louie Spray/where?

[mike]

I have a coupel questions about louie spray and where he caught the fish. I have heard that it was on flemings bar, and i have heard that he made that up to throw people off. Does anyone know if it was ever verified where he caught it? Does anyone know what he caught it on? I am heading up there this fall and would like to do a little dreaming while i am there.

[Louie Louie]

He actaully caught the fish on Grindstone Lake. The "Chip Monks" have perpetuated the myth in order to promote their resorts and taverns on the flowage. Flemings bar is as good a spot as any ;! What the heck does it matter anyhow? You said yourself you want to dream a little. Why spoil the fun. Just remeber to change the sheets when you wake up!
We gotta go now...........
LL

[Mike Deiss]

Mike-

Louie caught his 69lb-11oz. Chip fish off Graveyard Point on the southwest end of the east side of the flowage, near Indian Trail Resort, on a row-trolled quick-strike rigged sucker on October 20, 1949. The Fleming's Bar story was indeed a lie to protect his spot. Interestingly, there was a fish thought to be the same size lost on Fleming's the day before Louie caught his...

Read Larry Ramsell's Compendium...

[mike]

Mike Deiss,

Thank you very much for your reply. Now it's off to buy a Hotspots map. I just want to say that I've been there.

[JoeWI]

Mike,

Are you taking a digital camera with you? I wish you could so I could get a glimse of this famous spot. Please post the pictures if you can. That would be great.

Or does someone know of where I might find such pictures that exist now on the web?

[John Schardt]

Louie Spray, Len Hartman, and Art Lawton, both BS'd about their catches. Len Hartman was the only man to acknowledge his misdeads. Pictures do not lie. Compare a few of the old pic with the beasts caught today from the bay or the St Lawrence. Either you're blind, or you just believe a "Tale" thats WAY to old that doesn't add up.
As Detroff and Ramsell did in the past to disqualify the St Lawrence Fish, I sure with someone would step forward with the same scientific effort to eliminate these Spray fish from the books. Funny thing is, both these "historians" still guide on the "NEW HOME OF THE WORLD RECORD"
Yeah, I fish the St Lawrence.I'm just so sick of the nonsenese these out of towners created in my area.I'm still pissed that No one on the river confronted this years ago. Wwll, I'm doing my best these days.
Larry Ramsell,
How tall was Louie Spray?? You absolutly knew how tall hartman and lawton stood? Don't live out west, but I bet you "Muskie Historians" could get an answer in a call or two. Talked to Jim Evans Lately?

[Mike Deiss]

John Schardt-

Showing disrespect towards someone by intentionally mis-spelling their name does not impress anyone. It's "Dettloff", not "Detroff".

Tell you what, if you're any kind of fisherman, fishing a place like the St. Lawrence, why don't you just go out a catch a 75 pounder and erase Louie from the record books yourself, instead of complaining about it on these boards every time the subject comes up.

[Greg]

I spoke to a very famous musky fishing guide who believes Louie Spray bought the fish for 50 bucks from someone who didn't need the publicity.

[RoyC]

I have lived and fished in Illinois, Minnesota, and New York, and fished Wisconsin and Canada quite a bit, but I really have no direct interest in who has the world record or where it was caught. But I have read Ramsell's Compendium of Muskie Fishing History and it seems to provide pretty convincing evidence that Spray's fish was real, that Spray caught it, and that although Spray probably caught it on the Chip, he did lie about the actual location on the Chip. Lots of people on these discussion boards and elsewhere throw out bits and pieces about why they think this record should be disqualified, but Ramsell's book has the best summary of the arguments for and against this record that I have seen. Even if you think Ramsell is biased, I believe that book gives a pretty convincing argument in favor of the record.

So those of you that don't believe Spray's record is "real", have you read Ramsell's Compendium?

Roy

[Musky Mike]

It would probably do us all good to remember the adage, "Records are made to be broken"
If historians and DNR personnel can prove fallacy of records, then it's only right for them to disqualify those fish, but I don't think we fishermen should get so wrapped up in it. There has to be a musky out there somewhere which exceeds the length and weight record of Louie Spay's fish, let someone go after and catch this larger fish and Louie's record falls regardless of accuracy.
Probably an idealistic approach, but I'd rather see the record fall rather than disqualified.

Just my 2 cents worth.

[RoyC]

Mike,

We fished the Chip every summer for about 10 years in the late 80's and early 90's and did enjoy it in terms of its natural beauty and its historical significance (or mythology depending on your point of view). Either way, it does have a mystique about it.

We gave up on the Chip in the late 90's in favor of Minnesota and Canada because the Chip was just getting too commercial. Many of the resorts were getting too fancy (and expensive) and the overall boating pressure (including pleasure boats) was steadily increasing. But I will go back and fish there again someday, just because it is the Chip! Everyone muskie fisher should go there at least once just to fish these famous (or infamous) waters.

Roy

[John Schardt]

Mike,
Thought the record fish was 69+lbs? Why do I need to catch a 75lber? The last "research" and work that these two men published was the Chippiwa Flowage Musky Study.Does this bring their past "historical" viewpoints and credibility into question? You bet.

[FRED]

Roy
AS I remember, you have always been a supporter of real science in relation to fishing records. I fail to see how you can support Larry R and his very biased research on the Spreey fish. If there has ever been a more self-severing piece of fishing "history", I am totally unaware of it. The Spreey fish is a hoax! Only those with a monetary motive related to it or those who are completely uninformed will support it.

[Mike Deiss]

Gee, FRED, you're quite a guy. You anonymously post on this board with the intention of ruining someone's reputation without any evidence to back it up.

FRED, what have YOU done to contribute to the musky world? My guess, based on the intelligence level and cowardliness demonstrated in your post is...NOTHING.

