|
|
| "BuckMan, you state "I just find it a bit odd that WRMA, who seem to hold their world record analysis to a higher standard than Detloff's" Are you suggesting the Detloff's photographic analysis was completed to as high a standard as the WRMA photogrammetric analysis?"
No, thats not what I had implied. In my opinion (and this is just MY opinion)... it appears that by WRMA going to the extra length to contract an independent photogrammetric analysis seems to have set a higher standard than that applied by Detloff's initial review, which I'm pretty sure did not include an independent photo analysis.
I don't know if it was ever EXPLICITLY stated in WRMA's reports, but the IMPLICIT message was WRMA's analysis were of a higher standard. It was almost as if the message was, "You overturned Lawton based X, there is no reason to retain Louis/Cal based on Y".
So again my question to WRMA is, why not apply your methods to three fish that COULD be the world record? If their analysis detemines that Detloff was correct, then HEY, hell freezes over and the two sides find agreement that the Lawton fish were smaller than claimed. If not, then the true WR may be revealed.... which I thought was the real goal of the project.
If Ken's fish is validated by WRMA w/o the same methods applied to Lawton, then I think the project is incomplete... in my humble opinioin... nothing more, nothing less. |
|
| |
|
| BuckMan - 10-4. I see now. Good point. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 126
| Pointerpride102 - 12/3/2009 11:13 AM
Guest - 12/3/2009 10:52 AM
Right now very few people believe in the Spray record even though the "Hall" upheld it.
I would change this statement to very few people in the core musky areas believe it. Outside of WI/MN/IL and some other smaller areas (NY, IA, KY ), people really don't have a clue about the Spray deal. They see the record as a number and believe it as fact. Many of them don't even know there is a controversy.
PP,
You might want to recant on that one. I an not from your "core" area and I for one don't believe there is a chance in he!! that the Spray fish has a snowball's chance of being real, neither is Johnson's fish.
There are just as many of the die hard Yanks that believe that Spray's fish is legit, and no matter what evidence or use of common sense, they will never be swayed other wise.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 20211
Location: oswego, il | Guest, I have had a good look at the mount. The body ramps up on the back from the head and is a 33" tube(summertime girth!) if you will to untill it reaches the dorsal. The dorsal drops down at a very odd angle to make it to the tail. From the dorsal to the tail looks short in comparison to the body length to me.
Also, the burden was on the hall to disprove the WRMA report for the Spray fish which they did. I can only speculate why the ifga did not wish to consider the reoprt. You are right, noone is defneding the Jouhnson fish, for the very reasons you stated, that is why they are mum hoping this discussion blows over.
it is too bad they will not let anyone examine it. They claim the mount will be ruined but all you would need is a small camera to look at the backside of the fish.
Edited by ToddM 12/3/2009 8:31 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Buckman,
There is absolutely no need for any type of photogrammetric analysis being done on Art Lawton's fish. All a person has to do is look at the silhouette comparison in the Johnson report and imagine the person holding the cardboard mock up being an inch shorter, and the mock up four and a half inches longer and you have all the evidence you need that Lawton's fish is bogus.
Larry Ramsell has previously stated that this evidence is "incontrovertible" and I fully agree. It is an absolute crime that Larry is attempting to get this fish reinstated. Knowing a fish is bad and wanting it reinstated is about as low as you can go.
L.R.: "I don't believe anyone who doesn't have their head in "that dark place" believes that either the Spray records or Johnson's record are legit."
He should have included Art Lawton in that sentence. |
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | Buckman:
I completely disagree with your argument for the analysis and/or reinstatement of Lawton. The WRMA did an in-house review of Lawton and determined there was no reason to spend the money or time. Other than New York, it is not a sanctioned record and we agreed with the evidence presented, and conclusions of both record-keeping organizations. Before the WRMA was formed, we sought the advice of Brad Latvaitis and Larry Ramsell and they did not mention doing Lawton first and we can see no justification in doing it now. You complain about the length of time the WRMA has spent on these projects. I would hope you could agree that an inordinate amount of time was spent dealing with the FWFHoF and IGFA's arrogance.
