|
|
| Guest - 1/18/2012 11:33 AM
What does Rich Clark's latest catch have to do with what should happen with the O'Brien record now?
Besides, how can Rich Clark's recent catch be the fish to beat when it's true size is unknown? What it comes down to now is who has the most impressive photo and this is very deceiving as it may be due to perspective. Consider that many people felt the recent 55" x 29" looked larger than Rich Clark's recent catch.
x2
i will add you weren't there ,so you have no idea if the fish was that long!
some guys can add a inch or two,that's the reason why fish have to be killed.
what you think is not gonna make any difference in the musky world
with respect |
|
| |
|
| "Guest" wrote that "It IS ridiculous! Nobody ever admitted that the Spray and Johnson fish were frauds either so these records should also remain in place. It's a good thing that the principle weight witness of Art Lawton's former world record DID recant his original statement otherwise this fish would still be recognized as the world record."
The truth is that Lawton's "principle weight witness" DID NOT recant...that was just a manufactured and bogus change perpetrated by John Dettloff to enhance his claims, so I guess according to these standards, Lawton should still be on top.
Horsehunter: O'brien's fish is at Muskie Jake's, not Muskie Mike's.
By the way, word has it that a close personal friend of John Power's, principal signatory to the O'brien affidavit for weight has come forward to say that Power told him before he died that O'brien's fish was bogus, dispite the fact that he signed the affidavit!! I assume more will come forth in due time regarding this, which was a major point in the letter from the President of Muskies Canada in a recent issue of Musky Hunter magazine. Stay tuned folks, it ain't over yet! |
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | Your right it is Jakes what ever the name the food is great. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8772
| I don't care who said what or who did what or who lied to whom. I want to know how big they can get. The largest fish being caught today seem to be it. Today we have more fish in more places, more people fishing with better methods, better electronics, better gear, better fisheries, less harvest, and better size limits. Seems to me that muskie fishing is the best it has ever been. One would think that if the historical records were accurate we'd be beating them. |
|
| |
|
| ea
are you sure about less harvest?
like you say electronics is better,info can be found way more easier whit internet there is no more secrets. 1 thing you have to consider is all those good info and better gears are not just available to guys that are practicing c&r,i also have to mention there is thousands and thousands more musky anglers wich=a lots of floaters.
i dont like when i read in the same paragraph more people fishing with better methods & muskie fishing is the best it has ever been.
for me it's a nonsense maybe i am wrong |
|
| |
|
| the record should be removed, and the sooner the better. I agree with ea and would like to know just how big they really get. |
|
| |
|
| "The truth is that Lawton's "principle weight witness" DID NOT recant...that was just a manufactured and bogus change perpetrated by John Dettloff to enhance his claims, so I guess according to these standards, Lawton should still be on top."
I wouldn't call an affidavit signed by the principle weight witneess saying he did not weigh or measure the fish just a manufactured and bogus change.
"By the way, word has it that a close personal friend of John Power's, principal signatory to the O'brien affidavit for weight has come forward to say that Power told him before he died that O'brien's fish was bogus, dispite the fact that he signed the affidavit!! I assume more will come forth in due time regarding this, which was a major point in the letter from the President of Muskies Canada in a recent issue of Musky Hunter magazine. Stay tuned folks, it ain't over yet!"
Let me get this straight. A close personal friend of John Power's has come forth to say that Mr. Power's admitted to him that he lied on his affidavit? I wouldn't think a close personal friend would do such a thing to his buddy! Why would Mr. Power's incriminate himself? Falsifying an affidavit is serious business! This close personal friend of Mr. Power's obviously doesn't have a problem destroying the integrity and reputation of his buddy now that he's dead. And why didn't this information come out sooner? How long ago did Mr. Power's pass away?
|
|
| |
|
| Is a scale from 1930 or 1940 even a reliable enough scale? |
|
| |
|
| John Power passed away Feb. 22, 2010. If he wanted to clear his conscience he should have provided an affidavit saying O'Brien's fish was bogus before he passed away just like Walter Dunn did with Art Lawton's fish. Admitting the fish was bogus to a close friend wouldn't accomplish anything and makes me wonder why and if he really did it. This "close friend" could say anything he wanted to after Mr. Power passed away and he could never be proven guilty of fraud. The words or affidavit would have to come from Mr. Power in order to have any value. |
|
| |
|
| Certified Scale - 1/19/2012 11:33 AM
Is a scale from 1930 or 1940 even a reliable enough scale?
