records have been contested since day one by enough reporters to make your head spin. Please consider rereading the Tony Burmek section dealing with his - what we consider - original challenge in 1949. Tony was willing to back up his statements with a lie detector test way back then, this was an act of true bravery on the part of Tony in our opinion - all things considered. "I can make assumptions on these questions, but would like to hear from someone directly involved. Having worked extensively with photogrammetric and GIS Services for a major mapping company. I found it very interesting utilizing it for such an issue. I understand the control issue. I also understand the Spray’s fish falling short of expectations with control used. The control basically used in the 1949 fish was Louis’s height based on a 1934 medical examination. To verify control or height is there any documentation of his wife’s height for a comparison in Figure 3?" >>>Excellent question sir! Spray claimed his wife was 5'4" and based on a cursory review alone, her height supports the 5'11" height (6' with shoes) used for Spray. We also telephoned and talked to a gentleman from Hayward who was a good friend of Spray's to help confirm this 5'11" height. Further, many attempts were made to secure his arrest and criminal records to no avail. It should be noted here that the medical exam was obtained from John Detloff himself, this superseded his earlier claims of "6'2" with a lumberjack frame". We are satisfied 5'11" is correct, plus Spray (and his fish) were givin every benefit of the doubt at each step by the WRMA. "I am not defending any of the Spray’s fish but how did these get into the record books to begin with? Yes, I understand the times were not of today’s standards. It seems that the constantly changing new world records between 1939 and 1949 wouldn’t someone at least verify these fish before submitting them knowing the times of fraud and economic hardships were at hand? The entire scenario just seems a bit bizarre." >>>We agree 100%... and can offer no real explanation other than times were different back then - just as Steve Worrall explained earlier in this thread. Karl Kahmann's (the taxidermist of record for the 39-40 Spray fish) poignant letter addresses this question (contained in the WRMA report) nicely. "Unless I overlooked in the Document that there is no affidavit for the photo’s of the alleged world record muskie. It is likely that Louis may have caught many large muskies in his day. Are we sure that the Record muskie pictures that we all know are in fact the one’s in question? Which would require an affidavit? I apologize if I overlooked it in the report." >>>No problem Dan, the pictures require no affidavit in our opinion. We have many - many different sources confirming the photographs contained in our report are the same as identified by Spray, and the news media back then. The record keepers at the time (Field & Stream) required a photograph - if available - and these were most certainly the photographs that were available and claimed to have been the fish in question. We are near 100% satisfied these are the correct pictures of the fish. "I am asking these questions just to eliminate much of the conditional evidence that this report is generally based." >>>Very good Q, the conditional evidence was checked and rechecked by the WRMA to the best of our ability, we are supremely confident that John Dettloff (the author) is also rechecking the report for it's factual content. "I would like to see History confirmed regardless of the outcome of this report." >>>We would like to point out that we are not official record keepers and do not claim to be historian's, (we certainly did our homework though) we are just a group of dedicated anglers committed to authenticating the brass ring of our beloved sport. We have no horse in this race! Jerry Newman WRMA membership director | |||
| BRAINSX |
| ||
| GREAT WORK WRMA! Let's face it guys, we ALL know Spray's--and most of the other WR pursuers of the day--WR's were falsified. We've all seen what WR fish should look like with the recent photos and measurements of the Georgian bay beasts of Williamson & O'Brien. Don't fret Hayward, we know the Chip or any number of WI, MN, MI, OH, NY and especially ON waters could hold the next WR ski. This effort finally and truly legitimizes our sport and those that pursue it today and reminds us all how "honesty truly is the best policy". No one is perfect and I do not blame those of the past. They all just got caught up in the WR thing. Different times for sure! JK | |||
| esox-dan |
| ||
