|
|
Posts: 229
| ToddM,
I am guessing the WRMA have a pretty good idea already on whether they will affirm or deny this record. I say this because they must already have done some preliminary analysis.
John |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Why 'must' they have done anything on this fish? It's interesting to me the assumptions folks make. The WRMA looks into one fish at a time, with no assumptions what so ever until the results are back in. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 229
| Steve Worall:
I am just going off of things I have heard... Larry Ramsell has written extensively on the O'Brien fish as well. I know there was some question about the weight of the fish a week after it was caught. All that being said, I am placing an educated guess there will be issues affirming this fish but possibly not enough to completely deny it. Once again- JUST MY OPINION.
John |
|
| |
|
| Steve,
All I've been hearing is what is fair and what isn't. The question I asked Larry to answer was completely avoided and it was a very simple one. I find it hard to believe you feel this was an inappropriate question.
Now Steve, I'll ask you this question: Is it FAIR for Larry to say the silhouette comparison is incontrovertible evidence against Spray and yet CHALLENGE the IGFA about their decision on Lawton when he knows very well that this same silhouette comparison used on Lawton will result in an even greater discrepancy? Keep in mind this challenge was made BEFORE the WRMA submitted the Johnson challenge. Why would he even challenge the IGFA's decision knowing this? Again, keep in mind this has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the IGFA's ruling on Johnson as that challenge had not yet been submitted.
The IGFA's decision on Lawton maintained their credibility as a record keeping body. They lost it AFTER they upheld Johnson. This whole thread was derailed by even bringing Lawton into it which never should have happened.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Again, you misread what Larry actually said here, or are chasing your own personal vendetta or argument, and second, what Larry says or doesn't say on a message board doesn't effect the results of the scientific analysis or the acceptance/rejection of that analysis by either record keeping organization.
One more time, take your personal agenda elsewhere. |
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | Guest:
I think you've made your point already... and I understand your train of thought that these records are intertwined, because in some respects they certainly are. However, I would consider it a personal favor if you would kindly direct your questions to the subject matter only, Cal Johnson's record.
thank you!
WImuskyfishermen:
Steve and Todd are correct. Hypothetically speaking... even if the WRMA was 99% finished with the O'Brien Summary Report, we would still not divulge any of the contents until the report was 100% ready. That would be unprofessional.
Although Larry Ramsell is the number one historian, he is not a member of the WRMA. Although we certainly have a working relationship with Larry, our differing opinion on Lawton's reinstatement pretty much speaks for itself. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Let me see if I can, once and for all, make my position clear here (sorry Jerry, but your last comment begged for response):
The current "official" record keepers are not and have not been treating the historical records equally. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that. What I have been saying and will continue to say is that if both the Hall and the IGFA refuse to accept good science and disqualify their current records (Johnson for the IGFA and Spray for the Hall), then they should both reinstate the Lawton record, which was set aside/disqualified with far less credible evidence than the WRMA provided against Spray and Johnson. Or they can both list the O'Brien fish, which BOTH organizations certified (the ONLY one) or clean the slate and start over.
As I see it, they have no other "valid" options. They simply cannot use differing criteria to uphold one and DQ another and be FAIR to the angling public and the past record holder. Of course politics and arrogance, unfortunately, come into play as well, so it is likely that the muskie world will not have a credible "official" record anytime soon. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| Jerry Newman - 12/8/2009 7:55 PM
Steve and Todd are correct. Hypothetically speaking... even if the WRMA was 99% finished with the O'Brien Summary Report, we would still not divulge any of the contents until the report was 100% ready. That would be unprofessional.
Although Larry Ramsell is the number one historian, he is not a member of the WRMA. Although we certainly have a working relationship with Larry, our differing opinion on Lawton's reinstatement pretty much speaks for itself.
I am curious as to the "professional" comment you are making here? Somebody getting paid?
I am also unclear as to the differing opinions on the Lawton's re-instatement? How does that speak for itself.
I see the reinstatement of all records prior to 2000 and the sealing of that history as a viable option. Why wouldn't the revolutionary guard and the various record keeping entities be able to agree on that. That would leave a modern day, well documented record as a on going category, and hopefully one irrefutable fish as the gold standard, without the obvious, political, personal and possible "professional" irons in the fire.
Leave the two record keeping entities to their own disagreements, and bring the current century to the table as the new standard. Sounds like this has been put forward by some, but is unacceptable due to what? Infighting? Personal differences?
|
|
| |
|
| If both the Hall and the IGFA refuse to accept good science and disqualify their current records, they should be blasted by the media and brought down to size. The arrogance they are currently displaying needs to be addressed. It would be absolutely ridiculous to give them the option of reinstating fish that have been PROVEN bogus. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | FSF,
Far as I am aware the only people being paid are the unbiased specialists who perform the studies on each fish.
