Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
[Frozen] Moderators: sworrall, Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 > Now viewing page 7 [30 messages per page] More Muskie Fishing -> Muskie Biology -> CAL JOHNSON SUMMARY REPORT |  |
| Message Subject: CAL JOHNSON SUMMARY REPORT | |||
Guest |
| ||
| Todd, that's a valid point you make about Hayward having to "maintain the myth" even though it hurts local musky fishing. I've even heard the local WDNR office get in the act when they referred to Johnson's record. If they really believe in those fish the area is doomed because it will continue to affect stocking and length limits in Sawyer County, Hayward is their own worst enemy by hanging on to these records. | |||
| Brad Latvaitis |
| ||
Posts: 26 | Steve: After reading through the posts on this subject, following is a slightly different point of view regarding world records that may be of interest. It's a slightly modified version of a response to Jerry Neumann that I recently posted on another site. Jerry: You state the WRMA's goal is to find the #1 fish. I have a couple of comments and questions. The WRMA sponsored photogrammetric solutions by accredited photogrammetrists to evaluate the Spray and Johnson muskies. The technically sound measurements acquired using photogrammetry were significantly less than the reported measurements for these records. The WRMA used a sound technical approach to establish a basis for the feelings of many muskie anglers, namely; that the monster muskies being caught during modern times are likely as large or larger than the historic records. While the WRMA's efforts are commendable, can photogrammetric solutions be used to identify the #1 muskie? When an accredited photogrammetric solution finds a record that matches its reported measurements how will its weight be determined? How will potential loading be assessed for a muskie caught 10 to 20 years ago? In the case of the 21 year old O'Brien muskie, if a photogrammetric solution supports the reported measurements how will its weight be justified? Dr. Crossman examined the stomach contents and found nothing unusual but the muskie weighed considerably less when examined than when weighed. So, a photogrammetric solution of the O'Brien fish would led us nowhere??? Since weight can't be determined from a photogrammetric solution, will photogrammetric solutions of released muskies eventually be compared to photogrammetric solutions of kept muskies in the WRMA's quest to find #1? Will the WRMA's #1 be based on length, girth & estimated weight? Additionally, how will the WRMA handle photos of obviously huge muskies that do not include sufficient detail for deriving their photogrammetric solution? Evidently, the WRMA's quest to find the #1 fish will continue. The WRMA mentions the next fish on their list is O'Brien, isn't that selection premature? How about Lawton, Malo, the Lawton muskie of 65#+ (caught after his world record was recognized) and McNair? In 1992, Lawton's record received a hurried, self-serving, biased and incomplete review. Information was selectively presented and much of it was obtained from the Lawton family in an underhanded, despicable manner. Regardless, Lawton's record was "set-aside" by the IGFA (indicating it's still open) and disqualified by the FWFHF. Does the WRMA consider the Lawton record false because it's obvious the Lawton's routinely exaggerated the size of their fish? Does the WRMA's quest for #1 disqualify Lawton because he exaggerated the size of other catches? Does the fact that Hartman confessed to loading fish have anything to do with Lawton? Lawton was deceased at the time of Hartman's confession. The Lawton record has not been analyzed to the WRMA's standards set for Spray and Johnson. In the case of the commonly recognized Lawton record photo a photogrammetric solution (like those for Spray and Johnson) would likely support a much smaller fish. Unfortunately, a photogrammetric solution of Lawton's muskie would not eliminate all doubt because the Lawton F&S photo file does not include a chain-of-custody so it's impossible to verify that the photo commonly recognized as the Lawton record was submitted with the record application, further; the issue becomes clouded if you consider that F&S requested an alternate photo from Lawton. We'll never