|
|
Posts: 227
Location: Maple Grove | sworrall - 3/28/2010 8:47 AM
Jim posts here every once in awhile, and visits often. By the way, I was addressing jaycbs74.
I wasn't addressing you Steve and I meant this thread specifically. Looks like the response I was addressing was removed.
Joe Olstadt
Edited by WI_guy_turnedMudDuck 3/28/2010 3:11 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| Plunker - 3/26/2010 2:11 PM
You guys are missing the point as to WHY Saric wants the O'Brien fish investigated. It is not to disprove how heavy it is, but to prove how accurate photogammetry is against a fish that is not disputed. That in turn can give us a baseline result for comparing disputed fish.
In the end I just don't know if I care that much about this stuff anymore. I used to think the WR was fairly important, but as time goes on it really does not turn my crank anymore. I would not leap to any conclusions about the O'brien fish. Who claims that fish is undisputed?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2865
Location: Brookfield, WI | WI_guy_turnedMudDuck - 3/28/2010 3:08 PM
I wasn't addressing you Steve and I meant this thread specifically. Looks like the response I was addressing was removed.
Joe Olstadt
That was my post. It was a little joke that had several layers. I didn't think it was too offensive, assuming Jim Saric has a sense of humor, but since Slamr got mentioned in Saric's magazine, I'm sure he wanted to make sure Jim wasn't offended. Understandable, since they've never allowed any bashing of this site, or Slamr's moderating, over on MH.
Kevin |
|
| |
|
Posts: 272
| I'm just surprised that the comment in the editor piece is (to use a valley girl phrase) sooooo last season.
This is going on, what, 4 or 5 years ago now that this topic started and the WRMA began? I realize alot of stuff has come to light since then, but it was quite a while ago that the Hall basically said, "Yeah, uhhh, no."
I'm to the point now, and I think alot of people are too, where it's all kind of falls into the "who cares" category, except maybe when we're bored at work and see a thread to click on.
-Eric |
|
| |
|
| Being tired of the squabbling is one thing but the Johnson record is actually a current issue Eric. If you were keeping abreast of it you would understand that both Johnson and Spray are intertwined and with Johnson being recently debunked the dynamics have changed. Whatever meager following the Hall had in the musky community after Spray is now completely lost. IMHO, that is why Jim Saric wrote about it and is now willing to call them historical records once the WRMA finds a legitimate record.
As an aside (if history teaches us anything) a cover up like this will eventually unravel, it's just a matter of time. The Hall of Fame can is fighting a fight they are eventually going to lose (and basically already have lost). I agree with Jim that these records should be removed from serious recognition (call them whatever you like) and we deserve a better world record.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 272
| Alright.
I'm almost definitely uninformed on the topic. But I think the "why," is I feel like I already know what happened. Its a Yes/No stalemate. I don't see that changing. So its dropped off the radar for me because I'm no longer interested in an outcome I already know.
My point is, that as a former newspaper man, the old saying in the media is to 'strike while the iron is hot.' The editor's section, letter to the editor, forum, whatever each respective form of media calls it, is reserved for the most current "stuff."
To use another old newspaper phrase, the "Hey Martha, come look at this" factor, is just not up there that high on this anymore. For me.
I agree with what Jim said in his piece.
-Eric
|
|
| |
|
| Eric you are right about Spray, but you seem to have missed the relevance with Johnson and Spray. Like I said, the dynamics of changed wherein Jim was willing to "respect the Hall of Fame's decision" with Spray but now wants to call both of them "historical records" with the debunking of Johnson. Like somebody else said, when E.F. Hutton speaks, IMHO "historical" is just a nice way for him to say "phony".
