|
|
Posts: 2112
Location: The Sportsman, home, or out on the water | I'm with Bytor, Who cares????
If this thing goes to a court of law, what have we become? Musky fishing is the fastest growing niche in the sport of fishing. Doubt it? look how many of us "basement guys" are out there,as well as custom painters. look how many friends you have introduced to the sport in the last 5 years that are hooked into this sickness now. If this does go to court, this industry will implode in the next ten years. Some of you are saying "fine, less competition on the water". But, without the market to drive it, we would not have baits such as the Hellhound and DDD, Molly's, Mantas, Phantoms, Bulldawgs, etc, etc, etc, and other new bait options being developed every freakin day. For the love of all that is musky and holy, just fish for the shear enjoyment of topping your personal best! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1430
Location: Eastern Ontario | Ok how come none of the 28 believer posted yet? I would really want to see who other then Fenner believe the fish was remotely close to that big. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| I am always amazed at the number of fisherman that can get beer swillin mean over this question!
I used to wonder about "how big" a lot when I was a young kid and new to musky fishing. I started to think about "how many" later. Now I am at the stage where I untie the rope go cast, enjoy it, am thankful for it and the only question now is more in the neighborhood of "how long" will I have the opportuntiy?
Some of you guys have waaaaay toooo much free time on your hands!  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | It's winter, that's for sure. If I was to express my opinion, what bothers me most isn't the length or assumed overall size, it's the fact that I've now seen two fish that actually have 30" girth measures, and they most certainly ARE bigger fish, plain and simple. That fish has a 25 or 26" girth, or Louie is 3 1/2' wide. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 238
| While I tend to side with the innuendo remarks that Louis fish may not appear to be as fat as documented, the burdon of proof lies on the critics. Just because the majority of muskie people agree it "looks" smaller does not "prove" that it is smaller. It doesn't prove it ISN'T, either. (I would guess that the majority of people agree that O.J. is guilty, but then why is he still walking around a free man.) If it isn't as fat or as long as the official documents show, it needs to be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is not. The WRMA made its first attempt, but the NFWFHoF clearly points out that those WRMA test results are inconclusive at best because of the multiple assumptions used to calculate the overall length. The hall also shows a simple same plane, direct scaling technique anyone can perform and those results show the over-all length to be the same as documented. The hall didn't seem to have a technique to determine the girth. The credibility of this same plane, direct scaling technique is further confirmed using a control photo of a fish of known size. The hall pts out that the WRMA results failed to use a control photo to prove their technique. I spoke with John Dettloff at the Chicago muskie show. While he certainly supports the documented record, he did tell me that if unquestionable proof is presented he is willing to accept it. So far, though, it seems like a gut feeling that the fish just doesn't seem as large as claimed is all the critics have to go on.
Thx for participating in this poll.
D2Bucktail |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20217
Location: oswego, il | FSF, I have a reason to be beer swillin mean over it but I won't post it here. Bad stuff.
Medford angler, I can say his fish don't look as big as claimed, non of his pictures of any of his record fish look as big as they claimed to be. That goes for cal johnson's fish to, yet we see all the time picture of giant muskies that look as big as the people claim them to be. But not one of spray's fish, NOT ONE! From start to finish, everything involved reads like a soap oprah to this very day. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2753
Location: Mauston, Wisconsin | ToddM- You've obviously been beer swillin my friend! Cal's fish is still hanging in Hayward and it's very hard to dispute the size- maybe the weight. Actually I've seen two fish bigger than Cal's. But I wonder what Cal thought of Louie's fish???
Have fun!
