|
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | GW - 1/14/2010 12:26 PM 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? They were in the office that has a window to the scale - right? So based on everything mentioned we can't say without reasonable doubt that no one watched the whole thing. I'm not here to argue with you I simply wanted to point out that differenct rooms doesn't mean they couldn't see him. I believe it has been stated before that the only reason Lawton came into the discussion is that a photo got his record set aside. Shouldn't Spray and Johnson be held to the same standards? I don't think anyone disagrees that the Lawton fish (with current photo) should NOT be reinstated. The others are being held to a different standard. I also don't think anyone wants to argue about affidavits and who said what about the Lawton fish. If this has some relevance to the Johnson fish that this thread is supposed to be about please tie them together.
Edited by Will Schultz 1/14/2010 12:14 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Mr. Ramsell,
But on the prevfious page of the Detloff book there is a picture showing Johnson as being TALLER than Haag. Why not show that photo also.
|
|
| |
|
| Brad
"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."
I suspect considering the time of year for these captures that the unlikeliness of a possible meal being able to stretch a fish stomach which in turn would stretch the skin of the fish in an instant is not probable nor physically possible given time of year.
Growth and stretching of the outer skin is made over time by slow weight increase and egg developpement.
Interesting possibility but not biologically probable given seasonal growth rates
The only viable solution to all this dilemma is a 2 tier WR system,historical and modern day
Good thread but looks like we are chasing each other tails or scales that is  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Guest:
Obviously you know nothing about perspective. Maybe Johnson just "looks" taller because you imagine Johnson AFTER Dettloff gave him growth hormones. Get real, the photo posted shows the TRUE difference between Johnson and Haag. |
|
| |
|
| That's the one where he is standing 1 level up there isn't it Larry? Cal was a midget... I mean "little person".
You guys are arguing about something that almost doesn't matter. The inside of the fish (let alone the fish itself) was not inspected by anyone other than Lawton AND the picture does not support the claimed weight. This thread is a really good one! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 26
| Marc:
You may already know this but just in case, here's a brief summary of fish growth.
All healthy fish grow throughout their life. As water temperature cools , fish growth slows, that's why in northern climates a fishes hard parts, like scales and cleithra, form growth rings that can be used to determine age. By fish growth I specifically mean fish length.
Condition factor is relative plumpness and involves the measurement of girth (in fisheries, the most robust circumference). A fish's girth varies throughout the season and year to year. Comparative measurements of condition between years are used to assess a fisheries health. Generally, a change in condition for a species from one year to the next is associated with a change in abundance of preferred forage. Unlike growth which increases each year, girth may be reduced from one year to the next.
It wouldn't be unusual for a muskie to eat a fish 1/3 its own size, numerous smaller fish or crayfish...or rarely, but occassionally, it may swallow a duck, muskrat, turtle, or a fairly large fish . In these cases, if the muskie hit a bait soon after a meal, an extended girth would be expected. Another generality is digestion is faster in warmer temperatures...and there's generally an optimum temperature where growth is best.
Of course you're correct regarding the contribution of egg mass to a muskies girth. Girth enhancement due to egg development begins in early fall and is greatest just before spawn.
Regarding the extension of a fish's skin, a fish's stomach extends and in turn stretches the skin of the fish as needed. Just as a fish's body cavity fills and stretches the skin as reproductive structures develop.
Brad
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 26
| GW:
I'm glad you added your two cents regarding the girth of McNair's muskie.
It never ceases to amaze me how angler's react to another's catch. My estimate conservatively reduced girth 3-inches and length an inch even though I had no reason to reduce either value!
I guess I should have realized that the muskie couldn't have been 60 pounds, figured what it would take to get it under 60-pounds, then reduced the girth and length accordingly.
Brad |
|
| |
|
| Will Shultz,
It doesn't mean they could see him either because nobody knows where this scale bed was located in relationship to the window. Lawton's fish is a hoax in my opinion and I'm just tired of people trying to defend it. There is NO photo of Lawton's fish that supports it's claimed size.
