|
|
| I too give Len Hartman credit for 'coming clean' before he passed away. Too bad Art Lawton didn't do the same. |
|
| |
|
| Everyone here knows that if the general population voted on this poll the overwhelming majority would vote 'YES'. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| Kingfisher - 1/28/2011 11:21 AM
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
This is the "No Honest Man, Theory of Humanity", at work. All the fisherman were liars, and they had a group of co-conspirators that were liars, witnesses that were liars or duped, and all the fish were false, and the whole group kept their mouths shut except Len Hartman? If you didn't see the fish personally, caught landed and weighed, the guy must be lying, cause everybody knows fish don't get THAT big. Oddly enough, I can understand the inability to trust others that can motivate people to come to these conclusions, and I think it is more prevalent with the compression of the world that has taken place through telecommunications.
Now the NB fish is questioned, and a fish that really has no stake in much of anything, but it is "funny", something doesn't add up, it can't be that big because the Gelb fish looked such and such, and yet, here's a question, what scrutiny was the Gelb fish ever held to? Just out of curiosity, what validation process certified his fish was what HE claimed it to be? Everybody else lied, why wouldn't Tom Gelb lie in his later years hoping to make some claim on fame? How many 45 lb fish had he released before those two fish? How many fish that size had come out of THAT lake? Was that fish every scoped to see if there was a small slit in the belly through which water was added, after all a pints a pound the world around, and it's easy to slide a couple pints into a compartment that size. I have no idea of the validity of the Gelb fish, but then, it isn't an issue to me either, I don't care and I assume it was legit. But maybe you guys can see how fast doubt can be seeded on any fish, and add some skepticism and cynicism to the mix, and a reluctance to get "taken", and you soon have a formula for total doubt.
I always have a reluctance to take creedence from a single camera angle of a fish, and I just don't think that a real idea of a fish can be generated in a one dimensional photo. I have taken too many "bad" and conversely, "good", pics of fish to trust them(and more bad than good, I guarantee). For those of you who doubt the NB fish, you need to revisit the site, and check the additional two pictures out, especially the one with the guy and the vertical hold. That pic presents quite a different idea of the fish than the pics with it stretched out on the ground and held sideways, none of which, I believe truly indicate the massive dimensions of that fish. Hope the link can stay for purposes of seeing that other view
http://www.muskyhunter.com/forum/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=10... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Then the Lawton fish should stand. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8772
| Well, FSF... In Mr Gelb's case, I think it's pretty safe to say that "fame and fortune" are not really motivating factors. In fact it seemed to me like he may have been coerced (maybe not the right word) into his presentation at the CHI show, and would much rather just keep to himself. If not for a desire to pass on what he has learned in 50 odd years of muskie fishing, I suspect few of us would even have heard of him. There are certain types of people who just scream for recognition, and with that comes a strong motivation to lie. For those who really don't care much for recognition and attention? What's the motivation to lie about your catches?
As for the NB fish, and the questioning that goes along with that? Hmph. They found it floating. It wasn't caught, nobody can lay any claims to a record catch or any sort of accomplishment. It's an abnormally fat fish with an odd build. No reason to doubt the weight, because there's no reason for anyone to exaggerate it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| esoxaddict - 1/29/2011 12:05 PM
Well, FSF... In Mr Gelb's case, I think it's pretty safe to say that "fame and fortune" are not really motivating factors. In fact it seemed to me like he may have been coerced (maybe not the right word) into his presentation at the CHI show, and would much rather just keep to himself. If not for a desire to pass on what he has learned in 50 odd years of muskie fishing, I suspect few of us would even have heard of him. There are certain types of people who just scream for recognition, and with that comes a strong motivation to lie. For those who really don't care much for recognition and attention? What's the motivation to lie about your catches?
As for the NB fish, and the questioning that goes along with that? Hmph. They found it floating. It wasn't caught, nobody can lay any claims to a record catch or any sort of accomplishment. It's an abnormally fat fish with an odd build. No reason to doubt the weight, because there's no reason for anyone to exaggerate it.