Al
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 20217
Location: oswego, il | Al, I believe you have seen two fish bigger than the mount. I believe you have seen many fish bigger than that fish before it was mounted. |
|
| |
|
| Roughly one out of every 5 people think this record is legit! How many times did Detloff vote and how many of you people are drinking his Kool-Aid? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2753
Location: Mauston, Wisconsin | Todd- I think it's probably pretty valid to consider Cal's fish in perspective to Louie's? No my friend I wasn't drinking when I saw either of those two beast's in Canada, and each was in a different lake. When I looked at Cal's fish I actually got up on a barstool so I could view the top of the fish, it's definitely got the head to support the "shoulders" of the mount. It's pretty hard to fake the head.
It would seem to me that some smart news reporter would have interviewed Cal on his thoughts, or even some of the other legendary muskie fisherman of that time. Anyone out there have any info in that regard? Maybe we'll never really know- It's kind of like my view on religion, it's your right to believe what you want to believe and I also believe it's eveyone's inalienable right to be stupid! So let's just go fishin!
Have fun
Al |
|
| |
|
Posts: 59
Location: WI | yes |
|
| |
|
Posts: 384
Location: Eagle River, Alaska | Of course it was that big.....now let's move on to my well documented 10 lbs bluegill.........................NOT!!
Hey, Cal's fish would be very much more easily believed if the mount was allowed to be examined by a group of top notch taxidermists...could easily put any thoughts of exaggerated size to rest. But I understand whoever owns this won't allow it....can't understand why except maybe he knows it ain't quite right? At least something tangible is left of Cal's fish.....Louie was smart to dispose of any physical evidence.
Brian |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20217
Location: oswego, il | Al, I look at Cal's fish and see something way different. I think the head looks too small for the size of the fish. The back ramps up behind the head and comes back down at a very diverse angle at the dorsal. The dorsal to the tail seems short in comparison to it's length. That's alot of girth to be had by a july 24 fish and have it throughout most of it's body is yet even more amazing. If that fish were actually legit, it could possibly have a 40+" girth as a pre-spawn fish! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2894
Location: Yahara River Chain | I just read a article by Dean Bortz in Wisconsin Outdoors News. He did an interview with the last one living among those who had an affidavit on file at the Hall of Fame about Spray's fish. His name is Leonard Dorazio (brother of Chip guide Dave), he remembers seeing the fish when it was brought in that night. Hanging on the oar and its tail just on the ground, it was as tall as he was. He remembers standing right next to it and looking it straight into the eye of the muskie. At the time he was 14 years old and he was about 5'1" or 5'2" (and in inches that is 61 or 62") and about 110 pounds, a skinny kid. He said that fish was bigger around than he was and he thought his waist size was about 26" at that time. Now at 70, he remembers also seeing the mounts of both Cal Johnson' 67# & Art Ross' 55# and in both cases he felt the Spray fish looked bigger.
An eye witness still remembers that fish. Who wants to be the first to tell him that he didn't see it right? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 178
| Hey Steve, I am offering no personal opinion regarding the actual size of the Spray fish, but I would like to present a thought about girth that I don't recall seeing anywhere else. In all the photos I've seen, Spray's musky appears in only two dimensions -- length (snout to tail) and depth (top of back to bottom of belly). We cannot see the WIDTH (thickness) of the fish. It seems that everyone is assuming a constant relationship exists between body depth and body width for all muskies. I agree that body depth is highly correlated with body width in most fish. But as a biologist who has handled a over a thousand muskies and tens of thousands of other fish, I can tell you that occasionally we encounter a unique individual that is extraordinarily WIDE, or thick across the back. Such fish are not necessarily deeper-bodied than their cohorts, just wider. Spray's fish may not have been as deep-bodied as some of the big fish photographed in recent times, but if it was extraordinarily wide, it may have had greater girth than the two-dimensional photos would allow us to detect visually. Ask me sometime to show you the photo of a 16.25-inch smallmouth bass my wife caught last summer that weighed 3 pounds, 4 ounces. That fish weighed a full pound more than most healthy 16-inch bass. It was almost grotesque. It had a fairly deep body, but it's most extraordinary characteristic was its width, which cannot be appreciated simply by examining the photo. Such real-world anomalies make it difficult for me to judge the actual girth or weight of any fish that appears in only two dimensions in a photograph.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2753
Location: Mauston, Wisconsin | Todd- The body shape of muskies I've seen has been pretty variable, i.e., given the the local environment, time of year, etc, etc.. If Cal's fish had been caught in October-November, it could have looked like this one. It also could have weighed more. I said "could have".