If you remember, I was the one that wanted this discussion centered on Johnson. In my opinion, what the IGFA pulled with Johnson is WORSE than what the NFWFHoF did with Spray. Dettloff had a personal interest in having Spray as the record but what interest does the IGFA have in having Johnson as their record holder? It seems Dettloff is in control of BOTH organizations! Lawton's fish should NOT be set aside by the IGFA and neither should Johnson's. They BOTH should be disqualified as neither one has a photo that supports the claimed size. Likewise, Spray's fish should be disqualified by the NFWFHoF.
Don't ever get the idea that I'm a supporter of the NFWFHoF. Quite the contrary. What they have done sickens me but I'm not about to support Lawton as a way to get revenge. I'll do everything I can to see to it that no record that has been proven smaller than claimed ever gets returned to record status.
|
|
| |
|
| Brad,
It never ceases to amaze me how some people buy into the reported measurements of these fish. You should have started your reduction from a lesser girth. I'll respect your opinion as long as you do mine. I'll bet you've been amazed on a lot of things lately! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 26
| GW:
Okay...I'll assume you'd like some responses so'll I'll bite once again!
You're inquiry regarding the Rayner affidavit has been answered twice. Let me try this...I've considered Rayner's affidavit. It was prepared 35-years after Lawton's record and the committee was in session. I've considered the 1957 Field & Stream contest entry form which states to submit a photo if available. I've considered the completed 1957 Lawton application form which also states to send a photo if availabe. I've considered that for 1957 and before I am aware of no F&S written rules that state a photo is required (rather than to submit one if available). I've considered that there are several F&S records for which a photo was not submitted. I've considered that Dettloff was responsible for the Rayner affidavit. I've given each considerable thought and do not believe that a photo was required in 1957. It appears that the only information you're considering is the Rayner affidavit (which if I remember correctly is not notarized, but who cares?).
Regarding your statement that you'd support disqualification of Lawton based on Larry's interview with him. That's fine. With that attitude you might be able to attain a high position on one of the records committees.
Regarding the Lawton weigh-in, I thought maybe you had new information but you're just selectively interpreting old news...again, maybe the records committees...
I'll get serious and try to address your other points.
Husar's newspaper article may have been new evidence to the general public but not to the record committees.
A second Dunn affidavit dated March 20, 1958, was prepared, handwritten, by someone other than Mr. Dunn on T.W. Dunn Sons stationery. This affidavit clearly states that Mr. Dunn, supervised the weighing on state inspected beam scales of a sixty nine pounds fifteen ounce muskellunge (69 lb. 15 oz.) It also states, "I measured this fish to be 64 inches in length and 31 inches in girth". This notarized affidavit was signed by Walter J. Dunn and witnessed by Harold Dale Shaw, the Field & Stream writer.
Shaw went to New York to do research for a story on Lawton's muskie, he met with Mr. Dunn and an affidavit was prepared on Dunn Brothers stationery. It's reasonable to assume Shaw visited the Dunn Brothers Slaughterhouse and was aware of the weighing methodology...perhaps the basis for Dunn's affidavit emphasizing he supervised the weighing.
If we assume Shaw wasn't taking poetic justice, per his article, "Lawton laid his fish on the scale bed, Dunn fiddled with the sliding weight, and the balance was soon struck". Logically, the sliding weight would be part of the scale, adjusted until balanced...and in the same room as the scale. So Dunn was likely in the same room with whoever weighed the fish.
Whoops!! You forgot about the window between rooms...I doubt who ever put the weight on the scale ran around adding up pre-weighed packages of meat...besides, most slaughterhouses deal in sides of beef etc...but it is an amusing thought.
So, you think Lawton won all his contests in a conspiracy with the Dunn Brothers...that's an interesting new twist!
