|
|
Posts: 1247
Location: On the Niagara River in Buffalo, NY | One thing to consider along with egg mass is a muskies diet late in November to early December what they are gourging on,here it was 7 to 8 inch gizzard shad when the fattie in the picture was caught.When you bring these fatties into the boat they spit up partialy eaten shad and excreet long goose looking droppings all over your boat from the fishes rear.The attached fish picture of one of the late Andy Luchovick's giant muskies shows what the right diet can do to make fish big.
This muskies was only 50" Long but the girth was 29 1/2" and bottomed out a 50 lb Bogagrip scale.One fish that I witnessed was 55 1/2" X 29" that was not weighed and was quickly released back in 1999.Now catch a 56 to 57 inch muskie with the same build and we could be over 60 lbs with ease.I to do not think 70 lbs is possible,but 65 lbs could happen.These fish are thick from head to tail and always weight a couple lbs more then any of the formulations used to calculate weight.
Edited by LarryJones 4/24/2011 8:39 AM
Attachments
----------------
 Andy Fattie.jpg (8KB - 500 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | I really do not understand why so many seem to have a problem with a musky getting to 65 or even 70 pounds. If the fish's length is over 55" and their girth pushes over the 30" mark, it's quite possible.
Let's consider Larry's example of the Luchovick fish Larry just mentioned. The first attachment below shows a screen shot of my fish calculator estimates for that fish. The average weight is 51.2 pounds, well in agreement with the weight mentioned by Larry. Now look at the second image below. These are the measurements of Ryan Dempsey's fish from the Fox River in Green Bay, back in April 2005. He caught the fish while walleye fishing, and it was measured and released after photos were taken. He was fishing with a very experienced angler who also guides professionally. I have never met these guys personally, but I did speak to Ryan on the phone about the fish in 2007, and I have no reason to believe that these measurements weren't true. I am recalling these dimensions from memory, but I believe the fish was 56 x 33.5 (it may have been 56.5 x 33). So for a fish of those dimensions, you can see the weight estimations. The average is 72.3 pounds.
Now, what's so hard to believe about a 65 pound fish?
The Williamson fish was apparently sterile, as I understand it. But O'Brien's fish had about 850,000 eggs in her ovaries, according to a report from Dr. Lebeau, a PhD researcher who examined the ovaries and counted the eggs. So it seems that not all giant females are sterile. So what's so hard to believe about one of these fish getting to over 65 pounds, especially when she's feeding for an upcoming winter? I simply don't get it. The Kapuscinski (et al) paper from 2006 shows the growth model from the Green Bay population projecting a maximum length of just over 60 inches; and that was an incomplete growth model at that, with only a couple of fish over 50" represented in the data. So it's very possible that this number could actually be under-estimating what this population can do!
There are credible anglers here in the Green Bay area who have told me they've had fish on and up to the boat, that were pushing 57-58" in length. These guys have caught a number of fish in the 50+ inch range, so they know big fish. And we've seen a few fish actually caught out here in the 55-58" class within the past couple of years. Those are documented. So tell me again how they don't exist?
I have no problem believing in the possibility of a 65-70+ pound fish in Green Bay. Just because you haven't seen one where you fish, doesn't mean they don't exist.
My $0.02...
TB
EDIT: By the way, the Dempsey fish was this fat, yet it still chased down a 5" stick bait. So tell me again how fat fish won't feed?
Luchovick fish: 51.2 pounds average
Dempsey fish: 72.3 pounds average
Edited by tcbetka 4/24/2011 9:02 AM
Attachments
----------------
LuchovikFish.jpg (85KB - 309 downloads)
DempseyFish.jpg (87KB - 330 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
| JD I've looked over your math post again re the Lawton 65-13. While I make no claim to be a math expert, I see a LOT of assumptions being made and some percentages given without explanation to origin. Hardly scientific such as the DCM reports of the WRMA. Your math is probably correct, but I'll take the advice of a previous poster in this thread and use "common sense". There is no way, your math included, that Lawton's 65-13 is 14 inches shorter than he is. Perspective and formula's aside, when you look at the photo, the tail is right at the top of Lawton's foot and the tip of the jaw is nearly even with the top of Lawton's head and there is little perspective there as the camera height is on that end. Hardly leaves 14 inches or air. More like the 6 inches I noted previously.