You are missing the point I was making with the Gelb fish comparison. You did catch the drift with the NB fish but, read this thread, and read the thread on the other board and you will see a bunch of posts doubting it. It's just how the process seems to work these days. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| sworrall - 1/29/2011 11:55 AM
Then the Lawton fish should stand.
OK by me. I didn't start this merry go round. |
|
| |
|
| I disagree with the "no good reason to lie about it" theory. It could be tourism or a desire to get a musky program going there. Different people are motivated by different things, and although the fish may not be a lie, there are things that just don't add up with it to me either. In my mind there's a distinct difference between Tom Gelb and New Brunswick, everything adds up with Gelb, the same holds true with the MI record, pictures, dimensions and weight of that fish all add up. Does anyone here have any doubts on the MI record? That is the difference.
I was watching a sports program last night (Graham Bensinger) and a very informed guess said in no uncertain terms that he felt the Jamaican sprinters were using performance-enhancing drugs at the last Olympics. I was shocked but he sure made a lot of sense. I thought it was very interesting because even though he thought Bolt was the most gifted sprinter of all time, something just wasn't right about him breaking those records based on his previous run times. What he also cited was the women sprinters taking all 3 medals (sound like someone else we know?). He said what are the odds of a small country like that achieving that much success. I suspect that he would not have voiced any worthwhile suspicion of Bolt if it were not for the women sprinters crushing everyone too. Is he just being cynical or should the governing boards be taking a little closer look at the Jamaican's, just like they did with Ben Johnson?
I've thought about this long and hard and I think it's actually very healthy that we question everything up front and if things don't add up, it's our duty to dig a little deeper to find the truth. Firstsixfeet will probably disagree because he is so willing to take people's word for it, but if history teaches us anything, it's that taking people's word for it is pretty much a crapshoot, and didn't a lot of very smart people take Bernie's word for it only to find themselves part of the biggest Ponzi scheme in history?
I think this New Brunswick fish needs to be better substantiated just because it has tickled the elusive 60lb mark and casts huge doubt on the 800 formula. In light of the recent world record panels combined opinion regarding 60lbers, this New Brunswick fish is along the lines of what Bolt did. It may very well weigh 60lbs but a better explanation of why it's dimensionally smaller and the pictures do not support its weight should be better substantiated before we take it as gospel. Considering one of the reasons cited is that it's "big boned" should be a good reason for most of us to be suspicious enough to at least be allowed to question it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8772
| No, I get that FSF -- there are a slew of folks out there who look at any fish larger than their largest fish and they say "no WAY!!" and insist it couldn't be as big as they say it was. You know the type - "Somebody MUST be lying, because if they're not, that means I'm not as good of a fisheman as I like to think I am!"
I've known a few. Then you look at their pictures and they say "Here's one that was 52"!" and it all starts to make sense why they're so quick to accuse someone else of lying. That used to get under my skin until I thought about how little fun they must have fishing, when they have to lie about what they caught and how big it was. |
|
| |
|
| Top H2O - 1/28/2011 5:53 PM
Wow 53 people thinks this is the real deal....... Someone in Hayward is networking. What a sham, er...I mean shame
Jerome
It's not 53 people, it's 53 votes! What's really intriguing is the exponential increase in yes votes versus no votes in the last week or so. The Hayward mafias plan is probably to get it up to 50% by the musky open. LOL!
Can you say desperate? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 73
| Other polls have revealed that a small percentage of people believe in the existence of a Sasquatch creature, and that aliens helped make the pyramids. Makes sense that 10-15% could also believe in Muskies that never existed. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'Then the Lawton fish should stand.'
'OK by me. I didn't start this merry go round. '
Me too. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | I think perhaps my book's Editor Brad Latvaitis said it best when he said:
"...It is clear that several historic fish records do not meet the scrutiny requirements demanded by today's anglers. Nevertheless, world records which may appear suspect were often extensively evaluated by a sanctioning committee of highly qualified members. It is difficult, if not impossible, to definitively redefine world records that were sactioned in an earlier age under different standards. I believe that Historic World Records are a part of our Muskellunge angling heritage and their maintainance is in the best interest of all Muskellunge anglers."
