|
|
Posts: 1141
Location: NorthCentral WI | Jim Munday - 1/21/2011 11:44 AM
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.
I'm really just trying to understand this whole fiasco and all aspects of the current WR controversey. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 7036
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | jonnysled - 1/21/2011 11:52 AM
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 ...
Here's why I do care (not all that much, but I do):
Everytime I'm on Eagle Lake I'm looking for a monster. 99% of me knows that I'll never catch or see anything close to whatever the biggest muskie ever really was, but there's 1% of me that shoots for that goal. I'd like to know, as well as anyone can, what that goal is. I'd like to know what the biggest muskie ever caught and recorded, really was!
Does it really matter in the end? No, but we all know that "what if we do catch the WR" conversation comes up in the boat, and wouldnt it be good to know what you're actually shooting for?
|
|
| |
|
| I would still like to know who people feel is the influencing factor in the IGFA's decision to uphold Johnson as the record holder? |
|
| |
|
| I know that everybody doesn't care. And I hope that among those who do, most realize that it's not the most important thing in life by a long shot. But then again...even though it may not really matter who wins a super bowl and holds that record in the big picture of life...I tend to care about that, too.
It’s my observation that it's not just the ‘old-timers’ that are ‘soon to die’ who care. Many of today's 'young guns' and those in between don't like the inherent problem with the fact that is that no real-life Musky of even extreme proportions that are being caught today can be classified as a world record fish as long an illegitimate and unrealistic record is on the books. It’s an impasse that should be removed. But that will never happen without a persistent approach at getting the false records off of the books. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| Guest - 1/21/2011 12:20 PM
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.
Fundamentally honest whos' name are "guest"... 
You guys are funny.  |
|
| |
|
| And I'm sure it says "firstsixfeet" on your driver's license and mailbox too! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20211
Location: oswego, il | The world records are an embarassment if you ask me. When you take all that has happened, all that has been said and done to keep these records where they are, I am surprised they sit well with anyone. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | FirstSixFeet = Greg Ide = guided by Happy Hooker and supposedly can eat a lot of pizza
everyone knows him. |
|
| |
|
| ToddM,
The IGFA really didn't say or do much of anything to keep the Johnson record in place. All they said was they didn't feel a fish's weight could be determined by a two-dimensional photo even though they removed the Lawton record saying if another photo shows up they would be happy to reconsider their decision. I have no idea how anyone here could have more respect for the IGFA than the NFWFHoF. Why aren't people here blasting them like they do the NFWFhoF? At least the NFWFHoF provided a rebuttal to the WRMA challenge. The IGFA never even bothered. Evidentally they felt it wasn't necessary.
|
|
| |
|
| It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the mini surge in yes votes lately is a few desperate people peppering the poll to try to influence our general perception. It would be interesting to know what the real percentages would be if only registered users were allowed to vote, my guess is it would be somewhere over 95% NO based on the lack of supportive responses. Think about it, there's no way 12% of us educated musky fisherman would believe, and there is no other reason it would continue to tick up like this otherwise.
Editor's Note; Each registered user and guest may only vote once. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8772
| 99.9% - 1/21/2011 11:19 PM
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the mini surge in yes votes lately is a few desperate people peppering the poll to try to influence our general perception. It would be interesting to know what the real percentages would be if only registered users were allowed to vote, my guess is it would be somewhere over 95% NO based on the lack of supportive responses. Think about it, there's no way 12% of us educated musky fisherman would believe, and there is no other reason it would continue to tick up like this otherwise.
My guess:
5% are from Hayward, and
5% realize that if the ACTUAL records were recognized as such, big fish would be getting clobbered left and right.
That leaves slightly less than 2%. Those 2%? I don't know, maybe they ate too many paint chips as a kid? |
|
| |
|
| I guess if you are a guest on this side and are adamantly against the record you have free reign to carp all you want, but if you are a guest who signs his name and may have some respect for the record(s) you are banished.
And you talk about the Hayward Mafia. Take a peek in the mirror. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | What? Banished? You just posted...right?
Don't presume to lecture me about these guys from Hayward. I have been on the receiving end of the threats of violence, name calling, free for all bashing from these clowns who even dragged my son and family into the fray on Hayward based websites, and more, all because I caught and called out a few of these guys literally lying to the public and profiting from it...and in the process publishing absolute trash that was confusing the Muskie angling public and was damaging to a group of folks who didn't deserve it...one bit. The fracture between those clowns and a a few highly respected guides and muskie authorities in Hayward area and some folks who funded that mess will probably never heal up as a result, and the bull#*#* continues...all they did was switch subject matter.
