|
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | That is crap. Login, and argue the in at least some realm of reality. |
|
| |
|
| larry i am sure someone can help you,fake wr or not i think those vids have something that is a part of HISTORY,i hope someone is gonna help you. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20219
Location: oswego, il | The Hayward folks are loving this discussion. Like I said in an earlier post, Hayward witnesses good, Canadian witnesses bad.lmao |
|
| |
|
| sworrall - 1/31/2012 1:23 PM
That is crap. Login, and argue the in at least some realm of reality.
sworrall - 1/31/2012 1:23 PM
That is crap. Login, and argue the in at least some realm of reality.
It's refreshing to see somebody in Steve's position without milk bone underwear for a change. Pretty much like Finn says, too many of our higher profile people and magazines are not doing enough because they're worried about damaging their reputation or circulation. This is all sad, very sad in fact, because the WRMA was originally assembled to find the truth and end the bickering that was going on about these records way back when (I'm guessing Kingfisher wasn't online then because it was really nasty). I can distinctly remember people getting shouted down on Musky Hunter if they said Louie Spray’s three records were bogus (like somebody's going to catch 3 world records from 3 different lakes just a short drive from his house around Hayward LOL).
Dick Pearson, Jim Saric, Pete Maina, Muskies Inc., and Steve here were among the majority of so-called “wolves” that Kingfisher has a problem with, so he should probably start here. I can distinctly remember Muskies Canada guys cheering when Spray was exposed too. O'Brien was hoisted up as the fish to beat, mainly because Johnson was so obvious (33 ½” girth in July LOL).
Unfortunately, it's now just as obvious there's no way that O’Brien’s fish could have weighed in at 65 pounds. So Kingfisher, what was the WMA supposed to do, be part of a conspiracy, or report what they found. Seriously think about that for a second and I think you'll agree that Finn is spot on with the anger being misdirected at the WMA. Definitely the record keepers should be the ones held accountable, I would also add the people in charge of Muskies Canada now at this point because they are obviously denying reality.
I've actually read this entire thread and see no official comments from the WMA, they released the information on O'Brien and that's that. I don't see how the truth should “rub someone the wrong way” or why the WMA should be called “wolves” for following through and doing exactly what they said they would. As a matter of fact, in light of all the flak they've taken, following through and doing exactly what they said they would do demonstrates a lot of courage and fortitude in my humble opinion. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| DITTO!! Great post!
DougP |
|
| |
|
Location: The Yahara Chain | ToddM - 1/31/2012 4:18 PM
The Hayward folks are loving this discussion. Like I said in an earlier post, Hayward witnesses good, Canadian witnesses bad.lmao
How come you don't spew as much venom towards the Canadians as you did towards the Hayward crowd?
I actually find it hilarious that several Canadians that went off off on spray's fish are in denial on the O'brien fish.
Muskie Canada's response to this whole thing is a joke. The fish was 54" that is indisputable.
My personal belief all along has been that the Williamson fish is the largest fish ever caught. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20219
Location: oswego, il | Bytor, I am in agreement with the wma findings that the o'brien fish was not as big as claimed. I think for most of us we believed this one was legit. As far as the venom goes I , nor anyone else will match the venom that has come and will come from Hayward regarding the record fish.
On a humorous note, I had to save Bytor on my smart phone as it changed your name to Nutley. 
Edited by ToddM 2/1/2012 12:39 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8782
| I don't understand why there's any animousity towards the WMA at all. They didn't set out to discredit or disprove anything, or drag any names through the mud. The entire purpose of their research was simply for verification and authentication. So why the anger? Because the truth turned out to be something other than what you had hoped? If you want to be mad, be mad at the people who falsified the records in the first place. Be mad at the fact that the ACTUAL world records are being caught today, and it means absolutely nothing, because too many people are full of crap and just pushing their own selfish agendas. I get it - everybody wants to be able to claim that a world record came from their lake or their resort. But in the case of most, it DIDN'T. The truth sucks, you lost, get over it or get out of the way. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | Bytor = Nutley
makes sense ... |
|
| |
|
| Larry Ramsell - 1/30/2012 11:51 PM
Mike:
I understand and share your frustration. No one hates it more than I do, but I also want to know the truth and just what is the "real" potential growth of the species. These "grand beasts" just do not seem to attain the size required to weigh 70 pounds.
I resent being called a "Wolf", but I shan't let that deter me from the pursuit of the truth in Muskie record matters. And, not ALL 60 pounders have been taken to task, at least from my end or perspective. Yes, O'brien's fish was a pig, but it just was not 58 inches long and likely didn't weigh 65 pounds. Williamson's fish too was a pig and I don't believe anyone has said it didn't weigh 61 pounds 4 ounces. It just wasn't a "certified" weight. He likely didn't pursue certification because of the bogus fish, supposedly larger, already on the books!!
I think your frustration, as noted by others, should be directed at the record keepers, who choose to put their collective heads in the sand and ignore the obvious. I don't think you want to chase a "ghost" that doesn't exist. "Folklore and mythology" is fun, but it isn't REAL.
