|
|
Location: 31 | World Record Muskie Alliance www.worldrecordmuskiealliance.com
Johnson Summary Report released to the public
Cal Johnson, 60 ¼” x 33 ½” 67lb. 8oz.
All Tackle Muskellunge Record / International Game Fish Association
Line Class Muskellunge Record / Freshwater Fishing Hall of Fame
Woodstock, Illinois 11-30-2009 — Attached is the link to World Record Muskie Alliance (WRMA) report on the All Tackle Muskellunge Record as currently acknowledged by the International Game Fish Association and Freshwater Fishing Hall of Fame.
The WRMA report questions the validity of Cal Johnson's 1949 World Record with scientific and circumstantial evidence. There will also be a brief summation of the photogrammetry portion of the report by Larry Ramsell appearing in the December issue of Muskie Inc. Magazine.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Thank god the MN musky season is over so we can get that much more perspective on this fresh topic. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 720
| This should be good. I can't wait to read how skewed this fish is. Let me guess. Not 60 1/4" but more likely some where in the neighborhood of 53 to 55 inches. Of course the girth was a little off say by at least 5 to 7 inches. |
|
| |
|
| Seriously, why is there a "world record muskie alliance"? There isn't a single person out there who knows which muskie is the actual record. Thats pretty sad. They should start with a clean slate. Same with the walleye record, bass, pike, etc, etc. No one knows which records are legit. |
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | Cannonball:
We may not know which one is the actual record, but we certainly know which one it is not.
I personally think the state of Wisconsin should be starting with a clean slate... or maybe Tom Gelb's. Ryan Dempsey's muskie might still be roaming around out there in Green Bay too. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 720
| "I personally think the state of Wisconsin should be starting with a clean slate... or maybe Tom Gelb's"
Written by Jerry Newman on 11/30/2009.
Its statements like that and others like it made by you and other folks at the WRMA that makes me look at your organization with raised eyebrows. While you Jerry are allowed your opinion the WRMA isn't. By virtue of the fact that the WRMA is suppose to be a unbias organization. While I would be inclined to agree with your statements about Gelb's fish and others. I think it is in the best interest of the WRMA for its founding members and board members to keep their personal opinions out of this picture. If for any reason to keep up the WRMA unbias image in tact. I don't know may be I'm wrong. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8774
| I don't know, Dave. I think someone like Jerry CAN have a completely unbiased opinion. In fact, I would go as far as to say his opinion holds a little more weight than most, because it is likely based on a level of knowledge and insight that most of us do not have, and can likely be traced to actual scientific research, and actual data that can be verified. Now, it might not be a wise decision to voice those opinions publicly, but I would imagine that Jerry AND the WRMA really don't have an axe to grind when it comes to this. They're just out there looking for answers, and their research has likely lead them to a few. A biased opinion, to me, is one that is skewed by a desire to see a certain record verified or disproved; someone with an axe to grind so to speak. As far as I know, Jerry and the WRMA have no such vested interest in that. They, like many others, just want the "world record" to represent something that actually is legitimate. I presume Jerry is more qualified to comment on which fish are and aren't in the running than ANY of us are. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 720
| Jeff
I'm not saying that Jerry or anyone at the WRMA has an axe to grind at all. I just think that in order to keep that appearance of unbiasness you need to keep personal opinion away from a public forum. Does Jerry have more insight into these records. Absolutely, when we're talking in comparison to me. But as you know appearance is everything. I'm just thinking out loud and like I said " I don't know maybe I'm wrong". I think if you are looking for " the truth" I would not want to tarnish my hard work by throwing out opinions on anglers and fish that don't matter to the disscussion at hand.
I completely agree that the records are a mess and at best are poorly document and at worst an outright lie. What I do know is this. There are a lot of people smarter than I working on this and I appreciate their efforts greatly. But, sometimes its just better to leave well enough alone and let the work speak for itself. The WRMA has made a very solid case for eliminating Cal's fish from the record books. Why not just leave it at that. Instead of engaging someone who can't even login. That was really all I was trying to say.
|
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | Dave: thank you for your interest… and you are certainly politically correct. It was late (for me:), and I probably should've just went to bed instead of responding to an anonymous poster. Overall, I would hope that folks here are intelligent enough to separate my personal opinion from the facts contained in the Johnson Summary Report and it is not tarnished now.