As far as the WRMA doing a full-blown time-consuming and expensive Lawton analysis, take a good look at the silhouette comparison in the Cal Johnson summary report. The WRMA subject is 5'9" holding a 60" silhouette, now compare it to the photographs of 5'8" Lawton supposedly holding a 64 1/2" fish. You might be able convince your self that further analysis is warranted to determine if that is a 64 ½" fish, the WRMA does not. There is no missing photograph as Lawton endorsed the common photograph himself in countless magazines and books.
Can Lawton pass a "common sense" litmus test?
6-60 pounders claimed by the Lawton's fishing in their spare time when nobody else could even catch one on the river.
Len Hartman (who admitted loading fish) could not beat Lawton in the Field & Stream contest.
Harman indicted Lawton in his bedside confession.
Ruth Lawton falsely claimed a 68 lb. muskie that was supposedly as long as she is tall.
Enormous issues with the Lawton weigh in procedure. (Too numerous to mention here, start another thread and I will debate this with you if you like).
I disagree with your 0 for 2 reasoning in that our reports failed, we can only do our job, it was up to FWFHoF and IGFA to do their job. They are the ones that are 0 for 2, and obviously failed. It is my opinion that inevitably something will happen down the road because the WRMA reports are so powerful. Whether you agree with the purpose of the WRMA or not, the research voluntarily delivered to the muskie community is sound.
We explicitly state on our website what our goals are and that we will be holding O'Brien to the same standard.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | "Guest":
While I don't normally respond to someone who is afraid to put their name on their posts, I shall in the case of this:
"Larry Ramsell has previously stated that this evidence is "incontrovertible" and I fully agree. It is an absolute crime that Larry is attempting to get this fish reinstated. Knowing a fish is bad and wanting it reinstated is about as low as you can go."
Guest you misintrepret my intent. All the old records are "historical" and as such should all be treated the same and fairly IF AT ALL....the Hall and IGFA haven't and it is an afront to muskie anglers everywhere. Since the Hall and IGFA sees fit to uphold the bogus Spray and Johnson records, they should do likewise with the Lawton record! Fair is fair. If you will read the last comment of mine to IGFA above, I suggested that they at least make the Muskellunge category OPEN and start over with a 60 pound minimum to prevent the unnessary killing of many large muskies or reinstate the O'brien fish which both organizations recognize.
The "historical" records will always be that, historical. So, let's call them that. MOST in the muskie world don't believe or RECOGNIZE the records from the 30's, 40's and 50's anyway, so why not call them what they are and go with a consensus record all can support and believe in or start over? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 720
| I'm still hoping for an answer from Larry and Jerry to my last question. I appreciated Steve's response. Look forward to yours Larry and Jerry. |
|
| |
|
| Larry,
When you were shown the cardboard mock up of Spray's fish you said that evidence was incontrovertible, plain and simple. Don't try to weasel out of this. I read the Spray report. You should not want a record you know is bogus reinstated under ANY circumstances. Calling a record "historical" is a joke. If its proven bad it should go down as a lie, not something that is to be cherished.
What you should be doing is getting behind the WRMA with Johnson and agreeing with the IGFA's decision on Lawton. The IGFA did the right thing and you know it. Dettloff was right about Lawton...Get over it!!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Hunter4:
You ask:
"1. What is the size of the worlds largest musky?
2. Who caught it?
3. Finally, where was it caught?"
Not sure if/when we talked or what I told you then (when?). If some time ago, things may have changed in my mind, maybe not. I think my last post pretty much clarifies my "historical" postition re the mid 20th century fish that have been challenged either by John Dettloff or the WRMA. That leaves only a handful (or less) of others over 60 pounds in the verified historical list that have yet to be scruitnized, albit all weighing less than the more recent Ken O'Brien fish. The most recent of all is Martin Williamson's 61-4 in 2000. Ken O'Brien's 65-0 was caught in 1988. To my knowledge, Williamson's fish was never sanctioned by any record keeping organization. O'Brien's fish was sanctioned by BOTH the IGFA (and was their all-tackle record for a short time and is still a line class record) and the Hall (and is their power trolling record currently).
