|
|
Posts: 456
Location: Kansas City BBQ Capitol of the world | I know that this is for a new benchmark in the modern area and in reading the rules and the procedures set forth I can accept the 58#er as the new benchmark and a good place to start. I think the committee did a good job, was well planned out and long over due.
I do have a question though. Do the same rules apply to State record fish? MDMWRP clearly states Word Record and if this is the criteria, will State biologists be informed of this new information on a State level? I know some good anglers looking for that "ONE" and I would hate to see it be in vain because of a rule that wasn't known or allowed.
Thanks,
Ron
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | The weight wasn't 'reduced' from any discernible mark. The 'next readable mark' above 58 pounds on the certified scale on which the angler weighed the fish was above the actual mark. The closest readable mark was 58 pounds. Therefore, the official weight is 58 pounds as per the rules.
From a post earlier by Larry:
'As for the length, I personally measured the thawed fish last Tuesday. ' |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | DLC wrote: "So did Bearfoots fish not meet any of this criteria? How can a 14 LB test IFGA record be bigger than your guys? Am I missing something?"
Mr. Crooms: The Barefoot muskie was not and could not be subjected to MDMWRP criteria. It was caught before our program began and therefore would not be able to comply with all of our rules for certification.
rjhyland & 4amusky: States have their own records criteria for setting state records. We have suggested that the angler confer with the state of Michigan regarding the length variable from the initial length measurement of 59-inches.
Edited by Larry Ramsell 2/5/2013 11:15 PM
|
|
| |
|
| What year was the Barefoot fish?
Who weighed it?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 332
Location: Michigan | Guest - 2/6/2013 11:57 AM
What year was the Barefoot fish?
Who weighed it?
Pretty sure it was 1989. Weighed at Lamouix meats in Alban. |
|
| |
|
| Slimeball - 2/6/2013 11:07 AM
Guest - 2/6/2013 11:57 AM
What year was the Barefoot fish?
Who weighed it?
Pretty sure it was 1989. Weighed at Lamouix meats in Alban.
What's the story on it? That seems pretty recent to me.
Sorry if this is a dumb question. Looked for it in the research section but the "search" function doesn't work for me, and I didn't see it in any of the thread titles. |
|
| |
|
| "The weight wasn't 'reduced' from any discernible mark. The 'next readable mark' above 58 pounds on the certified scale on which the angler weighed the fish was above the actual mark. The closest readable mark was 58 pounds. Therefore, the official weight is 58 pounds as per the rules."
The point is the scale indicator was slightly above the 58 lb. mark.
If another entry is submitted at 58 lbs. 1 oz it will top Seebergers fish even though Seebergers fish may have weighed 58 lbs. 2 oz.
A "modern day" record program" should require the use of a "modern day" scale.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 415
| Guest - 2/6/2013 11:55 AM
"The weight wasn't 'reduced' from any discernible mark. The 'next readable mark' above 58 pounds on the certified scale on which the angler weighed the fish was above the actual mark. The closest readable mark was 58 pounds. Therefore, the official weight is 58 pounds as per the rules."
The point is the scale indicator was slightly above the 58 lb. mark.
If another entry is submitted at 58 lbs. 1 oz it will top Seebergers fish even though Seebergers fish may have weighed 58 lbs. 2 oz.
A "modern day" record program" should require the use of a "modern day" scale.
To me this is just nitpicking. There's obviously people out there for whatever reason (still convinced Spray's was real, they have a beef with someone on the panel, etc) that just won't/can't accept any amount of logic or fact. Reading through this debate makes me think of squabbles between Democrats and Republicans. Both sides are so firmly entrenched in their believes debating it only makes them more firmly dug into their position, no matter what new information may come to light. I have no dog in this fight. I don't personally know a single person on the MDMWRP, or anyone who has caught or even seen any of these fish in question. All things considered I feel like the program has done a decent job. Whether you still believe in the old "traditional" records or not, something had to be done about the "records" in musky fishing. We will never know the 100% truth behind the old records, so I feel what the MDMWRP is trying to do is the best possible solution. No it won't please everyone, but absolutely nothing they could do would!
Edited by Ja Rule 2/6/2013 12:15 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 572
| "If another entry is submitted at 58 lbs. 1 oz it will top Seebergers fish even though Seebergers fish may have weighed 58 lbs. 2 oz. "
Guest, you will have to read the rules and regulations...........
"A record weight must be bested by at least 4 ounces to establish a new record." |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | Yeesh. Glad I don't worry about records.
I do find it odd that the rules indicate needing at least a 3' section of nylon or nylon coated leader if using wire line for the health of the fish when the fish needs to be bonked in order to qualify for a record.
