|
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | VMS - 1/13/2010 3:00 PM 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 Spray's record was never a consideration at the IGFA due to technical considerations: per IGFA standards, he had exceeded the amount of allowable hooks, and shot the fish in order to land it. On a recommendation, the IGFA subsequently changed their record to Cal Johnson's 67-8. http://www.worldrecordmuskiealliance.com/history.html |
|
| |
|
| Brad,
I don't have the slightest idea of what you're talking about. The fact is if a photo was NOT required the IGFA could not have set aside Lawton's record on a photo issue, PERIOD!!!
|
|
| |
|
| Brad, GW, most of us really care about the finer points of "why", the important thing is that all 3 of those records should all be set aside.
Larry, you are totally right about Dettloff being capable of anything, he is musky record crook there is no doubt about that. However, I don't see how it would be possible for him to steal a picture of some giant #70 musky. Think about it, if Lawton really had such a picture, why wouldn't he have produced it for Field & Stream or for 1 of the articles he did afterward. What reason would he have to keep it hidden? Heck, why would he have signed that picture of a smaller musky for you too, that was his personal endorsement that that fish was in fact the record. Didn't he also have "problems" with his camera and claim to only have the one picture of it like Spray too? |
|
| |
|
| Brad,
The scale platform was in a separate room from where the scale could be balanced according to Art Lawton's nephew Art Molle.
Art Lawton told Mr. Shaw that ALL of the witnesses were in the office watching the scale being balanced by Walter Dunn.
If you would have done your homework you would know this was true.
I don't care how you feel about what took place. Being Lawton was free to do whatever he pleased without being seen, I can't see how anyone could accept this weigh-in procedure.
Mr. Shaw also never said anywhere that he visited the Dunn Bros. Slaughterhouse to witness this procedure as you claim. Show me some proof?
Also, don't talk to me about about someone producing similar results today. How many verified 60+ lb. muskies have been caught recently that you can confirm?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 26
| GW:
Regarding Lawton, a photo was not required but could be submitted if available. A photo was associated with the Lawton muskie. The IGFA set-aside Lawton's record based on a this photo. Does it mean anything to you that the IGFA DID NOT DISQUALIFY Lawton's fish. They set it aside in case an appropriate photo shows up!!
Regarding the IGFA's policy to consider all challenged fish on the IGFA's rules in place at the time of the challenge, don't take my word for it...look at the Will Schultz post above. Spray was disqualified...not set-aside...because the fish was caught with more hooks than the IGFA allowed and it was shot in order to land. Neither of these issues regarding the Spray fish were in place when F&S sanctioned the record. It's likely it wasn't necessary for the IGFA to evaluate the Spray photo...which also wasn't required in 1949 but was obviously submitted.
Brad Latvaitis |
|
| |
|
Posts: 26
| GW:
As I've stated all along, I don't have my files with me and won't have them until April. So I have a few requests:
1) You state that, "The scale platform was in a separate room from where the scale could be balanced according to Art Lawton's nephew Art Molle". Please give me your source for this information....if not, I'm requesting another post reader to set this issue straight.
2) You state that, "Art Lawton told Mr. Shaw that ALL of the witnesses were in the office watching the scale being balanced by Walter Dunn". Again, please share your information source and its context with me...or I'd like someone else to join in.
You state that, "Lawton was free to do whatever he pleased without being seen..." Again please provide your source for this statement.
It's my understanding that Mr. Shaw was sent to the Dunn Bros. Slaughterhouse by F&S. I never claimed that he witnessed the weighing of the muskie, just that if he visited the slaughterhouse he would be aware of their standard methods. I don't have my files with me...can anyone out there confirm Shaw was sent to the slaughterhouse...it's not hard to assume he did since he met with one of the Dunn Brothers.
Finally, you ask, "Also, don't talk to me about about someone producing similar results today. How many verified 60+ lb. muskies have been caught recently that you can confirm?" I can confirm no 60 pound muskies and didn't say that I could...I said similar catches meaning numerous 50-pound muskies. I am confident of several 50 pounders. Regarding 60 pound muskies, I can make a good case for McNair's being a minimum of 60-pounds.