I'd would have rather not dignified your post with a response, but I think that others reading this should know that Larry Ramsell wrote the first edition of the Compendium, which contained all the evidence related to the Spray fish, in 1981. That was about 15 years before Larry began guiding in the Hayward area. Therefore, any accusation of bias by Larry is just plain wrong.

Mike Deiss

[Musky Mike]

Mike D:

Good points regarding dates and time frames. I, for one, wasn't aware of that and appreciate you setting the record straight - although I didn't (and still don't) have any hardspots with information contained in Larry R's Compendium in the first place.

I don't care for character assasinations any more than you do. Think everyone should be able to state their thoughts and ideas on things, but don't think we really need to slam others for their thoughts and beliefs, this only diminishes a person's credability from where I view it.

As mention in my earlier post, I believe "Records should be broken, not disqualified," unless it's absolutely necessary. Louie's record was establish when I was only eight years old - I wasn't fishing for muskies then and didn't for quite a while after that BUT ever since I first held my first musky stick that's what the record has been and what I have been shooting at. Don't expect to ever get there, but it's fun to try and I'd sure hate to have to LOWER my expectations!

Mike Kagel

[Marc Thorpe]

Then why did we disqualify Hartman and Lawton?
Oh well!
Many can speak about fish exceeding 40 pounds,reality is few can specify or guess estimate actual weights.
Fewer even will ever see one.
John,dont waste your time.
Better to be like Hartman and boat a few good ones.
Thats plenty for most of us.
marc

[John Skarie]

If any of you have ever read Tony Rizzo's "All Star Muskie Guides", (I think that is the correct title), it amazes me how many of the guides in that book claim to have seen or lost a world record fish in Wisc.

If there are so many of these monsters in Wisc. than why is it so hard to even catch a 50" there? With catch and release, fishing is getting beter everywhere else, but from people in Muskie Inc. that I talk to, they'd rather go to MN and Canda to try for trophies.

I just don't believe that the records are real, or that numbers of guides have seen or lost world record fish on the chip.

Look at Jim Saric, and Pete Maina, lots of filming in MN. Did all these huge fish get into a car and drive out of state?

In the last issue of Esox Angler, there is a picture of Louis with his world record, turn the page and Howard Wagner is holding a 52 pound muskie in another photo.

You tell me that Louie's fish is 20 or so pounds bigger than Howards, and I'll ask you what you've been smokin.


Just my opinion, not gonna argue.

John Skarie

[MikeMN]

There is a good article written by Pete Mania regarding this issue and after reading it I came to the conclusion that those WI fish were a hoax. I haven't read L. Ramsell's comp. so I am just going off the artice in Esox that I skimmed through. The one of many points the articel made was that average local guides biggest catch in that area during that time period was around 35 pounds, and that the record catches of Spray, Hartman, ect.. came in a relative time period as though they were trying to one up each other. It's a good article.

[dbagent]

I think all the records are hoaxes and should be disqualified. The only place to catch a new record is at the Flow

[John Schardt]

Marc,
You are correct. I'll let this go.But, we don't need this people to be able to make $$$ on a BS tale that needs to have been exposed long ago. As Larry Ramsell told me" Len Hartman was a good friend of mine". Wouldn't you think he knew wheather he was still alive after all his work with len in the earily 90's when larry got the "scoop" from len. As a good friend, who dumped on me, I think I would know today if he was still alive. Friends like him I would not need. To all musky historians out there? Is Len still with us? I'd give Tony Rizzo a call if I were Len.A trusted man with integety. He know's the real deal.

[Rods]

My question is really why does it mater if it was 69 pounds 11 oz or it was 60 pounds 11 oz to me this was still a heck of a fishing and Spray showed that with many large fish of his day. I dont really know why all of a sudden all this had came to the surface. I dont want to put any one down but i dont know why you guys have to fight on how big this fish was. It was a big fish. In my books and muskie is a trophy catch to me and i would like to shake and congragulat all you muskie fisherman who have put in your hours on the water and just remember some day you could break that record and there would be no dispute any more. I also want to add one note. Within the last few years with all the big fish being cought I think this is a great example of how catch and relese is working and i think that is great. Keep up the good work guys.

[louie who?]

Rods,

The reason this has all of sudden come up, is because everyone else who catches a big fish, is put under a microscope by the "historians" in Hateward. They never seem to do the same thing to Louie's fish and it's about time someone did. I use the term "historians" very loosely. Larry Ramsell is on the board of directors for the Fresh Water Fishing Hall of Fame in Hateward, I mean Hayward. He seems to be the driving force behind disqualifying all of the big fish that aren't caught in Hayward. Do you think he might be a little biased? Read his "historical" book sometime. He sure props up the Spray fish. I see now that he is on another witch hunt to get rid of the O'brien fish. If I recall correctly, he was supposedly there when it was caught, but he waits all this time to start bringing up discrepancies in the way it was weighed. With the way he writes history, I sure wouldn't want him around when I caught my big fish. Spray's fish is a joke and they know it. Why do you think he and the other "historians" in Hateward are targeting O'Brien fish? They know that it is the next in line after Louie's fish. Pretty transparent if you ask me.

[mke]

Give the guy a break louis, he's just trying to make some extra cash for his region. It's the American way!

[Marc Thorpe]

After Obrien's fish,may as well disqualify Martinson's fish!
Dont be surprised!
This is completly outragious!
Too much!
Its not contraversy,its a shame!

John,I am sure glad I am heading to True potential waters
this weekend!
Big Giant Spotted Chrome Bullet Fish!

[Jim McCullough]

Alright guys, let's keep things civil. I don't want to get rid of this thread, for the simple fact that it will just pop up again, but if it keeps heading the way it is I will nix it. Every time these Louie Spray/World record threads die down, another one pops up. It's obvious that this is a hot button issue in the Muskie world. It is taylor made for the discussion boards. Let's discuss it without all of the name calling.

