|
|
Posts: 67
| In my opinion I do believe it makes a difference in having the claim to fame for a area , I look at the numbers of new boats on the Larry since the McNair fish and a few others were made public , do i think this is a bad thing no , but i do believe that a lot of the hardcore muskie guys are going to book their vacations where they believe they have the best chance at a big fish ,this could be remedied by promoting an area for what it has to offer OTHER than the world record , I am sure the good people of Hayward have a lot to offer ! . |
|
| |
|
| My advice for those coming east to fish the Larry for the first time is leave your boat at home and hire a guide. I do not doubt your fishing prowess, I am concerned for your safety. I am not kidding.
This is not an 800 acre lake protected from prevailing winds by surrounding hills, this is big mean water that can suddenly make you feel like you are about as big as a grain of sand when five minutes before all seemed well.
There will be no boats for rent past Labor day and those available during summer are typically too small for the forty or anywhere else on the river come November. You also have seagoing international traffic to contend with, not party barges.
There was a Bass Masters tournament on Lake Erie out of Dunkirk harbor in the early nineties that saw weather which quickly turned, more than eighty bass boats were swamped miles from shore.
Don't mess with the great lakes or head out thinking you know you're stuff. Hire a guide and go in his boat. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | There is a very impressive number of folks here who know very well how to handle really big water. |
|
| |
|
| "The current 'record' was much more carefully looked into and debuked, and...there it is, still there. Got that now? My point was that Lawton's fish was dq'd by an image and a rank amateur analysis,"
The current 'record' was NOT more carefully looked into and debunked. The analysis of the current 'record' was also based upon an IMAGE. And let me add that the IGFA also believed the IMAGE of Lawton's fish showed it to be bogus. They obviously feel the IMAGE of Johnson's fish shows it to be legit and this fish was analyzed by the same photogrammetrist that did the Spray fish. Apparently both record keepers consider DCM to be crooked.
If you have a beef it should be with the IGFA. If they hadn't removed Lawton's fish it would have put a lot of pressure on the NFWFHoF to reinstate it.
Also consider that neither of the record keepers want anything to do with a 'historical' category so what's the point in talking about this?
As far as I'm concerned that poll on the other thread is a lot more indicative of how people feel about the legitimacy of the Spray and Johnson records than this one. I'm also very disappointed that Lawton's fish wasn't included in this poll.
If you truly feel these 'historical' records are bogus I don't understand why you would want things to go back to the way they were.
|
|
| |
|
| Guest---The Johnson fish was not ONLY discredited by an accredited organization's analysis of the photo. But there is also the existence of a skin mount of the Johnson fish displayed at the Moccasin Bar in Hayward which has obvious distorted proportions like no other Musky due to what many believe to be augmenting the mount by the taxidermist. That challenge which could be easily proven one way or the other by simply removing the mount and x-raying it. But the option has been refused by the owner, based on a claim that the display case cannot be opened without damaging it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | The current 'record' was NOT more carefully looked into and debunked.'
You need to read more. I'm not talking about the IGFA.
You're not understanding what I am trying to say to FSF is not a surprise. |
|
| |
|
| The NFWFHoF and the IGFA have spoken. Obviously they aren't concerned about what others believe. How they view the distorted proportions of the mount is their business.
Once again, I say if you have a beef it should be with the IGFA. The IGFA upheld the Johnson record, NOT the NFWFHoF. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | What? |
|
| |
|
| I've read everything there is to read about what happened with the NFWFHoF. If the IGFA hadn't removed Lawton we wouldn't even be talking about this. |
|
| |
|
| You mean you are not aware that the IGFA was responsible for upholding the Johnson record? |
|
| |
|
| The arguement has always been if the bogus Spray and Johnson records are to remain in place, then the bogus Lawton fish should be reinstated out of fairness.
This makes no sense whatsoever. If a criminal is wrongly released, should all the other criminals be released out of fairness? 
|
|
| |
|
| Guest - 1/30/2011 3:00 PM The NFWFHoF and the IGFA have spoken. Obviously they aren't concerned about what others believe. How they view the distorted proportions of the mount is their business.LOL! Only as you see it...
