|
|
Posts: 8772
| sworrall - 2/3/2011 4:34 PM
Personally, I do not.
the guy weighs 110 maybe...
Put that 110# muskie in the books with this 42" 30# walleye...
Edited by esoxaddict 2/3/2011 4:39 PM
Attachments
----------------
 29.5.jpg (232KB - 344 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 73
| I know the fish your talking about out of Butternut. I saw it in a book that John from Smokeys let me borrom. I remember thinking to myself that is was by far the biggest fish I've ever seen. If I remember right I think it was netted out of there right at the turn of the century. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 337
Location: Central WI | 
Edited by bobtodd 2/3/2011 4:50 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Guys, the Butternut Lake "monster" is merely another of Spray's photographic hoaxes. Spray grew up around Butternut Lake and says he caught his first monster of 46 pounds from the in the very early 1900's. His entire life was a sham and his criminal exploits were well documented by HIM in his book; Bootlegger; house of ill-repute, game and fish out of season or captured illegally, etc. Some guy to look up to as a record holder...not! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| Larry Ramsell - 2/3/2011 4:51 PM
Guys, the Butternut Lake "monster" is merely another of Spray's photographic hoaxes. Spray grew up around Butternut Lake and says he caught his first monster of 46 pounds from the in the very early 1900's. His entire life was a sham and his criminal exploits were well documented by HIM in his book; Bootlegger; house of ill-repute, game and fish out of season or captured illegally, etc. Some guy to look up to as a record holder...not!
So, you're sayin if there is dishonesty in a fellas past, he can never be trusted in anything? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8772
| Liars don't typically become honest men when there is every reason for them to lie some more. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| lambeau - 2/3/2011 3:16 PM
Dettloff showed no shame in his attempt to discredit Lawton for the glory of his "God" Spray! i don't for one second think the Spray fish is legit. that said, i sometimes wonder who's more obsessed with it: Dettloff or Ramsell. you may not worship Spray but you visit his church more than most, Larry...
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1207
Location: Pigeon Forge TN. | This thread is exactly the reason why, that if I should EVER, be lucky enough to catch one big enough that I thought it would be a record of ANY kind, nobody would know besides my self and whom ever may be with me at the time and I would have the only pictures of it and it would stay alive to die of old age. I feel that no matter which route one took to have it weighed and measured certified or not, it would still bring about another thread like this one and heavy scrutiny would follow as it is now. There is just no pleasing everyone out there period. Other than that, I keep my beliefs and comments to myself. I don't need the noriety ( spelled wrong but you know what I mean) at all of any kind.
No offense meant to the guests but I do sign my name. That is ones right to do so or not.
Tight lines to all,
Edited by Stan Durst 1 2/3/2011 6:52 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Stan, You have to remember that these fish getting scrutinized are ridiculous exaggerations, almost total fabrications. I haven't see anybody questioning one thing on Tom Gelb's or Kyle's MI record, and for good reason.
If you caught a new world record (or anything over 60 lbs
for that matter) the photograph would support the claim and it would be the biggest looking muskie of all time. How hard would it be to take 50-60 pictures and have a news crew film the fish being measured and weighed?
Seriously, if somebody gets a legitimate 60lber they should immediately contact Larry Ramsell for entry into the modern-day records program so at least us muskie fishermen can have a realistic record to be proud of. |
|
| |
|
Location: Sawyer County, WI |
Hey Larry,
First, thanks for your efforts to expose the truth. Keep up the good work.
Two questions for you:
You said: "LR: So true CS, so that tosses all of Louies fish out and Johnson's too for that matter! Measurement falsified AND not even caught by the anglers...how blind is the NFWFHF re both Spray and Johnson and the IGFA re Johnson? "
Question one: Are you suggesting that Johnsons fish was caught by someone other than Johnson ?
Question two: is "unrefutiated" a word ? :-D
Hope to get a chance to talk with you again at Pastika's this summer. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 67
| i wish i could say that i have been enlightened by some of the debate on this thread , but it is not to be , I will have to side with Larry on this one , the Lawton fish is the only one of the historical records that is even half believable , I really hoped that there would be some new facts come out after years of debate, how about if we all agree on the Lawton fish , but say it was caught at Johns resort LMAO Now let the games begin the first true sixty is waiting to stir the pot ! Bill |
|
| |
|
| Steve,
When you said "Personally I do not" directly below the 110 lb. hoax photo you were referring to my yes, or no question about if you believe Lawton's fish was as large as claimed, correct?