I also do not see where it states a fish from the past must be within the timeframe of when the MDMWRP was formed in order to qualify, but there was a lot of info so I could have missed it.
I am not huge on worrying about records, but having multiple record criteria for a fish seems odd as well. I would think there should be a consistent set of rules for IGFA, state, and MDMWRP. By not we are just making ourselves (musky community) that much more elite by saying "We don't agree with your rules and therefore will just create our own."
Records are good though as it gives us something to discuss. 
Edited by CiscoKid 2/6/2013 12:51 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Cisco Kid (Travis) wrote: "I also do not see where it states a fish from the past must be within the timeframe of when the MDMWRP was formed in order to qualify, but there was a lot of info so I could have missed it."
Travis, one of our rules requires that an MDMWRP Representative be present when the fish is cut open (and re-weigh it at that time as well to assure original weight). This is to assure that there has been no artifical weight added to the fish internally. Simple and "almost" foolproof. And therefore impossible for historical fish.
Also Travis, here is our reason for coated leaders: The “intent” of this rule is to prevent any external damage to muskellunge captured while using wire line, should the fish roll on the lure or bait while being played by the angler.
Basically, we are trying to discourage the use of wire leaders for all trolling.
Guest wrote: "A "modern day" record program" should require the use of a "modern day" scale."
It does and we do! See our rules...
Scale, Weighing and Witness Requirements:
1) The fish must be weighed on a digital or balance beam scale legal for trade and certified for accuracy within the previous twelve months. Spring type scales are not allowed. Scale certification details must be included on the application. The weighing should be done by the owner of the scale, who is familiar with its operation. If a scale has not been certified within the previous twelve months, it must immediately be re-certified. Any scale deviation found at that time must be applied to the “official” weight of the fish taken at the time of the original weighing. A full written, signed and notarized explanation of this process must be included with the application. Photographs of the entire process would be helpful. A photograph of the scale is required and must be submitted with the application.
It is strongly recommended that even if a scale has been certified in the previous twelve months, a re-certification be made after the official weighing by an appropriate agency. This can only help speed the application acceptance process, and if done, full documentation must be included with the application.
THE COMMITTEE RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REQUEST THAT ANY SCALE BE RE-CERTIFIED FOR ACCURACY AND, BASED ON THE RE-CERTIFICATION RESULTS, RESERVES THE RIGHT TO ADJUST WEIGHT ACCORDINGLY . FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS REQUEST SHALL BE GROUNDS FOR THE COMMITTEE TO REJECT THE APPLICATION.
IT IS STRONGLY RECOMMENDED THAT A FISH BE WEIGHED “ONLY ONCE” ON A CERTIFIED SCALE. ADDITIONAL WEIGHINGS ONLY TEND TO CONFUSE THE ISSUE, HOWEVER, IF MORE THAN ONE CERTIFIED SCALE IS USED, “ONLY” THE SCALE WEIGHING THE “LESSER AMOUNT,” IF ANY, WILL BE ACCEPTED AND CONSIDERED!
3) No weight “estimation” or scale “interpolation,” also known as “visual fractionalizing,” shall be permitted. If a scale is used that shows only pound or half-pound (or kilogram) increments and the weight indicator falls between two of these graduations, THE LOWER OF THE TWO GRADUATIONS SHALL BE THE ONE USED FOR OFFICIAL WEIGHT DETERMINATION. There shall be no exceptions to this rule. A photograph showing the fish on the scale and another photograph showing the actual scale reading is required and must be submitted for scales having less than one-ounce graduation with the application and is recommended with all scales.
Edited by Larry Ramsell 2/6/2013 1:14 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 567
| So the problem with the Barefoot fish was that a member of the committee was not around when it was cut open... ? If thats so then it makes it pretty easy to throw out all fish before 2010 or 2011 .. Im not complaining about that .. just curious if ALL previous big fish were basically written off because obviuosly a member of a committee not yet formed could be there . |
|
| |
|
Location: SE Wisconsin | Makes sense to me.. otherwise all were left with is a record that is up to speculation because rules and guidelines hadn't been established by a licensed organization yet. |
|
| |
|
| ManitouDan - 2/6/2013 2:09 PM
So the problem with the Barefoot fish was that a member of the committee was not around when it was cut open... ? If thats so then it makes it pretty easy to throw out all fish before 2010 or 2011 .. Im not complaining about that .. just curious if ALL previous big fish were basically written off because obviuosly a member of a committee not yet formed could be there .
100% correct Dan!
Regarding Barefoot, it wouldn't matter if it was weighed on 10 certified scales because the stomach contents were not checked. Same reason that a released fish will never be eligible is because the stomach contents and weight cannot be checked by a committee member.
