|
|
Posts: 1
| Although some of yesteryear's huge musky claims do prove to have been exaggerated, not all of them have been. To just lump all the historic catches together and say they were all fakes does a great injustice to those anglers who made fair and honest catches.
Cal Johnson's world record musky is one example of a exceptionally well documented musky that has been wrongfully attacked by some. Because Cal's honored career occurred so long ago, most people have no idea of the fine accomplishments this man has contributed to the our sport and of the high ethical standards that he had always lived by.
Cal has been wrongfully accused of faking his record catch by a report put out by the WRMA. For details on why the WRMA report's conclusions are invalid, you can access that on a new website called caljohnson.net.
Authorized by the family of Cal Johnson, this website has just been opened today. Within the next month, much will be added to this website from the personal library of Cal Johnson.... a wealth of historic angling and outdoor materials which goes back to the 1920's.
Good Fishing, John Dettloff |
|
| |
|
Posts: 646
Location: In a shack in the woods | What proof do you have that it's not fake? You saying he was a trustworthy guy means nothing. What if I told you Louie spray was a trustworthy guy. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | John,
It's better to offer this sort of information in a press release and submit it to OutdoorsFIRST by emailing it to:
[email protected]
cc to:
[email protected]
In the meantime, I'll do that for you. I'd also encourage you to engage the folks here who are challenging your assertions and motivations in a reasonable and honest debate....if you are willing to take the time it will require. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 443
Location: Duluth, MN | This should be fun reading today. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | FYI Jerry Newman is on vacation and will probably not respond to anything said here for a couple weeks. Let's keep it civil, and allow John to respond in kind if he chooses to do so. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1169
Location: New Hope MN | That "Fresh Musky" picture proves it all. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | At least John isn't trying to tell us the DNR is going to adjust their management strategy with his findings...... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Mr. Detloff, your report mentions the following;
"On top of all of this indisputable evidence, the mount of Cal Johnson’s musky is impossible to ignore and the WRMA’s only response to its existence is coming up with wild conspiracy theories that aren’t even possible as to how this mount was greatly augmented. Although some modern taxidermists who don’t want to accept the Johnson fish may claim it is possible to pull off such a feat in less than a month, taxidermists who have consistently actually used the methods that were employed to mount the Johnson fish have stated emphatically that creating the Johnson fish out of a smaller fish within the narrow time frame that was available would have been impossible"
I, for one, would like to know who the taxidermists were that have stated it would be impossible to enlarge the Johnson fish in that time frame.
I think sir, the only wild conspiracy about the mounts augmentation is the reluctance of the FWFHF to recognize and accept the fact that augmentation in the given time frame is indeed possible in a number of different ways.
If you have credible taxidermists who disagree, please identify them and their reasoning. I ask that they step forward with their explanation. It would make for an interesting discussion.
Respectfully,
Doug Petrousek
DOUGLAS TAXIDERMY
St. Charles, IL
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| One other thing Mr. Detloff, you mention;
" taxidermists who have consistently actually used the methods that were employed to mount the Johnson fish have stated emphatically that creating the Johnson fish out of a smaller fish within the narrow time frame that was available would have been impossible."
Do you or your taxidermists actually know what method or methods were used to mount Cal's fish? If so, would you or they please share this info with us? Would you qualify just how you or they would know the method used? After sharing that info would you explain more clearly just why that method would preclude any artificial augmentation?
Thanks in advance,
Doug Petrousek
Edited by fins355 1/7/2010 12:24 PM
|
|
| |
|
| I would like to have anyone that has a 54" muskie skin mount to measure the distance from the tip of the snout to the POSTERIOR of the eye socket (cross section measurement) and tell everyone here what that measurement is? |
|
| |
|
| It's as simple as I wrote about and questioned nearly ten years ago in EA. The common formula used to estimate fish weights - for all tubular types of fish (girth X girth X length /800) doesn'tt work for Cal or Lou's fish. Why?
We were first told by Detloff and Ramsell that the formula doesnt work for fish over 40 pounds. Not true. No science, no basis behind that statement. I have documented over 100 other muskies beyond 40 pounds that the formula is extremely accurate. Just not Louie, Cal and a few others.
