|
|
Posts: 280
| In light of the WMA report, which IMO, shows the O'Brien fish to be less than what was claimed both in lenght and weight, what should happen with the record holding organizations? O'Brien is recognised by 3 different record keepers, the Ont. Fish Registry, FWFHF and IGFA.
I believe the Lawton, Spray and Johnson fish have been shown to be lacking record credibility. These were recognised by the FWFHF and IGFA. Unfortunately, both fish are still viable in these record books.
So, now we have another fish that needs to be removed from record book consideration.
In view of the reluctance of the FWFHF and the IGFA to take a credible position on obviously tainted records in the Spray and Johnson cases, what should happen now?
These orgs. have received copies of the WMA report on the O'Brien fish. When can we expect a response from them?
Maybe we need a petition signed by all of us interested in the truth in record keeping to be signed and sent to these org.'s demanding they respond to the challenges to these records.
Yeah.... the FWFHF is a waste of time for their own personal intersests, but are the others just as tainted?
I think we need to pound on their doors to get a reasonable response to a very credible challenge to records on THEIR books.
I dunno .....just me, I guess.
DougP
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 402
Location: Eagle River, WI | We don't have time for this now, we are all getting ready for the opener. If they are going to release something like this they have to do it in the beginning of winter, not at the end. It's called internetique. This will never get the proper over-scutiny that it deserves. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3868
| I just don't get whay people are so concerned over this sort of #*#*.
Experts, I ask, how many really big fish are never ever even hooked, and, how many of you guys don't share any info after you boat and release a real monster? I know some of you guys who have not bragged about 50"+ fish, never said a word.
Arguments about records is stupid bull#*#*. |
|
| |
|
| Lame excuse. Just how much time do all of you need to prepare for the opener? |
|
| |
|
| 8 days + 22 years. What exactly is the sudden rush???????? |
|
| |
|
| Lets talk about the prospects of catching live fish, for dead fish talk join Taxidermy.net |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8782
| never caught a dead one yet! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1288
Location: WI | Others persons fish are interesting, but I'm more interested in chasing my personal best. History is what it is. Obrien wasn't even a musky fisherman and didn't care about the record.
I understand the notion that the truth is important, but it was pointed out to me once (in one of my lesser moments)
that questioning someone else's fish does not show very good sportsmanship. Let it go.
|
|
| |
|
| Are you kidding? Lying about a fish in the first place is the bad sportsmanship, whether it be one of those bogus 60" fish in the MI contest, one of these records, or a cash tournament. I suppose they should not have been questioning those guys with the false floor in the bottom of their boat at the PMTT a couple of years ago either? Should they get a pass for that too, where do you draw the line? IMHO, we should always be interested in supporting the truth, no matter how much it hurts.
O'Brien should be removed, it will be curious to see what becomes of it though. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 574
Location: Germantown, WI | I usually avoid reading these posts as I know almost nothing about these controversial fish except for the name of the guy who caught them. So maybe my question is really dumb but what is the largest that no one has ever disputed, maybe it is even 10-15 lbs less than the 69 pounders, and maybe caught in last 15 years?
Maybe it is only the 10th biggest fish, but no one discredits?
This topic reminds me of steroids in baseball and how to compare two players or two fish when they are from different eras when unique technologies were or weren't around. Bonds and McGuire were incredible and most likely won't be in hall of fame. Phil neikro cheated and made the hall doctoring the ball for a living. There is no denying those fish of old were really big and should be admired. But I guess I am more interested in the modern era big fish.
Edited by dward 4/10/2011 12:40 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 149
| Now that the Malo, Lawton, Spray, Johnson and O'Brien fish have all been discredited or not been able to be verified beyond any shadow of a doubt the next 10 on down the list look like this:
- Edward Walden / 61-9 / 1940 / Eagle Lake, ON
- Martin Williamson / 61-7 / 2000 / Georgian Bay, ON (never weighed on a certified scale)
- John Coleman / 60-8 / 1939 / Eagle Lake, ON
- Art Barefoot / 59-11 / 1989 / Georgian Bay, ON
- Ruben Green / 58-8 / 1945 / Georgian Bay, ON
- G.E. Niemuth / 58-4 / 1932 / LOTW, ON
- William Fulton / 57-10 / 1917 / Georgian Bay, ON
- Gene Borucki / 56-11 / 1984 / Manitou Lake, ON
- Jack Collins / 56-8 / 1931 / LOTW, ON
- R.D. Shawvan / 56-8 / 1941 / LOTW, ON
If you're talking about semi-recent fish from say the 60's or 70's on forward we have several that are 55 lbs or better:
- Williamson 61-7 from 2000 that was never officially weighed (see above)
- Barefoot 59-11 from 1989 (see above)
- Boruki 56-11 from 1984 (see above)
- Sam Finsky 55-11 from 1963 Lake Kakagi, ON
- Joe Lyons 55-2 from 1972 Piedmont Lake, Ohio
- Gary Ishii 55-0 from 1981 Georgian Bay, ON
- Steve Albers 55-0 from 1985 Eagle Lake, ON
- John Ryan 55-0 from 1992 Georgian Bay, ON
There have been several recent releases that are almost certainly as large or larger than any on either of those lists, most notably the Dale McNair release in 2009 that was 57 X 33 which the 5 commonly used formulas average out to 70.74 lbs.
