|
|
| esoxaddict,
Nothing good to come out of it for their magazine"? No benefit whatsoever? Isn't a legitimate record a tremendous benefit?
|
|
| |
|
| 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... He truly loves the Chippewa Flowage yes. strong or exceptionally passionate beliefs about something DEFINE a lack of objectivity. on BOTH sides of an issue. neutral analysis from folks who don't write muskie books and don't teach fishing schools and don't own resorts is what's needed. like photogrammetry from overseas. You're comment... what matters is how BIG the thing is or isn't." seems a bit off base. when it comes to WR potential, the simple fact that a fish of that size existed is the only thing that matters. if it was shot or poached, but it was really that big? it would still mean the potential is there! the important thing from my perspective is setting a reality-based bar for record size potential; the methods employed at the time may be important to those interested in "qualifying" the record such as yourself, but they're completely irrelevant to whether or not fish of a certain size are biologically possible.
Edited by lambeau 2/4/2011 12:14 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Steve,
If you and the majority of people here feel Lawton's fish was not as large as claimed, doesn't this jibe with Dettloff's feelings about this fish? And the IGFA's too I might add? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20211
Location: oswego, il | I do not believe the bass guys will suffer the same backlash for challenging records that the muskie guys have. Is there a tabloid dedicated to those directly and even indirectly associated with investigating the records? |
|
| |
|
| ToddM,
You don't believe the bass guys WILL suffer the same backlash for challenging records that the muskie guys have? The bass guys never received any backlash at all! The IGFA are the ones that had their reputation tarnished.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'If you and the majority of people here feel Lawton's fish was not as large as claimed, doesn't this jibe with Dettloff's feelings about this fish? And the IGFA's too I might add?'
No. Mr. Dettloff apparently feels that fish should be DQ'd using grade school analytics, and Spray's should remain despite far advanced challenges. I don't much give a hoot what the IGFA thinks. Give it a rest, you are preaching to the Choir.
|
|
| |
|
| ToddM,
Your statement..."I do not believe IMHO that the IGFA upheld the Johnson fish because they thought it legit. I think they did not want to be part of the controversy."
The reason the IGFA gave for upholding Johnson's fish CREATED controversy!
The IGFA would never have accepted Johnson's fish as their record if they didn't feel it was legit.
|
|
| |
|
| Steve,
I will do as you request and ask you no further questions. Keep in mind I do understand what you're saying about Dettloff and I fully agree.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 20211
Location: oswego, il | They accepted lawton's fish as the record because they thought it was legit too. Removing johnson's fish would cause more controversy for them than turning a blind eye to a challenge. Nfwfhof would have been all over it like a blitzing defense on cutler.
Edited by ToddM 2/4/2011 1:18 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | lambeau wrote: "'Somebody' apparently has the SAME problem with all the Lawton 60+ pounders."
LR: Not at all Mr. Winther. It is quite obvious you only read from my posts what you wish to retain and obvious you haven't read the material on this site from my book. In addition, as an addendum to your previous "cottage industry" charge, have you stopped to realize that everything I have done/published of a historical nature was to do my best to accurately report our sports history and not one of attempting to re-write muskie history as has Mr. Dettloff, to suit his wishes/needs? Sure doesn't seem like it. My goal has ALWAYS been to find and report the truth, as well as correct past reporting inaccuracies when found, not to change history for a personal agenda. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8772
| CS - 2/4/2011 11:25 AM
esoxaddict,
Nothing good to come out of it for their magazine"? No benefit whatsoever? Isn't a legitimate record a tremendous benefit?
