|
|
Posts: 26
| GW:
In my opinion Lawton should stay set-aside and in your opinion Lawton should be disqualified? We're each entitled to our opinion.
Evidently each of us has our mind made up and neither of us could sway the other. Do you have a problem with that? I sure don't.
Brad Latvaitis |
|
| |
|
Posts: 73
| It’s a legitimate question, isn’t it? Brad presented a substantial amount of information and made several arguments to support his opinionss on this matter. He included a list credentials for making those arguments, and always signed his real name to each post. It’s hard to know how to interpret the arguments of “GW” when the posts are made anonymously. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 39
Location: IL | Hi J |
|
| |
|
Posts: 39
Location: IL | ???
Attachments
----------------
 IMG_0001.jpg (62KB - 569 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
| No Brad, I don't have a problem with that at all. In fact, I think we both got a little carried away in this debate. I may even make another attempt to convince you down the road that Lawton should be disqualified as I feel the IGFA is no longer a credible record keeper based upon how they treated the Johnson challenge. I realize if I'm not able to convince you, I will have no choice but to present my Lawton disqualification material to the NFWFHoF. They seem to be the only people the IGFA will listen to. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 26
| Hi GW:
It would do you no good to convince me that Lawton should be disqualified. You have to convince the IGFA. I carry no weight with either the IGFA or the FWFHF.
My posts on Lawton merely present the facts as I understand them regarding how and why the FWFHF and the IGFA disqualified and set aside Lawton, respectively.
Seriously and sincerely, if you have information that you think would lead to the disqualification of Lawton, please present it where ever you think it will do the most good. Knowing the history of the relationship between the IGFA and the FWFHF, I doubt that the Hall has the IGFA's ear, but try that avenue if you think it is valid. PLEASE DON'T TRY TO CONVINCE ME BECAUSE IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE WHAT I THINK!
In my opinion, the FWFHF did NOT condut a complete investigation of Lawton, disqualified Lawton for the wrong reasons, and miscalculated a serious conflict of interests. Likewise, the IGFA did NOT conduct a thorough review prior to the Lawton set-aside. It appears that we agree on these opinions...but that makes no difference unless the record keepers are willing to listen.
Lawton, Spray and Johnson have not been equally evaluated by the record stewards. There is no reason that Lawton should "stand-down" as long as Spray and Johnson hold records. We disagree on this.
Please think about this next paragraph and read my prior posts again if necessary.
I NEVER SAID THAT A THOROUGH INVESTIGATION OF LAWTON WOULD LEAD TO THE REINSTATEMENT OF HIS RECORD. WHAT I'VE SAID IS THAT BASED ON THE INVESTIGATIONS THAT WERE CONDUCTED, THE FWFHF DISQUALIFICATION WAS UNWARRANTED AND THE IGFA'S SET-ASIDE AT LEAST HAS A BASIS.
IF A THOROUGH INVESTIGATION IS EVER CONDUCTED IT WOULDN'T SURPRISE ME IF THE RECORD WAS ONCE AND FOREVER DISQUALIFIED. YOU WOULD AMAZE ME IF YOU DISAGREE ON THIS POINT!
I would rather see all the records as historic and move on than try to determine their authenticity 50 to 60 years after there review and acceptance by the F&S records committee. I'M SURE WE DISAGREE HERE!
If each of the records are reviewed, I hope they're reviewed equally by competent people using the best methods possibe.
Finally GW, this is my last post on this subject...if you want to continue we'll have to do so off-line.
Brad Latvaitis
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Getting back to the claim by John Detloff [ from his Cal Johnson website] that the eye measurement from upper jaw to the posterior of the eye socket is actually 6.25" as measured by him with his "two parallel lasers". I've attached a pic of a 53" 37lb. musky showing the upper jaw to eye measurement to be longer than John found on a musky supposedly over 7" longer and 30lbs. heavier.
Hhhmmmm.
So, John is saying that the head of Cal's fish, with a body that supposedly measures 60.25" and weighs 67.5 lb., is smaller than that of a 53" 37 lb'er.
I don't think so......
