|
|
Posts: 691
Location: nationwide | Copy this into your address bar for the report.
http://www.freshwater-fishing.org/spray
Corey Meyer |
|
| |
|
Posts: 223
Location: minneapolis | Wow
 |
|
| |
|
Posts: 691
Location: nationwide | Don't crucify me for this but in the Sawyer County Racord last week there was a side bar to an article about this and John Dettloff had taken himself out of the voting for this. Whether he did it on his own or a higher power in the hall "recommended" it who knows.
Corey Meyer
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2894
Location: Yahara River Chain | The Hall had four professors who refuted the photo analysis of the WRMA report. You also have to remember that the Hall has many eye witnesses’ affidavits of folks that either saw the fish or weighed it. It hard to disallow eye witness accounts. |
|
| |
|
Location: The Yahara Chain | Mr. Detloff did not vote.
They have a compelling report that states why they kept it as the record. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 5874
| The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Looks like a lot of wasted effort to me, on both sides, as it really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. Definately won't matter when I bonk that big mamma this year on Green Bay! |
|
| |
|
| I stand corrected, but still feel the influence was probably reflected in the voting. The best part about it is we don't have to hear about it any more, right? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 284
Location: Fishing the weeds | I'm glad that nonsense is finally over. Now let's go catch that 70#er. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Wow is right!
It took well over an hour to go through the FWFHF ruling, and (though I certainly don't hold a PhD in Mathematics) from what I can tell the WRMA assumed some facts not in evidence. And I had forgotten about the signed affidavits, including that of the Postmaster. Pretty compelling is right...
(Now... anybody wanna talk about the Malo musky?)
TB
Edited by tcbetka 1/16/2006 5:03 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 384
Location: Eagle River, Alaska | I just finished reading the entire report and it was actually entertaining in a Hayward Hall of Shame sort of way. It was written to be intentionally obscure and out there so that most of the musky guys won't read it. And by taking this position they are really saying musky fishermen are too stupid to reply intelligibly to. If you get rid of the shi* in their report (it would be about 2 pages then) you find their basic agrument is that Dan Mills made too many assumptions....then THEIR guys go ahead and make more assumptions...which of course, you aren't supposed to be able to follow because of pages of meaningless explanations which have little if no relevance most of the time....to do their calculations. I'm sure in searching for THEIR guys nobody gave them a different answer then they wanted. Tell me right now after reading that report what facts did Dan Mills assume that weren't in evidence?? Can't do it immediately can you....what a bunch of horse puckey. They get after Mills for making assumptions and then go ahead and accept some of those assumptions for their own report.....huh? Is it just me or does that seem to be an odd thing to do.....man, I hope the sun comes out soon up here...the winter is getting long.
They really didn't address the taxidermy issue except to say the taxidermist was wrong and stick their tongues out at him. Their biggest agrument is that thousands of people saw the MOUNT....the obviously fudged mount....but what else could you expect.
So many who are tired of this ask so what? What significance does it have to me? Just go out and catch a 70 lb musky. Nice thought, but will almost certainly not happen if nature doesn't allow them to get that big. It seems nearly all really verifiable fish indicate the top end of musky is 60 pound range...maybe up to 65. Only selective genetic breeding may produce a larger musky but that would kind of defeat the purpose wouldn't it. You could always hope for a genetic freak but they would be pretty darn rare.
They had a chance to actually attempt to bring real credibility to the issue of musky world records and their pocket books just couldn't let them do it. Is that the laughter of Louis Spray I hear???? He's still laughing after 57 years.
You go Louie,
Brian
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 157
Location: Arlington Heights, IL | I have one question. Where in any part of the Hall's report do they show that there experts ever even read the report created by the WRMA, which was the bases for the protest? OK two questions. Why wouldn't the Hall want their experts to review the scientific study conduct by an independent and unbiased company, which again was the bases for the protest? Simple questions, but instead of simple answers, we get a very confusing report by the Hall, where the only refuting of the scientific study presented in the protest by the WRMA comes from the Hall itself and not any of their experts. Who's report is biased here, you don't have to be a scientist to figure this one out.
Jim Stella |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Doc,
Well stated, sir. Very well stated. |
|
| |
|
| Just catch a 50lber. out in front of Indian Trails Resort and it sure to become the next world record! |
|
| |
|
| One more thing, the fact that Detloff didn't vote on this issue couldn't be more irrelevant. I am quite sure he spent every waking hour convincing those who would vote to keep the record and then we he had the needed votes he backed out of the process.
