|
|
Posts: 2361
| http://caljohnson.net/Features/Rebutt.htm
Due to the many axes to grind by the WRMA, and in light of this information, I guess I will stick with the Johnson world record for now.
Edited by firstsixfeet 1/6/2010 8:35 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1455
Location: Kronenwetter, WI | 107 days and counting. |
|
| |
|
| "This is the official website of Cal Johnson."
but, you know, owned by John Dettloff.
and did Cal approve that from the grave?
broadside...lol.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| Reasonable stuff I think. Who else is defending the Johnson fish? How else to present a conflicting view?
Looks pretty much in the vein of what that massive "think tank", the WRMA puts up to fester their own views.
I guess it is a case of pick and choose your scientific point of view, except, dang, one is supported by several affadavits of people who actually saw the fish. And of course the fish managed to meet all the criteria and documentation demands of the day for a world record. Something to consider.
The WRMA can keep tossin it in there, but, if "beyond a reasonable doubt" is the standard, I don't think they'll prevail.
It is going to be really hard for the WRMA to make a case to the average Joe, going against this information. I don't think most people are going to trust them photwatchamacallitists.
Sorry guys. Put as many LOLs on this thread as you want.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | And, this 'broadside' was already discussed in Larry Ramsell's rebuttal, I believe. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| sworrall - 1/6/2010 9:32 PM
And, this 'broadside' was already discussed in Larry Ramsell's rebuttal, I believe.
That is the same fellow that was part of the interpretation of the Chippewa Flowage Telemetry Study, right? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I believe he provided a fish or two to tag, some data based on recaptures, and volunteered his writing skills to publish the data collected, he can correct me if I am wrong. John was doing seminars offering conclusions stating giant muskies still exist in numbers in the Chip but are not caught because...well, it was hooey. And he did that before there was any 'data' actually interpreted; I attended a couple to be certain before writing the EA article with Rob Kimm and approaching Musky Hunter to see what they had been told and by whom. There were allot of good intentioned folks brought trouble they didn't (or shouldn't have if they were diligent) bring on themselves from that deal including the LCO Tribe, and John wasn't one of them by all indications. It's possible that may have been the beginning of an obvious rift between Larry and John, but that's up to Larry to discuss....or not. And, Larry isn't, as far as I know, a WRMA member or representative. Again, he can correct me if I'm wrong.
OutdoorsFIRST would be happy to publish any 'official' response to the WRMA or Larry's press releases, we simply haven't received any. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| Probably best to remember the roots of some of the he said/he said stuff that can go on here. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20219
Location: oswego, il | "I guess it is a case of pick and choose your scientific point of view, except, dang, one is supported by several affadavits of people who actually saw the fish. And of course the fish managed to meet all the criteria and documentation demands of the day for a world record. Something to consider. "
So, FSF, by this statement you are saying that the Lawton fish is the actual record or are YOU picking and choosing which criteria met the record demands for the day?
Even by Detloff's "calculatons" in "error" the fish still comes up short. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Probably is, FSF, there's good reason for some of it. Very good reason.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| I am not averse to re-establishing Lawton's fish. But then, a key personal affadavit for Lawton's fish did back out on his statement.
I also am not averse to you and I forming an arbitration comittee with a yet to be named third party, to settle the dispute.
I think it will take several meetings in very high class beaneries to reach an agreement(of course, along with expenses, I think the three of us would have to be given a liquor stipend).
Edited by firstsixfeet 1/6/2010 10:58 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I sure would hope so. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Can I join in on this liquor stipend? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Sure, we could use some imported illogical logic from the West in this one. But then we'd need a fifth. Person, not the other kind. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | I'm sure there is a pole dancer that would be willing to add in her 2 cents, if we give her 2 cents. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Boy did this one go south in a hurry. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 5
| By the way, in the continued interest of objectivity, the Muskellunge Club of Wisconsin has some very detailed notes dated April 23, 1996 by Larry Ramsell talking about trophy muskies where his research concluded:
"""".... that from 1900 to 1933, the Conservation Department conducted winter rescue projects on the Mississippi River. The backwaters would freeze and the Consservation Department netted these fish so they wouldn't die. They placed these fish in train cars and transported them to the Hayward area where they were stocked into surrounding lakes. The birthdays of each of the giants caught in the Hayward area prior to the mid 50's falls within the years that the Conservation Department was doing these indiscriminate stockings from the Mississippi River. LR doesn'y believe these giants were in the Hayward area naturally -- man put them there. Nobody has been able to dispute or challenge this theory.
