Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
| Moderators: sworrall, Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : 1 Now viewing page 1 [30 messages per page] More Muskie Fishing -> Muskie Biology -> WRMA Rebuttal to Hall of Fame |
| Message Subject: WRMA Rebuttal to Hall of Fame | |||
Rich Delaney |
| ||
| read the Press release: http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/articles/03.27.2006/1030/World.Musk... The World Record Muskie Alliance would at this time like to offer our rebuttal to the Hall of Fame’s 1-16-06 “Decision Regarding the World Record Musky Challenge” to the general public for consideration. Those interested may view this document in its entirety by visiting the WRMA web site at: http://www.worldrecordmuskiealliance.com. The WRMA was founded to resolve the controversy over the legitimacy of the current All Tackle World Record. Sadly, in the short run it would appear that the October 20, 2005 release of the WRMA's Spray Report has had quite the opposite effect. We can well understand how some may be loathe to read yet another post on the subject of Mr. Spray’s muskies. Unfortunately, we must also acknowledge that merely ignoring problems currently residing at the Hall of Fame will not make them go away. Moreover, we would like to remind the general public that this release marks the WRMA’s first direct contribution to the ongoing online discussion of the world record controversy since our initial release immediately following the Hall’s 1-16-06 “Decision”. Our heartfelt hope is that in the long run, our combined efforts will ensure that mistakes made by well-intentioned record keepers who had no choice but to, in the words of Karl Kahmann, "rely upon affidavits and scaler's record stubs," need not be repeated. With these thoughts in mind, we now ask the general muskie fishing public to accept the findings as presented by the 10-20-05 WRMA Report and 3-25-06 Rebuttal as our final word on the subject of Mr. Spray’s muskies. Sincerely, Richard Delaney, President, World Record Muskie Alliance Jerry Newman, Founder and Trustee | |||
| muskie! nut |
| ||
Posts: 2894 Location: Yahara River Chain | Dear Rich D & WMRA. I think the WMRA clearly showed that the Spray fish was a hoax. My question is where does it stop? At what point, do you say, "that's a 55 pounder and it looks right? This has been my issue with WMRA, we will truly never know who will wear the "brass ring" of the sport. Who knows, maybe it was one of those Spray muskies was big enough to be the record - less the added weight? What the WMRA should have done was just start a new record keeping body and forget about the historical fish. You would have been time & money ahead if done so. What you did manage to do is make a bunch of people, I don't know what word to use here - picky? It seems that every time someone posts a big fish photo you've got about a dozen guys picking apart everything, "it doesn't look like 50 inches" or "no way that is even 30 pounds" and so on. It seems you made folks think that everyone that ever caught a big muskie, ........a liar. If you don't believe me, just check out the Musky Hunter board. Edited by muskie! nut 3/26/2006 9:25 AM | ||
| Obfuscate Musky |
| ||
Posts: 654 Location: MPLS, MN | Who cares what 8 homers from wisconson think? Lke they're the end all. The only opinion that matters is your own. | ||
| firstsixfeet |
| ||
Posts: 2361 | We can all play the glad game here. I am glad it is their "final word". (Also, after all is said and done, the only argument that is really telling in all this would be the length of the fish, not Louie's past, not prejudice or attitude of the hall, nor any so called trial lawyers appraisal of the evidence, nor any girth type argument, nor mounting choice by taxidermist or angler, the substantial argument is the length argument, and if it is not proved beyond reasonable doubt, and that can be a pretty difficult thing to do imo, then the record should stand.) PS Let's reinstate the Lawton Musky and close the records for the 20th century, and record keep 100 years at a time from now on. | ||
| Larry Ramsell |
| ||
Posts: 1291 Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | WRMA: Very nice job of sticking with the facts. The "National Fresh Water Fishing Hall of Fame" should be a repository for the "history and memorabilia" of fresh water angling, NOT an institution for a "few" to "re-write" angling record history; in this case muskellunge history. They have stepped outside of their purview. It is, in this case, both a shame and a sham. With regard to Art Lawton's musky record and the Marbry Harper walleye record, it was the result of an incomplete investigation, and a wrong was inadvertently committed in good faith in both cases. The Hall should consider restoring ALL "historical records" that they have disqualified, that they had nothing to do with in the first place, and call them just that, "historical" (and legendary). Muskie regards, Larry Ramsell Muskie Historian | ||
| VMS |
| ||
Posts: 3480 Location: Elk River, Minnesota | Not to step on any toes here, but this deal is closed...the hall is NOTHING BUT A TOURIST ATTRACTION FOR HAYWARD. The Record holding institution that is recognized across the nation is the IGFA. Let the hall do what they want...they have discredited themselved to the point that all they have is a tourist attraction and nothing more. For those who want to continue the dispute with the NFWFHF, you are wasting your time...denounce the hall and give your support to the IGFA. This situation will be very similar in terms of educating the public...just like we have worked to educate on catch and release, now we need to educate on where the REAL record keeping body exists. The IGFA does not have a bunch of people from Hayward so they have nothing to gain nor lose by disqualifying or reinstating a record of some sort. I do want to say thanks to those from the WWMA for their hard work on this whole issue, and I don't feel it was a waste of money and time. They did exactly as I had hoped-they found items to disqualify a fish...they just ran into people who are too stubborn to lose their big tourist draw... It is time to move on, and for those out there trying to catch that next world record, may you be the fortunate one to catch it...then, take it to the IGFA. Steve Vaerst Edited by VMS 3/26/2006 12:26 PM | ||