I will retract my Tom Gelb reference and replace it with “the Wisconsin muskellunge record belongs in the low to mid 50 pound range based on our research”.
If anyone has any questions on the actual report, I will be more than happy to answer them here.
(Thanks Jeff)!
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 743
| the report is a great read. thanks Jerry and all the members of the WRMA for putting in the effort. I apprecaite all the work the WRMA has done. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 49
| Agreed, and handled well. I also think that this new report will stir up some interest.
I am also going to add that since my opinion means jack-squat anywhere, I'll throw Tom Gelb's name into the ring as the man to beat. Geez, he catches some big fish.......... 
JR |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| Pretty tough to get tried, and all evidence provided by vested interests in your being guilty.
No defense experts because the man is dead and cannot defend himself or his accomplishments.
I don't see the need for the WRMA, nor their quest to both discredit the sport, and the anglers in its history. I view the current, past and long term goals of the WRMA to be a negative for musky fishing in the long run, and that becomes clearer as time goes on. Their game discourages me. This should have, and could have been avoided, but I don't think any of us were far sighted enough to see what the future might hold when all this was started.
I believe Louie's fish is still a king, and Johnson and Malo both have bigger muskies than anybody else in the world, and maybe the Lawton's too. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Well, I don't have to be politically correct here.
The current 'records' are legend and lore much like the Gangster lore from that era up here in N WI is, and revisionist history has a tendency to strengthen 'lore' if it suits those who hold the power to allow argument for change to be heard. Too many examples to mention, and as a result of the manipulation of reality to fit an agenda, most are likely to offend or stir up some crap.
As story, legend, and lore, the 'records' are interesting and have value in context, but obviously are not up to examination when compared to many fish captured since that don't come close to the claimed weights from the stories yet are obviously as big....or bigger. The 'records' are not real, IMO, so we will agree to disagree there, and allow we all have the right to our opinions.
I see no attempt to discredit the sport, I see an attempt to find out how big muskies really DO grow....especially when they are claimed to be what the current records claim.
Avoided? How, by someone who feels this should not be looked into saying it should be so? I think not, those who ARE interested in this have every reason to be, and may be far more passionate about finding what is real than others are in leaving the lore and story alone, and the activity the WRMA undertakes doesn't require unanimous approval.
The nice thing about this little d democracy we have going is that this sort of debate should be expected, and should not be not the exception to the 'rule'.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | We need the WRMA. They don't discredit the sport, Louie and Dettloff did. Wrongs should be made right. The world record should be attainable, not a myth concocted by a known scofflaw. And in a fairness that the Hall hasn't shown, ALL possible records need to be looked at. |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | I will throw my 2 cents in...I agree with SWorrall, I see no attempt to discredit the sport of musky fishing....basically to me they are a group that is passionate about knowing how big the old "records" really were..I think anyone who has been around a few 40 lb fish can easily see the Johnson fish was no where near what it was claimed to be...the pictures don't lie as proof by the research done in the report.....interesting read...sometimes the group might come across the wrong way to some but I'm glad someone took the time to shed light on the fact the old records we all thought were the mark to shoot for were simply not accurate....ok so what IS the true record in the eyes of the WRMA anyway, with so many fish being discredited it's confusing what fish really did weigh what it was claimed to weigh...
Edited by BNelson 12/1/2009 1:26 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 619
Location: Verona, WI | I plan on reading it this weekend if I get a chance but I am pretty skeptical of the WRMA. It has nothing to do with the results of their analysis because I am not an expert (and don't particularly care) but it has more to do with the behavior of some folks affiliated with the WRMA on another board during the timing of the Spray report. They came off as having a very specific agenda - maybe this time will be different.
For those worrying about revising history what the WRMA is doing is done ALL THE TIME on other historical topics. New evidence is found and past conclusions are revised.
