|
|
| Mr. Ramsell,
Why do you feel the IGFA refuses to reinstate Lawton? Don't you consider Lawton's fish to be a farce just like the Spray and Johnson fish?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Guest (why are you afraid to sign your post?): I wish I knew the answer to your IGFA question. I suspect politics, but shant elaborate. That thought became much more enhanced when the IGFA hypocritically left the Johnson fish in place stating they couldn't determine weight from a photo, but used that very excuse (not Dettloff's report) at the time to set Lawton's record aside. Bizzare at the very least and a huge blow to any credibility they may have had in the muskie world (by the way, NY still recognizes the Lawton fish as their state record). As I stated above, I'll be they wish they had a "do over".
As for the second question, you'll have to read my book...it took several hundred pages to explain.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell,
Muskellunge Historian |
|
| |
|
| Mr. Ramsell,
The problem the IGFA has appears to be they want to please Dettloff but aren't able to do so without being hypocritical. They chose being hypocritical over disappointing Dettloff. They let him have his way at their own expense.
As for my second question, I'm not looking for an explanation, I just want a yes or no as to if YOU believe Lawton's fish is a farce?
|
|
| |
|
| igfa prove me 1 thing they have 0 credibility,all the others species must be revised specially the old one.i am sure there is a cople more laughable record.
larry did you try to contact the big media concern that story? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 426
Location: Perryville, MO | Forgive me for any ignorance I reveal in asking this question (I've read alot...but there's a ton of information out there). Is the legitmacy of Ken O'Brien's fish questioned? OK, sure it is by someone somewhere with a myriad of potential agendas. But I haven't come across anything that casts the pall of doubt over the size of that fish. I get re-directed on the WMA site when clicking on the O'Brien report. Is that because it hasn't been done or just a computer glich? Thanks in advance for simple answers to what I hope are simple questions (yeah, right!). |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | In a previous post I listed some additional articles in the NEWS section of this web site...I missed a very important one from April 2006. Check out the names of the committee members...seems to me this is just what many have and are asking for. Guess most missed it at the time:
Muskellunge Record Keeping Enters A New Era
Modern Day Muskellunge World Record Keeping
Larry Ramsell
Published April 2, 2006
Modern Day Muskellunge World Record Keeping Program
We are beginning a new chapter in muskellunge history; that of establishing
a highly verified International program for keeping muskellunge, and tiger
hybrid muskellunge, modern day world records. Due to problems with regard
to historical muskellunge records, and due also to the fact that some
current record keeping rules preclude several legal, legitimate and often
used methods of angling employed by todays muskellunge anglers. It has
been decided to begin a Modern Day Muskellunge World Record Keeping
Program. This is in no way intended to be derogatory to the other record
keeping programs, but rather a program designed for todays muskellunge
anglers, by todays muskellunge anglers, to keep verified, credible and
obtainable records for our favorite species and hybrid.
An old angling cliche says; There is no faster way to be called a liar than
to claim you just caught a record fish; and that is certainly true, for the
history of fish records is replete with false claims, distortions, lots of
unverified assumptions and indeed even some fraud.
All-tackle records for top game fish like muskellunge, smallmouth bass,
walleye and largemouth bass have at one time or another been under a cloud
of suspicion. Some have even been repudiated and disqualified. In the case
of many old record fish, photos and mounts themselves, never did, or no
longer exist. Also, the scales used usually were not verified by todays
standards. Even testimonies about the catch by other individuals regarding
the length, girth, weight, etc. can be under suspecion.
The problem of these old or even some more recent day records is that none
have been tested utilizing the great technology available to us today. For
example electrofloresis can tell you many things about the origins of the
fish. DNA also is a tool that didn't exist that many years ago. All this
being said, does not make any or all of these old records false. The
problem is that many can not be verified by modern technology, and that is
the crux of the problem.
By establishing a new set of standards which are verifiable, all questions,
problems and arguments that arise because of the lack of verification
evaporate.
These old unverified records need not be lost to posterity. They indeed can go into a special category of Historical and Legendary fish.