I just want to make sure there is no misunderstanding here. If this is correct I highly appreciate you giving me a straight answer.
|
|
| |
|
| Larry Ramsell - 2/3/2011 4:51 PM
His entire life was a sham and his criminal exploits were well documented by HIM in his book; Bootlegger; house of ill-repute, game and fish out of season or captured illegally, etc.
Some hero you have there 6'! That hooligan did nothing in this life that should be believed. It's not like he did these bad things when he was a kid, his exploits are well documented before, during, and after his claims on these records. Did you know that it his illegal liquor establishment mysteriously burned down the night before it was set to be rated (He received a tip), and that his over insured Frankenstein fish mounts conveniently burned up in a fire just after he closed his bar (didn't need them anymore)? The guy was as crooked as a hockey stick, and everyone in Hayward knew it.
Before Louie the liar was exposed for what he really was, Dettloff used to make a pretty good penny writing articles and doing seminars. It was quite a bonanza for him because not only did he make money off of the articles and seminars, he also was able to promote his resort at the same time (how convenient). I remember one of his seminars was called "an afternoon with Louie Spray" LOL, better hold tight to your wallet if you're going to spend the afternoon with Spray and Dettloff!
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1207
Location: Pigeon Forge TN. | To take all those pictures, the fish would have to die which I don't want to happen personally, but that is the way I am. I have no problem with someone harvesting a fish for food. But to kill such a beauty for pictures or a record, just isn't me.
I don't keep any kind of fish I catch, they all go free. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4080
Location: Elko - Lake Vermilion | Good for you and all who believe like you do......But if I catch a 70lbr. it dies, and Smoked Muskie we will have.......At 70lbs., that fish is going to die soon anyway ! and then we will have to argue about global warming or the Packers and Bears more. A world record Musky will have to be killed in order to prove it.
I will release a 60lbr. or smaller
Jerome
Stan Durst 1 - 2/3/2011 8:02 PM
To take all those pictures, the fish would have to die which I don't want to happen personally, but that is the way I am. I have no problem with someone harvesting a fish for food. But to kill such a beauty for pictures or a record, just isn't me.
I don't keep any kind of fish I catch, they all go free. |
|
| |
|
| I re-posted over here since the response below was originally replied to based on Steve's query. Plus, I would like to follow-up with a question and comment in a subsequent post or two -- thanks.
Steve - you were kind enough to ask for some context under the guise that very few people on this board would understand what I was talking about.
I would like to conclude your request and I hope you appreciate why someone might post as simply a guest. I think anyone who is interested would find it informative:
My best micro - Cliff Notes version since I am remote. Apologies in advance for any editorial, but this is the way I see it:
On or about 10/2003, two very fine musky anglers started a campaign to authenticate or disprove the existing records as they stood at that time. Initially, there was an idea of disputing past records based on probability. The case went something like this....the mathematical impossibility is that no one will ever be able to catch so few fish (less than 50?) and have 3 60lbers without having any high 40s or other 50s. To catch multiple muskies over 50lbs, you need huge numbers.......
Never mind, a whole litany of baseball records that still exist from the 30's and 40's, and the recent update on the Linder's catch of 28 muskies in 6 days on Lac Court Oreilles (sp?), but perhaps the best agrument against this initial case was made by Roy Crawford who stated one of the key elements of catching big fish is that they have to have existed at the time and location caught. To believe that Spray caught these records, you have to believe that Cal Johnson's and Robert Malo's big fish were real. If so, then it appears that big fish did exist in Hayward in those days. By the way, I'm not interested in debating this, it's just a chronology from one persons vantage point.
Anyway, fast forward to on or about 9/2004, WRMA began a campaign drive to help fund the photo analysis being conducted on various record fish. As I understand it, the the first firm that was formally engaged by WRMA was a group called Visual Geometry Solutions, which is located in England and a team of maybe two or three people was headed by Geoffrey Cross. VGS was provided with various Spray photographs and the initial intention was to start with the early record and work their way up to the big enchilada.
