Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
| Moderators: sworrall, Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 Now viewing page 1 [30 messages per page] More Muskie Fishing -> Muskie Biology -> Muskellunge Record Keeping Enters a New Era |
| Message Subject: Muskellunge Record Keeping Enters a New Era | |||
sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32880 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/articles/04.02.2006/1036/Modern.Day... | ||
| Obfuscate Musky |
| ||
Posts: 654 Location: MPLS, MN | Sweet, A reason to keep Muskies | ||
| Jomusky |
| ||
Posts: 1185 Location: Wishin I Was Fishin' | OK The article doesn't say how to make submisssions and all the requirements besides the minimum weight. It sure would be nice to know before the season opens so we all can be prepared and not miss some crazy rule for submision. First off, I would hope provisions are in place for released fish, but there is the question. How do you get a certified weight on a fish and then successfully let it go? After all I plan on breaking the 60 pound mark this year, how about you? | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32880 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Here you go: http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/articles/04.02.2006/1037/Rules,.Reg... As far as the comment from obfuscate, that's ridiculous. It's still up to any angler as a personal decision whether to release or keep a really big fish. Nothing has changed there in any way, form, or fashion. Any really big muskie can be released, it's up to the individual. I think that subject has been covered multiple times here on MuskieFIRST. If I catch a 60# fish ( I was probably within 6 or 7# of that once and she went back) , she probably goes back. 70#, you will hear the thump in Atalnta. | ||
| VMS |
| ||
Posts: 3479 Location: Elk River, Minnesota | Being that every angler has the option to catch and keep or release a fish, is there any chance that there can be two categories? I know that I have no desire to keep any fish of any size, and because of that it would be nice to have a release category. What I would propose is a release division whereas the combined calculation of length and girth is somehow used, along with a verified photo that would somehow show the evidence of length at a minimum. I'm not exactly sure how you could obtain a legitimate photo of a girth measurement, but if one could be somehow done, it would be a good thing. Playing devil's advocate here for a moment: About the only question I have about this whole idea is how does it look to the rest of the fishing community in general? Will this new record keeping body ever be considered to be a reputable, respected institution? If the IGFA is considered a legitimate, well respected, and known record-keeping body, why not just use that institution? Will the WRMA be disbanded or will they continue to work with the IGFA in verifying/disproving the records listed there? Steve | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32880 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | The WRMA remains active. Im pretty sure there has been no discussion about a 'release catagory' at this point. | ||
| BenR |
| ||
| When it comes down to it..a 60lb vs. 70lb is a meal...I would have a hard time not thumping either. Not because I want to, but once you land, handle, photo and such I think release could perhaps be a bit pointless with a fish of this size...I would be curious to hear others thoughts anyhow...kept or released...great fish either way..Ben | |||
| Guest |
| ||
sworrall - 4/2/2006 10:27 PM As far as the comment from obfuscate, that's ridiculous. A 60 Pound Muskie now means $$$ and self glory it once would not have meant. In my opinion it's ridiculous and naive to think otherwise. That seems like enough incentive for someone to keep a big fish. | |||
| Obfuscate Musky |
| ||
Posts: 654 Location: MPLS, MN | That last post was by me. I'd also like to add there are plenty of fisherman dumb enough to think their 40 pound muskie is a 60 pounder and they'll keep it hoping it's a record. Edited by Obfuscate Musky 4/3/2006 7:50 AM | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32880 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I would strongly disagree. A 40# fish is fairly common, but a 60# fish is not. How many REAL and provable 60# and larger fish have been caught over the course of Muskie angling history? Even if we assume all records now in question or tossed out in the past, it's only a handfull and only a couple in the last 20 years. I would also submit most if not all anglers who would release any large muskie, even a 40# fish, know the difference between a 40# and 60# fish. The incidental catch by someone not a Muskie angler isn't an issue, as that person won't know what record is what, and in any case STILL will know a 40# fish is not 60#.I bet most fishermen and women are not as 'dumb' as you think. A true 60# fish meant 'self glory' before this program was endorsed by MI and offered to the muskie angling public, didn't it? I know that many anglers right here on this board would have kept a true 60# fish if they caught one before this program. the chances are very slim that will happen to any of us, but if it does and the fish is legally kept, my congratulations will be LOUDLY posted and I'd go to any show where that fish was on display, just to look at it for future reference and with total awe. Who on this board has caught and released a 60# fish? Anyone? | ||