Shane
Edited by ShaneW 12/1/2009 1:54 PM
|
|
| |
|
| firstsixfeet,
Because the man is dead doesn't mean there can't be any defense experts. Why doesn't someone come forth and try to defend this fish? If the man was alive I wouldn't want to be in his shoes at this point.
You say you believe this fish is one of the largest in the world. What is there about this fish that makes you believe it is as large as claimed?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Well spoken Mr. Worrall. I fully expect that the "you know what" WILL hit the fan in Hayward (and California). Blasphemy it must be...why,how in the world could the WRMA besmirch Calmer "Mr. Clean" Johnson like that? With the TRUTH, that's how!
I don't believe anyone who doesn't have their head in "that dark place" believes that either the Spray records or Johnson's record are legit. However, as you (Mr. Worrall) alluded to, "a result of the manipulation of reality to fit an agenda" is truly what has taken place here in Hayward right from the start! However, I believe the agenda's have changed here since the late 30's and 40's.
Personally, I believe Spray's "original" intent in 1939 was simply a matter of doing something to help generate business for his local "watering hole". Innocent enough, and muskie records weren't that big of a deal then anyway. What with the country coming out of a depression and beginning a World War, business was down. What better way to give it a shot in the arm than a new world record?
In 1940, Spray's ego likely took over and a short term record just didn't sit well with him and of course another record would generate a whole new round of business as well! So...
In 1949, Cal Johnson knew he was dying, had had a life-long love affair with Hayward and knew that after the World War, Hayward could use another shot in the "tourism" arm....So, he likely proceeded on that footing...morally wrong, but good for Hayward, So...
Louie's motive in 1949 was likely one more of "one upmanship" and to get himself (selfishly) back into the fray.
Since then, the "powers that be" in Hayward have used these gentlemen's bogus world records to drive tourism and SADLY, todays powers that be are continuing to do the same thing, EVEN THOUGH THEY KNOW BETTER!! And that my friends is a shame. It is doing a disservice to the muskie world and in the case of the Hall of Fame, they have degraded a world class record keeping program with their shannigan's and using selective criteria to disqualify some record fish and ignoring the same for the supposed locally caught "records".
Tom Gelb's fish was mentioned above. Whether it be Gelb's fish or another Wisconsin giant, the Spray and Johnson BOGUS records have been unfair to ALL anglers past and present, trying to best something that just did not exist!!
I'm glad this report has finally been made public. Perhaps now folks will understand and believe that the past should just be considered "historic" and record keepers should embrace a "fresh start" in Muskellunge record keeping.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell,
Muskellunge Historian |
|
| |
|
| Thank you Mr. Ramsell for such an infomative post. I feel you summed the whole thing up quite nicely. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 49
| I really enjoy the stories, legends, and lore of the sport.
To a point.
Steve, Larry.
High five.
JR |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| Here is the problem. The muskies in question have been part of the myth, lore, legends and reality of the sport since record keeping began. There is in history a certain romance and reverence reserved for musky fishing that captures the hearts of fisherman throughout the midwest like no other game in town. True, not true, I eventually concluded that it doesn't matter to me. I love Louie's story about going out on the Flowage every day, chin whiskers charley, and on and on. I have seen too many pictures making small fish look big, and big fish look small, to ever get too involved about a picture. Is discreditting all these fish going to make fishing better? Nope, it is just going to diminish all musky fishing, and the public perception of the same. Here is the public message sent out. Musky fisherman lie about their fish, and over history they all lied=all musky fisherman lie about their fish, and muskies do not really get that big(discredits and diminishes the sport). The next thing that happens, fish that were caught and never went through any vetting process, are now AUTOMATICALLY discreditted by the same group. Fish that clearly are the top of the heap will also be kicked to the curb, ie the Malo fish(discredit THAT photo). Sworn affidavits overturned on the basis of photographic analysis which is at best questionable, since there is no defense rebuttal, is equivalent to slander of the dead, and they are also not here to defend themselves against these attacks. The whole thing is a lot easier now that all the interested parties besmirched by these claims, are dead and gone. I have no stake in Hayward or the Hall, but I can see their reluctance to overturn verified records OF THE DAY, and support them in that action. What happens 80 years down the line when it is discovered that Larry Ramsell was a musky heretic, and a giver of the secret handshake? Are they going to then further discredit the fish that the WRMA backs?