be sure which photo was published and whether it was important in 1957 to publish an exact photo. Hell, per the Lawton record affidavit a photo was to be submitted IF AVAILABLE. It's a fact that F&S recognized several world records without an accompanying photograph! TO MY KNOWLEDGE THERE IS NO DOCUMENTATION THAT A PHOTO WAS MANDATORY IN 1957 TO ESTABLISH A WORLD RECORD. (Only Dettloff's claim that McClain when interviewed said a photo was required). For completeness, shouldn't the WRMA review the Lawton photo record to determine if it includes a muskie larger than the commonly recognized record or a credible #1? Arguably, the Lawton record boils down to the credibility of the 1957 F&S records committee. What information was important in 1957 and what was considered? Finally, historic records were sanctioned on specific dates by specific organizations. They are a product of their era, established with the scrutiny the era demanded. Whether they're challenged or not, they will forever remain historic records! Brad Latvaitis | ||
| Lens Creep |
| ||
Posts: 123 | I've never seen a photo of the World Record Largemouth Bass that was caught in 1962, if I recall correctly. I do know a photo was not required at the time and that the fish was filleted by the angler and eaten. I don't recall anyone ever really questioning that fish at any point in time, which is somewhat strange when you think about it. It was a "realistic" record fish though, with many caught approaching that size and maybe even recently surpassing it. Maybe that was why, who knows. | ||
| Guest |
| ||
| Yeah, bass and walleye are always being caught about the same size as the record and yet nothing ever close to the #70 musky record, pretty telling in of itself. George Perry's bass was from the 20-30's and there is a fair amount of doubt about it in the bass world to. | |||
| Muskiemetal |
| ||
Posts: 676 Location: Wisconsin | World Record Largemouth (Tie) was just caught in Japan and it took weeks to verify it, but it was 22 pounds 4 ounces and from the pictures, it LOOKS that big.....(so does the 25 pounder that was snagged in California too) | ||
| Lens Creep |
| ||
Posts: 123 | Yeah, the George Perry fish from 1932 was what I was refering to. I was President of a Bass Club for a couple years and a member of that club for around 6 years. Not once was the legitimacy of that fish ever discussed. I've never seen any articles in any magazine about it either, and to my knowledge there NEVER was a picture of it. That fish met all the criteria of that time to be certified as the record and is simply accepted as such. Maybe if there was a picture of it we'd have people doing photo analysis of that one as well? I for one want to see a certified, un-arguable world record muskie, but it may never happen. We'll see. | ||
| fins355 |
| ||
Posts: 280 | Here's a pic of the supposed Perry world record. What do you think? Attachments ----------------  perrybassphoto2.jpg (35KB - 325 downloads) | ||
| Guest |
| ||
| The kid's head would fit in the mouth of the monster, I wish we had a record that was at least as believable. The part I don't understand is how Emmett Brown is allowing John Dettloff to make a mockery of Hayward, the Hall and even his own legacy. I don't blame Larry for being fuming mad because his life's work there has been turned into the biggest of musky jokes. | |||
| Muskiemetal |
| ||
Posts: 676 Location: Wisconsin | Compared to the World Record Tie... http://www.nola.com/outdoors/index.ssf/2010/01/outdoors_notes_bass_... | ||
| Brad Latvaitis |
| ||
Posts: 26 | Fin 355: Fin 355, you're correct regarding the George Perry photo. Interestingly, F&S sanctioned the world record largemouth without a photo! The photo was obtained from a relative 74-YEARS AFTER IT WAS CAUGHT. The photo showed up on 05/28/06!!! I wonder if Lawton had a similar photo in his file?? Brad Latvaitis | ||
| Lens Creep |
| ||
Posts: 123 | That's the first I've heard of a photo existing of that fish. Looks legit to me. As Brad states above, F&S did not require a photo at that time. The Crupi 22lb fish actually looked bigger than the Japanese fish, but it was probably just the angle. Thanks for posting that. | ||
| GW |
| ||
