|
|
| First of all, growing up with these records does not mean a person should go to all possible lengths to support them. As you can clearly see you were supporting records you now know are bogus. In my opinion, what John Dettloff did should have been done far sooner by someone who was not bias.
As far as I'm concerned, the silhouette comparison made by Dettloff easily showed the Lawton record to be bogus and it should have been disqualified by the IGFA just as Johnson's should have been. The fact is the Lawton record is no longer recognized by the IGFA and rightly so. The real crime is that the IGFA still recognizes Johnson as their record holder even after professional photogrammetric evaluation. This along with a similar silhouette comparison makes the IGFA look even worse than the NFWFHF.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Guest,
Dettloff was interested in disqualifying the Lawton fish, and apparently has no intention of indicating anything negative at all about the Wisconsin fish; in fact he has staunchly supported the current records in place. |
|
| |
|
| Bnelson’s question : “ok so what IS the true record in the eyes of the WRMA anyway, with so many fish being discredited it's confusing what fish really did weigh what it was claimed to weigh...”
Answer: This fish--- http://www.lakelandtimes.com/main.asp?SectionID=13&SubSectionID=13&...
Rita's fish. |
|
| |
|
| Were Malo's and Ken Obriens fish shot down too? |
|
| |
|
| The Lawton fish needs to stay as NY State Record.The last thing we need now is all the big muskies being caught & released on the St. "Larry" to start being killed in the future,as each person moves up a lb or two above what ever new record size they replace it with. |
|
| |
|
| I'm well aware of what Dettloff's intentions were and I'm not trying to defend him. He clearly has shown a double standard and because of that I have lost all respect for him. However, I do feel he did a good job of showing the Lawton fish was not as large as claimed. Why do you think the IGFA no longer recognizes this fish as their record? I just wish it would have been done by some other person that wasn't bias.
What bothers me is that everything always seems to go back to the NFWFHF. At this point we should be more concerned with how the IGFA is treating the WRMA's Johnson challenge. This has NOTHING to do with Dettloff or the NFWFHF. How the IGFA treated the Johnson challenge is WORSE than how the NFWFHF treated the Spray challenge!
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 380
Location: Michigan | I personally commend WRMA, and all of its members. I think the forensics work is thorough, evaluated with today’s science, and presented very professionally in a fact based manner. I would seem that some of these “records” really could be eliminated based on photos and very basic information. Yet WRMA goes in to just unimaginable detail looking at virtually every possible perspective.
Slowly, but surely I believe WRMA is crossing off the “unobtainium” fish…
Thanks!
|
|
| |
|
| This thread is supposed to be about the IGFA's decision on whether or not to remove the Johnson fish from record status. It has nothing to do with the New York record so why is this even brought up? Also, why is anyone concerned about which fish the WRMA considers the world record?
Why don't we hear any opinions on the IGFA's decision? Why doesn't anyone try defend the reported size of Johnson's fish?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8774
| Guest - 12/2/2009 8:00 PM
[...]
Why doesn't anyone try defend the reported size of Johnson's fish?
because it was obviously bull#*#*? |
|
| |
|
| Seems funny when the Spray challenge was made MANY people attempted to defend it and these same people are not attempting to do so with Johnson. Any idea why? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20211
Location: oswego, il | Some are but the IFGA's quick refusal to consider has them not needing to.
Can anybody actually look at Johnson's mount and not see it's a fake?
Looks like there isn't a credible record keeping agency.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 720
| Todd,
Maybe we should use Larry's Muskie Inc. endorsed agency. |
|
| |
|
| Some are but they don't need to? I would think they would still have to mount some type of a defense as the IGFA certainly didn't make a case for it. What really matters here is how the majority of the people feel about the size of the fish, not how the IGFA ruled on it. How do you think people will feel about an organization that didn't even address the entire report? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20211
Location: oswego, il | Guest, about the same as people feel about the hall and the way they dealt with the WRMA report. This one went quickly, the less they discuss it, the quicker it blows over. To be honest if the hall and their friends were going to debate this to nauseum it would already be posted and discussed(derailed) on another site where they post frequently and they are not.
