|
|
| sworrall - 2/5/2011 9:31 AM '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 do so; you took as many personal shots the last couple days as anyone. Good luck separating the players from the game. am i using the quote feature wrong? 
it sounds like you might be missing my point. Larry spends inordinate amounts of time and energy online attempting to discredit Detloff. what does that accomplish? it comes off as a personal vendetta and it doesn't change anyone's mind because those who already see reality about the Spray fish just nod and move on and the FWFHoF simply ignores him anyway. complete waste of time. imho, providing objective information about the fish is the only strategy worth pursuing. and again imho, i think this was already done by the photo analysis process forwarded by the WRMA. by ignoring reality, the FWFHoF and IGFA have recused themselves from being legitimate record-keeping bodies for muskellunge. further efforts to change their position simply lends them legitimacy that they no longer deserve.
the "Modern World Records" idea is a great one. the problem is that the bar was set too high. if it's a modern record, why does it have to be 60lbs or more to even qualify, thereby ensuring NO modern record is in place? designate a 50lber as the current record and let people submit claims to beat it - there's already plenty of well-certified weighed fish out there that could claim the honor. or even better, since muskies are a released sport fish, just forget weight and establish a modern length record. a well-publicized effort with good visuals online would gain enough support to simply make the FWFHoF irrelevent for muskies.
Edited by lambeau 2/5/2011 10:20 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'if calling a spade a spade is a "shot", then i'm guilty. Larry's responded to the issues and hasn't seemed to take offense? regardless, i think you're missing my point. Larry spends inordinate amounts of time and energy online attempting to discredit Detloff. what does that accomplish? it comes off as a personal vendetta and it doesn't change anyone's mind because those who already see reality about the Spray fish just nod and move on and the FWFHoF simply ignores him anyway. complete waste of time.'
That's where you miss my point. What you are objecting to IS the story, or at least has been for about 14,000 views.
'Calling a spade a spade' is YOUR personal interpretation of this debate, which carries only the weight your personal experience researching the facts and skills in swaying opinion presenting them will allow.
It isn't that the current world record is so much or less believable than the last, the voters on this poll reflect what muskie anglers visiting this website believe. That should be the end of the story, but as you point out, it isn't.
I don't like the tiny print the quote feature uses. |
|
| |
|
| What you are objecting to IS the story, or at least has been for about 14,000 views. essentially, yes. sometimes it's hard to tell if folks (esp. Ramsell) are REALLY interested in any resolution, or prefer to just keep the drama going and the story alive. it does garner a lot of attention, doesn't it? so if that's the goal...any publicity is good publicity, right? sigh.
I don't like the tiny print the quote feature uses. larger print would be a nice upgrade! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I'm pretty sure the vast majority of those reading and participating in this thread, don't much care if you, I, or anyone else approves of what has been written. That's the beauty of community discussion, within limits. If you look at the record, CS and a few others have kept this thing going for the last few days.
As far as the upgrade is concerned, stand by....  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | dfkiii (Dan) wrote: "Have you seen the fish in Stove Works on County B ? Is there a known story about this fish ?"
LR: Dan, that fish is well covered in Volume II of my book (the fun stuff!). It is the Barber speared fish that was sold to an old buddy of Louie Spray; Widmer Smith. He wasn't supposed to have it, so he "sat" on it for eight years before he cut it apart and mounted it, adding several inches of length (ala Karl Kahmann with Johnson's fish and Spray's first two fish). It fooled some for awhile when it was "claimed" to be 71 pounds 5 ounces, which of course it wasn't. The big tip off was that the "extra skin" added, was done behind the head rather that behind the pelvic fins as Kahmann had done. Had he moved the front fins forward or put the extra skin behind the front fins instead of in front of them it would have been more believable.
It was not claimed as a record and it was made clear by the first owner that put it on display that it had been speared. It was a huge fish when taken, but nowhere near what was later claimed. The fish then disappeared from public view for awhile and later turned up at the current location.
And that is the rest of the story.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell,
Muskellunge Historian
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | lambeau wrote: "the "Modern World Records" idea is a great one. the problem is that the bar was set too high. if it's a modern record, why does it have to be 60lbs or more to even qualify, thereby ensuring NO modern record is in place?"