| Brad, If the photo that Field & Stream used was not the correct photo of Lawton's record muskie, Art Lawton should have said so immediately after they started using it. Case closed. John Dettloff showed an affidavit by Mr. Ball of Field & Stream in a 1992 issue of Musky Hunter Magazine that said in 1957 a photo WAS required by Mr. Lawton. This was not the case in the earlier years of their contest. Furthermore, you make no mention of the recant by Walter Dunn in 1992. Also, the world was thought to have been flat "historically" but what value does that have as far as what we know today? | |||
| Brad Latvaitis |
| ||
Posts: 26 | GW: You must not have read my post very carefully. I said, "the issue becomes clouded if you consider that F&S requested an alternate photo from Lawton. We'll never be sure which photo was published and whether it was important in 1957 to publish an exact photo." Under 2010 scrutiny I would agree that the proper photo would be a requirement and the responsibility of the angler to confirm. I'm not sure for 1957, are you? Regarding the requirement for a photo I wrote, "Hell, per the Lawton record affidavit a photo was to be submitted IF AVAILABLE. It's a fact that F&S recognized several world records without an accompanying photograph! TO MY KNOWLEDGE THERE IS NO DOCUMENTATION THAT A PHOTO WAS MANDATORY IN 1957 TO ESTABLISH A WORLD RECORD. (Only Dettloff's claim that McClain when interviewed said a photo was required)". I invite you to look at the BOLD PRINT on the Lawton record affidavit...I don't have my files with me for the exact wording but it states, send photo IF AVAILABLE. There is no other document in the F&S files, to my knowledge, that states a photo was required for a world record in 1957. If you can direct me to it I'll stand corrected. As far as an affidavit obtained by Dettloff, when Mrs. McClain was queried regarding a similar affidavit John obtained from her dying husband she refuted several items. I personally have no faith whatsoever in any affidavit obtained by Dettloff. Show me F&S documentation other than a questionable affidavit. By the way, why exactly would you believe this affidavit and not the affidavits associated with Lawton's fish? How do you decide which affidavits to believe...independent research? The main issue anyone should have regarding the recant by Mr. Dunn is the manner in which it was obtained by Dettloff. Why did Dettloff stop asking questions when he got an answer he liked? Surely you've read the newspaper commentary regarding this issue by Shawn Thompson (I believe the name's correct but like I said, my files aren't available. Last but not least, an historical understanding is a bit different than an historic event. But since you were able to find out that the earth was once considered flat that evidently had some value to you...plus it's an historic fact even though we don't believe it now...kind of like some of the muskie records, ya think! Brad Latvaitis Brad | ||
| Herb_b |
| ||
Posts: 829 Location: Maple Grove, MN | I think this horse is almost dead now. Maybe its best to agree to disagree? Actually, does it really matter? How many +60 lb Muskies have ever been caught? How many of us will ever even see a Muskie that large while fishing? And how many of us would need a change of underwear if we did? Now there is another thing to store in the boat.  | ||
| GW |
| ||
| Brad, I apologize for incorrectly identifying the Field & Stream judge that provided John Dettloff with the affidavit as Mr. Ball. It's been a long time since I've looked into this. The affidavit was actually provided by Dr. H. John Rayner who was a judge of many years with Field & Stream. In this affidavit Mr. Rayner confirmed that at the time of the Lawton entry in 1957, photographic evidence of a fish was mandatory in order to be accepted as a world record. Without a photo an entry was not acceptable. You will find this affidavit in Vol. 4, Number 5, Oct./Nov. 1992 Musky Hunter Magazine. The issue does not become "clouded" just because F & S requested an alternate photo. They just wanted a clearer photo of the SAME fish if one was available. If this wasn't possible the original photo would have to do. The ONLY photo that should have been submitted is a photo of the record and it's up to Mr. Lawton to make sure the photo was indeed of that fish. Like I said, if the photo F & S used was not the correct fish, Mr. Lawton should have said something immediately. Think