| Jerry Newman, Thank You for answering my previously asked questions. I have always known the Louis Spray’s fish as the WRM. Emotionally it is hard not to defend something that I have always known as being a record, until now… Based on the report. I sincerely hope that the WRMA is able to pursuit the “New World Record” and State Record Muskellunge’s. I believe it is very important for the sport of Muskie fishing that in case of the likely dethroning of the Spray’s fish that the legitimate record be known, soon. I hope the WRMA finds it somewhat of a civil obligation to find Who, When, and Where the New Record’s belong. It is comforting that you have “no horse in this race” which eliminates motives other than the truth. Which I commend! Sincerely, Dan White | |||
| guest |
| ||
| Such a sad day it is, where their "appears" to be a witch hunt, like they did back in the 50s, chasing down communist. I'm deeply troubled by the grave efforts applied to not only discredit fish, but it appears to discredit people. This is all being done on hypothetical analysis. Everything in that report is "hypothetical" and "circumstancial". I do not see proof. I have read the "mission statement", but what is the true agenda/motive behind all of this? | |||
| muskie! nut |
| ||
Posts: 2894 Location: Yahara River Chain | Guest, I too was skeptical of this idea of DQing these fish. But this report opened my eyes. It does indeed look like Spray loaded the fish. When I was in the Hall looking at all those old muskie mounts, I can't help but look at those fish that went 52" and over 45 pounds (in June no less)? How in the heck did that happen? I did ask Dorazio about it and he said that many were taken before spawning, which explained a lot. I still think some of those were also helped to get over 40 pounds. What we know today, these fish that Spray caught could not have weighed that much at only mid-50 inches. Last year I was adamant about getting MI involved. I thank the WRMA for not doing so. It would have accomplished nothing. You have laid out a very good case to have these fish DQed & I'd be surprised if that Hall doesn't agree. Nice work, Rich D & company. | ||
| AFChief |
| ||
Posts: 550 Location: So. Illinois | I have read the WRMA report and am impressed. I am not very familiar with the records set by the Hartmans and the Lawton's but their success as calssified in the record books is beyond reason. My personal belief is that the study provides a compelling case that the records in question should be discounted. On a very simplistic level, it appears that many of these records were driven by a sense of competition between a few accomplished muskie fisherman -- a form of one upsmanship. One item that continues to drive my own suspicion is "how can just a few people (such as the Hartman's and the Lawton's) dominate the record books with so many fish for so many years when there are so many other accomplished fisherman who have not caught fish to challenge these records? That very issue raises reasonable doubt in my mind that warrents a closer look. I think I have a video that states that just one or two people have accounted for more than half of all fish taken over 60 lbs. To me, this fact alone is reason to question the validity of these records. Cudos to the folks who put this report together. I find it a compelling study and am fasinated by the science that went into it. Jerry | ||
| guest |
| ||
| What if............ That muskie ate a 10lb walleye, just seconds before being caught........ What if............. The angle of the picture doesnt reveal the true girth of the fish........... | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32882 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Please read the entire report, those 'what ifs' are covered pretty well, I think. A 10# walleye would stick out like a sore thumb in that fish, BTW. For that matter, so would a 3# walleye. | ||
| muskie! nut |
| ||
Posts: 2894 Location: Yahara River Chain | Your right sworrall. And I'm sure the taxidermist would have said he found "such and/or such" when mounting the fish. Unless of course it was foreign matter. | ||
| Guest |
| ||
| The current Spray record is off by 30 pounds, give or take a legal walleye here or there. To answer your question a 10 pound walleye would still leave the record about 20 pounds short, now if you stuffed a 30 pound walleye inside you would have your 70 pound musky, which would of course be a record. Hey, after certifing the weight of musky could you then remove the 30 pound walleye and claim another record? If so, then you could take the perch out of the walleye and | |||
| ToddM |
| ||
Posts: 20211 Location: oswego, il | Kinda funny, babe Winkleman caught a halibut, it was a world record fish untill about 10ft from the boat when it burped up an 80lb octopus. Sprays fish would have had to eat more than a couple 10lb walleyes. | ||
| Jump to page : 1 2 Now viewing page 2 [30 messages per page] |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Copyright © 2024 OutdoorsFIRST Media |