So, to answer your questions, at this point I have to go with Ken O'Brien's 65-pounder caught from the Moon River, Ontario in October of 1988. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | "Guest":
You should be venting your frustration at the IGFA and the Hall, not me. I fully agree with the WRMA that the Johnson fish is bad, have said so and have made that clear to the IGFA as well. What is it that you don't understand about treating ALL historical records the same and fairly??? My POINT, again, is that the record keepers cannot pick and choose which fish THEY want as the record. Leave them all in or take them all out...fairly simple concept and one you do not seem to grasp.
You cannot CHANGE history. That several fish were bogus is true, but for over a half-century they were recognized as world records. Doesn't make it right, just a fact...a "historical" fact. |
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | Dave:
Larry's response is the obvious logical choice. The WRMA will be holding O'Brien to the same standard.
I do think that it is a bit of a revelation that our research conclusively proves that the largest verifiable size of any muskellunge in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan is that they top out at 55 pounds. Are larger fish possible... of course, but nothing over 55 pounds is verified yet and please do not consider this an endorsement to kill a muskie.
Getting back to what the official Wisconsin state record "should" be, I was just doing some research and stumbled across this neat little article that was obviously lost within the Spray and Johnson "mystique"of yesteryear.
Without question, "lovely" Rita Hildebrandt's 52 ½ pounder should be one of the legitimate contenders. I am not endorsing her fish only, rather, I would like to see the WDNR take the lead on this and name a legitimate Wisconsin record based on research and science rather than idling accepting the FWFHoF's record.
http://www.lakelandtimes.com/main.asp?SectionID=13&SubSectionID=13&...
Edited by Jerry Newman 12/4/2009 12:04 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Jerry,
A few responses...
"I completely disagree with your argument for the analysis and/or reinstatement of Lawton. The WRMA did an in-house review of Lawton and determined there was no reason to spend the money or time. Other than New York, it is not a sanctioned record and we agreed with the evidence presented, and conclusions of both record-keeping organizations." - This I did not know. I didn't realize you accepted Detloff's initial review.
"Before the WRMA was formed, we sought the advice of Brad Latvaitis and Larry Ramsell and they did not mention doing Lawton first and we can see no justification in doing it now." - I can understand if it was a monetary issue. But my point was to provide both organizations with a point of reference with regards to the methods you were going to be using, and apply those methods to a previously discredited fish to ENHANCE your argument. I my main point wasn't necessarily to "reinstate" the 69-15 fish, but provide reference for future reports.
"You complain about the length of time the WRMA has spent on these projects. I would hope you could agree that an inordinate amount of time was spent dealing with the FWFHoF and IGFA's arrogance." - The Spray report was released in what 2005?, the Johnson report was just released now four years later. I can understand the politics and the cost of the matter, but to the general public, its still a four year lag. And does it with O'Brien?
"As far as the WRMA doing a full-blown time-consuming and expensive Lawton analysis, take a good look at the silhouette comparison in the Cal Johnson summary report. The WRMA subject is 5'9" holding a 60" silhouette, now compare it to the photographs of 5'8" Lawton supposedly holding a 64 1/2" fish. You might be able convince your self that further analysis is warranted to determine if that is a 64 ½" fish, the WRMA does not. There is no missing photograph as Lawton endorsed the common photograph himself in countless magazines and books." - Couple of points... Yes, I've seen all the reports and visualization tests. Do I think the Lawton fish was legit. Not based on the 'common' photograph. But it hasn't been put through the photomodeler either. And I thought Larry had other photos of the supposed 69-15 fish other than the one that is the "common" photo. However again, in the LARGER scheme of things, I think the photomodeler results would have had a better chance of being accepted by BOTH the Hall and IFGA had the Lawton pic been used as a test example. You don't agree?