What is currently being done is to create a new myth, one where every oddity or unusual circumstance in stories that are already 1/2 century in the past, become #*^@ing evidence, when in reality they might have been easily explainable, had they been questioned during the day. It would BE better to seal the records of the first hundred years, and started a record book of the next hundred years, than to carry out this persecution of the old, VERIFIED record holders. That would have bowed to history without trying to rewrite it, and left the way open for more stringent standards coming after the "dark ages". I mean, what's a few pounds among "family" anyway?
Edited by firstsixfeet 12/1/2009 3:33 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 305
| interesting post...I've not read the report, nor pretend to even come close to the knowledge of many who've posted on this. I tend to be skeptical of the records in question, but would love to get a bottom line, one sentence answer to the following question from those who've also posted as skeptical: What is the current world record muskie? |
|
| |
|
| "I have seen seen too many pictures making small fish look big and big fish look small, to ever get too involved with a picture."
Small fish ONLY look big when they are held out a considerable distance from the person holding it. If they are held in close, they will look small like they really are.
If a fish is truly big, there is no reason to try and make it look bigger. It would be very difficult to even hold a truly large fish very far out.
Mr. Johnson's fish is being held well out in front of Mr. Johnson in ALL the available photos. Same with Mr. Spray's fish. If these fish were held in close, they would appear much smaller.
These fish were also being held vertically so it is very easy to determine how wide they are in relationship to their length. This makes a girth assessment relatively easy.
The WRMA didn't determine the length of these fish. This was done by a professional photogrammetrist. These people are more than capable of determining the actual length of a vertically held fish.
Just because you are fooled by these photos, don't try to claim a professional can be also.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | FSF, I know what you are saying, and agree to a point...BUT:
The WRMA didn't start this process. John Detloff did. he made sure the New York records fell, IMHO without anywhere NEAR as much evidence as the WRMA has put to independent examination. All of a sudden, the Wisconsin State record was the WORLD record. Then he wrote a book about the World record...from his home town; where he owns a resort, and joined in publicizing results before the CFMS data (another story indeed) was even beginning to get past rudimentary stages of collection in what appeared to me to be another attempt to make Hayward Muskie angling appear magical....or something. Any questions as to why the Wisconsin 'record' fish were not afforded the same scrutiny was met with incredulity by the Hall, also, unbelievably, located in Hayward of which this fellow was an officer, which I found nothing short of very...very odd.
If the old records had been considered as lore and left to be, I guess I'd not much care other than to point out the obvious now and again. But this one was egregious in my view, and I support the WRMA's attempts to get to the accurate end of all this. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8774
| Myth, lore and legend are wonderful things.
Let's not confuse them with actual verifiable truths, though.
In my opinion, the best way possible to "diminish" muskie fishing is to hold fast to a record or records that are not legitimate, giving anglers across the midwest the perception that muskie fishing is not now, nor will it EVER be as good as it was decades ago, when clearly that is NOT the case. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 720
| Let me make this very clear I don't have a problem with the WMRA looking into these past fish. What I do have a huge problem with are statements like these:"I personally think the state of Wisconsin should be starting with a clean slate... or maybe Tom Gelb's. Ryan Dempsey's muskie might still be roaming around out there in Green Bay too." Jerry Newman written on 11/30/2009
There is also this one from Larry Ramsell "I fully expect that the "you know what" WILL hit the fan in Hayward (and California). Blasphemy it must be...why,how in the world could the WRMA besmirch Calmer "Mr. Clean" Johnson like that? With the TRUTH, that's how!" Written on 12/01/2009.
In 1949, Cal Johnson knew he was dying, had had a life-long love affair with Hayward and knew that after the World War, Hayward could use another shot in the "tourism" arm....So, he likely proceeded on that footing...morally wrong, but good for Hayward, So... also written on 12/01/2009.