Brad Latvaitis
|
|
| |
|
| Brad,
This business of "setting aside" these fish doesn't make any sense to me at all. All three of these fish should be disqualified as far as I'm concerned. As far as that bass photo that was produced after all these years, how will we ever know that was indeed the fish it is supposed to represent? Who are the people in that photo? To me that photo is meaningless other than "somebody" caught a large bass a long time ago.
If a photo was submitted that clearly does not represent a fish of the size claimed, the angler should be held responsible and the fish should be disqualified. You are entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine. Is that Ok with you?
|
|
| |
|
| I have been watching and reading this thread with great interest,I applaud all that are involved in trying to make things right and truthful.
Sadly I suspect as has been suggested a 2 tier format for records is the only harmonoius solution,,alast I doubt some folks invoved would be in favor of such.
Even though it is the most viable peaceful and proper solution.
Brad with all do respect
"I can make a good case for McNair's being a minimum of 60-pounds."
Brad Latvaitis
I dont agree with you,I suspect discrepancies occurred during the measurements.
Considering the biological growth of muskies and their peak life cycle period and physical dynamics,I highly doubt or believe a muskie could swim around with a legitimate and accurate 33 inch girth measurement in water,even out of water measurement would increase and possibly lead to further discrepancies.
Those are my observations over time
Its a great big fish and most probably one of the largest since Williamson,but I suspect that fish weighed 55 to 58 pounds from my observations.
The most honorable thing is they released it, without even considering the weight,trully a great example of how C&R has evolved from its very conception.
I dont think considering it a WR is in best interest of what this fish and the act represents,definitely one of the most largest ever release no doubt,we should leave it at that.
Tksa for sharing you views and discussions in this,its interesting to observe folks views on the matter |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8782
| GW - 1/13/2010 2:45 PM
Brad,
I don't have the slightest idea of what you're talking about. The fact is if a photo was NOT required the IGFA could not have set aside Lawton's record on a photo issue, PERIOD!!!
Why not?? What does one have to do with the other?? So they didn't require a photo.... If later on down the road, photographic evidence proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the record was indeed false? What difference does it make what the requiements to submit the record were at the time?
That's like saying that DNA evidence shouldn't be used in unsolved criminal cases because there was no DNA testing when the crime was committed... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 26
| GW:
I agree wholeheartedly and I respect your opinion.
Regarding the Perry photo, if you go online you'll find advertisement for a book published in November 2009 entitled, "Remembering George W. Perry." The book is written by Mr. Baab...THE authority on George Perry. Baab claims the photo is from a Perry relative and the person holding the bass is Perry's fishing partner. I can't confirm the acuraccy, I'm only passing on what I read online. I've ordered the book.
Brad Latvaitis |
|
| |
|
Posts: 26
| Marc:
Nice to hear from you.
Thought you might be interested in how I estimated weight for the McNair muskie.
To be conservative, I assumed that the length and girth measurements were inaccurate because of dealing with a live fish in a moving boat. Although there's no basis to assume the measurements were greater than they should be...they just as likely could have been less than actual length...to be further conservative I assumed the reported measurements were greater than recorded.
The McNair photos that I've seen show a substantial girth for a good size section of the fish. I don't know McNair but I'm told he's a big man who'll have no need as time goes on to increase in size from 5'9" to 6'2" or 5'7" to 5'9".
I know that the weight calculation formula takes its share of criticism but consider the following for the largest musky dimensions reported recently by Musky Hunter: 59x27 weighed 55# 9oz and calculates at 53.76#, 54x28 weighed 53# and calculates at 52.92#, 53x28.5 weighed 51.17# and calculates at 53.81# and 56.125x27 weighed 50# 8oz and calculates at 51.14#. The formula gives a range of 1.8# under weighed weight to 2.64# over weighed weight for four muskies with an average weight of 52.13#.
Consider McNair's musky at 57x33 calculates at 77.59#. If the girth measurement is reduced by 3-inches to 57x30 the estimate is 64.125#, if you then reduce the length by an inch, to 56x30 the weight calculates at 63# (If you then use the error range for five most recent weighed muskies you get a range of 60.36 to 64.8#. So, it takes a length measurement reduced by an inch and a girth measurement reduced by 4-inches or a greater formula error to get under 60#...56x29 calculates at 58.87#.