Amen...Lawton back to the TOP of the "Historic List" and the new program for today's more discerning anglers. The rest can just rest!
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell,
Muskellunge Historian |
|
| |
|
Location: Sawyer County, WI | Guest - 1/29/2011 1:11 PM
Top H2O - 1/28/2011 5:53 PM
Wow 53 people thinks this is the real deal....... Someone in Hayward is networking. What a sham, er...I mean shame
Jerome
It's not 53 people, it's 53 votes! What's really intriguing is the exponential increase in yes votes versus no votes in the last week or so. The Hayward mafias plan is probably to get it up to 50% by the musky open. LOL!
Can you say desperate?
Man, this is starting to sound like an X Files episode. Who is the "Hayward mafia" anyway ? While it is clear a certain Chippewa Flowage resort owner has beaten this drum long and hard, people I've spoken with (resort owners, bait shop owners, guides, business owners) in the Hayward area don't believe the "world record" nonsense anymore than the majority of contributors to this forum. Even more ludicrous is the notion that they would recruit people to vote "yes" on a internet forum poll to boost tourism. The more likely explanation is a group of folks who love to stir the pot to watch passionate truth seekers/conspiracy theorists work themselves into a lather. |
|
| |
|
| I never thought exposing a cheat would be considered 'starting a merry go round'. I'm sure glad the IGFA saw things for what they were when they took a closer look at the photos of Lawton's fish. Dettloff's photo analysis easily convinced them just as it did me that this guy was the ultimate phony. |
|
| |
|
| Let's put Lawton back to the TOP of the list of CHEATERS. Maybe you guys should quit while you're ahead. |
|
| |
|
| Guest - 1/29/2011 11:03 AM
Everyone here knows that if the general population voted on this poll the overwhelming majority would vote 'YES'.
That's one opinion but I think it likely the general public doesn't give a hoot about musky records any more than the price of bananas in London.
Even if they did I doubt they would vote on this poll from home, from the office, from their neighbor's house, from their brother's house and anywhere else they could come up with for the sake of getting in as many votes as possible... |
|
| |
|
| The general population of fishermen may not give a hoot about the world records but the vast majority of them know what the muskie records currently are therefore they would vote for the fish currently listed. |
|
| |
|
| My point is the general population of fishermen is HUGE and would easily out number the 'muskie community' if they participated in this poll. There wouldn't be any need to round up participants or voting more than once. As can be seen the 'muskie community' itself already has dissention within the ranks. |
|
| |
|
| "Who is the "Hayward mafia" anyway ?" The principles are JD, EB, SA, and the ever popular CS. CS has designed a "king Louie" website and is into computer programming big time. He is well aware of computer downloads that change the IP address, and knows better than to add more than a couple votes a day. Why else would this poll be averaging 2-3 yes votes a day. Didn't the percentage stay over 90% no during the first week.
http://www.solidblogger.com/change-ip-address-instantly/
http://www.sitesurf.net/ |
|
| |
|
| The entire 'muskie community' may not have been aware of this poll during the first week. The anti- Dettlloff people that visit this website on a daily basis were likely the ones that caused the spike in the early days of this poll. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| Guest - 1/29/2011 2:37 PM
The link firstsixfeet provided for the NB muskie is just the beginning of that thread. Go to the other website and read the LATEST on this fish.
There is no latest, and the link I provided is actually to a separate later thread, with two additional pictures. I linked that because one of the pictures depicts an awesomely obese fish. Besides the thread deteriorating somewhat, you seem to suggest there is something going on, when in fact there isn't anything documented other than what is reported, the fish was found. Got some DS's asking how it is out of season, and I don't know, but maybe there is a closed season for all species in that area, and that would make it out of season. Not germane to the discussion anyway. Autopsy might prove something. Might be a waste of time other than to document appearance of the fish.