Many very high profile and well respected members of the muskellunge
community, from both sides of the United States and Canadian border, have
signed on to be a part of the Committee that has developed and will oversee
this program. The Committee will consist of both a Working Group and an
Advisory Review Group. All will review potential record applications.
Our Committee consists of:
Peter J. Barber, Treasurer, Muskies, Inc. International
Joe Bucher, Editor Emeritus Musky Hunter Magazine & Legendary Hall of Fame
Muskie Angler
Steve Budnik, Past President and Research Committee Chairman, Muskie's, Inc.International
Jim Bunch, Chairman, Muskie's, Inc. Members Only Fishing Contest & Muskie
magazine Lunge Log Editor
John Casselman, Ph. d., Adjunct Professor, Queen's University, Department of Biology, Senior Scientist Emeritus Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Applied Research and Development Branch, Member Muskie's, Inc. & Muskies Canada
Rich Delaney, Former President World Record Muskie Alliance & Member Muskie's,
Inc.
Terrie DuBe, Muskies, Inc. International Secretary & Professional Muskie
Tournament Angler
Brad Latvaitis, American Fisheries Society (AFS) Fisheries Professional
Emeritus, Owner, Environmental Solution Professionals; Enshrined, Fresh Water Fishing Hall of Fame 2006, Muskie Historian & Researcher,Contributing Editor Musky Hunter magazine
Mike Lazarus, Member Muskies Canada & Ontario and Quebec Muskie Guide
Ron Lindner, Publisher Emeritus In-Fisherman Communications Network & Hall
of Fame Angler
Pete Maina, Next Bite TV Show, Former General Manager/Co-owner Esox Angler magazine; Contributor Wisconsin Sportsman magazine & member Muskie's, Inc.
Diana Mindar, Former Member Muskie's, Inc. International Board of Directors &
Professional Muskie Tournament Angler
Jerry Newman, Founder World Record Muskie Alliance, Member Muskie's, Inc,
Muskies Canada & The International Game Fish Association (IGFA)
Steve Pallo, Management Programs Section Head Illinois Department of Natural Resources-Fisheries, American Fisheries Society (AFS), Certified Fisheries Scientist, Past Director-Research Muskies, Inc. International, Past Chair AFS Esocid Technical Committee, Life Member of Muskie's, Inc, Co-Chair of Fisheries Habitat Committee Muskie's, Inc
Gord Pyzer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (Ret.) Kenora, Fishing
Editor, Outdoor Canada Magazine, Field Editor, In-Fisherman Magazine and Television Co-Host, The Real Fishing Radio Show, President, Canadian Angling Adventures Ltd. & Outdoor Editor/Columnist, the Kenora Daily Miner and News, the Fort Frances Times, Just Fishing and Grainews
Larry Ramsell, Former Research Editor for Musky Hunter magazine and MUSKIE magazine, Muskie Historian/author, Dual Hall of Fame Muskie Angler, Past President, Muskies, Inc International, Former Representative International Game Fish Association (IGFA), Former World Secretary National Fresh Water Fishing Hall of Fame (NFWFHF) & Former World Record Advisor NFWFHF.
Jim Saric, Editor/Owner Musky Hunter magazine, Contributing Editor Fishing
Facts magazine,Contributing Editor, MidWest Outdoors magazine
Steve Sarley, Host of CLTV's The Great Outdoors television program - 2002
to 2005, Host of The Outdoors Experience radio program on Chicagos NewsTalk 560 AM WIND 2003 to present, Weekly columnist for Shaw Newspaper's Northwest Herald, Kane County Chronicle and other Shaw daily newspapers, Monthly columnist for MidWest Outdoors magazine - 1996 to present
Tim Simonson, Fisheries/Lake Sampling Coordinator, Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources (WDNR) Spokesman & Co-chair State Musky Committee, Wisconsin DNR
Marc Thorpe, Past President Muskies Canada & Ontario and Quebec Muskie
Guide
Steve Worrall, Owner Mukie First Internet Website & Member Muskie's, Inc.