Dave, I agree, that is the only viable organazation at this point.
I would for grins submit the Spray report to the IFGA to see if they would change their reason as to why they do not recognize his fish.
Edited by ToddM 12/2/2009 10:21 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Todd,
The fact is the "Hall" and their friends tried desparately to prove Spray's fish was legitimate to get everyone to continue believing in it. This isn't being done with Johnson.
These things NEVER blow over. Right now very few people believe in the Spray record even though the "Hall" upheld it. NOBODY attempting to defend the size of Johnson's fish is an open admission to the public that the fish is bogus.
Regardless of the IGFA's ruling, you would think people would try to find fault with the WRMA report just for the sake of getting people to continue believing in the claimed size of Johnson's fish. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Guest - 12/3/2009 10:52 AM
Right now very few people believe in the Spray record even though the "Hall" upheld it.
I would change this statement to very few people in the core musky areas believe it. Outside of WI/MN/IL and some other smaller areas (NY, IA, KY), people really don't have a clue about the Spray deal. They see the record as a number and believe it as fact. Many of them don't even know there is a controversy. |
|
| |
|
| I think perhaps Jerry et. al. at WRMA missed the boat five years ago. What they should have done originally was perform their analysis on Art's fish FIRST, submit it to the Hall and IFGA so they came to an agreement on the method they were using. So then when they submitted their reports for Louie and Cal's fish, it would give them a firmer ground to stand upon given they may have found common ground on a previously disqualified fish by both organizations. But they didn't and now they are now 0-2. Now since there isn't any more 'record' fish to protest, what is the organizations goal, establish their own list? And if they are reviewing one fish every four years how long will that take?
I truly believe there is a 70lb. fish swimming out there waiting to be caught. It could be in WI, MN, NY or Canada. Whether the record record is 69-15, 69-11, 67-8, 66 or 65... it really doesn't matter.... In my mind, anything over 70 is "the one".
And when that crappie fisherman finally does catch that fish, We can all have a nice bonfire with these WR reports! |
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | Pointerpride102 - 12/3/2009 12:13 PM Guest - 12/3/2009 10:52 AM Right now very few people believe in the Spray record even though the "Hall" upheld it. I would change this statement to very few people in the core musky areas believe it. Outside of WI/MN/IL and some other smaller areas (NY, IA, KY ), people really don't have a clue about the Spray deal. They see the record as a number and believe it as fact. Many of them don't even know there is a controversy. Until there is pressure put on the hall or IGFA from bigger magazines and larger organizations nothing is going to change. That doesn't mean you/we can't do something. I've already e-mailed Jason Schratwieser - [email protected] I'm sure he would welcome a few hundred other e-mails!
Edited by Will Schultz 12/3/2009 11:26 AM
|
|
| |
|
| Why would the WRMA perform an analysis on a fish that wasn't even recognized as a record by either record keeping organization five years ago?
Nobody "missed the boat" here. The IGFA was presented with more than enough evidence to disqualify Johnson's fish. To say otherwise is ludicrous! |
|
| |
|
| Guest,
Each organization (Hall and IFGA) refuted the report based on whatever motives or lack of belief in the science used. I think that if they would have analzyed Art's fish in the same manner and came up with a 55"ish solution, then I think both organizations might have been a BIT more receptive to the analysis used on Louis & Cal's fish.
Its about starting from a position of strength and agreement to argue your point.
No kidding Art's fish wasn't on the books five years ago. But both organizations tossed Art's record. So if you go to that organization and say, "Why yes, we agree with your earlier decision and OUR scientific analysis SUPPORTS THAT particular decision... and oh by the way..."