Larry, that's several times you've had to explain the obvious. I hope it's the last. I apologize for the necessity, but the fellow WAS rather insistent. No harm done for or by either, I guess.
I guess I would accept that the records from the past are 'historical', and should be time capsuled and modern day records established. I bet that would be just as difficult to get accepted by the record keeping organizations as the WRMA's reviews have been.
Revolutionary Guard, that's sorta funny... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Mr. Worrall wrote:
"I guess I would accept that the records from the past are 'historical', and should be time capsuled and modern day records established. I bet that would be just as difficult to get accepted by the record keeping organizations as the WRMA's reviews have been."
Therein lies the rub. The MEDIA gives the two record keepers a "pass" because they are the record "entity", regardless of what they do or what they decide. Unless or until that changes, the Hall and the IGFA will continue to keep their head in the sand and thumb their collective noses at the anglers who care about a credible world record. Perhaps MuskeiFirst should become an official record keeper! Fast access thru the Internet and leave the paper pushing slugs behind. I'd bet a huge majority of north america's muskellunge anglers would embrace it and we'd finally get a credible record that would be acceptable to almost all instead of the phony sham's now in place!
|
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | Well said Larry. Not so fast on keeping the record here though, as you know the WRMA has been exploring other angles and we may have just located the straw that breaks the camel's back.
"Sounds like this has been put forward by some, but is unacceptable due to what? Infighting? Personal differences?"
Sixfeet: There is certainly no in fighting in the WRMA or between the WRMA and Larry, just two different opinions on how to handle an adverse situation. We certainly understand where Larry is coming from in his effort to reinstate Lawton. We disagree with this effort because it is the WRMA's position that we cannot un-ring the record bell simply by putting Lawton back.
At the core of this two-sided issue is that the WRMA is satisfied that the 69 lb. 15 oz. muskellunge Mr. Lawton entered in the Field & Stream contest in 1957 was a false entry. We understand Larry's position is that Lawton should not have been overturned based on existing protocol, and therefore should be reinstated. Whether or not it actually was 69 lbs. 15 oz. is less relevant.
It is the WRMAs position that reinstating Lawton would be taking a step backward because putting Lawton back as the IGFA record is saying that IT IS a legitimate record and not just an historical record. A Big difference to us...
Let me make something perfectly clear, the WRMA is holding the "record holders" to the higher standard. Certainly, a case has been made for Lawton, and could even be made for Malo and plenty of other fish that are"historically" heavier than O'Brien. Larry and the WRMA have agreed to disagree on this singular issue long ago, but remain united on every other front.
The WRMA will proceed with O'Brien and simply leave whether or not both record-keeping organizations acted incorrectly in removing the Lawton record to individuals reading this thread. I hope it is obvious to everyone that both record-keeping organizations acted incorrectly by not overturning their existing muskellunge records.
As for the question about "unprofessional" regarding the release of any information in front of the O'Brien report. I do not believe we could be any more clear, we will not release any information until the report is finished. There is nobody on our payroll either as Steve indicated.
|
|
| |
|
| Even if Lawton's fish was reinstated by BOTH record keeping bodies, where would we be as far as having a credible record? Lawton was a bigger cheat than either Louie or Cal! Having only one bogus record instead of two certainly doesn't better the situation. |
|
| |
|
| Why care about ''records'' of a couple of silly ego maniacs. Most anglers don't agressivly pursue world records except ego maniacs.
Move on and go catch your own personal records and smile!
United we stand divided we fall! |
|
| |
|
| After looking over both reports and reading this entire thread, I am in total agreement with the WRMA. I can also see why Jerry Newman is their spokesman. I thought he did a great job stating their position and side with him that Lawton should not have the record.
I am a property owner in northern WI and have always dreamed of catching a record. I think that dream is a little closer now that I know the state record is actually in the low to mid 50 pound range. The Hall of Fame and the IGFA should be ashamed of themselves for giving anglers a false assumption of how large the muskies in this state are capable of growing. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 229
| Rebuttal from the other side...
http://www.haywardwi.com/articles/2009/12/16/news/doc4b2963814dfa78...
John |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | “Our history is important, and it must be accurate,” Dettloff said. “This is a very famous piece of outdoor history for Hayward. It’s something Hayward should be proud of. There’s a little clique of people trying to shoot it down. I’m sure it’s based on jealousy.”
John Dettloff
No John, it's based on the indisputable simple observation that the fish is not anywhere near as long or carries the girth recorded. No one is jealous, some of us would simply like to see reality some where at least in the same ball park when it comes to Muskellunge World records. Your past record of adhering to the truth and to scientific principles and protocol speaks clearly...where it serves you, your business, and your community's self interests, you are willing to do nothing of the sort.