http://www.musky.ca/ontario-record-muskie-ontario-record-musky.htm
My only comparison relative Cal's fish, is it's relative size too two wild specimens that I have personally observed close up, i.e., less than 6' away. Both fish were longer, and one had a much wider head with bigger shoulders. A WR candidate? I think so, but that's just my opinion. Now I just need to get her to bite a F%$#*g lure!
The mystery continue's - do I believe? I think that all three are pretty nice fish. Fifty years ago a garden hose, a funnel and a bag of double "O" buckshot might have helped out the weight a bit. But I don't think I can prove that, nor can anyone else, i.e., all the relevent parties are pushing up daisy's.
heck- Just look at yourself, why don't you look like one of these guy's? They can't be genetically much different than you? Or is that you in the middle?
So let's just go fishin!
Have fun
Al
Attachments
----------------
 ToddM.jpg (3KB - 178 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
| Muskie nut, based on the logic of your post the Lawton fish should never have been disquailified. There were FOUR living witnesses of Lawtons fish at the time of that "investigation." Why then should Louie be any more sacred? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2894
Location: Yahara River Chain | Just telling you what I read. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| Dave N - 1/27/2006 10:51 PM
Hey Steve, I am offering no personal opinion regarding the actual size of the Spray fish, but I would like to present a thought about girth that I don't recall seeing anywhere else. In all the photos I've seen, Spray's musky appears in only two dimensions -- length (snout to tail) and depth (top of back to bottom of belly). We cannot see the WIDTH (thickness) of the fish. It seems that everyone is assuming a constant relationship exists between body depth and body width for all muskies. I agree that body depth is highly correlated with body width in most fish. But as a biologist who has handled a over a thousand muskies and tens of thousands of other fish, I can tell you that occasionally we encounter a unique individual that is extraordinarily WIDE, or thick across the back. Such fish are not necessarily deeper-bodied than their cohorts, just wider. Spray's fish may not have been as deep-bodied as some of the big fish photographed in recent times, but if it was extraordinarily wide, it may have had greater girth than the two-dimensional photos would allow us to detect visually. Ask me sometime to show you the photo of a 16.25-inch smallmouth bass my wife caught last summer that weighed 3 pounds, 4 ounces. That fish weighed a full pound more than most healthy 16-inch bass. It was almost grotesque. It had a fairly deep body, but it's most extraordinary characteristic was its width, which cannot be appreciated simply by examining the photo. Such real-world anomalies make it difficult for me to judge the actual girth or weight of any fish that appears in only two dimensions in a photograph.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward
This is a good point and one that seems to get missed. It is almost typical for southern fish to carry more weight across the shoulders than I normally see on northern musky and at times to view them from the sides is missleading, even to the point they appear skinny when actually in quite good condition, fat wise. I guess I am of the opinion that if the length fits, you must acquit.
I am amazed at the number of lectures and pronouncements being handed out on the boards, by people that have dubious if any qualifications to make the type of claims they are making. I feel I have a good math and science education, but for me to deal with the arguments presented by the WRMA "experts" in any critical manner would require me to seek further education in math, physics, and perhaps optics. All this information was presented on the basis that they would accept the hall's ruling. The hall went out and got some different "experts" that pointed out flaws in the WRMA evidence gathering and techniques, and it seems to me like their rebuttal or at least their argument holds water also(and it is a darn lot more technical than what I can deal with on both sides, and I don't judge it to be worth my time to try and raise myself to the level of understanding it). If the length is correct, I don't think there remains a basis to go forward at that point, because of the further issues pointed out about weight and girth being difficult to optically determine.