Once again, I say if you have a beef it should be with the IGFA. The IGFA upheld the Johnson record, NOT the NFWFHoF.[/QUOTE]
The 'beef' with the NFWFHF is the Spray fish, remember? |
|
| |
|
| As I said, BOTH record keepers obviously believe that DCM is crooked. Therefore you can't fault them because you have no way of proving they're wrong. The NFWFHoF believes DCM is wrong about the Spray fish while the IGFA believes DCM is wrong about the Johnson fish. BOTH record keepers believe the Lawton fish is bogus so you can't expect them to treat this fish the same as they do the others. |
|
| |
|
| But there's more,
Only as I see it? I'm talking about how THEY see it!
As far as the 'beef' with the NFWFHoF being about the Spray fish, why? The NFWFHoF feels DCM is crooked and you have no way of proving they're wrong. The IGFA also feels DCM was wrong about the Johnson fish so why even argue about this? The main thing is BOTH organizations feel Lawton's fish is bogus and they are the ones making the decisions.
|
|
| |
|
| But there's more,
Your first post was about the Johnson fish which is the IGFA record which was upheld by them. The NFWFHoF was not involved in their decision. Why would you bring up the Johnson fish and then mention the 'beef' being with the NFWFHoF and the Spray fish? When referring to the Johnson fish shouldn't YOUR 'beef' be with the IGFA?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 909
| Page 8! Talk about beatin' a dead horse! Oh well, its winter time. What the heck!
Brian  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 73
| muskie24/7 - 1/30/2011 5:23 PM
Page 8! Talk about beatin' a dead horse! Oh well, its winter time. What the heck!
Brian ;-)
What's the current record on a similar thread's page-count anyway, sworrall?
The good news here is that there's a new sheriff in town, as indicated by Mr. Ramsell's post on page 6 of this thread. The higher standards that are being put into play for evaluating the legitimacy of future claims to the WR position should help eliminate the need for our kids to be engaged in similar threads. (Catch a big one soon, somebody!) |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| I just wish the mill rate for keeping this thing alive for 10,000 posts was a little higher. My January check from M1 would be sweet!
As it is, barely keeps me in free baits. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20211
Location: oswego, il | The NNFWFHoF thought the DCM analysys was crooked? What was the mathmatical analysis the NFWFHoF used in the records defense then? Didn't one of the mathmaticians say the fish was not as big as it was claimed to be? Didn't they say the hall misused their analysis? wow! |
|
| |
|
| You should've contracted to get paid by the 'view', with posts being secondary. |
|
| |
|
| Anyone with half a brain can see for themselves there is no way Johnson's musky could've had a 33" girth and there is no way Spray could have caught three #60 muskys in 10 years that coincidentally happened to break the wr by a couple pounds each time. May be just use a little common sense here and not take it to the 9th? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'The argument has always been if the bogus Spray and Johnson records are to remain in place, then the bogus Lawton fish should be reinstated out of fairness. '
This has nothing to do with what is fair. It has to do with what motivated the removal of the Lawton fish and what motivates the keeping of the current 'record'. If one 'bogus' fish was removed while others obviously remain, then let's just leave the 'historical' records as they were before John began his new career manipulating the records and recognize them as JUST that; historical records. |
|
| |
|
| Here Here , I agree lets leave them as hysterical , oops i mean historical records ! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 158
| Why are so many people posting as "Guest" in this thread?
It takes about 20 seconds to register, then sign in. |
|
| |
|
| What motivated the removal of the Lawton fish is that the NFWFHoF felt it was bogus and the IGFA agreed.
What motivates the NFWFHoF to keep the Spray fish in place is that they feel the fish is legitimate and that DCM is corrupt.
What motivates the IGFA to keep the Johnson fish in place is that they also feel DCM is corrupt and that this fish is legitimate.
In the eyes of the record keepers only ONE of these fish is bogus and that is the Lawton fish.