Edited by fins355 1/21/2010 3:38 PM
(muskie 53 in eye msr.jpg)
Attachments
----------------
muskie 53 in eye msr.jpg (206KB - 299 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | Doug:
Thank you for posting this, and for all the work you have been gracious enough to do in regard to these records. For those interested, we originally approached Doug about five years ago with some technical questions, mainly because he was a true expert in his field, also because he believed in the Spray and Johnson fish/mounts.
This eye socket measurement is something that the WRMA will be conducting further research on to determine the biological relationship between this eye socket measurement and the overall length of the fish. Without question, these two measurements should reasonably coincide with each other.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| Awful lot of putty on that head. We better get some photowatchamacallits in here right away. I'm starting to wonder if any future fish will ever be verifiable if every minute measurement is treated like the only evidence that matters(when actually the weight is the only evidence that matters). What happens when somebody catches a fish that is off the norm? We gonna reject them out of hand? It also occurs to me, and should have occurred to many others that if you are using all this information to supposably "prove" to yourselves that this or that fish wasn't that big, are you also using these analysis factors to prove the real world record, the Malo fish, deserves to be recrowned as king of the hill. Kind of self serving if that isn't the case.
So, how much work has the comittee done to prove the Malo fish is the actual record, that I know in my heart, it is??? If not already begun, why not? |
|
| |
|
| Jerry posted on MH: "I would like to point out that these records were more of a "fun thing" in Cal's era; muskie-fishing records were not taken as seriously as they are today. For instance, it is incredibly telling that Louie Spray sent Cal a telegram during Cal's radio acceptance speech after he broke the record in 1949, wherein he promised Cal he was going to come out of retirement and break his record by the end of the year. As we know, Louie had no problem breaking the record and good-natured Cal simply sent along his congratulations. Talk about having fun with it, what an exciting era in muskie fishing!"
Yeah...seems like those guys knew something that's been lost over the years. (Musky fishing and Musky record keeping ought to be based on having FUN!) Maybe they'd have quite a laugh knowing a debate like this was even taking place now?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| What's wrong with this picture?????
Attachments
----------------
CJ cmp.2.jpg (117KB - 610 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 223
Location: Minn. | The spots on the middle picture doesn't match the spots on the bottom picture. Top picture has bars.
Edited by muskyfvr 1/22/2010 9:18 AM
|
|
| |
|
| Doug,
First off beauty of a skin mount WOW!
The distance between the anal fin and the caudal fin on the ''record'' fish is clearly out of proportion of any muskie I have seen. And is evident in the photos for even the untrained eye! I wonder If anyone has any close up pics of the ''record'' fish to see if the lateral line has a wiggle in it between the vent and the front of the dorsal fin. Looks fishy to me. |
|
| |
|
| OOPS What I meant to say is the distance between the pelvic fin and anal fin looks off. Boy do I need another cup of joe! |
|
| |
|
| guest x,
you should check over before you submit something. Just like something that has been submitted should be allowed to be checked over. And then corrected such as you have done.
Fins 355 thanks for the post! |
|
| |
|
| What does Detloff have to do with the IGFA? I thought is was the IGFA that rejected the WRMA challenge to Johnson's fish, because they found the glaring mistake in the photogammetry? i.e., wRMA had the wrong endpoints into the computer, and it's the old "GIGO" garbage in-garbage out. Just because an expensive computer program was used does not make the result correct. But, how does all of this involve Detloff? Is he on the IGFA board? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Dettloff has "interjected" himself into this fray trying desparately to protect the hero of his new book. He hijacke the Hall of Fame to protect Spray and now has hijacked the local paper to protect Johnson...uninvited. He has nothing to do with IGFA other than it is he that conned them into recognizing Johnson in the first place, displacing Ken O'Brien.
His SHAME knows no bounds!
There was NO "glaring mistake" in the photogrammetry...period.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Muskellunge Historian for ALL of North America
www.larryramsell.com |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20211
Location: oswego, il | The ifga did not reject the WRMA's findings becuase of flaws in the photogammetry. Just another made up look over there arguement. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Here is some more Dettloff BS that I have countered over on MH:
Well, I have been away a bit trying to find a lost dog (did!) and it appears that Mr. Dettloff has been at work again "attempting" to justify the Cal Johnson mount...as I have said repeatedly, there seems to be no lengths that he will go to to protect the Hayward records.