[Musky Mike]

Reckon I can see how it's frustrating to musky hunters in New York and Canada to see records from their waters disqualified and Louie's Wisconsin record to stand in spite of controversy and questionable photographic evidence. Throw in bragging rights for local anglers and business and the resultant income recognized and it's a hot issue for sure. Personally, I think it was up to the DNR officials and fishing related businesses to question and validate/disqualify the records at the time. Once, recognized and entered, they probably should have stood. In some respects, it's like going back in time to question and throw out a Packer's score of the first or second game of the season and then because of that, decide that they in fact did not win the inaugural superbowl because they were not eligible.

I'd still like to see someone (anyone) catch a musky larger than Louie's and establish a new (validated) record. But I don't think I would want that angler to be yours truly, I value my ethics, honesty and good name too much to watch it all go up in smoke and be branded a liar in controversy. At least Louie doesn't have to endure that.

Mike Kagel

[rubbernecker]

Figgered out where it was from Larry Ramsell's article in Musky Hunter and went there just to say I been there. It's okay as roadside attractions go, but not worth driving 400 miles fer, so ya might as well do some fishin while yer there. Who knows .... ? (theme music from Jaws in background)

[John Dettloff]

Bud Weiser mad some comments about Louie Spray's record musky and the Chippewa Flowage that deserve some clearing up.

He wrote about Louie going on a 3 day drinking binge after catching his world record. I'm sure the "grog flowed freely" after he caught his record fish, but a 3 day drunk is an exaggeration to be sure. Heck, I'm sure I'd tip a few if I caught a fish like that...and I'm not even a drinker! Spray admittly liked to party; and he even was one of many northwoods bootleggers back in the '20's. During my 4 years of research for my new book about Louie Spray's life story, delving into his bootlegging past was most fascinating and interesting. But, what of his drinking? I don't understand why the insinuation that because Louie liked to party, that he was any less of a fisherman.

As far as your comment about Louie's record fish not being weighed properly, that is totally untrue...and I have all the proof in my new book (Three Record Muskies in His Day, The Life & Times of Louie Spray) and in many of my other past articles on the subject. Louie's 69# ll oz muskie was weighed in officially (53 years ago tonight) at the Stone Lake Post Office by the Post Master himself, on a certified beam-type scale that (by law) had to be re-zeroed in every day. His fish was mounted and on display for all to see for the next 10 years. I have photos of Spray's mounted muskie next to Cal Johnson's mounted 67 1/2#er and it clearly shows that Louie's fish was indeed a longer fish. There is no question about the size of this fish.

As far as the Chippewa Flowage goes, it was not made for any other purpose but to create a holding reservoir on the headwaters of the Chippewa River from which they could more uniformly control the flow of the river downstream. I know this for a fact because, some years ago, I was given the chance to review the minutes from all the meetings that the power company held (between 1909 and 1930) regarding the creation of the flowage.

As far as the current fishing is going on the flowage, this summer ranked as one of the best trophy muskie seasons every on record. From late July through most of Sept. the flowage was spitting out big fish like the old timers have never seen before.

Bud, have you ever fished the flowage before? If so, did you run into a bad fishing trip that left you disillusioned about the Chip? You know there are ups and downs on every lake? Well, just give me a call next summer and I'd be glad to take you out and show you the kind of water where the big fish are popping.

Sincerely, John Dettloff

[Jim McCullough]

Sorry guys. I was gone over the weekend fishing and putting up deer stands and missed the juvenile post by Budwiser.

John Dettloff- Is there any way for you to put up a link to that picture of the Johnson and Spray fish side by side?

[d2bucktail]

Thought some of you might be interested in this Milwaukee Journal article from yesterday's paper. http://www.jsonline.com/Outdoors/oct02/88968.asp. Also, for those that have not read Ramsell's Compendium, there is plenty of supporting official documentation proving the facts about all 3 of Louie's record fish. The story of the first one is pretty interesting and definitely could lead people to conclude foul play. And for those that think Louie's fish has not been put under the microscope like some of the overturned records, that just does not appear to be true.

[Chris Sommerville]

Hi everyone, Here are some quotes from posts by Jim Saric and Larry Ramsell on the MHM message board:

Jim: "The fact O'brian's musky was disqualified was a shock to me, since I thought it to be the most well documented big fish in recent history. So, I considered it the "world record".

Larry: "Everyone seems to have the opinion that I "zealously" support Sprays record fish. I don't! I too, as I did with Lawton's and Hartman's "multiple record class fish", have a problem believing that one person could catch three of the five largest fish ever caught in Wisconsin".

When both the editor of "North America's Musky Authority" AND North America's most reknowned "Muskie Historian" have doubts about the legitimacy of the current National Freshwater Fishing Hall of Fame's world record muskie, it's easy to see why so many do not take the NFFHF's records seriously. While the Hall's records continue to flip-flop under whichever director happens to be there at the time, this record-keeping entity is slowly being regarded by many as exactly what it is.....a tourist attraction.

Respectfully,
Chris Sommerville

[John Dettloff]

Jim, I'd be glad to submit the photo showing the mounts of Cal Johnson's and Spray's last world record muskies. Perhaps someone could coach me along as to how to submit the photo. I am pretty new to computers. In case anyone has my new book on Spray, the photo we are referring to is on the bottom of page 213.

Regarding Chris's post questioning the legitimacy of Spray's record fish: first off, the first record class muskies that I researched were Spray's fish (all 3 of them). And I was fully prepared to recommend disqualification of any of them that proved to be phoney - should the facts have pointed that way. My purpose certainly wasn't to blindly back Spray's fish. There's no point in keeping records if they are going to be incorrect. Bottom line: history must be as accurate as possible.