Puportedly, Larry Ramsell inadvertently provided VGS with the reported dimensions. Some some reason that I never understood, but purpostedly the WRMA felt this tainted the entire process and model that they had already built and funded.
That logic never seemed right to me on many levels and can be debated some other time.
Again, fast forward, the WRMA then found DCM.
In speaking with Dr. Geoffrey Cross is is my understanding that they could complete the original analysis that they were commissioned to do. It sounds to me as if they are operating under a non-disclosure agreement (my assumption) or that they have some very high professional standards / ethics, which would be commendable.
To conclude, if the WRMA would release their rights in the model, it could then be used by an independent third party. In fact, there was an offer to buy the rights to the model from WRMA (at one point), which is why I made the buy-out comment in the post above.
Hopefully, that is enough context.
Respectfully.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | CS,
Yup. |
|
| |
|
| Larry:
Given that the above seems to be a reasonable proxy for the truth, I was wondering if you could go on record to answer two questions?
I am simply seeking to understand:
1.) Could you say whether or not VGS ever completed a test or model on any of Spray's fish? A yes or no would be fine.
2.) If yes, could you say whether or not the model authenticated or disproved the length of the particular fish in question?
The reason I ask is "implicit" in the Cross conversation was that VGS may have completed a modeling for one of the Spray fish. I say implicit because when asked that direct question, they did not reply with an outright no we did not, but rather answered ambiguously to the effect of they would rather not say without permission.
Again, with all due respect, thanks. |
|
| |
|
| One final thought about photo analysis and length. At the end of the day, even those most ardently opposed to Spray's fish will admit that the all class tackle record could very well be a fish that goes 58". If that is the case, then the argument is +/- 5 inches.
In my opinion, there is no way for someone to tell that difference based on a photo. 5 inches is the length of an eight year's old hand. 7 inches is the length of a thirteen year old hand.
I'd say it is incredibly tough to discern that difference from visual observation of a photo.
That's why the photo analysis is the last and only frontier left (assuming a bona fide witness or affidavit signer is not forthcoming).
Thanks for letting me post and sharing that thought |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20211
Location: oswego, il | In order for that fish to be 110lbs the rear pelvic fins would have to drift right behind the front ones on the mount!
I do not believe IMHO that the ifga upheld the johnson fish because they thought it legit. I think they did not want to be a part of the controversy.
Edited by ToddM 2/3/2011 10:08 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin |
'I'd say it is incredibly tough to discern that difference from visual observation of a photo. '
I wouldn't. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | lambeau - 2/3/2011 3:16 PM wrote: "i don't for one second think the Spray fish is legit. that said, i sometimes wonder who's more obsessed with it: Dettloff or Ramsell. you may not worship Spray but you visit his church more than most, Larry..."
LR: lambeau, it merey seems like it since Dettloff doesn't have the gonads to come on here and defend himself and his diservice to the muskie world. Besides, he is busy writing another book, this time about his other Hayward hero, Cal Johnson and what a fine, upstanding citizen he was (and he probably was, except for the "mistake" of trying to help Hayward tourism after the war and "develop" yet another Hayward world record). No one I know or have talked to has EVER seen a "mud muskie" (dark water) caught out of Lac Couderay...of course his taxidermist Kahmann took care of that when he painted the fish in a striped pattern after he got done adding to the length (Dettloff's "pelvic drift" nothwithstanding).
Dan wrote: "First, thanks for your efforts to expose the truth. Keep up the good work. Two questions for you:
"You said: 'LR: So true CS, so that tosses all of Louies fish out and Johnson's too for that matter! Measurement falsified AND not even caught by the anglers...how blind is the NFWFHF re both Spray and Johnson and the IGFA re Johnson? '
"Question one: Are you suggesting that Johnsons fish was caught by someone other than Johnson ?"
LR: Good catch, I mispoke on that one, as I believe Johnson likely caught his fish, but NOT from LCO. Just prior he was seen fishing a nearby river and the night before his claimed "catch date" he was in a local watering hole proclaiming that "tomorrow I'm going to catch the world record". Hardly a smart thing to do, but then liquor often loosens the tightest of lips.
Dans "Question two: is 'unrefutiated' a word ? :-D
LR: Why not?