| Obfuscate Musky |
| ||
Posts: 654 Location: MPLS, MN | sworrall - 4/3/2006 9:11 AM I would strongly disagree. A 40# fish is fairly common, but a 60# fish is not. Well, we'll have to respectfully agree to disagree. Yeah, most hardcore musky guys do know the differance. I'd submit most people you fish with do. However there are many newbies and inexperianced anglers who may not know the differance. A good friend of mine always way over guesses badly every fish that's caght in my boat. I think there are many guys like that who could think their 40-50 pounder is 60 and keep a fish thinking it could lead to something financially or to become "known". Don't get me wrong, people have every legal right to keep smaller fish. I just think even if only a couple 50-70 pounders are kept because of this NEW orginization it's too many. My 2 cents. | ||
| Vince Weirick |
| ||
Posts: 1060 Location: Palm Coast, FL | I totally agree with Steve...except for the thump. If it is 70 lbs...BANG! Just like the old days. I don't think there will be fish killed because of this. I was at the meeting when Larry Ramsell brought it before the board of MI. I think it is a great idea and the people on the committee is outstanding leaders of the muskie world. | ||
| Shep |
| ||
Posts: 5874 | Glad to see somebody took my suggestion serious. Any bets on when the first submission comes in? My bet is November, from GB. Who from? Me, of course! | ||
| Steve R |
| ||
| A record program for musky fisherman by musky fisherman - this is a great idea! It's a good way to just bypass those phony FWFHF and IGFA records and give everyone (who's interested) a mark to shoot for this year. It would really be a shame if someone caught a 66 pounder and didn't properly record it because of the phony's. I doubt that anyone other than a musky fisherman will know about this if they luck into a 60, AND anyone who is lucky enough to catch a 60 would most likely keep it anyway. If someone is too stupid to know the difference between a 40 and a 60 they would be keeping it anyway. Does anyone know if Williams and O'Brien's could be entered in this program? | |||
| Pete Stoltman |
| ||
Posts: 663 | I have to admit to having mixed feelings about this news. Perhaps some of this is due to unaswered quetions I have and some of you may be able to help explain. My understanding is that this proposal was brought up at the MI International spring meeting. Does this mean that Muskies Inc. will now be considered the official record keeping agency? If this is incorrect then I assume "the committee" will act as the record keeping agency with the support of Muskies Inc. Please clear this up. The group of people listed certainly represents some of the clearcut leaders in the activity and has representation from people with scientific/fisheries backgrounds. I have no problem with that. How will committee members be determined in the future? Is there a term of office or a protocol for selecting members of the committee? How does the committee establish itself as the official record keeper in the context of the larger sportfishing community? Are other record keeping organizations (IGFA, FWFHOF, etc.) willing to accept records established by this committee? The ongoing debate between WRMA and FWFHOF has been well documented. Have efforts to change record status been also presented to IGFA? I only know of two record keeping organizations IGFA and FWFHOF so please excuse me if I am excluding others. Has the IGFA (or others) refused to examine the findings of WRMA? If the answer to this is no then I would question why such a procedure wasn't pursued to use an already existing organization as the record keeping entitiy for our area of the sport. Do other fish specific organizations maintain their own records outside of organizations like IGFA? For example, are there records maintained by Trout Unlimited that differ from IGFA records? If someone could help answer these questions it would help me to decide just how to feel about this. I agree that the time had come for the clouded records of the past to come under examination. I think we all would like a clearcut definition of what constitutes a world record. Are we now abandoning fish from the past that have had reasonable documentation? While I would like to think that this committee would provide a definitive path to record keeping I am concerned that it will only serve to further splinter what is already a small segment of the greater sportfishing community. The sportsman in general will have to decide wether the FWFHOF, IGFA, or Committee record is the real one. Regional favorites certainlty are a factor in this concern. This is somewhat remeniscent of having various boxing organizations determine who is "the champ". I'll refrain from expressing more views until I get a chance to chew on this a bit. Thanks to anyone who can shed some light on my questions. | ||
| Chinwhiskers |
| ||
| Thank you Pete, You are one of the few that has some sense. Marv. | |||
| Pete Stoltman |
| ||
