Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
| Moderators: sworrall, Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : < ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 > Now viewing page 11 [30 messages per page] More Muskie Fishing -> Muskie Biology -> WMA O'Brien Summary Report |
| Message Subject: WMA O'Brien Summary Report | |||
tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | Guest - 4/14/2011 4:32 PM It just seems to me that a muskie reaching 30 years of age in a body of water having a maximum ultimate size of 58.5" should be longer than 54". The odds are either it was aged wrong or it was 58". Hmmm...know any little old ladies? If Casselman says it was 30 years old, then I'd bet it was 30 years old. If the photogrammetry, mold analysis and Larry Ramsell's measurements are in agreement that it was about 54", then I'd bet it was about 54". Whatever is left, however improbable, must be the answer. And don't forget about the missing 9 pounds of weight. TB | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | Guest - 4/14/2011 3:42 PM 54" is much closer to the average maximum length of 52.8" than it is to the ultimate maximum length of 58.5" therefore the probability of the fish being less than 30 years old is much greater than it being 30 years old. If 54" falls within the interval outlined by the model I don't feel it has much value. John Casselman hasn't even aged any other muskies at 30 years old. I'm not saying it's impossible for the fish to be 30 years old, just highly unlikely. It doesn't work that way, as I understand it. If you've ever studied the von Bertalanffy growth curve, these lengths are essentially oriented vertically for a given age...not on the same line. What I mean is that the "Average Maximum Length" is essentially the length the average female fish would get if she could grow for an infinite number of years. In other words, its an asymptote. So 52.8" *is* the longest length on the growth model. But since this is an average maximum length, there must be a confidence interval around it--and the width of this interval is inversely proportional to the degree of confidence you want. So if you want to be able to say how big the average female fish will grow with 95% confidence, then that range would have to be wider than the range you'd need if you only wanted to be 75% confident. The 95% interval is basically what the standard is for scientific reproducibility, and it has to do with standard deviation and the like. I haven't had statistics for years, so I cannot explain it more clearly than that right now--but the information is readily available online. Suffice to say that the 95% interval is a widely accepted standard for scientific study; thus it is what most research seems to use. However, I have also seen reference to a 99% confidence interval as well, in various medical literature--and Casselman uses that as well, in his paper on how to set muskellunge size limits (pp137-154 of the reference I mentioned above). So if you could see the von Bertalanffy growth curve, you would see a curve that represents the model for length (y-axis) for the average fish, plotted against time (x-axis). And the 52.8" point would be at the right edge of the curve, at whatever age they plotted out to in order to represent "infinity." Then you would see several other curves that surround the mean line, with diverging intervals as time marches on. So the confidence interval represented by these other curves is narrowest when the fish are young, and widest when they are oldest. This is no different than for humans--we all start life very close in physical size, but diverge from the average size at different rates as we grow/age. Finally, if you draw a vertical line through the AML of 52.8" to intersect the CI curves, you can define additional values--and as I recall, one of those would be this 58.5" you referenced. But I simply cannot recall exactly what actually defines that 58.5" point--i.e.; which upper confidence interval is it, if that is indeed where it comes from. It's not a simple concept, and I am not yet fully able to explain how it's derived. I don't use this stuff everyday, so I simply have to revisit it from time to time, to re-fire those neurons. But the take-home message for Mr. Guest, is that I do not believe you can say: "54" is much closer to the average maximum length of 52.8" than it is to the ultimate maximum length of 58.5" therefore the probability of the fish being less than 30 years old is much greater than it being 30 years old." I believe this is completely invalid, for the reason(s) I explained above. TB | ||
| Guest |
| ||