The Hall is accused of bias but can that be ANY LESS TRUE of the WRMA? The WRMA had bias going in, and it was VERY clear cut that they were out to find experts to DISPROVE THE RECORD, not just do an inquiry. Anybody want to argue that? You don't investigate, expending time and money, a record that you firmly believe in. Their lack of neutrality on the issue is/was extremely clear. I don't mind either viewpoint and feel that the hall should be investigating, and trying to refute challenges to any well documented record, verified by affidavits, to make sure that the challenge evidence was scientifically and logically sound. Louie's dead and cannot bring forth additional proof at this time, and although he was a character of some imagination, he still deserves his day and court and imo if his record is discarded it must be done without doubt. So I will accept the halls ruling and believe that the Chip produced the real world record.
Now someone will want to go into the evidence and lecture me on how a 70 lb fish cannot exist in such and such, blah blah blah. I won't even entertain the argument. I was willing to accept the Lawton Fish, the Johnson fish, whatever fish there was, because they met the evidence requirements of the day. If there is further work done and the Spray fish gets dq'd that is fine too. I will accept that becasue I am not worried about which fish is actually the record. How does that affect my next fishing trip? My bait selection, or my next cast? Doesn't. I have a lot more confidence that there are big fish of such proportion swimming around, than I do that the "scientists" weighing in on the discussion could help me choose the best bait for tomorrow.
I am curious as to how some people have become as involved and somewhat obsessed with this as they evidently have. Regardless of which fish remains on top, there has been a tremendous amount of publicity for what in some respects is a dull sport(from an editors point of view) with a limited audience. That is probably good for all of us. I cannot see that changing the record has any VALUE to the sport of musky fishing. I may not have thought it out deeply, but it looks to me that an outsider would perceive an investigation had taken place and that the record was left in, and insiders now one more thing to talk about while the fish aint biting. Good stuff. I don't know if not caring about the actual record too much makes me a heretic or what but for now, get me one of dem tee shirts with a picture of Louie and the WORLD RECORD MUSKIE and I'll wear it until it is rags! |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | You sir, are a scholar.
I have been singing that song for a couple weeks now, largely to deaf ears. Very nice post.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 1/29/2006 6:45 AM
|
|
| |
|
| "The Hall is accused of bias but can that be ANY LESS TRUE of the WRMA? The WRMA had bias going in, and it was VERY clear cut that they were out to find experts to DISPROVE THE RECORD, not just do an inquiry. Anybody want to argue that?"
Sure I'll argue that point with you no problem.
The Hall is the judge, jury and the defense all rolled into one that's the problem.
Imagine that the WRMA walks into a courtroom as a prosecuting attorney, there sits a nonbiased jury, Louie and his defense lawyer John Detloff are sitting there too. Now John Dettloff walks up to the judges chair sits down and asks for your case file. Then dismisses the jury and brings in 9 "friends" of Louie in place of the nonbiased jury, the Halls governing board. You object, the judge (Detloff) says overruled and walks back to the defense table and begins to pick at minor issues. You have an expert witnesses but he doesn't even have to refute your expert witness. No, instead he patches together some really shaky "prove" and calls your peer reviewed experts work "inconclusive". You can't even object because you are not allow to speak. You watch in horror as he continues to pound away at Louie's friends, because they really don't really want to acquit him knowing he is guilty. Once Detloff has convinced Louie's friends that he should be acquitted, he decides he doesn't need to vote after all to keep things fair. You want to argue that you wouldn't have a problem with that? Not satisfied yet? What if far less is evidence was used to remove the Lawton record by this same judge with far less evidence than you presented, then maybe you just might have a problem?
If I said what I really felt here this post would be pulled in a second! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | FSF,
Imagine you are a baseball player. You are looking to break the record for the longest home run. The record, set in 1951, is 700 feet in New york. The second in line is 650 feet. Some one in the town the 650' record is set in decides to disprove the the New york record and gets that done while leaving the lore and story of the other 650' record unquestioned.
