|
|
Posts: 3920
| Rant rant rant! Rage Rage Rage!
The musky police on the job. Can't see beyond the end of this season. |
|
| |
|
| The Growth chart that that Dr Casselman used for ultimate growth is theoretical.
It does not mean its plausible and it does not mean it cant be attained,its un-known
I doubt we will see very many if any over 60 pounds
There will always be anomalies and fish that display fast growth or various physical appearances,you cannot expect such an individual to attained full life expectancy
KF,yes all those guys may have hand at instilling discrepancies in their capture,yes it is possible.If you watched the Hartman videos,they were all in that mid set.
Hartman caught some great big fish which equaled all historical captures,he just would not push his discrepancies past 67 pounds.
The man left a legacy of great big fish and methods of capturing them,beyond the discrepancies I believe Hartman and all historical anglers left future generations a legacy and laid the foundations to myths and lore that exist until today in which we are all fascinated with.
They heighten the fascination towards the species.
They were all competing amongst each other,for the same tittle and monies
Was tough times and most were rewarded financially
Nowadays, they get nothing,there still are discrepancies in the methods and accuracy of measurements
KF,the 48x supposed 32 may be a rapidly growing and aging fish which would result in shorter life expectancy.
You are aloud by all rights to your belief,when you understand the biological growth rates and life expectancy,your beliefs may change
If you are really interested in the break down and my views on all old and recent captures,I suggest starting another thread.
I would be ore than happy to list discrepancies in fish captured which you may think are 60 pounders.
They are all great big fish,some in the mid 50's ,possibly 57 no more
This has good perspective information,dissecting fish captured should not be on this thread
I do believe we can discuss previous captures without degrading those fish
JRedig,I agree,I enjoy such discussions because it mixes biology and science for us laymen
What I am sharing,I have shared with Biologists and Dr Casselman
I look forward to furthering our discussion this winter
HerB, nailed it on the head,science is a continuously evolving learning process which ideas and ideals continuously change through the gathering of data.
Steve W even mentioned that what is thought or believed today can change tomorrow
It just takes someone to get it going 
|
|
| |
|
| I have read a st Lawrence report on Update of the Strategic Plan for
Management of the St. Lawrence River Muskellunge Population and Sportfishery
One thing that stood out which I overlooked was,some individuals can attain 50 inches at 15 years old, which may alter the pinacle years in the life period of the individual(I suspect between 18 and 24).It may even alter maximum life expectency.
Keep in mind these fish were sampled through cleitha bones and those netted
I did notice data that was not accurate due to the missing a data
Mentioned the oldest fish sampled in the Ottawa was 21 years old,I do know of a 24 year old 54 incher that was not included and many other fish.
When we read these studies,we must keep in mind that Biologist and Scientist form theoretical gatherings from the data and information collected.
The data and information that is un-known to them can and will alter these findings.
We only have ourselves to blame for the discrepancy and inaccuracies that exist
One must stare the ennemy in the eye to admit full responsibility 
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 457
Location: Minneconia | Sometimes the obstinance of the Hayward Hall is laughable....there is no way the Spray or Johnson fish are over 52-53" or 50 lbs, nice fish but nowhere close to 'stated' wieghts(without sand anyway haha!). As far as 70 lbs...nothing surprises me anymore, I hope it happens sooner rather than later so we dont have to look at flannel and vertical holds employing photographic "perspective" trickery. Wisconsin cant grow 60 lbers! :P |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32955
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I bet Wisconsin CAN grow 60 pound fish...Green Bay should eventually hit that mark. IMO. |
|
| |
|
| Yeah Steve I overlooked that body of water, you may be right. I had the Spray and Johnson waters in mind with that statement. No matter where it comes from, I just hope it happens soon. |
|
| |
|
| Mr. Worral,
Dr. Casselman DOES support leaving the old records alone so don't say this was just the "general tone" at the symposium. Anyone that would support something that was shown to be falsified by the most modern technology available today should be looked upon in a negative manner. How can the "lore" be more important than the truth? And you say he should be respected? The technology used on the Spray fish is considered a SCIENCE Mr. Worral so don't push that scientific crap that Mr. Casselman is using as any more relevant.
Ever wonder why Dr. Casselman didn't set the "upper confidence limit" on the St. Lawrence at just UNDER the current world record?
A lot of people were hurt when the Lawton record was brought down but this didn't matter at all to either of the record keeping bodies or the general public so why is there now so much concern for how people will feel if the hayward fish are brought down? When the Lawton fish was brought down the majority of the people actually cheered for what a good job the record keepers had done. Dr. Casselman should be ashamed of his position on the remaining two world records.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 371
Location: Dixon, IL | Green Bay .... yes but heavy musky fishing pressure! Big muskies might swim to Big Bay De Noc. I heard some large pike and walleye there.