Having said all of this, I agree we'll never know the weight of the McNair musky on the day it was caught. Your guess is as good as mine and maybe better. It's a fact that either; inaccurate measurements, a yet undetermined live/dead girth relationship, formula error, all three, or a yet unrecognized factor are needed to result in a weight estimate that's under 60# using the weight formula (I used the MH weight calculator).
Brad Latvaitis |
|
| |
|
| Brad,
With all due respect, don't you really feel that the IGFA saying Lawton's fish is "set aside" is just a way of being kind to the Lawton family? It sounds a lot better than "disqualified" and you have to agree that the likelyhood of another photo surfacing is next to zero. I'll bet the IGFA is not the least bit concerned of another photo ever surfacing. The IGFA KNOWS this fish is bogus but hates to discredit the Lawton family and I can understand their position.
It's too bad these anglers didn't consider how their reputations could be hurt by their shenanigans and also the terrible position they put the record keepers in. The IGFA I'm sure is aware that the Johnson muskie is also bogus but they couldn't possibly put it in "set aside" status because there are so many photos of it. The ONLY way to avoid harming the reputation of the Johnson family would be to uphold the record and I'm sure that's the reason they did so. Now the IGFA finds itself in a position that lacks credibility because of their failure to treat both the Johnson and Lawton fish equally. This situation needs to be resolved and people that have lied should have to suffer the consequences. I say disqualify any fish that clearly isn't supported by the photo that was submitted with it. Then the record keepers could get back to doing what they are supposed to do. Keeping honest records.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 5
| Brad:
I have a tremendous amount of respect for you, if for nothing more than posting well-thought out, reasoned and pragmatic posts. However, for the life of me I don't understand the persistence with Lawton by you and your friend.
I know you have seen this post before and agree with the facts that support it, but one more time for the record:
Here’s the FACT on the Lawton record:
As represented by Arthur Lawton himself, the World Record photograph of his fish was, in fact, a MISREPRESENTATION.
As represented by the IGFA, the World Record photograph of Lawton’s fish was, in fact, a MISREPRESENTATION.
As represented by the FWFHF, the World Record photograph of Lawton’s fish was, in fact, a MISREPRESENTATION.
As represented by the lure manufacturer in official factory displays, the World Record photograph of Lawton’s fish, was in fact, a MISREPRESENTATION.
As represented in numerous trade publications, the World Record photograph of Lawton’s fish was, in fact, a MISREPRESENTATION.
There is absolutely no debate among anyone, anymore that the photograph that was represented for not only years, but decades to be “the” photograph of the World Record by Lawton was, in fact, not a photograph of a fish 64 ½ inches long.
That is the FACT.
For years and decades, LAWTON’S WORLD RECORD PHOTOGRAPH was MISREPRESENTED.
MISREPRESENTATION being what it is, can mean only one thing, that the official record keeping agencies, by default, disqualified the fish: er, set-aside, whatever. It was willful misrepresentation.
It’s that simple.
Since the Lawton fish was willfully misrepresented (some people may consider that fraud since the "intent" was to misrepresent something that clearly was not true), any other insinuation, innuendo, might of been, could have been, because Detloff did or didn't do is absolutely immaterial.
I know that you agree with the fact statement above. You have said so on more than one occasion.
Based on all of the above, it never should have been a record and will never be a record again. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3480
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | EA,
So, If I may play devil's advocate here for a moment...if the WRMA has found that the spray fish and the Johnson fish are willfully misrepresented through their scientific and mathematical analysis (and using your own quote here, "many would consider that fraud since the "intent" was to misrepresent something that was clearly not true") would that also be a solid justification that they should never have been records as well?
Steve
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 5
| VMS:
Playing devil's advocate, I agree with you. However, you statement includes a BIG second "IF". |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3480
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | Hi again EA,
Being a bystander in this and staying as open minded as I possibly can on this, but having read the report and the mathematical addendum, I am curious as to your view or argument for or against the WRMA's girth analysis. Would you be willing to divulge your view on that point?