"Can Lawton pass a "common sense" litmus test? 6-60 pounders claimed by the Lawton's fishing in their spare time when nobody else could even catch one on the river. Len Hartman (who admitted loading fish) could not beat Lawton in the Field & Stream contest. Harman indicted Lawton in his bedside confession." - So now we are taking a "common sense" approach and not a purely scientific one? Heresay evidence from Len? Again, these are things that Detloff has been ridiculed for so I'm surprised to here this tack from yourself.
"Ruth Lawton falsely claimed a 68 lb. muskie that was supposedly as long as she is tall. Enormous issues with the Lawton weigh in procedure. (Too numerous to mention here, start another thread and I will debate this with you if you like). " - I'm not arguing the validity of Lawton. I don't KNOW (And you don't KNOW either) if Art & Ruth caught those fish they did. We weren't there. They had signed affadavits just like Louis and Cal. And in the end, Field & Stream accepted their entries, just as they did for Louis. Art & Ruth caught a boat load of muskies and they did put a lot of time on the water. And... AGAIN.. the point of analyzing the Lawton fish is to provide a POINT OF REFERENCE for the photomodeler results.
"I disagree with your 0 for 2 reasoning in that our reports failed, we can only do our job, it was up to FWFHoF and IGFA to do their job. They are the ones that are 0 for 2, and obviously failed. It is my opinion that inevitably something will happen down the road because the WRMA reports are so powerful. Whether you agree with the purpose of the WRMA or not, the research voluntarily delivered to the muskie community is sound." - The records still stand, so unfortunately WRMA failed to sell the science and argument. I realize the deck was stacked against you with the Hall, but in the end... the two record keeping organizations decided against you. If you think the current record organizations have failed, why don't you publish your own list and maintain a 'musky record' program? What makes the Hall and IFGA the end all and be all of record keeping? Perform your analysis and start a list!
"We explicitly state on our website what our goals are and that we will be holding O'Brien to the same standard." - I would expect nothing less.
|
|
| |
|
| Jerry,
Art Ross' 55lber was a fish that belongs in the "biggest WI fish ever" discussion as well. FWIW... |
|
| |
|
| Larry,
You're back to twisting what I said again and I'm sure everyone here can see this. Why are you avoiding my POINT? Again, you said the silhouette comparison is incontrovertible evidence. This means NOTHING else is needed and you know it.
I want you to come clean to all these people and admit that ALL of the Lawton fish are BOGUS. If you do that, maybe you will restore some level of credibility which I feel you haven't much left.
No matter what the record keepers are doing, you don't put fish back that are proven bogus. It is morally wrong. The ONLY thing I agree on is that ALL these old records should be thrown out. If the IGFA reinstates Lawton, you should find sleeping at night very difficult.
Your "partner in crime" BuckMan, should also understand that there is nothing to debate on this issue. The silhouette comparison effectively accomplishes the same thing as the photogrammetry.
Editor's note: Guest, either read Mr. Ramsell's comments carefully, or expect further poorly stated obvious personal attacks will be deleted.
|
|
| |
|
| Easy there Guest, I'm an independent bystander in this debate.
MY opinion is that WRMA should have applied photomodeler to the Lawton fish as a base of reference, thats it. I don't think Art & Ruths fish were as big as claimed, just would have liked to have seen an independent analysis applied like that done on Louis, Cal and soon to be Ken. I know Larry's POV in this debate and that is where it ends. Whatever beef you have with Larry is between you and him.
But I do agree with Larry that these WERE historical records and everyone should be treated equally.
