|
|
Location: 31 | FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Contact: World Muskie Alliance
Contact Person: Jerry Newman
Company Name: World Muskie Alliance
Telephone Number: 847 494-0342
Email Address: [email protected]
Web site address: www.worldmuskiealliance.com
O'Brien Summary Report
*All Tackle Canadian Record Muskellunge / O.F.A.H. / Ontario Record Fish Registry
*Line class record / International Game Fish Association
*Power Trolling subdivision all-tackle record muskellunge / Freshwater Fishing Hall of Fame
Angler, Mr. Ken O'Brien
October 16, 1988
Length 58”, girth 30 ½”, weight 65lb. 0oz.
Georgian Bay, Ontario Canada
Woodstock, Illinois 4-3-2011 — Attached link ( http://worldmuskiealliance.com/WMA_OBrien_Summary_Report.pdf ) is the World Muskie Alliance (WMA) report on Mr. Ken O'Brien's Muskellunge Record as currently acknowledged at the Ontario Record Fish Registry / O.F.A.H. The International Game Fish Association / I.G.F.A. The Freshwater Fishing Hall of Fame / FWFHoF. The WMA O'Brien Summary Report questions the validity of Mr. O'Brien's Canadian Record with scientific and circumstantial evidence.
The WMA will allow a reasonable summarization and/or excerpts of the contents of this report. The entire report may not be reprinting without the expressed written permission of the WMA. This report is property of the World Muskie Alliance.
Formed in January of 2004, The World Record Muskie Alliance (WRMA) assembled a dedicated group of muskellunge anglers who felt strongly that the controversy over the legitimacy of the largest currently recognized muskellunge could be resolved by the use of modern technology and unbiased methods of authentication. This report completes the original mission set forth by the WRMA and the WMA redirection strategy can now begin.
(1) promote and maintain trophy muskellunge fisheries throughout the species’ native range by supporting ongoing scientific efforts to determine optimal species reintroduction strategies; (2) protect vital spawning and nursery habit to ensure integrity of designated trophy waters; (3) library and disseminate scientific data regarding muskellunge.
The WMA is a registered IRS 501 (c) (3) non-profit organization ID #75884.
Employer ID # 20-1741826. State of Illinois CO # 0145457. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 229
| What nobody complaining or arguing yet...  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 574
Location: Elk Grove Village, IL & Phillips, WI | The report only confirmed the obvious problems with this fish! |
|
| |
|
| I don't think there's anything to argue about? I think all the reports offer up sufficient proof but this one is the easiest one to interpret. |
|
| |
|
Location: Illinois | For the sake of George Castanza, did anybody consider SHRINKAGE??? |
|
| |
|
| The yardstick confirming the length of the fresh fish was falsified certainly rules out that possibility. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1185
Location: Iowa | Just Fish!... |
|
| |
|
| Ridiculous!!!
The fish was measured and weighed and witnessed by many, many people including some veteran muskie anglers, and MNR personnel.
Larry was eight days late...eight days after it's throat was cut(loosing tonnes of blood), eight days after it had been wrapped, bound and stuffed in a freezer....
Now 22 years later they look to discredit one of, if not THEE best documented fish on their list.
Again Larry is late...April fools was 5 days ago. |
|
| |
|
| Sorry, the yardstick was held alongside the fish the day it was caught confirming the fresh fish was nowhere near the length claimed. |
|
| |
|
| The mold made by the Royal Ont. Museum also supports the findings of the WMA and the measurement by LR, not to mention the weight discrepancy found by Larry also.
The fish clearly was not as long, or as heavy,as purported to be......... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 785
| The sad part is it really that hard to measure a stinking fish. It just amazes me this wasn't all ironed out the day it was caught... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 743
| I think the WMA should put a known fish through this same process.
go out and catch a 49". Weight it in the boat with a good scale. write down the weight. kill it..take pictures of the fish in diffferent poses..etc..
