|
|
| Trophyhunter1958 - 1/19/2011 8:27 AM
First off lets keep this respectfull , I see some valid points from both sides , that being said i don't believe that there has been a 69 lb fish caught yet , that is just going by the pictures and info available today , but i do believe it will happen in the next couple of years ,here on the Larry with the invasion of round gobies all spieces of fish seem to be increasing in size , smallmouth that used to avg 2-3 lbs are now avg 4-5 lbs , walleye on the bay of Quinte that were avg 10-12 lbs are now avg 14-16 lbs and guess what all are full of Gobies , it would only make sense that Muskies will show the same increase in wieght gain ,in fact i believe it has already show this with the numbers of large fish being caught in the last two years , our chapter is awaiting the results from Dr J Casselman on a 51 in that unfortunatly did not survive a release , it will be interesting to see what the stomach contents were and the average size of the forage , when this information is released i will post the results
so you think musky near the wr are gona get cople of xtra pound because you think they feed at 3 inch gobie?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| Guest - 1/19/2011 11:03 AM
firstsixfeet,
What you are claiming is the same as saying 2 + 2 = 4 has absolutely no basis for being a fact.
(1) A genetic or pituitary disorder can be ruled out because as I pointed out earlier, Johnson's fish would have to be deeper than it is wide to possess a 33.5" girth which it isn't.
(2) Johnson's fish is NOT a fluke. It's proportions show nothing unusual.
(3) Whether Johnson's fish ever spawned or not is irrelevant because as stated above, it's proportions show nothing unusual.
(4) The diet Johnson's fish had is also irrelevant for the same reason as above.
(5) The belly on Johnson's fish was reported to be completely empty by the taxidermist that mounted it.
(6) "It is wrong to treat probabilities as if they were cast in stone, for a fish that is way off the probability chart, and yet it seems to be the norm." What is wrong is you confusing facts with probabilities.
Wow, spending all this time to try and tie a potential new record, to an established record, and once again regurgitating the same spiel that has failed before??? Can't somebody do better?
Since I view all "guest" posts on this subject, as nigh on imbecilic, I'll group this with the rest. You have managed to give a completely mangled response to two separate posts I have made. As to the photographic evidence continually cited by "guests" and others, I would refer you to the extra two views of the NB fish over on that OTHER board, specifically the pic where the fish is held hanging vertically. Quite a different perspective on the fish, such as it is. Without any of the historic fish here in front of us, and no lie detector results, and only a limited number of photos and perspectives, you "guests" can stay on your course of righteousness and timidity as you wish, but your photographic "evidence" is the equivalent of nonsense syllables, imo. And what I am saying, when responding in the later post, is that no one at this time has 2, or two, and thus cannot claim that it equals 4. Everyone wants to take the latest theory, espoused by whoever(usually not them), and treat it like those conditions have to be met, when in reality, it is only sky/pie theory until the next fish appears.
Hope you didn't spend too much of your day on your response "guest", it is extremely poor quality...heck, it borders on idiotic.
|
|
| |
|
| firstsixfeet,
Your post doesn't border on being idiotic, it IS idiotic. This thread WAS about how people feel about the legitimacy of the Spray and Johnson records, NOT about how they tie in with a potential new record.
Referring to the two extra views of the NB muskie over on the other board, I see a muskie being held vertically that should should look very much like Johnson's fish but it doesn't. It looks much deeper for it's length. The NB muskie has a girth to length percentage of 58.48% while Johnson's is very similar at 55.60%. The two fish held vertically should look very similar proportionally but they don't resemble each other at all. One of these two fish has a greatly exaggerated girth. We all know which one it is. 
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| Guest - 1/19/2011 3:02 PM
firstsixfeet,
Your post doesn't border on being idiotic, it IS idiotic. This thread WAS about how people feel about the legitimacy of the Spray and Johnson records, NOT about how they tie in with a potential new record.
Referring to the two extra views of the NB muskie over on the other board, I see a muskie being held vertically that should should look very much like Johnson's fish but it doesn't. It looks much deeper for it's length. The NB muskie has a girth to length percentage of 58.48% while Johnson's is very similar at 55.60%. The two fish held vertically should look very similar proportionally but they don't resemble each other at all. One of these two fish has a greatly exaggerated girth. We all know which one it is.
And of course another guest post. Wheeeee!
And what next? That all fish are built exactly alike, regardless of length? Then what, all people are built exactly alike, regardless of length? Incredible bunch of CS morons. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8772
| Well, we're at just over 11% of the muskie angling population at large that believes that Johnson's fish was as big as claimed. Clearly, based on the world record panel discussion at the Chi show, those who spend their lives on the best water aren't convinced either. More and bigger muskies are being caught all of the time, and even the giants we are seeing today don't lend any credibility to the current "records" being legitimate. Nor do the researchers, biologists, or guides. It seems to me that the more people know about this topic the less they believe the records.