Have you ever noticed how he "cherry picks" the posts he will respond to? Dettloff: "Hawkeye asked a legitmate question and I answered it along with a few others that deserved an answer." Deserved? HA! Your a joke. All legitimate questions deserve an answer, not just those you "think" you can overcome. Kinda like how he and the Hall treated the Spray investigation by the WRMA.
At any rate, he has once again stuck his foot in it...Brad and Doug (fins) have covered several things, but I have several more for everyone to digest.
Dettloff wrote: "Last month, the owner of the Cal Johnson mount and I tried to remove the glass off the Cal Johnson mount in order for us to get some reference measurement off the fish...."
Larry: In secret of course and what a crock...if they wanted that case open, it would have been opened...they can't afford to have that fish examined by "outsiders"!
Dettloff cont.: "Then the owner hired a glass specialist who came over with suction cups and we attached them to the glass and pulled as hard as we dared but got nowhere. We all came to the conclusion that the glass wouldn't come off unless we broke it and that was too risky because it could damage the fish."
Larry: More "smoke & mirrors"...turn the case face down, put the suction cups in place and cut or break the glass and it will fall downwards, OR take the case apart...IT CAN BE OPENED, SO QUIT DENYING IT CAN'T.
Dettloff cont.: "I then took several reference measurements with two parellel lasers in various parts of the musky. The head length was 14 1/2", the posterior edge of the eye to the upper jaw was 6 1/4", and the side width was 10 3/4"."
Larry: Now John, who is showing their ignorance of musky biology? Surprised Doug (fins) didn't nail you on this one) THERE IS NO WAY that head was 14 1/2" long...UNLESS OF COURSE YOU ARE ADDING ON THE "CARDBOARD" THAT KAHMANN USED TO ENHANCE THE HEAD AT THE BACK OF THE GILL COVER (about 1/2" minimum...guess you forgot to measure that with your lazer huh?). Brad nicely covered your "blunt head" theory!!
Dettloff cont.: "This mount is 60 years old and the finest example of taxidermy I've ever seen in my life. (Study the fish on the caljohnson.net website) Except for a few minor cracks, it is exceptionally well preserved. The one vertical crack in back of the pelvic fins (that has been wrongly identified as where a 6 or 8 inch section of body was added) was caused during the first years that the mount was being displayed when the end of the cabinet was dropped, causing the crack. The upper portion of the crack was repaired in a small area and painted over to match, most likely by Karl Kahmann himself because he was still around at the time. What cracked when the fish was dropped was most likely the red clay layer that was just under the skin and covering up the excelsior body form beneath it."
Larry: And you know this how John? You weren't even in diapers yet at that time. Nice smoke screen though.
Dettloff cont.: "There is actually nothing to be gained from x-raying the mount because there is nothing inside the mount that was any part of the original fish (except the skull). Everything else is a made made form made out of a thin board, excelsior wrapped with string, and red clay. As far as opening the case of the mount and examining it, there is little to be gained that you can't already see from the outside."
Larry: WOW! You are unbelievable. It is NOT the inside of the mount that is of curosity, it IS the SKIN. Again, nice try.
Dettloff cont.: "In order to take a 52 to 54 inch long (35 to 40# class) musky and turn it into the Cal Johnson mount without such a major project of augmentation being evident is basically impossible. You'd not only have to lengthen the fish 6 or 8 inches, but you'd have to increase the entire girth of the fish dramatically from back to front."
Larry: OBVIOUSLY you are not a taxidermist and have NO knowledge of what can be accomplished. For instance(s), as noted in my head length comment above and its length "enhancement", the SAME THING TOOK PLACE WITH ALL OF THE FINS AND THE TAIL!!!. The tail is fully 3/4" LONGER AND 1 1/2" TALLER than the TRUE TAIL OF THE FISH. All one needs to do is look carefully at the mount in the case and you can SEE where the REAL fins and tail ends and the "AUGMENTATION" BEGINS...of course this adds to the "total length" of the mount too!! Why was this done??? TO MAKE THE MOUNT LOOK PROPORTIONAL TO THE "ENHANCED" BODY SIZE SO AS TO MAKE IT "BELIEVEABLE"!!!!!!!!!