then, run the pics and everything else thru these same formulas and see if results come back at exactly 49" and the exact weight. most sciencetic experiments have a controlled area. has the WMA tried this on a fish they caught or a controlled fish where THEY could weight before they put it thru these processes? |
|
| |
|
Location: Illinois | tomcat - 4/5/2011 4:05 PM I think the WMA should put a known fish through this same process. go out and catch a 49". Weight it in the boat with a good scale. write down the weight. kill it..take pictures of the fish in diffferent poses..etc.. then, run the pics and everything else thru these same formulas and see if results come back at exactly 49" and the exact weight. most sciencetic experiments have a controlled area. has the WMA tried this on a fish they caught or a controlled fish where THEY could weight before they put it thru these processes? +1
|
|
| |
|
| tomcat - 4/5/2011 4:05 PM I think the WMA should put a known fish through this same process. go out and catch a 49". Weight it in the boat with a good scale. write down the weight. kill it..take pictures of the fish in diffferent poses..etc.. then, run the pics and everything else thru these same formulas and see if results come back at exactly 49" and the exact weight. most sciencetic experiments have a controlled area. has the WMA tried this on a fish they caught or a controlled fish where THEY could weight before they put it thru these processes? The WMA paid someone to use a specialized tool to assess the size of these fish based on photographic evidence. So, you're essentially asking if photogrammetry is a valid and scientifically proven tool. So while the FWFHoF doesn't think so, it is a pretty widely used method that doesn't seem the least bit controversial when applied to other (more important) items. Google it. And of course when the photogrammetry says the same thing as a mold of the actual fish? Well, it walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck...hey, it's a duck!
Edited by lambeau 4/5/2011 4:27 PM
|
|
| |
|
| musky-skunk - 4/5/2011 3:32 PM
The sad part is it really that hard to measure a stinking fish. It just amazes me this wasn't all ironed out the day it was caught...
It was all ironed out that day.......Read the account of the actual day it was caught. The attendees were a veritable who's who of muskie fishing in that area.
Some people just can't stand things the way they are, and instead of looking for the good and truth in people....they look for the bad and deceit.
It's called pesimism....
What the WRMA is accomoplishing is the death of many non-record class fish. Just think...they are going to keep discrediting every fish until they get to a 50lb'er that can't be denied. Then you are going to have every Tom, DIck and Harry whacking every 40 pound fish there is cause they think it MIGHT be a new record at 50lbs 1 ounce.
Larry....I emplore you to put your biggest fish (57-56 I believe) through the same process...then tell us you are not a liar when the results come back at 53.
This is ridiculous.. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 639
Location: Hudson, WI | muskellunged - 4/5/2011 11:30 AM
For the sake of George Castanza, did anybody consider SHRINKAGE???
It was Canada for Christ's sake! The water was cold! |
|
| |
|
| Seems like a pretty big and unlikely conspiracy....the president of Muskies Canada, a couple of MNR biologists, one of the most prominent newspaper writers in Canada, and 400 other witnesses....that's a pretty big story that a lot of people are keeping quiet.
Also think if you stuffed me in a freezer and pulled me out a week later I might measure a little less than I do standing straight up. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Knock off the personal attacks. When Larry Ramsel made that trip there WAS NO WRMA. And, they don't 'look to disprove' anything. If the evidence supported the claims, the investigations might have supported the records.
I worked some with a taxidermist for several years. I can tell you for sure freezing a fish will not cause it to lose the kind of weight we are looking at here...not even close, especially for a short period of time like that with the fish wrapped. The fish will not 'shrink' either when it freezes, not enough to measure. In fact, water EXPANDS when frozen. Weight is lost after long ( as in months to years) periods of freezing without a reasonable wrapping as moisture is absorbed by the very dry freezer environment. Not in 8 days, no way.
I read the angler cut the fish to kill it. Was that before or after it was weighed?
|
|
| |
|
| sworrall - 4/5/2011 4:42 PM
Knock off the personal attacks. When Larry Ramsel made that trip there WAS NO WRMA. And, they don't 'look to disprove' anything. If the evidence supported the claims, the investigations might have supported the records.
It is not a personal attack by any means.
I know there was no WRMA when Larry made the trip.....but it was 8 days late.
If they aren't "looking to disprove anything" why are they looking?? To say that there is absolutely no bias, and nobody is going in with pre-conceived notions is just a little bit nieve of us all.
The evidence does support the claim. The evidence of the day it was caught and who was there to witness, weigh and measure it. Are they all frauds.....is the WRMA prepared to say that to them face to face?? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'It is not a personal attack by any means.'
Yes it was.
'I know there was no WRMA when Larry made the trip.....but it was 8 days late. '
How does 8 days effect this? Explain that to me please.