Posts: 663 | OK, another question just occured to me. I believe that usually Muskies Inc. propoals are something that gets around to the RVP's and then the various chapters are "supposed" to find out from their repective memberships on how they would like the rep to vote. Am I wrong on this? Was this proposal already "out there" and had an opportunity to go through the general membership? I suspect not since I really didin't hear any chatter prior to this weekend. If I'm wrong about this then maybe somebody who is an officer of MI can comment about the procedure. Maybe it is just that I had been a member of a chapter who generally asked the membership at the meetings about how they wanted to vote on various issues prior to an International meeting. If this is actually the accepted procedure why was it not followed in this case? The formation of such a new organization is a serious step. How much time was allocated to this issue? Did everyone have a chance to look over the bylaws or whatever you call the document that has been posted to agree to the procedure for determining the world record? Seems to me you could have spent a whole weekend just going through the fine points of that document. Here's the thing that bothers me about this. Just as the FWFHOF was criticized for doing things in "closed door sessions" is this not similar? If a new organization is to be accepted by not only the musky commiuntiy but the entire sportfishing world I think the matters of credibility should be compeletely above board. While I have stated that I'm generally in favor of examining and making determinations as to the validity of old records I'm just very concerned that this "appears" to be something that got hustled through based soley on the prominent names of the involved parties. | ||
| Vince Weirick |
| ||
Posts: 1060 Location: Palm Coast, FL | Pete, It was brought before the Muskies Inc. to support it. MI will not do anything more than that. There are members that are on the BOD of Muskies Inc. I hope this helps out. It was not brought to the RVP's attention prior to the meeting. MI did not feel the people involved (who were from all facets for the muskie fishing industry and also with different views) would by any way, shape or form would tarnish the industry. Like you mentioned...these people are some of the best out there with knowledge that far exceeds most. Edited by Vince Weirick 4/3/2006 3:45 PM | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32880 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Pete, Contact Larry via email with your concerns, I'm sure he will answer them carefully and completely. | ||
| DocEsox |
| ||
Posts: 384 Location: Eagle River, Alaska | Pete......the WRMA report wasn't submitted to the IGFA since they do not recognize the Spray fish as the current, but instead have Cal Johnson's fish as the record. I assume when the WRMA has but their efforts into verifying the Johnson fish, if they feel it is exaggerated I'm sure they will submit a report to the IGFA for their evaluation of the subject. Unless specifically petitioned in this way I'm sure the IGFA would not voluntarily say anything about the WR musky mess. I would think part of the reason for doing this new program is that the musky record is truly one at the heart of the NFWHOF due to its location in the middle of musky country and those involved in the Modern Record programme are also musky people. The IGFA considers somewhere around 900 different species worldwide.....the don't have a "special" place for musky as those involved in this programme would. I believe it is a sincere effort to bring the musky WR into reality....someplace it hasn't been for a long, long time. Brian | ||
| Luke_Chinewalker |
| ||
Location: Minneapolis, MN | Pete - I was in the audience and my first reaction was that this appeared a little covert. However upon reflection since MI is only endorsing and not taking any responsibility to be the record keeping agency, I don't believe a motion was required as a simple endorsement doesn't appear to effect any bylaws or procedure changes. If it did require a motion then you are correct, the motion would have to be submitted many weeks prior to the board meeting, giving RVP's and chapters some time to discuss the issue prior to the meeting. | ||
| Pete Stoltman |
| ||
Posts: 663 | Thank you guys for your responses. I hope I'm clear in stating that I'm not necessarily opposed to the formation of such an organization. I regard some of the people who are listed as board members to be personal friends and believe everyone has the sincerest intentions of the activity at heart. Frankly I'm sruprised Larry hasn't been on this board to respond or clarify some of these points. I've seen that he has been on the Musky Hunter board. I guess I will take your suggestion Steve and e-mail Larry directly even though I would like to see the responses on a public forum. Oh well, the only person I have to convince of the benefit of this new organization is me. | ||
| Guest |
| ||
| Brian - - The reason the IGFA never certified the Spray fish was that it was shot when caught this was a legel way to land a fish at that time in Wisconsin, they had no problem with the weight of the fish just that it was shot. Marv. | |||
| Larry Ramsell |
| ||