about it. Why would any angler want a fish that was a world record to be represented by a smaller fish? Your arguement just doesn't make much sense! I also don't like the words "questionable affidavit". You can't favor one over another. Walter Dunn recanted what he originally said plain and simple. Just because you don't like the response doesn't mean it isn't truthful. You ask why would John Dettloff stop asking questions after he received the answer he liked? Why wouldn't he? What other answer could Mr. Dunn have given him? John asked him if he weighed or measured this fish and he said NO. How could more questioning have changed anything? Brad, you KNOW this record is phony and it's time to get over it. Hardly anyone believes in it anymore and you'll never convince people to reconsider. This thread is about the Cal Johnson Summary Report we need to stay focussed on this. You are being very unfair to Jerry Newman by dragging this thing on. | |||
| Brad Latvaitis |
| ||
Posts: 26 | GW: I just got back from dinner and am glad to have the opportunity to reply to your post. Let's discuss your last paragraph first. How am I being unfair to Jerry Neumann? Less than 5 minutes after my initial post Jerry called me and we had a lengthy discussion. Two of the points we discussed was why the WRMA would consider spending the time and money to sponsor a photogrammetric solution of O'Brien's muskie when the weight issue for O'Brien's muskie would remain a problem? Another point was that there are other muskies, including Lawton's that didn't receive the same treatment as Spray and Johnson and to be thorough they should be reviewed before O'Brien. If you take the time to read through the 7 pages of posts you may realize this post touches on O'Brien, Lawton and others, not just the Cal Johnson summary report, so the issue has led to this point. GW (I'd use your real name if you posted it), your first paragraph mentions the Rayner affidavit. What part of my response concerning Dettloff obtained affidavits did you miss? Let me repeat my last reply, "As far as an affidavit obtained by Dettloff, when Mrs. McClain was queried regarding a similar affidavit John obtained from her dying husband she refuted several items. I personally have no faith whatsoever in any affidavit obtained by Dettloff." I don't know if the following is any clearer but here goes...SHOW ME THE F&S CONTEST RULES THAT DOCUMENT A PHOTO WAS REQUIRED FOR A WORLD RECORD IN 1957!!! The F&S contest application that Lawton submitted clearly states that a photo wasn't required. The F&S application that states a photograph wasn't required certainly carries more weight than an affidavit prepared by Dettloff 25 years after the fact!!! Regarding the photo, since a photo wasn't required, the F&S Lawton photo file includes no chain-of-custody and no one knows the true photo history, I lean toward the integrity of the F&S committee including the F&S sponsored visit by Dale Shaw. Also, I believe you have to consider the status of records and the fishing industry in 1957 compared to today. What's you basis for saying, "they just wan't a clearer picture of the same fish....if this wasn't possible the original photo would have to do." Do you know this for a fact? For purposes of argument, with just as much basis as your statement, I could say the blurry photo was a larger fish but an alternate is okay for F&S magazine purposes...after all it was 1957 and the fish looked in the same ballpark as the fish it was replacing... neither of us know for sure what happened! This is out and out conjecture but what if F&S said we'll go with this picture, is Lawton going to say no?? In this case the photo of a smaller fish would make sense. I have no problem with Dunn's second response...I've considered them both and commented in writing to the FWFHF in 1992 regarding the issue (you can read it if you'd like in Larry's book, or get a copy from the FWFHF). The second affidavit is questionable to me because it was prepared and obtained by Dettloff who was obviously searching for the answer he wanted to hear rather than a thorough explanation, so I don't care if you don't like the words "questionable affidavit". Evidently you feel the original affidavit is the "questionable affidavit"...