CFMS, a total fabrication, and this guy was up to his butt in it. If he was misleading the public in an effort to profit from it then, and he was, how can we collectively believe anything he promotes now...especially since he published and sells a book on the subject?
AHHHH, I see, it's Esox Archeologist, our friend who has trouble playing nice. Don't be a jerk, and your posts will remain. Be a jerk, and they won't. That rule applies even to me, and Slamr sees to it.
|
|
| |
|
| THE PAST IS GONE.
Get over it.
The legitimate World Record Muskellunge will emerge soon, I predict within the next five seasons.
It will come from a large river in the northeastern reaches of the muskellunge range or the Georgian Bay expanse.
The Ottawa River, the Saint Lawrence River, The Niagara River, The Saint John's River, The Moon River, The Detroit River, Buffalo Harbor, Lake Saint Clair, Lake Erie, Lake Ontario or some such connected waters.
It WILL BE a Great Lakes fish. Period.
Big dogs on the porch here, everybody else go home. (and take your fake fish with you). |
|
| |
|
| Lake Ontario,lake st-clair??
wow |
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | I think most posts made by guests deserve a response. I do not differentiate much between a guest and a registered user (as long they remain respectful) because it's still a real person on the other end either way. Even somebody as undeserving as this "undercover" Esox Archaeologist deserves an intelligent response.
"but if you are a guest who signs his name and may have some respect for the record(s) you are banished."
EA, whoever,
Now that these records have been exposed for what they are, the educated muskie public can clearly see how they have been used like a circus sideshow attraction for over 60 years. Even though many are still willing to look the other way, it's still a basic instinct to detest liars and cheaters, particularly those who continue to pathetically take advantage of an unsuspecting and uneducated public. Something akin to swindling a 5 year olds lunch money in my opinion.
Anyway, your peers (assuming you're into muskies) will never have respect for these records, or especially the people who knowingly maintain the lies for profit. In sum, these records are completely undeserving of the muskie worlds respect, those days are long gone and you should just get use to the idea.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 20211
Location: oswego, il | Mr. Worrall offered just a small snippet of what I was referring to earlier and I mean a very small snippet! I don't think much of the ifga, gees, I just had to save that as a word on my droid, but they just wanted no part of it as I see it. They have not done the things the nfwfhof has done to protect the records. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Make no mistake, the IGFA had/has reasons to ignore the scientific report from the WRMA...they CHOOSE not to do anything in order to keep from riling the publishing world, especially Sports Afield. By the way, it was Dettloff who convinced them in the first place to remove Lawton and install Johnson (he wanted Spray in, but they found a way around that-politics at work at the time).
Now, after the WRMA's valid report, they decided to be AMAZINGLY HYPOCRITICAL keeping the Johnson farce as their record instead of reinstating Lawton...if they TRULY believe you cannot tell weight from a photograph as they stated at the time of their decision, then they cannot have it both ways. They should remove Johnson and reinstate Lawton or leave them both out. They choose to remain silent on the matter.
While the IGFA is 100 times mored highly respected as a world authority in fishing and records than the NFWFHF (mostly salt water-they didn't become involved in fresh water until a rift with the NFWFHF), they have plastered a big black mark on their name and reputation with the muskie world. They likely don't care, but the poll in this thread tells the story and until they decide to give the muskellunge record careful and due consideration, rather than make political and hypocritical decisions as they have done to date, that black mark won't be erased anytime soon.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell,
Muskellunge Historian
(Former 16 year IGFA Represenative) |
|
| |
|
| ToddM,
You say as you see it the IGFA just wanted no part of it. How can anything be worse than this? You are correct in that the IGFA hasn't done the things the NFWFHoF has done to protect the records. They have not offered ANYTHING to support their position for upholding the Johnson record which is far worse than anything the NFWFHoF has done. The IGFA removed the Lawton record because they claim a photo doesn't exist that supports the weight and at the same time they uphold the Johnson record claiming weight cannot be accurately determined from a photograph. It just doesn't get any worse than this.
|
|
| |
|
| That Dettloff is one powerful dude! Apparently he controls both the NFWFHoF and the IGFA. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Larry, you mention that the IGFA chose to ignore the WRMA report in order not to rile the publishing world and especially Sports Afield. What did you mean by that?