Perhaps the news is that Musky Hunter has changed their alliance with the Hall of Fame and is no longer willing to respect their decision? Either way, I still think it's very relative to many of us fishing Green Bay (now with Johnson gone) that the WI state record belongs just north of 50lb. |
|
| |
|
| My problem with Jim's article is he says we DESERVE a defensible world record that is not suspect and yet he won't commit to anything. The WRMA and everyone else DESERVES to know his, and Musky Hunter Magazines OFFICIAL POSITION on the current records if the photogrammetry on O'Brien's fish proves satisfactory to them. We don't want to hear what they MIGHT do, we want to know what they WILL do.
Maybe if Jim would be kind enough to gives us a response the WRMA may have the photogrammetry performed on the O'Brien fish like he wanted. Otherwise it would seem to be a waste of money.
The support of Musky Hunter Magazine is crucial if we are ever to have a defensible world record. If a defensible world record is what Jim truly wants he needs to speak up.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 458
| I think the best thing would be for someone to just go break the record and put this to bed! So go break the record. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1901
Location: MN | Problem is when I break the record (yeah right) it won't count 'cause I'll let her swim. I sort of see your logic GW in terms of support from MHM, but not sure they are the proper authority no matter what Jim believes. Just because they would voice their opinion one way or the other, is that enough to make another body fight the fight again? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 12
| Seems like there's lots of interest in that editorial. Thank you for that. I think most people appear to understand what I wrote and meant in the editorial. Don't dissect every word or sentence, I didn't put that kind of effort into it. There were no hidden messages, etc.
It's interesting in that some people think that Musky Hunter's position one way or another regarding the WR will make a difference. Personally, I don't think it really will, as Musky Hunter is not a record keeping organization.
I don't disrespect what either record keeping organization did regarding their decisions to not accept the WRMA reports. That's their own decision. Further, as I indicated those decisions were based upon more than photogrammetry. That's why I don't think they will ever get overturned. There's just too much baggage associated with the Spray, Johnson, Lawton and even Hartman fish.
I still think it would make sense for the WRMA to look at the Obrien and Williamson fish. I have heard rumors about a water hose being stuck down the throat of the Obrien fish, and that the Williamson fish didn't receive any type of record scrutiny. The WRMA seems to have the time, interest and ability to research all of this, that's why I suggested they do it. I think it would be more productive if they were to develop a report based upon, photogrammetry, affidavits, etc. for a fish they believe to be the WR.
Now regarding the challenge by the WRMA for MuskyHunter to accept their findings to justify such an investigation and expense, I find that unrealistic and irrelevant. I have no idea what the report will say, or how it will be written. Again, MuskyHunter is not a record-keeping body.
I guess ultimately, I hope someone catches a new WR, but I also thought that if the WRMA was to produce a report that they believe validates a fish that they believe should be the WR that might be something everyone can rally behind.
That might ultimately be what all musky anglers would want.
Then again, I can't speak for everyone, I was just throwing in my 2 cents like everyone else. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Jim:
With all due respect, I believe you sell yourself and Musky Hunter short, dispite the fact that MH is not a "record keeping organization".
Your comments: "I don't disrespect what either record keeping organization did regarding their decisions to not accept the WRMA reports. That's their own decision. Further, as I indicated those decisions were based upon more than photogrammetry. That's why I don't think they will ever get overturned..." only further shows your self-admitted lack of total knowledge of what has transpired with Muskellunge world records since the early 1990's. THAT is the case with MOST Internet "posters" and only further slants the picture.
As so many do, you fail to even acknowledge the travisty that transpired when amatuer John Dettloff managed to convince the Hall to toss out and the IGFA to "set-aside" the Lawton record with FAR LESS PROFESSIONAL evidence than the WRMA presented on both the Spray and Johnson "records" and the shameful job both record keepers have done in upholding these bogus records while ignoring the hachet job they did on Lawton.
As for the WRMA doing further work on O'Brien and Williamson, what would be the point if YOU fail to recognize the peer-reviewed science of Photogrammetry. And why both, when only the largest need be examined if valid...AND I'd like to let all know that both the Hall of Fame and The IGFA certified the O'Brien fish when caught and the IGFA even listed it as their all-tackle record until Dettloff convinced them to replace it with the unvetted Johnsnon fish!