LR: I don't like the quote feature either, and sorry for mixing you up with CS awhile back (sworrall, you should identify who's quote you are using). At any rate, I'll address this part of one of your posts in sections. First of all it wouldn't matter if we had set the bar at 20 pounds, there would have been no record UNTIL one was properly certified with the new committee.
lambeau continued: "designate a 50lber as the current record and let people submit claims to beat it - there's already plenty of well-certified weighed fish out there that could claim the honor."
LR: NOT SO! Name me one fish out there that has been certified to the new programs criteria...hasn't been one. Therefore, we decided to set the bar at 60 pounds to prevent the potential killing of several 50 pound class fish just to establish a new record. Personally, I believe that no one will take a new record seriously anyway unless it is at least 60 pounds.
lambeau finished: "or even better, since muskies are a released sport fish, just forget weight and establish a modern length record. a well-publicized effort with good visuals online would gain enough support to simply make the FWFHoF irrelevent for muskies."
LR: This would never work unless every applicant had EXACTLY the same measuring board, the board was coded and submitted with the entry. Just don't see it happening. By the way, you forgot the irrelevency of the IGFA as well.
lambeau's response above to sworrall: "essentially, yes. sometimes it's hard to tell if folks (esp. Ramsell) are REALLY interested in any resolution, or prefer to just keep the drama going and the story alive. "
LR: I'm amazed that you find it hard to believe that I AM "interested in any resolution". I have done nothing for the past several years but attempt to get at the truth, set it straight and attempt to repair the damage done to record keeping, that apparently the record keepers care little about. As for "keeping the drama going", you can count on me being there as long as I can breathe in order to keep the truth and facts out there and dispell any of the BS put forth by the small group that has managed to make themselves look bigger by manipulating the poll on this thread including those that simply haven't taken time to research and read the massive amounts of information extant that tells the entire story that leaves little to doubt; obviously there are some that just love the flowage and WANT to believe.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell,
Muskellunge Historian
Edited by Larry Ramsell 2/5/2011 11:47 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 73
| I’d be EXTREMELY surprised if this matter were ever to be resolved, in that the records would be changed (again). There are gallons and gallons of water under the bridge over many, many years now. People on both sides are dug in so deep that they just WON’T say ‘uncle’.
It’s unlikely that Winternet will never get it any closer to resolution, but I don’t think anybody really expects it to. The main thing that these discussions do is highlighting WHY there has been some new measures developed for verification and record keeping in the future.
Edited by Jim Munday 2/5/2011 12:18 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Sorry, but if you took a look at various polls that have been conducted on other sites over the years, they were much more representative of what you see here. How do you know that this poll isn't being manipulated. I recall editors on others sites indicating that they knew posters were well known guides writing under aliases; so don't think for a minute that it doesn't happen or that it takes place on only one side of the equation.
I've repeatedly asked about VGS because it has been well documented that the vanishing points used in the Spray analysis were either extraordinary weak or didn't even exist. In the Spray analysis, there is only one good right hand vanishing point and it was not the one used in the challenge. In my opinion, the Spray report was rather thoroughly deconstructed on another site, which truly called the results into serious question.
Since there is another photogrammetric solution that exists and is contrary to the public one, my suggestion is to have the WRMA release their rights to the VGS model.
It seems to me that they tested their model back in 2005 / 2006 and believe that it would be conclusive.
I will volunteer to pay for the test.
I am sorry to offer a contrary viewpoint, but it happens to be my substantiated belief at this time. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1207
Location: Pigeon Forge TN. | Good explanation Steve, but it still won't end there sorry to say. |
|
| |
|
| Guest, if you seriously want to try to disprove the WRMA photo analysis, you should make a fresh start and just have a new expert review the WRMA body of work. Otherwise you run the risk (assuming the results are different), of just having the 2 experts wash each other out, it would be far better if you could have the WRMA analysis debunked. I'm guessing you're really not interested in the correct way to go about this though and just trying to waste our time with more smoke and mirrors.
Seriously, if it's such "bad science" (as Emmett Brown claims), it should be a cakewalk for you guys to disprove it with any number of other experts. Another thing, it doesn't make any sense that the Hall of Fame didn't already check into this by now.