Fins I don't agree that JD has hit a home run, just created more food for thought. And by the way, just what evidence are you referring to regarding the Walden and Coleman fish? I've never read anything published that is definitive in that regard.
rook, from what I've heard, no one has ever claimed that the Williamson fish was weighed on a certified scale. Ramsell reported that it was weighed on a "calibrated balance beam scale".
George Langdon |
|
| |
|
| Although it is an interesting discussion whether a musky can get to be 60-65-70lbs, it's really not the subject matter. This whole discussion could be over with somebody posting 1 photograph. Art Lawton 61-4 1960.
Rook said, "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????"
This is wrong rook, it was actually 6 fish north of 60 lbs between 1956 and 1962, not to mention 3 fish over 58 lbers. I want to hear if ANYONE (including Larry Ramsell) believes in this 61-4 after looking at the picture. Curious is only willing to argue technicalities and certain points like a lawyer defending a man he knows is guilty.
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Actually, it is the subject matter. When people start arguing that Lawton's fish weren't real because they can't get that big...it becomes relevant indeed.
I cannot say that Lawton's fish were or were not as big as claimed. However I am very confident that muskies can in fact "get that big," and therefore I don't feel it is valid to use this to try to discount his fish. That is all I am saying.
TB
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Tom....whether or not they CAN get that big, we have not had a verifiable fish that is shown to be undeniably over 60#'s.....IMO.
Curious....I have pretty good info from a reliable source that the Coleman & Walden fish can be shown to be less than claimed by essentially the same "math" that has been used on Spray, et al.
But, we haven't gotten down that far yet, so no use elaborating. We still have O'Brien to deal with by the OFAH....we know, I think, what the FWFHF & IGFA will say about the WMA challenge .....if anything at all.
Edited by fins355 4/24/2011 10:22 AM
|
|
| |
|
| fins I think you have made your own point. The "Spray, et. al." math has done nothing to convince the record keepers and is struggling to convince the majority here. That the record keepers however, have ignored the WRMA/DCM "SCIENCE", is basically, shame on them. We have however, no such science on any of the Lawton muskies. I saw that the WMA's Jerry Newman is willing to put up $100 of his money to get the Lawton fish done, but have yet to see any other takers. Probably isn't real cheap, but I don't think it is beyond reach either.
So many quick to condemn, but so few willing to put their money where there mouth (keyboard) is.
Regarding the Walden and Coleman fish fins, I think you are jumping the gun by making the statement you did about verifiable 60 pounders, so Tom's post does indeed have merit.
George Langdon |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| I may be jumping the gun about Walden & Coleman, agreed. That remains to be seen.
I think we know why the "record keepers" took the position they did w/Spray/Johnson. I think the math was just fine in the reports.
Tom's post is potentially very possible, though in my mind not probable....we just haven't seen verifiable evidence yet. I just don't/won't believe a 60# fish....yet.
I guess I just don't see the point in going back to the Lawton fish when their credibility is so "tainted".
Edited by fins355 4/24/2011 10:49 AM
|
|
| |
|
| I guess fins, that your comments take us full circle. You say the Lawton's credibility is "tainted", but by what? Dettloff's poorly done and rebutted "investigation". I for one am not buying it. With almost all of Dettloff's points rebutted and "his" credibilty shattered therein and with his Hall of Fame games of upholding ONLY the Hayward 60 pounders when scientific evidence proves otherwise, I simply cannot agree with you.
You are entitled to be a non-believer where muskies over 60 pounds are concerned, but to say conclusively that it isn't or hasn't been so, just merely your opinion without substantiation.
George Langdon |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Curious.....fair enough. I admit to not having taken time to study LR's rebuttal to Dettloff. I should and hope to.
I agree with your points about the FWFHF....too bad.
I still think that I can say with calculated common sense authority that we have yet to see a genuine undeniable 60# fish.
But , yes it is only my opinion. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it...LOL!
DougP |
|
| |
|
| DougP
I'll help redirect your focus and repeat two key elements from page two of this thread for you to zero in on.
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: 243
| I do have to agree that in looking at all of the photos together in Mr. Ramsell's Compendium (first time for me---heresy, I know), the reported sizes are more laughable than ever. There are some nice fish in there, but most are obviously nowhere near what we know modern day size structures are. Unless those older fish were just a lot more dense 
Being a former journalist myself, I think it's unfortunate that reported sizes are being linked to Mr. Ramsell's research. When you go to interview someone for a story, you are taking their word for it and you put your information together based on the facts they provide. If you went to every story and told the subject of your interview they are a liar on your way out, you wouldn't have anyone to interview after a while.