Posts: 1290 Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Pete: Sorry for not responding sooner. Been trying to keep up with several boards and watch the ball game. Figured Steve could handle most here, but my responsibility, so here goes; You asked: "My understanding is that this proposal was brought up at the MI International spring meeting. Does this mean that Muskies Inc. will now be considered the official record keeping agency? If this is incorrect then I assume "the committee" will act as the record keeping agency with the support of Muskies Inc. Please clear this up." Larry: Muskie's, Inc. International Board voted to "endorse and support the modern day muskie record program." Muskie's, Inc. will not be involved in record keeping. You asked: "The group of people listed certainly represents some of the clearcut leaders in the activity and has representation from people with scientific/fisheries backgrounds. I have no problem with that. How will committee members be determined in the future? Is there a term of office or a protocol for selecting members of the committee?" Larry: To date, committee members have been determined by invitation, including some after offering their services. There is no "term of office." There were some initial consideratons for committee members; they were high profile and respected members of the muskie community fishing industry or scientific community; they had the common interest of establishing verfiable and credible records; they wished to be involved; several were in strategic locations of record potential waters. All invites were not accepted, and not all have yet responded and some have yet to be tendered. There is currently no official protocol for the distant future, but it is on the list of protocol's to be worked on. You asked: "How does the committee establish itself as the official record keeper in the context of the larger sportfishing community? Are other record keeping organizations (IGFA, FWFHOF, etc.) willing to accept records established by this committee?" Larry: The larger sportfishing community is not our concern. Only muskellunge and its hybrid are within our purview. I cannot speak to the last part of your question, as I cannot speak for those organizations. You stated and asked: "The ongoing debate between WRMA and FWFHOF has been well documented. Have efforts to change record status been also presented to IGFA? I only know of two record keeping organizations IGFA and FWFHOF so please excuse me if I am excluding others. Has the IGFA (or others) refused to examine the findings of WRMA? If the answer to this is no then I would question why such a procedure wasn't pursued to use an already existing organization as the record keeping entitiy for our area of the sport." Larry: This program has absolutely nothing to do with the debate alluded to. If I understand the first question right, that would be a question for the WRMA. You are correct about the two record keeping organizations noted. There are no others (except states and provinces of course). Your WRMA question will have to be directed to them as I cannot answer it, but I believe that the WRMA has not yet tendered anything to the IGFA. I am not clear as to your meaning in your last statement. You asked: "Do other fish specific organizations maintain their own records outside of organizations like IGFA? For example, are there records maintained by Trout Unlimited that differ from IGFA records?" Larry: I believe BASS keeps some sort of bass records, but since I am not a member I cannot tell you for sure, and what all it entails. Since I follow only muskies, I cannot speak to what other species specific clubs around the world do. You stated and asked: "If someone could help answer these questions it would help me to decide just how to feel about this. I agree that the time had come for the clouded records of the past to come under examination. I think we all would like a clearcut definition of what constitutes a world record. Are we now abandoning fish from the past that have had reasonable documentation? While I would like to think that this committee would provide a definitive path to record keeping I am concerned that it will only serve to further splinter what is already a small segment of the greater sportfishing community. The sportsman in general will have to decide wether the FWFHOF, IGFA, or Committee record is the real one. Regional favorites certainlty are a factor in this concern. This is somewhat remeniscent of having various boxing organizations determine who is "the champ". " Larry: This program is not involved in examining the past records, but I'll assume you are referring to the work being done by the WRMA. We are not abandoning any fish from the past that have documentation sufficient to satisfy the rules and the committee. Application for record will be up to the anglers. As to your comment regarding "splintering," one need only to look closely at the committee list. I think you will find a few cases of "strange bed fellows!" We see this program as pulling the muskie community together, not forcing it apart. As for determining which organization an angler wishes to submit his or her fish, that choice will be a personal. In most cases, anglers submit their record catches to all record keeping organizations. As things currently stand, anything under 67 1/2 pounds down to 60 pounds is acceptable to only one current organization...this new one. You end: "I'll refrain from expressing more views until I get a chance to chew on this a bit. Thanks to anyone who can shed some light on my questions." Larry: Pete, I hope these answers are what you were looking for (so far, will get to your follow-up next), and help your "chewing." You're welcome! Pete continues: "OK, another question just occured to me. I believe that usually Muskies Inc. propoals are something that gets around to the RVP's and then the various chapters are "supposed" to find out from their repective memberships on how they would like the rep to vote. Am I wrong on this? Was this proposal already "out there" and had an opportunity to go through the general membership? I suspect not