Secondly, I never would have spent 4 years working on my book about Spray's life if his fish proved to be phoney either. Why would I waste my valueable time on such fiction? Certainly not for promotional purposes; rather I do this solely for the ideal of doing my best to accurately document a fascinating era in our sport's history.

How could a guy catch 3 record fish? That is a valid question. Remember though, once you catch one world record fish, statistically, you have no less of a chance of catching another one. It's like winning multiple jackpots at a casino for one guy and another guy never winning anything. It's just plain luck and timing...combined with the fact that Spray only fished for individuals.

Spray kept his ears open while he was tending to his tavern and kept notes (alittle book)on where he and everyone else he talked to had spotted big fish. Then Spray would die on those fish with the patience that few muskie men would care to exert. That upped Spray's odds considerably. Plus Spray was fishing during a period in history when the lakes up here were virgin and the fish were more accessible. That upped his odds also. Plus he could shoot his fish to land them. That also upped his odds of putting them into the boat. There are other things that also upped Spray's but, but I think you begin to get the point.

All of a sudden, once you think about these things, it suddenly doesn't seem so impossible that a stubborn guy like Spray could latch onto 3 record fish.

Sincerely, John Dettloff

[MuskieJ]

Oh yes a good discussion, No matter what the record is or who holds the record, there will always be people on both sides of it. Life is a 2 way street, so believe what you want. I think Dale Earnhardt was a cheater in nascar, So was Richard Petty, but they did it, got away with it, and are recognized as the best in Nascar history, So Now its down to my opinion against yours, Thats all. I see facts that fit both sides of the debate here, but who cares, It is recognized as the world record, wether you like it or not, so if you disagree with it that much then take it up with the people who are in charge of the Records instead of the general muskie fishing public. And remember some of you people need to stop complaining on these internet sites and get out there and fish and maybe do somthing about it.

JUST FISH IT


Jim

[Chris Sommerville]

So let me get this straight. All one needs to do is take notes from the guys at the bar, fish virgin waters, and carry a gun and all that will help you overcome the massive odds of catching a world record muskie......3 times!!!! Now I have a question for you John. Did Louis take those notes from the drunks before or after he predicted his world record catches?

That Louis sure was some kind of superhuman. I've also read stuff regarding the long, long history and heritage of the Chip. Also read how even back then the massive interest in the records resulted in the "mountains" of evidence proving Louis was legit. I even read somewhere how Louis would lie so that all the gangs of other fishermen wouldn't know where he was fishing. Just wondering how virgin the Chip really was back then.

[Chris Sommerville]

Or we could just sit back and be politically correct so as not to offend anyone, and continue to have BS rammed down our throats. Great idea Jim. Anyone else getting tired of the old subject-changer "if you don't agree with the records get off the internet and go out and catch a new world record". Hey, we all know Louis is the only one that could do that!!!!

[Jimmy "Bud" Wiser]

I am tired of it and have been of years. I am sceptical of anything the three blind mice have to say after the cat was let out of the bag on the tracking studies. Hey JD I have fished the flowage many times but only in the fall when we fish from the shore!

[John Schardt]

Chris,
Sorry I couldn't post since fri. Busy doing what most do on the St Lawrence in the fall. banged a nice one last night.
I'm not going to get into this BS anymore on this board. We can work this out through other means. Sure, I'm pissed. Lets redirect our outrage to others who understand.

[MuskieJ]

Chris, dont take this personally, But it is getting to the point on all these boards that NO matter what you say or due, there is going to be 10000 different people who disagree with you weather your right or wrong. The point I am trying to make is that these boards are designed to help people by exchanging info, spots and tricks. I due agree that a good argument here once in awhile is good, because it gives people ideas of both sides of the story and they can make their own decision on what they believe. The point plane and simple is after all the arguing, The RECORD still stands, to me I have my own view on it, but I wont post them. So until someone actually convinces them to retract the record, it is still the goal to beat it.

I still stand behind my saying. SOME OF YOU NEED TO GET OFF THE NET AND GET OUT AND FISH, AND DO SOMTHING ABOUT IT.

Most of the people who have replied to this post are very well known and respected people, I just think they are barking to the wrong audience here. File a complaint or somthing to that fact to the Freshwater fishing hall of fame to get the record thrown out then.

Jim

Ok, Ok, I will spill it. I think the record is a joke, but thats all I am going to say.

[er...Houston??]

"NO matter what you say or due, there is going to be 10000 different people who disagree with you weather your right or wrong"

This is meaningless gibberish, and not harmless at that--this view propounds the idea that any understanding of truth is illusion and impossible. Might as well go belly-up and believe whatever yer told.

In fact there is a far better than 10000/1 chance that interested parties could sort out what muskies caught were what size and when...

Certain Canadian records over past 20 yrs are forensically solid. (No matter what 'they' say heheheh.)

[John Dettloff]

Chris,

You eluded in a previous post how unlikely it is for Spray to catch 3 record fish. I regarded it as a question that is commonly asked so I answered it with all sincerity. Don't be so quick to dismiss a (yes, rather basic) but indeed a most deadly way to catch a huge fish. A lot of the biggest secrets in muskie fishing happen to be based on some very fundamental but proven and deadly methods and beliefs. Some of the finest trophy producing fishermen I know of have discovered just how deadly it is to park on one big fish. Perhaps you may not have the patience to do something like that, and that would explain why you don't recognize this tactic to be as deadly as it really is.

When Louie caught his last record fish, he was witnessed by 3 people (some of whom I once knew and are now passed on)fishing the same area over and over again (several times a day every day) for nearly 3 weeks. Other people had seen this fish too. An Indian guide who once guided Jimmy Stewart had Louie's fish follow up a client's lure. The fish was so big (over 5 feet long), that the client got scared and he told the guide to take him in right away. He didn't want to fish any longer. This was Louie's fish. It was very active at the time...and, believe me, IT WAS REAL. Besides Louie seeing the fish a few times before he had caught it, others had also seen this fish.