Finally, the IGFA is on record as keeping the Lawton record open because Lawton may have submitted the wrong photo. They don't care about any additional evidence and at this point either do I. I've done my best to provide what I think I know about the subject and provide my opinions.
The IGFA evidently feels the 1957 estemmed committee of Rayner, et al. should be given the behefit of doubt. On second thought, maybe one of the records committees couldn't use you!
Brad Latvaitis
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 26
| GW:
I wish you'd read what I've written rather than what you think I've written.
Please read this post carefully before you respond. In summary I've said:
I support fair and equal treatment of all muskie records.
Until Spray and Johnson are treated equally with Lawton, I support Lawton's reinstatement.
I believe the record photos of Lawton, Spray and Johnson are less than their reported measurements.
I believe the photogrammetric solutions for Spray and Johnson and each should be disqualified.
I believe the Lawton record should be removed but remain open, in case a photo shows up, because a photo was not required and it's the only record where the photo has been publically questioned and considered by the records committee.
I believe a muskie should be selected as the record to replace Lawton, Spray & Johnson.
Most of the other stuff I posted was to share my understanding and rationale of the record situation as it exists today and provide the basis for my beliefs summarized above.
Brad Latvaitis |
|
| |
|
Posts: 26
| GW;
I think that a 10% reduction was reasonable, I'm sorry you don't. The girth of that muskie is not only significant but extends over a large area. Who cares what its girth was, the fish was honorably released. Since it was released, people can sit and snipe at the reported measurements.
I haven't heard any new information but I continue to be amazed by the extent of some of the interpretations and one-sided considerations.
Brad Latvaitis |
|
| |
|
Posts: 39
Location: IL | Brad, Larry,
I can't believe you guys are bantering words with "Guests", and "slicks" that post anonymously! If they are afraid to have their words pinned to their real name, then don't acknowledge them.
ANYONE with ANY common sense realizes those past records were embellished.
ANYONE, take a GOOD LOOK at the Johnson mount....then look at
A N Y picture of A N Y Muskellunge -- doesn't matter if it's 10 inches, 40 inches, or 60 inches. Look at the placement of the rear fins in relation to the Anal fin. O.K. - do you have the general silhouette outline of a Muskie in your head? Great - now, take another look at the Johnson mount...doesn't it seem a bit...um....peculiar that the rear fins are located way-to-far-forward?? It's like looking at a "Jackalope"....sorta looks like a Rabbit, but somethin's not quite right!?
I wasn't exactly sure where they added to the length on that mount, until it was pointed out to me at the Chicago Show....yep!...you can see part of the vertical line just behind the rear fins! 
To those that say "WHO CARES"..."MOVE ON"..."GET OVER IT"..."LET IT GO" - Are you serious! You honestly believe that no one (especially true Muskie Guys) wants, or deserves to know who holds the TRUE title of the WORLD RECORD MUSKELLUNGE!! You're the same "dudes" that would luck into catching a 70lb'er - claim the world record - then scream BLOODY MURDER when some "SLICK" turned in a 70lb - 1oz fony a few weeks later. Who cares?...I DO, and so does almost ALL other Fishermen. You "dudes" better stick to your football threads, your ignorance doesn't show as much there!
Brad, didn't run into you at the Chicago Show, but was only there on Sat. this year. Did you make it? See ya next year! Phil Blanck
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Figure8Phil - 1/14/2010 6:49 PM
ANYONE with ANY common sense realizes those past records were embellished.
To those that say "WHO CARES"..."MOVE ON"..."GET OVER IT"..."LET IT GO" - Are you serious! You honestly believe that no one (especially true Muskie Guys) wants, or deserves to know who holds the TRUE title of the WORLD RECORD MUSKELLUNGE!! You're the same "dudes" that would luck into catching a 70lb'er - claim the world record - then scream BLOODY MURDER when some "SLICK" turned in a 70lb - 1oz fony a few weeks later. Who cares?...I DO, and so does almost ALL other Fishermen. You "dudes" better stick to your football threads, your ignorance doesn't show as much there!
