|
|
Posts: 2361
| fins355 - 1/22/2011 4:46 PM
Larry, maybe some of these publications should be made aware of the fact that by trying not to upset either side they are losing credibility with their readership. Lots of credibility! Especially when one claims to be North America's Musky Authority. I'm sure you've done your part....
Actually, I think more musky fisherman need to demand a better accounting by some of these publications and there position on the WR.
As the saying goes; " All that is needed for evil to exist is for good men to do nothing."
DougP
This whole thread is starting to get funny. It's a fish story, it isn't "evil", LOL. 
It is sad to me that this whole drek parade was ever started. It should be ended and left as is. You guys spend way too much time and energy on this endeavor imo, but granted, it is YOURS to spend.
As I see it, the problem with MHM getting involved with the world record, or becoming active in the dispute, crosses the line from a news/journal reporting publication, to actually creating the news it is supposed to be unbiasedly reporting. When that happens, where is the leash that pulls MHM out of the fray, and where will be the trust in that particular publication? When they take a totally biased position, where is the truth in anything they might choose to do. Who you gonna trust when the publication FORMS the news it reports?? It isn't like FOX, where there are other networks available to take another view or support another idea. Taking a biased point of view, poisons their position and their neutrality, and ability to report fairly on a subject.
As for Muskies Inc., I'm not sure how the record dispute would be part of their purpose? I don't think it fits in to any of those goals? As others have stated and I have restated, there has been an awful lot of wasted energy that has gone into this record dispute and I don't see an end in site after knocking out a few more records, because I see problems with fish down the line also. So, where's it end at that point? I would hate to see MI get involved with all this, and I believe it would be a waste of resources and time for the organization.
Come on this site and crab and batch all you want, and make a bunch of anonymous BS statements every winter, and moan and whine, and cross the state line to get some cheese to go with if that helps pass the cold weather, but maybe its time to drop it and move on.....eh? 
Edited by firstsixfeet 1/22/2011 8:43 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'As I see it, the problem with MHM getting involved with the world record, or becoming active in the dispute, crosses the line from a news/journal reporting publication, to actually creating the news it is supposed to be unbiasedly reporting. When that happens, where is the leash that pulls MHM out of the fray, and where will be the trust in that particular publication? When they take a totally biased position, where is the truth in anything they might choose to do. Who you gonna trust when the publication FORMS the news it reports?? It isn't like FOX, where there are other networks available to take another view or support another idea. Taking a biased point of view, poisons their position and their neutrality, and ability to report fairly on a subject.'
One very important point: MHM is not a News network or source and are not in the busness of 'reporting' same. They are, and always have been, a publication that is there to sell magazines to muskie anglers and bring in advertising revenue, and they frequently publish opinion that might or might not be one they share. HUGE difference. They most certainly could take a position if they chose to do so without any repercussions at all.
Esox Angler took 'positions' all the time, possibly to the detriment of some circulation, but I respected that even when I vehemently disagreed. Try it, it's liberating.
And, News networks take editorial positions frequently. That's how NPR acquired a definite left leaning reputation, and Fox News acquired a hard right leaning reputation.
I have absolutely no problem offering editorial position backed with facts and my experience with the players in this and other debates. That certainly doesn't mean I expect others should approve of my position without investigating all the information available, and after doing so some won't. That's fine with me, and I submit doesn't damage the reputation of this publication a bit.
If this bothers one on either side of the issue, use one's mouse to click on out of the thread. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| Yes, let me go pick up a copy of Esox Angler and check it out. Which newstand carries it? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Economy took them out, and that IS a fact.
As I said, if this offends, use your mouse. |
|
| |
|
| So Steve now that you have chimed in. What is your position on the record?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | M-H,
Chimed in? Seriously? I'm a card carrying supporting partner of the WRMA.
I am forced to ask...did you read this and the many other threads on the subject here? There's no question about my position on the current 'World Record'.
|
|
| |
|
| I'm not trying to put words in anyone's mouth here but just in case you haven't seen the mountain of evidence against? http://worldmuskiealliance.com/ |
|
| |
|
Posts: 73
| Guest - 1/22/2011 11:33 PM
I'm not trying to put words in anyone's mouth here but just in case you haven't seen the mountain of evidence against? http://worldmuskiealliance.com/
That's not putting words in anybody's mouth. You simply posted a link to one of the best written collations of evidence against either of these fish retaining world record status---by a very broad array of well-qualified individuals. It’s required reading for anybody who wants a more complete education on the matter. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20211
Location: oswego, il | Guest, nobody thinks the lawton record is any more legit than spray or johnson's fish. They should all stand, or all go.
Fins, retribution is the key and there will be retribution. The ifga decided to let it pass as quitely as they could and the nfwhof decided to deal with it about as opposit as you can get from that. Maybe Forrest Gregg was coaching them.
A few years ago I was walking through a sport show when a nice lady from the hayward toursism booth handed me a brochure and said "come to the chippewa flowage and catch a world record musky". I took the brochure, picked up my severed tongue and continued on.