The bar has been set at 60 pounds (27.22 kilograms) minimum for initial
muskellunge application, to prevent numbers of large muskellunge from being
kept just to set a record. Hybrid minimum for application is 40 pounds
(18.14 kilograms), since the two largest verified hybrids caught in the past 55 years were 40 pounds and 40 pounds 2 ounces. With these weight criteria, few fish will be ever be kept for record purposes. This new beginning will constitute a highly credible "International" program with realistic and obtainable minimums as a starting point, and very credible, but attainable records once they are established.
After a presentation to the International Board of Director's of Muskie's,
Inc. on April 1, the Muskie's, Inc. International Board of Director's voted
overwhelmingly to endorse and support this program.
The committee will proceed based on the overwhelming International support
that we now have, and we would like to take this opportunity to thank
everyone in advance for their support and cooperation in the establishment
of this great new muskellunge world record program. We sincerely believe
that its time has come, and that with this great International mix of
committee members from both the angling and scientific world of the
muskellunge, it will be welcomed and accepted by the world's muskellunge
anglers!
For more information, Contact: Larry Ramsell, Committee Chairman, 9407N Highline Road, Hayward, WI 54843. Phone: 715-634-9882 or email:
[email protected]
NOTE: Since the formation of this prestigious committee, we have yet to receive an entry, indicating just how rare 60-pound class muskies are!
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell,
Muskellunge Historian &
Committee Chairman
|
|
| |
|
| hawkeye...yes, there are questions about the O'Brien fish. Stay tuned...... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4080
Location: Elko - Lake Vermilion | Soooooo,.....
In the last 5 years no one has submitted a true 60lb. muskie to this committee ? Why? they do exist, don't they? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | "Why?" None caught and kept (and made public) OR none caught period. Releases don't count...If you don't (officially) weigh it, you can't say it!
Do they exist? Time will tell. The panel discussion on this subject at the Chicago Musky Show was interesting, but NONE of the panel have caught and/or weighed one that size!! Close, but close only counts in horse shoes and handgrenades. Yes, only five guys of many, but most of them are on GREAT muskie waters EVERY DAY of EVERY SEASON. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4080
Location: Elko - Lake Vermilion | With the great muskie fishing that we have these days it seems that there should be a few fish caught that challenges the so called world record'(s) ............. unless .........there never was a muskie of that size to begin with......... Hmmmmmm, Something smells fishy......... Real smelly.
Jerome |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| Top H2O - 1/27/2011 12:09 PM
With the great muskie fishing that we have these days it seems that there should be a few fish caught that challenges the so called world record'(s) ............. unless .........there never was a muskie of that size to begin with......... Hmmmmmm, Something smells fishy......... Real smelly.
Jerome
Or, the very minimal pool of that size fish, is even smaller than it was historically. |
|
| |
|
| I recognize 70 pounds as the record - until someone gets a 70 pounder there is no world record. Kind of like when excalibur was buried in the stone and the land had no king until Arthur came around.
The musky world is a community without a World Record.
The release record is a joke as well. A cutoff picture of a man holding a muskie is all that is needed. What a shame.
I do know that muskies have been planted in Europe so maybe they will grow to over 70 pounds there.
Todd Booth |
|
| |
|
| whats wrong with the obrien fish? i was sure that one was a true 60 pounder |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | Guest - 1/18/2011 2:22 PM
That New Brunswick musky doesn't come close to the formula weight and it doesn't look all that heavy to me either. It's certainly a big fish, just that something isn't adding up. That also got me thinking about Spray, 3 records in his lifetime? Consider his lifetime as 1 event, what are the odds? Sounds a lot like the Lawton's, Hartman's and Haver to me with lots of false entries.
The article states it was weighed on a certified scale. What this proves (to me) is that if a 50 inch fish can achieve a 29 inch girth and weigh 61 pounds then a 55 inch fish can weigh over 70. As trophy Muskie has stated the average size of forage fish are rising in his neck of the woods. Bigger forage should by all rights grow some heavier Muskies. The spray records dont mean anything to me. With the mount gone there is no real way to prove it either way. As for the Johnson fish? Im not an expert but that mount looks huge. If it was doctored thats pretty crappy.
But here is where I get cynical on the whole record argument. Every single record or claim of a super fish as called a lie by so many it is disturbing to me. Not even the Obrien fish has escaped attacks and now this 61 pound fish weighed on certified scale is being attacked as not adding up. Were they all lies evry one of them?