(it's okay for you to imply but not for me to say??) You say in your post above regarding the Dunn affidavits, "you can't favor one over the other." I don't favor one over the other but it appears that you do. If you haven't, please obtain and read Shawn Thompson's article on the subject...I'd post it but I won't have my files until April. If you'd like to see it I'm sure someone out there has it. I suppose you could contact Thompson if you don't want to review the issue in Larry's book. Well GW, like many others you clearly haven't done your homework regarding the weighing and measuring of Lawton's muskie. I'm doing this from memory know but I'm sure it's pretty spot on. Dunn Brothers Slaughterhouse weighed their products (in this case a fish) in one room but the scale read-out took place in an adjoining room. So Dunn may not have actually placed the fish on a scale...he either heard the weight reported after it was read in the adjoining room or read the weight and reported it. Similarly, he was likely present when the fish was measured and the length was called out. He likely didn't physically weigh and measure the fish. Do you believe that all the witnesses for each F&S record individually physically weighed and measured each fish...or do you think they were present for the readings? By the way, the F&S representative, Mr. Shaw, visited the slaughterhouse so he was aware of the methodology. I'm confident that the Lawton record is at a minimum as valid as the Spray and Johnson records and was scrutinized more thoroughly than the previous muskie records by virtue of the Shaw visit. Further, I know, just like the Perry bass picture that showed up 74 years after the fact, that anything is possible...including a photo of a 69#15 oz muskie. Finally, as I said in my first post, "The Lawton record has not been analyzed to the WRMA's standards set for Spray and Johnson. In the case of the commonly recognized Lawton record photo a photogrammetric solution (like those for Spray and Johnson) would likely support a much smaller fish." Put another way, the Lawton, Spray and Johnson photographic evidence does not support the record measurements. Of these three fish, only Lawton's still has a glimmer of hope for a valid photo to show up. Brad Latvaitis | ||
| Larry Ramsell |
| ||
Posts: 1291 Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | How about this conspiracy fans...was there an as yet unknown photo of Lawton's 69-15 in the Lawton files when sent by Lawton's neice to John Dettloff that has "mysteriously" disappeared??? Dettloff KEPT the supposed "smoking gun" Lawton photo (did NOT return it to Lawton's neice)...and there is NO proof that HE (Dettloff) did not put the writing on that photo as it DOES NOT match any other Lawton handwriting (confirmed by IGFA representatives!)!!! Dettloff so wanted "Louie" to be the top dog, the mysterious disappearance of a true photo of Lawton's 69-15 by his hand certainly wouldn't surprise me. If you want to read about Dettloff's "underhanded" dealings with the Lawton family, check out the "News" archives on this web site for 2006..."Did Art Lawton recieve a fair shake?". Cal Johnson III should be very happy that Dettloff WANTED to do whatever he could (honest or not) to support Johnson's muskie! Muskie regards, Larry Ramsell Muskellunge Historian www.larryramsell.com | ||
| Larry Ramsell |
| ||
Posts: 1291 Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | By the way, just how tall was Cal Johnson? In 2006 Dettloff said in no uncertain terms that he was 5 foot 7 inches. Then magically, just as with Spray, he GREW to 5 foot 9 inches in 2009! Hopefully my attachment will work (photo of Spray's fishing partner Ted Haag who was, if anything, a bit shorter than Louie who WAS 5 foot 11 inches, not the 6 foot 2 inches Dettloff originally had him). In this photo, Cal (center) is OBVIOUSLY much shorter than Haag (holding the muskie)!! And YES, they are in the same "plane" standing on the same level! Edited by Larry Ramsell 1/13/2010 10:06 AM Attachments ---------------- Johnson_with_Haag.jpg (27KB - 345 downloads) | ||
| Guest |
| ||