Hang the recent fish from the St Lawrence up there, and let's have a man like sized hold it up and out like that...and I am willing to bet beyond any doubt this recent St Lawrence fish is considerably larger.
But, of course, that's me.
CFMS style spin magic. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8774
| I liked this comment:
“Our history is important, and it must be accurate,” Dettloff said. “This is a very famous piece of outdoor history for Hayward. It’s something Hayward should be proud of. There’s a little clique of people trying to shoot it down. I’m sure it’s based on jealousy.”
Read between the lines. "Our history is important, this is a famous piece of history for Hayward. It's something Hayward should be proud of."
Unless, of course, that little piece of history is shown by scientific research, from an unbiased source, to be false. Then it becomes something to be laughed at, with MR Detloff in the center of it all, exposed as a fraud. That would not bode well for Hayward, obviously.
"There's a little clique of people trying to shoot it down."
From everything I've read over the years, nobody is trying to shoot it down. Everyone is just searching for the truth. IF that record could stand on its own merits and research would show that it probably was somewhere in the vicinity of what is claimed? I would think that MR Detloff would be all for doing the research.
And seriously? This is all because they are jealous??
Of WHAT?
I find this all pretty amusing. The WRMA has no axe to grind from what I've seen. Neither does Mr Ramsell. They are just interested in what the real record is. Mr Detloff on the other hand? It's not difficult to imagine a half a dozen reasons why he would want the current "record" upheld.
Like I said, I find it amusing. Like any other rational muskie angler, if I want to catch trophy class muskies, and have a shot at some sort of record? I am going to go to the places where those caliber of fish are being caught. World records or not, Hayward is not on that map today, regardless of what may have happened there many decades ago.
So the Johnson fish. Let's say it was letgitimate. We're still all going to Minnesota, Georgian Bay, the St Lawrence, Lake of the Woods, Green Bay, Georgian Bay. Why do you suppose that is?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| This article and its inclusions are enough to convince me the Johnson record should stand.
Edited by firstsixfeet 12/17/2009 5:20 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 20211
Location: oswego, il | Just a one sided tourism article. Had it been even remotely unbiased the WRMA would have been contacted for comment. No mention of it in the article.
The rod is not in the same plane. It is leaning at an angle against the sign which johnson is in front of and the fish is in front of him.
Hey if those scales are as they say, lets look at the back of the fish and see if things jive there. They will NEVER allow the mount up for inspection but if it is what they say, then they should and settle this dispute.
Great piece of fiction by the hayward paper. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| Oh, c'mon Todd, one man's soup is another man's SHARP INVESTIGATIVE REPORTING.
And how can you even ask about the scales? I thought you had looked at those scales yourself?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 20211
Location: oswego, il | FSF, I have not seen the backside of this summertime 33" tube!  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | FSF, some folks think the National Enquirer contains sharp investigative reporting. Now I know you probably don't, but that 'story' was rife with nasty tone, antagonistic commentary, and some plain outright mistruths. Not investigative 'reporting' at all, unfortunately.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| sworrall - 12/17/2009 9:57 PM
FSF, some folks think the National Enquirer contains sharp investigative reporting. Now I know you probably don't, but that 'story' was rife with nasty tone, antagonistic commentary, and some plain outright mistruths. Not investigative 'reporting' at all, unfortunately.
Strangely enough, it struck me as similar to some of the posts on this thread regarding others views. And I suppose next your going to tell me aliens DIDN'T ABDUCT SLAMR AND USE AN ANAL PROBE ON THE POOR BUGGER? If not, how did he turn out the way HE did? He barely spent enough time with me to influence him to such a degree.
I would urge people to go look at this pic enlarged though, it seems to speak pretty clearly when you look at it full sized and closely check the reference points for the rod, and the position in relation to Cal's feet and body. For a good enlargement look here
it is a little tough when looking at the article since it doesn't enlarge.
If you have the flat pack of Extra Gum(similar to other flat packs) you will note that the pack edge is almost exactly the length of the rod, and when you move it to the fish, voila, once again almost exact. Seems to bear out the fact that this fish was a big long bugger. My need for collaborative science is satisfied by this pic.
Further edit added, when you do the gum pack science thing, use the regular sized pic in the article I linked, not the blow up. If you want to reference rod position and feet, blow it up and look closely. Looks pretty good to me. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Sorry Jay, absolutely no way am I going to allow a link to push people to that guy's website. We have to have SOME standards, even low ones allowing most BUT that. Use the Hayward article image or where ever else.
