|
|
| Guest,
You say the IGFA has said on many occasions that they didn't buy Dettloff's investigation. Did the IGFA tell you this? If they didn't, how would you know this is true?
And if they did tell you this, why is Lawton's fish no longer the IGFA record? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8729
| I'd venture to say that there are very few people out there who ACTUALLY believe that the record(s) in question were legit. The more information and research that comes out, the less likely it becomes that these fish were what they were claimed to be. Nobody who has read any of the reports can possibly deny that.
I suspect it has much more to do with people trying to save face at this point, and largely due to fear that the ACTUAL world record fish that are being caught and released today would have and will be killed if all the past records are proven to be false. It's a noble stance to want to preserve the biggest muskies ever known to roam our waters, but I think hindering the truth undermines everything that we've accomplished in muskie management. Let me explain:
There are vast amounts of money, manpower, and effort going into creating and maintaining trophy populations across their range. Having a record (or records in this case) that are completely false paints an unrealistic picture of what is truly possible in terms of maximum growth. It's my believe that we currently ARE producing the biggest muskies in history, which goes a LONG way to getting effective management strategies implemented elsewhere. When you are producing 50# class fish, however, and upholding old (false) records in the 70# range?? Well, that leads people to think that either our management strategies aren't effective, or that trying to maintain populations of true giant muskies is just a waste of resources. If we prove that we are growing them bigger than any time in history, that's an undisputed success in management practices, and it's all we need to point to as a reson to implement similar strategies elsewhere.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| I think EA said a "mouthful"....agreed!
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1247
Location: On the Niagara River in Buffalo, NY | Another Williamson muskie picture.
Attachments
----------------
 williamson 2.jpg (9KB - 356 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
| instead of arguing back and forth about Deittleoff's report, why not just leapfrog past that and look at all the claimed #60 fish of the Lawton's. I don't think further reports are needed, those fish are so bad it would be a waste of time and money. Capt. Larry, do you really think that fish was 64 1/2"? |
|
| |
|
| JD it is obvious that you aren't current, nor have you read a lot of what is out there. This has been covered many times in various posts, especially those referring to the IGFA as hypocritical using the Lawton photo as an excuse to set aside Lawton's record and at the same time saying size cannot be determined by photograph when trying to justify keeping the Johnson record listed. Try and keep up if you are going to chime in, ok?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 123
| If I remeber correctly, one reason Lawton's fish didn't count was that it was PROVEN that he submitted to Field and Stream magazione the exact same photo of the fish said to weigh 69+ when he entered a fish said to weigh 49+lbs. I believe they were the record keeping organization of the day and clearly figured something was awry when they found they had the same fish pictured trying to win 2 different weight classes. I know I read this somewhere, but can't recall where and don't know it to be fact. Maybe someone else can chime in if they heard this as well. |
|
| |
|
| Well it is evident that several people have very strong positions and most are unwilling to do research to "see" if they might be right or wrong, such as Lens Creep, rehashing something that has been fully explained, should he care to read the rebuttal. Others, it appears, delight in just muddying the water.
For the more serious, how about this from the rebuttal regarding Lawton's fish:
Photo 2x4 mea. Ph.Act.=A Per in. calc. Fish lgth./photo Calc fish lgth.
1-K 3.750 “ .130 .0347 2.130” “ “ “ 61.38 “
1-K 3.845 “ .130 .0338 “ “ “ “ 63.02 “
1-K 4.000 “ .130 .0325 “ “ “ “ 65.54 “
This shows photo calculations that meet and exceed the claimed length of Lawton's record fish. What do those of you whom have read the rebuttal think?
Next, for those interested, we'll take a look at Dettloff's weird calculations where the record fish is hanging from a pipe.
George Langdon |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1247
Location: On the Niagara River in Buffalo, NY | Guest,I never said that I believed that the Lawton fish was 64.5" long.I'm saying that the Lawton record muskie and the others he caught should be subected to all the same sientific method used in WMA studies of the other old muskie record fish.If they prove to all be bogus,so it be,just give those fish the same look over to be fair accross the boards! |
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | I would be happy to submit the images for a DCM analysis if somebody else is willing to pay for it. The WMA is already in the process of a redirection strategy toward conservation and the current membership did not sign up for this like before. If you are serious, I will be happy to get a quote. I might even throw away $100 out of my own pocket just to keep everyone happy. I am not interested in debating this.
Edited by Jerry Newman 4/22/2011 10:44 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Interesting side by side comparison of the Johnson and Lawton fish. While the heads of the fish look to be fairly close to the same size, there is no way that the Johnson fish's body is anywhere near as long as the Lawton fish. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 67
| Take a look at the Bob Walters fish from last fall and a few of the others that have come out of the St Lawrence in the last few years , could the Lawtons have been catching all the monsters they claimed ,possibly' does anyone really believe they were records ,not likely but they are what they are BIG FISH and unless you were there we should all show respect , the record will fall soon with the new group of gentlemen that shall oversee the future records , Louie , Art and Cal all have my respect as they put the time in to catch truely big fish ,records they are meant to be broken Go for 70LBs and be undisputed or let it go !!!!! Bill |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1030
Location: APPLETON, WI | Trophyhunter1958 - 4/23/2011 9:28 AM ... Go for 70LBs and be undisputed or let it go !!!!! Bill +1 to this. Does it really matter? Has anyone here even come close to catching a 60+ pound class musky? Would you be willing to post pics of this beast? Not sure why all of the heartfelt opinions about something that may or may not have happened so long ago even matters? Why don't you guys get out of the house, tie on a Pounder and go release some steam... :-) |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32798
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Guess I don't need your advice on how I should feel about the WR or how strongly I feel about finding out how big muskies really do get.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8729
| "Go for 70 pounds"...