Some people say they don't care about the world record or what the biggest fish out there are.....I find that kind of hard to believe based on the number of responses to these threads. Thanks for the entertainment in the "off season"---I've really enjoyed all the good reading.
Edited by IM Musky Time 4/24/2011 3:17 PM
|
|
| |
|
| fins355 - 4/24/2011 2:46 PM
Curious.....fair enough. I admit to not having taken time to study LR's rebuttal to Dettloff. I should and hope to.
I agree with your points about the FWFHF....too bad.
I still think that I can say with calculated common sense authority that we have yet to see a genuine undeniable 60# fish.
But , yes it is only my opinion. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it...LOL!
DougP
So Doug - whether its a verified world record or not, you don't believe in the Williamson fish? He lied about a weight that would not have given him any record? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Curious ...I have to do some more reading b4 I can respond to your post. Hard to find time.
rook.....Williamson obviously had a BIG fish, but since we have not seen any indication of a weight from a certified scale it's a mute point.
His fish just can't be accepted as a proven fact.....as far as indicated weight.
Edited by fins355 4/24/2011 4:49 PM
|
|
| |
|
| "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"
GL, do you have NO comment on the false claim of Lawton's 6 fish north of 60, especially the picture of that skinny one he claimed was 61-4? This was supposed to be a serious discussion about Lawton muskies, as in plural. Or, are you only interested in talking about 2 pictures that kind of look remotely possible, as in I only have this weak shaky defense. Who cares about some weird calculations on that fish when do you don't need to make any calculations on that 61-4 to know it's BS, same with 6-60s in 7 years. In a word, the Lawton claim starts with "unbelievable". Shouldn't a serious discussion start by examining all the evidence first?
"Curious is only willing to argue technicalities and certain points like a lawyer defending a man he knows is guilty."
How true, give it up already please! |
|
| |
|
| Appears like someone making multiple posts with various bogus names or merely as guest. "Art" can you conclusively prove that the photo you refer to is the correct photo for the 61-4. I guess I must bow to your great powers, since that photo alone is hardly proof, but you seem to think otherwise...DCM science on far, far better photos has been insufficient to convince the record keepers, I hardly think one mushy photo in the dark where everything can't be seen is enough to convince many folks that Lawton's fish are falsified, if in fact it really is the correct photo. Keep in mind that the 7 year span of the Lawton claimed 60 pounders, the Seaway was undergoing construction and fish were uprooted and on the move unlike ever before, or likely again. Never say never unless you can PROVE it.
Do "I" believe all of the Lawton fish? Can't say for sure, but I can assure you that the proof offered to unseat Lawton's all tackle record falls far short of the mark to do so!
Spray's 1940 record photo appears far too small too, but it too hasn't affected the record keepers in the north, his 49 fish still sits atop the heap.
Oh wait, I think I just got it...since the Lawton fish is from NY it must be bogus, but Spray's from the WI Home of World Record Muskies must be legit; hence Johnson gets a pass as well...all the other pretenders, sorry, you're out; heck, didn't Dettloff disprove ALL other 60 pounder except the Hayward ones and the two from Eagle? Gee, wonder what will happen when someone in Minnesota nails one over 60? Most would probably release it, but if not??? |
|
| |
|
| Curious,
From the Feb. 1, 2006 letter to Emmett Brown
Executive Director
National Fresh Water Fishing Hall of Fame
P.O. Box 690
10360 Hall of Fame Drive
Hayward, Wisconsin 54843, from the three Professors:
"However, since the fish is clearly in front of the angler, the length 63" must be reduced by a factor equal to the ratio of the camera distances. For instance, if the camera is 8' from the angler but only 7' from the fish, the fish length would change to 63" x 7' / 8' or about 55". This is the origin of Prof. Arnold's statement the "the only conclusion that we can draw with certainty is that the fish is shorter than 63", perhaps considerably so."
Joseph Gallian, Ph. D.
Professor of Mathematics, University of Minnesota Duluth
Morse Alumni distinguished Professor of Teaching
Dorian Goldfeld, Ph. D.
Professor of Mathematics
Columbia University
Douglas N. Arnold, Ph. D.
Professor of Mathematics, University of Minnesota
Director, Institute for Mathematics and its Applications.