| JB |
| ||
| I just read the entire rebuttal and I agree with Steve, when you compare the professionalism and attention to detail of the WRMA report to the Hall's report, case closed! I think Brad L? (who ever that is) called it a poorly written 8th grade science project, and that's what it reminded me of also. I actually found the two different standards the WRMA eluded to that were used John Dettloff for the Lawton and Spray girth comparison to be simply extraordinary, and it got me thinking. Are we to believe that he could see the difference in the Lawton fish (which was bigger) and not the Spray fish? His obvious ulterior motives may have unfortunately dealt a fatal blow to the Hall of Fame's records program. | |||
| HGN |
| ||
| Firstsixfeet, did you actually read the WRMA and FWFH reports and the WRMA rebuttal? "and if it is not proved beyond reasonable doubt ...."??????? It was conclusively proven by way of the mounts and fresh fish by a top professional whose job is to make measurements from photographs, the FWFH misquoted, lied and think and denied their best and still fell short of refuting the WMRA.If anything all the FWFH did was confirm the Louie fish was not that big by misleading those professors of mathematics into making completely bogus calculations. I would hope just the fact that the professors recant should be enough to convince everyone just how slippery the FWFH handled this. They no longer have a world record, they only have a "Hayward record". | |||
| Guest |
| ||
| First the Hall of Fame tried to ignore the problem, then they tried to deny the problem, now the problem is that their door step. http://www.haywardwi.com/record/index.php?story_id=217170 | |||
| firstsixfeet |
| ||
Posts: 2361 | Yes, I eventually read through the original, the refusal and counter argument, and the so called rebuttal. Big deal. I'm not impressed, and will freely admit I do not have enough math and science to deal with the arguments in any expert fashion(and I can guarantee I have a lot more math and science acumen than many claiming victory for the WRMA. They spend a lot of paper making points that really don't have anything to do with the record being valid or not. The only argument I feel is valid in the whole controversy is that of the length of Louie's fish. I personally don't believe they make that argument beyond a reasonable doubt. I think the affadavits are certainly a problem for the WRMA to contend with, and there is no argument for those. BTW, don't mistake me for somebody that cares about the accuracy of the musky world record in any big way, I don't, nor would I have been upset if the hall accepted the research of the WRMA. Pretty strong statement claiming someone lied. You sure you want to say that? HGN - 3/27/2006 3:46 PM Firstsixfeet, did you actually read the WRMA and FWFH reports and the WRMA rebuttal? "and if it is not proved beyond reasonable doubt ...."??????? It was conclusively proven by way of the mounts and fresh fish by a top professional whose job is to make measurements from photographs, the FWFH misquoted, lied and think and denied their best and still fell short of refuting the WMRA.If anything all the FWFH did was confirm the Louie fish was not that big by misleading those professors of mathematics into making completely bogus calculations. I would hope just the fact that the professors recant should be enough to convince everyone just how slippery the FWFH handled this. They no longer have a world record, they only have a "Hayward record". | ||
| HGN |
| ||
| Sure I say that FWFHF lied .... big time. Which particular lie would you like to start with? How about answering this question: Would you classify them saying Louie was 6' 2" with a broad lumberjack build (when he was really 5" 11") as being. (A) completely truthful and forthcoming (B) only slightly misleading and inconsequential anyway (C) very misleading, particularly if you consider only the length of the fish of consequence (D) a flat out lie attempting to cover up obvious shortcomings of Louie's fish being grossly short in length. I also disagree with your claim that only the length matters. According to the WRMA rebuttal John Dunloff used a formula to help prove that Lawtons Muskie was exaggerated when he protested that record. If you want to believe that Louie's record had a 32 1/2" girth ... you are free to do so. Witnesses: (or rather lack thereof) The FWFHF is now down to one disinterested witness to the weigh in, certainly not "10" that Emmett Brown quoted in the newspaper ... guess you don't think that was a misleading statement either? A what point does a misleading statement become a lie? Using the FWFHF own standard requiring 2 disinterested witnesses, this record does not qualify. The fact that Louie and his group lied and got others to lie about where they supposely caught the record fish further indicts their testimony, not to mention they called Tony Bermick a liar in the process. If you want to call this a single witness a "mountain of evidence" with the Hall of Fame, you are free to do so. | |||
| barry |
| ||
| John dettloff has been trying to fit a round peg in a square hole for years, no doubt he knew it was a round peg all along and has not been "square" with us. Good point on when does a misleading statement become a lie, I would add that it has been a string of misleading statements. | |||
| Jump to page : 1 Now viewing page 1 [30 messages per page] |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Copyright © 2024 OutdoorsFIRST Media |