Steve |
|
| |
|
Posts: 26
| Esoxarchaeologist:
I agree with your statement of fact...Lawton's world record photograph was misrepresented.
I also realize that it would take some pretty unusual circumstances for the wrong photo to end up representing the record. My prior posts list several reasons how and why the wrong fish may have been used...and it should be understood that one of the reasons that it was misrepresented may be that the picture and/or the fish never existed.
The Lawton record claim is unique for several reasons, not the less of which is that family and some witnesses have insisted for years that the wrong fish was represented...the claim has some basis when you consider the F&S file correspondence regarding a photo. Something happened, who knows what it was?
Neither you nor I know how the wrong fish ended up being represented. If the misrepresentation was an F&S oversight or decision, I don't believe it's a basis for disqualification. I agree that in 1958, after having been awarded the muskie world record, Lawton could have complained that the wrong photo was published in the F&S article...there's no evidence that this did or didn't happen...how important was it in 1958 (I certainly don't know).
I don't think that the IGFA's designation of the record as set-aside has anything to do with respect for the Lawton's but rather respect for the 1957 records committee and in recognition of the possibility that a representative photo exists. Since it appears that the Perry bass photo was found and authenticated 74 years after the fact, I don't expect the IGFA's status of the Lawton record to change. From the response to my posts, I doubt many that follow these posts expect one to show up...consider that no one expected a Perry bass photo either!!
Finally, I honestly don't care who holds the world record, however; I strongly feel that the record stewards have a responsibility to treat each record equally. They clearly haven't done so. My lack of respect for Mr. Dettloff stems from the fact that he prepared the Lawton disqualification claim but was unwilling to hold Spray and Lawton to the same treatment when he was in position to do so.
Regarding my persistence with the Lawton record, equal treatment by the record stewards would require reinstatement of the record as long as Spray and Johnson remain in place. In my mind the proper handling of the "big three" would be to disqualify Spray and Johnson based on photogrammetric evidence and keep Lawton in set-aside based on my arguments above.
Also, for what it's worth, in an earlier post I mentioned a second photogrammetric solution for Spray and Johnson based on a lawfirms suggestion...I personally believe the solutions to date are technically sound and a second isn't needed...but a second round would end any suggestions of technical bias/error
Brad Latvaitis
|
|
| |
|
| Hi Brad,tks for sharing your calculations towards this great big fish
I dont doubt the length but I suspect 28 or 29 inches in girth is more close to a relative accurate girth than the 33 inches measured,without consider the possibility of air trapped in the swim bladder (which greatly reduces the weight).
We must also factor the hold which embellishes the protrusion of the girth and after dark pictures which enhances the size of the subject.
As far as Mcnair stature,I dont consider him above the norm,some dudes are giants but I dont think dale fits this stature
Having fished with Steve Bedarf whom makes a 58 look like a 53,he is what I define as a giant man,if it were not for the cradle shot we would have had disbelief's ourselves. coming from a short crocht'ed person everyone is bigger than me  hahahahaha
Your calculations of 58 pounds are within my views also
Mighty fine example of release ethics
tks for sharing your thoughts
marc |
|
| |
|
| Regarding Lawton,did not Cubby Caya share pertinent info on his fish? |
|
| |
|
| Is anyone considering the months all these fish were caught?
Fish generally and biologically do not begin to retain mass or egg development until water temps reach a certain designated temperature which slow down in there metabolism and leads to increased mass
Most muskies peak at full mass in their yearly/ life/growth cycle in November or below 45 degrees
beyond the accurate science of mathematical measurement calculations and photogrametry,there is biological yearly growth cycles which seemed forgotten. |
|
| |
|
| Cubby was Hartman, not Lawton.
It's interesting how EA (assume it's Detloff unless he IDs himself) bugs out every time someone brings up the the mathematical analysis on Johnson. Can't say as I blame him because that piece of work is a slam dunk THAT everyone can relate too.