| TB, I also feel your point is completely invalid. There's a big difference between an average ultimate length and an ultimate maximum length. An ultimate maximum length is NOT an average. It is the UPPER LIMIT. Average length at age 7 for Georgian Bay...37.7" Average ultimate length for Georgian Bay...52.8" Ultimate maximum length for Georgian Bay...58.5" John Casselman stresses that these figures represent 99 per cent of the female muskie population. A few will grow larger, but record fish form a miniscule proportion of the total population. I feel there is a high probability that the ultimate maximum length for Georgian Bay was derived from the O'Brien fish and the reported age of 30 years is supportive of the fish being at the ultimate maximum length. Growth models are nothing more than speculation and should be considered as such. A suggested weight of 70 lbs. from a growth model has never been proven in the real world. Only after a true 70 lb. muskie shows up can we say these growth models are useful. | |||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | Guest - 4/15/2011 10:56 AM TB, I also feel your point is completely invalid. There's a big difference between an average ultimate length and an ultimate maximum length. An ultimate maximum length is NOT an average. It is the UPPER LIMIT. Yes, I would agree with your point about the "ultimate maximum length" being the upper limit--that's why I said I didn't know where it came from, and was further researching it. I'm still doing that, but I believe you are correct. I apologize for any confusion arising from my error in using the correct terminology. As I said before, some of these neurons have rusted a bit... ...SNIP John Casselman stresses that these figures represent 99 per cent of the female muskie population. A few will grow larger, but record fish form a miniscule proportion of the total population. Fair enough, but I haven't finished reading that particular paper yet, and therefore am not ready to further discuss the significance of the 99% value. But it's clearly published in his writings, I will agree to that. I feel there is a high probability that the ultimate maximum length for Georgian Bay was derived from the O'Brien fish and the reported age of 30 years is supportive of the fish being at the ultimate maximum length. Do you have any evidence of this, because you may be correct. However this reference Growth and Ultimate Length of Muskellunge from Ontario Water Bodies published in the North American Journal of Fisheries Management (19:271–290, 1999) reports an L_infinity of 128.7cm (50.7") for Georgian Bay female muskellunge. Therefore this does not seem to include O'Brien's fish, even though that catch: 1) occurred some 10-11 years before this article was published; and 2) was necropsied by Dr. Casselman himself, as I recall from reading the WMA report. Thus I am not quite sure where you are getting this 52.8" value for the AML, because the von Bertalanffy model published in that paper (Figure 9, p280) clearly uses the smaller 128.7cm (50.7") value for the length at infinity (i.e; the asymptotic average maximum length). Therefore please cite your reference on those values (52.8" and 58.5"). It's not that I am saying that I do not believe you, I just simply am not finding the same values you have stated. But until we establish *which* average maximum length we should be using, I cannot comment further on your speculation. Growth models are nothing more than speculation and should be considered as such. A suggested weight of 70 lbs. from a growth model has never been proven in the real world. Only after a true 70 lb. muskie shows up can we say these growth models are useful. I would agree with this, in general terms. However, certainly in Wisconsin, much weight is placed on these growth models in managing muskellunge. I'll agree that in Canada (ironically) it seems to be less so. I certainly could have missed something in the past few years, but to my knowledge Dr. Casselman has never made the case for anything above about 48-50" for a muskellunge size limit, using (it appears) that 99% interval around the ultimate size. Yet Canada has many examples of a 54" size limit on muskellunge! I find that very interesting indeed... Great stuff here Guest, I appreciate the debate. I have my references in hand, and will be reading them all weekend! Let the fun begin... TB | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | Here's an interesting quote from the paper (page 288) I referenced in my last post... "Some sources had adequate samples, with length-at-age data having moderately narrow confidence limits; however, the ranges were very broad. This was especially true for Georgian Bay females. Indeed, ultimate size calculated from these data appeared to be somewhat lower than we and others (G. Morgan, French River Cooperative Fisheries Unit, personal communication) expected, given the number of large, old fish in the sample. We suspected that the results were an average of fish from two different sources or growth stocks, one from the open water of Georgian Bay (bay stock) and the other from the mouths of the French and Pickerel rivers (river stock). Subsequent analyses, which applied the growth–sex discrimination technique to additional samples that were unsexed, increased the number of available samples, making it possible to show with discriminant function analysis that there were actually two growth stocks, effecting the underestimation of ultimate size of muskellunge from Georgian Bay (Robinson and Casselman, unpublished report). Riverine fish had a low growth potential, whereas Georgian Bay fish had a higher growth potential and larger body form." While this doesn't fully pertain to our current debate, I found it very interesting and so I wanted to share it in this thread. It does seem to reinforce the fact that they did indeed find several older fish represented in the samples donated to the Cleithrum Project from Georgian Bay anglers. It also seems to speak to what Mr. Guest stated about how these models can sometimes only give a hint of what the fish population is actually capable of--something we've also argued for the past 3-4 years, for the Green Bay fish. I fully agree with Guest on that point... TB Edited by tcbetka 4/15/2011 12:54 PM | ||
