Summer 02 Esox Angler

[Ton B]

Received my Summer issue of Esox Angler. Great issue!!! There are 2 excellent stories that questions the accuracy of some of our current records and Rob Kimm wrote a very timely article on the Tianna dock issue.

Great job guys!!

Tom B

[The Big Swede]

EA has put together a great article that shows that the World Resords are BS. I feel the world records were made up to promote WI and the resorts and business in the Hayward area. Funny how there was a string of about 10 years were all the world records were broke and only by a few pounds. With all the catch and release by musky anglers in the last 25 years at least 1 sixty pounder should have been caught??? It makes me feel good to see the Top musky magazine have the guts to come out and lay it on the line. I would say we are getting the "Real Deal" in Pike and Musky fishing with Esox Angler.

The Big Swede

[Tom B]

I think that the most telling thing are the photos. Look at the "new guys" struggling to heft there 50 pounders, yet the old-timers have no problem hefting there 60+ pound fish.

These guys may have caught some exceptional fish, but they certainly are not records.

Tom B

[Jim McCullough]

Alrighty then...we have had our first gutless anonymous attack in this post. That didn't take long. No doubt this is probably the most controversial topic in Muskie Fishing. Let's keep the unfounded accusations out of it. Discuss the topics, and the people who have admitted to faking things, but keep the rest of the crap out of it. :)

[Marc Thorpe]

Ditto on the comment TBS.
Its all about being REAL!
To many fakes out there.

marc

[riverrat118]

Can't wait to get my issue from Esox Angler. Don't spill the beans!It's about time. Way to much politics that keep these so called record fish on the books. I man with decent eyesight could see that things are amiss with all those record fish.
John Schardt

[Musk Rat]

I have only been mukie fishing 10 years or so but I can tell you this. For a variety of reasons people lie and eggagerate and tell stories. Fisherman are renowned for it shoot my relatives laugh when I tell them I`m cathching 4 foot fish in N.J. I can say this in defence of our older generation the B.S. is just as thick these days as ever maybe even thicker with catch and release. How many pros have you seen calling every 47 incher a 50 or every 25# a 30# The only difference is there is no longer an oppertunity to fake wheight records or people would be doing it. If you look at the quest adventures add you`ll see me holding a big fish caught by marc thorpe Look at my face if you think you can hold a 60# with one hand head to Home depot and try lifting a full spakle bucket out in front of you with one hand. Statisticaly whats the chances one guy caught three over 60# I don`t think you could produce that in a 100 years of trolling G-bay The funny thing is some of todays catch and release records are just as ludacrise. My thoughts are if the fish is impressive so are the photos beleive what you see your eyes won`t let you down. Just keep your mouth shut and let the fibbers have there day. Who cares anyway we all know Ken Obriens fish is real and thats a pretty good benchmark to shoot for. If half the guys who cast bucktails on LOTW in july trolled G-Bay in the fall we would probably have a new world record by now. The fact is there aren`t many people targetting world records even in the places with world record potetial most people are happy just to try and catch a fish and hope it`s big I know a few guys who spend time targetting only world records and there is a difference. Marc thorpe will tell you even though his waters have the potetial there are olny a few short lived patterns likely to produce a record fish in any given season the rest of the time your just fishing trophy fishing yea but not record hunting. I think there are a few 65# swimming around out there but whos got what it takes to go after them?

[GregM]

Hi all, hate to get involved in such a debate as this. Hopefully everyone will keep their heads and play nice. I have a couple of dumb questions to ask that I hope someone can help with.

First off, great article, makes a lot of sense. I'd like to be able to say, "I always wondered about that", but won't get on that wagon.

IF, ( I say IF, not WE SHOULD) some of these old records just happen to get discredited. Whoahh, lets not even go there either. Let's just "imagine" that the records or goals we as musky nuts set as the biggest fish ever caught,(and that we want to beat)is to be based on the formula used in the article. With all the research and number crunching, probability of 60# fish swimming around (better yet, lack thereof), doesn't this info lead us to the Malo fish? All of the pre 1950 fish just don't jive with the numbers. It is highly unlikely that these fish were really actually that big. I can honestly buy that. BUT, in my eyes, it appears that what the numbers have proven is that ,OK these fish weren't that big, BUT here is pretty hard evidence that the Malo 70#er was legit. Haven't we proven that it isn't possible, but yet also proven that they are actually bigger than we thought they could get??


secondly, why wasn't the Malo fish ever recognized as the world record? I never heard the story, can someone please fill me in? thx.


p.s. I guess what I was really personally hoping is to find out that yeah, the records were tainted, the record is actually a lower number that I as a somewhat skilled fisherman can actually attain. As I see it, the goal is even higher now.

any thoughts? thx much."I fish cuz the voices in my head tell me to"

[Marc Thorpe]

Greg M,the Malo fish from my understanding was not weighed correctly.
Like me friend muskrat says,catching one 60 pounder in life is a feat.
Catching a few is quite honestly .....impossible.
I have boated many fish.
You have only a couple of windows in a season for that unique opportunaty.Some seasons,they dont ever occur depending on weather and yes your local water table.Is it high or is low?
Makes a huge difference wether the fish are eating on a regular basis on dieting because food has move.

Just some stats for you,with some 200 fish over 50 inches and
some fish over 55 inches in the teens.Why have I not boated a legit
60 pounder.Not even sure any made it to 50 pounds other than one which we weighed.She did not make by much either.
My speculation lots of 30 to 47 pounders.
With most 50 + being around 32 to 39 pounds.Correct me if I am wrong but those who have some know how in judgement will agree with my speculations in weight.
Like I said in another post,10 years ago we were boating
40 pounders,ten years later the same fish,same dimension ,
the fish weigh 50 pounds?Sounds like a NBA or NFL or NHL hype to me.
Releasing which I only addear to has created even more falsification but this time around its not for food on the table its for glory.

Just a tip of notice to the significance of giant fish,if you dont have a square tail,you dont have a potential giant.Look at all the real 50 pounders and up that are real.They all have broad tails.

Its time it all got cleaned up and had an honest bench mark
The only thing you need in catching a world record......
LUCK nothing more
marc

[RoyC]

I would guess that most of you that have responded to this topic so far already thought that the records of the 30's and 40's were a hoax. If you look at the data in Ross Fisher's article more closely, you will see that it actually supports those records! He claims that the LxGxG/800 formula is accurate for superfish and then uses some statistics to show that the past records don't follow this formula, therefore, they must be hoaxes. What he doesn't indicate, although the data clearly does, is that these alleged fish weights are BELOW the formula's predicted weights. So if the formula is correct, and the length and girth measurements are accurate, these fish should have weighed significantly more than what was measured. On the other hand, if these record fish were actually significantly lighter than the weights reported, and the formula is correct, then their actual lengths and/or girths must have been much much lower than reported. I suppose it is possible that the reported weights, lengths, and girths were all lies, which must be the case if the formula does apply to these fish, but remember that most of these record fish were seen by many people and many of them were mounted and on display for many years. It is hard to believe that no one checked the length and girth measurements for accuracy before or after they were mounted.

Roy

[Tom B]

I thought about the records and the fact that Ross's formula does make them "bigger." There is still a problem with the photos. The "current" big fish are all photographed with people working hard to hold them. Just not the case with the old time pitures.

In just about every article that I have ever read, the old timers almost always measured their fish with witnesses that were not fisherman and knew nothing about fishing and when these folks were questioned about these fish, they always were either vague, or "it was that big because he said it was and I believe him."

Regarding the Malo fish.... if I remember correctly, it was weighed the next day on a non certified scale, then it was either mounted or butchered. That fish should be the record.

Tom B

[RoyC]

The photo thing bothers me also. But all of these photos were taken on land (I don't think they carried cameras in boats back then), and at least some of them look like the fish may have been hanging from something above the photo, and the fisherman is really just standing there acting like he is holding the fish. The reason I think this is because even if these were "only" 50 pounders, it would be hard to hold them unassisted.

As for witnesses, many of the old records that were disqualified (Hartman's and others) were fish with only a few shaky witnesses (non-fishers and/or relatives) and these fish were butchered and not mounted. But I believe that most of the records in question now were actually on public display before and after they were mounted. I just can't believe that they all got away with lying about the weight and length and girth at the same time, which is what you have to believe is the case if the LGG/800 formula is valid for these fish. Also, many of these record fisherman were in stiff competition with each other for the record, so if they could have cast any doubt on each other's measurements, I am sure that they would have.

Roy

[Marc Thorpe]

Roy,if you think the actions of yesterday's anglers are disapointing.
You should see what todays people do or maybe very soon I will expose for the entire world to see.Frankly you and all will be disapointed in most so called pros!You might all understand why labelling so many as PROS is a farce.Once you see their behavior and actions.
Being a pro or a record holder is of no importance but being ones self is more enriching.
People like contraversy,well I am willing to start it.
I have nothing to loose but many names may come off the water tower!

marc thorpe

[JimG]

A big deal is being made about the holding of the old records. Ontario Out of Doors magazine ran a photo of Ken O'Brien holding his 65 pounder out in front of himself vertically, just like Spray and Johnson!!! And he is smiling. Guess a fish like that gives "Dudes" (old or young) strength. Barefoot and others in the EA article also are holding them in front. Spray was holding his 69-11 roped to an oar, not by hand. Malo's fish "should" be the record, AND the Formula WORKS on it, so 70 pounds is the benchmark and yes Pete, it came from the Hayward area!

Roy C makes a very valid point. What "twisted logic" makes the "quantum leap" that if the formula shows the fish to be bigger than reported and the formula is, as claimed, works, those "old record fish" had to actually be lighter than claimed? Leaves me confused!

JimG

[JimG]

Another thought about holding the fish. In the photo of Spray with his 69 pounder, and that photo is cropped, but the oar/rope holding the fish is still visible, so all Spray did was hold the oar up!

JimG

[Jim McCullough]

This is all very interesting stuff. Thanks for keeping it civil guys.

Jim G, I haven't heard the oar theory before. Where did you hear that? Is it documented anywhere?

[RoyC]

I practiced last night with my 75-pound daughter, holding her in front of me. I could do it for a few seconds. It wasn't easy, and I am not a big guy by any means (5'-5" and 160 pounds). If I ever catch a musky that big, I will definitely hold it out in front of me long enough for someone to take a picture!

Roy

[Jim McCullough]

http://www.naplesnews.com/00/07/sports/d483529a.htm

I have been doing a little internet research. I have found a number of articles on Louie Spray and his catch. Some of them are written by people who stand to profit from the promotion of the Hayward area, and when you read them, it is crystal clear that bias is involved. I will not link to those articles. If someone else wants to, feel free. The article linked above is by Dennis Anderson, a well known outdoor writer from Minneapolis. I will also be linking to the video they talk about. There are some good photos including, and someone will correct me if I am wrong about this, the world record fish with the oar in the picture. It is a small picture so it is hard to make things out. If someone has a link to a full size picture, please post it.

[Jim McCullough]

Here is the link to the video and the pictures.

http://www.fishinginfo.com/go/videoart/newvideo.htm

[Jim McCullough]

...and here is a link to the biggest fish caught in the Hayward area. All of Louie's big fish are here, and they are easier to see. Check out Cal Johnson's fish. I don't know how much it weighed, but that is how you look when you hold a big fish. :)

http://haywardlakes.com/wrmuskies.html

[RoyC]

Jim,

The Louis Spray picture in your last link clearly shows the musky suspended from an oar handle. Isn't it interesting that the Esox Angler article apparently used the same photo, but cropped out the oar? I am not a conspiracy nut, but . . .

