| That's a great article. I support everything Pete says in this article. In a time of deceit, when locals were competing for $10 here and there for the biggest fish, how can we believe any of those fish were legit. Many folks who caught those fish have admitted they lied.......we all can see in the pictures that those fish look no bigger than the monsters caught today. I think Pete's absolutely right on!
Personally, that's why I could care less how big a fish I catch. I've got my 50", and that's a trophy in my book. I'm not going to sit there and argue how big a fish was, and that seemed to suck Pete into this mess.
I'm not going to be concerned about the next big one I catch, if it's 50", 50 1/4, or 52". I feel fortunate enough to have a wife, a son (another child on the way in 2 weeks), and a great family to carry on our now 4th genereation tradition of fishing in the northwoods. Being on the water with my family is satisfaction enough where if I go an entire week not catching anything, I'll have no regrets or complaints. |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I thought about Pete's article for quite some time and decided to say this:
I was doubtful of the CFMS's scientific validity from the first day information was published in MH that was supposedly 'results' from a study still underway, and even more so when asked to investigate and publish findings about some oddities and obvious inconsistencies surfacing about that work. Seminars presented by supposed study participants announcing muskie behavior that would have been impossible to glean from that work which were presented FAR before any actual results COULD have been assembled in any proper form, data that was far from accurate or complete and was recorded in several different formats, obviously fabricated documents, and claims of huge findings using terms one might be familiar with from another group lately, like 'stunning' were at issue. I met with and asked many questions of participants of that study, including a meeting in Milwaukee with key members of the major funding group. The resulting article in Esox Angler and debate on the web property where I was managing editor at the time caused a rift to develop that probably will never close between me and some of the folks involved. Again, unfortunate, but PR hounds seeking gain in stature via unsound or ill advised activities sometimes find themselves in an uncomfortable public position. The response, as Pete says, is usually to try to shoot the messenger.
'Zig Zagging in Wolf Packs in a Spooky Fashion' indeed.
The World Record Muskie PR battle has paralleled much of that during the CFMS debacle, which is no surprise to me at all. I found the ORIGINAL attack on the Eastern records and anglers to be distasteful, primarily because it was obvious at least to me the intent was not to find the truth as much as bring the record back to Wisconsin and specifically the Chippewa Flowage, and then capitalize on the return of the record to the Chip as best as might be possible. Pete and I agree that it's very tough to find any authority in the industry or sport who will publically state they feel the old records were what they are stated to be. It's no wonder why, IMHO.
The problem I originally had with ALL of this was the destruction of the 'lore and story' of the day with apparent motivation I found frankly distasteful. I honestly wish the original records had been left alone, because of the smudged mess this has made of the fun part of this sport, the OBVIOUSLY fabricated but interesting stories of past Muskie Men dressed in flannel shirts and cool hats. You don't actually believe everything you hear about Billy the Kid, Dillinger, or Wild Bill, do you? I found it very interesting that Dr. Casselman agreed with this viewpoint, and I think I understand why.
Unfortunately, the folks who were pushing the issue continued to do so until there were no standing records but those from the Hayward area, and then seemed to circle the wagons instead of applying the same scrutiny to ALL the old record fish. Hence the WRMA. I am VERY interested in the progressing story, and was not surprised a whit the Hall came down in favor of upholding the records. I guess now all that is left to do is wait for the response of the WRMA, the public, and hope that either this issue is definitively settled by continuing sophisticated investigation, or that the entire issue is dispelled by a 73# fish from the St. Lawrence.
Either way, if a legitimate 70# plus fish IS ever captured, the pictures will be compared, and I mean ALOT. Then, I suppose, one might draw whatever conclusion one wishes about the past
|
