|
|
Posts: 7
| You are forgetting that other fish came off of another location and that there are photos of it around. It is a darn monster only the mount and the photo match....and the Johnson mount and the photos do not match.
This thing is huge and the photos reflect it. It is perhaps the best photo I have ever seen, close to body, about side-by-side and so forth. I have no understanding about why this is excluded in any books or such. You ever get to see this and your mind is going to change. It has all the original teeth, and is not foraged.
I am not posting something that is not real either. It hung in Draper for a long time.
Edited by musky53dat 2/5/2010 10:31 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I know of another monster speared out of Enterprise back then, truly as big fish. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 7
| I read your article the CFMS situation. It was a "tribal study". The mounted fish I saw and did today again is the only musky of 60 inches that matches the photo. It has a head on it that is something else. I hope we do not go too far with this and not value the input of the Native American people spearing or not. You know, another long debate. He just got a little too far ahead of himself with the mount, but God the teeth in that creature! Its the big fish of this caliber where the mount and photo match.
I just finished a video about how things get bigger in a photo, taking side-by-side objects bringing one forward. It already changed a few minds. I might post it but would rather test the waters first. |
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | Shane's question from page one:
"It's obvious that photogrammetry does not meet the burden of proof for the "Hayward Hall" and the IGFA. After the IGFA turned down the Johnson fish challenge, the WRMA should have engaged them to determine what the burden of proof is to overturn a record and what type of analysis they would accept. That would allow for a series of next steps. Instead the WRMA "ceased a working relationship" (their own press release). It sounds a lot like they took their ball and went home."
I asked IGFA Conservation Director, Jason Schratwieser the following question on January 27, 2010: "Is the IGFA interested in reviewing new information regarding Mr. Johnson's record?"
Jason Schratwieser's answer: "I’m afraid that our executive committee is not interested in revisiting this again. I can assure you that I was being honest when I told you that your report was vetted at the highest possible level at our organization."
The bottom line is that the IGFA will not even consider "new information", let alone a series of "next steps". We were not surprised at the disinterest from the IGFA last month considering the way they handled our report to begin with. Unfortunately, there is simply no recourse for the WRMA with either sanctioning body at this time.
Sincerely,
Jerry Newman
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Rather than offering to pay for another independent photogrammetry review, the WRMA should just file a lawsuit against the Hall and the IGFA. Bring the information into a court of law. That would be the end to all this nonsense by these groups and I believe, the end of these bogus records. WRMA money would be better spent with this approach. You [WRMA] have a very solid case with irrefutable evidence. Use it in a venue devoid of all this silliness.
Edited by fins355 2/14/2010 8:38 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 550
Location: So. Illinois | Mr. Sworral's comments put this whole topic of discussion into the proper perspective. Ongoing efforts are not meant to discredit but to scrutinize and validate. The other concern is the obvious conflict of interest. I believe the ongoing efforts of the WRMA are credible and necessary and I look forward to the first validated record that holds up to scrutiny as it will provide valuable data regarding the true potential these fish can achieve.
R, Jerry (aka AFChief)
sworrall - 2/1/2010 10:10 AM
Let's try to look at this as the work was intended. There was no attempt to 'discredit' any of the records. The work done would have just as easily confirmed the records if they held up to scrutiny. Since they didn't hold up to scrutiny, the attempt has been to acquire at least acknowledgment by the record keeping organizations, and the ensuing battle between Larry and John erupted. Larry is not a member of the WRMA, he's a Muskie historian. The heart of the fighting isn't over the fact the data doesn't support the claims about the muskies in question, it's about the obvious conflict of interest RE: the Hayward Hall and John Dettloff et al.
So I say go ahead with the work until whatever 'reality' we choose to apply is settled upon. |
|
| |
|
| I apologize if this is out of line, but why is there so much effort in this? I understand people have different feelings about things, but this is something I have no interest in and frankly I can't believe that there is this much put into it. I love to fish, love to fish muskies, but before I read this page I had no idea who held the record or how much it weighed. Is it too much to let this go and just enjoy the sport for what it is? Before I get deluged with heckles, I don't know anyone involved in this mess nor do I care to. Maybe I'm alone in my opinion, if so fight on!
FF |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3480
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | Hi FF,
Not out of line at all....you are one of many who do not carry an interest in the records and it is to be expected that there are many many more that carry the same feeling. There are many others, though, that wish to see legitimized records that can be verified and hold up under scrutiny many times over. At this point, the WRMA has been working toward this and have met quite a bit of resistance to say the least. Understandable, but in order to find records that hold up, some toes need to be stepped on. To effect change in this area will take people....LOTS of them to voice their feelings and be heard. Currently as Jerry said, neither body is willing to even listen to the case let alone change it. It doesn't leave much to work with, which is a very sad thing!!
I will go on record as one who wishes to see the records scrutinized and verified. For one, with all the big fish being caught in the past few years, I feel many would like to know just how close to the record their fish might be. Could it potentially cause more fish to be killed?...maybe.... Hard to call on that one, although many would argue yes and feel it would kill the fisheries. That point might be valid too, so it just cannot be passed over. Tough calls here...
Steve |
|
| |
|
| Thanks Steve, I appreciate you taking the time to respond back. You cleared it up a bit for me, I still have very little interest but at least I know a little about what's going on. Thanks and good luck! |
|
| |