| steve R |
| ||
| Hang a fish and it is longer! I did it for years and got the most out of my measurements when looking for better point value in MI. Allmost ALLl of my 3000 + document musky were slightly longer when held verticle. I also have an Ontario fish (biggest in the Ottawa River Study) that lost 6" according to the orignal measurement by MNR several days after death. When the dead fish was held vertically it grew to only 3" short. Explaine that? I know... I have the the radio transmitter, pictures and hard evidence. Hang a fish verticle and measure it next time you catch one.... then put it horizontal on the same board. It will be longer held vertically. Before you say it hurts or kills fish I will tell you for many years i tagged fish and many... many of those fish are still caught today and reported. This whole BS makes muskie fisherman look like fools.  | |||
| Guest |
| ||
| steve R, The official measurement of O'Brien's fresh fish was taken along the flat surface of a dock with the fish lying down, NOT hanging. I agree with what you're saying about a muskie being "slightly" longer when hanging. However, your own experience should prove to you that they don't stretch 3". As far as a muskie losing 6" several days after death, I would say this is impossible because bones don't shrink. | |||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | Well, interesting. I'll take your word for it on the "vertical holds don't hurt fish" point, because I won't be trying that myself. That being said, I would first way...holy CRAP! 3000 fish?!?! Awesome man! (and I am being serious, by the way.) Then I would say that the fish that supposedly measured 58" laying down, doesn't even appear to be more than 54" while hanging. In fact, according to Mr. Mills' assessment, it isn't even 54". It would be one thing if the fish was claimed to be 58" while hanging, but it doesn't even come within 4" of that with it's throat cut! (3000 fish? #*^@, man...I need to go fishing with you! No vertical holds though, OK?) TB | ||
| Guest |
| ||
| TB, The source of my information is from an interview with John Casselman by Blair Dawson entitled, "Finding the next world record muskie". John Casselman provided a chart that lists 14 Ontario muskie waters and the average size, in inches, expected at maturity for females, along with the average size at age 7, the usual age at which muskie spawn for the first time. Casselman stresses that these figures represent about 99 per cent of the female muskie population. A few will grow larger, but record fish form a miniscule proportion of the total population. | |||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | Well, that certainly sounds like the paper I referenced above (and just finished reading this afternoon), but the 52.8" and the 58.5" lengths are inaccurate. In fact, the 58.5" length isn't even mentioned in that paper...in terms of a maximum ultimate length. And I actually find it a bit strange, because (as I mentioned before), the O'Brien fish was caught 11 years before this paper was published. So there was at least 9-10 years in there, that he would have known about the fish. The other thing is that, according to Larry Ramsell, Dr. Casselman initially had felt the fish to be around 29 years old; and then Larry just posted the other day that Dr. Casselman had sent him an email (recently, as I took it), stating he now felt the fish to be closer to 30 years old. I might have the sequence of events askew here but if not, then it seems even less likely that the O'Brien fish was the 30 year-old Georgian Bay fish in that 1999 paper I referenced above. He would of reported it as being 29 years old, I would think. So I wonder if in fact there was another 30 year-old musky in his data? There is another paper I have, that I alluded to earlier, where he writes about using the growth model to establish size limits. That's where the 99% limit comes in. I plan to read that one tomorrow. I won't lie to you--it's a tough paper to get through, because the man is brilliant when it comes to the science of these fish. I essentially find myself re-reading many paragraphs he writes, because there is so much detail. So it will take a fair amount of time tomorrow to get through, I'll wager. TB | ||
| SIMPLE |
| ||
| WMA GO AWAY | |||
| esoxaddict |
| ||
Posts: 8782 | SIMPLE - 4/15/2011 3:49 PM WMA GO AWAY WHY?? | ||
| Guest |
| ||