Phil Blanck
If your first statement was 100% true, we wouldn't be having these threads would we? Fact is, the onus is on the WRMA to prove beyond any shadow of doubt that these fish are false. (Which I believe they are, in actuality.) I don't feel they have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, however. We all "know" OJ killed his wife, right?
The second statement I highlighted is amusing. Some of us "true Muskie Guys" think the efforts could be used much better for other things to better the sport. I have stated this here multiple times. I personally don't enjoy hearing about the WR issues year in and year out, and have stated so year in and year out. That is my opinion, yours is yours. To call us ignorant is much more ignorant to others viewpoints. Almost all other fisherman is a pretty broad brush stroke to paint when the musky community is the vast minority over most other angling groups. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 19
| Until I see a fish on a certified scale that exceeds the so called world record, I won't believe a word anyone types on this subject! Its obvious that these fish are not what they were said to be! If Johnsons fish was over 52 inches i would be amazed! Very AMAZED! It just amazes me how pathetic some people are when it comes to these dumb records!
To the people who continue to add to this thread, it really shows your brilliance on a subject that NOBODY CAN PROVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Go cuddle up with your ladies and get ready for 2010 opening day! That way hopefully they will let you go fishing and one of you guys can catch that 70lber and put this PATHETIC subject to rest!! Good Luck! Mike Crawford!!! Yes I was exclamation point happy!!! |
|
| |
|
| First off Brad, I could care less how many years after Lawton's record and the committee was in session. The Rayner affidavit is all the proof anyone needs that a photo WAS required. You shouldn't be considering anything further. As I said, Dr. H. John Rayner was the Chief of Operations for the Field & Stream contest.
I also think you should stop assuming that Mr. Shaw was aware of the weigh-in procedure because clearly he was not. You say it's "reasonable to assume" but it isn't. Nobody would accept such a weigh-in procedure and you know it.
How do you figure Dunn could be in the refrigeration room with Lawton when the scale could only be balanced in the office?
It also wouldn't take much time to add up enough weight from meat that was previously weighed and labled to break the previous record of 69 lbs. 11 oz. Lawton may have been in the refrigeration room prior to his weighing of the fish also.
You're right Brad, obviously the sliding weight should be part of the scale and yet Lawton's own nephew says the scale display was in the office instead of in the refrigeration room where the scale bed was located.
You keep making assumptions and saying "perhaps" it was this way or that way about everything that others say is the opposite.
I'll let the IGFA decide if this is important.
It sounds to me like you would defend O. J. Simpson if you had the opportunity! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8782
| Has anyone given any thoght to the fact that during a time of much less regulation, it would be very beneficial to a slaughterhouse to have the scales they use calibrated to overestimite the weight of product to begin with???
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | esoxaddict - 1/14/2010 8:29 PM
Has anyone given any thoght to the fact that during a time of much less regulation, it would be very beneficial to a slaughterhouse to have the scales they use calibrated to overestimite the weight of product to begin with???
Certainly possible. Good luck proving it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 26
| GW:
Thanks for telling me what should be considered and also to ignore the rest. Are you already on a record committee?
Yep, I can see how it's unreasonable to think that a writer for F&S would travel to New York to investigate the fish, meet with Walter Dunn, get an affidavit written on Dunn Brothers stationery and not bother to visit the slaughterhouse and its scale room...he'd be there only for the important things. Also, I agree it's hard to understand how anyone could possibly accept the weigh-in procedure even though the procedure on state certified scales was a routine part of the slaughterhouse's daily commercial operation...boy, I bet the people got screwed on the actual weight of their meat in 1957. I wonder how Dunn Brothers stayed in business? How could Lawton use a slaughterhouse instead of the post office?