And if you think all the science needed in this debate was to go to Hobby Lobby and pick up some cardboad sheets, then I guess for you it really is a simple process. However, I think WRMA setting a higher standard than that is a move in the right direction. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 720
| Thanks Larry and Jerry. I appreciated your responses very much. I can only imagine its tough to sit there and listen to your hard work get picked apart at every level. To that I'm very sympothetic. But I think for the most part people don't look as these fish as what they claim to be. Anyway, I don't think WRMA is setting out to destroy the "lore" of the Spray, Johnson and Lawton fish. Instead just looking to set the "Record itself" straight. I would like to ask just one more question and please this not ment to be adversarial (spelling) by any means. How do you folks at the WRMA pick the fish that are going to be looked at (outside of the obvious ones) and is it hard to keep your own personal feelings out of the mix. Is that even possible?
Again, I hope that isn't coming across as a loaded question. I personally don't think I could do what you folks are doing without letting my own personal feelings influence the way I look at the data presented in some of your reports. For example and I'm with Larry in regards to O'briens fish. Unless, they can dig up that dead fishes carcass and pulled an anchor out of it's stomach. I truly feel that fish should strongly be considered for the "World Record". But I know or don't know that there may be some circumstances that might make that a hard call. Thats where the personal thought and feelings would come into play. At least for me. How about you guys? |
|
| |
|
| BuckMan,
Historical lies SHOULD all be treated equally. They should all be THROWN OUT! And if you think tracing the image of Lawton's fish and blowing it up to 64.5" will not work at duplicating what Lawton's fish should have looked like you indeed have a problem, sir. This type of "cardboard image" held in front of a person the SAME height as Lawton will tell you everything you need to know. The WRMA should save their money. Or maybe YOU want to pay for the photogrammetric evaluation, how about it "BuckMan"? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20211
Location: oswego, il | Guest, I have read this whole thread and and I have never once taken Larry as thinking the lawton fish as legit. I toook it as leave them all or dismiss them all. As he has said over and over, can't have it both ways. I like you and most others would like to see them go but if not, which looks to unfortunately be the case, then recognize them all. |
|
| |
|
| "Historical lies SHOULD all be treated equally. They should all be THROWN OUT! And if you think tracing the image of Lawton's fish and blowing it up to 64.5" will not work at duplicating what Lawton's fish should have looked like you indeed have a problem, sir. This type of "cardboard image" held in front of a person the SAME height as Lawton will tell you everything you need to know. The WRMA should save their money. Or maybe YOU want to pay for the photogrammetric evaluation, how about it "BuckMan"?"
Okay, Guest, I'll repeat this s...l...o...w...l...y.
Yes I agree the cardboard visualization is an OKAY test. For some, thats all they need. Obviously you are in that boat. WRMA went the EXTRA step in obtaining a photogrammetric analysis for for Louis, Cal and probably Ken. All I was looking for was a similar analysis on Art because... AGAIN... independent photo analysis was never performed on Art's fish and I (emphasis on I) would be interested in the results of that analysis. SO AGAIN... I don't beleive the Lawton fish was big as claime. AND AGAIN, lets treat all WR equally.... AND AGAIN, if they are all short, then they should set them aside or just recognize them as "historic".
I have zero clue as two what it would cost... Perhaps Jerry would like to share and maybe something can be done  |
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | Dave:
I appreciate you mentioning, "its tough to sit there and listen to your hard work get picked apart at every level". Interestingly enough while speaking with other working members of the WRMA this past week it was not even a topic of discussion. There is simply nothing being picked at with the Johnson Report.
I will personally admit to making some mistakes with the Spray report. For instance, how much money Spray received for his record and his loading the fish with ice. Probably the biggest mistake was the "backbiting" contained within the report that President Rich even cautioned us (okay me) against several times.
Obviously, we were extra careful to avoid that same mistake with this report.
There is a flipside though, one reporter that called mentioned that our report was a "research masterpiece", it certainly has received good reviews like this one from Dale Bowman of the Sun-Times.
http://blogs.suntimes.com/bowman/2009/11/wrma_debunks_another_muski...