Why is it so hard for you to believe that this fish existed and was caught by Louie? Do you have some hard evidence proving that this fish was a sham? If so, I would be interested to learn of this information, and if it it solid information, I'd be the first to push for Louie's fish to be disqualified. In the absense of such proof though, your comments merely sound as if they are motivated by common resentment and jealousy.

Is it the size of Louie's fish that bothers you or the fact that he caught it? The size is beyond reproach to anyone who knows the facts about how well documented the weighing and measuring of this fish was. Noone can debate that Louie's fish wasn't longer than Cal Johnson's record fish. (I again refer you to the photo on page 213 of my book.)

Long time Hayward area guide, Dave Dorazio's brother Leonard personally saw Louie's fish at Herman's Landing right after Louie brought the fish in. He confirmed it was over 5 feet long and that it was freshly caught and it looked as if it had just come out of the water. It still had that sheen that only a living muskie has. This observation goes a long way in elimating the possiblity that the fish could have been captured at an earlier time.

In addition to the 2 guys who were in the boat with Spray, who swore UNDER OATH that the fish had been caught fairly and legally, there were also 3 other people who witnessed the battle from a distance. They heard the shouts coming from Spray's boat, saw some of the commotion, and heard the 2 pistol shots. Louie didn't know he was being watched as he fought the fish. And because Louie lied when he said he caught the fish off Fleming's Bar (a spot 4 miles away), it eliminates all possibility that Spray had staged what the 3 witnessed had seen. Therefore, whatever the 3 witnesses saw and heard was genuine.

You wonder why Louie lied about his spot where he got his fish. Why should Louie be any different than any other muskie man. I think most of us have lied about where we have caught or seen big fish...at least once in our lives. Haven't you? You asked about just how virgin was the flowage when he caught his last record. During the late '40's, things were still fairly quiet on the Chip, but interest was growing quickly at the time. After Louie nailed his big one, by the early 1950's the pressure had grown considerably. By the late '50's thru the 60's and 70's and 80's, the pressure has been very high.

So tell me why you think this fish is bogus. I'd love to know. The factual circumstances of the catching of this fish, in all actuality, rank this fish as one of the best documented of all the record muskies. I suppose a video of Louie catching it would have been nice, but we can't have everything. But you know what, judging by the seemingly resentful negative attitude that some people seem to possess, some people I guess are still going to believe whatever they want. They probably also believe that there was never a Holocost and that we never landed on the moon either. Well, I happen to deal in facts, not in rumor or innuendo.

One thing that I have discovered about Louie while I was researching his life story, was that because he was a celebrity of sorts for most of his life, the rumor mill had concocted an image of Louie that has magnified all of his faults. Herein lies the origins of the negatives rumors that have long shadowed Spray. Louie's second wife Mabel told me something ten years ago which really drove this point home to me. She said, "When Louie and I divorced in '44, all these reporters hounded me to give all the "dirt" on Louie...as if there was some to tell. They had Louie all wrong. We split up for our own personal reasons, but he wasn't the man they thought he was."

I have never said that Louie was superhuman or that he was a hero. He was a man, with all of the same faults that many of us have. Spray has admitted a number of his faults in his original book; with muskies, women, and booze being his primary vices. In my book, I don't shrink from the task of portraying a true image of Spray with all of his faults. I don't stand in judgement of Spray and neither do I herald him as a muskie god either. A simple twist of angling fate would have resulted in Spray catching no record muskies and someone else - maybe even you - catching 2 or 3 yourself. But Louie sure was a most fascinating character to learn about. The times that he lived in represent a bygone era that is rapidly becoming forgotten with time.

Although I never personally met Louie, I can assure you that few poeple know what makes him tick as well as I do. I have spent many years delving through all of his personal affects, listening to taped interviews that were done with him, and interviewing dozens of his intimate friends in getting to know what Louie was all about. It was the most fascinating research I've ever done. Don't be so quick to judge a man who obviously know so little about. If you ever stop to get to know him...you might even like the guy.

Sincerely, John Dettloff

[Chris Sommerville]

John, although I believe it is highly unlikely that anyone could predict, then catch a world record fish (let alone 3), I am not so much trying to dispute Louis' fish. Rather I am trying to irk the same people that I believe are really the ones that harbour all the resentment for just about any fish that is not caught on their "home" waters.

Sincerely,
Chris Sommerville

[JD]

John,

I’ve got to agree with Chris here. Predicting then catching a WR?? Please! It seems to me (from recent history) that you would do whatever it takes to save your own #####. This, in my opinion, would mean affidavits signed by anyone willing to get their name in print, regardless of the truth. May I remind you of the CFMS deception? Does the smear campaign against a particular guide when the truth came out about the tracking study ring any bells? It reminds me of the smear campaign against Lawton. Your association with Musky America and Scott Allen alone says a lot about the kind of people you surround yourself with. Both are an embarrassment to the musky world, everyone else is well aware of this.

Instead of trying to shove "evidence" down our throats, you should spend more time trying to produce a new WR on the Chip. For example, supporting the higher size limit proposal. I believe you were against a higher size limit on the Chip, does that still stand?

It is my opinion that the Spray fish should go under the same scrutiny as the other disqualified records. BY SOMEONE WITHOUT FINANCIAL GAIN, not to mention SOMEONE OUTSIDE OF HAYWARD. It would be completely unbiased. What do you say John? If you’re confident that the Louis record will stand, you shouldn’t have a problem with coughing up the photo’s and other personal affects.

By the way, how old was Leonard Dorazio at the time? 10 years old?

