|
|
Posts: 1300
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Hayward Musky Mafia Strikes Again
Ok, I give up. Hayward Musky Mafia you win!
Note: This is NOT a plea for sympathy, but rather just another way to show what lengths these guys will go to, to get their way. If you don’t care, stop reading now…
Evidently Free Speech doesn’t apply to the National Fresh Water Fishing Hall of Fame (NFWFHF) in Hayward, Wisconsin. I have apparently gone from being a valuable Hall asset (35 years of volunteer work for the Hall, including developing and running the World Record Program for many years), to becoming a pariah in late 2005, when I refused to be railroaded into following the misguided wishes of Hall Board President John Dettloff and Hall Executive Director Emmett Brown Jr. when, at that time, the Hall had to deal with a record protest regarding Louie Spray‘s supposed record musky and they knew I was a negative. I wasn’t allowed to participate in the decision, despite being the Hall’s “World Record Advisor” at the time. Dettloff, with board support, didn’t want me in on it. I objected, protested, resigned and wrote about it (and am still writing about it). Bad move on my part I guess (more in a bit).
To be perfectly honest, muskies have pretty much been my life, the past 45 years or so especially. I have been very pro-active in most things muskie and haven’t always seen eye to eye with everyone in the muskie world. My sometimes outspoken ways have angered a few folks along the way as well. However, not to brag, but rather to indicate that I have been heavily involved in attempting to improve the lot of the muskie, muskie history (and a search for the truth) and knowledge, I have had a few accomplishments along the way that I am proud of. Those include the National Muskie Association Conservation Award in 1972, being named “Mr. Musky” by Muskie’s, Inc. International in 1979 (before the days of the MI Hall of Fame), serving two terms as Muskie’s, Inc. International President in the early 1980’s, served as an IGFA (International Game Fish Association) muskie Representative for 16 years, was inducted into the NFWFHF as a Legendary Angler in 2003, was inducted into the Muskie’s, Inc. Hall of Fame in 2003, received the Mike Malone Memorial Award for Service, Dedication and Conservation of Natural Resources in 2005 from the 1st Wisconsin Chapter of Muskie’s, Inc. in Eau Claire, Wisconsin, and in 2013, I received a Life Time Achievement Award from the Youth Conservation Alliance & the Muskie’s, Inc. International Board for my work with one of the many Muskie’s, Inc. kids programs; the MI Youth Muskie Hunt. Along the way were three plaques of recognition from three different International Muskie Symposiums that I participated in.
But woe be unto anyone who crosses the Hayward Musky Mafia as they will, where possible, retaliate childlike and take their toys and go home. In my case, when they couldn’t shut me up about the record mess, they just quietly took away my honorary Hall Life Membership, earned with those many years of volunteer service. When I started writing negative things about the Hall of “Shame” (in muskie record matters only) in early 2006, Director Brown suggested that I give up my Hall Induction. Why? I figured, I earned it. But I guess with that bunch, that isn’t good enough as my photo and information regarding my Induction is not on the Hall’s website with all the other Inductee’s. Doubt it is a mistake. I didn’t actually learn about this until just recently when, after not looking at it for years, I took a gander at the Hall’s web site. Not sure when they actually did the deed. In addition to that, Dettloff tried to get me fired from my job when I worked at Pastika’s Sport shop after my book came out that explained his record shams. I won’t loose any sleep over it though, as I really don’t care to have anything to do with that Hall with those two guys running it.