| Brad, I have also read the entire thread and was wondering what has changed your mind since 1993? Neumann quote, "Before the WRMA was formed, we sought the advice of Brad Latvaitis and Larry Ramsell and they did not mention doing Lawton first..." If you truly thought it was legitimate or should be the rightful record, why didn’t you more strongly lobby for the reinstatement before Spray was upheld? Your a smart guy and must realize your push to reinstate Lawton could be perceived as just a personal vendetta against John Dettloff, and not really a sincere belief in the fish itself. | |||
| Brad Latvaitis |
| ||
Posts: 26 | Larry: It's hard to grasp how anyone with even a cursory interest in records could support Dettloff's "research". Regarding the "big 3" historic muskie records I have the following suggestions: 1. The law firm of Lawton and Cates in a letter to the FWFHF suggested for the Lawton muskie, "...photographs ...should be randomly numbered and sent to two independent photogrammetrists. The only information given the photogrammetrists would be the height of the person shown with the fish. Each photogrammetrist would be asked to independently determine the length of each fish. After this procedure has been followed you should know whether measurements provide relevant evidence concerning the...world record." If an independent third party followed the Lawton and Cates suggestions (which I believe the WRMA has offered to pay for) the Spray and Johnson record controversy could be resolved. If the photogrammetric solutions are similar the records would be disqualified. If the results cast doubt the records would remain in place. Until a second photogrammetric solution is conducted the Spray and Johnson muskies should each be placed in "set-aside" status. In each case there would have to be agreement on Spray and Johnson's height...I wonder if the Lawton & Cates suggestion has any bearing on the "adjustments" over time to the angler's stature. By the way, since a person's height is determined with feet together and head erect, each analysis should use an even lesser height than a known measured height...or maybe the same height to compensate for shoes. (For the record, I believe the photogrammetry conducted to date is solid and would be supported by a second solution...I hope we'll find out someday!) 2. Regarding Lawton, in keeping with common sense the most common photo of the Lawton record would be considered "short" without a photogrammetric solution. However, in respect of the F&S records committee and in light of collaborating evidence, the Lawton record should be recognized as set-aside in case a photo ever surfaces. As presented in my earlier posts, Lawton's record is the best of the "big three". My posts above point out some of the problems of where to go after the "big three." It would be a mess! We need a Modern Day Record program! Brad Latvaitis | ||
| GW |
| ||
| Brad, I don't have the time to spend on this as you do but just because you personally have no faith whatsoever in any affidavit obtained by Dettloff doesn't mean a thing as far as I'm concerned. Are you implying that Dettloff held a gun to these peoples heads and FORCED them to say what they did? Why are you avoiding the Rayner affidavit? This affidavit clearly states that a photograph WAS required in 1957 and I urge everyone here to obtain the Oct./ Nov. 1992 issue of Musky Hunter Magazine and read it for themselves. If a photo wasn't required, WHY would Lawton even bother submitting one? Especially of the wrong fish! It's become very apparent to me that you have an obvious agenda. You appear to be very upset with Dettloff for not treating Spray and Johnson the same way he did Lawton (and rightly so) and you feel the ONLY way you can get revenge is by getting the IGFA to reinstate Lawton. Don't hold your breath because a photo WAS required by F & S and Dettloff provided the IGFA with the affidavit from Rayner to confirm it. | |||
| GW |
| ||
| And Brad, YOU need to do your homework about the Lawton weigh-in. Art Lawton told Mr. Shaw that Walter Dunn balanced the scale and ALL the witnesses were there watching. Lawton was in the adjoining room by himself and NOBODY could see what he was doing when he placed the fish on the scale! It's no wonder he won so many contests! This fish is the biggest joke of the three. People make fun of how Spray was able to catch two muskies over 60 lbs. Johnson caught one. Lawton and his wife supposedly caught six!!! | |||
| Herb_b |
| ||