Edited by esoxcpr 4/10/2011 8:02 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 574
Location: Germantown, WI | thanks for the insight... didn't realize Canada had such a grasp outside of the top disputed few! |
|
| |
|
| That is interesting to consider, whether dead or alive fish like that are always intriguing to me. Thanks for posting. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 149
| The next 5 largest on the list from WI are:
- Arthur Ross 55-0 from 1942 Chippewa Flowage
- Myrl McFaul 53-12 from 1953 North Twin
- Emanuel Oberland 52-12 from 1929 Pokegama Lake
- Rita Hillenbrand 52-9 from 1969 Turtle Flambeau Flowage
- Harry Faulkerson 52-8 from 1950 Lac Court Oreilles
Next 5 on the list from MN are:
- Art Lyons 54-0 from 1954 Winnibigoshish
- Dave Unzeitig 52-4 from 1996 Leech Lake
- Karl Dobmeier 51-14 from 1996 Bemidji
- Mike Kelner 51-1 from 1973 Leech Lake
- H.C. Remele 50-12 from 1946 Woman Lake
Could be a few more recent on the list, like the Gelb 50 pounders from recent years from Vilas Co, WI. Also several from both MN and WI that were in the 50 pound class in recent years that were released. In recent years there was a 50 pound class fish caught through the ice and released in Vilas Co, WI and a 50 pound class fish caught by a walleye guy before the season on Green Bay / Fox River, WI. |
|
| |
|
| Iowa State Record is 50.6 lbs. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1270
| O'Brein's fish was caught in recent times and was weighed and verified by many people. I personally believe we have a group of people who are out to get any record over thrown, I do not believe the Lawton or Spray fish but the O'brien fish I do and that is what I will consider the record. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | It would be nice to hear a more thorough account of the events of the day of the catch, starting with when O'Brien made it back to the dock. I've heard bits and pieces over the years, but I am not sure that I have the entire time line straight. For example, I don't know how many people were present when the fish was actually weighed on the certified scale--and therefore, I am not quite sure how many people "verified" the measurement and weighing of the fish.
I will admit that the whole thing sounds a bit weird. If all those people were there and "witnessed" (as in, the fish was measured and weighed in front of them) the length and weight determination, then I cannot really understand how there is the discrepancy that we're seeing now. But I've read the DCM report a few times now, and ran their math, and even made screenshots of the two images of the fish with the yardsticks shown. After all that I have to agree with one thing--the fish in those two images does not look to be anywhere near 58" in length.
But other than that, I am perplexed on the whole incident. I certainly cannot explain the 8-9 pound loss of weight in the 8 days that passed before Larry Ramsell weighed it again--however I am not an expert on weighing dead muskies, or on how fast a muskie loses weight in the post-mortem period. It would be nice to hear the thoughts of a taxidermist on the matter, because maybe we could get a better idea of how much these things can change in a period of hours to days after death. Dead mammals should not change much in weight, for example, because they are no longer eating or voiding of course...but they aren't losing moisture through their skin or through the act of respiration, either. But these things aren't going to pertain to fish as much (other than eating or voiding), because they do not respire air or sweat like mammals do. Of course the fish can "dry out" to some degree after death, but to what degree does this occur--and is it ultimately affected by how fast the fish was frozen?
So while I am quite convinced that the fish in those two images in the DCM report is nowhere near the stated length of 58," it would be nice to hear more of that day's events. Having said that however, I have no interest in the process of certifying or discrediting angling records. I am very interested in the truth however, so I would like to hear as many details as are available. I've read Larry's book a few years back, so it might be good to go dig that up again. But knowing a little about Ken O'Brien from the many stories that were told after the catch, I find it odd that he would behind any sort of plot to falsify the fish's statistics in search of record status. I certainly would not expect that...
TB
Edited by tcbetka 4/10/2011 2:49 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| I'll say this...a 8-9 pound weight loss after 1 week in a freezer is IMPOSSIBLE!!
Can't happen.