Having a legitimate record in place would be a benefit to the muskie angling population at large, but I fail to see how MH involving themselves in the matter would help their magazine or their TV show. I also fail to see what benefit there would be in the whole controversy for someone with a reputation to uphold (i.e. Jim Saric and Steve Heiting) to throw their proverbial hats into the ring. There are more than enough people involved already. Why muddy the waters at your own expense? |
|
| |
|
| Larry Ramsell - 2/4/2011 12:32 PM lambeau wrote: "'Somebody' apparently has the SAME problem with all the Lawton 60+ pounders." LR: Not at all Mr. Winther. It is quite obvious you only read from my posts what you wish to retain... My goal has ALWAYS been to find and report the truth, as well as correct past reporting inaccuracies when found, not to change history for a personal agenda. Larry...perhaps you're the one who should read more carefully, and learn how the "quote" function operates on this forum. the words that you attribute to me above about your views of the Lawton fish were from a guest poster: "CS", whoever that is. i didn't accuse you of a personal agenda, although i did (and do) suggest that you're far from impartial. your agenda may be to get to the Truth - you've been a Champion of that effort - and i also think it's perfectly alright to make a few dollars along the way with books or speaking gigs or whatnot. i was just trying to point out that it's hypocritical to imply Detloff has certain nefarious money-making motivations for his actions (writing books, for example) but then claim that same standard doesn't apply to yourself because you're interested only in the Truth. perhaps Detloff is really just interested in the Truth as well, but his view is radically different than your own? you're an endless and mildly entertaining amusement park ride of hints and innuendos on this subject. too many years of "but wait! there's more!" and "stay tuned!" or "he owns a resort that would benefit!" type statements have exhausted most peoples' attention spans. and in the end? none of that matters. it's the FISH that counts, we'd all be better off with an objective focus in that direction (such as the photogrammetry that you laughably describe as a "moot" approach) rather than on his/your personalities.
Edited by lambeau 2/4/2011 1:17 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | lambeau: I mildly attempted to define "moot", but apparently you are missing it. As I have stated, PROFESSIONAL photogrammetry of length, wherein the "fudged" amount is significant, is fine and usable, but in and of itself it still does not determine weight. As you infered or noted, significant deviation from claimed length gives some credibility toward falsification, and in the case of Spray's records, combined with many other facts can lead one only to the conclusion of misrepresentation, unless, one choses to ignore pertinent facts.
Yes, it IS the FISH that counts and whether or not they can obtain the sizes ascribed to the historical records. As I have noted before, it is my personal opinion that the "AVERAGE maximum weight" of Muskellunge (Esox masquinongy) is around 55-56 pounds and that anything above that is an anomaly and/or a freak, but that weights that approach or exceed "historical" world records certainly are possible. It is just that none have ever been hung on a certified scale...anywhere, at any time in past history, taken by any means, including DNR netting and those found dead! |
|
| |
|
| LR...""As i have stated, PROFESSIONAL photogrammetry of length, wherein the 'fudged' amount is significant, is fine and usable, but in and of itself it still does not determine weight"
It doesn't have to. Like I said before, if the measurements are falsified on an affidavit the stated weight becomes meaningless. If the length is falsified it does MORE than lend credibility to falsification, it makes it a CERTAINTY! |
|
| |
|
| esoxaddict,
Having a legitimate record in place would not hurt the staff at Musky Hunter or their magazine and TV show. Their reputation would likely be ENHANCED just like Bass Master magazine. |
|
| |
|
| ToddM,
Your statement..."Nfwfhof would have been all over it like a blitzing defense on cutler."
How could they? The IGFA says they don't have a photo that supports the size of Lawton's fish so the fish is OUT! This is what the NFWFHoF wanted.
If the IGFA would have removed Johnson they would have done so for the SAME reason they removed Lawton.
|
|
| |
|
| Overall this latest discussion is a lot more interesting than debating the legitimacy of Spray and Johnson. It's ridiculous to think that anyone who reads those WRMA reports could conclude anything other than those fish were bogus. I wouldn't hesitate to bet the farm that they are complete hoaxes.
I think Lambeau's point about "all that really matters is the fish" is a good one, particularly if you think in terms of 150-200 years from now. We are only going back about 60 years now, but what about future muskie generations? What will be our sports legacy? Hopefully not that we stood by and idly accepted lies of that magnitude.
Besides that, I'm curious to know what the all-time longest and heaviest muskies were too and I'm looking forward to when they finding this out. I think it would also be beneficial for biologists and fisheries personnel to know what the largest specimens are strictly from a management point of view. |
|
| |
|
| esoxaddict - 2/4/2011 12:55 PM
CS - 2/4/2011 11:25 AM
esoxaddict,
Nothing good to come out of it for their magazine"? No benefit whatsoever? Isn't a legitimate record a tremendous benefit?