Roy

[happy hooker]

That damm Gore!!! now EVERYTHING is subject to a recount!!

[tomcat]

i'm pretty interested in what marc had to say about exposing today's pro's...hhhmmm. a little enlightenment could be fun...
this topic is always "fun" and i don't have much to contribute...but would love to hear more on this.
tomcat
someone else's turn to keep it reel now.

[RoyC]

Who is Gore? Is he the fat bearded fellow that I saw fishing Cave Run?

[Phishin]

There are lots of "Pro's" out there that preach the high ethics of catch and release, etc. and still have no problem holding up a hawg for a couple of pics that the Indians got in their nets!! I have heard countless stories of "Pro's" holding harvested fish that some other angler happened to luck into. Then there are always "Pro's" who always make sure to carry several different sponsor's outfits in their boats so they can get several "poses" of the same fish....often claiming the fish as a trophy multiple times. When people choose to make fishing a living that supports their family, men are bound to do whatever it takes to put food on the table and keep the lights on.
Peace Out.
Steve Hulbert

[Marc Thorpe]

What happened to integrity?
The old swithing of the shirts theory,quite amusing I find.
Unfortunalty I cant say anymore on the that subject!

Roy C,hope you did not hold her up by the neck!:+

Tom Cat,we should create a truthfull site.Where we can chim in the real stuff that goes on.Not what fishing is about to me.
Money before resource?MMMM Not sound thinking if you wish to keep the light on.Consider the next generation that may enjoy this sport.
Unless your conceded or your reps at stake.:+

Marc

[Phishin]

The only thing I don't like about all the fake fish from the 1950's and earlier, and the other stories I hear about guys now a days, is that it puts unrealistic goals in the "weekend" musky angler. We see pictures of all these supposed 60 pounders and people who claims to caught big numbers of huge fish, it leads to a lot of new musky anglers...greenhorns excited to catch a 50# fish...however, I feel in a couple of years, it's going to lead to a lot of guys falling out of this sport, and a lot of cheap stuff on Ebay.

It's funny to look at the Musky Compendium and look at all of those 45-49" fish they claim to be 52-55" and weight 45+ pounds. It's a joke and everyone knows it. Malo seems pretty real to me and Ken O'Brian is for real....whatever happened to the dude that caught that
60 pounder out of Mille Lacs?? Has he ever confessed to it being fake or has anyone came forward supporting his claim??

Peace Out.
Steve Hulbert

[JimG]

Jim M;

Look at any uncropped photo of Spray with his 69 pounder and the oar is very obvious and part of the oar can be seen in the EA photo!

JimG

[JimG]

Jim M:

There you have them. Louie's 69 pounder quite clearly hanging from an oar, and Cal Johnson holding his hanging from a stick through the gills, giving him a "handle" to hold on too. Much easier than trying to hold it by the gills!

JimG

[Jim McCullough]

Jim,

I've seen that photo a hundred times and never payed attention to that. You are correct it seems.

[Marc Thorpe]

Cal's fish is sure huge,
Do you guys really beleive one person can catch 3 60 pounders?
Whats the oar got to do with it?

Cropping the oar,you should see what others have done to me,
crop pictures fabricat Stories exactly how it transpired but leaving my name out and placing someones else's
.When have you seen a ranger with a seem in the middle of the bow?;)

Cropping the oar is not the issue.

The cool thing is all the views on this thread,as if it may explode!

Ah well blind faith prevails
marc

[tomcat]

Marc, good idea about the website, except i really wouldn't have much to contribute. Here in Indiana, the musky world is still pretty small and there is not much to be had, so not many people have to lie to make a living. But i'm into it man. but as long as money are egos are involved, it will always be hard to divide the Bullshot from the real deal (i'm guilty sometimes too).
tomcat

[RoyC]

Marc,

The oar issue is due to the Esox Angler article which cast doubt on many of the past record fish because some of the photos show the angler holding 60+ pound fish with little effort. It turns out that in at least one of the photos, the fish was hanging from an oar and the angler (Spray) was merely standing behind it with one hand on the fish. The EA article showed the photo with the overhead oar from which it was hanging cropped out of the photo whereas many other versions of that photo clearly show how the fish is suspended from overhead.

I am not arguing whether or not these records are legitimate in terms of being legally caught fish by the people who claimed them. But so far, I have seen no credible evidence that these fish did not exist with the dimensions and weights that were reported. The EA articles disputed the reported weights through these misleading photos, and through a flawed comparison to the LGG/800 formula as I described in a previous post.

Is it possible that one person caught three 60-pounders in his lifetime? Yes, if 60-pound fish did exist at that time. And so far, the preponderance of evidence indicates that they did exist during that time period. Is it likely that Spray caught 3 60+ pound records? No, its not likely, but I have heard of stranger things happening.

Roy

[Jim McCullough]

Jim G,

I have to add to my earlier post and say that you are correct about the oar, but it still doesn't mean that the fish is 69 pounds. That just explains why he isn't grunting to hold it up. I have to say that I do find it odd that one person could catch three 60 pounders.
Weirder things have happened, but who else in Muskie Fishing history has ever caught even two 60 pounders?

[RoyC]

Jim,

A common saying is "what's the chance of lightening striking twice in the same place". It turns out that it is quite high! If lightening hits a spot once, it is usually for a physical reason, so the chances of it hitting there again are actually relatively high. A good friend of mine can confirm that, he got hit twice in one night! My house got hit twice in a year. I have heard of forest rangers who have gotten hit multiple times.

So what's my point? Spray seemed to be quite dedicated to catching huge fish during the time period in question. I am guessing that is all he fished for, so whenever he thought he saw a big fish or heard of one from someone else, he pounded that water. In other words, he did all that he could to increase his odds of catching these big fish. He wasn't a walleye fisherman who accidently caught three 60 pounders. The musky guides at that time probably didn't have the luxury of devoting all of their time towards fishing for record fish, they probably had to fish for numbers to keep their clients happy. And considering the physical work required to fish in those days (oars instead of electric trolling motors), I doubt if guides went out much in their spare time to pursue record fish.

All of what I am saying here is pure conjecture based upon what I have read in the fishing media and literature. It doesn't prove anything. I am just stating these ideas as counterpoints to all of the arguments saying these record catches couldn't have happened. Those arguments are purely conjecture also, and in my opinion, not very convincing.

Roy

[Marc Thorpe]

Roy very interesting but when we pick apart some of todays BEST anglers and yesteryears.People like Peter Haupt,Roger Halverson,Doc Cotton,Steve Herbeck,D Pearson,D Johnson,Mike Lazarus,
Bill Hamblin,Homer Leblanc,Bill Martins,Dave Dorazio,Tony Rizzo,Rusty Lilyquist,Pete Maina and many more actual big fish catchers.
I would like to know how many 50 pounders or 60 pounders they have caught let alone seen.

I think you will see that not many exist.How is it that one particular era produced all these giants when no adequat or legit method was in place to verify.
Btw folks lied as much back then as they do now.
For your info,we are living in the era of abundance.
Stocking and release have led us to this moment.Alls we need is the right conditions to be in place.All elements and pieces must be perfect.Can it get better YES.

Here is theory to digest,How many giants of Andre the giant era walked the earth while he was in existence.Not many,thats an entire planet.

How many true 50 pounders and 60 pounders are in the puddles of
North America.Fact one genuine 60 pounders is caught every 10 years.
Are their more,most problably.Remember they are genetic giants.
Not twins.
I feel real comfortable about my position on my thinking.I have seen a few good fish but most are the same fish! ;)
If you ask any person who has effectivly siphoned their waters,
they will admit to repeated captures and occasionaly an individual comes along you have never seen.Thus the concept of
Let em Go and Watch em Grow.
Some never attain our desired expectancies.Just like us they die off.One day with the right water temps,height or level,
forage abundance over time and weather elements.We will see what we seek.
Only if all elements colide at the same time frame.

I am not pessimistic ,I am realistic.My views are based on observation over time and what I have read.

I understand your observations,I look at the probability,which is non.
How many 50 inchers have been boated the excellence of execution of N.A in the last 15 years.Not many 50 pounders and 60 pounders.
Many of our water ways have seen tremendous changes.Some are in a better state to produce some of these giants than yesteryear.
Fact,there are just not that many of them.
No one is that lucky.
marc

[JimG]

Jim M:

I can't explain why someone can win a state or national lottery more than once, but it HAS happened!

As for the record fish in question, LET THE DATA SPEAK FOR ITSELF:

A "big" deal has been made out of the "formula" not working, so let us try something else and see what the data says. I did some digging and calculating. Since the formula does not appear to work on the "old record fish", how do they stack up with "modern fish" based on POUNDS PER INCH? Do they then become plausible? Let's see:

Malo 70# = 1.273#'s/inch (EA article)
Spray 69-11 = 1.115 " " 29+% overstated by formula
Johnson 67-8= 1.120 " " 25+% " " "
O'Brien 65-0= 1.150 " "
Spray 61-13 = 1.043 " " 26+% " " "
Coleman 60-8= 1.034 " " 20% " " "
Barefoot 59-11=1.011 " "
Spray 59-8 = 1.021 " " 11+% " " "
Ishii 55-0 = 1.000 " " 15+% understated by formula
Neimuth 58-4= .987 " " 50% overstated by formula

Walden 61-9 = 1.043 " (former Ontario record 1940)
Borucki 56-11= .979 " (modern day fish 1985)
Collins 56-7= 1.026 " (former "old" world record)
Lykins 55-0 = 1.100 " (Ohio state record)
Oberland 52-12 1.014 " (former "old" world record)

It would appear from this list, that ALL fish in that article and several not mentioned, both "old" and "modern" fall in the ball park of "reasonable", and that it would appear the incorrect/improper girth measurements by nearly as many different people as fish contributed to the confusion. I personally believe the "old" record fish could have weighed what was recorded/reported/verified in the "old" days!

JimG

[Jim McCullough]

Jim G,

I find your data to be very interesting reading. You obviously have looked into this. Where have you been? :) I haven't seen you around here before. What area of the Muskie World are you from? I hope you stick around for awhile.

[John Skarie]

Interestinn topic.

When I look at the pictures of some of the old time fish, In comparison to the people holding them, unless they are very large men, the fish don't look like they are as big as they say.

Of course this if just my opinion. I have seen Art Barefoot's fish mounted at Bear's Den lodge. That fish in Art's photo's looks to have a much larger head than the fish in some of the old time photo's, and Art is a big man.

I have no idea if the old fish were as big as they say, but I think they don't look as big in the photo's as they say they were.

JS

[Lunker Lee]

Jim,

Regarding your post number 39,

If you were considering the fish is exactly cylindrical from nose to tail your statement would be correct and yes you could determine an accurate weight biased only on a length measurement. But, your theory has a major flaw due to the fact you are not considering the girth variable. The girth and length are required in order to determine the approximate volume of the fish. This volume is then converted to approximate weight. With out taking the girth measurement into account you do not get an accurate weight estimate. That is why the 800-divisor number was developed. Your theory is like saying that a man that is 6 foot tall always is 200 lbs and a man that is 5’6” is always 160 lbs.

The data in EA shows with out a doubt the formula is fairly accurate for modern day fish (on over 30+ fish). For some odd reason the formula does not work for the “old timer” fish. Statically I have a hard time arguing with this data.

I have re-read the EA article and it does not have a conclusive answer why the formula does not work (although they suggested some potential reasons) but the bottom line is that is that the formula does not work for the old-timer fish.

Why?

That how I see it!