The F&S records committee must have really been incompetent to accept the weigh-in procedure and I wonder what the IGFA is thinking. How could they accept all but the photo and hold the record as "set-aside" in case a photo is submitted! My god, that means the IGFA also accepts the weigh-in procedure! It's a shame they don't have more people like you on the committees...I bet you could set them straight and tell them what to ignore and what to consider. Have you considered sending them a letter...Oh never mind, you mentioned a letter a few posts ago! I hope you haven't already sent it, there's still stuff to be added.
Darn, had you been around the record would have been thrown out in the first place. Must be that Dr. Rayner, Chief of Operations, didn't feel that knowing about the weigh-in procedure was important. Too bad he wasn't asked about it on his affidavit! Instead of 35 years after the fact it's now 53...maybe we need some more affidavits! You should have been there in Rayner's place. Maybe you could get a position now and just throw out the record based on Larry's interview with Lawton...make sure you add that to your letter.
The scale was in the refrigeration room, the results were displayed inside the adjoining office, there was a window between the rooms, Lawton laid his fish on the scale bed, Dunn fiddled with the sliding weight and supervised the weighing of the fish...well those lying bastards...do you think the supervision included the selection of meat to add to the fish on the scale before it was balanced? What do you think...steaks, burger, pork chops?
Gosh, how could I have missed it...you say that the sliding weight and the scale display are one in the the same! Now I've got it!
I'm glad you pointed out to me that I make assumptions and say perhaps rather than jumping to conclusions...I'll have to work on straightening that out...do you think I should see a doctor? I'll never be asked to join a records committee!
Whew...I'm glad your going to let the IGFA decide, for a moment there I thought you were going to make the decision...have you thought about calling the IGFA?
Wait a minute. Hasn't the IGFA already decided and are waiting for a photo? They'll have a wait until 2032 to beat the Perry record.
O.J. Simpson...I didn't think they allowed football on this website! Do they, if it's okay, what do you think about the Bears next season?
To the readers that have had enough of this discussion already, I apologize...but I hope you had fun...I enjoyed writing this one a little more than the rest! Maybe I shouldn't use my name on this one??!!
To all the rest, I'm finished on the subject unless I absolutely see something new...sorry to bore some of you.
To Phil...didn't make it to Steve's show this year...opted for Florida instead...hope to see you next year.
To Marc...I have no problem with your ideas regarding McNair's muskie.
To all that post anonymously...grow a set!!
Brad Latvaitis
Edited by Brad Latvaitis 1/15/2010 2:25 AM
|
|
| |
|
| Brad tks for sharing your information, we share same views on the matter
I agree with your year to year average girth can change by 1 inch depending on environmental factors
If you need to reach me,email me [email protected]
Someday we will know the truth........ I hope
Till then lets be content catching what we are catching
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 123
| Even if someone catches a certified 70lb fish next year it wouldn't PROVE that it was the biggest ever caught, but rather just prove to be the biggest ever certified beyond suspicion of inaccuracy. Who knows how big Dale's fish really was not to mention other fish that may have been released or as in the past, eaten. I've heard of at least 2 DNR groups netting muskies that were closer to 80lbs than 70lbs. Maybe someone caught one or both of them but didn't want the notoriety, advertising dollars, etc? The next 70lb muskie caught and certified under one of these groups may end up being the world record "in the books", but I really doubt it will be the "Largest Muskie Ever Caught In History". Nobody will ever know "for sure". |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | To all who "say they don't care...to my knowledge, Brad and I are the only ones with the knowledge and willingness to counter John Dettloff's re-writing of and revision of Muskellunge history. That is exactly why he wouldn't allow Brad and I to participate in the Spray decision 4 years ago even though I was the Hall's "World Record Advisor" and Brad was an "Advisory Governor" whom had ALWAYS been part of world record discussions and decisions!! THAT is also why we both independently resigned our volunteer positions at the Hall after 35 and 30 years respectively.