Further you wrote: "I guess ultimately, I hope someone catches a new WR, but I also thought that if the WRMA was to produce a report that they believe validates a fish that they believe should be the WR that might be something everyone can rally behind. That might ultimately be what all musky anglers would want." What you are asking them to do, aside from the photogrammetry (and the "length" of the O'brien fish has never been suspect or questioned), has already been done ad nauseum...you really need to avail yourself of Volume I of my Compendium!! Do those FACTS really "need" the WRMA's blessing to get YOUR blessing???
Get off the fence Jim and take a stand that MOST musky hunters will accept, embrace and "rally behind".
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Muskellunge Historian for ALL of North America
www.larryramsell.com
Edited by Larry Ramsell 3/31/2010 9:32 AM
|
|
| |
|
| I beg to differ with Jim that he has only “two cents” worth, considering his position and influence it has to be way more than that. Not only does Jim sell Musky Hunter’s influence short, the lack of commitment basically ensures the Hall of Fame can continue to disgrace our sport. In effect, Musky Hunter becomes an enabler much like citizens who watch crimes being committed without getting involved. Although Musky Hunter isn't obligated, it should be something they should want to get involved in for their interested readers. I'm not saying Musky Hunter should be like Clint Eastwood in the movie “Gran Torino” but speaking up *or* at the very least taking a position against something as obvious and wrong as this seems apropos. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Larry Ramsell - 3/31/2010 9:29 AM
As so many do, you fail to even acknowledge the travisty that transpired when amatuer John Dettloff managed to convince the Hall to toss out and the IGFA to "set-aside" the Lawton record with FAR LESS PROFESSIONAL evidence than the WRMA presented on both the Spray and Johnson "records"
I find this part amusing. You basically state that an amatuer is able to accomplish more than you. Or maybe he isn't as amatuer as your personal attack makes him out to be. Just saying. You kind of make yourself and the WRMA sound incompetent when you can't overturn some bushleague amatuer work. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32890
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | PP,
Larry isn't a member of the WRMA, he's an independent Historian when it comes to the world records and has written a few books on the subject.
Mr. Dettloff IS a board member of the FFHOF.
There's your sign. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | I don't disagree that Detloff's hands are dirty on the subject as a whole. I'm merely pointing out that calling a guy amatuer when he's got his desires in place suggest that he isn't as 'amatuer' as made out to be.
How big of an influence does the FFHOF have on the IGFA? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Guest:
You hit the key word..."influence". If Musky Hunter truly IS "North America's Musky Authority" as stated on the cover of the magazine, it should cover all facets of our sport, including the world record!
Bolinski: You too fail to totally grasp what has transpired and just WHO had/has control of the Hall of Fame and badgered the IGFA into the mistake they made and won't now correct...Dettloff. "Incompentnt" has nothing to do with it. He basically hijacked the Hall for HIS purposes and the Hall board, to their shame (local business folks), let him get away with it. The IGFA, for reasons known only to them (hypocritical photo DQ for Lawton but can't/won't use photo's with Johnson) won't correct their mistake or at least go back tto O'brien. I'll guarentee you if Hall founder Bob Kutz, and former IGFA President Elwook K. Harry were still alive, things would be different. There ARE good reasons why I resigned from the IGFA after 16 years as an Internationl Representative and after 35 years as Hall of Fame World Record Program developer/World Record Secretary and World Record advisor!!
If you are happy with the situation with the "Holy Grail" of our great sport, fine, but I'll wager most aren't and I'll guarentee you if Musky Hunter took a firm stand, we'd AT LEAST have a consensus record people could live with instead of the bogus records now shamefully in place.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Muskellunge Historian for ALL of North America
www.larryramsell.com
Edited by Larry Ramsell 3/31/2010 12:27 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Pointer, what Larry has effectively shown is that there is an obvious bias and double standard shown by the IGFA. The Lawton fish was set aside by amateurish photo evidence while the Cal Johnson fish was protected and not removed even in the face of professional photogrammetry and undeniable mathematical proof. Why would that be? Hmmm....