Regards,
Lunker Lee

[JimG]

Jim M:

I have been around for some time, just never posted before. I, being a Wisconsiner have been interested in all big muskies for some time and have collected lots of articles, clippings, etc. on them.

Also, forgot the Williamson fish in my last posting. It calculates out at 1.118 pounds per inch, again right in the ball park with "all" the others!

JimG

[Phishin]

The reason the formula don't work for some of the older fish: They're all a big ol' Lie!! Yeah, people hit the lottery twice and some people seem to have loads of luck sometimes, but come on.

Marc Thorpe's post says it all....how many 60 pounders have Peter Haupt, Roger Halverson, Doc Cotton, Steve Herbeck, D Pearson, Johnson, Mike Lazarus, Bill Hamblin, Homer Leblanc, Bill Martins, Dave Dorazio, Tony Rizzo, Rusty Lilyquist, and Pete Maina caught....probably none. Maybe one. I know for sure that Tony Rizzo hasn't ever caught a 50 pounder!!! and he's been fishing forever and he fishes Rowan a couple times a year...but he does live in Short-Sconsin.

It was an ego match between a couple of men who exchanged records every couple of years during a time when there was no real way to verify anything and most news happened by word of mouth. Those fish are just 35-45 pounders caught by men who had to "one-up" the next guy. I believe there are a handful of 60 and maybe even 70 pounders out there swimming, but no one is gonna catch two of 'em.

Peace Out.
Steve Hulbert

[MAc]

There has been so much talk of the kept fish, I was wondering what your viwes are on the release record??

Thank you

[Marc Thorpe]

Mac,release records.Some are are true and prooven some may be questionable.I do wonder why they are kept.

JimG,the formula is a good reference point.I think we must also consider the fullness of the individual fish.
I have seen fish big and hollow,good lenght,reasonable girth but weights dont jive with the formula.
In those cases the fish weighed much less than formulated.
I hate to say it but the only correct way to weigh or to accuratly verify its authenticity,club it!I am not a proponent of this.
If you have a 60 pounder,you can live with the grief,I could.

The formula is close but not relative to all individuals.
eg: 57*27 would give us 51.94 pounds, correct
In all reality 45 to 47 pounds is the genaral weight.
When verified on a Chatillon scale.

If we take 51*27 1/2,it would give us 48.21 pounds
I have seen fish range from 45 to 47 pounds.
On one occassion the fish pushed 51.08 pounds,
she might have just ate.
In this exercise we are close

Just some observations
marc

[riverrat118]

Sure would like to get John D. and Larry R. to chime in on this debate. Sure would make things interesting. We need "Musky Historian's" to work with this thread.
John Schardt

[riverrat118]

Couldn't edit my last reply regarding this topic , so i'll post again. I couple years back, I questioned the exaxt issues that Esox Angler covered in the latest issue of Esox Angler. There was a discussion on the Musky Hunter Bord.I raised the exact same issues that Pete Mania brought up in the article in EA. Don't know if it's still in their data base, but Larry Ramsell refered to my as "another frustrated St Lawrence fisherman." This was in responce to the bad press than fell upon my beloved river in terms of the press he and detroff exploited to promote the chip. Both Guide there. Ironically, the new word record is in their waters.My responce to him was,don't quote me, but" I'm not frustrated at all. I've seem the Chip boards and those numbers would really get me down. I've only caugt ONE fish under 42" from the river".At this point I don't care. I'm not a guide or someone who likes to tell all. I'm looking for the real honest people in our sport. At least Len Hartman came clean.What is the greatest story, is that Len, at a ripe old age, managed to put his name in the record books after his"confession". In my mind, we all have falts, he admitted to them, and then went out and set a line class record on eagle lake in his 70's.
We never heard the full explanation from Detroff and Ramsell rgarding the fiasco withe the Chip tagging study. Are you boy's ever going to live up to the integrity that Len showed us? Or do we keep bying in to the "historical" BS that you believe is true to further your own agenda?
MY last reply on that thread, as best as I can remember was," Do you use the same criteria that you used in photo. evidence to disqualify Hartman's faked to the "New Chippewa Flowage Records?" Zero replies. I've done the best from memory in terms of my facts. Could be I've missed a few things, but I think they are close to the truth.
I'm sticking with the winners in our game.Won't name names, but in the 5 years in this wonderfull game, I've met a few. I'll stick with them.Lot of wasted effort trying to figure out my first fish on the St Lawrence who like to talk, but have never fished there.
You see, I started targeting musky in my neck of the woods with zero support on the St Lawrence. You can not talk with anyone who fishes the river for musky. I started from scratch from the internet. I'd like to thank the guys who stuck by me in my quest for my first fish. These guys are the winners, Steve Wickens, Marc Thorpe(although,twisted at times,HA) Dick Pearson, Doug Johnson, and especially Pete Maina who I spoke with two years ago. Thanks guys! Now explain my shortfalls in mt checking account to my wife,
John Schardt

[Marc Thorpe]

Riveratt,its not twisted,its coilled!
Good post,you trying to blow the thread dude!
Were you out this weekend?

Jim G,just for your info,Williamson's fish was sterile!
Whats this mean?she was a genetic freak that absorbed her own eggs which led to this behemoth size.Not everyone retains waters,
not ever fish absorbs its eggs.

I need to move to Minnesota to get my EA mag sooner!
I can hear it now,Oh God keep that little B...... home!:+
We dont wont you!:7

[Stillwater]

My 2 cents worth.

I've read Len Hartmans book and Larry Ramsells also, I think Larry explains clearly about how the formula should be adjusted for bigger fish. I also seem to remember about 4 or 5 years ago in Minnesota a Northern Pike was caught (Jim McCullough might be able to help on this) that was about 40 lbs. There was a picture in the St. Paul paper along with an article. The thing was caught out of a small lake, it was relatively short, had a small head but it looked like a football. NO formula would ever work on something like that, it was about .9 lbs. per inch.

One thing I keep thinking about Louis Spray's fish is that it was weighed at the Stone Lake, WS Post Office, by the Post Master, on the US Post Office certified scale with about 6 witnesses who then made depositions. He did everything that was required at the time (or even now for that matter), I'm not quite sure what else he could have done.

[Cameron]

Riverratt,I recall the thread that you refer to,as I posted on it as well.Your reccolections seem accurate to me as I remember it the same as you.
My opinion was/is,It seems impossible that a certain fellow could hold the world record for just over 9 years,then when it's broken,amazingly the same guy sets the record yet again just a couple months later.I said BS! Well the responses were that I was writing "revisionist history"or something similar.

However if we're going to accuse the Hayward,Wisc. area gang of playing polotics with the world record for their own economic benefit.Let's also point out here that the Minnesota boys are taking not only the ideas for their articles,but infact a large part of their content directly off what they read on theese message boards!Beleive it!Not plagerism,but certainly nothing original.
Some of the discussions here directly impact what is being written in the magazines apparently.Seems to me the average fisherman has quite a lot to offer...the pro's are taking their cue's from what we have to say,whether they'll admit it or not.

Good Fishing.

[riverrat118]

Marc,
I'm still peaved from that thead from years back. Don't like to by dismissed because I bring up legit questions to those in the Musky business.When I'm peaved, just makes me want to go out a stick a hog. Guess I needed to vent.Season here in NY opens this sat. Hope to get out for a night troll on sat or an all day troll on sun. Got some different waters to try on the big lake, not in the river.Going to be interesting with the big trout, walleyes, and salmon still in the same waters.Hint. Remember the tracking studies on the river? My new Yami 4 stroke is like a gift from the gods. Can't wait.How bout you?Have you been out yet?
John Schardt

[riverrat118]

Cameron,
I think it is a good thing if Magazine people get their "cues" from what is discussed on these boards. As far as i'm concerned, legit topics that you, I, or others discuss with enthusiasm should be written about.After all, most of us are not fishing for musky for monetary gain. As most who view these boards,we all need the truth with out other motives attatched to their views.Doesn't matter to me one bit where the discussion starts, as long as we can have reasonable discusions on certain topics without having or thoughts rendered inconsequential by others. That's when I get p-issed off! Don't usually post with my heart, but this topic brought out my true thoughts.Good seeing you post, Cameron. Sure wish we could get a constructive debate going with the names I mentioned in a reasonable way. Could be fun.
John Schardt

[RK]

Hi Cameron,
Since when you say 'the Minnesota boys' you mean me (along with Jack Burns), I thought I'd respond :)

You are in part correct, but only in part.

The vast majority of the articles we get are from freelance writers. We have some writers who are regulars, and appear in the magazine frequently, but they are still freelance writers. We don't have a staff of writers that we give assignments to, and trying to tell freelancers even in general terms what to write about - much less giving them an actual assignment - beyond fall articles in the fall, summer articles in the summer is pretty much like herding cats. We get what they feel like writing about. We usually don't know what that will be until the article deadline rolls around (or sometime thereafter - the other thing about freelancers is they figure it's not a "deadline" - just a suggestion ;)) We kind of like it that way, for the simple reason that it allows us to cover a much broader range of topics than we could ever dream up on our own. The only 'article ideas' I come up with are the ones I write myself. I have a day job - I don't have time to dream up assignments for 15 freelancers, especially when most of them would ignore it and write about what they want to write about anyhow.

A lot of writers are on these boards (though not many of them post much...), and whether they are or not most of them are in the fishing business in some form, so it's pretty logical they are thinking about and talking about similar subjects to what comes up for discussion in forums like this. Again, fine by us...

The other thing to be aware of is the timeline involved in publishing. Our summer issue just came out. I finished editing my part of the summer issue in March, and I'm editing columns for fall issue right now (depressing to be thinking about fall fishing while it's still June, by the way...). Basically, articles are three months ahead, and publishing based on what's the hot topic on the boards is pretty much impossible logistically. It just doesn't work that way. Aside from the Bears/Packers/Vikings heckling, I haven't the foggiest what will be the hot topic on the boards in September when our fall issue hits the stands, and either way, the articles in that issue are put to bed months before.

So, that's pretty much how it works. You are, as I said, partly right. There are things that come up that get written about, because that's what's going on in the sport. I get riled when I read veiled suggestions of plagarism or lifting other people's ideas (though I know that's not how you meant it) so I thought I'd clear the air.

If you want to discuss this any more, drop me an email...

Cheers,
RK

[Jack Burns]

Cameron,

RK put it nicely. I can't. I only know about your opinion because I was emailed about it. I don't read these boards. So I don't get my ideas from them. What single fact can you produce to prove your point?

I have been fishing muskies for 30 years. Writing about it for almost 20. So I fished for a few decades before I could steal ideas from a bunch of folks on the internet ... Funny, I still managed to catch a couple muskies and write a few hundred articles without your help.

".... nothing original ..." Now that's something I totally agree with. A wet lure catches fish. The rest is anecdotal conjecture and opinion.

RK has my email address. I'd love to take this conversation off line.

By the way, I'm not a "pro." I have a full time day job in addition to the Esox Angler gig.

Jack

[Summer Musky]

Wide, sweeping comments like some of the posts here are pretty hard to accept. Some of the fellows here are going to 'expose the Pros', some are accusing Pubs of copying material from the Musky Boards ( that is FUNNY!!)and some poking at the guys who fish for a living as if they all fit the same exact mold. They don't. People fish muskys, and there are all sorts of people, those who are accurate, and those who are not. Those who exaggerate, those who don't. Those who toot their own horns for business, those who toot their own horns for personal reasons.

History is a funny thing. It is usually told by those who were there, and with their particular slant. Some 'history' is almost totally perspective told from point of view and self promoting as all get out. I wager the history of the American West told by a Rancher in early Arizona will be a little different from the same years reflected on by an Apache. Ya think??