For those of you that would like to voice your opinion to the Freshwater Fishing Hall of Fame: director@Freshwater-Fishing.org

Regards,

JD

[MuskieJ]

Housten you have a problem. LOL the point I am trying to state. Is no matter what topic, Ie records, cpr or the way we fish always seems to turn negative wether is be the truth or fictional. I think that it is great to have a friendly disagreement, but it is getting very old, its the same people arguing either way. So, that being said, then why are they wasting there time on these boards arguing about it, instead of going to the people who can do somthing about it.


Thats all I am going to say now.

Jim

[Mike Torgeson]

JD,

Whoever you are, you obviously have a problem with Scott Allen and, or Musky America. Is it because of a recent article on Musky America concerning your friend's behavior on the Chip?

If that is the case then take it up with your friend or Musky America or Scott Allen. If it is not then stifle anyway, because this is a discussion about world record muskies and is not meant to be a series of underhanded comments by someone like you who doesn't have the guts to put his or her name to a post.

Other people have said "keep it civil and about world record muskies". I think that is a good idea. I have enjoyed the differing viewpoints from both sides on the Spray fish. I'm learning things from both sides. My only question is why is it that nobody who has a problem with Spray's world record has ever filed a complaint with the record keeping bodies?

[John Dettloff]

Chris,

I'm not sure "who" you are trying to irk, but why are you tring to irk anybody? In case you think I may have resentment for any record fish caught outside of northern Wisconsin, for anyone who knows me personally, they know that couldn't be farther from the truth. My research and articles stand on their own merit. It's very clear from anyone who reads my articles that they are very deeply researched and always are presented in a factual manner. For those who have not read my articles, they shouldn't make accusations before they have read them.

I have spent 7 years researching the world record list and there's no way that any logical minded person (upon seeing the facts that I have presented)could think that the muskies that were disqualified as a result of my work didn't deserve being disqualified. Heck, Len Harman admitted on video tape that he had phonied his big fish. So what's the beef about? You know those fish were bogus, so what's the problem.

It has nothing to do with where I live; it solely has to do with the fact that these fish were proven to be exaggerated claims. Anyone who chooses to ignore that facts on those fish definitely has a problem coping with reality. Sorry, but I can't do anything about that. By the way, I never made one dime of profit out of my world record research.

As far as Louie "predicting" that he was going to beat Cal's record, so what of it. There's nothing surprising about that. Louie made that statement in fun to Cal, knowing in the back of his mind that he did know where there really was a bigger fish. How many times do fishermen go out and say they are going to catch one...and they do. Of course, we may say it 20 times before it works. But when we do finally catch one after predicting it, then people all of a sudden get amazed. Why? For once the fisherman scored finally. My wife and I went out this August and said we were going to go get a big one when we left the dock. My wife's first cast of the night she caught a 48"er. Everyone thought we pulled off a miracle. Hey, we got lucky finally. Louie did the same thing with his fish.

Sincerely, John

[Jack D]

Mike (whoever you are) what’s the matter did I hit a nerve? My problem is with the CFMS and the authors of the study trying to pass on the crap they called “Science”. Can we get back to the BS record fish and the “honest” people that support it? Are you the blocker while Detloff ignores the questions? Nice smokescreen.



Jack D. aka JD

[Muska-tounge]

Chris,

It's apparent that you're not giving John Dettloff the same courtesy that he is giving to you in terms of his sincere responses to your questions.

What other questions do you want him to answer? Maybe if you go to a library or bookstore and check out his new book on Louie Spray you'll have some of your questions answered. I did just that and learned alot and had some of my questions answered.

[Chris Sommerville]

Hey Muska-tongue, why don't you show some courtesy yourself and sign with your real name?

[musky jerk]

I have no allegiance with Heyward or the Northeast so I guess you can say I was a objective observer.It seems to me that you feel a little too much venom for the Hall of Fame and it seems the Heyward area. Why are you (Chris and John in paticular) so incensed over the issue? The pattern on this thread has been that you make a nasy accusation and then it is politely addressed.

When my wife asks me why I love musky fishing I tell her its being outdoors,with friends, catching,working .I love the numb fingers, the vicious strikes,sharing info, camraderie, figuring it out. Basically, the good part of the sport.

The part of the musky world that is negative is the ugly competition (I enjoy tournaments and other GOOD natured competitions amongst friends), the bickering,accusations,and negativity. Right now you are a part of the negative side of musky fishing. Why don't you just enjoy the good aspects of the sport and ignore the things that annoy you? Who really cares? Why don't you start focusing on the art of musky fishing and less about the meaningless bs. Who really cares?

Mike S

[musky crank]

"The part of the musky world that is negative is the ugly competition (I enjoy tournaments and other GOOD natured competitions amongst friends), the bickering,accusations,and negativity. Right now you are a part of the negative side of musky fishing. Why don't you just enjoy the good aspects of the sport and ignore the things that annoy you? Who really cares? Why don't you start focusing on the art of musky fishing and less about the meaningless bs. Who really cares?

Mike S"

obviously you do.you have just read 48 extremely long and boring posts only to jump in & comment. should take your own advice and ingore the the things that annoy you and focus on the art of fishing.

[musky jerk]

A point well taken. However, there is a difference between amusement and anger.

[Don't need advice]

Myself I fish for muskie over one hundred days a year and still have time to visit these boards on occasion.If I care about a record disqualification that's my bussines,why would you come on here and whine about that?
I fish a whole lot and I will give my opinion here if I feel like it.What exactly do you fail to understand about that?

[Chris Sommerville]

Hi musky jerk, although I am incensed over the disqualification of legitimate fish, your unqualified attempt at suggesting I am angry is laughable. However I'll respect your right to express it. I do not like to see newer more impressionable muskie anglers only getting one side of the records issue. Especially when that one side has a penchant for selectively disqualifying many fish. If my posts have been of a less serious or "sincere" nature than John's that is strictly intentional. I've had fun and derive great amusement from them, while trying to present the other side of the story. If my posts seem annoying to anyone, I've got a suggestion DON'T...READ...THEM. This is an open forum, there for people to express their opinions. I have expressed my opinion, John has expressed his. I don't care for the football related posts on this board, but do you see me whining about them. No, I just don't read them. If you choose to read through several posts that you do not like, maybe you should, as previously mentioned in another post, take your own advice.