Let me explain this to you like you're 6 years old, the only way to restore the credibility of the Hall of Fame is to remove these BS records and fire John Dettlof and Emmett Brown. I'm guessing that's probably not an option you're interested in either? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | CS: Your comment that..."ALL the previous 60 lbers. are considered suspect is about as ridiculous as it gets.", is a bit off base, at least if comments re same on Internet boards are any indication. For instance, I have yet to see any negative comment regarding the 1939 and 1940 muskies from Eagle Lake, Ontario.
John J. Coleman's 1939 fish weighed 60 pounds 8 ounces and was the first ever verified/recognized 60 pound muskie. It was 58 1/2 inches long and had a 31 1/2 inch girth and certified as a world record by Field & Stream.
The other, caught by Edward Walden in 1940 weighed 61 pounds 9 ounces and was 59 inches long and had a 31 inch girth. It too, was certified by Field & Stream.
Even Dettloff has been mute on these two fish and the first one topped his hero Spray in 1939! Then too there have been a few released fish in the past couple of decades that many feel could have touched that magic 60 pound mark had they been kept. So, perhaps having the bar set at 60 pounds isn't a "ridiculous" as you think.
Again, fishery first. I don't feel it necessary to have a bunch of 50 pound class fish bonked when there isn't much doubt in the muskie world that they can indeed reach the 60 pound mark! |
|
| |
|
| If the NFWFHoF hired a new photogrammetrist and they disagreed with DCM it would be no different than if VGS did. Therefore, I see no reason not to supply them with the rights to use that model. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | lambeau wrote: "there haven't been any to the "program's criteria" of a second weighing by biologist or committee member because there haven't been any 60lbers caught! why would anyone bother to do so with a 50lb class fish? sum ergo sum! that said, there HAVE been a few fish weighed on certified scales with plenty of the photographs and other requirements the committee requires. the committee could have reasonably picked a well-supported previously caught fish and designated that the initial record. subsequent submissions would have to follow the committee's criteria. by having NO "Modern World Record" fish for 4 years since the program was announced, i fear it's being forgotten."
LR: I disagree that starting a program with a fish that does not meet rules critera would/could be a good thing and that "NO 'Modern World Record" is better. Can't comprise the new program's rules just to get it going. Having said that, and for the sake of the fun of contiued debate in a bit of a different direction, how about you start a list of candidates that you think should have been/should be considered?
LR's previous post: "Therefore, we decided to set the bar at 60 pounds to prevent the potential killing of several 50 pound class fish just to establish a new record. Personally, I believe that no one will take a new record seriously anyway unless it is at least 60 pounds."...and lambeau's response:
lambeau: "an understandable approach, but if you're going to establish a harvest record it comes with the territory i suppose? which is taken less seriously: a sub-60lb record or NO record?"
LR: Covered above I believe. I understand what you are saying, but it was the unamious concensus of our respected committee that the bar be set where it is.
From a previous LR post: 'lambeau finished: "or even better, since muskies are a released sport fish, just forget weight and establish a modern length record. a well-publicized effort with good visuals online would gain enough support to simply make the FWFHoF irrelevent for muskies." LR: This would never work unless every applicant had EXACTLY the same measuring board, the board was coded and submitted with the entry. Just don't see it happening.'
lambeau's response: "personally i think it's actually MUCH more likely that top anglers fishing top waters would purchase and carry a program-certified bump board (and submit it for examination after catch) than it is that they would harvest a 60lb fish. a "Modern Release Record" frees you and the angler from the loaded politics of harvesting fish, would increase the likelihood of getting submissions, and then people could argue during the winter about a 60" skinny fish versus a fat 58" fish!
LR: You likely have a valid point, at least among top anglers, but what about the average Joe that doesn't put in much time relative to the "top anglers" but, like FAR TOO MANY anglers in the past, just happens to be in the right place at the right time and doesn't have a "program-certified bump board"? Immediately there would be an instant uproar and demand that an exception be made to the rules. Not a hassle I care to get involved with. On the other hand, perhaps MuskieFirst would like to begin such a program and have some boards made up and sell at cost plus a modest profit...Steve?
|
|
| |
|
Location: Sawyer County, WI | Larry Ramsell - 2/5/2011 11:20 AM
dfkiii (Dan) wrote: "Have you seen the fish in Stove Works on County B ? Is there a known story about this fish ?"