Early Musky fishing was done in remote places by 'guides' who were considered legendary outdoorsmen and also a little crazy,so it was remembered as 'folklore'. The records were probably not what we would expect today for accuracy, but who cares? Daniel Boone killed a bear with his knife, and Kit Carson was a nice guy, too. Dillenger vacationed in northern Wisconsin, and Mrs. O' Leary's cow started the Chicago fire. There are shreds of truth in most stories, and maybe some bull thrown in, too.

If a record musky is caught now, it will be confirmed six ways to Sunday. If it isn't, it won't stand. One thing, I will read the story either way, and wish it was me with the musky rod in my hands.

[Cameron]

RK,
Informative response,thank you.


Mr.Burns,
You may be taking my post more serious than it was intended.I wouldn't try to discredit a quality magazine or it's writers.However offering mild criticism on the internet like "nothing new" seemed harmless enough to me.If you took my remarks in a more severe context than I intended,I apologize.
However,having said that.Nobody accused anyone of stealing material off of theese message boards.I did opine that the IDEAS for a number of stories in the magazines seem to have come from discussions on the boards.That's my opinion,I stand by it.

As for "What single fact can you produce to prove your point?"
Well, You sir provided that single fact!
Yourself and RK responded very quickly to my post proving the writers and publishers do keep a very close watch on the on-line discussions,whether by 1st person or through e-mail contacts.

Good Fishing. Fishboardsfish@hotmail.com

[Dan Klis]

Cameron,

Jack Burns is my fishing partner, friend, and as close to me as any family member. This is the first time, let me repeat first time, he has looked at MC in almost a year. In fact, I know he detests them. He, unlike you and me, doesn't have the time for this. If he wasn't being paid by EA he wouldn't spend the time editing articles, it takes time away from his family and his passions.

As far as stealing ideas. Don't go there. Ross Fisher and Pete Maina approached me 3 years ago to help co-write this. Quite honestly I could care less about records, and I turned them down.

Oh by the way, he has had 50 pounders in the boat!!! His numbers of big would blow your mind away.

Dan Klis

[Musk Rat]

I don`t think cameron realy was accusing you guys of ripping off anyone Its not like he was the first one to question the record anyway every muskie fisherman in the world has discussed the subject. What wrong with getting an idea off a board and parlaying it into a nice artical.I no its a touchy subject but I think its only fair if we are going to scrutinize the St. lawrence fish than maybe we should scrutinze the wisconsin fish too. Realy the old records should be considerd historic and the biggest proven should be the record. I think this is Obrians fish chances are the malo fish is 70 but documentation is what records are all about. How many athleates have broken records in practis. As for the pros I think muskie fishing is like the X games shore you might get your 15 minutes on ESPN 2 but its all about the love. There aren`t many true pros out there Pete and Joe yea but most have other jobs or buisnesses that allow them to guide Many times the wifes job provides the bennies or something like that. It sure isn`t big buisness like bass fishing. Sure most writers are trying to drum up buisness of some kind but many like myself do it for fun and the bennifit to the reader. It sure wasn`t the 150$ bucks Jack paid me. I once had this big idea that I was gonna make money Muskie fishing. Well I have come to the conclusion many have that you better have a plan B. While there may be some general disscusion at the top of what they would like to see I think for the most part they wait to see what comes in and print what they like. As for editing to fit the magazines party line Thats pure bull I can tell you first hand that Jack pretty much checks the spelling and grammer and lets the writter say his peice which I think is great. Some bozo came on hear after I wrote the artical for E.A. on the Ottawa and said that the artical was heavily edited because it was to promotional of Marc the peice was just like I wrote it word for word. I think a lot of people think there is more going on behind the scene than realy is. The funnie thing is you do something thats going to bennifit others more than you and you get accused of all kind of things like in my case accused of trying to be the #1 Musky expert in N.J. what ever thats supposed to mean as if anyone other than the ten guys who fish there even care. When I did a favor for Marc I was accused of sabotoging others buisnesses. What happens when guys who like to write stop becuase they don`t need the hassel then what. Andy

[fishgraf]

i finally got my EA in the mail today. who is the guy struggling to hold a muskie in the add for quest?

[Musk Rat]

You mean the guy with the red head who looks like he`s takin a dookie? Thanks Marc

[Marc Thorpe]

Hi Cameron,as you can see I think the diversity of EA freelance writers is well established.
As far as ideas coming off the board,well not sure where you see this?
Like muskrat said,what are you going to do when those who wish to provide truthfull info by their writtings give up.Honestly you will have to deal with wathever someone wishes to make up.If thats good reading then fine.I guess my rants and post say I wish I did not know as much as I do.Like muskrat said,most of us do it for the passion,we make a little at it.Their are no agendas,Just fun.
Their are many highly respected North American outdoor writters who contribute also.No one is under obligation just free flowing info.


Summer musky,good post and reply.
Unfortunatly if you knew the length that some go to tarnish or build their reps off of others.You would be ashamed also.If you have the gumption to ruin another individual without cause and fabricat and falsefy for personal gain.You might have a whole different perception on whats real.You are right the info is always good to read.
I guess I am not a blind faith reader.

Muskrat,we needed the ugliest face we could find for the add,
You fit the description just right!
Dude the stretch marks on your face tells the story. :+

Riveratt,we had a good opener,right now looks like someone threw up in the river and it was not me!
After reading some of the post's,I think I have the heeves!

[RK]

Hiya,

Hey, EA is diverse as all get out. We even let nutbars like Marc Thorpe be in there - now THAT is open-minded :+

(Sorry Marc - couldn't resist the cheap shot ;))

RK

[Marc Thorpe]

Your right RK,why you guys put up with me and the Rat is without a doubt beside any verbal diarhia I can say.:+
Its good job Jack's around!:+

[RoyC]

Jack,

I was hoping to see more discussion on this thread about the "scientific" validity of the Maina and Fisher articles in the summer issue Esox Angler, but so far, that hasn't happened. Perhaps I can get you to respond.

I am a purely amateur muskie fisherman of almost 20 years, and have no background in fishery biology. However, I am a research engineer and former university professor with a background in the same methods of statistical data analysis as was discussed in these articles. In my "professional" opinion, the data analysis that was reported as being done by the University of Iowa researchers was probably mathematically correct, but was completely misused by the author, Ross Fisher. The conclusions about the so-called "Super Fish" are completely erroneous.

I am disappointed that you, as editor of Esox Angler, allowed an article to be published in your magazine that abuses science in this manner. It is one thing to allow contributing authors to publish articles based on their experiences and opinions with no independent verification. But to let them bring "science" into the discussion with no professional references or review is irresponsible in my opinion.

I now view Esox Angler as purely a "vanity press" for allowing people to vent their feelings and opinions, and not as a factual publication. I don't see anything "Real" in your "Real Deal".

Roy

[Turgeon]

Roy,

Now you know why the big names don't post on these boards anymore.

Just read your own post. I, my, I, my, I,I,I, etc. Maybe try and write a sentence without using I or my.............

[RoyC]

Turgeon,

I intentionally overused the term "I". I wanted to be clear that I was stating my own opinions and that they are my opinions, and not necessarily facts. I am doing this to solicit other people's opinions. If this type of open discussion is what keeps certain people off of the boards, then I guess it is the moderator's decision on who he wants to encourage and discourage at this board. Some of the professionals have their own forums for their opinions (magazines or their own boards), but the rest of us are at the mercy of these boards. I try to be respectful in stating my opinions, and I will continue to use this board as long as Jim allows me.

Roy

[Jack Burns]

Cameron,

Apology accepted.

We agree that there isn't much new. But my ideas, as Dan Klis so kindly mentioned, do not come from the net. Our summer pressure article, for example, "borrows" from an article I published in 1987, which "borrowed" from an In-Fisherman article on Dick Pearson around 1982. Now, Dick, Doug, and I collaborate on the same topic. Big circle. A lot of borrowing. But not from the net. Note: I can't speak for the free-lancers, who pick their own topics.

I only provided proof that I have a lot of friends on the net who tell me if they think I'm getting ripped. (Apparently, that wasn't your intention.) But, trust me, I don't get topic ideas from the net.

I appreciate your kind words regarding our quality magazine.

Jack

[Jim McCullough]

Bob,

You may have misread Roy's intentions. I have always known him to be respectful of people in the past, and as his last post states, that is his intention in this thread. Esox Angler has always been a publication that would rather shine the light on a subject, rather than shroud it in mystery. Except for a little detour, that is what this thread is trying to accomplish. As far as the big names go, they are in a no win situation. I don't blame them for not posting on the internet. If on the one hand, you stay away from the controversial issues and try and be nice to everyone, you are branded as towing the company line. You are looked at by some as just a talking head for your sponsors. If on the other hand, you jump in to the controversy, and actually offer an opinion, you have to deal with what Pete Maina has. Anonymous attacks on the boards, in emails, and people actually threatening your life. Why would someone want to deal with that?

[Jack Burns]

Roy,

(Another friend has told me that I was mentioned by name. This is it, and then I'm out of here.)

As you say, Roy, this is about opinions. Yours is that Ross's "probably mathematically correct" data analysis was misused and completely erroneous. You are disappointed that I let him "bring 'science' into the discussion with no professional references or review" … and you feel that I am "irresponsible" to do so.

Let me respond.

I did not let Ross bring "science" into the discussion. He brought a combination of mathematics and opinion. The mathematics, you have already said, is probably correct—and is supported with significant professional references and review (the University of Iowa researchers you acknowledged in your post).

Therefore, your problem seems to be with Ross's opinion/conclusion. His is that all the numbers associated with the disputed fish are probably concocted, because they don't add up. Your opinion is that those numbers are valid, or perhaps understated. I can live with this disagreement.

Ross's and Pete's articles were not published under the "Research" heading, but under the "Real Deal," a section we use for opinion and to stir up controversy. I'd say we succeeded.

I choose not to read magazines I don't like. You could go that way. Or you could write us a letter to the editor. If you keep it as clean and professional as your post, I would print it in Esox Angler. We WANT controversy. But I don't WANT to spend time on the net. I won't be back here on MC.

Write a letter to the editor.

Jack

[RoyC]

Jack (in case you do take a peek back), or anyone else interested in discussing this issue:

You are correct that I should respond to this with a letter to the editor to your magazine, and I might do so. However, your magazine is only quarterly, and I just don't have the patience to wait until then to air my thoughts. I guess that is why I like the discussion boards.

The EA article did bring science into the discussion. It alluded that biology supports the LGG/800 formula for many species and that large muskies are no exception. However, there were no references to any biologists or scientific studies to support this fact.

I also feel that this article made a bogus use of statistics in two respects. First of all, it only alluded to some anonymous University of Iowa researchers and did not cite them by name. Secondly, I maintain that the analysis was improperly applied to this situation from a scientific point-of-view. I have a great deal of respect for the University of Iowa, therefore, I believe that it was probably the author of the article that misused these calculations to support his own opinions, albeit, probably unintentionally.

The main point that I am trying to make is that these two articles (the "Real Deal") give the impression that there is some real "science" out there that backs up the authors' opinions that many of these past records were falsified. However, I believe that these so-called scientific statements and conclusions are false.

I have a great deal of respect for you as a musky fisherman, a speaker, an author, and even an editor, but in this case, I don't believe that you should have allowed unsupported scientific statements to be made, even if it is in the "Real Deal" section. Perhaps I am underestimating your general readership, but I believe that many of your readers now believe that the statements made in this article are indeed scientific facts, and that, I believe, is a disservice to them.