But wait, I'm sure there is a conspiracy here somewhere!  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'The anti- Dettlloff people that visit this website on a daily basis'
What the heck is an 'anti-Dettloff' person?
I have no problem with John personally, it's what he tried to pull off that bothers me, and probably bothers others as well. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'Let's put Lawton back to the TOP of the list of CHEATERS. Maybe you guys should quit while you're ahead.'
Maybe you should lose the attitude and read more carefully.
My point was that Lawton's fish was dq'd by an image and a rank amateur analysis. The current 'record' was much more carefully looked into and debunked, and...there it is, still there. Got that now? |
|
| |
|
| The present day importance of the world record musky resonates a heck of a lot louder in Wisconsin than anywhere else. New York anglers have been polled elsewhere on the current status of world record muskies and the results were the same as here in this poll, the old records -including the Lawton fish caught in New York- should be disqualified.
On the whole New York musky anglers regard the Lawton fish as bogus and really don't much care about keeping the record in New York. The 1,000 Islands/ Clayton area can get along just fine without selling itself as the "home of world record muskies".
Apparently that is not the case with Wisconsin, hence the constant efforts to assert Wisconsin as the "home of world record muskies" and a profound silence from New York. New York could care less. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | "Apparently that is not the case with Wisconsin, hence the constant efforts to assert Wisconsin as the "home of world record muskies"
I'm from Wisconsin. It's not our fine state that's involved in this, it's the FFHOF. It's not 'Hayward', it's a few folks from that area who have special interest in this. |
|
| |
|
| sworrall - 1/29/2011 4:03 PM
"Apparently that is not the case with Wisconsin, hence the constant efforts to assert Wisconsin as the "home of world record muskies"
I'm from Wisconsin. It's not our fine state that's involved in this, it's the FFHOF. It's not 'Hayward', it's a few folks from that area who have special interest in this.
That is certainly fair, not an entire state, just a few who have a vested interest.
That vested interest is not necessarily the musky record but rather keeping fishing camps on the Chip booked with paying customers.
In other words, the legitimacy of the record takes a back seat to keeping the tourists coming to Hayward, the record simply serves as part of the sales image and keeping those paying customers coming is the foremost interest in play here. |
|
| |
|
Location: Sawyer County, WI | Guest - 1/29/2011 4:31 PM
sworrall - 1/29/2011 4:03 PM
"Apparently that is not the case with Wisconsin, hence the constant efforts to assert Wisconsin as the "home of world record muskies"
I'm from Wisconsin. It's not our fine state that's involved in this, it's the FFHOF. It's not 'Hayward', it's a few folks from that area who have special interest in this.
That is certainly fair, not an entire state, just a few who have a vested interest.
That vested interest is not necessarily the musky record but rather keeping fishing camps on the Chip booked with paying customers.
In other words, the legitimacy of the record takes a back seat to keeping the tourists coming to Hayward, the record simply serves as part of the sales image and keeping those paying customers coming is the foremost interest in play here.
I don't buy it. If a catch phrase like "home of the world record muskies" were required for tourist dollar success, why didn't other resort areas such as Eagle River and Minoqua dry up years ago ? Additionally, when the business of these "records" is put to rest and a new record holder is installed from Eagle, St. Clair, Mille Lacs, Vermillion, St. Lawrence, Lac Suel, LOTW, or some other fertile ground will people stop vacationing and fishing for musky in Hayward ? Hell no. Why ? Because despite what a very small amount of people believe, there is something about northern Wisconsin that draws people, and it isn't a potential record musky.
|
|
| |
|
| It's called "Chicago". Wisconsin is in easy driving distance from that large urban population center, like the Catskills and New York City. |
|
| |
|
Location: Sawyer County, WI | Guest - 1/29/2011 9:06 PM
It's called "Chicago". Wisconsin is in easy driving distance from that large urban population center, like the Catskills and New York City.
Really ? I see vastly more Minnesota license plates in northern Wisconsin than I do Illinois plates. Is that due to the lack of good fishing in Minnesota ? I think not. |
|
| |