LR: Dan, that fish is well covered in Volume II of my book (the fun stuff!). It is the Barber speared fish that was sold to an old buddy of Louie Spray; Widmer Smith. He wasn't supposed to have it, so he "sat" on it for eight years before he cut it apart and mounted it, adding several inches of length (ala Karl Kahmann with Johnson's fish and Spray's first two fish). It fooled some for awhile when it was "claimed" to be 71 pounds 5 ounces, which of course it wasn't. The big tip off was that the "extra skin" added, was done behind the head rather that behind the pelvic fins as Kahmann had done. Had he moved the front fins forward or put the extra skin behind the front fins instead of in front of them it would have been more believable.
It was not claimed as a record and it was made clear by the first owner that put it on display that it had been speared. It was a huge fish when taken, but nowhere near what was later claimed. The fish then disappeared from public view for awhile and later turned up at the current location.
And that is the rest of the story.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell,
Muskellunge Historian
Thanks very much Larry ! I appreciate the info.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | lambeau wrote: "that same person is pretty likely to be unaware of and violate the extensive certification rules of the harvest record process as well. whether by failing to document with enough pictures, using a spring scale, or whatever."
LR: You are correct, as you were when you said that without a record the new program may be forgotten (which, if you go back in this thread aways, seemed to be the case). Either way, "average Joe" has a high percentage chance of failing to meet either criteria. What is needed in either case, should a release record program be initiated, is better media coverage by outdoor writers and publications not directly involved with muskies (although more coverage by Musky Hunter surely couldn't hurt and even though Mr. Saric is on the committee, coverage there is sadly lacking. Here on MF, Mr. Worrall has been kind enough to publish what I have released re same, but it ends there.
I guess what is needed here is another poll on whether or not muskie anglers want to support the new program; want a new "release" based program or just don't care. Since I have no clue on how to start a thread with a poll, I guess if anyone is interested, they will have to do it or the management of this site could kick it off.
lambeau also wrote: "in addition to top anglers, i think charter captains and guides on trophy waters might get on "board" if they had a release record program to chase."
LR: I think you are probably right, but unless there is a poll/thread that says so or someone begins a release program acceptable to the masses and it takes hold, we'll never know for sure.
|
|
| |
|
| The Canadians call Martin Williamson's fish (61 lbs 4 oz.) 'unofficially' the SECOND largest ever to come out of Canada. I can understand this because the O'Brien fish at 65 lbs. is listed as the Canadian record. Now my question is why isn't Ed Walden's fish (61 lbs. 9 oz.) considered by the Canadians 'officially' as the second largest ever to come out of Canada?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | CS: I don't know if it is the Canadian's so much that called the late Martin Williamson's fish the second largest (officially or unofficially) than it was Williamson himself on his web site. Some years back I pointed out this discrepancy to him but he failed to make any correction on his site. At any rate, Walden's fish WAS the Canadian record for 48 years prior to O'brien's catch in 1988. It is unlikely he was even aware of the Walden fish when he made his claim. Why he chose not to make the correction is something we will likely never know. As an aside, Williamson's fish apparently was not weighed on a certified scale.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell,
Muskellunge Historian
Edited by Larry Ramsell 2/5/2011 5:39 PM
|
|
| |
|
| It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the steady increase in yes votes vs. no votes is a few people influencing the voting. There's no way this poll goes from page 4, 12% to page 14, 16% without the Hayward Mafia doing their usual misdeeds.
It would be interesting to know what the real percentages would be if only registered users were allowed to vote, it would have to be over 90% NO based on the responses. Is there any way Muskiefirst can monitor a different poll that would be based only on registered users? I would register then.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Some folks may be recruiting to get the number of yes votes up, that's not unusual. A couple percent isn't a game changer one way or the other. |
|
| |
|
| I like Steves take as well, he has a lot of good points, I think the answer will be found in ice cream, Maybe Jerry Garcia has the answer? All points of view should be welcome, that is if they are really doing it for the right reason, and not just to line their own pockets. But those dudes have to sleep at night as well. So I have no problem hearing all sides. |
|
| |
|
|
Newcomer to the thread, and I have a question that is likely answered elsewhere but I'm missing it.....