Regarding these other weight questions; I'll try to help explain this as thoroughly as possible because after reading through the rules and other information provided it still has to be slightly complicated for those who are only curious and skimming. I am not a spokesman for them, so take it for what it's worth (and I'm sure Larry will correct me if I'm wrong) but it appears that there are two separate blurry weight questions.
#1 The Seeberger fish was weighed on a certified scale the day it was caught at slightly more than 58 pounds but because the scale did not read in ounces the “slightly more” cannot be guessed at or otherwise interpreted and was willingly forfeited by Seeberger. Certainly there is nothing suspicious about this and hopefully everyone understands the modern-day records program had not even entered the picture yet when this weight was established. And yes, According to the rules Seeberger would lose the record if somebody registered a 58-4 even though his fish *may* have weighed that much.
#2 From the press release, "after the fact"; a couple of the modern-day committee members recommend that the then pending Seeberger state record be considered even though it was 2 pounds short. The fish was only reweighed to confirm, it was not adjusted by Larry or the modern-day records committee. Obviously everything checked out 100% and now we have a record with nothing left to chance, and we didn't have to *take somebody's word for it* this time around.
Thanks Larry! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Lots of "guests" here:"Show me a modern digital or balance beam scale legal for trade and certified for accuracy within the previous twelve months that shows only pound or half-pound increments?"
Scale graduations are usually based on the weighing capacity of the scale. The scale in question had 1/4-pound weight graduations.
Next guest: "Being that's the case is another entry at 58 lbs. 3 oz. considered a tie?"
Yes, a tie. 58-4 to set a new record.
And I almost forgot Manitou Dan: "So the problem with the Barefoot fish was that a member of the committee was not around when it was cut open... ? If thats so then it makes it pretty easy to throw out all fish before 2010 or 2011 .. Im not complaining about that .. just curious if ALL previous big fish were basically written off because obviuosly a member of a committee not yet formed could be there."
Dan, that is but one of several reasons why the Barefoot fish and many other from the past cannot be considered. In some cases, there is scant evidence remaining and many of the rest have been proven to be less than claimed. When we developed our rules, we attempted to cover all bases, however nothing is ever perfect But we, our esteemed Committee (check our our web site if you haven't yet seen whom they are: www.modernmuskierecords.org), have done everything humanly possible to assure that our records will be credible. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 717
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | Guest - 2/6/2013 12:55 PM
A "modern day" record program" should require the use of a "modern day" scale.
So, it's a good thing that the actual scale used was bought and calibrated less than a week before Will Schultz went to weigh the fish, eh?
Guest - 2/6/2013 5:33 PM
If a scale is used that shows only pound or half-pound (or kilogram) increments and the weight indicator falls between two of these graduations, THE LOWER OF THE TWO GRADUATIONS SHALL BE THE ONE USED FOR OFFICIAL WEIGHT DETERMINATION.
Show me a modern digital or balance beam scale legal for trade and certified for accuracy within the previous twelve months that shows only pound or half-pound increments?
The ONLY type of scales that show pound or half-pound increments are spring type scales.
It says "IF" the scale only goes to 1/2 lb increments. The brand new digital scale that was purchased was more accurate than just 1/2 lbs.
Larry, can I just post the link to the scale that we purchased so the questions about the scale stop?  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 717
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | I believe these are the specs of the scale that was purchased and used:
88 lb x 0.02 lb
40 kg x 20 g
Accuracy: Better than 0.2% of full scale
Tare: 10% of rated capacity
Safe Overload: 200% of rated capacity
Ultimate Overload: 500% of rated capacity (SGS)
Display: 128 x 64 LCD dot matrix
Display Rate: 10Hz
Resolution: 2000:1
Data Sampling Rate: 25Hz
Power: 4.5V (with three 1.5V “AA” batteries)
Key Pad: Membrane-style (On/Off, Hold/Units, Tare/Zero
Conformance and Compliance:
CE Safety (BS EN 61010-1:2001)
CE Generic Immunity (BS EN 61000-6-1:2007)
CE Generic Emissions (BS EN 61000-6-3:2007)
Operating Temperature: 32o to 104oF (0o to 40oC)
Storage Temperature -4o to 104oF (-20o to 40oC)
RoHS Compliant: Yes
WEEE Compliant: Yes
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Jim: It is not that scale that the Michigan Muskie Alliance Chapter of Muskies, Inc. purchased that is being discussed, it is the original scale the fish was first weighed on. The scale you purchased for the MDMWRP (Thank you! by the way again), is a digital scale that reads in one-hundredths of a pound. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Larry,
The multiple 'guests' were actually one person with the exception of the less than accurate statement about the scales, and obviously this person is not someone either willing to learn about the process or accept any explanation of the facts.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 567
| been a good discussion and certainly sets the bar .. just kinda sad to throw out all previous big catches ... I understand why , just dont like that it had to be done . On the surface it seems heavy handed , but with several of these big catch's there are legit questions . Larry , you did list " several reasons" on AB's fish .. what were the other reasons .. seems like that fish was very well documented and weighted down to the ounce. thanks MD |
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | ManitouDan
Please read the rules and regulations for submission and your question about "several reasons" will be answered. www.modernmuskierecords.org
Previous fish aren't being "thrown out", they simply can't qualify as the MDMWRP record. If that's not clear go back to the above sentence.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1141
Location: NorthCentral WI | Larry Ramsell - 2/6/2013 5:51 PM
The scale you purchased for the MDMWRP (Thank you! by the way again), is a digital scale that reads in one-hundredths of a pound.