It is unfortunate that MH and Muskies Inc. both the International and all the chapters have not gotten on board with the WRMA to demand that these bogus fish be set aside. More than unfortunate, I think it is shameful.
There are two bogus fish each holding #1 spots in the FWFHF and the IGFA.
Muskies are thought to be one of the most prestigious of freshwater gamsfish, yet the record books are a sham and the WRMA is the only group to step up to the plate to set the record straight.
When is MH and MI going to show some backbone and demand that these records be removed?????????? |
|
| |
|
| The WRMA has the proof. It has NOT been satisfactorily refuted by either FWFHF or the IGFA.
The next step should be a lawsuit against both organizations.
This needs to be settled in a court.
Let the FWFHF and the IGFA answer to attorneys and a judge instead of a message board.....
The WRMA has invested in professional photogrammetry now it's time to invest in an attorney to get something done. Let all bring their evidence into a court of law.
Time to get serious about following through. |
|
| |
|
Location: SE Wisconsin | Who's chasing the WR? Why the uproar? Why use MH as a means of satisfying YOUR cause?
Edited by Sam Ubl 3/31/2010 12:52 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32890
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | There's no real basis for a lawsuit. The issue is an organization recognizing something and choosing not to recognize something else, and there's no case law I'm aware of to support a suit....basically an 'if you don't agree with them, get them to adjust their stance or ignore them' scenario. |
|
| |
|
Location: SE Wisconsin | I see. |
|
| |
|
| Pointerpride 102 has a very valid point. The IGFA accepted John Dettloff's photo analysis plain and simple and they are not affiliated with the NFWFHoF. They also rejected Larry Ramsell's "Lawton Review" which had nothing to do with the WRMA.
The only conclusion that can be drawn is that the IGFA feels John Dettloff had a better case than Larry.
I would like Larry to explain how John Dettloff "badgered" the IGFA? |
|
| |
|
| There's no real basis for a lawsuit. The issue is an organization recognizing something and choosing not to recognize something else, and there's no case law I'm aware of to support a suit....basically an 'if you don't agree with them, get them to adjust their stance or ignore them' scenario.
neither you nor I are lawyers, so i'd be interested to hear what an attorney would have to say about whether or not there's a basis for a lawsuit.
Hayward interests and John Dettloff specifically make pretty strong use of the Spray fish for promotional purposes. i could see a pretty plausible argument that notes the FWFHoF is a universally recognized record-keeping body which is mis-using its status and authority for the personal financial gain of it's board members...as appealing as the "ignore them" option may be, it isn't always the right answer, especially when money is on the line.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | I believe O'brien or Williamson could have a case, as they may have missed out on potential earnings that come from being a world record holder. Maybe. Just a guess.
Maybe anyone who can prove they caught a bigger muskie than spray can sue. There'd be a lot of lawsuits.
Edited by Flambeauski 3/31/2010 2:38 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Great point lambeau. This is definately something that needs looking into. This would certainly remove the arrogance currently being shown by the record keepers and would force them into offering some kind of defense. It would also finally bring this matter to a close which is what all of us want.
|
|
| |
|
| lambeau is right on target. I would like to see the WRMA get an attorneys opinion. I think there are a number of ways to approach a lawsuit.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Who is paying this attorney? I don't foresee pro bono work being done on a fish record. |
|
| |
|
| Well, the WRMA had offered to pay for a photogrammetrist of the FWFHF's choice to get another opinion. The FWFHF refused , naturally. So why not at least consult with an attorney to see if there is a case. That should cost nothing. After that the money that would have been used for the photogrammetry could be used, eh.
Take the step!! Nothing ventured, etc......... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32890
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | To clarify;
I don't believe there's a basis for the WRMA to sue. Others might have a civil suit of some sort, but I don't think it's the WRMA bringing any legal action. |
|
| |