Edited by ToddM 1/23/2011 12:59 PM
|
|
| |
|
| ToddM,
Your statement: "They should all stand, or all go." Do honestly feel letting them all stand is an option?
If the IGFA reinstated the Lawton fish as their record do you feel this would restore their credibility as a record keeper? This type of flip-flopping is more damaging to credibility than anything else.
Also keep in mind that Johnson's fish was NOT accepted as the IGFA record when they removed Lawton's fish. Johnson's fish replaced the O'Brien fish.
The IGFA has only ONE way of restoring their credibility, REMOVE the Johnson fish and leave Lawton right where he's at. Considering that fish size CAN be determined by professional photogrammetry, this is their ONLY option.
Obviously, regardless of what anyone says, the IGFA does whatever Dettloff wants. The only reason the Spray fish isn't the IGFA record is because it was shot during the landing process which is not permitted by the IGFA rules for record acceptance.
|
|
| |
|
| As far as the IGFA being 100 times more highly respected as a world authority in fishing and records than the NFWFHoF, what kind of a record keeper would "wash their hands" of their responsibilities as a record keeper?
By the way, recently the NFWFHoF reinstated the Mabry Harper walleye apparently as a way of saying thanks to the IGFA for upholding Johnson. Back in 1996 the NFWFHoF rightfully disqualified the Mabry Harper walleye record while the IGFA stubbornly hung on to this obvious hoax.
|
|
| |
|
| That's an interesting perspective. The timing of the reinstatement of that walleye does seem suspicious. A possible thank you from the Hall of Fame for not messing with one of their cash cows? My take on the primary purpose of the Hall of Fame is promoting tourism in the area and the IGFA is simply in the business of selling records, removing the Johnson record was probably just bad for business. I think both organizations are mostly doing good, but they are also willing to get a little dirty to keep the money flowing in. |
|
| |
|
| My take is the IGFA removing the Johnson record wouldn't have hurt their business in the least. Whatever record they "sell" is irrelevant.
I believe they upheld this record for John Dettloff. They obviously have done what he requested with Art Lawton and are doing the same with Johnson. |
|
| |
|
| Getting a "little" dirty is like getting a "little" pregnant. You either are or you aren't! No such thing as these organizations doing "mostly good". |
|
| |
|
| Like I said before, the WMA should assert itself as the official record keeping body where muskellunge records are concerned.
Just do it.
Do the NFFHoF or the IGFA have a charter from Congress designating them as the "official" bodies? No, they do not, they have simply proclaimed that they are.
Both have lost the confidence of the overwhelming vast majority of the public where muskellunge records are concerned.
The WMA, IMHO would certainly pass muster as being an acceptable body by the muskie fishing public. |
|
| |
|
| Not a bad idea. Anyone care to start another poll? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | OK. So now we've had a little WR or not WR discussion. Hmmm. Seems the ice still frozen. Rats! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8772
| I'm still waiting for someone to give us all one good reason why the Spray and Johnson fish should be believed to have been as big as claimed. 137 replies and not one good argument for why the records should be upheld. That tells me more than the poll #'s. 45 out of 367 people believe that at least the Johnson fish was legitimate. But out of those 45 people, not even one valid argument as to why, other than basically saying "It was a lot bigger than it looks"
Oh, and one guy who says one of the Lindners saw the fish and it was huge. When I was 7 years old, a lot of fish were "huge", too. That doesn't mean they were world records.
Nobody has ANYTHING that would lend any credibility to the claims? Bueller? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | esoxaddict - 1/25/2011 5:03 PM
I'm still waiting for someone to give us all one good reason why the Spray and Johnson fish should be believed to have been as big as claimed. 137 replies and not one good argument for why the records should be upheld. That tells me more than the poll #'s. 45 out of 367 people believe that at least the Johnson fish was legitimate. But out of those 45 people, not even one valid argument as to why, other than basically saying "It was a lot bigger than it looks"
Oh, and one guy who says one of the Lindners saw the fish and it was huge. When I was 7 years old, a lot of fish were "huge", too. That doesn't mean they were world records.
Nobody has ANYTHING that would lend any credibility to the claims? Bueller?
Innocent until proven guilty. Not guilty till proven innocent. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8772
| This isn't a court of law, Pointer. If it were, however, I believe the WRMA has proven guilt. Take a look at the poll. Safe to say the jury has made up their mind too. Beyond a reasonable doubt.
Edited by esoxaddict 1/25/2011 5:19 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | esoxaddict - 1/25/2011 5:14 PM
This isn't a court of law, Pointer. If it were, however, I believe the WRMA has proven guilt. Take a look at the poll. Safe to say the jury has made up their mind too. Beyond a reasonable doubt.
Take the same poll on whether or not OJ was guilty of murder. Bet you get the same results. OJ was just to dumb to stay out of jail.