If its certified, of course. Not that it matters much as we have seen, they just fill em before putting them on the scale anyway  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 177
| John power a liar over a fish that he never caught wow anyone who has followed his career and has met and spoke with him as I have knows that's a real longshot . |
|
| |
|
| And with Art Lawton's fish, the person actually weighing the fish is unknown...LOL! If anyone can identify who actually weighed Art Lawton's former world record muskie please do so here.
What should happen to the O'Brien record now is the same thing that happened to Art Lawton's fish. It should be promptly removed. |
|
| |
|
| "John power a liar over a fish that he never caught wow anyone who has followed his career and has met and spoke with him as I have knows that's a real longshot ."
The evidence should support him if he was telling the truth in his original affidavit. |
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | The same should be said for Loyd (I think ) Thurston a MNR employee |
|
| |
|
| I agree. The evidence should support him too but the reality is it doesn't support either one of them. These people could have witnessed a scale reading of 65 lbs. and they wouldn't be lying if they were unaware that 9 lbs. of it was water. But anybody claiming the fish was 58" long and saying so on an affidavit is in trouble. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 720
| Wow, this again. The same "guest" and people yelling and screaming the loudest about this fish and that fish being a fraud. Are ususally same folks the are screaming the loudest for 100 percent catch and release. None of this is going to change until somebody thumps one of those giants out east. Or someone will catch and kill a monster and in 2030 something declare it was a fraud and all the witnesses were lying. I see debating the fish on its own characteristics just on what Mr. Ramsell has seen. What I can't get over is all of the eyewitness accounts. How do you call that many folks liars? The fish is huge no question and in my mind there is enough witnesses and evidence to cautiously disagress with the need to remove it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20211
Location: oswego, il | Hunter4 what I get from what is being said here is this. Wisconsin witnesses good, Canadian witnesses bad. |
|
| |
|
| hoaxhunter - 1/19/2012 5:48 PM
I agree. The evidence should support him too but the reality is it doesn't support either one of them. These people could have witnessed a scale reading of 65 lbs. and they wouldn't be lying if they were unaware that 9 lbs. of it was water. But anybody claiming the fish was 58" long and saying so on an affidavit is in trouble.
I don't see any yelling or screaming????? I think the only people who should be called "bending the truth" should be the ones who measured the beast. Anyone know who weighed and who measured? We send gov. officals to jail but can't question the MRN dude? Okay...............The evidence should support, and it don't. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8772
| not sure - 1/19/2012 6:26 AM
ea
are you sure about less harvest?
like you say electronics is better,info can be found way more easier whit internet there is no more secrets. 1 thing you have to consider is all those good info and better gears are not just available to guys that are practicing c&r,i also have to mention there is thousands and thousands more musky anglers wich=a lots of floaters.
i dont like when i read in the same paragraph more people fishing with better methods & muskie fishing is the best it has ever been.
for me it's a nonsense maybe i am wrong
It IS the best it's ever been, because we have size/slot/creel limits and effective stocking, and muskies in places where there were none before. And we've got catch and release. 20 years ago you could fish your whole life with no hope of ever seeing a 50" fish. Now you can catch a 50" fish in places that didn't even HAVE them when I was growing up. |
|
| |
|
| Hunter said; "Or someone will catch and kill a monster and in 2030 something declare it was a fraud and all the witnesses were lying." The only problem with your little theory happening in 2030 would be that it would have to be a fraud in the first place like Lawton,Spray,Johnson,O'Brian are.