Having a legitimate record in place would be a benefit to the muskie angling population at large, but I fail to see how MH involving themselves in the matter would help their magazine or their TV show. I also fail to see what benefit there would be in the whole controversy for someone with a reputation to uphold (i.e. Jim Saric and Steve Heiting ) to throw their proverbial hats into the ring. There are more than enough people involved already. Why muddy the waters at your own expense?
It's a known fact that Muskie Hunter did a little more than "report" the news when Lawton was DQed. They were all over it, even ran a series of Detlofs articles "In the defense of Louie Spray" when they were rightfully questioned back in the early 1990s. I would even go as far as to say that they were eating out of Detlofs hands and then spoon feeding that crap to us. I think if you helped to make the cow pies like MH, you should at least help to clean them up. |
|
| |
|
| The Butternut lake fish is on page 31 of his book. Could someone please post it? Maybe its a lie about where the fish came from but you cannot argue the size of that fish.Thats what makes me think for sure the record will fall!!!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8772
| Guest - 2/4/2011 3:04 PM
esoxaddict - 2/4/2011 12:55 PM
CS - 2/4/2011 11:25 AM
esoxaddict,
Nothing good to come out of it for their magazine"? No benefit whatsoever? Isn't a legitimate record a tremendous benefit?
Having a legitimate record in place would be a benefit to the muskie angling population at large, but I fail to see how MH involving themselves in the matter would help their magazine or their TV show. I also fail to see what benefit there would be in the whole controversy for someone with a reputation to uphold (i.e. Jim Saric and Steve Heiting ) to throw their proverbial hats into the ring. There are more than enough people involved already. Why muddy the waters at your own expense?
It's a known fact that Muskie Hunter did a little more than "report" the news when Lawton was DQed. They were all over it, even ran a series of Detlofs articles "In the defense of Louie Spray" when they were rightfully questioned back in the early 1990s. I would even go as far as to say that they were eating out of Detlofs hands and then spoon feeding that crap to us. I think if you helped to make the cow pies like MH, you should at least help to clean them up.
The first time it's a mistake. The second time? It's stupid. My guess is that they're staying as far away from this as possible. Self preservation it is, and rightfully so. |
|
| |
|
| ToddM,
The IGFA INHERITED the Lawton fish as the record from Field & Stream. They did NOT accept it themselves like they did the Johnson fish. The IGFA later determined they didn't have a photo of Lawton's fish that supports the size of the fish Field & Stream accepted so the fish is out.
All the IGFA would have to do is admit that THEY were wrong in accepting Johnson's fish as the record after seeing the WRMA report. Their credibility would have been maintained and all we'd have left is the Spray fiasco.
|
|
| |
|
| esoxaddict,
Do you consider hypocrisy as a way of 'self preservation'? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8772
| As I said before - I can't speak for MH. Whatever decisions they make as to their involvement (or lack thereof) in this are business decisions. One needs to look no further than their list of field editors to see why involving themselves in this would be a bad idea. The benefits likely outweigh the risks. Like I said - it's a flaming bag of crap, and it's someone else's bag of crap. Would YOU want it? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20211
Location: oswego, il | I can't t speak for them either but at the time detloff was the historical editor for the magazine when he "debunked" lawton and the political climate as much different with the spray and johnson challenges. |
|
| |
|
Location: Sawyer County, WI |
Hi Larry,
Have you seen the fish in Stove Works on County B ? Is there a known story about this fish ?
Thanks in advance. |
|
| |
|
| ToddM - 2/4/2011 7:06 PM
I can't t speak for them either but at the time detloff was the historical editor for the magazine when he "debunked" lawton and the political climate as much different with the spray and johnson challenges.