I've seen nothing in 7 years of chasing and studying these fish that leads me to believe that they actually GET that big. Even the guys who fish trophy waters exclusively will tell you that they've only seen one or two fish in their lifetime that might have possibly been at that 60"/60# mark. That doesn't mean there isn't one out there somewhere. But how can you dismiss the science, dismiss the research, dismiss the biologists, and dismiss the guys who have spent their lives chasing big muskies for a living, on the waters most likely to produce the biggest muskies?? You don't believe the mountain of evidence in front of you that most of the world records were bogus, even though much of it is overwhelming and undisputable. But you believe in a 70# muskie that nobody has ever caught or seen? Interesting. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1277
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Been working outside for a few days and got a call this morning about this thread. Must say there are some interesting posts and the "usual" junk. Sure would be nice to see a civil discussion, especially on this matter. Obviously anyone who has read my work or rebuttal to the John Dettloff bogus and sneaky investigation into Lawton, where he chooses and picks just what truths he wants to believe and demeans the witnesses and the Lawton family, along with using smoke and mirrors and 91 pages of bunk to confuse the record keepers and media, knows what I think of "an historian gone awry". I find it sad that he has basically gotten a pass in this whole matter when his ultimate agenda was to ignore HIS Lawton methods with regards to the Spray records and led the sham upholding of Spray's record with the also shameful NFWF Hall of Fame.
At any rate, as pointed out above, I believe I did a very through job of completely discrediting Dettloff's Lawton investigation. Did Lawton catch the world record? Don't know, but neither does Dettloff and the same can be said about Spray and Johnson, and I guess possibly now too, O'Brien.
Perhaps esoxaddict said it best above. Sure makes sense! After more than 55 years chasing these #*^@ green fish, I fall into the category of having seen only ONE fish that I thought was 60/60 or close....NOTHING bigger, and I've fished all the top muskie waters in North America.
My rebuttal to the Dettloff investigation, cited and referenced above pretty much speaks for me re the Dettloff/Lawton matter, so I shan't comment further.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Muskellunge Historian |
|
| |
|
| Curious,
If John Dettloff did not have a problem with Art Lawton's 65-13, he certainly should have and so should you.
1959 Art Lawton 65 lbs. 13 oz. 32" x 62.5"
The fish is being held in front of Mr. Lawton.
The side to side thickness of a muskie is approximately 27.23% of it's girth. 32" x 27.23% = a side to side thickness of 8.71" for Mr. Lawton's muskie. If Mr. Lawton's muskie was perfectly round it would have a side to side thickness of 10.19" (32" / 10.14 = 10.19").
This means we KNOW the side of the fish facing the camera is AT LEAST 8.5" closer to the camera than Mr. Lawton if the girth of the fish was 32".
Because we KNOW the fish is AT LEAST 8.5" closer to the camera than Mr. Lawton, the apparent 62.5" length must be reduced by a factor equal to the ratio of the camera distances. For instance, if the camera is 7' 3.5" (87.5") from the fish and 8' (96") from Mr. Lawton, 62.5" x 87.5" / 96" (.9115") = an actual fish length of 56.97".
56.97" would be the length of Mr. Lawton's muskie IF it was resting tight against Mr. Lawton's body. The fish appears to be about 3.5" in front of Mr. Lawton. 3.5" + the side to side thickness of 8.5" = 12" With the camera being 7' from the fish and 8' from Mr. Lawton, a 62.5" muskie should appear to be 71.43" which is 3.43" TALLER than Mr. Lawton at 5' 8' (68"). 62.5" / 7' / 8' (.875") = 71.43" - 68" = 3.43".
"Curious" claims the muskie appears to be 62.5" when compared to Mr. Lawton's height of 68". The side of the fish facing the camera fish being 7" from the camera and 8' from Mr. Lawton will result in an actual fish length of 54.69". 62.5" x 7' / 8' (.875) = 54.69".
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32798
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | In the interest of reasonable disclosure, JD uses two other identities or shares his PC with the other two (not likely); Conservation Guy/Chris Petersen. Look up what this guy has posted on this and other subjects, and...there you have it.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 67
| esoxaddict - 4/23/2011 12:15 PM
"Go for 70 pounds"...