Also, on behalf of many Canadian anglers, I'd like to thank Brad Latvaitis, who my sources tell me, was very instrumental in having the fish of both Ken O'Brien and Gary Ishii re-instated. Thanks Brad.

Chris S.

p.s. oh yeah, if I'm so off base with my opinion, then why has the record been re-instated?

[Musky Jerk]

Keep on crying boys, you strengthen my point and continue to amuse me. Am I supposed to be impressed with your credentials of fishing over 100 days per year? Apparently you think that is quite an accomplishment. Well bully for you. I never said that I was against stating an opinion, but you could take some maturity lessons from the respectful posts of Dettloff, Ramsell etc. For the record, I think the Spray fish (all 3) are questionable, but once again is it that big of a deal that you should be so defensive? By the way, I like your method of discussing a topic. If someone gives an opinion that you don't agree with, you tell them to shut their piehole. Take it easy Francis.

[Musky Jerk]

Hi Chris, your right, it could only have been a Canadian that got the record reinstated. This despite the fact that Saric and Ransell both said they didn't agree with the dq. Let me get this straight, if a canadian record is dq'd, it must be the boys from Heyward, but if it is reinstated, it had to be someone from your area. Do you think new musky fisherman care more about a questionable record (sprays) or do you think the new musky hunters just want to have a positive experience dealing with veterans of the sport and the examples they set. With this being said I recognize the fact that you are probably a good fisherman, in to catch and release, and are trying to the right thing for the sport, but this is not the Kennedy assasination, it's a fishing record.

[Chris Sommerville]

Musky Jerk, you have put an awful lot of words in my mouth. Please take another look at my above posts and you will have to agree.

"your right, it could only have been a Canadian that got the record reinstated."........I have never claimed this.

"This despite the fact that Saric and Ransell both said they didn't agree with the dq."......Only Jim had said he thought O'Brien's fish was legit. Ramsell was only commenting on the Spray fish, not O'Brien.

"Let me get this straight, if a canadian record is dq'd, it must be the boys from Heyward, but if it is reinstated, it had to be someone from your area.".......I do not know Brad L. at all, and did not know he was Canadian, I was only told that he was involved in getting the record re-instated this morning. Besides, the decision to re-instate the record is still ultimately in the hands of the NFFHF, so your accusation is wrong.

"Do you think new musky fisherman care more about a questionable record (sprays) or do you think the new musky hunters just want to have a positive experience dealing with veterans of the sport and the examples they set." But then it's YOU who makes the following comments, "Keep on crying boys", "Am I supposed to be impressed with your credentials of fishing over 100 days per year? Apparently you think that is quite an accomplishment. Well bully for you.", and finally, "but you could take some maturity lessons".

"For the record, I think the Spray fish (all 3) are questionable, but once again is it that big of a deal that you should be so defensive?" If it's not that big a deal why are you involving yourself and giving your own opinion? If it's not that big a deal, why question the existing records in the first place?

"By the way, I like your method of discussing a topic. If someone gives an opinion that you don't agree with, you tell them to shut their piehole." You are the one who waltzed in here offering all kinds advice about causing negativity and suggesting not getting involved.

Now who, Musky Jerk, did you say was harbouring all the anger???? Now I understand why you are using an anonymous name.

Chris

[Chris Sommerville]

Also, I won't respond to any more mudslinging from anonymous posters.

[Musky Jerk]

Chris, the post you were quoting from was not directed at you but at "don't give advice" The reason I don't use my full name is that I am a public school administrator and students tend to look up info on the internet. I have nothing to hide but have had a bad experience . After reading the post I admit that yiou have a legitimate beef . I basically show respect to those who show me respect.


Mike S

[IT's not gonna matter Soon]

How bout this, who cares! Give it a few years, and my opinion is that there will be a new ........and verified (hopefully) world record yanked out of the bay.

[John Dettloff]

Hello Musky Jerk,

Your obviously are not the first person who has expressed disbelief or skepticism in Spray's catching of 3 record muskies, but I'm just curious why you feel that way? Is it because the feat is so fantastic and improbable that it's too difficult to accept? Or is it something more?

On the surface, I understand how someone could question this accomplishment because of how incredible the claim is. When I was starting out 25 years ago in the sport, I too had difficulity grasping how this could happen. I suppose it is just human nature not to believe such incredible feats...but incredible feats have indeed happened in every sport. And in this sport, muskie fishing, you do have the added factor of plain old luck and timing giving you a big helping hand.

All I can say about Spray is (just like all of the old wardens and sportswriters who have preceded me who started out doubting Louie), once we have all gotten to know Louie on a more intimate level, we have all come to the same conclusion that this guy Spray could have indeed done it after all. Without trying to sound like I'm just trying to push my book on Louie, - (Ok, maybe I am a little. I'm proud of all the work I put into it) - if you ever get a chance to pick one up and read it...I honestly think you and most of my fellow muskie men will come to believe that Louie just may have caught those fish after all.

Sincerely, John Dettloff

[Musky Jerk]

Hi John, I am a sceptic in general.I have read Larry Ramsells book and the support the Malo fish receives as a world record. In reading Pete Mainas article in Esox Magazine it seems to me that the length times girth ratio stands up with Malos fish but is questionable on Sprays. Take into account the accounts of Len Hartman and other fisherman of his day and I would have to say that there is some question as to the record fish in my mind at least. I was not there to witness anything so my opinion is based on the information stated above. The timing of the three record fish seems impossible, but I grant you that strange things can and do happen in musky fishing.Truthfully, I find all of musky history interesting and this time period seems to be questionable in terms of weight accuracy.Times were different then, and I won't question motives, just accuracy. What are your thoughts on Malos fish?