Posts: 829 Location: Maple Grove, MN | Gosh, from that picture, the Johnson fish doesn't look any longer than 48 inches and maybe, just maybe 30 lbs. Unless if the guy holding it is 8 ft tall.... So, there is an argument here? How can there be? Its like calling a Ford Ranger an F350. About half the stated size at best. | ||
| Brad Latvaitis |
| ||
Posts: 26 | Guest: I noticed the Neumann quote, "Before the WRMA was formed, we sought the advice of Brad Latvaitis and Larry Ramsell and they did not mention doing Lawton first..." While I don't specifically remember my first ever discussion with Jerry at the time of the discussion the Lawton record had been removed and the focus was on Spray. Also, it was obvious that the most commonly recognized Lawton record photo was short as were many of the Lawton's reported catches. At the time the potential for an additional Lawton photo was unknown to me. My mind regarding the Lawton muskie record hasn't changed since 1993. it was then, as it is now, that per the F&S record application a photo was NOT required. Because the F&S Lawton file has no chain-of-custody we do not know for certain the details involving the Lawton photo. I considered the record in the same category as Perry's bass...a world record without a photo. You then say, "If you truly thought it was legitimate or should be the rightful record, why didn’t you more strongly lobby for the reinstatement before Spray was upheld?" You're kidding aren't you? As a member of the FWFHF Records Committee reviewing the Lawton record, I voiced my concerns. These have since been published by others...as a committee member, regardless of disagreement, the consensus rules. Regarding the Spray record, surely you're aware of my efforts to attempt to get the FWFHF to follow a set protocol and conduct a technically sound and supportable review. You end by writing, "Your a smart guy and must realize your push to reinstate Lawton could be perceived as just a personal vendetta against John Dettloff, and not really a sincere belief in the fish itself." I do not have a personal vendetta against John Dettloff, rather; I believe he was underhanded and self-directing in his "investigation" of Lawton and as a representative of the FWFHF he has been self-serving, unprofessional and unsound technically...other than that he's probably a nice guy. I have no vendetta...I'm just looking for consistent treatment of records, not consistent treatment of only the Hayward area muskies. Finally, where did I say that I have a sincere belief in the Lawton fish? What I said was all of the "big three" are short but there's a glimmer of hope that a photo of Lawton's muskie could surface...just like Perry's bass. Brad Latvaitis Edited by Brad Latvaitis 1/13/2010 12:17 PM | ||
| GW |
| ||
| There's a BIG difference. There was NO photo submitted with Perry's bass and there WAS a photo submitted with Lawton's muskie. This means there was NOTHING to show Perry's bass was not as large as claimed. Also, at the time Perry's bass was entered it was NOT required to have a photo and at the time Lawton entered his muskie a photo WAS required and this is the reason the IGFA has set it aside. | |||
| Brad Latvaitis |
| ||
Posts: 26 | GW: I'm not implying that Dettloff held a gun to these peoples heads and FORCED them to say what they did? But I am wondering how you justify chosing between the two affidavits that Dunn prepared about the time of the catch (one of them witnessed by the F&S representative, Shaw) and the Dettloff affidavit prepared 35-years after the fact. You ask, "Why are you avoiding the Rayner affidavit? This affidavit clearly states that a photograph WAS required in 1957 and I urge everyone here to obtain the Oct./ Nov. 1992 issue of Musky Hunter Magazine and read it for themselves." GW you refuse to get my point. The Rayner affidavit was prepared 35 years after the record was accepted...it's based on a respected man's recall...but it was not a written F&S rule. On the other hand, Lawton's F&S record application states in bold print to submit a photo if available...I'm not sure but the affidavit is probably in the MH issue you reference. You ask, "If a photo wasn't required, WHY would Lawton even bother submitting one? Especially of the wrong fish!" A photo was to be submitted if available...evidently one was submitted...it was blurry...who knows what happened next. You follow by stating, "It's become very apparent to me that you have an obvious