| Sorry TB but you're wrong. The chart I have in front of me has 52.8" and 58.5". You should find it a bit strange that O'Brien's fish was caught 11 years before what you're reading was published. Why wasn't O'Brien's fish included in the material that you're reading? O'Brien's fish is definately the oldest muskie John Casselman has ever aged. All this confusion should be a red flag to you. | |||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | I'm wrong? LOL! I'm wrong why...because the chart you have in front of you says something that the scientific REFERENCE (as in published in a peer-reviewed journal) states something that, as I reported, is different than what your reference says? Tell me then, where exactly was this chart you are holding published? I know you reported it came from a personal conversation with someone who interviewed Dr. Cassleman, but if it wasn't published in a peer-reviewed journal...then how would I know it? So once again, cite your source. Two can play at your game, kind sir. And how do you know it was the oldest musky he's ever aged, by the way? If he told that to you personally, then please direct me to your comment stating such in this thread, because I obviously missed it. How else am I supposed to know this for a fact? So let's have some intelligent discussion, using published data. If there's something Dr. Casselman has stated to you personally, then state it as such including the approximate date and the context of the conversation. But if it was "in an interview he did with so and so..." then show me the interview. I am going on published literature, which I would expect you to be using as well...if you have the sort of training that you are suggesting you do, with your analysis of the "average maximum length" and "ultimate maximum size" terminology. You're insisting we debate the issue using facts not yet established as factual evidence. I may be many things my friend, but I'm not clairvoyant. TB EDIT: By the way--did you ever think that he might have *upgraded* the model for Georgian Bay, since the 1999 paper? It's entirely possible that you ARE right--I am not saying that you're not. I'm simply stating that your numbers are not stated in the reference I cited, and that is all. Don't believe me though...get the reference and read it for yourself. I've given you the page number and everything, LOL. Edited by tcbetka 4/15/2011 4:39 PM | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Hard to have an intelligent discussion with this guy over the long term, Tom. He has a history of tossing unsubstantiated 'info grenades' into conversations with no end of sensationalistic tripe attached, derailing what should be a good conversation with his 'I'm right, you are wrong, no added info necessary' style. He may actually have the information...heck, I don't know...but his style in similar conversations hasn't been too forthcoming. CG/CP, login and site your sources and in the process debate with Tom reasonably or leave the conversation. WMA GO AWAY---SF, broadly intelligent and substantive submission to the subject matter. If you haven't something to add that's constructive... | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | Agree Steve, agreed. As I've stated before, I really don't mind debating an anonymous poster--as long as it's a respectful and honest debate, and not a simple attempt at character assassination. However the tough part is knowing that the first "Guest" is actually the same "Guest" that posts the second time...or the 50th time! It's too bad that the log-in system can't somehow tag these anonymous posters in such a way that they can remain anonymous in accordance with the MuskieFIRST policy of allowing anonymous posters (which I am not trying to debate here, btw), but still give some indication of uniqueness. TB | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Tom, We'd have called that out if it was multiple folks, not hard to track it back to the registered user using the IP. | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | Unless they spoof it, or use an IP proxy. I don't know how deep your forensic tools go... TB | ||
| esoxaddict |
| ||
Posts: 8782 | I think we've gone beyond what anonymous guest posters with no credible evidence to show can dispute anyway. Casselman's work is fascinating, and nobody is arguing whether or not Georgian Bay COULD produce such a fish anyway. The question is whether O'Brien's fish was one of them. I think the mold answers that question. So now we're arguing about whether or not research supports 58" as a possibility for a 30 year old fish... Even if it DOES, and O'Brien's fish WAS 30 years old, that does not mean that the fish had grown to 58" or ever would have. Even if you can prove that 58" is possible by actually CATCHING a 58" fish out of Georgian Bay, it doesn't change the O'Brien fish one bit. It either WAS or it was NOT, and all the evidence so far seems to indicate that it definitely was closer to 54" if not smaller. | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | Well when you're right, you're right. But it's the thrill of the chase...  | ||
| Larry Ramsell |
| ||