"Guest" wrote: ..."Puportedly, Larry Ramsell inadvertently provided VGS with the reported dimensions."
LR: Evidently this is the case. I checked with the WRMA and it seems that one of the early record Spray photos I loaned to them for VGS analysis had them on the back...oops, unintentional I assure you, but it wasn't the current record fish.
"Guest" wrote: "Larry: Given that the above (post) seems to be a reasonable proxy for the truth, I was wondering if you could go on record to answer two questions? I am simply seeking to understand:
"1.) Could you say whether or not VGS ever completed a test or model on any of Spray's fish? A yes or no would be fine."
LR: No, I could not, since I personally had no dealings with VGS. That was handled entirely by the WRMA.
"2.) If yes, could you say whether or not the model authenticated or disproved the length of the particular fish in question?"
LR: The answer was "no", so I cannot answer this question.
Guest cont: "The reason I ask is "implicit" in the Cross conversation was that VGS may have completed a modeling for one of the Spray fish. I say implicit because when asked that direct question, they did not reply with an outright no we did not, but rather answered ambiguously to the effect of they would rather not say without permission. Again, with all due respect, thanks."
LR: While this is something you will have to take up with the WRMA, your intrepretation of that conversation may be incorrect. I again stress that photo analysis is at best marginal and basically moot (unless horribly off) since records are established by weight.
ToddM wrote: "I do not believe IMHO that the ifga upheld the johnson fish because they thought it legit. I think they did not want to be a part of the controversy."
LR: Todd, I sincerely believe you have hit it directly on the head!! I found that to be true even when I was dealing directly with them as an IGFA Represenative for 16 years. If they didn't wish to become involved in something, they merely did not respond.
Edited by Larry Ramsell 2/4/2011 7:27 AM
|
|
| |
|
| LR: I again stress that photo analysis is at best marginal and basically moot (unless horribly off) since records are established by weight. wow...and you accuse Dettloff of taking positions based on his own self-interest? it's somewhat curious that you would dismiss a useful tool as moot even when it would add supporting evidence to your own point of view. well, Larry let's not forget that it's in your self-interest to refute and repudiate (note the spelling) an OBJECTIVE model because it's a threat to your cottage industry of using a SUBJECTIVE historical research approach. you've got your own fame and books and speaking gigs to consider too. you're right when you say that photo analysis about the length of a fish doesn't automatically prove or disprove the weight of said fish. however, if that fish was claimed to be much longer than the photo analysis proves possible, it's self-evident that the claimed weights are bogus too. thus the photo analysis is a perfectly reasonable approach for qualifying or disqualifying certain fish based on their claimed lengths. once you have a fish length that's possible according to the objective photo analysis and a weight claim that is well-supported by other subjective documentation, you've got a winner. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | lambeau: I didn't "dismiss" photogrammetry as you will notice in my previous post, but for less than greatly exaggerated length claims it isn't that reliable; and note, all of Spray's fish and Johnson's fish were greatly exaggerated and fairly easily exposed by PROFESSIONAL photogrammetry. And as I proved with my review of Dettloff's Lawton photo examinations, he wasn't even in the ball park with Lawton's record fish. With Spray's records, there is a LOT more material than just photo analysis to debunk his frauds and of course the Johnson mount pretty much speaks for that fish (and is still extant and "could" be examined, but Dettloff advises against it). Lawton's documentation and 9 witnesses say Dettloff is full of prunes with regard to Lawton's fish, especially the next door neighbor whom Dettloff interviewed and even prepared an affidavit for stating Lawton's fish exited and was legit...why did he ignore that???
You are extremly incorrect if you think any of this is a threat to my "cottage industry", but if you are so certain, quit your job and I'll give you the meager pittance I earn from it and see how long you last. As for my "fame", I've earned it over the past 40 years and am proud of it. And as for my book sales, it wouldn't buy your groceries...in fact I had no problem publishing much of Volume I HERE on this website in order to inform folks that care without them having to purchase my book. What have you contributed? Speaking gigs of any substance are a thing of the past before the Spray fiasco, so again, you'd go hungry relying on that.