Remember this isnt some "muskie formula" - it's roots are based in salt water fishing for fish wieghts way into the hundreds of pounds. It's an area formula, simple mathemetics, that is a general and quite accurte indicator of live fish weight.
So, each will beleive what they wish, the controversy will ride on. New websites and all. It is quite entertaining. But, if anything, the new fresh photo of Cal's fish is worth its weight in gold to me. No formula, no photo analysis, no avvidavits needed to tell any experienced angler - that is no 60 pound fish.
Cheers,
Ross Fisher
|
|
| |
|
| Isn't this like climate science? One thing I know, those pictures don't lie ... there not +60lbers. |
|
| |
|
Location: Twin Cities | It's funny, I've read the threads, i've read the website but have yet to see anything that "proves" it's legitimate. It should be easy, there's a mount, open the #*^@ case and measure it and inspect it. Then before you close the case, put the fins back in the right place.  |
|
| |
|
| Well, if anything, the work that John has put into the development and posting of his new Cal Johnson website indicates that he is nowhere near being on the verge of conceding on this matter, doesn’t it? As a matter of fact, he is clearly doing what he can to bolster previous efforts in keeping the Johnson fish record statistics right where they are. He is obviously still willing to do what he feels is required to refresh public support on the matter. I applaud him for his tenacity.
I don’t know how the Hall could simply just ‘give in’ to the WRMA on the matter at this point, anyway. To do so would be the same as calling Cal and everyone who supported this fish at that time in history liars and cheaters, and naively deceived. I don’t blame him for not being willing to do that.
And you also can’t accuse him of flip-flopping on this matter, like some others who now oppose this record have done. It seems to me that he's sticking to his guns in doing what he believes is right. Very American of him! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 543
Location: WI |
Ugh...was his Americanness(if that is even a word) even being questioned? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 81
Location: Toronto, Ontario | LOL, what a joke. we need a new world record or for people just to wake up and realize the many of the muskies of yesteryear were rather "inflated". |
|
| |
|
| John, I have a very serious question that you need to response to if you want anyone to take what you are doing here seriously.
1. Will the Hall be taking the WRMA up on their free offer to pay for the neutral party experts?
Setting this up this deal is only way you and the Hall can proceed at this time to try to restore credibility. Also, what is you current title at the Hall?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8774
| musski - 1/7/2010 2:55 AM
[...] Because Cal's honored career occurred so long ago, most people have no idea of the fine accomplishments this man has contributed to the our sport and of the high ethical standards that he had always lived by.
[...]
Good Fishing, John Dettloff
I still want to know how fish of that caliber were once caught in the Hayward area, but you can't buy a 50# muskie within two hours of Hayward today. Muskie fishing is better than its ever been, across their range. Bigger and heavier fish are being caught everywhere like never before. Between stocking, catch and release, HUGE advancements in gear and technology, and the fact that muskie fishing has grown by leaps and bounds, we are light years away from what we had back in the 70's/ And yet, the Hayward area fails to produce but a handful of 40# class fish every year despite all that.
I don't get it. Giant fish are being taken in so many places, season after season, but it's a rare occasion to even see a 50" fish come out of Hayward. I would think a place that had the capability of producing several giant muskies in the past would be cranking out at least a few fish a year that were close to the records. Not even one within 10 pounds??
Why is that? What happened?
|
|
| |
|
| So true, where are any of these other freaks of nature? Why could only Cal and Louie catch them, and only in the 1940s? How did drunken Louie catch 3-60lbers fishing part time? Did he really tell Cal in a telegram he would beat his record just a few days before? Was Lou was so good he knew it would be 2 lbs heavier too?
It is interesting that these guys both preferred the same Hayward taxidermist, and that same taxidermist declined to mount Lous last record. Would he decline if everything was on the up and up? Is it reasonable to think he didn't want the reporters driving on his yard like they did when they WANTED TO SEE Cals fish just 3 moths before?