Two of the three statements are opinions based on conjecture the third is just a complete unsolistied opinion. None of them have anything to do with the science of the report. Nobody can truly say what another person has going through their head. Even if they are dying Larry. Why can you guys just leave well enough alone. You presented a very strong case for the elimination of both Spray's and Johnson's fish. But you just can't keep from throwing your own 2 cents in. Why is that?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Perhaps their opinions are their own, just like yours are. Notice these comments are posted here, personally by each. I fail to see any issue here, 4, perhaps both gentlemen feel their opinions are supported by the report. And, Jerry explained and retracted that statement anyway...please read all the posts |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20211
Location: oswego, il | Dave, some of those statements are from the previous experience between the WRMA and the hall. You can bet they will try and influence the IFGA as well if they already have not. Based on past experience, this will not pass without a fight from the hall.
Those past records will always be lore and legend. Huge fish but not records. I would like to see right being right. If you take one down(lawton's fish) it's only right to take them all down and for those who think nothing else should be done, never address that arguement. |
|
| |
|
| Bias.
Ahhh, yes.
I have to kinda shudder when I hear this word. As a journalist, it is what grounds us, it is what we live by and adhere to. At least we're supposed to.
Let's be real: The reason an organization was founded like the WRMA was, is because there was doubt about record fish..........call it bias if you want to. Opinion.
However at a certain point, opinion, when backed by facts, negates bias.
My point is that this "panel" who makes up the WRMA was hardly w/o bias. Its not like some neutral higher authority brainstormed one day and randomly picked people out of the blue to bring truth to our sport. They had opinions, and likeminded people gathered with an agenda. But these people with "bias," also had facts with which they formed their opinions.
I wish them luck. I just hope that what comes of this isn't like Buckmasters in the deer hunting world, in which a new record keeping organization/system is formed.....one which nobody seems to care much about.
So Cal's out, eh? I've kinda lost track, how big exactly was the Rob Malo fish?
-Eric
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | First six...:
A lot of what you say I fully agree with (for a change). I grew up with these records and personally knew many of those folks and hate it worst than anyone...in the first edition of my "Compendium" I went to all possible lengths to support these fish, not discredit them. But when John Dettloff couldn't leave well enough alone, the lid was off the bottle...and talk about BIAS. Mr. Worrall covered that nicely.
Your statement: " I have no stake in Hayward or the Hall, but I can see their reluctance to overturn verified records OF THE DAY, and support them in that action." is a bit misguided, as it is the Hall that disqualified the Lawton fish (IGFA did NOT and NY still recognizes it as their state record) and THEN, the HALL, under the Presidential direction of Mr. Dettloff used all manner of trickery and total ignoring of the facts to uphold the Spray record...most egregious of which was total sweeping under the rug of the "siloutte comparison" which Mr. Dettloff used strongly to get Lawton disqualified, so NO, the Hall has NOT been reluctant to overturn THE LARGEST all-tackle record ever "verified", they just drew the line when it came to the local hero Louie...a sham of mammoth proportions indeed!!!
Hunter4:
You are correct about "conjecture", but my purpose was to give one possible explanation of "why" BOGUS record claims were made AND to show how the current regime is STILL using 60 year old LIES to drive local tourism...even when they know better....with the Hall of Fame, its current Director and Past President leading the charge. Sham indeed.
As for being unable to resist throwing in my 2 cents worth, call it frustration. I've had to sit by and watch the Hall destroy a credible world record program that I spent many thousands of hours developing and the press has let them get away with it. Since the press refuses to take them to task, being a "record keeping entity" they get to determine what THEY want the world record to be...the LOCALLY CAUGHT fish (well not actually, at least in Spray's case...I've talked to one of the poachers who provided two of his record fish) of Spray and Johnson. Dettloff used every trick he could find to get the job done and, so far, has succeeded (if you doubt this is true, read Vol. I of my 3rd Edition Compendium or the article therefrom in the MuskieFirst archives). He was about as subtle as a bull in a china shop with his underlying agenda!
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell,
Muskellunge Historian
Edited by Larry Ramsell 12/2/2009 11:01 AM
|
|
| |