Moving forward, the WRMA is equipped with the experience, knowledge, and funding to finish the job. Our next task will be the O'Brien record and we have no horse in this race. I can promise you that the research will be thorough and voluntarily delivered to the muskie community once again. We have researched other fish internally (like Lawton and Malo) and determined there was no need for further research. We will simply continue with the top-down approach until we find the #1 one fish.
I hope this answers your question and thank you for your interest.
|
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | Buckman:
I will not argue online, the answer remains the same.
I can tell you that the difference between the WRMA, IGFA and FWFHoF is that our only motivation is to find the #1 fish. We believe as long as we strictly adhere to that theme, everything else will fall into place.
One thing you missed with your comparison on our "common sense litmus test" is the WRMA did not use that premise to have Lawton record removed, it was simply part of other circumstances and data collected to determine if further action was necessary.
Bottom line it is not a sanctioned record anymore and although the research is not up to our standard, we agree with the conclusion. I personally would bet everything that I own that the size was misrepresented. If you would like to have DCM do a full-blown solution... about $1000.
As far as hindsight in starting with the Lawton record first to help "sell" our research. Point taken, but this is after the fact and now pretty far back in the rearview mirror, not worthy of further discussion. Even so, we believe the WRMA should not have to "sell" anything to either of the record keeping agencies.
|
|
| |
|
| Fair enough Jerry.
Maybe if my stocks do what there are supposed to DCM might get a call one day!
On the whole, I do agree with WRMA's results, just wish we could have had a 'cleaner' outcome. But given everything involved, probably was never in the cards to begin with.
Maybe one day someone will stick a 70 and end it... I'll continue to be happy fishing for the 50" ers!
Merry Christmas! |
|
| |
|
| ToddM,
Did you ever hear Larry admit that the Lawton fish IS bogus like he does about Spray's and Johnson's? I'm still waiting for his response. Remember, he said the silhouette results are incontrovertible with Spray and he knows this same test performed with Lawton will result in an even greater discrepancy. He actually refers to Art and Ruth Lawton as the "King" and the "Queen"!
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Chris, please drop the personal vendetta. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Thank you Mr. Worrall re: "guest". Should have stayed with my policy of not responding to "anons" in the first place, but did so because I thought my responses would be beneficial to the entire discussion. His last post was just trying to "bait me out", again, and this time it won't work unless he wishes to put his name to his posts (I'm sure you already know who it is) for all to see instead of hiding like a coward behind "guest".
I love nothing more than a good discussion on this subject that is so near and dear to my heart. However, I refuse to be badgered by some "clucker" hiding in the darkness of his computer room! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 39
Location: IL | Larry,
As you well know, everyone else reading this interesting post is aware of your position to the WR issues and understands. It seems that there will ALWAYS be the few (usually "guests") that have nothing better to do than sit at a computer and "muck" with people, just for sport. Seems as though there are other Muskie message boards that a "Chris", or "Guest" (as well as others) constantly pokes at people trying to ask legit questions, or debate issues, that gives the same interruptions. For those, I remind you of the word "Consequences". Then, they wonder why MOST of the Guides & "oldtimers" don't engage in interesting, or informational posts!
To Steve, Jerry, Larry, and others who participate in meaningful banter about "The King Of Freshwater"....I Thank You!
To the few "wannabe's" ("guest") that just sit around ALL THE TIME and tap on there keyboards, instead of getting out on the water looking for the NEXT world record........go away.
Phil Blanck |
|
| |
|
Posts: 566
Location: Elgin, IL | Well said, Phil. Thanks Larry.
I strongly second the Thank You to those involved..
Interesting stuff. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 229
| Regarding the Ken O'brien fish- will the WRMA verify this fish or will it report that it is smaller than stated?
John |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20211
Location: oswego, il | WMF, is that not putting the cart before the horse? I do not believe they stated what they thought the results would be on the other fish before hand. |
|
| |