Well, goodness, did I mention that fella owned a motel RIGHT next to the ball park where the 650' homer was established, and is a top officer in the HOME RUN HALL OF FAME defending that 650' mark? The fella seems to know what he's talking about, he published a book he sells, did seminars for charge, and even took a few cool pictures and says the slugger who hit the 650 also hit a 625 and a 610, all in that ball park and all in a short timeframe and used a bat no one has ever seen since. No living or dead slugger has come even remotely close to those homers then or in the following 55 years. The ball was in a case, and was preserved on the very ground it was sitting on when the tape was laid to it, but shame upon shame, it burned up in a fire.
Since that time, NO SLUGGER. DESPITE STEROIDS AND THE TREMENDOUS GROWTH OF THE SPORT INTO UNSPOILED BALL PARKS WHERE THE PITCHERS THROW SLOW CURVES HIGH AND DEAD CENTER OVER THE PLATE, in parks unquestionably untainted and within all upper confidence levels of the fabled 650' Homer has come even CLOSE. There's affidavits signed by the sluggers wife who's the tiny town notary and the post master of the tiny town (who's of course beyond reproach, seeing he's a Federal Government Employee, and all) in which our slugger lived and pictures of that ball laying on the ground (now it sure looks to me to be 400' from the wall, which is in the picture too, but the wall, if you take that picture's perspective and angle might be further away like the hole in that famous Hole In One shot back in '92)and a notation that it lays 650' from home plate, and didn't bounce dammit, either. Our tiny town slugger is a known 'rascal', but that's OK, he's obviously not done what that dastardly slugger in New york did and wildly stretched the length of his homer, and the very hometown folks who got the New York homer tossed out insist it's so and invite you to the ball park in their town, just buy a ticket and SEE for YOURSELF, and since they ARE the official, self appointed record keepers, well now, it's just simply to be so.
Now I'm a sort of amateur slugger, you see. I can hit the ball, and hit it long. I want to know where the freaking FENCE is, and all this bull, legend, lore, and story is distorting that measure. I may NEVER know what the true mark is, so what am I or possibly someone one hell of alot more serious about this than I) to do? NO ONE HAS EVEN COME CLOSE to hitting a 650' homer since, in fact 500' seems the mark to beat even in the pristine parks with the perfect carry in Canada. The leading authority in the sport says not one single ball park in Canada OR the US will put out a 650' homer for awhile, they just don't have the 'air' yet, but that 'air' if it's going to be from anywhere, should be the very park the original disproved 700' homer came from. Watch the video.
There you have it, in analogy form.
DO I care? No. I have said several times I feel the original attack on the New York Homer was a shame; back then Dilinger, and Billy the Kid, and Robin Hood, and all that was the rage. Lore and story, dress the truth and announce ahead of time your conquest, why that was the bomb. Watch Batman. Do you accept a single bit of that very fun story as fact??? But since the Hayward Ball Park folks did what they did, it's now Hayward's turn in the barrel. They don't like that focus, and they reacted badly to it. Not that the focus was perfect either, but WHOA< 31"???????? IMHO, no, that's a 750' home run. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 238
| Steve, super writing job on your analogy - very entertaining read! You didn't seem to leave out any details from the nay-sayer's pt of view. I didn't really notice anything about the details found in the hall's review (www.freshwater-fishing.org/spray) of the WRMA's report (www. worldrecordmuskiealliance.com). According to the hall's review, the WRMA's own experts told the hall of fame that the WRMA-supported tests were forced to use assumptions in their computer-driven software analysis. And assumed input can only lead to inconclusive results so the hall's response seems to be the only appropriate one under these circumstances. Plus, the hall goes on to show a very simple same-plane, direct-scaling experiement with results from tests that were performed by noted mathematical professionals confirming the reported length of the spray fish. High school math techniques can be used by anyone to produce the same results. Further, the hall asked these same experts to test this technique by using a control photo (with a fish of known size) and the results from those tests seem to prove the validity of the test. The report shows further tests to to prove the validity of the technique they used. Maybe spray's fish was falsified, maybe not, but so far no concrete proof has been presented to overturn the record. On the Lawton fish. I've read some docs on the analysis and when a 2nd photo of Lawton's reported 69#15oz fish was found with a clear indication that the fish was 48#, that's pretty hard to ignore. I really did enjoy your writing, Steve - you have a gift! 
