Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
| Moderators: Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 Now viewing page 3 [30 messages per page] Muskie Fishing -> General Discussion -> New MI State Record |
| Message Subject: New MI State Record | |||
guest |
| ||
| You just don't get it do you. Your point has no validity whatsoever. It was obvious to me you and should have been obvious to everyone else that you were attempting to support Louie Spray with the post I pointed out. You put your foot in your mouth once again by saying weight formulas fail, that's why there is more than one. The reason there is more than one is because of inaccurately taken or reported measurements and because the supporters of the old records developed formula's that would work using the phony dimensions. What is there in Ramsell's book that convinces you there is a true 70 pounder out there? You seem to be trying to convince everyone that a muskie is capable of reaching 70 lbs. just because Spray's fish is just under that. Spray's phony record will NEVER be broken and this is supported by the fact that there isn't a shred of evidence indicating they are capable of attaining that weight. This fish has been proven by modern technology to be nowhere near it's reported length or weight. | |||
| Kingfisher |
| ||
Posts: 1106 Location: Muskegon Michigan | Thats funny, I never said I thought Sprays fish was as big as it is claimed. My opinion on sprays fish is as worthless as yours. Im just saying that unless you kill it you have to live with guys like you. Guys who wont even put thier name behind thier posts. I dont defend Sprays fish at all and My opinion doesnt matter because there is no way I could prove it one way or another. Thats my point. Its the attacks every time someone puts a fish forward that I have a problem with. So for me Ill not elaborate anymore. Why even try to convince anyone how big a released fish is? Photographs prove nothing period. I just talked to a client of mine who lives in Wisconsin. His words quote( we are all expected to get these fish back in such a hurry. No extra pictures ,no time to verify anything. It seems everyone calls you a liar if you tell anyone how big your fish is. #*^@ed if you do #*^@ed if you dont. End quote He has decided as I have to never again state the size or estimated weight of any released fish. The legends in Larrys book and from talking to him in person. Thats why I belive there is a 70 pound fish out there. Look, it will take a 57 to 60 inch 65 pounder with a belly full of baitfish to do it. Its going to happen and when it does Ill applaude loudly. I cant believe you think I am defending sprays fish but from your last post I can see how a straw man would serve your interest. Putting words in my mouth doesnt work pal. Its proof guest, the proof and no one has that proof. And my opinion , yours and anyone elses is meaningless. Its speculation pure and simple. For your information, the new Michigan record was 15 years old. 15 years and 50 pounds. I think she might have made 60 pounds at 21/22 years old years old. But again thats all speculation and meaningless. But is it possible? I think it is. I think McNairs fish, Obriens fish, the Green bay fish all were possible world records and there are others that with a couple of 3 pound whitefish in thier gullets go 70 pounds. But the truth? there no proof that they dont get that big. No proof that they do until one is killed that does. The reason I posted the two pictures is because we have a once in alifetime chance to look at two pictures with a known constant. Two totally different angles, two different people . You didnt answer my question. With out knowing before hand could you tell they were the same fish? I mean come on it should be easy right? I didnt think so. Kingfisher Edited by Kingfisher 10/9/2009 7:14 PM | ||
| Trophymuskie |
| ||
Posts: 1430 Location: Eastern Ontario | I see no problems of differnces between the two picture. Only thing is color but that's more of a camera thing then anything else. To me it looks like the same fish same size as well just one is help underarm and the other out reached. People get chastized because they come on here with a wild claim and it is obvious that the out reached fish is no where near the size and especially the weight claimed. People need to wake up and realize the pushing the fish towards the camera just does not work as well as those #*^@ vertical holds that make it impossible to see the true size of the fish. Untill we all start using a standard on how to hold a fish for pictures will this be resolved, I don't see it happening anytime soon. Some of us have seen a lot of big fish and know what to look for in a picture to have a real good estimate of it's actual size. If you come out with a wild measurement in the high 50's to low 60's you better make sure your fish was close as trying to pass those mid 50's like recently just won't cut it. | ||
| guest |
| ||
| Well said. | |||
| guest |
| ||
| If it's impossible to tell the size of a fish from a photo how were so many of the other 60+ pound fish debunked by the NFWFHF? They didn't even use a professional photogrammetrist! In fact, why was Art Lawton's world record tossed by both record keeping bodies? Look at Cal Johnson's IGFA record. This fish is listed as being 33.5" x 60.25" which is a larger girth to length ratio than Ken O'Brien's and almost the same as Martin Williamson's fish. Why isn't Johnson's fish shaped similar to Williamson's? You all know the answer to this one. Johnson's fish should be fatter for it's length than O'Brien's and should look almost identical to Williamson's. Any comments? | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32935 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | guest, Be careful saying who's point of view has validity and who's doesn't...not everyone will agree with you on that one. This isn't and won't be a thread about WR fish. That debate is available on the Research Board, if you want to talk it over, take a look there. This fish is known as far as exact measure, so why even discuss this here? Enough already. | ||
| Clark A |
| ||
Posts: 636 Location: Bloomington, MN | The angler obviously is a hardcore muskie fisherman and definitly deserves such a fish, but the article states that the fish was tagged by the DNR with an acoutic (radio) transmitter. That being stated, someone (possibly wth loose lips) knew exactly where that particular fish was residing. | ||
| Kingfisher |
| ||
Posts: 1106 Location: Muskegon Michigan | No one knew where she was at the time. Only the D.N.R. has that information. Kyle would have to go to our banquet to see the tracking info in March of 2010. I dont think he is muskies inc member but I could be wrong. So no one knew where she was and many of us were even fooled as to where she was tagged myself included. I agree with Richard 100 percent. Without a standard that everyone uses there will always be speculations and arguments over whether or not a picture tells the true story of any fish. I would think a measurement on a bump board would be a good start. Nose touching the stop and tail in view, pinched or not pinched to be determined. This would end all wild tales of length. Girth measurement at three points head ,middle and anal port. Not done with length of string and or walking a ruler around the fish ha ha ha . Sewing tapes work great for girth. Girths can be taken in the net while the fish is in the water. Without a bump board there is so much that can go wrong in a length measurement. I still do not trust any of the formulas for determining weight. I have proved them to be very inacurate every time I have tried using them. Every fish has different dimensions and a belly full of air bladder gives the same girth as one filled with baitfish. Its like a gallon of milk. when its empty it measures the same as full. Air bladders give a lot of false weights due to bloated girths. I am very happy with our new state record. I am sad she died but happy to see the thornapple fish moved to second place. I alway thought a spotted should be our record fish. With her age at only 15 she could have grown bigger(in my opinion). They are studying this chain of lakes right now to determine the life span and spawning habits of these fish. It is my hope we do some stocking in these lakes and add some more protections to this chain such as either higher size limits or spearing bans. I think higher size limits will fly easier then going up against the dark house crowd. They wont back down and it would be a bloody fight. W e have fought them before. I never even should have mentioned Spray. I forgot how volitile that subject is here. I just think that pictures alone are not enough evidence to determine enough to make any difference. Scales are proof. dead fish are proof. live weigh ins on certified scales are proof. This done now on Lake St. Clair tournements. They bring them in with 60 inch live wells and weigh them alive then they are taken back out and released. No speculation there. no guess work no disputes. I will still never again post a picture of a fish and claim its length or weight unless its a dead world record. Kingfisher | ||
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 Now viewing page 3 [30 messages per page] |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Copyright © 2025 OutdoorsFIRST Media |