I will probably continue to read your magazine, because I do like controversy also. If I didn't, I probably wouldn't be visiting these boards!

Roy

[Marc Thorpe]

RK,I am told you and Jack pack Nut-Bars in your lunch!
Guess you guys have a big Lunch BOX, A !:+

[Musk Rat]

Roy I think your confusing a fishing magazine with a scientific publication. For as long as I have been reading muskie articals long before E.A. or M.H. fisherman have been trying to validate there opinions on fishing with tid bits of sceince or totaly unscientific data they have accumulated themselfs The only thing that ever gets validated is that the author has an opinion. How many times have you heard theories Like I caught this fish because or this fish reacted negativly because or fish do this under certain conditions because. Pete and Chad give a lot of oppinions on releasing fish that they state like they are fact but in fact they are oppinion as a reader you should keep in mind there is virtualy no valid science in muskie fishing just a lot of oppinions. You don`t always have to agree with the writers I know I don`t The artical itself said there was no actual proof of falsification at leaste no more than in the case of the lawton fish which I think was the gist of the artical The science used to alledgedly prove the Spray fish a few years back was far from scientific but the theory was somewat accepted as proof I think the E.A. peice raised some good questions but sure wasn`t intended to scietificaly prove anything in fact I don`t think the words proven or disproven were ever used. Andy

[Lunker Lee]

Roy - you continue to say that Fisher misused the statistical data in his story. I don't follow your argument there. He very simply took two sets of data (fish) and looked at their weights and compared them to the formula calculated weights. The one group - "modern day fish" - formula out fairly accurately. He shows that 76% of the 34 fish within plus or minus 6.5% accuracy. He then looks at the old timer fish and they do not formulate out as accurately. Hence a disparity between the two groups of data.

He does not say the formula is 100% accurate. He does not say that the formula cant not be significantly off on any given fish - as is the case with all the old timer fish and even a few of the modern day fish. He did not say that the formula cannot overestimate a fish weight or underestimate it. He simply says that the formula is "reasonably accurate" for his group of modern day fish over 45 pounds. Remember the entire premise of this article was that the formula doesn't work for fish over 45 pounds. He supports that it does in fact work - again - within reasonable accuracy for the 34 modern day fish.

He then questions why it would work for the modern day fish but not the old timer fish. He doesn't come to a conclusive reason as to why that is. He then tells the reader to decide for themselves based on the numbers, on odds of catching such big fish and upon looking at the photos. And as to the science implication - I do not see anywhere in the article where the author said this his findings were scientifically proven - he never did so. In fact, he states that he is not a biologist, researcher, or statistician - right at the intro of the article. I guess you've decided to not agree with his findings and that's totally fine. But, I don't agree with you're skewing the premise of his article by saying he mis-used the data. How did he mis-use it? I have some stats background and this is very simple statistics applied to two sets of numbers. End of story.

By the way, I found in about 1 minute of surfing the web, several estimated weight formula sites for saltwater fishing. Guess what - its the same formula just like the author stated. Looks like a lot more than us muskie nuts use the formula and somewhere some biologist or scientist figured it out I would guess. Interesting isn't it.

[Marc Thorpe]

Roy,I dont see where you might think its scientific?

The article which lays in detail that the formula is applicable to most fish with no limits to size.Thats my perception.

In concerns to records,I think like some have stated including myself the probability is disapointingly low.
Yes the article is evolving around Ross's opinion and observations.
It mearly raises questions in which many of us share the same opinion or questions.
Possibly from this article a non attached body could conduct a thourough investigation into most alleged records.
Unfortunayly we may never know the truth.


Ask yourself this question,how many records where disqualified?
Who did this research?
Was the reasearch done on all records or just chosen ones?

Did Louis know the post master?
Was it his friends who signed the affidavit?
If others bellied up their fish in the same era,
why would'nt Louis do it?
Was their money at the end of the line?

Take a close look at todays giants versus some of yesteryears fish?
Notice how disproportioned the girth is?
Seems as if certain fish are sleek all the way down from yesteryears while others of today are grotessely blowded!
Further details is the anal fin distances between the tail.
Most giants have little distance,the broadness seems similar but some differences do exist.I am no expert on the matter,but I do observe many pics throught a year and certain similarities occur among
the giants.

Quite frankly,I have yet to meet the man who can hold a 40 pounder straight out.I have had folks in the 6.3 foot range and 300 lbs squeel like babies trying to lift their fish.
And if I did,I call him sir. :+

[Cameron]

Cameron,

You were not "mocked and dismissed by the big guys". Things were quite civil until you made this post. It is now clear to me that your point for entering this thread was to stir up trouble. Do not come here and do this again, as I can delete it as fast as you can post it. If you have a problem with this, feel free to send me an email.

[MuskieJ]

Yawn!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Cameron]

E-mail you how Jim?
E-mail MC at the bottom of the page brings up Scott@walleye central.
When I click on your e-mail icon it asks for a password,which being unregistered since you changed formats I don;t have.Please leave an e-mail address where I may contact you.

[JimG]

Marc:

Louis did "bellied" up his fish all were seen and length and girth and weight guessed at by several hundred people. They were all mounted and displayed at sports shows. They were lost in a fire.

And yes, ALL record fish have been highly scruitnized, not just the ones disqualified.

As for holding up a BIG fish, just look at the Ontario Out of Doors article on O'Brien's fish. Has a FULL PAGE photo of him holding it OUT IN FRONT OF HIM, with no aid and he is smiling! And he isn't a big guy!!

As for someone being able to catch multiple big fish, just look at one of your local guides, Mike Lazarus. In Russ Wayre's new book just out, he refers to two HUGE fish Mike has guided to, one 60 pound class fish and one that was weighed that was over 58 pounds!!

JimG

[Jim McCullough]

Cameron,

You can get a hold of me at

muskydork@msn.com

[RoyC]

Andy, Lee, and Marc:

I will try to respond to some of your comments. I believe that you and many others are still mis-interpreting the analysis in this article, so I will try to clarify my previous points. (By the way, I am not mistaking Esox Angler as a scientific publication, I am trying to prevent others from making that mistake!)

The so-called science that I disagree with in the article is that many different species of fish accurately follow the LxGxG/800 formula over a wide range of sizes. I have seen many magazine and web articles that talk about this formula, and I have also seen many other formulas proposed and discussed for muskies and other species. Some have different factors than 800 and some have different measurement formulas than LxGxG. But nowhere have I seen any articles that compare these formulas to actual fish measurements with a discussion of the resulting accuracy and limitations. Therefore, I see no good evidence in this article that the LxGxG/800 formula should apply to larger muskies.

A forumula using LxGxG can only be accurate if a muskie were a uniform circular cylinder (which it definitely is not), or if all muskies are uniformly proportional in shape in all dimensions to a uniform cylinder. I believe that all of you admit some muskies tend to be more uniform in cross-sectional area along their length than others (tordedo shaped vs. pot-bellied). Therefore, there are likely to be significant weight discrepancies among various fish with the same length and girth measurements as is in fact shown by the author's data. Taking this shape dependence into account, I see no reason why larger fish should have the same proportional dependence to the LxGxG cylinder shape as smaller fish. Perhaps 60+ pound fish tend to be more pot-bellied or more torpedo-like than smaller fish. I personally haven't seen enough of them (in photos or real life) to be able to tell.

Now I will explain how I believe that the statistical analysis was misapplied. The author selected 34 "modern" (post 1950) fish which he claimed were a "random" sample and compared them using statistics to the formula. The statistics correctly verified that these fish followed the formula, but this only verifies the formula if this sample of fish data was truly random. I do not believe that the author selectively picked his sample to ensure that it verified the formula, however, there are many ways of unintentionally picking a non-random sample.

The next step in the statistical analysis was to compare the "old" fish (pre-1950) to the formula. The statistical analysis correctly showed as stated that this fish data does not follow the formula. However, you cannot draw the conclusion that this data is invalid for two reasons: (1) the data in this "old" set is for a considerably larger group of fish (63 pound average) than the "modern" data set (51 pound average) and (2) there is no justifiable assumption that the formula is valid for larger fish as I discussed above. I truly believe that the University of Iowa researchers were operating under the blind assumption that this formula was previously verified through biological and/or statistical analysis for a larger sample of fish across this entire size range, otherwise, they would not have drawn these statistical conclusions.

Now for my final and most important issue with the "scientific" analysis in this article. If you still assume that the LxGxG/800 formula is valid for muskies of all sizes, and therefore the "old" fish measurements are not possible, then you have to draw one of the following conclusions (1) the reported length and/or girth measurements were accurate which means that the fish actually weighed significantly more than was reported, (2) the reported weights were accurate, but the reported length and/or girth measurements were considerably less than reported, or (3) none of the measurements were accurate as reported. What distinguishes these records from the previously disqualified record fish is that many if not most of these fish were viewed by numerous people after they were caught, and were mounted and displayed in public for a long time afterwards. I just can't believe that all of these guys got away with faking all three of these measurements for so long. Do you?

Although I am one of the people who think that the LxGxG formula does generally overestimate the weight of larger fish, I will concede that point for now. If you do believe that the formula is valid for larger fish, doesn't it actually add credibility to the old records, rather than disprove them? You sure can't use it to claim that they stuffed lead or sand down the fish to make them weigh more.

There are many other issues that can be argued about these records, but I just don't see any scientific issue as to the validity of the measurements and the possibility that the fish did not weight what was reported.

Roy

[JimG]

Roy,

Very sensible argument. Nicely done. As a further argument, consider that in the "old days", WEIGHT, not length or girth was the important thing, especially since the fish were killed. Formula's only came into importance in the muskie world since the advent of catch and release, so eager (or ego) anglers could tell the world how "heavy" of a fish they had just released. Anglers and guides probably did not carry flexible sewing tapes to measure girth with, nor were they concerned with the accuracy of those measurements. Those length and girth numbers just were not important in the old days, however, I do not mean to indicate that they weren't correct. It was the weight guys! The fish were "extensively" investigated by the writers of the day, and those investigations were published...get over it!

JimG

[Sluggo]

JimG

What evidence to you have to support that the Spray fish went under the same scrutiny as the disqualified fish? Since Detloff and Ramsell (Both Hayward fellows) are the ones to scrutinize/discredit Lawton, then who scrutinized Spray? Which brings me to another question, who are they (Detloff and Ramsell) to discredit anyone? Weren’t they the ones claiming "ground breaking scientific evidence" in the CFMS, then come to find out it was all lies?

Marc brings up a good point, were the people that witnessed the fish his friends? And, how many average people know what a 70 pound fish should look like?

[Summer Musky]

I'm not a blind faith reader either. I read fishing articles in the Pubs for entertainment and maybe a tip or two. I don't care who did what to get what from whom, that is soap opera stuff. What is REAL to the general public is what the general public wants to believe, and they don't take kindly to someone mucking around with that. People want to be entertained, and that has been accomplished grandly with this thread.

Legends are stories that have stood the test of time, that's all. Truth may not have a bloody thing to do with it, but the story is told again and again! I LIKE to listen to stories of legendary sportsmen, they are STORIES for goodness sake.


The tricky thing is becoming a legend without it being in one's own mind.

And if the NEW WORLD RECORD MUSKY IS CAUGHT, I WANT TO READ THE STORY, AND WISH THE ROD WAS IN MY HANDS....

[Jim McCullough]

Jim G,

Any chance we could get your last name? You seem to have researched this way more than the average person. Knowing your name would only serve to add to your credibility.