And by the way, who do you think helped get the State of Wisconsin’s new 2014 modern fish record program deep-sixed, after it had already been announced to the public, because they felt it put poor ol‘ Louie in a bad light? Yep, you guessed it…
Did I say “I give up”? JUST KIDDING…… |
|
| |
|
Posts: 45
| Do you think Mr. Detloff could help 'persuade' my boss into giving me the raise I didn't get this year? That dude apparently has some pull. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1660
Location: central Wisconsin | Larry, so you think they should just lay down and let you hammer on them in public? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1300
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Jeff78:
Absolutely not. They have every opportunity to come on here and shoot back and in fact have been told so when they complained by Mr. Worrall. However, it is pretty hard to defend against the truth! But since Dettloff could probably sell refrigerator's to eskimo's, I'm surprised he doesn't try. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 576
Location: Elk Grove Village, IL & Phillips, WI | I figured that it was them that helped nix the new record program before it ever took off. Amazing that they could obliterate your induction, but apparently it is Dettloff's ball and he doesn't want to let anyone else play with it! Ain't the Hall of Shame something? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 54
| Just think if we had a group(alliance) that could spend this much time getting the Leech Lake strain back in WI.  Just sayin... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | Larry … is evident in the local MI Chapter too? are the meetings congruous or are people in the local chapter divided, or does it even come up as an issue in the membership? curious of what the fallout of this divide is to the locals who fish muskies and participate in the efforts of fund-raising, stocking and youth activities. |
|
| |
|
Location: Sawyer County, WI |
Larry, maybe it's time you sold your home and moved to an area of the musky range where they don't lie about muskies.
Good luck with that ! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1300
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Sled:
Varies, but not usually an issue.
dfkiii:
maybe...
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 45
| Slamr - 3/3/2014 12:22 PM
This is clearly a one on one fight.
I'd pay to see it. They both have to use their favorite skin mount as weaponry. He with most bludgeons before the augmented portion of the fish breaks loose, wins. Winner get's to ride on the Hayward Muskiefest Mocassin bar float with the cast from Blood-Hook. Jerry Newman and Emmitt Brown for corner coaches, Dolph Lundgren to Ref.
Line starts at 69:11 in favor of the old cranky dude.
Edited by Boots Electric 3/3/2014 1:53 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | i think it's a great story with history and lore and personalities … see no reason why it should be banished as a topic other than personal bias on the subject matter. it's our history as a special interest group like it or not. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32955
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I agree....to a point. Let's keep it real, and keep the rude out of the debate or I'll fold to Slamr' and let this hit the recycle bin.
I personally took the time to speak with Mr. Dettloff at the Wisconsin Muskie Expo. I suggested he respond in kind, and he may. We'll see. This issue has divided a segment of the community for quite some time, and it would be interesting to get both perspectives clearly posted.
Dan, read the rules in the tournament forum. After reading if the permissions there still bother you, it's simple.... use your mouse. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 58
Location: South Elgin | jonnysled - 3/3/2014 1:49 PM
i think it's a great story with history and lore and personalities … see no reason why it should be banished as a topic other than personal bias on the subject matter. it's our history as a special interest group like it or not.
Couldnt agree more.
|
|
| |
|
Location: 31 |
Boots Electric - 3/3/2014 1:47 PM Slamr - 3/3/2014 12:22 PM This is clearly a one on one fight. I'd pay to see it. They both have to use their favorite skin mount as weaponry. He with most bludgeons before the augmented portion of the fish breaks loose, wins. Winner get's to ride on the Hayward Muskiefest Mocassin bar float with the cast from Blood-Hook. Jerry Newman and Emmitt Brown for corner coaches, Dolph Lundgren to Ref. Line starts at 69:11 in favor of the old cranky dude. Haha, count me in... just need the the time and place. I've been asked many times why I put the time and effort into helping to do the research that helped expose those fakes. Although I enjoy doing research, I probably just got tired of being shouted down whenever I would post how ridiculous the stories and probability of King Lou catching three world records really is… and although it’s taken for granted now, back then several 70 lb. class muskies were thought to exist, and King Lou was truly revered on the various muskie websites. I would like to add my name to the list of those from the other thread who fished Hayward back in the day with the belief that those waters contained 60-70 lb muskies. I bet that the vast majority who have been muskie fishing a while have also dribbled some beer on the case of the Cal Johnson mount too, and some have even spend their precious vacation time and money fishing there in part because of those bogus fish. I've even heard someone bought a cabin there because of the history of giant muskies… as silly as it sounds now, we all believed in Santa Claus. Obviously things have changed a lot since then, and for many of us this is just tired old news, but maybe not so much for the people who are just picking up the hobby today, at least they have the advantage of being able to know those fish are complete hogwash with just a couple mouse clicks. IMHO, Hayward’s muskie backbone should be anchored with the truth, and would hope the folks they understand they are just being manipulated by John Detloff so he can continue to line his own pockets. The Hayward area has a lot to offer besides fishing; the scenery is classic north woods, and there are plenty of other family activities, so it could easily stand on it’s own merit. Honestly, I'm very much amazed that John Dettloff is still able to pull off selling it as a tourism angle to the good people of Hayward, and my sincere hope is that an honorable group of people will eventually take control of the situation/Hall of Fame, and put an end to the shenanigans. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20278
Location: oswego, il | I would love for the other side to come here and have a reasonable discussion. I hope it finally happens. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 156
| Never understood why people get so divided on this issue. It's clear at this point there will never be an amenable resolution to all of this. So, just get out there and fish I say. Why does the record matter? Is it money? In other words, if the current WR is actually not real (like maybe overstated 8-10lbs), then it makes it harder to actually catch the record...meaning someone can't cash in? I don't get it.