Dettloff cont.: "Another important fin fact is that, in order for that much length to have been added behind the pelvic fins, the pelvic fins would HAVE TO BE much further forward than they are..."
Larry: WHY John? This simply is NOT true. IT IS THIS ADDITION THAT GIVES THE MOUNT THE "NECESSARY" LENGTH TO MEET THE "CLAIM"!
Dettloff cont.: "Furthermore, the scales of the fish are very pronounced along nearly the entire length of the mount and you can't add a big section of body without interrupting this intricate scale pattern. The scales even are in perfect alignment where the crack in the fish is."
Larry: Ever hear of using "hot wax" in taxidermy John? Kahmann was a MASTER museum taxidermist. Do you not think he could replicate the scale pattern OVER his "addition" to make the mount look legitimate? And that crack again...hummmmm.
Dettloff cont.: "This mount represents the rarest artifact in our sport's history. It should be preserved and cared for to the best of our ability so future generations can continue to marvel at this fine speciman. It would not be worth the risk to this irreplacable catch to try to open up the case and probe into the mount just to pacify a small group of jealous musky guys who aren't going to be convinced no matter how perfect the mount proves to be..."
Larry: Just how "self-serving" that statement is. YOU DON'T WANT THE CASE OPENED! It really is that simple. There is nothing that could be done to it that several of today's finest taxidermists (Petrousek, Lax, Fittante, Michaelson, etc.) couldn't fix. You just don't want the TRUTH known.
Dettloff cont.: "For those of you who truly are curious about the mount and are not part of this negative click, keep in mind that even without the mount this fish is still exceptionally well documented and well proven and well witnessed and there is not one peice of evidence proving the fish to be smaller than claimed. Not one of the claims against the validity of this fish proves to be true."
Larry: Again "smoke & mirrors"! It is just that YOU "choose" to ignore the truth and do anything and everything that you can to protect your hero's. Science against YOUR BS...guess which wins! OPEN THE CASE (or maybe it can be x-rayed in the case)...do it!
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Muskellunge Historian for ALL of North America
www.larryramsell.com |
|
| |
|
Posts: 26
| The MH Cal Johnson Post on MH was locked before anyone could respond to comments by StanS regarding the Johnson Photogrammetric Solution. Just in case anyone is interested, here's my response.
StanS:
I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish with your post.
The Photogrammetric Solution of Johnson's fish clearly states that:
1)There was insufficient information in the photographs to complete a 3 dimensional photogrammetric analysis of the fresh muskie.
2) It was determined there were sufficient visible points to complete a direct scaling of the fresh muskie from the dimensions of the mounted muskie.
3)Dimensions from the mounted muskie were determined using a calibrated camera, known camera information, PhotoModeler software, and the display case that houses the muskie.
4) The tip of the snout to the eye and the tip of the snout to the top of the gill flap where it meets the body were measurements completed photogrammetrically using PhotoModeler software.
5) Since the head dimensions do not change appreciably during the mounting process, these dimensions were used to scale the fresh muskie.
The Photomodeler software provided a geometry solution for the mounted muskie. The Photogrammetric Solution of Johnson's muskie used available common target points visible on multiple images, namely; the length from the snout to eye and the length from the snout to where the gill flap meets the body, to determine the fresh musky's length by direct scaling.
You state that, you "find it difficult to believe that, with the exception of the intersection of straight lines, you would be able to identify these points to within 0.1 in on a curved surface. However, the tip of the upper jaw to eye length is given as 5.669 in. What is the source of this accuracy?"
I don't pretend to be a photogrammetrist but from reading the report I'd say the accuracy of the measurements result mainly from using a calibrated camera, known camera information, PhotoModeler software and the dimensions of the display case.
You say that, "the report also does not say if the 5.669 inches is the diagonal measurement between the two points or a projection along the length of the fish."
The report illustrates the distance as a straight line between points 41 & 42 and reports that it was determined photogrammetrically using PhotoModeler 6.