If someone brings a 60 lb fish to the WRMA and it passes all tests, are they/you then considering that the new "modern" world record? Would it be more legitimate than Williamson's fish?
(not saying Williamson's is the biggest, but as far as i know there is ZERO controversy on its weight). |
|
| |
|
| I dont have that answer, but sounds like a good place to start |
|
| |
|
| Down by the Bay
By John Power
Publication: The fishing News
Issue: Jan 15-Mar 15 2001
The Fishing News "In November, Toronto angler Martin Williamson successfully landed the second-largest muskie ever caught in Canada."
This isn't Williamson talking. Williamson being an avid muskie fisherman would almost surely have known about the Walden fish. Why do you think Williamson chose not to make the correction on his website even after you mentioned the Walden fish to him? The only logical reason is he didn't believe the Walden fish was legit.
I have yet to find a single person from Canada who believes Walden's fish had a 31" girth, or a 59" length. The photo of his fish clearly shows this to be impossible.
|
|
| |
|
| The Spray fish was 'certified' by Field and Stream and accepted by them as a world record. 83.48% of the people here believe the fish isn't as large as claimed which indicates that Field & Stream 'certification' has about the same credibility as 'certification' from the contest sponsored by Fleet Farm.
Just because Field & Stream 'certified' the Coleman and Walden muskies doesn't make them any more legit than Spray's fish. In fact, I would say Field & Stream certification is meaningless based upon the results of this poll.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | CS: Either Power mispoke (he had my book to refer to and published an article on the top 10 Canadian muskies in Ontario Out of Doors using photos he got from me that included the Walden fish) or Williamson had told him that and he failed to do research, rather taking Williamson's word for it during the rush to deadline...to say Williamson knew about or didn't believe in Walden's fish is merely conjecture on your part. He never indicated any such thing to me. For you to say "The only logical reason is he didn't believe the Walden fish was legit.," is merely personal opinion on your part and has no basis in fact.
My point of noting both Eagle Lake fish were F&S certified was merely to show that both underwent scruitny and passed and, again, not even Dettloff has had any problem with them, nor has there ever been any other problems associated with either fish that I am aware of, aside of course, from your comment "I have yet to find a single person from Canada who believes Walden's fish had a 31" girth, or a 59" length. The photo of his fish clearly shows this to be impossible."
And CS, just how large was this "poll" of yours regarding the Walden fish? Apparently you have just joined the Dettloff amateur ranks of determining fish size just by "looking" at a photograph, unless you have professional photogrammetery credintials. Do you? And if yes, what are you using in that photo to base the analysis upon?
Williamson 'may' have been an "avid muskie fisherman", but for how long? And what makes you so certain he would have known about the Walden fish? He certainly was UNAWARE of how total length should be measured (he used fork length measurement) and that he should have gotten his fish to a certified scale for validation, so it isn't unreasonable to think that he may not have known or cared about past muskie records for Canada.
Edited by Larry Ramsell 2/6/2011 3:48 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Sorry Larry -- if someone brings a 60 pounder to the WRMA and it passes all tests, is it your claim that it should be the new "modern" world record?
|
|
| |
|
| Whoops - meant "So Larry", not "sorry" |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Guest wrote: "So Larry -- if someone brings a 60 pounder to the WRMA and it passes all tests, is it your claim that it should be the new "modern" world record?"
LR: Guest, you must have missed some sailent points throughout this thread. The WRMA is NOT administering the new Modern Day Muskellunge World Record Program. The committee referenced in the 2006 articles in the "NEWS" section of this web site will be making the decision on a new modern day record. It is felt by the committee, that none of the past catches that would have qualified by weight would meet the stringent new (and I might add "demanded" by today's discriminating muskie anglers) rules requirements.
So, I believe the answer to the basis of your question is yes, if someone catches a muskellunge of 60 pounds or over and it "passes all tests", it will become the new programs world record.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell,
Committee Chairman
|
|
| |
|
| larry i have a lil question for ya,i have listen to a video with you.
sworrall or someone else have asked you a question.the question was what fish is the true wr? your answer was obrien's fish meat all the criteria.
so my question is why the next 60 pounder will be the wr??
tks |
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | For many years fork length was the accepted way to measure fish in Ontario and size limits were based on fork length. Not exactly sure when it changed to total length but I think within the last 20 years. |
|
| |
