Posts: 3480
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | I've been watching and reading much of the posts on various websites about this whole World Record mass-mess, and have been wondering a couple of things:
1) Is it safe to say that the NFWFHF has done itself a major discredit to the point that as a group of muskie anglers we focus our attention on records with the IGFA instead? In other words, if the muskie-world were to "shun" or turn their backs on the fishing hall of fame, would this really be an issue anymore?
2) From what little research I have done, the IGFA is mor of a global record keeping body of both fresh and saltwater fish. Would it not make sense, then that a bias would NOT exist among the "voting parites" involved in upholding or denouncing a specific record?
3) If the IGFA holds the world record as Cal Johnson's fish (or whoever it is if I am wrong on that), wouldn't it make sense for the WRMA to concentrate then on the johnson fish to prove or disprove and continue to work toward setting the record correct?
I guess what I am getting at is that a bunch of people are getting heated here and am wondering if all of that energy could go to something more positive with the IGFA. I just have this feeling that no matter what goes on with the NFWFHF the spray fish will stand regardless of what new information might come forth...and the all of the time put into individual research, scaling, discrediting goes to waste anyway in the eyes of the hall, plus with the additional $1500 cost put into effect to try and denounce a record.
Is it possible for the majority of the muskie community to turn it's backs on the Hall of fame? Is this a "teachable moment" for our younger generation of fishermen/women about how a "locational bias" can and potentially has developed to the point that the viewpoint is skewwed no matter what evidence is brought forth?
No doubt the amount of reading is tiring at best, but at some point that energy needs to be put to good use for the better and we just can't say wait until ice-out and start fishing....that doesn't address the issue, and it only belays the inevitable that we will be right back in the same predicament.
In the big picture (and I may get chastised for this one but I am throwing it out there as food for thought) do the records really "mean" anything besides a simple statistic? Will there really be big money associated with a new record or will it be more for notariety?
All bias aside, if we look forward, where do we want to go with all of this? Please...take some time to think about this on a deeper level before responding. Dig deep and really... take inventory of yourself and your viewpoints. What IS the next step?
Steve
Edited by VMS 1/20/2006 10:54 PM
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Come on, that isn't the reason muskie fishermen go to the Chip. There hasn't been a fish even close to the record from there in a very long time,. and muskie fishing on the Chip has improved according to many reports over the last couple seasons, in part due to the increased size limits.
I don't think Louie's fish is what it's recorded to be, but that has nothing to do with current day angling opportunities on the Chip. |