since I really didin't hear any chatter prior to this weekend. If I'm wrong about this then maybe somebody who is an officer of MI can comment about the procedure. Maybe it is just that I had been a member of a chapter who generally asked the membership at the meetings about how they wanted to vote on various issues prior to an International meeting. If this is actually the accepted procedure why was it not followed in this case?" Larry: I believe this has already been answered, but this involved no change to MI by-laws. Pete continues: "The formation of such a new organization is a serious step. How much time was allocated to this issue? Did everyone have a chance to look over the bylaws or whatever you call the document that has been posted to agree to the procedure for determining the world record? Seems to me you could have spent a whole weekend just going through the fine points of that document." Larry: Again, its operaton did not and does not involve MI and it involved no by-law change for MI and MI is not getting into the record keeping business. Pete said: "Here's the thing that bothers me about this. Just as the FWFHOF was criticized for doing things in "closed door sessions" is this not similar? If a new organization is to be accepted by not only the musky commiuntiy but the entire sportfishing world I think the matters of credibility should be compeletely above board. While I have stated that I'm generally in favor of examining and making determinations as to the validity of old records I'm just very concerned that this "appears" to be something that got hustled through based soley on the prominent names of the involved parties." Larry: It appears that this is still in reference to MI, please correct me if I am wrong. As noted previously, MI has no connection to the operation of this program, they only agreed to endorse and support it, and the doors were open and guests were present. I believe this makes the latter part of your statement invalid. Muskie regards, Larry Ramsell Committee Chairman | ||
| DocEsox |
| ||
Posts: 384 Location: Eagle River, Alaska | Marv....thanks I knew that was their reasoning, yet doesn't it seem strange they grandfathered in most of the records from the old Field and Stream programme. I believe it was a convenient way to get around having to qualify the Spray fish as it's photos just don't measure up.....in my opinion. As with the "retired" Lawton record they tend to move away from controversy. It will be interesting if the Johnson record is challenged (and IMHO I don't believe it measures up either) to see what their reponse is. I seem to remember a quote made when the Lawton record was "retired" from the IGFA that if a record had any measure of questionability they wouldn't certify it.....I believe that was in one of the comments from Larry Ramsells' article about the disqualification of the Lawton record. Currently, I am a member of the IGFA and would welcome their input into this issue. But, I believe they try to take a larger view of all fishing records, not just musky. It fascinates me that only 16 freshwater records, of hundreds, have not been broken since 1970. And of those only the musky has such a storied history of so many, falsified fish. Even if you question the walleye, smallmouth bass and largemouth....these are just single fish questions. The musky world seems to be rife with the largest fish of all time having been disqualified and questioned. BTW Larry, Bassmaster does have a well publicized Top 25 bass of all time....which, of course, are nearly all California fish. I don't believe in Perry's fish either but it will be beaten sooner or later due to the giant, couch potato, trout fed bass of southern Cal. But that is not a discussion for this board. Brian | ||
| The Yeti |
| ||
| i think in order to disprove old records.....you people are unfortunalty GOING to cause a LOT of fish to be killed whether you realize it or not or want to own up to it/admit it. Yes, back in 1995 when the internet was not what it was, people wouldnt know "what record is what". NOW, in the information age, joe blow reads a misconstrued post on bass pro shop website forum and goes out looking for bertha.....blam, gets a "common" 40# fish (steve where are you fishing that these fish are so common by the way???) and Thumper cracks her thinking he has a record people, realize this. most of us will NEVER see a 60lb fish, let alone hold one. hell, i'd venture to say not ONE person on this site that posts has EVER held a TRUE 60lb fish. the .001 % of us that will or might see that fish are not part of the 1% of the musky fishing population that could possibly estimate a fish to be 60lbs without a scale, i don't care WHAT your name is. that 1% being weightlifters and butchers that KNOW what 60lbs feels like, not someone that's caught a few or even several big muskies. and you can't say excitement estimation won't play a part in what i'm going to say next. now factor into those percentages all the Joe Q. Publics that just read about the new certification process on BPS.com forums, etc. a "common" muskie or "very nice" fish to us, is a potential world record to John Q. you can see where i'm going with this. a LOT of dead, not even close to 60lb fish. i think this whole thing is erratic, hasty and quite honestly, very egotistical by people i would least expect that from. and to say the least, M.I. aligning themselves with this apparently powerful, almost political body within the fishing ranks that perpetuates and is promoting anti-catch and release. it's ok cuz it's angler choice?? yeah, i guess it always has been, but it was still kinda taboo guys, and even though it was "his right"...is it really?? This is NOT perpetuating any kind of positive impact on our fisheries, no matter HOW u look at it...and anything that is not positive regarding these fish, is usually hurting our cause as CPR fisherman. not to mention, supporters of all the protocol involved in being serious about having better fisheries. i'm sour over this, but, that's my "choice" too. George Ivanusic Yeti Edited by The Yeti 4/4/2006 1:54 AM | |||