Posts: 1291 Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Here are a couple of quotes that may or may not help clarify some of this exchange: Excerpted from a letter from Dr. John Casselman to Martin Williamson: "Martin: Special thanks for sending me the picture, beautifully framed, of your muskellunge. It's nice to see such a beautiful, authentic fish, confirming much of the science that I know about muskellunge growth potential. I never have hung pictures of caught fish. This is the first one. So it will reside on my office wall and I emphasize the reason why I want to do this because I think it will contain a very interesting and fascinating story. Thanks again. The reason why the fish is special interest to me is because the measurements describe the fish exactly. In 1964, when working on the St. Lawrence River, we tagged a female muskellunge that was 54 inches long, weighing 54 pounds. It was taken a spawning time. I don't know whether I mentioned to you, but males that were caught at the same time by electrofishing and tagged were subsequently recaptured a considerable distance away adn at a larger size, one after eight years. The proportions of these two fish - yours and that one - are very similar. I very much look forward to obtaining the cleithral bone from your fish. I leave it to you, Larry Jones, and Arunas to organize. As I mentioned, I'm particularly interested in year-class. In other words, in what year the fish hatched. Large trophy muskellunge have a very interesting synchrony in these year-classes. They almost invariably come from the strong El Niño years produce strong year-classes of these largest muskellunge. Particularly important years were, in order of summer temperature, 1955, 1959, 1973, 1975, 1995, 1998. I very much look forward to an independent age assessment of your fish to see where it falls - whether on one of these. Just as an aside, I'll enclose a copy of a recent e-mail on a muskellunge that was found dead in the Ottawa River. You'll see there how important it is to have accurate age assessments and how we are still trying to get more resolution on these age assessments, because with these older fish, we are really only accurate, at the best, plus or minus one year. We are working on developing some mathematical methods of improving this. Incidentally, the 1980s was a decade of frequently El Niño years just below the extremes, and as you may know, 1983 was specially warm. Muskellunge fishing in the past couple of years has improved tremendously. Since our age assessments on younger fish are more reliable, we know the 1980s produced exceptional reproduction. This also goes hand in hand with the value of catch and release and increased size limits. Fortuitously, in the mid-1980s, Ontario size limits were increased, and about that time, organized muskellunge anglers were promoting catch and release - Muskies Inc. and Muskies Canada, for example. So not only did we have increased egg production (in fisheries we call it reproductive capactiy, or potential), but climatic conditions were favourable for the production of strong year-classes. We have some ideas how this works, but I won't elaborate on it right now. A couple of other points of interest: Mathematically, we can estimate from growth of trajectory of ultimate size. I will include a copy of a paper we published recently for Ontario. It's a little heavy on the science, buy you may find it of interest. The female muskellunge that I tagged years ago on the St. Lawrence River and your fish fall almost exactly on the the average ultimate size. The can get larger than this, but not very much. When recent size limits were discussed, mathematically we recommended that waters that produce large-bodied muskellunge go to a minimum ultimated size equal to the lower 99% confidence limits. What that means is that if females live indefinetely, 99% of them will reach this length limit. It is, without looking up exact numbers, for large-bodied populations usually in the 48-to-50-inch range, not exceeding the latter. By deciding to go to 54 inches, this means that probably half of the females will eventually never be harvested. .." In an email exchange I received that appeared here "briefly", participant 1: "Considering one gallon of water weighs 8.35 lbs, and guessing that the fish certainly could have lost around a gallon of fluids. 65lbs sounds like a reasonable weight to me at the time it was ALIVE." Participant 2: "Tyler,thats unfortunately impossible,verified myself with 4 muskies that died upon capture or release and weighed em and weighed em after freezing some weeks later and gave to biologist whom will autopsy and weigh em again months late (6). I do know one was weighed between death at capture and re -weigning from biologist it barely lost over 1 pound ,that fish bleed out from hook injuries Fish lose far less fluid than one might think,a 50 inch muskie contains far less blood then one would even think,really not much *****this occurred in 2010." LR: I might note here, that participant 2 made an additional note to me that those 4 fish and another 6 did NOT loose any length...especially not 6 inches as alluded to above by Steve R...that I find extremely at odds with anything known. 3000 fish or not, I submit there was a mismeasurement somewhere along the line. If I'm incorrect Steve, please post the proof, but bones just do not shrink that much. | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Tom: Not many folks try to use a proxy, and those who do to cause trouble end up disappointed, because it's easy to see through that and simply delete the posts and block the IP range. The same computer has sent every message but one today from Guest, and we have it to the desk if we need to. Of course, in this case there's no reason for that, but we can list the location, city, ISP, and IP range, local area code, and address in a single search. Plus, if he's ever logged in using a registered username from that IP, we identify the IP cross referenced with all logins and posts through the history of the website and every visitor who's ever logged in from that IP is displayed. An excellent tool to ferret out someone trying to use multiple registered identities or two or more people using the same computer or smart phone trying to represent as one person. Not much real anonymity, if one is a registered user and tries to snipe from an IP they've used before. | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | I had no idea you could hone in on someone to that degree. Sweet! (Note to self: Don't try to spoof an IP on MuskieFIRST...) TB Edited by tcbetka 4/15/2011 6:29 PM | ||