And he (at that time) still believes that some giants inhabit the Hayward area waters. It's not only the fishing pressure that have thinned there numbers, it's in fact that they've become a different animal. They're nocturnal and stay and feed in deep water. Th the 30's a ten horsepower motor was large, but now it is common to have 100+ horsepower motors buzzing over the sandbars of the Chippewa Flowage. This disturbance prevents the fish from coming up onto these bars, thus driving them deeper and keeping them deeper. They're still there, but they are not doing the same things that allowed them to get caught back in the 30's."""""
Source: Trophy Muskies Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow by Larry Ramsell April 23, 1996.
Again, I only post this in the vein of objectivity. I forget when the Telemetry Study was published, but it is obvious from Larry's presentation and detailed commentary that he played a major role in shaping the concept and theory.
Just a thought....... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Dr. Sloss's work can and has proven the genetics in waters surrounding Hayward to be consistent, and no sign whatsoever of any 'giant' strain has been identified in broadly based samples from the early 50's to date. There was a single generation of LCO fish that were a 'two story' population which was a result of stocking, but those fish were not remarkable, and disappeared from the data entirely.
The CFMs was started a few years later, I believe. I do think many of the participants had a preconceived notion as to how it would turn out, a mistake frequently tripped over when folks try to do serious science who are admittedly not scientists, Holiday Inn Express not considered.
Don't mistake my objectivity for tacit support, it isn't. I disagreed with Larry on that point, and still do, but that has nothing to do with this discussion and we are able to disagree while maintaining a modicum of mutual respect. I suggest you try it, it's liberating to the debate.
Much has been accomplished in the way of the science surrounding Muskies in the last 14 yeas, I would bet some of what folks believed in 1996 may not be what is thought to be a certainty now, but that's a guess and the subject of another argument entirely.
Take your personal argument with him to email, please. |
|
| |
|
| Esox Archeologist, are now now suggesting that these record fish were a mississippi river strain? I believe those are spotted fish correct? The ones they are catching there now certainly are. You cannot say the same for the record fish unless they were painted differently but the photos do not show them to be spotted fish either.
It has been also suggested that these spotted fish have lost their spots in waters that did not originally have them. I have talked to a biologist about it and this is just theory. In the fox chain for example, the extreme few that do survive to adulthood look just like spotted muskies. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8782
| FSF...
Are you just stirring the pot? Siding with the proponents of the record to keep the discussion entertaining? I agree with your statements about the affidavits, witnesses, etc. What you are basically saying is that the record should stand because there is no real way to prove it wasn't legitimate. I think you are correct there. But I fail to see how any reasonable person can look at ANY of those pictures and say that muskie was 60" OR 70#. I fail to see how anyone familiar with the Hawyard area and the quality of fishing there could believe that a muskie of that size does or ever has existed there. And the further I dig into Dr Sloss' work, the less I believe that a muskie of that size exists ANYWHERE, much less in Northern Wisconsin.
So what's your angle on this? Do you know something the rest of us don't?
Edited by esoxaddict 1/11/2010 1:58 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 7
| Most of his work was minor and spun into more than it was. I spoke with a few Tribal people on the study. The results were embellished also. He had no great impact on it whatsoever. Did anyone check this out before it got going? He has no degree in fisheries to begin with. They both made their efforts out to be more than it was.
I am basing this now on the CFMS article. Just finished reading it.
Edited by musky53dat 2/5/2010 10:33 AM
|
|
| |