Your jury is pretty bias on a musky web site. Keep in mind the jury wouldn't be all musky anglers.
You are also correct this isn't a court of law, which is another good reason as to why the record hasn't been overturned. |
|
| |
|
| That’s a fair point, Mike. All that the poll in thread actually indicates is that the majority of Musky anglers on this Musky website don’t believe that the Muskies on record are legitimate---which is about what you’d expect after several years of discussion on this site. And it’s also a fact that in the bigger picture, most of the ‘rest’ of the fishing world doesn’t even have a clue that there is an ongoing debate on the matter. I don’t hold much hope for the matter ever being ‘resolved’, considering the high level of the challenge that has already taken place, yet no change.
So where does that leave things? Perhaps nowhere more than indicating that for some there needs to be another option put into play for keeping modern day, accurate records. Sometimes I’d like to see more effort put towards that, rather than towards revising history.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8772
| Is it revising history if you expose the truth? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Innocent until proven guilty...the proof was clear and was ignored, unless it was DETTLOFF's personal and far less evidential proof to bring the record back to Hayward....then there was no issue. A double standard that seems to slip right by...why? Because so many don't even remember the New York record so recently removed, know how or why it was removed, and by whom.
If this went to court and the evidence was provided by both sides and the background information regarding the entire debacle from the removal of the Lawton fish to the actions we have seen since the WRMA investigation was completed were exposed to the light of day, I submit the jury would toss out the current record with little deliberation or, just to set historical records straight might...just might, reinstate the Lawton fish. The 'jury' would have to hear ALL the evidence, unlike the choice one has here to simply not read or listen to one side or the other while arguing one's position.
That said, I have said several times over the years I'd be delighted with the old records restored to where they were before Mr. Dettloff's 'new career' took off, call them 'historical records', and move on to a modern day record keeping authority now and into the future.
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/articles/02.22.2006/1012/Did.Former...
Pretty carefully researched. Tell me it wasn't.
http://www.chippewaflowage.com/records.html
(Copyright © Chippewa Flowage Resort Association 1996-2011. All rights reserved.)
Really?
Remember, this guy was offering seminars about the conclusions of the CFMS before there actually were any, trying to convince the Muskie world the Chippewa Flowage monster muskies were still around, just hiding from all the nasty anglers. (wolf packs, indeed...) We attended two of those seminars during our hard look at the evidence and interviews with the parties involved, by the way, just to be sure. The attached article shows him promoting...his Chippewa Flowage resort. Which, by the way, is a nice place and a great place to fish out of, well hosted by John, that's not the issue at hand.
Credibility of the witness would be a key, I'm thinking. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 70
| http://www.chippewaflowage.com/records.html
Detloff doesn't sound too professional with all those spelling and grammar errors |
|
| |
|
| "Some individuals have made the petty, and unfounded accusations that the National Freshwater Fishing Hall of Fame disqualified the Lawton muskie in an effort to "bring the record back home to Wisconsin." Talk about a total BS statement! It's kind of silly but while I was reading the deal the first thing that popped into my head was that old cartoon character named Dishonest John. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20211
Location: oswego, il | Amazing, have anything to add to back it up? |
|
| |
|
| No, the records are not legitimate. The ones who seem to think they are, in my opinion, want to keep that nostalgia from the past. We all love to resonate about the "glory days" or a particular time or sport. I guess in this case its not so much about the glory days, but of a time before most of us, when things were different. We see the same thing in sports. Being a Packer fan, I love to hear my dad and grandpa tell me stories about the glory days of St. Vince and the Packer's of the 60's. It just brings ya back to that time. Its the same thing with Western Movies. It'll just be nice when the record does finally get broken, and then all of this can be put to rest. |
|
| |
|
| "That said, I have said several times over the years I'd be delighted with the old records restored to where they were before Mr. Dettloff's 'new career' took off, call them 'historical records' and move on to a modern day record keeping authority now and into the future."
Problem is if the old records were restored they would never be called 'historical records' by anyone except the 'muskie community'.
Keep in mind the IGFA didn't have to remove Lawton as their record holder. They did what they felt was right. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Thanks Steve for redirecting readers to the Lawton article. Following are three more that are in the vein of this thread.
Go to the MuskieFirst home page; click on "News" at the bottom and pick the appropriate years to find these articles:
The Real Story of the World Record Muskie Controversies
by Larry Ramsell
5/1/2008
and: Muskellunge Record Program Press Release
by Larry Ramsell
5/19/2006
and: International Angling Rules and Requirements
by Larry Ramsell
5/19/2006
The latter two already do what several have asked for in this thread. Still waiting for a legitimate 60 pounder to be captured!
Guest: No, IGFA didn't have to remove Lawton, but I'll wager they would like to have a "do over"!! Read the first article above and see if you don't agree and also see the shennagian's Dettloff was up to.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Muskellunge Historian
Edited by Larry Ramsell 1/26/2011 11:10 AM
|
|
| |