| fins355 |
| ||
Posts: 280 | Larry you mention...."In an email exchange I received that appeared here "briefly", participant 1: "Considering one gallon of water weighs 8.35 lbs, and guessing that the fish certainly could have lost around a gallon of fluids. 65lbs sounds like a reasonable weight to me at the time it was ALIVE." I received an interesting email from a friend that addresses that issue, as follows; These three Canadian muskies were frozen before they were weighed and were under 60 lbs. in the frozen state. Ken O'Brien.........56 lbs. (Frozen 8 days) Gene Borucki......56 lbs. 11 oz. (Frozen 3 days) Art Barefoot........59 lbs. 11 oz. (Frozen 18 days) Does this mean if they were all weighed fresh we would have the following? Ken O'Brien........65 lbs. Gene Borucki.....65 lbs. 11 oz. Art Barefoot........68 lbs. 11 oz. O'Brien's fish supposedly lost 9 lbs. from fresh to frozen. If this was true, shouldn't the same be expected of the other two fish? So, if we can rationalize O'Brien losing 9lbs. in 8 days, the Barefoot fish was frozen 2x as long. In that light, could we reasonably expect maybe a 15-18lb. weight loss while in the freezer? That would put the Art Barefoot fish live weight @ 74lbs. 11oz - 77lbs. 11oz. Hmmmm, I think not, eh? LOL!! What's fair is fair........... DougP Edited by fins355 4/15/2011 6:35 PM | ||
| Hunter4 |
| ||
Posts: 720 | Can somebody explain the comments Larry Ramsell made in an interview with Andrew Golden in the spring of 2010 at the Chicagoland musky show? Not only does he say that O'brien's fish is a world record or as close as we're going to get. But he goes on to explain why. I very confused now and I'm a little put off by the fact that WMA would not address this in their summary. I would think that the very man whose eyewitness the fish and says it measured 54" and lost 9 pounds. Yet still Mr. Ramsell says it was 65 lbs and is the world record. Wouldn't that be a conflict of interest give Mr. Ramsell comments in the video as late as twelve months ago. | ||
| Guest |
| ||
| I think that's pretty straightforward. That interview was well before the WMA compiled the report, obviously when faced with the evidence Larry changed his belief in the validity of this fish. There would be no reason for the WMA to address what he said in that 2010 interview because that was his opinion, not fact. Larry has been unwavering in what he recorded back in 1988, and therefore the only thing of true relevance (to the WMA apparently) is that he measured it at 54", and weighing it at 56lb. BTW, that is not the only thing that proves the length was only 54", hope this helps? | |||
| Hunter4 |
| ||
Posts: 720 | Guest, So twenty years later with new photo evidence he saw changed his opinion? He measured and weighed the fish personally. What possibily could he have done any different to not believe this fish was a fraud? If I was witness to a fish that you said was 50" and weighed 40 pounds but it only measured 47" and weighed 35 pounds. I would say just that and not claim otherwise wouldn't you? Just not sure why the differance in public statements. You also say this interview as conducted before they started working on the summary. I thought that the WMA has putting this summary together for the last three years? I'm inclined to believe that Larry was aware of the fact that the WMA was investigating this fish. I just don't get the change in position when you've personally weighed and measured the fish and its not anywhere near what you were told it was. I just don't understand it. | ||
| fins355 |
| ||
Posts: 280 | Hunter....I think the only answers to your questions need to come from LR. His opinions however, have no affect on the report by the WMA. That report is pretty solid and no one has been able to show any of it in error. Regardless of what LR says or has said, the weight discrepancy and measurements just do NOT add up to what was claimed. DougP | ||
| Larry Ramsell |
| ||
Posts: 1291 Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | There is nothing new here that I haven't clarified in earlier posts "somewhere" in this massive thread. Guess you'll have to search, because I'm not going to waste my time writing it again. | ||
| SV |
| ||
| Here is a pic of the fish still in the boat. Blood is from the slit throat. The girth is there even though no garden hose or even any water for that matter. [IMG]http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u314/muskiemachinery/obrein.jpg[/IMG] | |||
| Jump to page : < ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 > Now viewing page 11 [30 messages per page] |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Copyright © 2024 OutdoorsFIRST Media |