If personally think that would have been a better approach and would have given the decision makers a bit more difficulty in upholding their decisions.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Buckman,
The WRMA's website clearly describes the organizational structure and goals. The link is in this thread. Keep in mind, the WRMA has not had any cooperation whatsoever from the Hayward hall, and shouldn't expect any. The Hall could care less what methods were used or their efficacy, and it appears the IGFA stand is the same on the Johnson fish for whatever reasons. The Hall (Mr. Dettloff) acted unilaterally to remove the Lawton fish, and there was no intent to work with the Muskie community or any other organization I am familiar with during or after that process. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Good points by Mr. Worrall. I hope Jerry Newman will forgive me the following, as it is getting away a bit from the original intent of his post, but since this thread has "branched out" to include other records, I thought some additional information of the whole picture would help all to understand just what has transpired behind the scenes the past year or so and is in addition to information in my "Compendium". It may be a bit disjointed in some respects as it gets in to the matters somewhat in the middle, but it contains many salient points that I thought were pertinent, ultimately, to the Johnson report and IGFA's handling of it as well as the way they have treated Lawton's record, legitimate or not. My MAIN sources of annoyment in these matters is the way BOTH record keeping organizations have handled record protests...NEITHER have been consistent!! It is my contention that they cannot have it both ways...either treat them all equally; leave them alone or make all past record catches "HISTORICAL" and leave it at that and start anew.
Following is a couple of email exchanges I had with IGFA's Jason Schratweiser (with copies to IGFA President Rob Kramer) in February 2008 and March of 2009:
Re the Lawton record:
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 15:03:34 -0500
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
CC: [email protected]
Larry,
As I said after the records committee review of this case, the burden of proof lies with the angler. Unfortunately, we don’t have enough information or the ability to query the angler to feel secure about reinstating it as a record.
Jason Schratweiser
Jason:
Forgive me for being blunt, but that is simply a cop out. The angler met his burden with Field & Stream, whom the IGFA inherited the record from. No further burden should be required just because a misguided young man with his "tourism hat" on decided to get Lawton's record disqualified (which he didn't with IGFA). It just simply isn't right. As I have said repeatedly, the IGFA has no "valid" reason to keep the Lawton record in set-aside status...NONE. You and your predessors have stated that the Dettloff investigation was not accepted. How then can you "pick and choose" this "photo" aspect to keep it in set-aside status. Either you accept his investigation or you don't (which is what has been repeatedly indicated-you don't). To continue to use this excuse, I believe, is unacceptable.
The Hall of Fame has a black eye in the muskie world for upholding the Spray record with far less evidence and no living witnesses while dismissing Lawton's record with five living witnesses at the time. They can't have it both ways.
Please don't put IGFA in a similar category by clinging to a reason that has no merit regarding the Lawton photograph. Field & Steam certified it...period. Burden of proof met. Put it back as you did with the smallmouth bass record, the right thing to do. OR at the very least, retire the Johnson record and return the AT record to IGFA certified Ken O'Brien. Johnson should have never been put in in the first place!
Sincerly,
Larry Ramsell
Gentlemen:
After I “penned” my five hour earlier response to you two, I again had trouble sleeping and a flood gate of memories came open. And since they are “related” to the Lawton scenario, I felt they should be communicated to you in order to give you a more complete understanding of what transpired in 1992.
Since in 1992 (and 2006) the IGFA conceded that the Dettloff “Lawton Investigation” was insufficient to disqualify the Lawton record, one can now only assume that the Dettloff “hysterics” of 1992, communicated by a cumbersome report, that precious few people got to see all of and be overwhelmed by, was enough for the IGFA to “use” the photographic part of to unjustly warrant the Lawton record being put in “set-aside” status and therefore avoid the obvious controversy that would follow. This is a logical conclusion, especially since Chicago Tribune outdoor writer (the late) John Husar was heavily involved at the time and fighting Dettloff and the Hall’s shenanigan’s and encouraging the IGFA not to buy into it. That “set-aside” worked and the IGFA was able to avoid the ensuing two-year fracas.
John Dettloff then, after a constant barrage of phone calls and letters to Elwood Harry and Mike Leach (he regretfully enlisted my help during my “duped by Dettloff stage”) was unable to get the IGFA to replace the Lawton record with his “hero” Louie Spray. So he did the next best thing for himself and Hayward…he got the IGFA to replace the then in place Ken O’Brien IGFA all-tackle muskellunge record (Lawton’s replacement) with another of his hero’s, Cal Johnson and his Hayward caught muskie, which subsequently became and is the current IGFA all-tackle muskellunge record.