And there's no one rushing out to kill a non record fish. On the contrary, many truly large fish heave recently been released immediately with no desire what so ever to claim any record, and that's how it will remain because of the 'release ethic' in place now. So that doesn't work, either.
They are 'looking' for the reasons expressed in the mission statement. Read it. |
|
| |
|
| tomcat - 4/5/2011 4:05 PM
I think the WMA should put a known fish through this same process.
go out and catch a 49". Weight it in the boat with a good scale. write down the weight. kill it..take pictures of the fish in diffferent poses..etc..
then, run the pics and everything else thru these same formulas and see if results come back at exactly 49" and the exact weight. most sciencetic experiments have a controlled area. has the WMA tried this on a fish they caught or a controlled fish where THEY could weight before they put it thru these processes?
The important thing is to make sure you kill it lol, for the sake of the acid test. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 720
| Wow,
I really thought they WRMA was going to confirm this fish. I understand whats going on here at least I think I do. Or should I say I thought I did. There is no doubt in my mind this fish is the "World Record". Too many people, too many creditible people have signed on to this fish for it not to be in my opinion. I find it quite odd that the whole report was not released. Even on the WRMA website. Like I said this was a huge curve ball and while I appreciate all the work that went into this. I think its a little bit of a SNAFU not to have released the whole report.
The last couple of things I want to ask and I'm not trying to stir things up here. Just looking for clairification. Why did Mr. Ramsell wait 22 years to bring out the things he found out on his trip. As hard as he has pushed against Spray, Johnson and the others with recognized fish. He sits on very #*^@ing evidence on the largest fish caught in 45 years? Also in the report I read it mentions Larry and three other witnesses came up with a weight of 54lbs. Who were the other three people and why haven't any of them said anything for the last 22 years. Like I said earlier I'm not trying to start anything, but it makes me question whats really going on here. It doesn't make sense to me at all. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Not to speak for Larry Ramsell, because he'll do perfectly fine on his own. But from what I know, this was brought to light by the WRMA--not Larry. As I recall (someone correct me please, if I am mistaken), he is not a member of the WRMA. And he did publish his concerns about that fish in his books, some time ago. So it doesn't exactly seem like he was "waiting all these years to drop a bombshell."
But I do agree that the whole thing seems odd in some ways. If all those people were there to witness the measurement, then how did they get it wrong? But still, for the fish to lose FOUR INCHES of length in only 8 days, just by freezing? I am not a taxidermist, but that seems like an awful lot of length to lose. And although I didn't verify the measurement myself through photo analysis of the picture in the report, it sure seems simple enough--and that didn't look like a 58" fish hanging next to the yardstick. So I'll agree that the whole thing seems rather odd.
The other thing to consider here is that the WRMA *has* to know that any report they issue after the Spray fish, is going to be met with a much higher level of scrutiny. Yet they still put this report forth and made their recommendation. So it would seem that they truly believe this report to be the most accurate science available. While others might not agree, I feel that's worth something.
In the end though, I am very glad that I am not interested in hunting record muskellunge...or which is the "real" World Record fish. But I am interested in the process, and in the science behind that process. So purely from this standpoint, I'm fascinated by the whole thing...
TB
Edited by tcbetka 4/5/2011 7:21 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 720
| Tom,
This is a bomb shell to me I've followed the threads on Spray and Johnson's fish and while it may have been brought up before I didn't see it. But I continue back to my original questions. He's hammered on those other fish on this very board. But the O'brien fish seem to get a glance and a pass. Why?
Like I said this is not what I thought I would see. Nothing more than that.
Edited by Hunter4 4/5/2011 7:59 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Hunter4 - 4/5/2011 7:19 PM
Read Larry's post #49
I was writing my post when that link was posted, so I didn't see it until afterward. I'll go read it now though, as I don't believe I've seen it before.
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | ' Here is an excerpt from his book: (A Compendium of
Muskie Angling History, 3rd Edition, Vol. 1, p. 462)' and so on.
Larry wasn't 'sitting' on anything, he had concerns about the fish and reported same in his book.
I believe the WMA report was brief because of the recent capture, not because it is in any way incomplete.
'O'Brien Summary components
Part 1, DCM photo analysis / Part 2, photographs of the mold casts / Part 3, Mr. Larry
Ramsell's eyewitness account. Due to the recent capture of this fish, our research did not
require the type of extensive research as in our earlier reports. Therefore, the O'Brien
Summary Report only contains three basic components with a short summary and
recommendation.' |
|
| |
|
| sworrall - 4/5/2011 5:05 PM
'It is not a personal attack by any means.'