As long as I can take a breath, I will do whatever I can to counter all of Dettloff's record revisionism BS and I don't care who doesn't like it. It isn't right, it isn't fair and I'm agast that many of you allow him to continue it without taking him to task.
His latest diatribe "trying" to counter the WRMA Johnson Summary Report is just more smoke and mirrors and twisting of the facts and redoing them to further his goal. He is so far off base with "his" intrepretation of the measuring point it is laughable and totally self-serving to get Johnson's fish to be "long enough". I intend to counter it later and it will become a permanent part of the Internet, ALONG WITH all of the muskie controversies from my book, which completely details Dettloff's shannagian's and underhanded treatment of all but the Hayward records. I'll let you know when finished and up. Stay tuned.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell,
Muskellunge Historian for ALL of North America
www.larryramsell.com |
|
| |
|
| Thank you Larry! It seems most people don't understand how much damage Dettloff has done to our image us as musky fisherman, to the fishing world we are just a bunch of bickering egos thanks to that one person. The Spray and Johnson evil deeds have only been compounded about 10 fold because of his lies.
How about we all Boycott his books? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 676
Location: Wisconsin | How about boycotting all records? Wipe them all out and have nothing. I mean, Dale's fish is probably the world record, bravo, and it is still swimming. That says more to me that he put it back, than the fake glory all of these others did in the past......
Edited by Muskiemetal 1/15/2010 11:03 AM
|
|
| |
|
| Brad,
When you visit a doctor's office and get your weight taken, who is considered the weigher? You, or the person balancing the scale? The person balancing the scale of course. From this it's easy to determine who actually weighed lawton's fish. Art Lawton told Dale Shaw that Walter Dunn balanced the scale.
Walter Dunn 1958 Affidavit "...supervised the weighing on state inspected beam scales of a sixty nine pounds fifteen ounce muskellunge 969 lb. 15 oz.)... It also states, "Further, I measured this fish to be 64 1/2 inches in length and 31 3/4 inches in girth.
Walter Dunn 1991 affidavit ..."I did not actually weigh or measure the muskie, but I was present when it was weighed in. Somebody else weighed the muskie but I don't recall who it was... So far as I know this is all true.
Who is this person Dunn was supervising? In this second affidavit, he claims he doesn't even recall who it was!!!
In the first affidavit, he says he measured the fish himself. In the second, he says he never measured the fish and doesn't even mention who did!
I also never said anywhere that the scale reading was inaccurate. It's what was placed on the scale that's important.
If you want to talk about Field & Stream being competent, I would consider ANY organization that would accept a world record without a photo INCOMPETENT!
Dr. H. John Rayner would turn over in his grave if he knew you were questioning the validity of his statement. This affidavit was made public and Mr. Rayner certainly would not have allowed Dettloff to do this if it was untrue.
Because a photo WAS required for record purposes in 1957 as confirmed by Mr. Rayner, the door should be CLOSED for any future consideration of this fish.
I feel it's bad enough having two bogus records still on the books but if you have your way, we'll be back to three!
I'm glad you enjoyed writing this last post the most. You have inspired me to provide the IGFA with a lot more evidence than what you currently are aware of. You have no idea what else I have come up with. As I said, I'll do everything I possibly can to insure this record is never reinstated.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 3480
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | Brad, GW...if I may....
I'm getting confused on where the spray debate you two are engaged in is really going. I've been trying to follow it as best I can and all I am able to really pull from the debate is this: Brad and Larry would like to see the Lawton fish reinstated with the their argument being based upon the Johnson fish was dismissed/not even considered relevant to analyze. (Summarizing: The two fish were not treated in the same manner, with the Johnson fish going through a very thorough examination and dismissed, so if the IGFA will dismiss that, then reinstate the Lawton fish since it did not have anywhere near the examination the Johnson fish had.)
