|
|
| I agree with toothy, this is a really big deal to a lot of us and it needs to be talked about. Nice job M1st! |
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | Don't know the exact year and see nothing on their website. I know it was still going in 1989 |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| It's my understanding that the OFAH WAS the record keeper in '88 and were the sponsors of the Molson contest.
Not 100% on that but I'll go with it until I learn different.
Seems that since O'Brien and M. Grisdale made a point of being photographed with a yardstick next to the fish that the record app. would be going to OFAH since that picture was one of their requirements.
DougP |
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | Interesting to note that in the list of contacts sent with the challenge to the OFHA none of the Muskies Canada witnesses that were actually there were listed seems they were very selective in their list
Edited by horsehunter 4/20/2011 11:45 AM
|
|
| |
|
| SV,
"56# on a 54" fish is pretty hard to swallow."
That just so happens to to be the weight and length of the fish at the time Larry weighed it with three witnesses present. As was mentioned earlier, both scales were confirmed to be accurate by Ontario Weights and measures.
Why do you find this difficult to swallow? The fish was said to have contained a massive amount eggs at the time it was weighed by Larry. A 54" muskie with a massive egg mass could easily carry a girth that would support a weight of 56 lbs. However, it would be next to impossible for a 54" muskie carrying a massive egg mass to weigh 65 lbs unless it's stomach also contained an additional 9 lbs. of forage which we know wasn't the case.
|
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | The New Brunswick fish was 60 at 52 |
|
| |
|
| horsehunter,
And what exactly was found inside the NB muskie that contributed to this reported weight?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Seems we have no info forthcoming on the autopsy that was supposed to performed a few weeks ago on the NB fish.
I think once they put a knife to it just deflated!!  |
|
| |
|
| SV,
If you find 56# at 54" hard to swallow, how do you feel about the NB muskie being 60# at 52"? |
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | Information will not come quickly we have waited 2 years for results on a St. Lawrence fish and we had to come up with the money for the testing |
|
| |
|
| SV,
"When you think about it, what makes more sense, a 58" - 65# or a 54" - 56#."
A 30.5" x 58" and a 28.4" x 54" have the same girth to length ratio of .5259.
30.5" x 58" has an 800 formula weight of 67.44 lbs., 2.44 lbs. heavier than the reported weight of 65 lbs. 28.4" x 54" has an 800 formula weight of 54.44 lbs., 1.56 lbs. less than Larry's reported weight.
Now, why do you feel a 58" - 65# makes more sense than a 54" - 56#?
I also find it interesting that both the 1998 (p.105) and 1999 (p. 210) Musky Hunter's Almanacs have the girth of O'Brien's fish listed at 28".
|
|
| |
|
| JD, it is interesting too that the length stated for O'Brien's fish on those two Almanac's you referenced had it at 56.5 inches....hmmm. |
|
| |
|
| We're shooting the NB fish now?.....
- wasn't angler caught (no one is claiming a big victory)...it was a dieing fish
- guy weighing and holding it in those pics is a ministry guy
- take a look at the thing. Abnormally round, but its consistent through the body.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Just waiting for the promised autopsy report on the NB fish..... 
Also waiting for some forthcoming info on the O'Brien report....
Dougp
Edited by fins355 4/20/2011 8:54 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | They ddn't promise YOU a report they said they would do autopsy on their schedual and like I have said we have been waiting 2 years for one and had to pay for it.
Edited by horsehunter 4/20/2011 8:54 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | The OFHA have never had a record challenged especially 20 years after the fact .....this may take some time |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| hh, you're right...I'm nobody...but, the autopsy was supposed to be done on 4-8-11. Steve Heiting from MH said he would post results asap. Hope we don't have to wait as long as you...LOL!!
I can't imagine waiting 2yrs! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| hh,
I'm hopin' we will have some surprises in store.....stay tuned!
|
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | I don't know how many qualified people there are who could actually determine cause of death, anyone could examine stomach contents. I believe the one I refered to had to go to Queens University |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| hh...not sure what they're lookin' for with the NB fish other than to verify weight, length , age, etc. This fish just looks bloated to me, very unusual and not natural.