Between all the reasearch, all the big fish being caught, all the time and effort put into analyzing how/why/where of the largest fish we know of today, we've still got nothing that would lead anyone to believe that the Spray and Johnson fish were as long, as thick, or as heavy as the records would seem to indicate.
One would think that during all of this time, SOMEONE could have come up with one good reason why the records could at least be believeable.
So those of you who actually believe them: Why? What makes you think, based on everything presented thus far, that the records are accurate?
|
|
| |
|
| firstsixfeet,
If two fish have the same girth to length percentages and carry their weight the same as each other they will look alike proportionally regardless of the length and this is a FACT. What was that you called yourself?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 67
| Pepsiboy , I did not state that Muskies were eating Round Gobies , the statment was ,as the size of the forage increases it would also make sense that the larger predators would increase in size as well ,this is not a fact, just an opinion. hope this clears up your misunderstanding my post
Tight Lines |
|
| |
|
| Trophyhunter1958
i think some anglers enjoy the gobies some not,i am one of them who really not enjoy these ''new''invaders,for now some are enjoying them because most of the game fish are bigger,but the main problem is they are top fry and eggs predators,i know some place on the eastern portion of the larry where you have some problem to locate the bottom,because there is millions and millions of them.
imho perfect musky sized prey number are already lower than ever ill let you guess why.
i just hope you dont think they feed on 5 lbs bass and 8 lbs walleye everyday
i'd like to be wrong
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 81
Location: Toronto, Ontario | dfkiii - 1/16/2011 12:03 AM Mackerel - 1/15/2011 9:33 PM What controversy re: O'Brien Fish? Caught, then weighed after sitting in the bottom of a boat....65lbs, certified scale. The guy was fishing for walleye, he couldn't have given a #*^@ about a musky record. Really ? Check this link: http://www.musky.ca/ontario-record-muskie-ontario-record-musky.htm "O'Brien landed the fish during an annual (mostly fun ) challenge muskie fishing match between two teams of anglers on Georgian Bay. No shortage of credible witnesses. " Who intentionally fishes for walleye during a musky contest ? If only the truth were easily differentiated from perception and hearsay..... I know at least one person who was at the Moon that day, saw the fish, witnessed the whole show. The fish was caught on a 4" Rapala in Blackstone Harbour by a guy fishing for walleye. That particular story is wrong. The biggest musky ever caught by a musky fisherman--which is the real record, IMO, is the Williamson fish. Martin recently passed away, unfortunately, but he holds the musky fisherman-caught musky IMO, for whatever that means. I fish those same waters and that same spot every fall hoping to find one just a little bigger! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Trophyhunter1958 - 1/20/2011 3:10 AM
Pepsiboy , I did not state that Muskies were eating Round Gobies , the statment was ,as the size of the forage increases it would also make sense that the larger predators would increase in size as well ,this is not a fact, just an opinion. hope this clears up your misunderstanding my post
Tight Lines :)
Or the prey is making it to this size because nothing is eating them. Could be a myriad of other factors as well. |
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | 6',
Along the lines of what Todd was saying...
I'd like for you to look at the head size difference on the Johnson/Spray fresh versus mounted fish pictures and provide an explanation why you think the heads on the mounted fish appear noticeably smaller.
Full disclosure, they have been professionally measured smaller percentagewise when compared to the bodies, so it can't rightfully be explained away as perspective.
Maybe you won't see that either?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 574
Location: Elk Grove Village, IL & Phillips, WI | For those who haven't seen it, here is the Johnson mount. Gotta love those pelvic fins!!
(Cal Johnson Hoax Mounted.jpg)
Attachments
----------------
 Cal Johnson Hoax Mounted.jpg (48KB - 1239 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
| lol wisonsin home of the big muskies
anyone have a cabin for rent near courte oreilles? |
|
| |
|
| Martin Williamson's 61 lb. 4 oz. muskie wasn't weighed on a certified scale and doesn't meet the requirements of the O.F.A.H. / Ontario Record Fish Registry, Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. |
|
| |
|
| That"s funny!!! Those pelvic fins are easily 6 inches too far forward!! Either that or 6" was added to the rear end of the mount! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20211
Location: oswego, il | The picture was taken from below the fish and does not show well how the birth "ramps up" just behind the head or the odd angle as it "ramps down" at the rear dorsal. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1141
Location: NorthCentral WI | Article is from 2006 but sums up the Spray fish pretty well. I've never seen either the Spray or Johnson mounts in person but I can see Todd's point about the fish being significantly fatter just behind the head and ramping back down at the tail. I was looking at all this bs for quite a while last night and IMO, the Williamson fish and the recent NB fish pictures have one thing in common - ridiculous girth - so I believe these to be accurate weights. The O'Brian fish was an absolute slob too. So who should rightfully hold the WR? I don't know. But I feel confident in saying niether Spray or Johnson should!