Why would a thorough review of the WRMA report and a reasonable reply in answer "rile" the publishing world?
DougP
Edited by fins355 1/22/2011 3:22 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Fins:
Cal Johnson wrote for Sports Afield for around 50 years. I think you can figure out the rest. If the IGFA did a "through review" of the WRMA report, Johnson's record would be gone! Politics in the realm of politics is bad enough, but in the fishing world...UGH!...Larry |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Guest:
Dettloff isn't "powerful" at all, he just caught the two record keepers off guard with his hidden agenda in the early 90's. Once bitten, the IGFA has apparently washed their hands of muskie records and the NFWFHF is definately still misguided and misled by Dettloff. Why should the NFWFHF board care...at the time they were all local business folks and had a vested interest and they "thought" the bogus records were still good for business.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell,
Muskellunge Historian |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Larry.........yeah, I guess I knew that. Thanks.
So, why wouldn't Outdoor Life, Field & Stream, Musky Hunter, Woods & Waters,etc.... be interested in the WRMA report? ? CJ didn't write for them.....isn't ANY publication interested in the TRUTH? What are they afraid of?
DougP |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8772
| Larry Ramsell - 1/22/2011 3:49 PM
[...] Why should the NFWFHF board care...at the time they were all local business folks and had a vested interest and they "thought" the bogus records were still good for business.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell,
Muskellunge Historian
Interesting to say the least. It's nothing most of us haven't thought of I'm sure. But when you think about it, it makes perfect sense. When your town and the livelyhood of the people in it depends on fishing tourism, most notably muskie fishing? "Home of the World Record Muskie" becomes pretty important to local commerce. And make no mistake - Hayward is a "muskie town".
I'd think that the father West you go in WI, the more "muskie revenue" is lost to MN, and with the fisheries in MN being what they are today I suspect WI is dwindling in popularity every year.
So maybe this is less about stubbirn egos and ignorance and more about simply trying to survive. Something to think about for sure. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Fins:
Problem is, most of today's outdoor writers try to be "politically correct" and don't wish to step on any toes, especially those where a fair amount of their information may come from; most don't follow muskies and don't really care. Outdoor Life had a chance last year to "find and expose the truth" but the writer involved chose the convient and easy way out. As for Musky Hunter, a serious voice for the musky angler, Mr. Saric just doesn't seem to care and Mr. Heiting chose to give the Hall a pass after their Spray fiasco-CLOSED press meeting. You'll have to ask him why as I'm confident he knows better. Maybe his boss said to leave it alone?
One might think Muskie's, Inc. should take a stand, but they too choose to stay out of it. Perhaps they and the other magazines/publications are afraid to upset anyone on either side, and without someone there that actually cares, don't. SAD!
Thank goodness for this open forum here on Muskie First!!!
Edited by Larry Ramsell 1/22/2011 4:20 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Larry, maybe some of these publications should be made aware of the fact that by trying not to upset either side they are losing credibility with their readership. Lots of credibility! Especially when one claims to be North America's Musky Authority. I'm sure you've done your part....
Actually, I think more musky fisherman need to demand a better accounting by some of these publications and there position on the WR.
As the saying goes; " All that is needed for evil to exist is for good men to do nothing."
DougP |
|
| |
|
| The IGFA agreed with Dettloff's findings on Lawton otherwise they wouldn't have removed him as the record holder. If they had felt they were caught off guard and bitten by Dettloff they certainly wouldn't have accepted the Johnson fish as their record.
I'm hearing Johnson's fish being referred to as a farce. Shouldn't the Lawton fish be considered the same? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| When Outdoor writers don't want to step on any toes.....they run the risk of feeding their readers with "useless pap" rather than the real skinny. Not a good foundation for a long and memorable career.
If a musky publication can't take a position on a challenge to the WR musky out of fear of retribution ...why should we put any faith in anything they may say.......
I don't know, just me.......
DougP |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Per current IGFA officials, IGFA did NOT agree with Dettloff's finding on Lawton including the day of my presentation to them basically debunking EVERYTHING in Dettloff's Lawton report, INCLUDING the photographs. They said at the time of "set-aside in the early 90's and later that the issue with them was the photograph, but changed their tune with regard to Johnson saying weight couldn't be determined from a two dimensional photograph. As I have stated, they cannot have it both ways and their current decision/position is hypocritical. The muskie world deserves better. |
|
| |