This gentlemen, is what caused me yet another short nights fitful sleep. In retrospect, it would appear that in order to quiet the Dettloff “squeaking wheel” the IGFA replaced O’Brien’s fish with Johnson’s, despite the FACT Johnson’s fish was never certified to world record standards by Field & Stream! In fact, there was not even a F&S contest application for Johnson’s fish available for the IGFA to review, so I hardly think it met the then or now “current” IGFA rules for record criteria!
In addition, as I am sure you know, professional photogrammetric analysis commissioned by the World Record Muskie Alliance (WRMA) has shown that Johnson’s fish was over 8 inches short of claim and obvious alterations to the still existing mount are obvious to the trained eye, and in fact was pointed out to me by one of north America’s most noted muskellunge taxidermists.
I am aware that the WRMA is in process of assembling a valid protest to the IGFA against the Johnson record, so like it or not, the IGFA will become embroiled in the muskie controversy once again.
Mr. Dettloff has created a “cottage industry” of books, seminars, postcards and tourism promotion in support of Louie Spray and is currently working on a book about Cal Johnson that will further his monetary gain as a result of his “selective muskie history revisionism”! In the latter respect, the IGFA has inadvertently assisted that endeavor.
Again, please forgive my persistence, but this has been eating at me for quite some time and it is an “itch” that needs scratched. THANK YOU for your patience and understanding.
Sincerely,
Larry Ramsell,
Muskellunge Historian
Muskellunge record? (after IGFA rejected the WRMA report)
From: Larry Ramsell ([email protected])
Sent: Fri 3/13/09 3:33 PM
To: Jason (IGFA) Schratwieser ([email protected])
Cc: Rob Kramer ([email protected])
Bcc: Jerry Newman ([email protected])
Jason:
Forgive my saying so, but I believe the following two quotes from you regarding the Johnson muskellunge record puts the IGFA in a hypocritical situation:
“Our main rationale for not agreeing with your report’s results is we do not believe that you can accurately determine the weight of a three dimensional object, such as a fish, from two dimensional picture. ..”
“”The committee determined that there should not be any change to the All-Tackle muskellunge record. This was in turn ratified by our full board of trustees. In short, they did not feel that the fish’s weight could accurately be refuted with the methodology presented in the report…”
If these two quotes are indeed the case, then why was not this same logic applied to the Lawton record?
While indeed you can do as you please, please remember you are "keeping" records for the entire world and not just a "club". Personally I do not believe you can/should have it both ways. Either these quotes apply to both records or they don't.
I realize you likely are wishing to remain out of the muskellunge record "fray", but right is right. The Lawton record should be reinstated if you truly believe those quotes.
If nothing else, make the muskellunge all-tackle category vacant and place all past captures in a "historical" category. I'd set the bar for a replacement record at 60-pounds minimum. Time to do something right for the world's muskellunge anglers!
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Muskellunge Historian
Edited by Larry Ramsell 12/3/2009 1:43 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Steve,
I'm fully aware of WRMA and the record controversies... probably moreso than I'd like to admit :).
I was just stating that if I (emphasis on I) was to take on an endeavor like WRMA, I would have taken a different tack is all. And one of those things would have been to test my method on the previously discredited record.
But when it is all boiled down, this is a pretty ridiculous argument. Whether the record is 69-15, or 69-11 (FOUR OUNCES). Or 69-11 or 67-8 (THRITY FIVE OUNCES). Or 67-8 or 65 (THIRTY TWO OUNCES)... I mean come'on, we are talking 3/4/5 pounds here. Thats one meal for a musky of that category.
To me the magic number is 70Lbs. Thats the sound barrier, four minute mile what have you for this sport. Anything in the 60's is just thrown into the mess (as if a 60lb fish is a drop in the bucket  ). 70lbs. is unique... of course unless you believe the Malo fish.