I've seen nothing in 7 years of chasing and studying these fish that leads me to believe that they actually GET that big. Even the guys who fish trophy waters exclusively will tell you that they've only seen one or two fish in their lifetime that might have possibly been at that 60"/60# mark. That doesn't mean there isn't one out there somewhere. But how can you dismiss the science, dismiss the research, dismiss the biologists, and dismiss the guys who have spent their lives chasing big muskies for a living, on the waters most likely to produce the biggest muskies?? You don't believe the mountain of evidence in front of you that most of the world records were bogus, even though much of it is overwhelming and undisputable. But you believe in a 70# muskie that nobody has ever caught or seen? Interesting.
Never said i didn't believe the facts ,just respect the oldtimers who caught a lot of big fish, i personaly believe Larry has shown that he is a honorable and knowledgeable Muskie Historian and is very competent , the way i see it is if it's not 70 lb's then it will always be questioned and compaired to the "Historical" records , i would like to see all the big girls set free , that i believe 100% and when you take that into consideration the more that are released the better the fishery will be and yes i do believe there is a 70 swimming where i fish ! two 5 lb walleye in a sixty makes what ? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| I'm not sure we've even seen a 60...........anywhere... |
|
| |
|
| New to this stuff relative to you guys, but just to be clear -- someone claims to have caught 5 fish north of 60 lbs, and there are people here who believe in them????
Does anyone have a pic of the Walden fish?
The Williamson fish - does anyone know for sure it wasn't weighed on certified scales? Seems like that guy was a serious musky hunter, though if he didn't believe he had a potential record may not have cared. |
|
| |
|
| JD, now that you have been outed by Mr. Worrall, care to share with us just what exactly are your qualifications and who you really are? I'm intrigued by your post and math. Do you have credentials to back it up or are you more of "best in school" mathematician like John Dettloff? I'll look forward to your honest reply and in the meantime, I'll study your post further.
George Langdon |
|
| |
|
| And by the way JD, even Dettloff gave the Lawton 65-13 a length of 59 inches. Sure your math and assumptions are correct?
George Langdon |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| rook... I think the Williamson fish is not a contender. There is good evidence that it was never weighed on a certified scale and rumor has it that it was never really accurately measured. BIG fish...but ????
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Curious....Not sure that anyone has really been "outed". I'm also not sure that credentials really matter if the math works.
I refer you to Dr. Arnold's finding's [Spray report] to the ratio of camera distance.
Seems that JD is right in the ballpark ...and may have hit a home run.
Just me...but how can you dispute his math....???
Edited by fins355 4/23/2011 8:06 PM
|
|
| |
|
| fins355 - 4/23/2011 7:31 PM
rook... I think the Williamson fish is not a contender. There is good evidence that it was never weighed on a certified scale and rumor has it that it was never really accurately measured. BIG fish...but ????
Don't know the details, but if he was as big a musky hunter as reported probably would have measured the trophy of his lifetime.
If he didn't measure on a certified scale (does anyone actually know that), then maybe because he didn't believe he had a record so didn't bother? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| I don't think there is any evidence that he weighed his fish on a cerified scale 
Too bad.............. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| rook..I think there is enough evidence to bounce the Walden fish AND the Coleman fish.....sooo, I think that puts us below 60#'s.
HMMMM...who's on deck??? Mr. Art Barefoot????
Edited by fins355 4/23/2011 8:19 PM
|
|
| |
|
| If Williamson's fish was examined by the MNR (Arunas Liskauskas?), is there a chance they weighed and measured it?
Who said it wasn't measured on a certified scale....? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8729
| Trophyhunter1958 - 4/23/2011 4:56 PM
esoxaddict - 4/23/2011 12:15 PM
"Go for 70 pounds"...
I've seen nothing in 7 years of chasing and studying these fish that leads me to believe that they actually GET that big. Even the guys who fish trophy waters exclusively will tell you that they've only seen one or two fish in their lifetime that might have possibly been at that 60"/60# mark. That doesn't mean there isn't one out there somewhere. But how can you dismiss the science, dismiss the research, dismiss the biologists, and dismiss the guys who have spent their lives chasing big muskies for a living, on the waters most likely to produce the biggest muskies?? You don't believe the mountain of evidence in front of you that most of the world records were bogus, even though much of it is overwhelming and undisputable. But you believe in a 70# muskie that nobody has ever caught or seen? Interesting.
Never said i didn't believe the facts ,just respect the oldtimers who caught a lot of big fish, i personaly believe Larry has shown that he is a honorable and knowledgeable Muskie Historian and is very competent , the way i see it is if it's not 70 lb's then it will always be questioned and compaired to the "Historical" records , i would like to see all the big girls set free , that i believe 100% and when you take that into consideration the more that are released the better the fishery will be and yes i do believe there is a 70 swimming where i fish ! two 5 lb walleye in a sixty makes what ?
I'm no scientist, but a 60# fish that has just eaten more than 16% of it's weight? That's not a fish that's still going to be eating, and if my chance it DID, the stomach contents would explain exactly why the fish weighed what it did.
Again, I am not saying that 70# is not possible under the ideal circumstances. A freak of nature, full of eggs, and full of food just might make it to 70#. But in my opinion, that would be a fish the likes of which none of us have ever seen. And if a true 70# fish is ever caught? I think it will remove all doubt about the legitimacy of every fish we have ever seen, including all of the current records. |
|
| |