Several less know mouth of river and humps in Georgian Bay. Of course we migjt surpise that someone caught a world record muksy somewhere unexpectly!
I would fish somewhere in Grand Traverse Bay, outside of Elk Lake. If I live in upper Michigan and have time then I would search in Whitefish Bay at far east end of the Lake Superior, around St. Ignace area between Lake Michigam and Lake Huron. Trolling around underwater hump and several miles off shore find school of ciscoes and whitefish. Maybe very few muskies out there but 50 lbs plus is possible! Love to read about monster muskies! Great posts! For big musky fans to check out good books is Larry Ramsell's two volumes books. Great and fun to read!
By the way is which is true world record musky for now?
Louis Spray?
Cal Johnson?
Ken O'Bren?
Thanks and happy monster musky hunting and lets fish until ice up! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32955
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Guest,
At least get my name spelled right. What qualifications do you have to question ANY of the work Casselman has done? I talked to Dr. Casselman about his position while we were at the symposium, have you talked to him directly? As a sniper you are bashing the man and his reputation, which is not acceptable here. You could offer true debate on the subject instead of just bashing one of the finest minds in muskie management.
And please don't lecture me about the current WR. I acted to get it changed, doing what little I could to help the WRMA. I reviewed the material before it was published, s I am very familiar with the methodology. In fact, we published most of the WRMA material here. What's with you and the insistence I support the current world record?
I got right up in the Hayward Hall of Fame's face a couple times over the last few years, especially with the man who took the point on the quest from that group to get all the Muskie records disqualified but those from Wisconsin. Remember the CFMS? I submit that was little more than an attempt to accomplish much the same thing, using a different vehicle. I took ALOT of heat for both actions. In fact, I still am from some quarters. What have you done to try to bring about change?
That doesn't diminish a #*^@ed Dr. Casselman has done for the Muskie management world...the two don't necessarily merge. His opinion about Muskie 'Lore' is his own, and I respect that. Any reasonable person would.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8863
| I suspect Cassleman wamts to leave the recodrs lie because it's a can of worms he'd rather not open, and with no legitimate way to prove or disprove any of them, why would anyone in his position want to spend time and energy, and risk his own reputation to beat a dead horse. Because let's face it - that horse died a LONG time ago.
I say let the muskie management folks manage muskies and leave what may or may not have happened with a few fish that may or may not have been records from decades ago where they belong, and that's in old record books.
We are our own worst enemy when it comes to this #*#*. Anybody who catches a true giant now is bound to clobber the #*^@ thing just to settle the debate. That will help us learn how big they can really get... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | yup, football is more interesting ... |
|
| |
|
| Mr. Worrall,
Sorry about the spelling error. I'll be more careful next time. A person doesn't need any qualifications to question someone about something that isn't supported by any evidence. When there isn't any evidence, there is nothing to debate.
Further, if you spoke to Mr. Casselman about his position regarding the two remaining world records you would have found out that I was indeed correct. As I said the truth should be favored over the lore and I cannot respect Mr. Casselman's position and neither should you.
The can of worms has already been opened by the two record keeping bodies. Art Lawton was part of the "lore" and that didn't mean much of anything to anybody. Because of this I feel Mr. Casselman's position regarding the two remaining world records should not be respected by anyone.
I applaud your efforts in trying to get the record changed. I was not aware of your participation in this matter and for that I apologize. The information I have put forth in my posts was meant to lend support to your effort. If you respect Mr. Casselman's position on the two remaining world records, fine. But don't accuse me of being unreasonable if I don't.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32955
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | His position on the WR debate is one thing, and from my experience you are NOT 'indeed correct'. You read far too much into his and other biologist's feelings on the matter, and that's putting it nicely.
His reputation, record, and stellar performance as one of the leading minds in Muskie management is quite another. If you wish to acquire a shred of credibility, you need to separate the two, and refrain as an 'armchair amateur' from denigrating work widely recognized by fisheries management professionals across North America as top tier all the way.
Read the many papers out there on how biologists reach a conclusion on an upper confidence limit for any fish in any body of water. Better yet, learn more about that the terminology means.
At LEAST Read pages 12 through 21 of this one so you better understand how the science is done and conclusions reached:
http://www.esf.edu/tibs/Documents/SLR%20Muskellunge%20Management%20...
Another work:
http://books.google.com/books?id=_qPVXKBSyKgC&pg=PA140&lpg=PA140&dq... |
|
| |