Curious, what exactly don't you understand about the statement from the Professors? All your calculations are based upon the fish being as thin as a piece of paper! Because you failed to factor in the side to side thickness of the fish, all your calculations MUST BE REDUCED by a factor equal to the ratio of the camera distances. Lawton's record has a reported girth of 31.75". Again, the side to side thickness of muskie with a girth this size is at least 8.5". Also, the tail of the fish is clearly in front of Lawton's foot, not right above it.
|
|
| |
|
| In all sincerity, any musky man worth his salt should be able to look at that fish and discount the balance of his fish, especially you, seaway project or not. It's not some great power, just a tiny dash of common sense. *Nobody* and I mean nobody, believes that skinny fish could possibly weigh 60. You don't have to believe me, start another thread with a picture, you and that Lawton fish would get sooo laughed at! You say prove it's bad, I'll throw it right back at you, prove it's good, same with Ruth's 68lb. The long and "short" of it is those Lawton records are not worth the paper they are written on, and you know it! |
|
| |
|
| Curious: "There is no way, your math included, that Lawton's 65-13 is 14 inches shorter than he is. Perspective and formula's aside, when you look at the photo, the tail is right at the top of Lawton's foot and the tip of the jaw is nearly even with the top of Lawton's head and there is little perspective there as the camera height is on that end. Hardly leaves 14 inches or air. More like the 6 inches I noted previously."
Curious, you accept that Spray's 1949 fish is 18.4" shorter than Spray's height yet you figure there's no way that Lawton's fish can be 14" shorter than Lawton?
Perspective aside? What exactly is that supposed to mean? 
|
|
| |
|
| Curious,
"DougP
I'll help redirect your focus and repeat two key elements from page two of this thread for you to zero in on.
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 “ (61.38" x 7' / 8' = 53.7")
1-K 3.845 “ .130 .0338 “ “ “ “ 63.02 “ (63.02" x 7' / 8' = 55.14")
1-K 4.000 “ .130 .0325 “ “ “ “ 65.54 “ (65.54" x 7' / 8' = 57.34")
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?
JD: I think the rebuttal is hogwash!
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
JD: Forget about the pipe! More accurate post calculations for Lawton's fish are shown above. |
|
| |
|
| Another thing on that Seaway Project theory.
Back in the day, it was generally considered that these giant fish were always deep and the dynamite blasting caused them to relocate and become more available to anglers. One of those anglers was Len Hartman, who later admitted to cheating. You remove Len from the equation, and you're only left with Art. If this theory holds any water, somebody else should have been able to catch them besides Art. Right? Len was probably a better angler than Art too, how come he never got a 60lb musky?
I know you're going to like this little analysis too?
If you look at the Field & Stream contest entries for 1956 through 1962, the Lawton's managed to beat the Harman's every year EVEN THOUGH THE HARTMAN'S WERE CHEATING. Keep in mind that Len was a full-time fisherman, and Art only a weekend warrior. Any rational explanation for this?
Here's my explanation, Art was a better cheater! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1280
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | To JD (George W) and Guest (Jerry N). As I took a bit of time to cool off from my outside work and catch up with this thread I find you guys going off the deep end for some reason. If you don't wish to do the proper work on the Lawton fish, fine, just let it be. Folks that wish to find out the truth can do their own research. But until you take the time to "do it right". George W's continuous rants and UNPROVEN math can go suck wind. George if you don't like my rebuttal, just come on here out in the open and quit hiding behind a number of anon. board names and disprove it. You make assumptions without fact and then try and convince people that you are some sort of expert. I have seen your latest "work" regarding the Walden and Coleman fish, and if anything is "hogwash", that certainly fits the bill. Just try and sell that to the folks on Eagle Lake. You want to take shots at my work, be a man about it.
Play fair or don't play, I've got better things to do. If others on this board want to play your silly games, fine. I'll be back only if courtesy prevails and I get my outside work done. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8730
| Why muddy the waters with unsubstantiated analysis? Why not let the WMA and the profesionals they have hired do what it is they do? It's intereting reading, but the fact remains that people way more qualified than any of us (Mr. Ramsell aside) have gathered and studied all the evidence they can find on these fish. We can hem and haw until the cows come home about who said what to who and who lied and who didn't, but it's not going to change the fact that these particular fish either were or were NOT what they were claimed to be. If the experts determine that there is enough doubt about the sizes of these fish to warrant removing them as world records, what else is there to debate?