How come a REPORTER was never allowed to see one of these records until after they were mounted? A July muskie with a 33 1/2" girth? Why does Cal's fish have cloudy eyes and those spots that look like freezer burn? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| I stated in one of the threads that was pulled by the mods, that I feel the case against Cal's fish will not stand up to the "reasonable doubt" test. Still don't think so. Everyone getting on here posting one liners and derisions aside, we still have witnesses, affadavits of same, pictures, and official recognition of Cal's fish. We still have a lot of personal irons in the fire(that go way back), that were in play before these challenges ever started(and not just one side or the other, both). We also have a motivated group trying to disprove fish(and don't try to tell me it has been an objective quest either, I aint buyin it, and no one should be tryin to sell it), and "science" brought in with cash to try and disprove the old record. Claim that's not true, then WHY were the photowatchamacallits brought in? Obviously the internet picture judgers were not believing the pictures, so clearly it was a biased purpose. If there wasn't so much personal stuff and "picture judging" experts out there, WOULD THERE HAVE BEEN ANY EFFORT TO DISPROVE THIS FISH? Clearly from the getgo, and in fact the unstated purpose, appears to be to DISPROVE the Johnson fish.
I think the general fishing population out there, when viewing this whole tempest in a teacup, will pretty much side with the sanctioning bodies on leaving the historic record intact. I think the burden of proof to overturn the record is and SHOULD BE substantial and of unimpeachable quality, and sorry, but I don't think that case has been made. |
|
| |
|
| Was that photo with the fishing rod in it used in the length calculations by the WRMA? Is that photo legit? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| 4amuskie - 1/8/2010 11:08 AM
Was that photo with the fishing rod in it used in the length calculations by the WRMA? Is that photo legit?
As far as I know
1 No
2 Yes |
|
| |
|
| Why not. Is this in fact a new photo that has never been seen before. |
|
| |
|
| We are told that the shadowed area along the right edge of the Johnson musky in photo 2 is actually additional side width that the WRMA missed. When I measure to the OUTSIDE edge of this shadowed area, I get the same results the WRMA found or slightly less! Everybody on this discussion board should check this measurement for themselves to see who is correct.
We are also told that if the image of Johnson's fish is enlarged to represent 60.25" when being compared to Gelb's fish at 53" that Johnson's fish would have been as wide as Gelb's. Not true because there was no extra side width missed. How could the fish possibly have had a 33.5" girth when it has a side width LESS than a fish with a 28.5" girth? We are talking about a difference of 5" in girth here!
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| GW - 1/8/2010 11:42 AM
We are told that the shadowed area along the right edge of the Johnson musky in photo 2 is actually additional side width that the WRMA missed. When I measure to the OUTSIDE edge of this shadowed area, I get the same results the WRMA found or slightly less! Everybody on this discussion board should check this measurement for themselves to see who is correct.
We are also told that if the image of Johnson's fish is enlarged to represent 60.25" when being compared to Gelb's fish at 53" that Johnson's fish would have been as wide as Gelb's. Not true because there was no extra side width missed. How could the fish possibly have had a 33.5" girth when it has a side width LESS than a fish with a 28.5" girth? We are talking about a difference of 5" in girth here!
I am confused as to how girth can be established using a single dimension to start with. Interesting concept, that. |
|
| |
|
| You can easily convert the side width which is one dimensional to the circumference a perfect circle which would represent the girth if the fish was perfectly round. Why don't you read the report? |
|
| |
|
| That fish is lucky to have a 25-26" girth. Probably about a 40-50 pound class fish.
Edited by Baby Mallard 1/8/2010 12:57 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Detloff shows another photo with alot better side view than photo #2. The girth looks pretty good in that photo to me. What about the photo with the rod in it. Were these used in WRMA analysis or not. If the rod in the photo is truely a 411 southbendor that is in fact 58 3/4" long should make for an easy comparison. |
|
| |
|
| Firstsixfeet:
You should ask John Dettloff WHY he started this whole mess by getting the Lawton record disqualified and then refuses to apply the same criteria to the Spray and Johnson muskies...pure and simple...GREED!
Stay tuned, his Cal Johnson book will be out soon!
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Muskellunge Historian |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| GW - 1/8/2010 12:00 PM
You can easily convert the side width which is one dimensional to the circumference a perfect circle which would represent the girth if the fish was perfectly round. Why don't you read the report?
I don't believe that can be done with a hanging fish. |
|
| |