I fish muskies as part of an overall Northwoods experience. Walleye, Bass, etc are all boring to me, and part of it is the challenge of catching a big musky. So the setting and the muskies is why I continue to have Musky Fever for the last 27 years.
I will end by saying that I hooked into a fish in 2009 in Canada that THREE people saw follow all the way to the boat, and which TWO of the best muskie fisherman in the world had seen in that area 2 days earlier (I didn't know this at the time). And in fact, when I told one of these guys about losing this beast, said fisherman actually told me where I lost it and said "I knew it, I told XYZ when we saw that fish on Tuesday that when it slides across the channel it would eat and someone would get hooks into it." My jaw hit the floor he knew where that fish was. When I said, "dude, nobody wants to say it, but we all think it was over 50lbs" said fisherman quickly corrected me and said "thats a 55lber, easily". And he's seen bigger. My point is they are out there boys. Go get em, and who cares about the WR. Fish hard, fish smart, and hope for the best.
To close off my story (if anyone cares ) , I am delighted to have spent about 15 seconds fighting that fish. Many people might be upset, but i can honestly say it doesn't haunt me nor do i feel bad about it. I did everything right, it was just where she got hooked at boat side and on her 2nd run...her head was shaking so violently I actually saw the hook & bait fly out of her mouth about 3-4 feet down in the water. I don't need my name in the papers, and don't need to show anyone up by having boated a fish like that. I just smile thinking about it, cause I know if I keep going back...I likely will have another crack at a fish like that in my lifetime and maybe the outcome will be different...but probably not. It's why we keep going back.
Edited by MstrMusky 3/3/2014 7:05 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: 31 |
ToddM - 3/3/2014 2:58 PM I would love for the other side to come here and have a reasonable discussion. I hope it finally happens. Todd, doubt you'll see it happen anytime soon because there's simply nothing reasonable about it. Consider what mstermuskie posted; “ if the current WR is actually not real(like maybe overstated 8-10lbs)” . Really… if? King Lou's Muskie was only 53”, and it only weighed 40 lbs max, so it was overstated by 30 lbs. The real problem I have with this (besides it's likely source), is that it's asking us to except a blatant lie that's still being perpetuated to help separate people from their money. Now, I can completely respect those of you who do not care about the record… but what I can't respect is someone like mstermuskie who asks me to turn my back on the truth. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8863
| I don't necessarily CARE about the record. It's a point of interest for sure, just for the legend and lore. And I do want to know how big muskies really do get.