agenda. You appear to be very upset with Dettloff for not treating Spray and Johnson the same way he did Lawton (and rightly so) and you feel the ONLY way you can get revenge is by getting the IGFA to reinstate Lawton. Don't hold your breath because a photo WAS required by F & S and Dettloff provided the IGFA with the affidavit from Rayner to confirm it." Let's get something very clear. I AGREE THAT THE IGFA LAWTON RECORD SHOULD REMAIN IN "SET-ASIDE" STATUS IN CASE A RECORD PHOTO SHOWS UP!!! FURTHER, I BELIEVE BOTH SPRAY AND JOHNSON SHOULD BE SET ASIDE BASED ON THEIR PHOTOGRAMMETRIC SOLUTIONS UNTIL THE SOLUTIONS ARE EITHER SUPPORTED OR REFUTED IN A TECHNICALLY SOUND MANNER! FINALLY, TO BE FAIR AND CONSISTENT, UNLESS ALL THREE ARE SET ASIDE, LAWTON SHOULD BE REINSTATED. Brad Latvaitis Edited by Brad Latvaitis 1/13/2010 12:41 PM | ||
| Brad Latvaitis |
| ||
Posts: 26 | GW: You wrote, "And Brad, YOU need to do your homework about the Lawton weigh-in. Art Lawton told Mr. Shaw that Walter Dunn balanced the scale and ALL the witnesses were there watching. Lawton was in the adjoining room by himself and NOBODY could see what he was doing when he placed the fish on the scale! It's no wonder he won so many contests!" That's interesting...if the scale was in a room seperate from where the reading appeared which room do you think the scale was balanced in...were the witnesses watching Dunn balance the scale, place the fish on the scale, or were they all huddled in the office where the weight was read? Do you really think Lawton was alone in the weight room weighing the fish...and he had the fish pre-weighed 4-ounces heavier than Spray's...or maybe he put his foot on the scale along with the muskie and got lucky! You end with, "This fish is the biggest joke of the three. People make fun of how Spray was able to catch two muskies over 60 lbs. Johnson caught one. Lawton and his wife supposedly caught six!!!" There's a man that currently produces similar results...outfishing everyone consistently...anything is possible. Brad Latvaitis | ||
| Will Schultz |
| ||
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | GW - 1/13/2010 12:02 PM And Brad, YOU need to do your homework about the Lawton weigh-in. Art Lawton told Mr. Shaw that Walter Dunn balanced the scale and ALL the witnesses were there watching. Lawton was in the adjoining room by himself and NOBODY could see what he was doing when he placed the fish on the scale! It's no wonder he won so many contests! This fish is the biggest joke of the three. People make fun of how Spray was able to catch two muskies over 60 lbs. Johnson caught one. Lawton and his wife supposedly caught six!!! GW: Not to get in the middle of this discussion BUT... People make fun of Spray catching fish over 60# because of WHERE he caught them. Lawtons were at least catching 60# fish where they were probably caught back then and can still be caught today. Edited by Will Schultz 1/13/2010 1:17 PM | ||
| Brad Latvaitis |
| ||
Posts: 26 | GW: I disagree that the IGFA set-aside Lawton's muskie because a photo was required. They set it aside because when the IGFA investigates a record it is held to the standards in place at the time of the review. In this case, the most commonly recognized photo was considered short (I think we all agree on this without a photogrammetric solution). The rub is, if the IGFA were consistent they'd likewise set-aside Spray and Johnson...wait a minute, they ignored Spray and jumped to Johnson (maybe because the Spray fish didn't meet the IGFA's number of hooks protocol or maybe they think the picture is bad (you'd have to ask them!!??). So, as of today, the IGFA has set-aside Lawton (I agree), failed to recognize Spray and showed inconsistency by recognizing Johnson...nice work! As record keepers as far as muskie are concerned, the IGFA in the most credible! Brad Latvaitis Brad | ||
| VMS |
| ||
Posts: 3480 Location: Elk River, Minnesota | Hi Everyone, Question of curiosity here (in reference to Brad's previous post), but wasn't the spray fish not considered by the IGFA because it was subdued with a bullet to the head? Steve | ||
| Jump to page : < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 > Now viewing page 7 [30 messages per page] | |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Copyright © 2024 OutdoorsFIRST Media |