Larry, your book has pictures of fish not even talked about by anyone here. Some claiming to be 80 pounds. Tell us, is there a 70 pounder out there in November,December ,January, February March or April? Fully loaded female with eggs and a belly full of forage. I have to believe there is. Mike |
|
| |
|
| The head to total length percentages of the 'historical records' do not match the fresh fish they are supposed to represent. There never was a pool of fish of this size.
Art Lawton former world record was wisely never mounted. Ever wonder why the Lawton's would mount a muskie that only measured 57" but not mount the 64.5" world record?  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 41
| Guest - 1/28/2011 11:39 AM
I recognize 70 pounds as the record - until someone gets a 70 pounder there is no world record. Kind of like when excalibur was buried in the stone and the land had no king until Arthur came around.
The musky world is a community without a World Record.
The release record is a joke as well. A cutoff picture of a man holding a muskie is all that is needed. What a shame.
I do know that muskies have been planted in Europe so maybe they will grow to over 70 pounds there.
Todd Booth Muskies in Europe ???
Do tell Todd, I would love to hear more about that! |
|
| |
|
| Kingfisher - 1/28/2011 11:21 AM Guest - 1/18/2011 2:22 PM That New Brunswick musky doesn't come close to the formula weight and it doesn't look all that heavy to me either. It's certainly a big fish, just that something isn't adding up. That also got me thinking about Spray, 3 records in his lifetime? Consider his lifetime as 1 event, what are the odds? Sounds a lot like the Lawton's, Hartman's and Haver to me with lots of false entries. The article states it was weighed on a certified scale. What this proves (to me ) is that if a 50 inch fish can achieve a 29 inch girth and weigh 61 pounds then a 55 inch fish can weigh over 70. As trophy Muskie has stated the average size of forage fish are rising in his neck of the woods. Bigger forage should by all rights grow some heavier Muskies. The spray records dont mean anything to me. With the mount gone there is no real way to prove it either way. As for the Johnson fish? Im not an expert but that mount looks huge. If it was doctored thats pretty crappy. But here is where I get cynical on the whole record argument. Every single record or claim of a super fish as called a lie by so many it is disturbing to me. Not even the Obrien fish has escaped attacks and now this 61 pound fish weighed on certified scale is being attacked as not adding up. Were they all lies evry one of them? Larry, your book has pictures of fish not even talked about by anyone here. Some claiming to be 80 pounds. Tell us, is there a 70 pounder out there in November,December ,January, February March or April? Fully loaded female with eggs and a belly full of forage. I have to believe there is.
Mike
Mike, I don't have believe. The New Brunswick musky is suspicious because it's dimensionally about the size of Tom Gelb's 51lber (that nobody questioned BTW) but claimed to weigh 10lbs more. There's also several good pictures of both fish and the girth does not look very impressive when compared to Gelb's, which is very impressive. We also have Martin Williamson's (God rest his soul) 61lber for comparison. I can only speak for myself, but dimensionally and visually the NBM is not even in the same league as Williamson's. Don't you find it at least a little curious that they are wanting to dispose the NBM like that. |
|
| |
|
| Lunge Master - 1/28/2011 12:28 PM Guest - 1/28/2011 11:39 AM
I recognize 70 pounds as the record - until someone gets a 70 pounder there is no world record. Kind of like when excalibur was buried in the stone and the land had no king until Arthur came around.
The musky world is a community without a World Record.
The release record is a joke as well. A cutoff picture of a man holding a muskie is all that is needed. What a shame.
I do know that muskies have been planted in Europe so maybe they will grow to over 70 pounds there.
Todd Booth Muskies in Europe ??? Do tell Todd, I would love to hear more about that!
I agree Todd! "The release record is a joke as well. A cutoff picture of a man holding a muskie is all that is needed. What a shame." That's another one of those Hall of Fame records that should not be on the books, a full picture of the fish is one of of their requirements even. Complete joke! With today's technology they should also simply require the fish be held alongside of a ruler.
|
|
| |
|
| I also believe the NB muskie is a hoax. In that article it says that muskies in NB have no specific season and are considered an invasive species and are not listed as a sport fish (non-gamefish).