More importantly than that, though is what Jerry mentioned above. Separating people from their money who mistakenly think they can go to Hayward and have a shot at a musky that does not now and has never existed in the past? That's not right. One look at the lunge log should tell you that 53"/40# fish are not very common anywhere they swim. There are giants to be had in a lot of places, but Northern WI is not one of those places, and it never has been. How anyone can still claim the records is beyond me. 69 pounds?! Really? And where are the 40# and 50# fish that should be coming out of Hayward on a regular basis, then? Why hasn't one been caught in that area that is over 60#? Why hasn't one been caught ANYWHERE that is pushing 70#? Seems with the best management practices and the popularity of catch and release fishing we'd be seeing fish of that caliber all over the place if one guy could go out and catch three of them.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 45
| esoxaddict - 3/4/2014 12:51 PM
There are giants to be had in a lot of places, but Northern WI is not one of those places, and it never has been. And where are the 40# and 50# fish that should be coming out of Hayward on a regular basis, then?
If you are talking about 60-70 lb giants, you are very correct, WI has never been a destination for such a creature. However, in terms of attainable giants, northern WI does proudly boast a number of documented 50lb+ fish, and several 40+lb fish. These fish may not be giants in terms of the bs records, but they stack up to about any fish caught about anywhere these days. I'd take a 53" 45 lb WI fish over a long skinny 56" leecher any day. This may not be the thread for this discussion, and I completely agree that the Hayward records are false and nothing more than a ploy tactic that worked for my family and myself back in the 80's, but northern WI does and did produce giant fish. Not at, perhaps the rate some locales do, but as frequently as any inland body, I'd argue. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1300
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Boots Electric:
I appreciate your passion and belief in N. Wisconsin, but I challenge you to name/list those 50 pounders that are proudly boasted and documented. Let's start say around 1975 with Gene Allen's 51 pounder from the Lac du Flambeau area. Can you list enough more inland fish to fill up one hands fingers? 40 pound fish are another matter altogether and I'll concede that point to you, but they are a long way from 50 and light years from 60 or 70.
Edited by Larry Ramsell 3/4/2014 1:53 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 456
Location: Kansas City BBQ Capitol of the world | Keep up the fight Larry, sometimes history does get re writen. Despite what the books say most people i know think that record is one big sham.
Ron |
|
| |
|
Posts: 45
| Well, I only have 3 fingers to hold up on my decreppid left mit due to the monster(unverified) fish that decided it liked the other two more than the hot dog I was hand feeding it on banana lake. I also did say a number of 50lbers, which means more than one. The Bob Grutt fish comes to mind at 49 or 51 lbs(I'll average the two weights to get 50), along with Rita Hillenbrands 52 lber with Sleight. That lady was special. So was Rita. How about the Lapp tiger? How big was that? Or the High falls flowage fish(whether caught legally or not)? If you say that Gene Allens was the only WI 50, ever, I couldn't argue with you, as it is typically your history writings I've believed in the first place.
Dude, I'm not arguing with ya. The WI records(and many others) are bunk. I spend several days per season fishing Green Bay, MN, and Ontario waters because I know my favorite WI ponds don't produce those types of fish. But for addict that to say WI never produced a giant of over 50lbs, was false. I won't begin to argue with the Musky history whisperer, and if you told me the mentioned fish above are bogus, I couldn't say you were wrong. The fact that there are only a handful of WI fish that might hold up to the scrutiny of the experts, speaks volumes to just how special those few fish really were.
Oh, and can you imagine crackin a 50lber on a Bobbie bait like Gene did? I'll bet there was some bell ringin going on that night almost as loud as the bass drum poundin headache in his melon the next morning. In 1971, I'd've drivin around with that one on the tailgait of my pickup, stoppin at taverinos till it was freeze dried.
Edited by Boots Electric 3/4/2014 1:48 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2686
Location: Hayward, WI | Larry, sorry to hear about all the drama taking place lately.
Regarding people taking a trip and spending money because of a real or false world record caught many years ago.... well that's their choice. Not what I'd base my trips on! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 639
Location: Hudson, WI | Larry, didn't you say there was a verified 68" netted by the Spooner guys from LCO in the late 50's and that you saw the pics? And according to the Spooner crew in 2003, the largest they had personally handled was 58" with several 56 and 57's?
I'm going to assume almost any WI fish over 55" is going to be pushing 50 pounds. Also, I can think of a 48lber and 50+ pounder in the Polk County area...one of them is even posted on the DNR website.