The argument I see GW making is that these fish in current question (spray with the hall, Johnson and lawton with the IGFA) should ALL be eliminated from the record books due to inconsistencies in many different areas, with the mathematics alone being a very strong point.
What I see in all of that (I think...) is one thing: Both agree that the fish are not as they have been stated...and the debate is over what should happen because of the way the IGFA handled the situation. Am I on the right track here?
Would a major analysis of the Lawton fish be something to consider? I'd say yes...for the mere fact that if the analysis of the fish is done, I would say the probability is quite high the same result would come out as did with the two Hayward fish...that the fish has been misrepresented both in length and girth and can very well be proven to be the case mathematically.
I don't know if this is really the case or not anymore with all the debating going on....
Regardless of where things are at, it seems as though some common ground (I feel) needs to be struck. What can we all do to be a constructive part of a solution to this whole mess rather than debate among ourselves? What are the common grounds that can be agreed upon and how can those common areas be used in a joined effort to move forward?
From what I am reading, isn't the overall goal to find a legitimate record then somehow take the "argument" to the IGFA in a manner that will ultimately change the record? Tougher than sounds no doubt, but heck...think back 30 some years ago when everything was catch and keep? Took some time but look where we are today?
Mathematically speaking if a legitimate record is to be found, it should be able to hold up to any measurements that have been stated through picture analyzation, etc., AND it should be "reasonable" that an estimated weight using the standard formula be within a certain amount of the stated and recorded weight of the record. Obviously it will not match, but it should be as some would say, "in the ballpark." That formula is basically a formula of volume so it is only a guide but has been shown over many years to be quite sound in "estimating" the weight of fish.
Steve
Edited by VMS 1/15/2010 2:06 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 26
| GW:
Okay, you've finally amazed me!
Let's start with your last paragraph first, "I'm glad you enjoyed writing this last post the most. You have inspired me to provide the IGFA with a lot more evidence than what you currently are aware of. You have no idea what else I have come up with. As I said, I'll do everything I possibly can to insure this record is never reinstated."
I wrote, "I support fair and equal treatment of all muskie records.' If you feel that it's necessary, keep your new information to yourself but get it to the IGFA.
If it supports disqualification of Lawton rather than set-aside status that would be great but it would still make Spray the record holder at the FWFHF and Johnson the record holder at IGFA. I hope you also have information to convince the FWFHF to take down Spray and the IGFA to remove Johnson. It you have convincing information regarding Lawton I would happily concur with Lawton's removal.
I also said, "I believe a muskie should be selected as the record to replace Lawton, Spray & Johnson." Did you miss that part?
I further say that placement of Lawton in set-aside by the IGFA is more sound than disqualifying Lawton, particularly as long as Spray and Johnson are recognized.
You start your last post with, "You are currently in no position to judge anything. You feel you are still in a position of authority which is no longer the case. Your personal feelings on this matter are currently meaningless. The reinstatement effort by your tag team partner was a complete failure."
What do you mean by position of authority? I was a part of the FWFHF records committee from its inception until the Spray debacle, participated in the Lawton & Malo reviews and the reinstatement of O'Brien after a brief set-aside but my participation wasn't what I would call a position of authority. As a science professional and FWFHF Advisory Governor I fought (unsuccessfully) for consistent treatment of records.
I must disagree with your statement that I'm currently in no position to judge anything. I'm an American Fisheries Society certified fisheries professional with 40-years of experience. I've researched and worked with fish records as a volunteer for much of this time. I now own a small environmental consulting firm named Environmental Solution Professionals. I've spent a lot of time writing, editing and evaluating technical reports...I could go on but I think you get the point. I'd say that my credentials and experience qualify me to judge muskie records.
The feelings I've shared on this site and others shouldn't be confused with my personal feelings...in fact it's an insult to call them that. They're actually my professional opinion.