The record keepers will NEVER classify these fish as 'historical' and neither should anybody else.
Why should the 'muskie community' recognize these fish as anything but bogus if that's what they feel they are?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | While everyone is eititled to their own "opinion", you "guest" are wrong on all counts:
Quote: "What motivated the removal of the Lawton fish is that the NFWFHoF felt it was bogus and the IGFA agreed."
LR: This is totally incorrect/false and couldn't be further from the truth. The IGFA said at the time and again a couple of years ago that they did NOT buy the Dettloff investigation of Lawton, rather were "uncertain" that an appropriate photograph of the fish existed...period!
Guest: "What motivates the NFWFHoF to keep the Spray fish in place is that they feel the fish is legitimate and that DCM is corrupt."
LR: This too is an absolute falsehood! Neither organization has EVER said they thought DCM was "corrupt". You are nearing libel.
Guest: "What motivates the IGFA to keep the Johnson fish in place is that they also feel DCM is corrupt and that this fish is legitimate."
LR: SEE ABOVE, plus the FACT that even though the IGFA hypocritically "set-aside" the Lawton record due to photograph, they stated with regard to the Johnson fish that weight could not be determined from a phototgraph...have you read all of the above posts?
Guest: "In the eyes of the record keepers only ONE of these fish is bogus and that is the Lawton fish."
LR: Nice try, again SEE ABOVE.
Guest: "The record keepers will NEVER classify these fish as 'historical' and neither should anybody else."
LR: Do you know something no one else in the muskie world knows? I seriously doubt it. Never say "never", stranger things have happened.
Guest: "Why should the 'muskie community' recognize these fish as anything but bogus if that's what they feel they are?"
LR: I don't recall the readers/posters of this forum electing you to speak for us? I don't recall a Lawton poll here, so I'd assume you are guessing huh? I think most folks can speak for themselves and don't need you to ANON. sit behind your computer and spout off! In fact, I challenge ALL to post using their name if they wish anyone to give any credibility to what you say.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8772
| How, in the eyes of the record keepers, can it be okay to dismiss one fish based on photo evidence, and then turn around and say "we can't determine the size of a fish based on photo evidence" and uphold that record???
It's like Clinton's famous line -- "That depends on what your definition of 'is' is"..
As for what the "muskie community" recognizes? Well, most of us have seen enough big fish to look at a picture of one and come pretty close to the actual size and weight, give or take a few pounds and a few inches. Clearly, 85% of the people who actually fish for these things are convinced the records are bogus, and with good reason. Opinions aren't what matters here, what matters is the truth. Clearly, that is something that many folks would like to evade.
Does it MATTER? Well, it's not going to change my life, or my fishing. But as most others, I'd really like to see the records represent reality. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'The record keepers will NEVER classify these fish as 'historical' and neither should anybody else. '
Why not? It's obvious the record keeping groups are not able to dodge the politics and manipulations by John and a couple other folks, so there it is. I have no personal issue with the FFHOF, in fact OFM was the only media company present to videotape the recent inductions at the America's Outdoor Show. I DO have an issue with their inability to address and correct the huge blemish the conflict of interest from the Dettloff manipulations have created, and how that damages their otherwise reasonable credibility.
One reasonable resolution is for both organizations to admit the record keeping back then was a lot more than 'suspect', and simply keep the 'historical records' for Muskie as listed before John had the Lawton fish removed. The Hall and IGFA need to then come up with a real and provable record from whatever list is chosen...and stand behind that choice with more than a 'because we say so' burden of proof. |
|
| |
|
| Nice try but no soap. The IGFA did NOT remove the Lawton record due to an uncertainty. They were CERTAIN that they did not have a photograph of this fish that they felt supported the size of the fish, PERIOD!
No, neither organization came right out and said that DCM is corrupt but their actions speak for themselves.
Maybe a poll should be started about the Lawton fish? I don't know anyone but you who thinks this fish is legitimate. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | 2 legit. 2 legit to quit. |
|
| |