[Marc Thorpe]

Jim G,yes I would like to know your REAL name,
Seems as if your hiding,you know a little more and justify certain issues only a hand full could?
You claim all fish were scrutinized,mmmm never seen that anywhere but I did see the length of ruinning certain peoples rep,
for what intentions beats me.
I also have a hard time seing how a fishery has been totaly diminished of all 40 pound fish and up?Even in a 50 year bracket.
Wabigoon was pulvarized,it came back in less than 20?
The Obrien fish,I have only seen a few pics,one hanging on a rope or hook and a few more.I definatly will look for that cover shot.
I guess I call Obrien and call him sir!
Louis bellied his fish,so If I undertsand your reply to my saying is the fish is stuffed or padded?


Mike Lazrus,yes definatly he has come close,60 pounds is possible.
None of us have seen it,Mike is quite capable of accomplishing this.
The 58 pounder is his record release.
He also is not fishing just one puddle of water!
I dont know any, not even Louis spends more hours than Mike on the water.I can fully understand and beleive he comes across certain bonafied fish.But not 3 world records?
If one could,the odds of time Mike has in his favor.

Networking with friends is what enables one to stay on fish,
I dont think Louis had this availibilty.
I never said fish of this stature dont exist just repeated captures of world records by one person.;)

Roy,very good and explanatory reply.
Your question of could this lies last so long,YES.
For many reasons,agendas,promotion and who knows what.
The same Researchers fudged the CFMS story,why would they not do it for this purpose.
Hartman,Lawton and Haver held the lie together for many years.
Fact in those times folks were real close in small communities.
Would they know the difference,no.
The shows and world tour,Long fish do exist but this does not mean they are 60 pounds.Most folks could not even accuratly give a fishes weight by a mount.You can promote as you wish (in that era).
One more question,why is it that most verified modern day 60 pounders are between 55 and 59 inches?
Louis is over 60 inches?

Personaly If I caught a world record,I would eat it or maybe serve it at a banquet as filet o flounder! :+
Maybe invite you all!
Fact we will never know the truth,we can only speculate and to many things cloud certain fish.

[JimG]

Sluggo

The Spray fish were scruitnized by MANY outdoor writers of that time frame, most notably was Don Johnson from the Eau Claire Leader-Telegram who went in thinking Spray's fish not on the up and up, and came away strongly believing that he caught them! Johnson's fish was very closly looked at by the Milwaukee Journal and a magazine (can't recall the name) that awarded him a new car for his record. Dettloff and Ramsell's writings have merely been a review of all of the different writings from the time frame of the catches, as well as Dettloff's interviewing many people around at the time of Spray's catch.

JimG

[JimG]

Jim M,

Not looking for any credibility, just passing on information gleaned from a lifetime of collecting information on big muskies. History, while sometimes hard to find, especially the "old" stuff, is out there for any and all interested. Just takes some digging. "Modern day" (read new/young) muskie fishers need to take time to "smell the roses" and check out history before condeming catches of the old days!

JimG

[JimG]

Marc,

REAL name not important, but "true" history is. Just because "modern day" anglers can't catch 60 pound fish doe NOT mean they did not exist in the "old days." I personally think there are reasons for those fish, but too long and complicated to go into here.

As for the scruitnizing, that has been covered in a post to Sluggo. How quickly some forget, as Musky Hunter ran reviews on all old record fish in recent years.

You keep mentioning peoples reputations, etc. but never elaborate. What is that all about (new thread please, this one is getting too long).

The O'Brien fish was not a cover shot, but a full page photo within the article about it. Very cool! Call him sir if you wish, but he stumbled into that one, but DID hold it up in front of himself!

As for Mr. Lazarus, according to Russ Wayre, the Barbosa fish was very likely a 60 pound release and the 58+ would be a close second. Spray too did not just fish "one puddle of water!" Spray caught his fish over 11 seasons as indicated in the EA article. How long has Mr. Lazarus been at it? Doesn't look that old in the photo's in Wayre's book.

I believe Spray DID have quite a "network", as he owned a tavern, and you know how people like to talk when liquered up!
Networking with friends is what enables one to stay on fish,

JimG

[RoyC]

I have to admit that I got interested in this overall issue of past records after having read Ramsell's book, A Compendium of Muskie Angling History (I think that's the correct title). Although I started muskie fishing in Wisconsin on the Chip, I happened to be living in upstate New York when the controversy began about the discrediting of the Lawton and Hartman fish. So I have seen some of the emotion and arguments on all sides of this issue. As an Illinois native and current resident of Minnesota, I really don't care where the records reside.

I try hard to separate emotion from fact, and Ramsell's Compendium contains a lot more facts (newspaper articles, affadavits, etc.) than it does emotion in my opinion, to the point where it is quite dry reading in many parts. This book has satisfied me that the Wisconsin area record fish have held up to the same scrutiny, if not more, than the New York fish. If you haven't read the Compendium, I highly recommend it, even if you believe that Ramsell is biased on this issue.

Roy

[Marc Thorpe]

Roy,emotions are not part of this.Observations of what went down and how certain people were media covered extensivly.
Sure a few more articles were published,not to the extent of Hartman and Lawton.I think they did do something on Louis,I dont recall much extensive scrutiny.
I have the compedium as along with old articles from Fishing Facts,Ontario out of doors,Some extremly old outdoor life and field and stream articles and lots others stuff I have gathered for some time from myself and others and my father,who happens to be 77.
I do have alot of info I have scrounged through.

As you can see my questions are well defined.They can be answered.
I dont think Larry was bias and we have no way of knowing if such existed.I just think the scheme of things are suspecious.
Personaly I hope someone cathes it elswhere than here.
Then I would really have to move.(ha,ha)


Mikes fish or Babosa's was 58 inches and guess estimated at around
60 pounds,that was some time ago also, 94 I beleive.What other 58?
He is also fishing a gazillion gallons of water with a phenominal period of stockings and natural repro to boot.

This has been a good exchange with much info and views put forth.
Quite enriching I must add.

[Jim McCullough]

Jim G,

I wholeheartedly disagree with you that your "REAL" name isn't important. You obviously have researched this and feel that the Spray fish are real. You have no problem dropping the names of other people in the industry to try and prove your point. If the information you are providing makes it as clear as you say, why all of the secrecy? Why won't you stand behind what you say? Better yet, why won't you stand behind Louie Spray? Do you benefit in some way by the record staying in Hayward? I have read articles by people in the Hayward area who set out to prove that the Spray fish are real. To say that they were done with objectivity, would be stretching it. They clearly contain bias. Again I ask, if the Spray fish are indeed the real deal, why all of the secrecy?

[RoyC]

Jim McC and Marc T

This is the "emotional" part that I was referring to. In these and past discussions about record fish, some people seem somewhat biased because of where they live and fish, and others are accused of being biased for that reason. It looks like JimG is trying to avoid any real or percieved biases about his statements based of who he is or where he lives. I wish that he would tell us who he is also, but I respect his reasons to remain anonymous. I guess it's the price we pay, and perhaps the benefit we get, for allowing anonymous posts.

Why doesn't anyone care about my last name? :'(

Roy C

[Gus]

I am neither an avid musky hunter nor native of wisc, but I have the privilage of fishing the Chip yearly and due to a great uncle who live and guided in the area during the 60's I have a few old time connections in the area. I do love musky fishing and would do it every day if I lived in a favorable loc. This discussion is great. There are some genetic factors that the In-Fisherman has discussed that gave an explaination of the huge fish of the time period and why we don't see it now. Can't remember which issue just remember reading it. I have heard some rumors on big fish from the area from some people in the area. Rumors are just that. The Spray fish and Mayo fish are truely monsters, I believe that.

[JimG]

Jim M

Why in the world would my name be important? I am making no claims, only passing on "old" information that is available to anyone who would care to take the time to find it (which obviously very few are or care). I have "researched", as you put it, all the big muskies in the history of our great sport (at least I thought is was a "sport", but there sure seems to be a lot of "politics" involved in it!). I am sure many others have too and a few have had a little input about it. As for the "Industry", as you put it, that may be true for a few, but I'll bet that "most" on this board are muskie fishermen/women and not part of the "Industry". There is no "secrecy" involved, I just think my name is unimportant to the real issue here, and has kept the focus on the fish and not people who post here. If you want me to leave, just say so. I do stand behind what I say, and have the printed word to back me up. It is not my information, but a collective lot from many different sources. Accept or reject them as you see fit. I don't care where the next record comes from, Hayward or else where (good bet for G Bay, but who knows. As for Spray's fish, I personally do not think it is the record! I believe Malo's 70 pounder is our "target."!!!! And by the way, even though Malo's fish was caught about the same distance north of Hayward as Spray's fish was east, Hayward area promotional folks do not consider it part of their area, according to the Malo information in Ramsell's book. It is clear that you and others on this board don't like the "Spray message", so you choose to "kill the messenger", as it were, just because they (the current "writers"-again only passing on historical information) hail from that area!

"Deep Throat"
JimG

[Jim McCullough]

Jim G,

Why in the world would your name be so important? Read my last post again. I gave lots of reasons. You are more than welcome to come here and post anonymously. You have been more than cordial. You just seem to be tossing a lot of red herrings out to take the spotlight away from who you are. That makes me suspicious of your motives and makes me take what you say with more than a grain of salt. And just so you don't feel that I am doing this just to you, I also am taking what "Sluggo" says with a grain of salt. He is on the other side of the issue and hasn't bothered to let us know who he is either. You WERE kidding about the politics statement weren't you? After all, we are talking about Wisconsin and Muskies.

RoyC- I care what your last name is. :) I just don't question your motives as you have been a regular contributor for quite a while now.

[JimG]

Jim M

I think you need to read "my" last post again. I think everyone should remember one very important fact; RECORDS ARE FISH, NOT PEOPLE! Even huge fish of the past that were unacceptable because they were taken out of season does not mean that they did not exist. Same applies to "recognized" records of the past. That these fish existed is very well documented. I personally cannot prove any of the record "catch" claims of the past, "old" or "modern", because I was not in the boat when they were caught. I think we have reached the point in this discussion where the "rule of law" should come in to play: "Inocent until PROVEN guilty." There is NO PROOF contrary to the claims of all past record fish except the ones that have been disqualified, and even EA agrees with the disqualifications, whether they came from Hayward or elsewhere.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I rest my case.

JimG

[Wood Tick]

Jim M,

What's the big deal about his name? If you don't believe what he's saying, go look the information up yourself. You obviously don't want to believe anything he is saying and are trying to find any way to get other's to discredit him too.

By the way, this has been a very informative and interesting thread and everyone seems to have kept themselves very cordial. Good for you guys. Also, I am a one week a year muskie fisherman on Rainy Lake. Just to let you know that I have no vested interest in any of these big fish since I didn't post my real name.

An everyday "lurker" and seldom poster. Good site.

[RoyC]

Wood Tick,

I can identify with you. I also only spend one week a year fishing, but I do it on LOTW. I guess that I spend the other 51 reading and writing on the boards. I envy the guys that are out there fishing instead of in here reading.

I am amazed about the comments regarding the cordiality of this thread. I guess that I just take that for granted and must have missed some nasty discussions in the past.

I am truly disappointed that guys like Jack Burns and his staff won't participate more in this discussion. His magazine likes controversy, and I like controversy, but I guess that I am just not willing to wait 3 months to respond on his turf (Esox Angler), especially when his magazine does not even have a Letters to the Editor section, or at least there was no mention of one in the latest issue.