Can't speak to the aliens probing Slamr, but they definitely had him. I heard in the National Enquirer they couldn't wait to get him back home. Something about beating them badly at volleyball. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Rubuttal indeed...that "Record" article contains a TON of misinformation, misleading information, bad information, incorrect facts and just plain lies!! It is such a biased article that one must assume that there is still, after 70 years and 60 for this fish (they couldn't even get the year correct) that there is indeed a conspriacy in Hayward to protect the moniker on the water tower..."Home of World Record Muskies". Change that to "muskie" and maybe it would be true.
It isn't hard to figure out that this is all driven by money and tourism. The paper cannot exist without the local advertisers...gotta keep them happy...the money connection there, hence the "colored journalism". The "reporter" is merely a puppet for Dettloff and Brown, the "puppetmasters, whom also have a financial stake in the outcome...Hall Director Brown derives part of his Hall remuneration from money he generates for the Hall and historically that has been "local" support. No surprise there. And of course, all should know by now the Dettloff has created a cottage industry around Louie Spray and now Cal Johnson. He owns a resort merely a few hundred yards where Spray supposedly caught his fish; wrote a book about Spray's life and markets postcards of Hayward's "records" and now he is writing a book about Cal Johnson's life...can't have that hero sullied before publication now can we???
At any rate, I am working on a rebuttal to that biased article and will refute almost all of what is printed therein to support Johnson's fish...stay tuned.
Larry Ramsell,
Muskellunge Historian |
|
| |
|
Posts: 444
| I would like to say thanks quick to the WRMA and Larry for putting in there time and effort to find reason and the truth in regards to this records.
It is apprecated by those themselves that hunt for the absolute truth throught life. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 229
| I guess I have to agree the rod in the "new" photo is not standing straight up and down and is leaning at an angle against the sign. Thus the 2D appearance of the rod in the photo is something less than its actual length. How could John Dettloff think people are so dumb and not see this. John should give up fishing and take up magic and illusion like Houdini because he ccertainly can make people believe what they want...
All that being said, as an impartial observer, I can plainly see that some associates of the WRMA have some axes to grind with the Hayward people. Don't shoot the messenger on this one take my comment for what its worth...
John |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| Hmmm, this thread was frozen shortly after I linked another musky site for a reference picture to compare, and the link was removed, neither of which particularly offended me, however it did render my post about the rod comparison nearly incomprehensible without the picture to use it on. Seems kind of odd to open it again to the "pro" WRMA findings. Larry almost sounds like he believes there is a conspiracy going on. There must be a grassy knoll in Hayward I haven't noticed. Thought it was pretty flat there prior to this.
Frankly I am still very impressed with the picture featuring the fishing rod. As everyone knows, I was leaning that way prior to the picture, but now, that picture seems like a pretty solid rock supporting the Johnson fish. I was somewhat astounded by the statements surrounding the Malo fish. How could those occur? Were the statements incorrect or was there bad research involved with that whole deal? Strange stuff. Part of the reason it becomes difficult to deal with the so called "science" in all this. It's evidently a bigger mess than even I thought it was.
Maybe a new thread just to deal with the new picture would be in order? |
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | firstsixfeet - 12/17/2009 10:23 PM
"I would urge people to go look at this pic enlarged though, it seems to speak pretty clearly when you look at it full sized and closely check the reference points for the rod, and the position in relation to Cal's feet and body. For a good enlargement look here it is a little tough when looking at the article since it doesn't enlarge.
If you have the flat pack of Extra Gum(similar to other flat packs) you will note that the pack edge is almost exactly the length of the rod, and when you move it to the fish, voila, once again almost exact. Seems to bear out the fact that this fish was a big long bugger. My need for collaborative science is satisfied by this pic."
Sixfeet:
Although the WRMA appreciates your interest and input, you must remember that even if the rod was as long as claimed, it is "leaning" against the sign and angled away from the camera. This singular point is key because it simply cannot be accurately used for any type of direct scaling.
Therefore, this new photo provides no additional evidence to support the claimed length, the only new evidence is that more of Mr. Johnson's waist is now revealed to use as a visual aid.
If anything, it should be blatantly obvious to the naked eye that Mr. Johnson's muskie could not have the claimed 33 1/2" girth. The girth of the muskie should (at the very least) be comparable to 5'9" Johnson with an average waist size.
The harsh reality is that Mr. Johnson's record muskie is just another thinly built July caught fish that simply could not have possessed such an extraordinary girth, and by way of extension could not have weighed anywhere near 67 1/2 pounds.
Getting back to the length, the WRMA has secured a professionally prepared peer-reviewed scientific report proving the fresh muskie was in the low 50" class and the skin mount was dimensionally augmented to represent a 60" class muskellunge.
|
|
| |