When this all started, the only fish I honestly didn't believe was the Spray fish. Considering all that has come to light since? We're getting closer to a fish that can actually be beaten. That may open up a whole other can of worms when that fish is actually caught this fall. I just have to wonder.... When someone does catch it? What will everyone have to say for themselves? |
|
| |
|
| esoxaddict,
Muddy the waters? I find it amazing that you would call the results obtained from using the projective geometry as explained by the Professors as a form of unsubstantiated analysis. The Professors ARE professionals and the large side to side thickness of a muskie with a 32" girth is a fact, NOT an assumption. Calling projective geometry UNPROVEN math is simply ridiculous. I don't recall anyone having a problem with what the Professors said about the Spray fish being about 55". Math doesn't lie and they used it to determine a result basically identical to the photogrammetric analysis performed on the Spray fish without anyone paying a penny. The same is true for the Lawton fish if people would just open their eyes.
|
|
| |
|
| JD/George W? Again you merely make assumptions re the above measurements of the Lawton fish AND those measurements were NOT made on the basis of where the fish is in relation to Lawton. ONLY the board and fish lying against it were used...you should pay more attention. So, your incorrect assumptions are what is bogus here. This math has nothing to do with the Professors math. And if it did, just how would you possibly know how far the camera was from the fish and Lawton? Didn't think you had any real clue. Yep, worked on Spray's fish but NOT the example shown from the Lawton rebuttal! Try again if you wish.
George Langdon |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32806
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'Play fair or don't play, I've got better things to do.'
Ditto. |
|
| |
|
| I'll again return to the Lawton rebuttal math.
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 “ Direct scaled, no perspective involved.
1-K 3.845 “ .130 .0338 “ “ “ “ 63.02 “ Direct scaled, no perspective involved.
1-K 4.000 “ .130 .0325 “ “ “ “ 65.54 “ Direct scaled, no perspective involved.
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? Obviously JD or whomever he is, hasn't read it.
Next, for those interested, we'll take a look at Dettloff's weird calculations where the record fish is hanging from a pipe. A key factor to look for here is why, when Dettloff supplied all of the Standards information needed in his investigation and used in the rebuttal, did he use such a complex method rather than using the Standards in his investigation? Was it to insure he obtained his desired result?
George Langdon |
|
| |
|
| Doug P -- a question for you....all concrete proof aside, which fish do you think was biggest? Williamsons? A Lawton fish? Something else?
Which do you believe is the biggest, whether 100% provable and weighed on a digital scale or not... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1280
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Earlier this evening I was going to respond to another post by JD/GW. As I was ready to submit it, I was knocked off the Internet and when I returned, the latest JD/GW post was gone, I assume due to his disrespectful manner. I was going to let it lie, but I gave it a bit more thought and figured responding to his insistence that the Professor's projective geometry should be used could only help my case and ADD inches to the calculations in my rebuttal!
First of all, JD/GW is incorrect in the way he "used" the math that he claimed "shortened" the Lawton fish by 7.68; 7.85 and 8.20 inches respectively from my calculations. In fact, if one were to use his math straight up, fish length loss MUST be REDUCED by ONLY 50% of his calculations, but since he is incorrect, length would actually be INCREASED! Bear with me...since the measuring points are the tip of the jaw and the tip of the tail, we are talking the CENTERLINE of the fish, NOT the side of the fish closest to the camera. That alone would increase HIS conclusions by 3.84; 3.94 and 4.10 respectively. Strike one.
Second, since I used direct scaling of the board and the fish's length off of the SAME photograph, if anything, length should be ADDED and not subtracted from my calculated lengths...allow me to explain. "IF" the board was at exactly the same distance from the camera, i.e., even with the tip of the jaw and the tip of the tail, the measurement of the board used to make my calculations would therefore be MORE than the measurements used in my example and therefore, the calculated length of the fish would INCREASE proportionally!! I won't take the time tonight to do the increased calculations. I'll leave that for someone else to have fun with. My position only gets stronger. Strike two.
So JD/GW, you have incorrectly tried to interject and use the Professor's math trying to skew my findings and calculations and mislead the public, when all you have done is actually ADD fish length to my calculations. Thanks and Strike Three!
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Muskellunge Historian |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| rook......I don't believe any of the Lawton fish to be 60#'s. Too many shenanigans!
I also don't believe Spray or Johnson hit that mark.
The O'Brien fish has been effectively disqualified IMO.
So, Williamson....yeah, big fish, 60#'s , maybe....there is more to learn there also.
The Walden and Coleman fish are still ???? for me.
Not much has been said about the Art Barefoot fish @ 59-11. Maybe there is a problem there too??
LR seems to be very much plugged in to Lawton's 65-13.....mmmm, not for me.
So, I didn't really answer your question 'cause right now, I just don't know....
DougP |
|
| |