I get that the records are bunk. I just don't understand why you are now intentionally disparaging the Hayward area in general and claiming that big fish don't grow there. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1660
Location: central Wisconsin | Larry, how big do you think Cal Johnson's fish actually was?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 785
| IMO if we're going to keep records we might as well strive to make sure they are accurate. With Largemouth Bass for example people are currently attempting to beat the record and in some ways that brings a sense of excitement to the sport. That's lost in the musky world though because most people have already realized 69 pound fish don't exist and the record is unreachable.
Edited by musky-skunk 3/4/2014 2:04 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1300
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Boots:
You are correct on all your listings (my error on Allen's fish as it was 1975). Actually, if we go back to the sham years and count all other apparently legitimate fish from that time forward, there are 19 from Wisconsin waters over 50 pounds (some suspect). I used Allen's fish as a starting point for relatively modern fish. Using 1975 as a base-line, there are only four!
You had Grutt's fish (was 50 pounds 4.5 ounces), which was from a non-native stocked lake; Lemay's 50-0 in 1983 from a class C lake and of course Tom Gelb's beauty at 51-2 in 2006 in Vilas County.
If we include all inland Wisconsin documented (not necessarily verified) 50 pounders, excluding the known bogus fish, there have been a total of 21 (two of them Hybrids).
Since we start at 1905, that means that in 108 years there have been 21 over 50 pounds...about one every 5 years on an average, but the average since 1975 has been one every 9.5 years. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| John Dettloff supposedly spoke about the WR fish in his seminar at the Wasau show. I couldn't make the show and wonder what John had to say about the WR's. I have a post up asking the same ? with no info so far. Can anyone here tell me if Jhn had any new info on the WR fish in his seminar?? He must had said something to make a point of speaking about the WR in his seminar......
Larry???? anyone??? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1300
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Moltisanti:
I didn't say the 68" was "verified", rather reported. I tried to verify the tank size used, but found three or four different tank lengths at the Spooner hatchery warehouse and came up with nothing conclusive. No "official" hatchery report has ever had them handling anything near this size.
Your assumption, " I'm going to assume almost any WI fish over 55" is going to be pushing 50 pounds" would be wrong. Frank Weller's 57 incher from the Chip weighed just 43 pounds.
As for "a 48lber and 50+ pounder in the Polk County area", true, but then 48 isn't 50 and the 50 is the Grutt fish.
As for your comment "I get that the records are bunk. I just don't understand why you are now intentionally disparaging the Hayward area in general and claiming that big fish don't grow there", that is incorrect.
I have NOT be disparaging the Hayward area; read the second paragraph in my recent post on the "Unveiling" (on page 2 of this forum). I have never said that big fish don't grow here, I have merely stated that 60 and 70 pounders don't grow here, never did and there hasn't been a fish caught here over 50 pounds since 1950 and I can't verify/document that one either, rather a Kahmann mount of it exists in Hayward.
What I have said basically is that the caliber of fish that the bogus records portray just aren't available here and never were, so don't expect to catch one. 45-49 pounders however are another matter, have been and are being caught and are very magnificent specimen's!!
Jeff78 said: "Larry, how big do you think Cal Johnson's fish actually was?"
Jeff, the professional scientific photogrammetry performed on this fish puts it somewhere in the low to mid low 50-INCH length range. My "estimate" weight wise it could be anywhere from 38 to being extremely generous, 48 pounds. Of one thing I am certain...it did NOT weigh 67 1/2 pounds and was NOT 5 feet long with a 33 1/2 inch girth!!!!!!
|
|
| |
|
| congrats mr ramsell you are the only one that i trust with my eyes closed.keep working,we need more fighter like you!btw i wonder how they feel when they read how the guys from this forum are treating their musky joke world record?every serious to almost beginners musky fisherman on the planet know how idiot this wr is looking.its more than the time for them to do something
Edited by jano 3/4/2014 2:45 PM
|
|
| |