I sure wish that someone would respond to my point (either postively or negatively) about the LGG/800 formula actually helping to verify rather than debunk the records mentioned in the article. I feel like I am on another planet regarding this issue.

Roy (nobody cares about my last name anyway) :P

[JimG]

Marc

The info on Lazarus's big muskies, as noted previously, is in Russ Wayre's great new book, "MUSKIE, The Premier Waters of North America". On page 50 is the photo of Barbosa's fish (guided by Lazarus) with the photo caption on page 51: "Famed Ottawa River guide, Mike Lazarus (left) and Ed Barbosa strain to hold their incredible 58-inch 28 1/2 girth trophy. Clearly, this giant fish broke the 60-pound barrier and is a catch-and-release line class record. It ranks as one of the largest muskies ever released."

On page 185, the following information on the 58 pounder is as follows: "His longest fish to date is 61 inches while the heaviest was 58-pounds. Both were released."

There is also a notation on page 185 about a 53-pounder that Lazarus caught in 1991 that was kept.

Does anyone question Russ Wayre's credibility???

Guess it is possible for one person to catch multiple HUGE/GIANT RECORD CLASS muskies if they are good enough!

JimG

[Jim McCullough]

Wood Tick,

Thanks for the kind words about the site AND for your criticism. I am not trying to say that Jim G is making stuff up. He is obviously very well read on the subject and has provided documentation for a lot of what he has said. He knows much more about this topic than I do. I personally have a problem with someone who uses other people's names to promote or discredit EITHER side of this argument, but himself hides behind an anonymous name. He then acts surprised that this issue seems to be political. If this wasn't political, and people on both sides didn't have personal stakes in this, then why do people go anonymous every time this issue comes up? If people believe in something, they should be able to put their name to it.

[Jim McCullough]

Roy,

This isn't the first time that I have heard that Jack Burns doesn't post on the Internet. I have heard that for as long as I have been on these boards. I don't think it is fair to call him out knowing that he not only doesn't come on here, but has said he won't be back. As for RK, a little birdy told me he left on a fishing trip yesterday. He won't be back until sometime next week, so you will have to wait until then to see if he responds.

By the way RoyC, (if that is your REAL last initial :P ) this conversation is very civil compared to some of the other ones in the past. Especially the catch and release ones.

[RoyC]

Jim M

I am not criticizing Jack Burns and many of the other muskie pros for not spending more time on the boards. I am sure it would become a full time, non-paying job for them if they did try to repond to everything. I just want to make the point that Esox Angler is kind of one-sided when it comes to controversy in that they don't have a published Letters to the Editor policy in their magazine (even though Jack personally invited me to write one), and even if they did, it would not be of much use for hot issues since it is only published quarterly. I wish that they had their own board that they could moderate themselves and provide a forum for discussing their articles. Jack is correct that I don't have to read their magazine, but it does have a readership that quotes their articles (as in the this thread), therefore I feel that in this case, it needs rebuttal. Perhaps RK, whoever he is, will take up the slack for Jack :)

Roy Cr...

[Wood Tick]

Jim,

Don't get me wrong, I'm not slamming you or anything. I can see where you're coming from. Jim G does sound very knowledgable of this information and seems like a guy that would be great to talk with over a few beers about the subject. I guess that not knowing his real name matters as much to me as it does to others.

I love muskie fishing, but my first love is bowhunting. Every time someone shoots a big buck or hears about one being shot, even if it was years ago, there are people out there that instantly say it was poached or the guy, or gal, was lying about it. It gets pretty annoying after a while. If a guy has proven what was needed to be proven at the time and no new "conclusive" evidence is found, we should just take it for what it is and try to beat that record if we want. Years down the road, people can't just come out and say, "he shot that buck off the back of a truck" or "nobody can hold a fish that big out in front of him and smile" and expect a record to be changed. I personally think that jealousy is the number one reason for this.

By the way, I'm missing my one muskie fishing trip this week because my wife is now three days past due. I guess it will be another year before I get to pull out my muskie gear again. Can't wait until my two-year-old is big enough to go so I can have an excuse! Don't take this to mean that my wife doesn't let me do anything. I left for my yearly muskie trip 13 days after my first child was born. I think that that was pretty darn good of her.

Wood Tick

[Jim McCullough]

Wood Tick,

Congrats on your soon to be new arrival. We should all be on the water instead of on the boards. (Well except you. You have a very legitimate excuse. :D ) So can I take from your last post that you might enjoy discussing the Rompola Buck? :P

[Wood Tick]

Thanks Jim.

I wish I could have the time back in my life that I wasted with the Rompola-Gate issue. I still have a headache from it.

Now, back to lurking until the right button is pushed again.

Wood Tick

[Ramses scribe]

Questioning the validity of those big muskies caught years ago got me thinking about other game fish, so I checked the Wisconsin regulations to see if there were any recent entries:

Largemouth bass-----11lbs:3oz-----1940
Smallmouth bass-----9:1-------------1950
Musky-----------------69:11----------1949
Tiger musky----------51:3------------1919
Northern pike---------38:0-----------1952
Walleye----------------18:0-----------1933

The most recent was the northern, and that was 50 years ago. I would guess that the documentation for these fish is no better and probably worse than the muskies being questioned, so do we dismiss these records as false?

Several folks in this thread have expressed the opinion that we need to have a new record musky caught so it can be thoroughly documented to settle the issue "once and for all." I have no doubt that no matter how well the data on a new record would be validated, 50 - 75 years from now fisherman would be arguing about its legitimacy.

Tom Filipowicz

Ps... Mr. Crawford, I agree that a letter to the editor of a quarterly publication is no option at all to open discussion.

Pps... Jim M, his name is not important;)

[Dan]

Ok guys the thread is too long please go out and fish!!

[Musk Rat]

Sorry Dan your rite this can go on forever nothing will be poven either way. I`m not saying I or anyone can prove that the spay fish are bogas but If you think your argument that people saw them so must have verified them is legit your pretty nieive How did the Lawton record witnessed by loads of people stay on the books for thirty years I saw pictures of the record mounts they were behind glass not easy to measure that way. As for Mike Lazerus fish certainly beutiful fish and the 58" x 28 1\2" could have been sixty but thats not proven 64 1\2" is a lot bigger than 58" and 69lbs. is a lot bigger than maybe 60lbs. Funny the spray fish don`t look bigger than the Barbosa fish. Billy Craig also reported more and bigger fish than Mike Lazarus In his own words 62lbs three over 60 inches. I don`t want to discredit these guys becuase I don`t even know them and I really don`t have an opinion either way but there is a big differnce even in this day an age between a dead scrutinized fish and a picture with reported measurements or a fish wieghed on an uncertified scale. To balance this out a bit Marc has been telling me he cuaght a fifty pounder and I beleive he did but despite good photos good measurements and the use of a scale he would have a hard time proving beond a shadow of a dought. That is why I think the old records should just be left historic and Ken Obriens should be the record based on proven beond a shadow of a dought and the malo fish at the to of the historic records. As for what Tom said I beleive well documented scietificaly examined record should last as long as it isn`t broken. There is a big difference in having an unbiased biologist disectd photo and document than haveing bar patrons whitness something Who says Spray couldn`t streched and loaded the fish at nite I keep hearing about the weight guessing cotest Didn`t Art lawton win the Gennesy cream ale big fish contest with a bunch of witnesses watching didn`t he grossly eggagerate the length and pass it off on hundreds of outdoor writers across the nation who checked his fish before it was a certifide record. This was ten years after Spray caught his fish and you would think the prosses for certifing a record was much the same make the claim fill out the paperwork much like todays release records. No proof necessary Tom proper research and documentation like Darwins work carries weight for a long time There is no proof that Sprays fish are real thats all anyone is saying No one said they were definately false even though I have a feeling they are. Andy Moraller

[Dan Klis]

Roy,

I copied this from my previous post:******

*Jack Burns is my fishing partner, friend, and as close to me as any *family member. This is the first time, let me repeat first time, he *has looked at MC in almost a year. In fact, I know he detests them. *He, unlike you and me, doesn't have the time for this. If he wasn't *being paid by EA he wouldn't spend the time editing articles, it *takes time away from his family and his passions.

*As far as stealing ideas. Don't go there. Ross Fisher and Pete Maina *approached me 3 years ago to help co-write this. Quite honestly I *could care less about records, and I turned them down.

*Oh by the way, he has had 50 pounders in the boat!!! His numbers of *big fish would blow your mind away.

As far as RK goes, You obviously have not been spending as much time on "these boards" as you claim. Rob has been chiming in for over 3 years, he is the Associate Editor of EA, and a former guide at Camp Fish (a fishing summer camp that used to be sponsored by In-Fisherman). In case you were questioning his credentials his is an awesome writer and angler.

As far as me being a staff member. If there was a staff I probably would be the one cleaning up after meetings. I volunteered sometime when it started, but no longer have the time or the energy to be involved. Although I love reading it.

As for a "Letter to the Editor" column. EA has one, the "Mailbag" and to my knowledge this is the first time there has not been one. People have to send letters to be published. I have better idea, Why don't you write your own article about records.

Dan Klis

Next time you are on LOTW give me a call (952-544-6090) I will buy you a beer. Anywhere you are on the lake, I am there everyweekend on some part of the lake. Jack will come also

[riverrat118]

Back to my original comments. I'm still looking for input and a good debate from Larry R And John D,I'd like to get both sides on this issuue.
John Schardt

[RoyC]

Dan,

You are right about my "tenure" on the boards, I just started visiting them this past winter. I have to admit that I am getting hooked. At first I like using the boards to get information on fishing lures and techniques, equipment, lake reports, etc. But then I figured out that a lot of this information is pretty much the same as what's published in the magazines. However, the open discussions on various muskie (and even some non-muskie) issues really caught my interest. None of my friends and co-workers are muskie nuts, so I have no one else to talk to on these subjects.

Obviously I am not an EA subscriber although I do subscribe to the other two muskie magazines. I do like your magazine, but for the most part, it contains similar articles about fishing techniques, and I get enough of that from the other magazines. I can't keep track of all of the various ideas on how you fish for what and when and why, so I guess that I hope to learn that from my own experience.

I do enjoy controversial subjects, and perhaps I will keep closer tabs on EA, maybe even subcribe some day. I didn't realize that you have a "mailbag", and still cannot find anything in the current issue inviting letters from readers. Perhaps you should fix that--just constructive criticism. In my case, I probably wouldn't use it anyway. I see these boards as a much better way of discussing controversial issues.

As for writing a rebuttal article, I really don't see the point. Although I applaud your efforts to present information about controversial subjects, you have lost some credibility with me due to your most recent article on weight formulas and world records. This has nothing to do with the authors' skepticism about the past world records, I just believe that your magazine shouldn't have let them use "bad" science and statistics to do that. I realize that your editorial staff probably does not include scientists or statisticians, but if you are going to allow articles with that type of content, you should make sure that the authors have the proper credentials or that they cite valid references (not refer to anonymous researchers).

Why is this an issue with me? I see numerous false statements of scientific fact in all of the media, and too many people believe these falsehoods just because they were published in the mainstream press. Many people believe that the LGG/800 formula is gospel, but I have never seen any real discussion anywhere of its accuracy or applicability to muskies or any other species. This article furthers this notion with "bad" science. Although EA wishes to be a controversial forum, I don't think that your intent is to become the National Enquirer of fishing.

Please don't consider this post to be EA bashing, that is not my intent. I have read articles and attended presentations by Jack, Pete, and RK (Rob Kimm?)and have a lot of respect for them as experienced fisherman, writers, and speakers. And, I like EA's policy of covering controversial topics. But I do not think that the use of "bad" science is good for EA or its readers.