The whole idea of putting it back in the river to "complete the cycle of life"....jeeeezzz!!! I think it could be made of better use than to feed the turtles.....do you guys have turtles over there???? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Probably shouldn't divert this thread from O'Brien.
I might be wrong, but I think there will be some more news about this coming shortly.
There are many questions that need to be answered and some may be answered soon.... |
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | New Brunswick wishes that muskies had not moved in from Quebec they are Trout and salmon focused. I think the clieth would have to be dried and probably sent to John Cassleman for aging |
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | What have you got against turtles |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Nothin'....turtles have to eat too, eh? LOL!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Yeah, I know people out west had problems w/pike introduced into trout waters and they killed off the waters w/rotenone to try to get back to their pristine trout waters....
Good point about the ageing and cleith.... would still be nice to get a "heads up" about weight issues, if any........ |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | horsehunter - 4/20/2011 9:10 PM
I don't know how many qualified people there are who could actually determine cause of death, anyone could examine stomach contents. I believe the one I refered to had to go to Queens University
Judging from the look of that fish, I'd bet a dollar that it died of atherosclerotic heart disease and an acute coronary event precipitated by diabetes mellitus and hyperlipidemia. I'd raise my wager to two dollars if someone could confirm she was a smoker.
(Of course she might have choked on a chicken wing too...I heard they fish muskies with chickens in Minnesota. And I even saw a video of it on YouTube!)
But WOW...that gal is plump!
TB |
|
| |
|
| That NB girth is sure plump but does not look to be any greater than Tom Gelbs 50lb musky to me, I'd like to know where that extra 10lbs came from too. |
|
| |
|
| From the Muskies Canada rebuttal to the WMA O'Brien Summary Report now being shown in the Oct / Nov issue of Musky Hunter magazine:
"The WMA's investigative work was done 22 years after the the fish was caught in October 1988, on a frozen and deliberately shortened and dehydrated fish. In addition, no contact was made with the surviving eyewitnesses who were present when the fish was caught and who verified its length and weight."
"This length measurement was about four inches less than when the fish was caught because its pelvic girdle had been cut and folded inside the lower jaw, shorttening the fish by at least four inches, so that it could be squeezed into the taxidermists freezer. This is supported in the picture of Larry Ramsell holding the frozen fish whose head is pointed downward. The weight loss can be accounted for by the massive loss of blood due to the mishandling of the fish and damage to its gills, the significant loss of fluids and dehydration during the several hours it lay on the dock and elsewhere before it went into the taxidermists freezer, dehydration in the freezer, and whatever else happened to the fish between when the frozen fish was later checked."
Questions for Muskies Canada:
(1) Why is there no mention of the yardstick being held alongside the FRESH hanging fish confirming the fish to be at least four inches shorter than what was claimed?
(2) Why is there no mention of the mold made by Kevin Hockley at the ROM confirming the fish was no more than 54" with the head pointed STRAIGHT FORWARD?
(3) How can you claim weight loss of NINE POUNDS due to blood loss and dehydration especially considering that the eggs and stomach contents where inside the frozen fish during the reweighing?
(4) Why do you feel the living witnesses should be contacted under these circumstances? This would put them in a very embarassing situation!
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| MI Canada is simply doing a "tap dance" trying to explain away the very comprehensive and damaging report by the WMA with nothing but nonsense. It doesn't work. This response by MI Canada is very amateurish and without merit. They need to answer the questions posed by the Guest above.
Edited by fins355 10/5/2011 11:50 AM
|
|
| |
|
| "This length measurement was about four inches less than when the fish was caught because its pelvic girdle had been cut and folded inside the lower jaw, shorttening the fish by at least four inches,"
This is a ridiculous statement (grasping at straws) because the the head would have to be turned at almost a right angle for it to lose 4"! Inconceivable while the spine is still attached.
I can understand the Muskies Canada president wanting to save face but this attempted cover-up just makes matters worse. I also noticed in the complete article that he appears to be trying to speak for all of Canada while most of the Canadian Muskie anglers I know do not believe in the validity of this fish. |
|
| |