[John Dettloff]

Hello Musky Jerk,

Thanks for letting me know your thoughts about why you questioned Spray's fish. Although the incredible feat of nailing 3 record fish is hard for you to accept, I gather from your answer that (based of length, weight, girth formula's and their inconsistant results, as presented in the article you mentioned) you had questions on the size of Louie's fish. I can answer this question with absolute certainity for you.

The article you referred to, unfortuneately, was strictly based on opinion and not on qualified opinion. Although I'm paraphrasing here, these aren't my words, rather they are the author's own words towards the end of his article. Regarding that, the author was absolutely right. Regarding much of what else the author said, he was wrong...and that is something which is very easy for me to prove.

Regarding these formulas, the mathematical fact of the matter is: these formuals are merely a general guide and should never be used as a verification tool. When you are talking about muskies as large as 50# to 70#, the shape of every fish is so unique that there is no formula in the world that could work for every fish. I should know, few people have spent as much time as I have plugging in muskie data to these formulas.

I once took 1200 muskies and plugged their dimensions into the formula and came up with (GXGXL)/754 would equal the closest accurate weight range. This was on smaller muskies (mostly under 35#) and their range was usually (but not always) within a 5# spread. The larger the muskie though, the greater the range becomes...and at world record sizes the formula is all but useless. Funny thing, according to the formula analysis of Spray's and Johnson's muskies, most of them should have weighed more (not less). So even if the formala was something worth banking on, it doesn't prove the fish to be exaggerated. As a side note, none of the muskies that were officially disqualified in recent years were thrown out as a result of formula analysis. They were only thrown out because there was gross length exaggerations which were easily proved.

I can tell you with 100% confidence that all 3 of Spray's fish and Cal Johnson's fish had accurate reported lengths. First off, I personally measured Cal's mount. It is over 60". Next, I have a photo of Cal's & Louie's 69# mounts together (equal distance from the camera) showing Louie's fish was clearly longer than Cal's 60 1/4"er. I also have Nixon Barnes' affidavit (where he swore under oath) that he measured Louie's fish at 64". Nick Barnes by the way was a World War II war hero and the son of one of Hayward's most respected and straight forward clergymen. I also have the Post Master of the Stone Lake Post Office swearing under oath(on and affidavit) that he measured Louie's fish at 63 1/2" and weighed it on a certified scale at 69-11. The mount of Louie's fish was on public display for 10 years, where 1000's of people were able to inspect it. I could go on (and I do in my book), but believe me the size of this fish is absolutely iron clad.

Now Louie's second record and first one are equally backed up by weigh-in and measuring documentation. The sizes of all these fish (including Cal's) are actually backed up better than any of the record class muskies ever caught.

Regarding how these fish were caught, I have exhusted every possible avenue in checking up on how these fish were caught, to see if there was any substance to any of these fish being illegally taken...like many rumors have eluded to. I have not found the slightest piece of solid evidence showing that any of these fish were taken illegally. Yes, there are rumors...but rumors don't cut the mustard. We've all heard rumors about ourselves that aren't true, so why should we start believing rumors now. The only responsible approach when trying to document history, is to document what ever facts there are and to dismiss rumors.

Regarding Malo's fish, it is not regarded as any sort of world record because it is simply an unknown quanity. The exact weight of this fish isn't known (I have interviewed the taxidermist and man who weighed the fish) and therefore it can't be counted as weighing any certain weight. While it may have been a record or could have been one...it is an unknown.

By the way, for anyone who may think my research may have a pro-Wisconsin or pro-Chippewa Flowage slant, think again. A few years ago, a man claimed catching and releasing a 61"er out of the Chippewa Flowage. The fish was actually mentioned and reported as a catch in the writings of others...but I never once mentioned this fish as being caught out of the flowage, even though I gave a usual year end fish report listing the biggest catches out of the Chip that year.

If I wanted to promote the flowage, I would have heralded that reported catch from the highest hilltops. This fish, being a recent happening, had much more promotional value to the flowage than Spray's half-century old record muskie...but I never once mentioned it because I didn't believe there was enough documentation proving it happened. So much for any possible pro-flowage bias. Those who know me personally...know that I am the biggest of sticklers on detail and accuracy.

Sincerely, John Dettloff

[Musky Jerk]

Hi John,
I am not questioning your motives or your proof. The fish has been well documented. I have come to the conclusion that despite the amount of proof I still have reservations. You have done a good joob of stating your case. I am most impressed by your ability to stay above the name calling and accusations. I certainly do not believe for one minute that this is a conspiracy to keep the Chip in good standing. I just question the timing. Spray gets a record, is beaten out, catches another record, which is beaten , catches another...etc... The era is very iffy in terms of integrity and accurate weights. The fact that there hasn't been a fish even close to these proportions caught bsince increases my suspicions. I will remain sceptical. Thanks for your respectful responses.


Mike S

[John Dettloff]

Hello Again Musky Jerk,

I appreciate having an intelligent conversation on the board from you...which is more than I can say from some people. I don't understand them. If someone has a sincere question, I am more than happy to answer it to the best of my ability. It's obvious some people couldn't care less about having a real exchange of ideas. I feel sorry for them.

There was 10 years between Spray's big 3 muskies, and they were all caught out of different lakes (three of the best trophy producing lakes in the state by the way). So he was on the best water, and I do think he hit it, historically, at the very best time as far as lack of pressure and trophy potential. Coupled with the fact that Spray was a muskie bum and he could drop everything, anytime he wanted, and he was able to fish peak periods. Few of us have that luxury, not even myself to a large degree. Take care!

John