Mike, I hope you get your wish, but God forbid you or someone using one of your lures catches a legitimate 62 pounder and is denied a record because the record keepers choose to ignore science and common sense and continue to list bogus fish...and even they cannot agree on what the record is! THAT is where your anger should be directed.
"He likely didn't pursue certification because of the bogus fish, supposedly larger, already on the books!!"
I agree that Williamson's fish should probably be the Canadian record now. If Muskies Canada would start by cleaning their own house, maybe there's some possibility we could rally together and make this the honorary record. Does anyone know if the scale used is still in existence, or is it too late to have certified now?
|
|
| |
|
Location: The Yahara Chain | jonnysled - 2/1/2012 12:59 PM
Bytor = Nutley
makes sense ...
Whatever Mr. NYU |
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | Muskies Canada is NOT a record keeping organization. The origional records were a yearly big fish contest based on weight only and run by a brewery ( Molsons ). When the contest was discontinued the grandfathered records were taken over by the OFAH |
|
| |
|
| Bytor - 2/1/2012 11:35 AM
ToddM - 1/31/2012 4:18 PM
The Hayward folks are loving this discussion. Like I said in an earlier post, Hayward witnesses good, Canadian witnesses bad.lmao
How come you don't spew as much venom towards the Canadians as you did towards the Hayward crowd?
I actually find it hilarious that several Canadians that went off off on spray's fish are in denial on the O'brien fish.
Muskie Canada's response to this whole thing is a joke. The fish was 54" that is indisputable.
My personal belief all along has been that the Williamson fish is the largest fish ever caught.
It may very well have been!!........ but it too has issues because it was not weighed on registered scales or did anyone around that fish that day know that they could be holding a record. All because of Obrien's over sized fish story.
One person (Stan)said when they held it that it was hard as a rock, no flabby belly.
It's sad to know Williamson is not around to know he held a record. |
|
| |
|
| horsehunter - 2/1/2012 4:49 PM
Muskies Canada is NOT a record keeping organization. The origional records were a yearly big fish contest based on weight only and run by a brewery ( Molsons ). When the contest was discontinued the grandfathered records were taken over by the OFAH
Frank Shelton, you know that's a total copout because it was some prominent Muskies Canada members who got out of line and were responsible for this fish being exaggerated in the first place.
Not only that, it's certainly within YOUR (as in you personally) power to put up a stink within the organization today, so please don't come on here with a Muskies Canada denial because you are a member of an organization that has the power to TRY to undo this wrong.
Let's hypothetically say that Muskies Canada put up a stink at the OFAH, and they still kept it, then this denial of yours would be plausible. Until then you can stow it because YOUR involvement is no different than knowing a friend burglarized your neighbor's house, when questioned later, you just shrug your shoulders and say you saw nothing and there's nothing you can do.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Seems like "pretty obvious" really nailed it.
DougP |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| The sad thing is that so many "groups" that could be of help in getting the record keeping organizations to clean the bogus fish from their list have done nothing. In effect they have become "enablers". Most, if not all, of us who have read the WMA reports know in our heart that these 3 fish that have been investigated are "tainted", to put it mildly, to the point of being "unacceptable" for any record keepers who are interested in maintaining integrity in the fish listed in their record book. By keeping quiet and not getting involved our respected organizations such as M.I. and M.C.I. enable bogus fish to occupy positions of respect and admiration when those spots should rightly belong to someone else.
I think it to be shameful that more publications and groups and clubs have not stood up to challenge these bogus records. It does not speak highly of the respect for honesty and integrity in these organizations.
I don't know....seems we could do a better job in handing over our record book fish to our younger generation.
DougP |
|
| |
|
| horsehunter - 2/1/2012 4:49 PM
Muskies Canada is NOT a record keeping organization. The origional records were a yearly big fish contest based on weight only and run by a brewery ( Molsons ). When the contest was discontinued the grandfathered records were taken over by the OFAH
Then what is this all about horsehunter? Oct. / Nov. 2011 Musky Hunter magazine: "Muskies Canada Responds to WMA's O'Brien Challenge."
|
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | They may have responded I didn't see it, but they are not the organization that keeps the records .
I DO NOT SPEAK FOR MUSKIES CANADA only my own opinions
The fish at some point must have weighed 65 pounds on a certified scale (the criteria for the Molson Big Fish Contest )
How do you get 10 pounds of water into a fish with 40 people milling around?
I believe the fish was mis measured
It bothers me that the challenge comes 20 years after the fact when the principals are no longer around to defend their selfs
At the time I was disapointed that the record was set by a Walleye fisherman with a 5 inch bait rather than someone targeting muskies |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Shouldn't bother you if you're not bothered that the Lawton fish was debunked 35yrs after being caught and the Spray & Johnson fish were effectively discredited over 55yrs. later. Do u believe those fish are legit.....if not then O'Brien should be subject to the same scrutiny.....
DougP |
|
| |
|
| "How do you get 10 pounds of water into a fish with 40 people milling around?"