They go on to say the fish cannot be mounted because it was taken out of season. Obviously, this is in conflict with what was said above.
They also say they doubt the cause of death will be revealed by the autopsy which doesn't make sense to me.
Them saying that after the autopsy the fish will be returned to the river to complete the "circle of life" sounds to me like 'getting rid of the evidence'. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Kingfisher wrote: "Larry, your book has pictures of fish not even talked about by anyone here. Some claiming to be 80 pounds. Tell us, is there a 70 pounder out there in November,December ,January, February March or April? Fully loaded female with eggs and a belly full of forage. I have to believe there is. Mike"
Mike, I have thought so for most of my life. As noted at the Musky Show panel, "IF" there is one that size it is a FREAK...an anomaly of epic proportions! As I noted at the show, based on what has transpired over the past 50 years, including the better/more BIG fish of the past 10 to 15 years, it is my personal belief that the AVERAGE maximum size, in the BEST of muskie fisheries, is around 55-56 pounds...not the "potential" largest, but the "average maximum". So, to set out with the intent to catch a new world record is considerably more than looking for the proverbial needle in a haystack! Williamson's 61-4, which by the way was NOT weighed on a "certified" scale, was said by the local biologist to be a sterile female and was putting all of its energy towards growth instead of eggs. It was only 17 or 18 years old. THAT is the type of muskie, albiet a little older and larger, that it will take to set the standard at 70 pounds.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell,
Muskellunge Historian
Edited by Larry Ramsell 1/28/2011 1:31 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Larry,
I just acquired a new book from a good friend, unopened except to sign by the author. I'm placing it with my other 'historical' muskie books and items in an ever growing collection.
'Before I Forget'
Fifty Years of Muskie Fishing
Len Hartman
Those were interesting and different times. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8772
| Thanks for your input, Larry,
That opinion pretty much mirrors what we've all heard time and time again from the guides and resort owners on all the trophy muskie fisheries of today. A "true giant" comes in at around 60" and/or 60#, and it's a fish of proportions that even the best anglers fishing the best waters will likely never encounter, much less catch. Looking at the names and accomplishments of those involved in the Modern Day Muskellunge World Record Keeping Program? I see no reason to believe any other claims to larger and heavier fish being caught, especially not in areas not currently known to support the kind of fish we see coming out of the top fisheries today. |
|
| |
|
| I would say the NB muskie at 50.875" and 61.5 lbs is a better example of a 'freak' than the Williamson fish at 55.5" and 61-4 lbs., especially since it was supposedly weighed on a certified scale which Williamson's wasn't. THIS is the type of fish that could potentially weigh 70 lbs. if it was a little older and longer. |
|
| |
|
| I by no means agree with the size of Spray's fish, but a thought just occurred to me. I think having this as the official world record is actually a GREAT thing. Think about how many more fish would be getting clubbed over the head if let's say the record was at 61 lb., or whatever the largest "legitimate fish is. I think that because the official record is soooooo big, that is it actually helps these fisheries by keeping many large "potential record" in the water and not in the bottom of the boat. |
|
| |
|
| Right now the 'bar' is set at 6o lbs. to enter a fish in the 'Modern Day Records Program' and there hasn't been any muskies killed even with this lower weight requirement.
John Dettloff probably LOVES your post! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4080
Location: Elko - Lake Vermilion | Wow 53 people thinks this is the real deal....... Someone in Hayward is networking. What a sham, er...I mean shame
Jerome |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8772
| 53 people out of nealy 400 just don't know any better. I think that's pretty much on par with the genral population when it comes to... Well, ANYTHING, really. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Steve:
Len's book made for an interesting read and definately was about different times! Len was driven by a need to FISH. Give him credit where credit is due for "coming clean" before he passed away. While he was alive and after his confession, I thought perhaps he should do another book..."Now I Remember". |
|
| |
|
Posts: 67
| Next year Larry , I predict the holy grail shall be found ! LOL |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Perhaps "captured" would be a better term, Bill! We know where she is, just have to be in the right place at the right time! |
|
| |