Larry's a great friend. I've known him since 1972 and we volunteered together at the FWFHF. His efforts regarding Lawton were his, we're not a tag team. Also, they were far from a failure. Larry's sincere effort brought tons of previously unshared information to the table...it greatly helped to shed light on the agenda behind the Lawton investigation and detail the Lawton investigation's less than professional nature. At a minimum, it helped keep the record in set-aside status. It's a shame his efforts aren't fully appreciated.
Regarding the weigh-in procedures and affidavits, I stand by my previous posts. I do have a question though...if you were in a supervisory position in 1975 and one of your workers asked you to weigh and measure a snake (something you had no interest in) and you participated and then signed an affidavit then in 2010 someone calls you on the phone and asks you questions without reference to the 1975 affidavit and you complete an affidavit based on the call, do you think the two would match? Did you get around to reading Shawn Thompson's article yet...if so, I'm amazed that you still support the 1991 affidavit.
Dr. Rayner would probably turn over in his grave if he knew your last post called the F&S record program incompetent because they sanctioned world records without photos...for 74 years, the largemouth bass record was the most prominent!
Your last statement is again amazing, "I feel it's bad enough having two bogus records still on the books but if you have your way, we'll be back to three!"
This is completely false, I said in an earlier post, my way would be for the IGFA to receive and accept a new Lawton photo as the record. Once this was done and the record was reinstated, the new photo would require A PHOTOGRAMMETRIC SOLUTION TO EITHER VALIDATE OR DISQUALIFY IT. The problem would be getting the "authority figures" to take down each record (Lawton?, Spray and Johnson) refuted by a technically sound photogrammetric solution.
What I've said in my posts is, "I support fair and equal treatment of all muskie records. I believe the record photos of Lawton, Spray and Johnson are less than their reported measurements. I believe the photogrammetric solutions for Spray and Johnson and each should be disqualified. I believe the Lawton record should be removed but remain open, in case a photo shows up, because a photo was not required and it's the only record where the photo has been publicly questioned and considered by the records committee. I believe a muskie should be selected as the record to replace Lawton, Spray & Johnson."
In summary, I agree with the IGFA and Larry Ramsell that Lawton should be set-aside. You disagree with a set-aside and instead agree with the FWFHF that Lawtom should be disqualified (as far as I know the WRMA hasn't posted a position on set-aside). You, me, Larry, the WRMA and the IGFA agree Spray is out while the FWFHF disagrees and stand alone with their support of Spray's record. You, me, Larry and the WRMA believe Johnson is out while the FWFHF and the IGFA support Johnson's fish. The only "authority figures" to your thinking are on the FWFHF and IGFA boards or committees. I certainly hope that your new information helps!!
Readers...I said that I wouldn't post again unless necessary. I think this was worthwhile and hopefully will end it.
Brad Latvaitis
Edited by Brad Latvaitis 1/15/2010 3:21 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Brad Latvaitis - 1/15/2010 3:10 PM
Readers...I said that I wouldn't post again unless necessary. I think this was worthwhile and hopefully will end it.
Brad Latvaitis
Ha! Funniest thing in this thread if you think your post will end all this talk. You really dream big, haha. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 39
Location: IL | "I'm glad you enjoyed writing this last post the most. You have inspired me to provide the IGFA with a lot more evidence than what you currently are aware of. You have no idea what else I have come up with."
gw, When you present your "evidence" to the IGFA, are you going to sign it "gw"?
Edited by Figure8Phil 1/15/2010 3:28 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 73
| Brad Latvaitis - 1/15/2010 3:10 PM <br />Readers...I said that I wouldn't post again unless necessary. I think this was worthwhile and hopefully will end it.
Pointer---Ha! Funniest thing in this thread if you think your post will end all this talk. You really dream big, haha
JM----I'm pretty sure that statement was made in reference to the present exchange between him and GW, and that Brad or nobody else expects that it will end the debate overall. I thought that he provided some helpful input on the matter during the course of his posts.
Edited by Jim Munday 1/15/2010 4:50 PM
|
|
| |