The just of the hall report is that if you create a well documented fraud they will accept it as a new world record. |
|
| |
|
| Muskie Pat - 1/16/2006 4:20 PM
I'm glad that nonsense is finally over. Now let's go catch that 70#er.
Have fun going after that 70lber. They simply do not exist. (Except in Paul Bunyan/Babe Blue Ox land). |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | I guess I didn't get the impression that the FWFHF's experts *didn't* read the WRMA report as much as I got the impression that the FWFHF didn't want their experts to be biased by the results. I mean, think about it--in all likelihood every one of those 4 experts could simply Google the WRMA and go right to their website and find that information. I will tell you I thought that the FWFHF's report could have been written better, and they should have used a spell checker. There were a few mistakes that made it past their editors. But I didn't see how it was over the head of most Musky fisherman; at least not most that I know.
And the "facts not in evidence" I referred to was simply the points made regarding the accurate vanishing points apparently needed for accurate calculations within the software. I admit some of those references to the WRMA's report being based on assumptions were a bit obscure--but I do think they (FWFHF) have a point when they say that more than a little doubt has been cast on the validity of the method used to determine the maximum size that the fish could have been. And given that doubt, they made the only decision they really could have--to let the record stand.
Finally, disregard the testimony of ALL of those people who saw the mounted fish and only consider the affidavits of those who saw the fresh fish. Does anyone really believe that several people lied on Louis Spray's behalf? Do you think that most of those people knew the ramifications of testifying that Spray's fish was almost 3 inches longer than one caught by Cal Johnson only three months before? Is there really a high probability that Spray found all those people (including a US Postmaster, who's entire career would be at in jeopardy if he were caught lying) and got them all to make consistent statements? I am beginning to think that this is really not about finding the truth as much as it is about discrediting Detloff & the FWFHF. I mean--it can't be about discrediting the Hayward area as Johnson caught his fish 10-15 miles down the road...
While I don't hold a PhD in Mathematics I am a scientist and I have to tell you that it just doesn't seem that probable to me. It doesn't mean I side with the FWFHF, or the WRMA for that matter: In fact I think there are some interesting points made by both sides. But the FWFHF report makes more sense scientifically. But that's what great about this country--each is entitled to their own opinion.
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 284
Location: Fishing the weeds | ChrisS,
I don't fish for records and personally don't give a #*^@ whether someone catches the world record or not. I fish for the enjoyment of fishing. It just seems to me that whenever a record stands for a long time people are alway's questioning the validity of it. Maybe it's possible that his fish was a genetic freak. I don't know. And to say it's not possible to catch a 70# Muskie is really insinuating that we know everything about nature and the Muskie, which we all know is not the case. Otherwise catching these fish wouldn't be a challenge. And it seems to me that there are a lot of "Experts" on this and other forums that seem to have all the angles and the facts pertinant to this case but, strangely never testified at the hearings. Now why is that do you think? Just my opinion and that's all! Pat
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 910
Location: Hastings, mn, 55033 | can anyone please tell me where i can find information as to what methods of investigation and what evidence was used to discredit the lawton and hartman fish (maybe even this walleye record i hear was thrown out)? i'd like to make a comparison for myself as to how each investigation was conducted and decide whether all were held to the same standards.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1769
Location: Algonquin, ILL | The Record Tiger is 54" and 51lbs this record has not been disputed that I am aware of, I have seen replica mounts for this and the Spray fish side by side at a show and must say I did not see much of a difference, what does this mean? Based on the ruling it sets a unrealistic goal for Musky anglers now with that being said I hope somebody if not me proves this wrong and gets a new record, and has all the proper documentation, tons of pics, hundreds of affidavits and what ever else is needed to authenticate the catch.
BOTTOM LNE: Does this affect me in any way? NO not really, I will just keep fishing and enjoying my time on the water as often as I can
__________________ |
|
| |
|
Posts: 654
Location: MPLS, MN | LOL!! I can't wait to outdo what someone else did. It's my lifes goal to beat others at unimportant things. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | JohnMD,
The Cal Johnson fish was only 2-3 inches shorter then Spray's fish was, and doesn't look much difference in those pictures either. To my knowledge, I don't think that fish has been challenged either. I am not an expert in photography but I did find it interesting to read that part in the FWFHF report about the perspectives imparted on the "apparent" sizes of the fish in the 40's & 50's, compared to those shot with today's cameras.
I am just curious--do you think this had anything to do with your observation?
Thanks.