http://www.siam.org/news/news.php?id=981
Edited by MartinTD 1/21/2011 8:48 AM
|
|
| |
|
| Hayward "expert" John Dettloff "claims that the position of the pelvic fins is due to "Pelvic drift"! Must be so, as a taxidermist told him so. What Dettloff was then unable to explain (and I assume the taxidermist also, at least publicly) was if the pelvic fins "drifted" that far forward on the mount (nessary to obtain the "claimed" girth), then where did all the EXTRA SKIN "behind" the pelvic fins come from????????????????
Maybe Dettloff's taxidermist didn't explain it to him, but many others have. The "extra skin" behind the pelvic fins was ADDED to make the fish come out near the "claimed" length.
You won't be able to see it on the photo, but if you ever get a chance to look closely at the mount in the future, look closely at the fins and tail. ALL have also been added to to make them proportional to the "enhanced" body. Nearly 3/4" on the tail and 1/2" on the fins. WHY was that necessary "IF" the fish was really as large as claimed?
Simply, TAIN'T SO! |
|
| |
|
| Methinks it might time to move on and let this go |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| Still the record. Maybe you guys should form a comittee and get it overturned.
|
|
| |
|
| Non-believer - 1/21/2011 9:59 AM
Hayward "expert" John Dettloff "claims that the position of the pelvic fins is due to "Pelvic drift"! Must be so, as a taxidermist told him so. What Dettloff was then unable to explain (and I assume the taxidermist also, at least publicly) was if the pelvic fins "drifted" that far forward on the mount (nessary to obtain the "claimed" girth), then where did all the EXTRA SKIN "behind" the pelvic fins come from????????????????
Maybe Dettloff's taxidermist didn't explain it to him, but many others have. The "extra skin" behind the pelvic fins was ADDED to make the fish come out near the "claimed" length.
You won't be able to see it on the photo, but if you ever get a chance to look closely at the mount in the future, look closely at the fins and tail. ALL have also been added to to make them proportional to the "enhanced" body. Nearly 3/4" on the tail and 1/2" on the fins. WHY was that necessary "IF" the fish was really as large as claimed?
Simply, TAIN'T SO! Maybe it's a hybrid, half muskellunge and half puffer fish? |
|
| |
|
| firstsixfeet,
Any thoughts on why Johnson's mount wasn't at the Chicago show this year? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 574
Location: Elk Grove Village, IL & Phillips, WI | Probably because Dettloff wasn't there to guard it!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I do think FSF has a point. the HFHOF has rejected any and all information and evidence that the record is questionable, and as long as John is involved I suspect that will remain as is. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1141
Location: NorthCentral WI | So I'm guessing John Detloff is the reason Larry Ramsell walked away. Or maybe they're good friends? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 73
| You’re getting near to the ‘hot coals’, and beyond the scope of this thread, Martin. But it is hard to talk at length about who does or does not believe in the current world record Musky claims without eventually touching on WHY it is the way it is at all…and who or what seems to be keeping it play. Steve’s eluding to John’s influence in the matter is close to the target. |
|
| |
|
| The Johnson record was upheld by the IGFA, NOT by John Dettloff or the NFWFHoF. What representative of the IGFA should be held responsible for this organizations decision with Johnson? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | the last living packer who played on the 1941 team is 91 years old and did a phone interview with our local newscaster. how long before the last living person who gives a crap about this argument is still alive? please say soon ... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4080
Location: Elko - Lake Vermilion | This muskie world record is a joke.
It's all controled by hearsay,lies,deception,cheating,and dead guys that,,ah,,well just weren't known for their honestly or ethics.
Will somebody just catch a 70 pounder ! Sheeesh !
Hard to believe that almost 12% thinks this record is legitimate.
Jerome |
|
| |
|
| An awful lot of people "give a crap" about this argument, in fact the overwhelming majority of those who fish muskies believe the "records" are bogus.
The reason it doesn't sit well with most is because most people are fundamentally honest and cannot bring themselves to accept as truth what they feel is lies and never will.
The "sad little minority" alluded to is not comprised of those who will not accept the Johnson fish, it is the two or three crusty old hold outs who waste away their time on barstools down at the Moccasin staring at that fakery in the glass case on the wall.
The rest of us have moved on, choosing to recognize the O'Brian fish, the Williamson fish or some other and we're O.K. with that. |
|
| |