| BenR |
| ||
| Not knowing the difference between a 40 to 50 to a 60lb fish is a bit crazy. Look at is this way...a 32 inch 8lb fish vs. a 42inch 18lb fish no problems there...huge difference. I have been lucky enough to catch a 40lb fish, and it was way different than the 30lb fish I caught and way dif. than the 35lb fish I have caught. If you have caught a 30lb fish, you would know whether the fish you just now caught is twice the size...the step in class of fish is sooo apparent, that to argue other wise you are saying you really have never encountered a fish that was over 30lbs....the person who makes the mistake is catching it on accident and is keeping it anyways...fairly simple...Ben | |||
| muskie! nut |
| ||
Posts: 2894 Location: Yahara River Chain | LarryR says: "It appears that this is still in reference to MI, please correct me if I am wrong. As noted previously, MI has no connection to the operation of this program, they only agreed to endorse and support it, and the doors were open and guests were present. I believe this makes the latter part of your statement invalid." I would like folks to know that most voting (MI RVPs, ALD, & Past Presidents) at the MI meeting on this did NOT have a chance to review the rules put forth by Larry. They had the assurance from the ones that did - only. Most of those that did not see the document have most likely still have not see it until it hit the internet. I am wondering why Larry did not hand out copies of the rules at the begining of the day so folks could read it & ask questions that they may have and vote on something that they actually read, not being advised on. Larry was on the agenda, but the specifics rules were not. | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32880 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Yeti, I'd still disagree. First, Ben said what I would here. Second, I said 40# fish are fairly common in the context of comparison to 60# fish, I caught one in that class three seasons back here in Rhinelander, one a couple ounces short back in the day, and a couple off the Goon that broke that mark. I broke 50# once, but have never come close to 60#, not even close. I think it's VERY rare a high 50# fish is caught. VERY rare. I know I'll have my cradle and scale with me from now on as I always have, but the scale will now go to 60#. It'll be accurate, and the fish will need to be well over the mark and I may STILL let her go. I doubt that it'll be me, and I doubt it'll be Yeti ( but you never know) who breaks that mark, but I hope it's eventually broken. Is the idea to forever accept that it takes 67# to 70# to break the record when it's pretty clear that a 70# fish has never been legally caught and registered? With the Internet now what it is, wouldn't you admit MORE poeple know what a giant fish looks like, and conversely, what a fish that isn't such a giant looks like? Why is it the concern that a fish might be harvested is so strong at this level, yet people complain and argue over a 50" limit on a potential trophy lake? Don't mix up the CPR and Conservation ethic with the record keeping finction here and insist that they are not compatible, they most certainly are. If indeed you do catch that fish, you can take a picture and let her go. Most of your caliber will. Most who are not your caliber would keep the fish anyway. I'll ask the question again, who here has caught a 60# fish? How about 55#? 54#? You get my drift. I think this will cause more folks to be careful, and make SURE the mark is broken. I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of some of the elitists out there if I missed it by a couple ounces. And is it 'his right'? You had better believe it is, and I'll scratch and claw to see it remains that way. I don't have time to explain why here, but it has to do with the future of our sport, promotion of a strong and reality based conservation ethic, growth and participation, and much more. I'll let Larry answer nut, but I do know the final draft of the rules was approved almost immediately before the MI meeting. More than anything else, it was time restraints and nothing more. | ||
| Chinwhiskers |
| ||
| Brian - - How can you say you dont belive in Perry's fish and then say it will be broken, in fact it was broken this last year and is in the process of being certified now . But that's not a discussion for this board. Anyway if you don't belive the photos of Spray's fish , the sworn statments, the weighing of the fish on a post office scale. The fish mount itself that was on display for years, than theres no one now that will change your mind so go ahead and come up with new ones, doesn't matter just make some up. Marv. | |||
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 Now viewing page 1 [30 messages per page] |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Copyright © 2024 OutdoorsFIRST Media |