You state, "the report continues with the statement that the musky mount was 58.8” +/- ¼ in. It also states that the distance from the upper jaw tip to the top of the upper tail was 54.8” +/- ¼ in. Therefore, using photomodeler on the mount, the length of the mount is either 58.8 in or 54.8 in, a difference of 4 in."
I think you should read that section again. The report says the overall length was calculated to be 58.9" +/- 1/4" compensating for curvature of the mounted muskie. Using a two-point measurement between points 18 and 42 (snout to top of the tail) the measurement is 54.8" +/- 1/4". Look at the illustrations!
You take the following statement out of context, "if perspective is present between the fish and the film plane, the length would be overestimated" and ignore the key point...THE KNOWN DIMENSION THAT IS BEING USED FOR SCALE MEASUREMENT IS IN THE SAME PLANE AS THE SECTION THAT IS BEING DIRECT SCALED.
You make some comments about a possible longer length if the lower jaw was used as a measuring point but fail to recognize the Photogrammetric Solution adds that a closed mouth would have resulted in the bottom jaw extending past the top jaw much less than an inch.
Although not part of the report, in my opinion, a large muskie held vertically slightly overstates total length (a measurement that by definition is taken with the fish laying on a flat surface) due to pressure resulting from hanging weight held through the gills.
Finally, you add, "the report states that the fresh fish length is 50 to 51 inches. Any enhancement to mount length would have to be 9 to 10 inches long."...actually, 8 to 9 inches long, and that's the point of the Photogrammetric Solution.
Like I've said all along, a panel of scientists and mathematicians could resolve all of this.
Brad Latvaitis
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| I just don't believe it. Until you guys have some new information, I think this is pretty much a dead issue, since it has already been ruled on by the two governing boards for records. The name calling campaign and the photowatchamacallit so called science, might sway some public opinion, but I am of the opinion that other than a small internet musky camp connected to the internet and sympathizing with the WRMA, the court of public opinion will also weigh against you guys. If you have dead people's affadavits attesting to the weighing, you are going to go out and recruit scientists to call them liars, on top of the feuds obviously, and so clearly stated by those against the Johnson fish? And the root of those feuds seems to be petty jealousy that somebody might make a little money on what will amount to a Vanity Press book? It's really getting time to put this to bed. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8774
| firstsixfeet - 1/25/2010 1:03 AM
[...] and the photowatchamacallit so called science, [...]
It's not necessarily "science", which serves to explain things we do not fully understand.. Photogrametry is all about MATH, which basically works the way it works.
http://www.geodetic.com/Whatis.htm calculations based on a known value, or several known values
Math is not subject to interpretation or manipulated for any desired outcome. We're talking about known dimensions of objects and the relationships between them, which can only be fudged intentionally or miscalculated by a certain margin of error, even in the most extreme curcumstances. I believe that margin of error was accounted for in every photogrammetric study done to date. Certainly the known dimensions, the mount, and several pictures could certainly be enough to come close to the actual real measurements of the Johnson fish.
And as far as finding an unbiased source to analyze the knowns and extrapolate the unknowns? How difficult can that really be? Most people in this country probably don't even know what a muskie IS, much less care what the world record is, or who caught it or where it was caught it.
I also don't think the concerned muskie anglers of the world care who caught it either. I am pretty convinced everyone just wants to know what the biggest muskie ever known to be caught really is, and where that was.
Edited by esoxaddict 1/25/2010 2:16 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| Unfortunately in this case there is so much petty jealousy and antagonism amongst the complainants, taking it as a vendetta against another fisherman to overturn a record he has nothing to do with, that any "science" involved with this is already tainted and any inputs are also tainted. And the record, where it was caught and who caught it, is established, in the records of the IGFA and FFHOF. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8774
| firstsixfeet - 1/25/2010 3:16 PM
Unfortunately in this case there is so much petty jealousy and antagonism amongst the complainants, taking it as a vendetta against another fisherman to overturn a record he has nothing to do with, that any "science" involved with this is already tainted and any inputs are also tainted. And the record, where it was caught and who caught it, is established, in the records of the IGFA and FFHOF.