If the witnesses are telling the truth all that is needed is for someone to find a problem with the facts the WMA put together. From my seat here unless the WMA made things up regarding the mold and photo work, the witnesses to the length of O'Brian are lying. But, the witnesses to the weight either looked the other way or were witnessing a loaded fish without knowing any better.
Anyone who is supporting the size of O'Brians fish is also saying the WMA and Larry Ramsell are lying, did you ever consider that Horse? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 720
| LOL Todd,
You guys my point is as long as there are witnesses and no fish to back them up. It will always be questioned. I don't agree or disagree with what the majority of you are writing. But the fact is that O'brien's fish is way bigger than anything that is hanging on a wall claiming to be a record. Please note I said claiming to be a record. I'm not saying it is or isn't. So, in so much as that is not going to change. I don't see O'brien's fish being removed until somebody kills and presents a fish of undisputed larger size to displace it. While you and I might not agree with the fishes place in the record books who cares what we think. We don't make those calls and the folks that don't agree with that position.
Edited by Hunter4 1/20/2012 7:40 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1202
Location: Money, PA | Start fresh! LOL! |
|
| |
|
| Hunter4 said in part..."I don't see O'brien's fish being removed until somebody kills and presents a fish of undisputed larger size to displace it."
Problem with that Hunter4, as well as the bogus records of the IGFA and NFWFHF is that it is entirely possible that muskies DON'T grow that big, ergo, it will be impossible to do what you suggest. THAT my friend, is what all of this record stuff is about. We NEED a credible world record that IS attainable and believable.
As suggested, the best thing to do is start over, but politics within the two above mentioned organizations just won't allow it. Shame on them for protecting and promoting records that have been scientifically proven false. |
|
| |
|
| The O.F.A.H. (Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters) should also be mentioned along with the IGFA and the NFWFHF. These people never even addressed the evidence presented to them about the Canadian record. |
|
| |
|
| How could they do that when the fish was prepared at the Royal Ontario Museum? The most convincing part for me is the 54" mold coming from a supposed 58" fish, not possible The people at the OFAH are questioning the competency of the workers at the museum then, crazyness because Crossman and Cassleman were working there then I think. |
|
| |
|
| "How could they do that when the fish was prepared at the Royal Ontario Museum? The most convincing part for me is the 54" mold coming from a supposed 58" fish, not possible The people at the OFAH are questioning the competency of the workers at the museum then, crazyness because Crossman and Cassleman were working there then I think."
So the O.F.A.H. had a decision to make. Are the witnesses telling the truth or are the workers at the Royal Ontario Museum, including Crossman and Casselmn incompetent? The O.F.A.H. upheld the fish so what is that telling you?
|
|
| |
|
| Guest - 1/18/2012 10:33 AM
What does Rich Clark's latest catch have to do with what should happen with the O'Brien record now?
Besides, how can Rich Clark's recent catch be the fish to beat when it's true size is unknown? What it comes down to now is who has the most impressive photo and this is very deceiving as it may be due to perspective. Consider that many people felt the recent 55" x 29" looked larger than Rich Clark's recent catch.
That photo was distorted in some manner. Muskie Hunter interviewed the fisherman and the picture looks real http://www.muskyhunter.com/general/st-lawrence-monster-boated/ |
|
| |
|
| Fact is that SOME PEOPLE think anybody who has reported a fish bigger thann THEY caught must be a liar!!! |
|
| |
|
| That new photo is a much better representation of the true size of that fish but it doesn't change the point I was making. Another guy pointed out the problems with that photo on another thread and everyone got irritated!
Having the most impressive photo does NOT mean Rich Clark's fish is the one to beat. Another photo of this fish may look entirely different. Case in point, a 48" muskie will appear to be about 55" long when compared to the size of anything 12" behind it.
But as I said before, what does any of this have to do with what should happen with the O'Brien record now?
|
|
| |
|
| So how do all of you feel about the O.F.A.H. choosing to support the witnesses instead of supporting the competency of the staff at the Royal Ontario Museum which included Dr. Ed Crossman? |
|
| |