How does a fish lose 9 pounds of water after being frozen 8 days?
|
|
| |
|
| "I believe the fish was mis measured"
If so, Muskies Canada members were the ones responsible as they measured the fish.
|
|
| |
|
| Then what is this all about horsehunter? Oct. / Nov. 2011 Musky Hunter magazine: "Muskies Canada Responds to WMA's O'Brien Challenge."
It should have read "Ian Young Responds to WMA's O'Brien Challenge"
Unfortunately he is President of Muskies Canada, so the logical connection is that he was speaking on behalf of Muskies Canada. This is not the case. He let his own personal feelings get to him and spoke out to defend some of his friends that were there that day. I am a member and I can assure you he was not speaking on my behalf. Though I may not agree with Larry or the WMA.
Muskies Canada NEVER WAS, OR EVER WILL BE, a record keeping organization....EVER. PERIOD. Can't be more clear about that. They have absolutely no leverage in either keeping or abolishing records. It is not even mentioned in our Mandate or Mission Statement. This was a Gaff on Ian's part that know has MCI dragging through the mud because of his own personal feelings.
MCI has done a TONNE of good for the Canadian fishery that you all come to enjoy....be thankful for that.
|
|
| |
|
| Guest - 2/2/2012 4:31 PM
Then what is this all about horsehunter? Oct. / Nov. 2011 Musky Hunter magazine: "Muskies Canada Responds to WMA's O'Brien Challenge."
It should have read "Ian Young Responds to WMA's O'Brien Challenge"
Unfortunately he is President of Muskies Canada, so the logical connection is that he was speaking on behalf of Muskies Canada. This is not the case. He let his own personal feelings get to him and spoke out to defend some of his friends that were there that day. I am a member and I can assure you he was not speaking on my behalf. Though I may not agree with Larry or the WMA.
Muskies Canada NEVER WAS, OR EVER WILL BE, a record keeping organization....EVER. PERIOD. Can't be more clear about that. They have absolutely no leverage in either keeping or abolishing records. It is not even mentioned in our Mandate or Mission Statement. This was a Gaff on Ian's part that know has MCI dragging through the mud because of his own personal feelings.
MCI has done a TONNE of good for the Canadian fishery that you all come to enjoy....be thankful for that.
If you don't agree that O'Brien's fish should no longer be the Canadian record then Ian Young is speaking on your behalf. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 225
Location: Ontario, Canada | I love all the bashing of Muskies Canada by people who are too cowardly to post their names!
Dax Jacklin
Edited by pigeontroller 2/2/2012 8:19 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Muskies Canada has done an amazing job with our muskie fishery and working with the MNR. Yet many of you gentlemen seem to do nothing but sling mud. I'm a Canadian angler and I muskie fish. I belong to no club or organization as I am sure that many of you on this forum do. I am also quite sure that the reason so many of you fish our waters is because you realize that is the best chance you have at a real trophy. But for those of you who want to go to the extra mile to find fault with us and paint us all with one brush. If I felt the way that you do, why bother coming up here, and I do agree that the OBrien fish was 54inches. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | OK, now people are reading into the argument and coming up with all sorts of 'perceptions' that are not relevant or even there. Enough of that. Debate the facts and leave the rest to gossip...elsewhere. |
|
| |
|
| I think everyone is pretty much in agreement that this fish was 54”, and a 54” muskie cannot weigh a legitimate 65lb.
The bottom line is that some Muskie Canada Inc. members are responsible for this tainted fish being on the record books in the first place and the president has publicly defended those same people. Not only that, he used the good name of MCI to petition the OFAH to keep his record as part of the cover-up. Like it or not, if you are a MCI member, you are now part of this O'Brien conspiracy thanks to these recent actions of your president.
I'm sorry but this cannot be reversed by saying this mudslinging, a gaff, or it's a great place to fish, now let's move on. Like it or not, your president and some irresponsible members have put MCI between a rock and hard place by publicly denouncing the WMA report and petitioning the record keeper to maintain this record. This is no different than what John Dettloff did at the Hall of Fame when he influenced the board to keep Spray as part of the cover-up, and for his own personal reasons.
It is incumbent upon MCI to properly address the WMA allegations against O'Brien and make a recommendation to the OFAH based on fact, not friendship. Full disclosure, I have been a past member of MCI and made donations to worthy MCI projects. I am definitely not a coward, I would simply like to remain anonymous for the time being. |
|
| |
|
| MCI Friend,well put
The fact that Ian Young, President of MCI officially spoke without consent of his members,ultimately obligates him and MCI to review the findings with an open mind ,without influence from those involved and set an example for the entire Muskie Industry.
Marc Thorpe |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Thank you Marc. I agree with MCI Friend and your well stated position. We need more people such as yourself to speak out for bringing some integrity and reality back to the musky record books.
DougP |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | What many may not know, is that Marc IS a past MCI President and at the time did agree with the O'brien fish...he now does not.
Obviously, Ian Young didn't speak for all within MCI or Canada for that matter and as Marc said, MCI should now take a "serious" look at the WMA report/evidence and do the right thing. The "conclusion" HE came to in his Musky Hunter letter can only further hurt MCI, not help. As more truths come forward, HIS position only gets more shameful. Time for more truths. |
|
| |