It's great that we have a legit record that we can all believe in without question. So don't get me wrong, but if we're talking about records here, I'd think it would be important to weigh the fish on a scale that reads to the nearest hundredth or the very least, tenth of a pound.
So my understanding is the weight on the original scale did not meet the next graduation but days later when Will went to weight the fish, that scale did in fact read to the hundredth. However, at this point he was only verifying the weight, so despite the fact he had a more accurate reading, that could not be used as the 'official' weight?
Obviously this is the first entry, but once a few more are caught, the difference of fish this caliber may be less than a pound or two. In this case, every ounce is critical at least when we're talking about records.
Edited by MartinTD 2/7/2013 12:46 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 567
| Thrown out vs " cant qualify " sounds like semantics to me . And I'll pass on reading the lawyer talk . I dont fish for records .. I already know If I catch one above 50 pounds I'm bonking it . MD
Edited by ManitouDan 2/7/2013 12:55 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | MartinTD - At the time the angler weighed the fish there wasn't a concern about accuracy down to the tenth of pound or even ounces. The best scale available was used and that scale reads in 1/4 pound increments. Finding a certified scale capable of weighing a 58" 58# fish isn't as easy as some would think. Most fish of this size are going to end up on meat or grain scales that are capable of weighing 250+ pounds and few of those are digital scales and many read in 1/4 or 1/2 pound increments.
The MDMWRP weight is only to verify the weight on the application is legitimate and not to be used as the actual weight of the fish. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | MartinTD: I understand what you are saying, but have you ever tried to find a certified scale period, let alone one that reads in one-hundredths of a pound? There are very few out there commercially, in areas where these size fish may be caught. I tried to put together a list of places anglers could go to get a record class fish weighed, but didn't get very far. There is always the Post Office...if they are open and "if" they would weigh a large, slimy fish! Same with a grocery, but most of them use only smaller weight capable scales.
As for when Will did his check, it was 54 days after the catch; the fish had been wrapped in plastic by the taxidermist before he put it in the freezer and it was not/could not be removed without damaging the skin/scales of the fish. Our primary goal at that point was to see if the weight was still close to claim and doucument for future use, weight loss if any, for whatever reason. There appeared not to be, as with the "unknown" ounces over 58-pounds, along with the plastic wrap, the weight was in excess of 58-pounds. So no, this weight could not be used as the official weight.
Edited by Larry Ramsell 2/7/2013 1:07 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | ManitouDan - 2/7/2013 1:54 PM Thrown out vs " cant qualify " sounds like semantics to me . And I'll pass on reading the lawyer talk . I dont fish for records .. I already know If I catch one above 50 pounds I'm bonking it . MD No not semantics at all, "thrown out" would mean that they were actually "in" at some point. However, we know that couldn't be the case since these fish can't meet the requirements of the MDMWRP. The regulations of submission are a good read and not lawyer talk. it's good info to review for anyone that could ever catch a fish to top this one, better to know ahead of time what one will face than to find out too late. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8779
| The whole idea of a "Modern Day Record" to me implies that you have to start somewhere. Since 7 years passed with nobody beating the original benckmark, I'd say this is a perfectly good place to start.
Not sure what there is to argue about anymore. It's done. It's in the books. Go forth and fish. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 566
Location: Elgin, IL | Bingo. Now give that man another Suick. |
|
| |
|
| Manitou Dan, which is it?
From page 2...“I've caught a dozen or so that size but thought I was aiming for 68-70 pounds . now I know . MD”
From page 3...“I dont fish for records .. I already know If I catch one above 50 pounds I'm bonking it . MD” |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1767
Location: Lake Country, Wisconsin | Karl - 2/7/2013 2:23 PM
Manitou Dan, which is it?
From page 2...“I've caught a dozen or so that size but thought I was aiming for 68-70 pounds . now I know . MD”
From page 3...“I dont fish for records .. I already know If I catch one above 50 pounds I'm bonking it . MD”
I'm thinking ya missed the sarcasm there bud |
|
| |