These days Johnny is just hysterical... (and still editing) |
|
| |
|
| lambeau - 2/4/2011 2:02 PM
Larry Ramsell - 2/4/2011 12:32 PM lambeau wrote: "'Somebody' apparently has the SAME problem with all the Lawton 60+ pounders." LR: Not at all Mr. Winther. It is quite obvious you only read from my posts what you wish to retain... My goal has ALWAYS been to find and report the truth, as well as correct past reporting inaccuracies when found, not to change history for a personal agenda. Larry...perhaps you're the one who should read more carefully, and learn how the "quote" function operates on this forum. the words that you attribute to me above about your views of the Lawton fish were from a guest poster: "CS", whoever that is. i didn't accuse you of a personal agenda, although i did (and do) suggest that you're far from impartial. your agenda may be to get to the Truth - you've been a Champion of that effort - and i also think it's perfectly alright to make a few dollars along the way with books or speaking gigs or whatnot. i was just trying to point out that it's hypocritical to imply Detloff has certain nefarious money-making motivations for his actions (writing books, for example) but then claim that same standard doesn't apply to yourself because you're interested only in the Truth. perhaps Detloff is really just interested in the Truth as well, but his view is radically different than your own? you're an endless and mildly entertaining amusement park ride of hints and innuendos on this subject. too many years of "but wait! there's more!" and "stay tuned!" or "he owns a resort that would benefit!" type statements have exhausted most peoples' attention spans. and in the end? none of that matters. it's the FISH that counts, we'd all be better off with an objective focus in that direction (such as the photogrammetry that you laughably describe as a "moot" approach) rather than on his/your personalities.
lambo if you think you can do a better job go!
otherwise leave him alone,nobody did a quarter of the work he has accomplished
|
|
| |
|
| lambo if you think you can do a better job go! otherwise leave him alone,nobody did a quarter of the work he has accomplished Larry's body of work is not something i'll ever question. it's entirely worthwhile and the respect he has as a result is well-deserved.
at the same time, it's reasonable to make observations about his online antics as well as to point out that it's hypocritical to accuse Detloff of having personal financial motivations but deny any such motivation when he does the same exact thing, such as writing books. for John it's money but for Larry it's a Holy Quest for Truth? c'mon...it's okay to make money, and it's also possible that John believes in spite of all the evidence against Spray. forget Detloff, forget IGFA, forget the FWFHoF and focus on the fish. |
|
| |
|
| Wow, 13 pages but someone finally got it, thanks Lambeau! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'forget Detloff, forget IGFA, forget the FWFHoF and focus on the fish.'
Without the above, there's nothing to focus on. Without Dettloff the record would still be 69#15 ounces. Without his actions and influence with the Hall, Spary's fish would be resting in the same place as Lawton's. If it's so important to you to focus on the fish, then try to do so.
Good luck separating the players from the game.
Journalistic tenants for story:
Who: FFHOF/Dettloff/Lawton/ Spray/WRMA/Larry Ramsell/Muskie Community at Large
What: The World Record Muskie
Where: Hayward, specifically the Chippewa Flowage
When: Historical records, time line of actions of the above first two players changing same, continuing to present
How: Changes and challenges occurred strictly due to actions by the above players.
Why: There's the sticker in this story. In fact this IS the story and that's why it drags on, and on, and on.
I've been in the barrel with this exact same group of folks on a similar Muskie story Musky Hunter WAS involved with. It took me over a year and a half to get close enough to the parties involved to get the truth, and that truth supports what Larry has said. Larry took some serious heat during that time and was truly angry (that's an understatement) with me, and it was heat it turned out he didn't deserve except for the fact he allowed his name and reputation to be attached to that mess and defended the entire process for awhile without watching the project closely enough to protect his interests. I suspect he's as passionate now as he is because of what happened last time; sort of a 'once shame on them, twice shame on me' thing.
Without Larry and John's books, the entire story would perhaps be lost to the dust of revisionist history. The motivation for writing those books is sometimes as hotly debated as the rest of the story.
Emotions run high with this battle, because the story line runs much deeper than just the WR issue and goes back about 35 years. I once read a book called Bass Wars. That was nothing compared to the Historical and Modern Day story one could write about the above players and those who were involved with them. I wonder who will write THAT book...
|
|
| |