D2Bucktail |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Great post Steve. My take on Lawton:
Lawton's near 70 pound muskie record was DQ'd, but in hind sight, in my opinion after reviewing that file recently, should NOT have been tossed, using current Hall criteria!! More on this later (do not misintrepret this to mean I think Lawton's fish was legit, but we just do NOT know for sure!). Other of the Lawton's fish too were discredited, based soley on "amateur" photo analysis, with no one "defending" as was obviously done erronously with the Spray musky.
I don't believe anyone with common sense believes Spray's muskie was a big as claimed, and further proof will be evident when the WRMA rebuttal to the Hall report is made public, which will clarify that. The Hall blew it, and the rebuttal will PROVE it! Stay tuned.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
|
|
| |
|
| If you read the hall's report you will see they had no "expert" comment directly on the DCM report, not one. What you did have was John Detloff and or Scott Allen commenting on a true experts (someone who job it is to make measurements off of photos) peer reviewed report with one liners (peer review means another expert in that field put his stamp of approval on it). You can agree with whoever you want to on that issue, I know where I'd put my money.
Folks, Larry is so right here. This thing the hall did is so laughable, this point cannot be overstated. I'm afraid John Detloff and company are playing with fire with the cover-up this time around.  |
|
| |
|
| d2bucktail, how did John Detloff know *who* wrote 48 pounds on the back of that Lawton photo? I would question *who* might have wrote that first in light of what is going on now.
Let's say you were Lawton and you faked that record in 1957, would you then try to pass a different picture of that same fish off as something 20lbs lighter? Wait a second, guess that's what Spray did too, right? Why shouldn't the same rules apply to Spray as apply to Lawton as Larry said. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| Sworrall, no, I don't buy the analogy because we know that some fish have been caught within one more big meal of the record, and in fact, hey, the Malo fish is always out there, freakish though it may be. So imo that length home run is possible, and dimmned if I don't actually believe in it.
There is kind of an argument here with the previous record holders, stating #1 lied, #2 lied, and we know that #3 is a liar so he MUST HAVE LIED IN THIS CASE also. Not sure that is sound logic, but emotionally I am sure that is a justifying point of view.
If you have further expert analysis that can refute the Hall's length question, then I think it should be brought forth. Great. If they feel it is legit they should turn over the record, and you guys can start tearing apart the next dead record holder's claim, and I would be curious as to which fish is going to satisfy the WRMA? Obviously there is one down the line you guys have reached a consensus on, which one is it?
As for your "common sense" remark Larry, this is just the type of statement that gets you in trouble with your other little group, might I call it "assumption of an unproven thesis as fact"? Consider that most of the musky fishing population does not have this first and foremost on their plate, and that for years it was generally accepted by many people with common sense that these records were/are legit. Now since YOUR COMMITTEE comes forth with their effort to disprove this, YOUR COMMITTEE must be assumed free of error(right, anybody with common sense would agree with you)? We must also assume that the Hall's group of analysts are untrustworthy and using bad science? Is that really common sense, and am I bereft of common sense to say, hey if you can't prove it beyond a doubt, let's drop it? C'mon, give me at least a little credit for critical thinking ability here, instead of making these blanket ------- statements, concerning the intellect and reasoning ability of those who might not see it exactly the way you do.