But in hindsight, I was however looking for a bit more analysis of the JOHNSON MOUNT in addition to the photos. I mean, that is ultimately the elephant in the room (or musky in the bar!). Okay fine, you say the scientific analysis of the photo supports a 50" (possibly 40lb.) fish. Thats great. But what about the mount. Does the photo analysis automatically prove that the fish in the bar is fake? I don't know. Perhaps they are different fish, perhaps not. Is the head on the mount of that 60" fish in the Moccassin bar that from a 40lb. fish or is it proportional to a 60" fish? I know all the theories of stretching skin, dropping sides, moving fins et. al., so save your breath there. But if the size of the fish's jaws/head/mouth are somewhat proportional to the size of the fish, can't we at least do an anlaysis of the mount?
I could really care less if that fish was caught or not, to me the intriguing part of the story is IF fish of that size are swimming around munching on little fishies.
|
|
| |
|
| And just for the record, I support Larry's opinion that all records should be treated equally. Historic musky catches should have been left as they were, apart of our history, the musky mystique if you will.
Just make it 69-15 and give the guy the gold medal if they crack 70. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 720
| Steve, Larry and Jerry
I have three questions:
1. What is the size of the worlds largest musky?
2. Who caught it?
3. Finally, where was it caught?
I read somewhere in this post that Jerry Newman wrote "We may not know which one is the actual record, but we certainly know which one it is not". I truly don't believe that statement as a whole. I think and if I'm wrong I apologize each of you three have a strong personnal feeling as whose fish should be the world record holder. I've personally asked this question to two of the three of you and will be real curious to see if your answers have changed.
Edited by Hunter4 12/3/2009 2:05 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Far as I can remember, you haven't asked me, and if I did have any opinion it would be irrelevant any way. I don't have a candidate in mind at this time and none of the other folks involved in the WRMA have expressed any ideas to me on that front...the goal of getting a true bead on the facts surrounding length, girth, and weight claims for the current records had to be accomplished to settle any possible discrepancies positive or negative, but I do personally feel the legitimate World Record will be in the 60 pound class when and if all the dust settles.
Most importantly, I do not feel it has ever been 'up to' (or the intent of) the WRMA to 'select' a WR, that responsibility belongs to (as it should) the Hall and the IGFA. I sincerely hope both will eventually take that responsibility seriously. |
|
| |
|
| "Most importantly, I do not feel it has ever been 'up to' (or the intent of) the WRMA to 'select' a WR, that responsibility belongs to (as it should) the Hall and the IGFA. I sincerely hope both will eventually take that responsibility seriously."
Then the matter is settled right, 69-11 and 67-8? They've both made their decision, whether we agree or not, correct?
I guess my main question with WRMA is this. Do they accept Dettloff's anlaysis that all of Art and Ruth's catchs that fell in the 65-69lb. range were falsified? If the verification process of WRMA ends at O'brien, then I think its an incomplete process on their part. Outside of Art's 69-15 fish, what of Art's 65-13 and maybe more importantly Ruth's 68-5, both bigger than Ken's fish? I just find it a bit odd that WRMA, who seem to hold their world record analysis to a higher standard than Detloff's, appear to accept his analysis on three fish that could very well be the record (the aforementioned fish attributed to Art & Ruth).
Larry has done quite a bit of research on the 69-15 fish, and has numerous photo's, I would think that one would be a slam dunk for them to review.
JMHO... FWIW |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | Larry, I'm glad you mentioned your "duped by Dettloff" phase, as I recall you were very proactive in dismissing Eli Singer's research on the hoax. I only hope Mr. Dettloff and Mr. Schratwieser will change their minds as well (I doubt Dettloff will).
Now I'd like to see a Singer vs. Ramsell debate on the Johnson fish. I think it should be you who changes Eli's mind on that one! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 720
| Thanks Steve,
Your right you and I have never talked about this. I do appreciate your answer. I'm not really looking to pin anyone down here. I just was curious to hear your opinion on the matter. As well as Jerry's and Larry's. I just think it would be real cool to get the three of "youse" take on the subject again. |
|
| |
|
| BuckMan, you state "I just find it a bit odd that WRMA, who seem to hold their world record analysis to a higher standard than Detloff's" Are you suggesting the Detloff's photographic analysis was completed to as high a standard as the WRMA photogrammetric analysis? |
|
| |