I'll assume from the latter part of your post that you agree that the Spray and Johnson fish are bogus.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell,
Muskellunge Historian
|
|
| |
|
| And as for my book sales, it wouldn't buy your groceries... that knife cuts both ways, Larry...you bag on Detloff for being motivatated by money but then deny the money related to this issue is meaningful. for Detloff it's all about selling his books and bringing tourists to Hayward and his resort, but that doesn't apply to you because there's no money in it? i'm guessing his book sales buy even fewer groceries than yours, and i for one wouldn't want to live the life of a resort owner! i think there's more indications that Detloff is a True Believer; personally i think that's kind of sad since i can understand if there was a real financial motivation but believing in nonsense? ha! i guess i'm suggesting that focusing on the fish is more meaningful than focusing on the maneuvering or motivations of the people involved, including yours. for example, who cares if the fish was shot, or if it was poached, or what lake it was caught from; what matters is how BIG the thing is or isn't. I'll assume from the latter part of your post that you agree that the Spray and Johnson fish are bogus. those fish are as legit as the day is long...on December 21st.  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | lambeau: I never said Dettloff was in it for just the money (but I'll guarentte you that he has made far more from it than have I). Only he can tell you if it has been meaningful. What I really think is at the crux of the matter is that John wants so badly to believe that Louie's fish are real that he has lost all touch with reality and in his heart he knows that Spray's fish (and Johnson's for that matter) were simply not as large as claimed. He truly loves the Chippewa Flowage and intends to spend the rest of his life there and he needs louie to hang on to to make it all good, dispite the fact that he has yet, after 30 some years, failed to catch himself even a 50 incher, let along one over 60!! Sad but true.
You're comment: "i guess i'm suggesting that focusing on the fish is more meaningful than focusing on the maneuvering or motivations of the people involved, including yours. for example, who cares if the fish was shot, or if it was poached, or what lake it was caught from; what matters is how BIG the thing is or isn't." seems a bit off base.
I think folks do care if the fish was shot, or poached and what water it came from. As for "how big", that too is important for those that care, because they want to know that they may have a ligitimate shot at catching a new world record. If past records are bogus and being upheld by the record keepers, then the bar is set artificially high and likely will not be beaten. Since it will NEVER be conclusively proven which of the past historical record fish may have been legitimate, it is a simple matter to consider them "historical" and start anew...that has been done in the minds of many and the new record program is still awaiting one that exceeds even 60 pounds, let alone 70.
|
|
| |
|
| Steve,
Thanks again for the response. What I find interesting is very few here believe Lawton's fish was as large as claimed which lends a tremendous amount of SUPPORT Dettloff's analysis! I totally agree with you that what Dettloff did with Spray is wrong. I just wish that somebody other than Dettloff would have began challenging these records. I wonder how satisfied the 'muskie community' would be if Dettloff had never began his new career and Lawton's fish was considered the world record by BOTH record keepers? Challenging world record fish is nothing new. The IGFA was brought to their knees about the smallmouth bass record after 'Bass Master' magazine took them to task. Evidentally the 'bass community' is more interested in having legitimate records than the 'muskie community' which I don't understand. If Bass Master magazine was willing to get involved with the IGFA and win why wouldn't Musky Hunter magazine take it upon themselves to do the same?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8772
| CS - 2/4/2011 10:55 AM
[...] If Bass Master magazine was willing to get involved with the IGFA and win why wouldn't Musky Hunter magazine take it upon themselves to do the same?
Why WOULD they? It's a flaming bag of crap, but it's on someone else's doorstep. While I can't speak for the folks over at MH, I'd have to guess they don't want to get involved because there's simply nothing good to come out of it for them or their magazine. It would be akin to going out to a farm and stomping around the cow pasture just to see what happens. Why create a stinking mess for yourself and your organization when there's no benefit whatsoever? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'Thanks again for the response. What I find interesting is very few here believe Lawton's fish was as large as claimed which lends a tremendous amount of SUPPORT Dettloff's analysis'
No, it doesn't. |
|
| |
|
| LR..."What I really think is at the crux of the matter is that John wants so badly to believe that Louie's fish are real that he has lost all touch with reality and in his heart he knows that Spray's fish (and Johnson's for that matter) were simply not as large as claimed."
'Somebody' apparently has the SAME problem with all the Lawton 60+ pounders. |
|
| |