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1769
Location: Algonquin, ILL | I'm just going by what I saw, Now granted I do not know where the Taxidermist got thier measurment from but based on what I saw there was not much of a difference in physical size so I do not see how a Fish of similar dimensions could be 16lbs apart in weight. again does this Affect me in any way? the answer is still NO I love this sport and the only goal I am looking for is my next personal best
|
|
| |
|
| Doc,
What the HOF did was identify the limitations of the software used by DCM and call into question the "confidence" of there calculation. And yes, the basis of their rebuttal rested on the "assumptions" that DCM used to input the values into the software. The software seems limited when a number of unknown, critical variables are present. And in hindsight, it does not seem that the use of this software would have been the best course to take in analyzing the photo.
What DCM seemed to do to with a fair degree of accuracy, was establish a length of the "plane" in which the musky was presented in the photo. Then using this "plane" length, the HOF had the PhD's use another method to determine the length of the fish.
There really is only ONE question remaining to be answered in my mind. Which analysis provides more confidence for the true length of Spray's fish. Put emotions aside... and study the TWO methods of determination, scientifically and without bias... and which calculation holds a stronger argument. Mr. Worrall has shown a passion for science, so I think he'd agree with me that this is the right course for this topic.
This situation is similar to something found in my profession. I take a lot of statistical samples in my line of work. Based on the method in which I take samples, the size of the population and the population of my sample size, I can determine an overall cofidence level in my selected sample. Beit 90%, 95%, 99%, etc. We need to do the same with these two methods. After reading the hall's report, "same plane, direct scaling" seems to be a stronger method and provide a higher confidence level. However, I can be swayed back into WRMA's corner if... IF... assessing the variables they used, can provide a HIGHER confidence level in their method over the Hall's method. The battle isn't between WRMA and HOF, its between the principles of "same plane, direct scaling" and the software program DCM used.
So saith the Monk. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Monk,
Very well put. Thank you for stating so nicely what I could not find a way to iterate.
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Monk,
I agree, completely. When the collective somke clears, both sides will have a chance to present whatever argument they might defending the actual applications used and peer reviews done, etc. I'd REALLY like to see the smoke clear. |
|
| |
|
| Yeah, I'm still coughing here :). This argument has been going on for far too long, however I think we are getting closer to the finish line. |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | looking at the report and the pictures of the fish I just question how on earth that fish was suppose to be just shy of 70 lbs and 5 feet 3.5 inches and 31+ girth...look at some of the 50-55 lbers from the last 5 years and it just seems like there is no way that fish is as big as it was "suppose" to be...maybe cameras were different or something back then..but he's 5'11" and the fish is suppose to be only 7.5" shorter than him? well whatever...someone please go catch a 70 lber somewhere and put it all to rest !!!
|
|
| |
|
Location: The Yahara Chain | Very well put Monk. Who's science holds up? The name calling is getting very old. The whole thing is giving our sport a big black eye, IMO.
The postmaster's affidavit is a solid piece of evidence that cannot be so easily dismissed, either. It doesn't matter who notarized a document... it matters who signed it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 34
Location: Forest Lake Minnesota | I haven't heard anything from the IFGA so what does it matter what the hall of fame thinks.
Dave |
|
| |
|
Location: Duluth, MN - Superior, WI | I think it is funny that the Hall of Fame is putting all their cookies in a jar, based on the documentation and eyewitness. I‘m no expert on the situation but take a look at what I observed when I was looking at the documentation on the Hall of Fame web page.
(Photo #1) The Post Office
Look at how he, Jack signed his name on 10/20/49. Look at his K’s. I also think it is funny that the t’s in (Length and Girth) are pointed down. Deferent from the T in (Date). (Maybe) that was added after the fact. Like I said I’m no expert!!! I think it would be nice to have an analysis of it and other hand righting from Jack and Louie.
(Photo #2) Jack Reinke affidavit
Going back to how Jack signed his name on 10/20/49 in the post office to 10/28/49 eight day later it is deferent. What I see is that in eight day Jack all a sudden changed Not only how he signed his named but also penmanship!!!!! I think the kicker is look at the Notary!! It is Inez Spray!!!! Isn’t that Louis Spray wife?
(Photo #3-#4) I just cut both signatures and increased the size so you can see the deference. I don’t recall seeing this in the info from the WRMA or NFWFHF.
Edited by ckarren 1/17/2006 5:30 PM
Attachments
----------------
 photo #1.jpg (60KB - 177 downloads)
photo #2.jpg (75KB - 192 downloads)
photo #3.jpg (24KB - 157 downloads)
photo #4.jpg (21KB - 170 downloads)
|
|
| |
