|
|
| Rich Gaspari said to me.at 5.7 feet nor you or I will ever be that big!
Wahhahhahahahahahaha 5'7" more like smurf size at 5'2" !!!
Come on guys, you all wishthat it was you that caught the fish, jealousy tsktsk' |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8782
| Guest - 2/6/2012 3:57 PM
Rich Gaspari said to me.at 5.7 feet nor you or I will ever be that big!
Wahhahhahahahahahaha 5'7" more like smurf size at 5'2" !!!
Come on guys, you all wishthat it was you that caught the fish, jealousy tsktsk'
Are you kidding me? I wouldn't want that flaming bag of crap. And that's all it would be, would be a giant flaming bag of crap, unless it absolutely dwarfed all of the other historical "records", such that nobody could deny that it was indeed the largest muskie ever known to be caught. And even if that WERE possible, and even if that DID happen, you'd have to clobber it and call NASA and the Smithsonian to whisk it away to an underground bunker to be weighed, measured, aged, dated, DNA samples, scale samples... And if God himseef came down and said it was the biggest muskie ever caught? There'd still be a bunch of idiots going on and on about how it was only 54" and not even 50#, and that they caught a bigger one last year. (likely in a place not known for producing large muskies)
No thanks. It would be way more fun to let it go and just post the pictures, sans any length or girth or weight measurements. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Well...I would have loved to catch that fish...I would have kept it, measured it, weighed it, mounted it and have a nameplate made saying it was 54" long and weighed [about] 58lbs. I would hang it in my house enjoy it along with family and friends for our lifetime and beyond. One thing I wouldn't do is to try to pass it off as a 65 lb. 58" Canadian record. That's where the trouble began. It took a long time but these bogus fish are finally being called out.....because of the findings started by John Detloff with Art Lawton and continued by the WMA [WRMA]. I say good for them....it's about time we got some truth to the records...
DougP |
|
| |
|
| fins355 - 2/6/2012 4:31 PM
Well...I would have loved to catch that fish...I would have kept it, measured it, weighed it, mounted it and have a nameplate made saying it was 54" long and weighed [about] 58lbs. I would hang it in my house enjoy it along with family and friends for our lifetime and beyond. One thing I wouldn't do is to try to pass it off as a 65 lb. 58" Canadian record. That's where the trouble began. It took a long time but these bogus fish are finally being called out.....because of the findings started by John Detloff with Art Lawton and continued by the WMA [WRMA]. I say good for them....it's about time we got some truth to the records...
DougP
I was about to post something very similar. A 54", 58 lb. muskie is truly a magnificent specimen. |
|
| |
|
| LR: ... A few of the photo's reveal and GO AGAINST what I was told and published in my book. My reasonably valid thought is that AFTER the fish was hung, it was hosed off. I have 3 photo's that, on close examination, show the nozzle of the hose close to the hanging fish, when I was told that wasn't the case. ...
Just goes to show that you can't believe everything you hear. |
|
| |
|
| Also, in the photos with O'Brien holding the fish horizontally that were supposedly taken two to three hours after the fish was caught and just before the fish was placed in the freezer, notice the clarity of the fish's eyeball. One of the best indicators of the freshness of a fish is the clarity of the eyeballs as well as the color of the gills. If this fish had experienced any dehydration at all the eye would be the first place to show it.
|
|
| |
|
| Of further interest is that at 30 years of age, O'Brien's muskie IS one of the oldest, if not the oldest muskie on record. At 54" in length, this fish would also be the slowest growing 54" muskie on record.
|
|
| |
|
| I love this place!! Steve's sagely and firm editorial hand combined with top anglers and brilliant biologists. Who needs TV? don't watch it anymore.
I'd like to see the big record settled in an undisputed manner. My money is on Steamboat. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Edit...
New thread started in the "Research" area, to stay on-topic.
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread-view.asp?fid=15...
TB
Edited by tcbetka 3/22/2012 11:00 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 18
| As a past M.C.I. member know that they have nothing to do with records, but they can and should influence the Ofah to investgate the O'Brien fish. As for the southerners coming up here to fish what M.C.I. has helped to make better, most US fishermen come to northwestern Ontario where our fishery is self sustaining with the help of regulations . NOT with the help of M.C.I. they do nothing outside of southern ontario, but troll for membership fees! |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | I cannot comment on how MCI runs its business, but I would like to go on-the-record as offering my congratulations to their very own Hedrick Wachelka for being formally listed as a co-author on Sean Landsman's recent article in Fisheries Research. As I understand it, Mr. Wachelka was instrumental in the success of the study--as were donations from both MCI and Muskies Inc.
Here's the paper...
http://fishlab.nres.uiuc.edu/Documents/Landsman_et_al_Muskellunge.p...
Not to de-rail this (dead) thread or anything, but I'd say that this sort of peer-reviewed research speaks very well about those who undertook the effort to make it happen...especially Sean Landsman, who earned himself a Masters Degree with it. Congrats all! Let's see more of these original papers in the next 3-5 years.
TB |
|
| |
|
| Hedrick, is a fantastic human being and some what of living legend around here.
He was with Sean almost every single hour while they caught, tagged and tracked fish. He has done more for the fisheries in the Ottawa area than anyone could even think of accomplishing. Has been with Muskies Canada from inception and has worked thousands of ours for the club.
Great to some somebody recognize him. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 225
Location: Ontario, Canada | wabigoonie - 3/23/2012 9:20 AM
As a past M.C.I. member know that they have nothing to do with records, but they can and should influence the Ofah to investgate the O'Brien fish. As for the southerners coming up here to fish what M.C.I. has helped to make better, most US fishermen come to northwestern Ontario where our fishery is self sustaining with the help of regulations . NOT with the help of M.C.I. they do nothing outside of southern ontario, but troll for membership fees!
You are mis-informed. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1529
| who really believes musky fishermen anyhoe.
in my humble opinion canadais where the record belongs,and yes this issue thru the years has become a territorial issue. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 18
| You are mis-informed
WHATEVER  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 225
Location: Ontario, Canada | Great comeback....
Edited by pigeontroller 3/24/2012 12:43 PM
|
|
| |
|
| 2007 Larry Ramsell: (Note: The previous photo of me with the frozen fish shows the head in a "bent down" position, likely overlapping the cut in the fish's throat).
Source: A Compendium of Muskie Angling History, 3rd Edition, Volume 1, P. 473.
2011 Larry Ramsell: As for the head being bent over when I remeasured the fish, all one need do is look at my photo in the Summary Report., the lower jaw is in line with the fork of the tail and certainly isn’t hiding 4 inches of fish length!!
Source: P. 13 of the discussion of the "WMA O'Brien Summary Report" currently located in the Muskie Research Forum.
Note: The photo in the "Compendium" is the SAME photo as the one in the "Summary Report".
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | "and certainly isn’t hiding 4 inches of fish length!!"
And your problem is???...;
Edited by Larry Ramsell 4/27/2012 7:31 AM
|
|
| |
|
| What was the purpose of your 2007 statement? |
|
| |
|
| Larry Ramsell - 4/27/2012 7:28 AM
"and certainly isn’t hiding 4 inches of fish length!!"
And your problem is???...;
If you truly feel this is true why were you supporting this fish in 2007? Did the photo appear different to you then than it does now?
Also, in 2007 what was the purpose of identifying the type of measuring stick O'Brien was posing with in your latest "Compendium"?
And finally, you consider the mold a revelation and that it changed your opinion. How do you figure the cast made from the mold could possibly be anything different than the frozen fish you measured? |
|
| |