All in all, I still rate this way down the scale in terms of things I find important in musky fishing. I am guessing that MOST musky anglers would have some but only passing interest in where the record actually ends up. I still personally have trouble calling eye witnesses either dupes, co conspirators, or liars, which is in effect what this attack does with all the affidavit signers.
Common sense tells me that most serious fisherman, and I have no doubt there were some in the bar that night, most serious fisherman when confronted with a fish this size would immediately put the tape to it, not once but twice. That to me would have been the first verifiable thing if the fish showed up in a bar. If that length is possibly correct, I believe!
(btw, I have expended almost all my energy I am willing to devote to this argument so don't expect any continuing juice from me on this question, my personal view after thinking about the whole thing is that every pound that comes off the record tears a little bit of the mystique away from the sport, and that the records probably should have been left intact and closed at the end of the century. I also believe that there should be a window of time available for questioning ANY fishing record, after which the books are closed. The effort to disprove records has caused a certain skepticism to arise involving all large fish, though probably present from the time of cave men, I think it is worse now. I even hear people questioning the Largemouth record, which from what I can tell is one of the most legitimate out there, and in recent times has nearly been broken. Fishing behaviour is built at least in part on a spiritual, mystic and faith based area of the soul and the constant attempt to deride and disprove previous monsters, attacks that part of what makes fishing good for me.)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | FSF,
You'll find I stand closer to your view than far away, and wish ALL the records had been left alone. Since Pandora opened the thing, it'll have to go the distance now. We may NEVER know the 'truth', because truth lands squarely in perspective, and perspective originates in opinion, which originates from information provided to each individual. Some folks still believe the validity of the old Westerns, too. The Native Americans might just have a different point of view. |
|
| |
|
| FSF,
So you agree with Larry that the Lawton record should be reinstated then? Should it have been grandfathered in too? The only thing that you are saying is (in effect) what John Detloff did to GET LOUIE'S fish as the #1, is it so wrong that the WRMA is attempting to finish a job that he started?
Do you really think the FWFHoF treated the WRMA report without bias toward Louie? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | FSF is correct. I based my "common sense" comment on what I currently know that the general public doesn't...yet. But soon will. I retract my "common sense" comment until the public is completely up to speed on the FACTS. Stay tuned! The "fat lady" is still enjoying her bon-bons, but the box is getting empty.
Hind sight is 20-20. The Hall should have never gotten into the disqualification of records established by others. The Lawton fish was their first, and in hind sight, it was an incorrect thing to do. Some things now evident were overlooked at the time. I personally apologize to the Lawton family and the good people of New York and the St. Lawrence River for any part, however small, that I may have played in that decision...by the FULL Hall World Board of Advisory Governors.
By the way, the IGFA NEVER did "disqualify" the Lawton fish! I was going to save this for later in my full review of the Lawton situation, but felt this should come out now. Following is a few quotes from a NY outdoor writer written in 1992:
"The International Game Fish Association left the door open Friday, for the Clayton Chamber of Commerce and its Muskie Hall of Fame (not to be confused with the National Fresh Water Fishing Hall of Fame...LR) directors to prove that the recently dethroned Art Lawton muskellunge actually existed. 'Prove it, hinted an IGFA director, and the world muskie record will be back on the historic St. Lawrence River'...'Because of the extensive research that went into disclaiming Lawton's catch, the IGFA retired the record. 'It reaised some serious questions,' Leech said (now IGFA President Michael Leech...LR), and the way we operate, if there's the slightest doubt that a record was falsified, we'll toss it out. We don't want those records on the books. IN THIS CASE, WE'RE JUST RETIRING IT UNTIL THE DUST SETTLES'
(caps mine...LR)...'Sometime later this winter we may dig into the files from Field & Stream and see what's in the muskie folders,' Leech said...'These are discrepancies that get fish tossed out of contention,' Leech said. 'We're in no position to say the fish (Lawton's) never existed, we just need more proof..."
For what it is worth for those who care.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell |
|
| |