The fish was wrapped in plastic, maybe not sealed well. If you left that fish in that freezer for a year, you wouldn't lose that much weight, unless you poured the gallon of water out of it b4 you put it in the freezer.
A 58" fish also does not lose 4" or so when it is molded and then a cast is made.
I've been mounting fish full time for 35yrs. and have had thousands of fish in my freezers for a year + in that time. A weight loss such as that IMO, is unheard of by natural dehydration in ANY freezer. I would be willing to bet you would not lose that much weight in an actual freeze drying machine in that period of time.
Either the fish that was put in the freezer and then weighed by LR and then
molded and cast and then examined by Dr. Crossman is a different fish than the one caught by O'Brien, orrr........if it IS the same as caught by O'Brien, it is NOT as large as claimed and should be disqualified from record book consideration.
DougP
Edited by fins355 4/10/2011 5:09 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Reelman...I think whatever personal grudge you may have against certain people involved in the WRMA/WMA is clouding your common sense judgement and not allowing you to absorb the FACTS!
None of those facts were created by anyone in the WMA!
They were just more closely examined and certain aspects verified.
But, if the truth offends you, by all means continue to avoid it.....
DougP
Edited by fins355 4/10/2011 4:31 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | esoxcpr:
Ya missed quite a few! Better dig a little deeper. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1270
| fins355, I don't know any of the people associated with the WMRA or Mr. Ramsell, there is no personal grudge against anyone. The facts as I see them are that a lot of people witnessed the O'brien fish being weighed and no one said anything at the time. 20 years ago was the time to bring this stuff up, not now. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | As I stated above, I don't know all of the facts behind the event...or the years that followed. However from the things I *have* heard, there have been a number of concerns voiced over the years. I guess my impression is that, until the WRMA/WMA, there has not been an organized effort to seek the truth on some of these old catches.
So perhaps THAT is why this fish hasn't been previously investigated? That sounds completely plausible to me, given everything that has gone down in the musky world in the past decade or so.
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 906
Location: Warroad, Mn | I'm pretty sure this mount still exists. If someone knows where it is why don't they go measure it? Doug Johnson |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | fins355 - 4/10/2011 4:11 PM
...SNIP
I've been mounting fish full time for 35yrs. and have had thousands of fish in my freezers for a year + in that time. A weight loss such as that IMO, is unheard of by natural dehydration in ANY freezer. I would be willing to bet you would not lose that much weight in an actual freeze drying machine in that period of time.
...SNIP
DougP
Wow Doug, I had no idea how experienced you were as a taxidermist. Excellent!
Knowing this, I would like to ask you to teach me something. I am especially interested in the length discrepancy seen. Can you think of any previous situation in all of your years in taxidermy, where there has been a significant change in length between the pre- and post-freezing of a large specimen of any kind?
I have no explanation for the difference in weight seen; but after running a direct-scale comparison on those two images myself, I just can't see how there was 58" of fish there. But let's say for the sake of argument that the fish *was* 58"...or even 57" as O'Brien himself apparently told Larry Ramsell. Could you see any situation, given all of your experience, where such a fish could lose 3-4" in length after 8 days in a freezer? I have no clue what the temperature was in the freezer, but let's assume normal 20-30 degrees Fahrenheit.
Is this at all consistent with your previous observations as a taxidermist?
TB |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI |
I'm pretty sure this mount still exists. If someone knows where it is why don't they go measure it?
Doug Johnson
I think Larry said that the mount DOES still exist, in Gananoque Ontario. I believe Larry has seen it, but I am not sure whether or not he's measured it...or if anyone has, for that matter.
But if there was some sort of a "conspiracy" (for lack of a better term) to exaggerate the size of the fish, then wouldn't the taxidermist have had to have been in on it? Isn't that one of the conclusions on the Spray fish--that one or more of those fish had been "enhanced" by the taxidermist? If so, then measuring it now would be somewhat futile, would be my guess.
I can't imagine people would still be arguing that the fish was 58x30.5 if the mount wasn't anywhere near that in size. So I'll bet we already know what the mount measures (actual or otherwise) before we even point the car towards that road trip.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 4/10/2011 6:35 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 906
Location: Warroad, Mn | Well, I'm certainly not a taxidermist, but I assume that the actual mount was a skin mount, since the fish was kept. The form was made so that replicas could be made for other folks who caught similar fish (or claimed to). I do have a somewhat limited experience with skin mounts dating back to the 60's when that was still the O.K. thing to do, and they all measure exactly the same length when mounted as they did when I caught them. For that reason I thought it would be good if someone had measured the mount. If they have I'd kind of like to know what they found out. Doug Johnson
Edited by dougj 4/10/2011 7:25 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Dr. Tom....I must admit to a certain disappointment in your not visiting my website to check some of my credentials after some of the "interesting" discussions we've been part of on C&R on other boards. LOL!!