Yes it was.
'I know there was no WRMA when Larry made the trip.....but it was 8 days late. '
How does 8 days effect this? Explain that to me please.
And there's no one rushing out to kill a non record fish. On the contrary, many truly large fish heave recently been released immediately with no desire what so ever to claim any record, and that's how it will remain because of the 'release ethic' in place now. So that doesn't work, either.
They are 'looking' for the reasons expressed in the mission statement. Read it.
How was this a personal attack?? I have never met any of these people, however they have made themselves public figures...and are also open to scrutiny. This is not personal as it is an organization. An organization that seems to be making there recomendations on 1 sole piece of evidence and setting aside many, many others. The are baseing their entire decision on the photographic analysis, that may not be correct. I am not saying that photogrammetry is not accurate, it is when you are dealing with EXACT KNOWN measurements. How in the world can you tell me that they know exactly how far in front of the fish the "Canadian Meter Stick" is, or exactly how tall Ken or Marion is...the exact size of the posts on the stairs.......they don't. But the base their analysis and decesion on that and set aside the eye witness testimony of a very accredited, respected group of people, who have nothing to gain in this situation.
8 days affects this ALOT. They slit the fishes throat, hung it in the sun, then jammed it in a freezer. Has the WRMA accounted for the weight loss from, loss of all fluids due to the slit throat and dehydration....NO.** EDIT** I just flipped through the Compendium and it appears the Larry does actually acknowledge the weight loss via "evaporation".Allow me to quote " logical to assume the the deyhydration of the O'Brien muskellunge could easily be an accumulative effect of hanging for several hurs in the wind and sun, and excessive deydration due to being placed in a warm freezer and being frozen for eight days before being reweighed, not to mention the fishes "slime" weight loss; considerable on a fish of this size" In all reality had this fish been weighed BEFORE it bled out it may have actually weighed more than the 65 pounds it DID weigh the day it was captured.
Ken O'brien is not a muskie fisherman, he just lucked in to a HUGE fish. Do any of you really believe he cared before going out that day, whether he might catch a world record muskie?? Lets not confuse him with the likes of Spray, Johnson, Lawton, and Hartman. He had absolutely no reason to falsify anything. Neither did the hords of good honest people that were their to witness "the most highly scrutinized large mskellunge catch ever at the time of the catch"
Bollocks |
|
| |
|
| Sorry I forget to address your "no one is running out killing muskies.."
Just wait...if the actual record gets dropped to something like 55 pounds or less, how much are you willing to bet we will see a slew of dead muskies from potential world record chasers.
There is just way to much speculation in this entire thread..like the loss of inches from freezing. Is there a study out there that outlines how many inches a fish will shrink when frozen?? No...so we can't say it is wrong... or right.
Was the head and belly folded over at the slit when Larry measured it?? We don't know..he doesn't say. SO we can't say he is wrong...or right
Somebody finds the whole thing "odd" with the meter stick. Its a Canadian Meter Stick, that's whats odd. I don't know I always thought a meter was a meter, in Canada, the States, Mexico or Siberia.
What is odd is having the gall to drag good peoples names through the mud. I find the whole thing kind of shameful and self serving. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Guest,
Larry Ramsell is not a member of the WMA. Your comments were made directly to him, not the WMA, and were pretty rude if you consider the context, although somewhat...just a little..understandable if you assume Larry is a WMA member.
If the fish was weighed after it 'bled out', later dehydration would have been considerably less than if the fish was intact when weighed and then went through what it did, less moisture to evaporate. That's why I asked that question.
I wasn't there, and have no idea what happened. One thing I wonder about...with the curve of that fish's misshapen body, if one used a soft tape and placed it against the fish's body, the measure would be considerably longer than a bump board (straight line measure).
Debate the facts, and stay away from the personal crap.
Reelman, no way do you start that kind of fight. Don't like it? Use your mouse.
|
|
| |
|
| Boy I'm sure glad with all the problems we have in Wisco with tribal spearing, Mich. muskie spearing and Minns polititons trying to stop muskie stocking we have an organization that goes after whats importaint. What a crock, why don't we consentrate on what's importiant, the fish that are still ALIVE!
Dan Crooms 54 |
|
| |