Roy

[RoyC]

Tom,

How did you know my last name? I thought I was anonymous!

Interesting data in your post. I didn't realize that there were state records for other species (northern, largemouth, small mouth), during the 40's. I wonder if this is coincidence, or if there is a common reason. I can think of two possible reasons.

1. There was a long period of unusually favorable climatic conditions prior to these records which allowed various game fish to grow larger than normal, perhaps followed by unfavorable weather after this period. I have seen no weather data to support this theory--its just a wild guess on my part.

2. Perhaps fishing pressure was much lower during the Great Depression (1930's) and that allowed these species to grow trophy size fish. Subsequent fishing pressure (post depression) reduced these populations. Again, I have not seen any data on fishing activity during the Depression, so this is another wild guess.

Anybody know of any evidence that might support or dispute these theories?

Roy

[Ramses scribe]

Roy,

Thinking it's time to see what everyone is talking about, I finally broke down and bought the magazine last night. After reading it, I don't have an issue with the Ross Fisher article, though I acknowledge I have no science/statistics background. I spent some time in the wee hours playing with the formula itself, changing the divisor, altering lengths and girths of the fish to force the weight, and looking at girth-to-length ratios as a possible clue. The girth-to-length ratio average of the pre-1950 fish is 1.835, ranging from 1.710 to 2.032. For the post-1950 fish the average is 2.020 with a range from 1.698 to 2.269. The data seems to indicate that while on average the pre-1950 fish are thinner, the ranges of the two groups overlap so are not statistically significant. I see no plausible explanation as to why the formula doesn't work on the larger fish. My only conclusion is that IF the weights are correct, then the dimensions are wrong by a considerable amount.

Actually I'm surprised we even have measurements on the pre-1950 fish. In those days I and everyone else I knew carried a Chatillion type scale, and would weigh unusually large fish, but we never carried a tape measure. We wanted to know the weight to satisfy our immediate curiosity, but waited until back at the cabin to measure its length. I don't ever recall measuring the girth in those days.

As I said, I don't have a problem with the Ross Fisher article, but can't say the same for the Pete Mania article, which I feel is pushing the limit of ethical boundaries.

Whatever thoughts anyone may have regarding Pete Mania, an objective reading of his words will result in the conclusion that he has a personal axe to grind with the "authors" involved in the Art Lawton and Len Hartman disqualification's. Look at the tone he uses in referring to them:

"....these records came under scrutiny by a few self-appointed researchers."

"... Len Hartman's somewhat forced admission." - the innuendo being that the authors had a part in the forcing. (It's interesting that Pete says, "To me, there was never set-in-stone proof that the disqualified records should have been thrown out....". He says this in spite of the fact that the man who caught them admitted they were false.)

"At that point, the authors claimed it was all over now, and the mysteries solved."

It is my belief, and I could be wrong on this, that the animosity between Pete and the "authors" goes back to at least the CFMS and continued through the recent efforts to raise the size limit on the Chip. Lest I be criticized for siding with the "authors", I posted on the MHM board at the time of the controversy that the CFMS was a major debacle and that NONE of the principles came out of it with their reputations untarnished.

Beyond the veiled assault on "the authors", Pete offers nothing of substance to substantiate his position. Introducing a former Chicago sports columnist into the fray doesn't add anything other than yet another opinion of a distant observer. Another little gem is the comment - "One interesting side bar is that some of these record catches were predicted by the captors." And then he just drops it.... doesn't offer any further insight or explanation to what could be a devastatingly strong point in his favor. More innuendo. His erroneous contention that the Johnson and Spray fish were held unsupported in the photos on page 9 has already been dealt with by other posts in this thread.

The printed word is usually open to interpretation, and we all filter what we read though our own baggage. From my perspective, the Pete Mania article is a long stretch from the "Real Deal".

As to the real issue - the legitimacy of the pre-1950 muskies, I hadn't formed an opinion until I looked at the other game fish records for Wisconsin, and saw that they were supposedly caught during that same time period. To me setting the record for every game fish in the same 20 year time period in which 5 muskies over 60 pounds were supposedly caught is much too coincidental. Reasonable doubt is overwhelming. Unfortunately, I've got to believe the game fish records for my state are probably not true.

Tom Filipowicz

[RoyC]

Tom,

I guess that I start with the opinion that the weights are correct, mainly, because I have seen some evidence supporting it, and no real evidence that disputes it. You raise a good point about if and when and why the length and girth were measured since that wasn't common practice back then. So if you assume that the weights are right, and that the formula should be accurate, then some how we ended up with length and girth measurements that were too large for these fish. If anything, I would think that the measurements would have been low if they were taken much later after the fish was killed.

Interesting that you used the coincidence of the other species records at that time to dispute the muskie records whereas I used it to support them. But I must admit that my reasoning is pure conjecture at this point with no supporting evidence.

I don't pay much attention to the "emotional" arguments any more such as Pete's. He has his opinions and I have mine.

You talk as if you were around back then. Is that true? Do you have first hand knowledge of these records?

Roy

[Ramses scribe]

Roy,

I opted to choose incorrect data over any other explanation because I have a tough time imagining a condition, or set of conditions that would have apparently caused a small segment of several generations of fish within multiple species to grow beyond their normal size, and that within a twenty year time window. Or, a condition, or set of conditions that would have made large fish easier to catch within that span. The only other explanation is that the men who fished that time period were better fishermen than we are today.

Rather than a biologist or climatologist to look at the fish and/or environment for answers, I think we need a sociologist to look at the fishermen and the influences on them at that time for an answer as to why they did what they did.

No, I don't have first hand knowledge of the fish caught during that time frame. I was a boy of 9 in Milwaukee when Spray supposedly caught the current record. I do remember the excitement it caused when we heard about it. I was already an accomplished pan fisherman, and had some experience with northerns and bass, but had not yet gone musky fishing. My dad told me I couldn't go with him until I was in my teens, because in his words, "Muskies don't jump in the boat like other fish do, and I don't want you to get discouraged when you don't catch anything." He was right. My first few musky trips drew a blank, and it was not until some years later that I went back to it.

Tom Filipowicz

[Stever]

Great topic guys. I have a great deal of respect for Pete Maina
and his products..I have several baits and use his rods. Having
said that..I was disappointed in his article on the World record
debate for several reasons. The first of which is this..no where
in his article did he estimate the weight or length of the Spray
fish or other Sawyer County monsters that were photographed, put
to a government scale, measured and witnessed. Folks, lets remember
this fish was documented, and paraded about the area for all to
see...and to question! The corpus delicti...the evidence and body
of the fish was displayed and carted around for all to see. In
those days there were alot of farmers, carpenters, lumbermen and
tough anglers and guides many of whom carried in those days a
wooden folding carpenters stick for exacting work...You dont think
any of those hardcore dudes back in the day wouldnt question the
weight and length of that fish if it wasnt so? You gotta be kiddin
me right. And lets remember...the Spray fish was mounted as were
the Cal Johnson 67 pounder and many other freak monster Skis. The
Johnson fish is still on display at the Moccasin Bar in Hayward.
Ive seen this pig...have you? No, I cant explain the freak fish up
there in the 30s, 40s and 50s but I do know that the Chippewa
River that feeds the flowage has some big ##### fish for some unknown reason..maybe a fish biologist can explain that. The evidence was
brought forward folks...I suppose now well hear that the taxidermists were also in on the Conspiracy! My two cents, out.

[Sponge]

Anyone have an idea as to the SMALLEST musky ever caught by hook + line? I think I may have the record but unfortunately have no photos...probably wouldn't have shown up anyway! :)

[Musk Rat]

Can you beat 5 1\2"

[RoyC]

Musk Rat

Was that measured on a certified ruler? What was the girth? We need to estimate the weight--does LGG/800 apply or should it be LGG/700 for smaller muskies. Do you have witnesses? Did you have the species verified? Can I get a written affidavit? Was this a line class record? What body of water? Was it landed unassisted? Speared? Give us verifiable evidence before you go claiming a record!

Sorry guys, I guess that I have been on this topic too long ;)

Roy

[Sponge]

Gooder one Roy...always good to take the lid off the dutch oven when it starts to boil!;)

[Marc Thorpe]

Muskrat you sure sure do get the littles ones.

To everyone else Mr G,there only one person who claims Malo as the world record!;-)

MrG,good conversation but here is a secret my elder taught me.
To have credibility,one must have integrity,to build integrity one must be ones self.

For you to come and share this valuble info,is nice but for you to hide behind a ficticious name,leads me to beleive your credibility is not what you wish it were.But you do attach much credibility to what you state but are more so afraid to put your name on it.
But whats more shamefull is the reasons and purpose behind this.
But intregity is not part of what you state.

Sponge,Roy and Tom,good topic and info shared here but I always question those who put forth info when their persons is questionable.
Unfortunatly its not emotions its motive for these individuals that worrysome.

Just like those who issue threats out of western NY from their work place.
Or those who commit themselves to speaking and pull no shows and give excuse but misteriously boat 53 inchers in the same area they were to speak.

I think I do know who Mr G is.
Mr G,Mikes fish is gigantic but you should not claim it to be 60 pounds,its still swimming and we will ever know only speculate.
The 61 incher,its my understanding it might have gone some 40 pounds.
Non the less Mike has some monumental captures and my full respect.


Roy,the compendium is missing many fish over 45 pounds and a handfull of 50 pounders.Not all fish recorded or captured across N.A were researched for the book.It is a good read but does lack much info on many fish many of us will never know about.In part history will never all be known.
Been a good one
My gilfriends are waiting for me in Double O7 lake
take care
marc

[riverrat118]

marc,
What really cracks me up is in that Musky Com. Book is that lack of the documentad pigs that have been caught in the "larry" and the Big"o", especially in the last ten years. I see fish every year that would rewrite that book on a yearly basis on the Larry. You just don't see folks from my neck of the woods posting their catches on the internet. I think that's the way it sould be. Now I just need how to catch one or two of the truly big fish.This year it's going to happen. Marc, Threats from western NY? I live in the east!(he,he) If it was that comment regarding you're wife's french accent, I do apologize.
John Schardt

[btpf]

Just like we never landed on the moon either right?

[RoyC]

Tom,

You do have "first-hand" knowledge of these fish--you were alive when it happened and you remember it! You indicated that Spray's record created a lot of excitement and you were only a 9-year old who lived clear across the state in Milwaukee at that time. Everything that I have read indicates that each of the records caught in Wisconsin during that decade created a lot of excitement, at least within the state. Most of the fisherman at that time seemed quite competitive about these records. All of these record fish were put on public display, mounted, and displayed again. So even if they somehow faked the weights, how could they have faked the lengths when these fish generated all of that excitement and received that much attention? And if you believe the lengths and the LGG/800 formula's validity, then the reported weights are definitely possible.

Do you see my point? If this was such big news back then, and there was a fierce rivalry, especially between Johnson and Spray, then how did they fake ALL of the measurements? Then along comes Malo's fish, which everyone seems to agree was above 69 pounds, and it further supports the possibility of 60+ pound fish in that area in those days.

Roy

[riverrat118]

New Slob waters found. Marc, I'm sure your busy with clients,(rock'n roller types) Drop me an email. Cool as S-hit finding new waters.
John Schardt

[Marc Thorpe]

Do you think its Hip John?

Oh Ya,I think your request may have occured but I think we drove one of them away!
Oh well,who cares.
Be good and fish
marc

[Jim McCullough]

...and this one has run it's course also, so I will put it out of it's misery. :)