That said, I guess my experience has been customers bringing me a frozen fish to mount that they said actually measured longer that the frozen fish when it was fresh. I get 22" smallmouth that only measure 20" when thawed. I get 48" musky that measure 46.75 when thawed. I get 16" crappie that measure 14.5 when thawed. I don't know I wasn't in on the original measurement. I usually call my customer and explain the measurement and allow him to decide how long he would like his fish.
I mounted Len Hartman's 47# 11oz. musky from Eagle Lake in '92. That fish is in the record book at 54"'s. When I thawed the fish it was again measured in the presence of Len Hartman and Len's friend Mary Socal. The fish was 54" long. It was also 54" long after the fish was mounted and finished. It was never reweighed by me.
I know this....I caught a 53" musky in 1995. I measured it on a fabricated bump board on a chest freezer top, wrapped it in wet towels and froze it. It remained frozen until about 2003-04 when I finally thawed it to mount. It measured 53" on the dot. I didn't weigh it again 'cause that was not important. It had been weighed in a certified scale 1/2 hr or so after it was caught. It weighed 36lbs. 15 0z. I gave it an extra oz. to make it an even 37#'s. 
The fish showed little sign of dehydration although the skin and flesh were tougher to separate. Over the years I DID rewet the towel to keep an ice coating on the fish. If this fish had lost 4-5 lbs in moisture over that time the flesh and skin would have been parially freeze dried and very difficult to skin. I'm not going to write an essay here but..........based on what I have seen on customer and my own personal specimens the claimed weight loss in said period of time is impossible from natural dehydration in a chest freezer. Especially when it was said to be wrapped in plastic, even if not well sealed.
I don't claim to be an expert, just have an informed opinion based on what I have seen.
I would challenge anyone to produce a credible mold maker that would say that if he was commissioned to mold a musky which measured 58" after capture that his mold and cast from that mold may only measure 54" unless the fish was a "potato chip" when he got it to mold. However, if said fish was 54" when he received it, the mold would reflect that...regardless of what it was claimed to have measured when first caught.
DougP
Edited by fins355 4/10/2011 7:51 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Esox 65,
I asume some of your concerns are answered in the above post by me.
I will say I don't pay much attention to weight b4 and after freezing. It has no bearing on what I do unless there is a drastic weight loss through dehydratiom and then it has a LOT of bearing on what I do.
I have stated my opinion based on my experience and that opinion stands.
Try skinning a fish that has been badly "dried" in the freezer to get a quality mount. You'll quickly see my point. Even to get a quality mold from a "dried" fish is difficult and would show wrinkles and shrinkage in the positioning for the mold. The mold would capture that dried appearance.
I agree with your point on the record. It is [unfortunately] not our/my decidsion.
DougP
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1030
Location: APPLETON, WI | reelman - 4/10/2011 5:54 PM 20 years ago was the time to bring this stuff up, not now. Yes, to this. Seems silly there's this amount of time and energy being wasted on something that could've and should've been thoroughly discussed at the time the fish was caught. I've got a feeling this is gonna get good.  |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | My apologies Doug! Now that you mention it, I have been to your website. It was a while ago, and I simply did not associate your current handle with "you." LOL. I haven't been all that active on the boards lately either, simply because of work, school and medical issues. I just had surgery this past week again, and so I find myself with extra time--and this wonderful O'Brien musky controversy with which to fill it! (It's almost like the WMA published it this week to coincide with my recovery, lol). Anyway, I remember being impressed by your work when I visiting your site in the past. You've certainly forgotten much more about taxidermy than I'll ever know.
As others have alluded, the concept of "freeze drying" has been suggested as a possible explanation to the loss of the weight in this fish. I don't know a lot about that process, but seem to recall that it involves reduced pressure and sublimation of frozen water in the organic material, so that it becomes "drier" than it was prior to the freezing process. Not being aware of the circumstances in which that fish was frozen, I felt it best not to comment on the possibility of the freezing process causing the weight loss. But there is the law of conservation of mass of course, which states that matter (including water) in a closed system can neither be created nor destroyed--but only converted in form.
So that all being said, I felt it was easiest to concentrate on that which seems to be easiest to verify or debunk...the length. If we are afforded the convenience of a legible object of known length, hanging next to a fish of some reported length, then it should be a relatively simple matter to verify whether or not that stated length is reasonable. If the object of known length is in very close proximity to that object of unknown length, then all it takes is some basic math. And I've been told that I'm pretty good at math...
TB |
|
| |