So why not just find someone neutral to analyze the known dimensions, the claimed dimensions and weight, the mount, and the pictures, and settle it once and for all? You can't tell me an unbiased source doesn't exist. |
|
| |
|
| Esoxaddict...the problem there is just what "Settled once and for all" means. As far the two established record keeping agencies are concrened, it is ALREADY settled. Previous challenges (at least 'opinion pages') have been past submitted, considered, and were found lacking. How many more times should it be allowed to be challenged again? Once more? Twice more...three times?? Again for every 'new way' of analyzing 60 years old photographs??? Or simply as many times as it takes in order to rewrite history in the way those with a personal agenda want it to be written?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8774
| Hall Supporter - 1/25/2010 4:32 PM
Esoxaddict...the problem there is just what "Settled once and for all" means. As far the two established record keeping agencies are concrened, it is ALREADY settled. Previous challenges (at least 'opinion pages') have been past submitted, considered, and were found lacking. How many more times should it be allowed to be challenged again? Once more? Twice more...three times?? Again for every 'new way' of analyzing 60 years old photographs??? Or simply as many times as it takes in order to rewrite history in the way those with a personal agenda want it to be written?
It should be done as many times as it takes to get it done RIGHT, in an honest and unbiased way, by people with no vested interest in the outcome. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| Hall Supporter - 1/25/2010 4:32 PM
Esoxaddict...the problem there is just what "Settled once and for all" means. As far the two established record keeping agencies are concrened, it is ALREADY settled. Previous challenges (at least 'opinion pages') have been past submitted, considered, and were found lacking. How many more times should it be allowed to be challenged again? Once more? Twice more...three times?? Again for every 'new way' of analyzing 60 years old photographs??? Or simply as many times as it takes in order to rewrite history in the way those with a personal agenda want it to be written?
Exactly the case. They are going to keep on. It IS personal for a certain group. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3480
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | FSF,
I don't know...that's an awfully strong statement to make about being personal for a certain group...
I have no stake in this, but I am definitely interested to see where it goes. I know there have been some highly personal "banterings" that have taken place, but from what they have found, I do feel they have put forth a pretty "sound" argument, which from what I have read they have shown there is quite a bit of misrepresentation about the fish. Although I do feel that weight is something could be very hard to be determined from a picture, there are some things of note in their argument that really do hold some mathematical proof that the fish is not as big as it has been stated (length and girth). And...in today's age and technological advancement if something is found to be misrepresented many feel that it should be scrutinized and put to the test, with peer review...
Steve |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20211
Location: oswego, il | I love the line found lacking or as it was manipulated by the hall? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| VMS - 1/25/2010 7:15 PM
FSF,
I don't know...that's an awfully strong statement to make about being personal for a certain group...
I have no stake in this, but I am definitely interested to see where it goes. I know there have been some highly personal "banterings" that have taken place, but from what they have found, I do feel they have put forth a pretty "sound" argument, which from what I have read they have shown there is quite a bit of misrepresentation about the fish. Although I do feel that weight is something could be very hard to be determined from a picture, there are some things of note in their argument that really do hold some mathematical proof that the fish is not as big as it has been stated (length and girth). And...in today's age and technological advancement if something is found to be misrepresented many feel that it should be scrutinized and put to the test, with peer review...
Steve
I don't think that the statement you referred to is particularly strong. I am thinking it is simply a summation of what is coming across pretty clearly out of all this. It is interesting too, where the editorial snipping of threads occurs, what stuff is allowed and left in, and what stuff is removed off the boards as a matter of course. John Detloff can be called names, and painted ugly, but one musky site that supports the records cannot even be linked to any thread on this board, (PM me for the site) though after going there I thought it odd that it would be banned. So, there is definitely some "personal" stuff going on. Math can be manipulated pretty easily, particularly when a certain result is wanted and you can dial through ambiguos inputs to start your formula.
All in all this is pretty mild except for some of the main characters(they seem to take it real seriously,LOL). The Malo fish is probably the real record, and yet, you don't hear a peep out of em about that fish. Nobody wants to go there, measure the girth on that one, or even start a dialogue. It doesn't fit into the plan of things. They would have a fit if their "science" was applied to the Malo fish and proved it to be the weight stated. 
It gives em all something to do until spring anyway. |
|
| |