I still don't understand how anyone is willing to accept Detloff finding problems with the experts work on both Spray and Johnson either. Muskie 1st, Musky Hunter, Muskie Inc. and Muskie Canada should ban together and pick up the torch, they are the leaders in the industry and together would be powerful enough to put a stop it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 26
| Marc:
While a muskie's typical seasonal condition factor is considered, when reviewing records, the submitted measurements are used. Unusual girth would be a red flag today...was it recognized in the past? (I'm not sure). Excessive girth could also result from a very recent meal...that's why modern scrutiny would require an internal examination of a world record soon after weighing.
Esoxarchaeologist:
One point I forgot to add to my recent post to you regarding Lawton. If a supporting photo were presented to the IGFA and the record was reinstated, a photogrammetric solution would be required to place it on equal footing with Spray and Johnson.
Brad Latvaitis |
|
| |
|
| Oh sure and Esox (AKA Detloff) will be able to convince everyone that Cal's July 601/2 x 33 1/4 was really that big and had nothing in it's stomach.
|
|
| |
|
| Brad,
You claim Field & Stream writer Dale Shaw knew about the weigh-in procedure after he was sent to investigate the Lawton record. If this were true, why would the following have been presented as NEW evidence in 1993?
Mr. Husar's February 21, 1993 column, "New Evidence Enters Great Muskie Controversy", details the normal procedure used to weigh the Lawton muskellunge at Dunn Bros. told by Lawton nephew Art Molle, as follows:
"While the scale happened to be in the refrigeration room, the results were displayed inside the adjoining office," 'he said' "The procedure was for someone to read the scale in the office, write down the weight and slip the paper through an opening in the window. So no one by the scale actually saw the scale display, although they did hear the announced results."
Then you asked how do I know where Lawton and the witnesses were located.
From the 1958 article that appeared in Field & Stream by Dale Shaw:
Lawton laid his fish on the scale bed, Dunn fiddled with the sliding weight, and the balance was soon struck.
"Sixty-nine pounds fifteen ounces," Dunn said.
Everybody gathered close to check the reading, Dunn and Sharp signed a Field & Stream affidavit.
This is what Art Lawton told Dale Shaw who then wrote the story.
Now you can clearly see that Mr. Dunn and the witnesses were located in the office while Lawton was alone in the refrigeration room where the scale bed was located.
Remember this was a slaughterhouse and pre-weighed meat is stored in the refrigeration room. How easy would it be for Lawton to place 69 lb. 15oz of meat on the scale bed instead of his fish?
Like I said, now you know how Lawton was always able to win the fishing contests!
|
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | GW - 1/14/2010 11:42 AM From the 1958 article that appeared in Field & Stream by Dale Shaw: Lawton laid his fish on the scale bed, Dunn fiddled with the sliding weight, and the balance was soon struck. Wait a second... I think you're reading too much into what is actually said. It doesn't state Lawton was alone when placing the fish on the scale. In fact it states "Lawton laid his fish on the scale bed..." Since it specifically says fish, it leads me to believe someone saw him put the fish on the scale. It is also stated there's a window to the room and I'm pretty certain back then window meant window and it was something a person in one room could see through to the adjoining room. How many watched Lawton through the window place the fish on the bed of the scale? |
|
| |
|
| Brad,
I'd also like to know how you can dismiss an affidavit from Dr. H. John Rayner who was the Chief of Operations for the Field & Stream fishing contest at the time Lawton submitted his entry?
|
|
| |
|
| Will Shultz,
You're forgetting that this is what Lawton TOLD Dale Shaw. Nobody KNOWS what Lawton laid on the scale bed! If you read this whole story you will find no mention of ANYONE being in the refrigeration room with Lawton. The ONLY mention of witnesses were that they were in the office looking at the scale reading.
And what about this weigh-in procedure being brought out as NEW evidence in 1993? |
|
| |
|
| Brad,
Actually, I'd support disqualification of Lawton after just reading the interview Larry had with him! |
|
| |
|
| Will Shultz,
You said, "How many watched Lawton through the window place his fish on the bed of the scale?"
You tell me!!!
I think I'm going to relay this information to the IGFA just to make sure Lawton is never reinstated!
|
|
| |
|
| Marc Thorpe,
I totally agree with you girth assessment of the McNair fish. This is NOT a 60 lb. fish in my opinion either. |
|
| |
