I'm not too well educated on any of these "record" fish, but I hope to sit down soon and bring myself up to par. I skimmed over what the photographer analyst and others had to say on the matter. Personally, I say there is NO WAY that fish is as big as he says. Doesn't matter how wrong you hold a 60"+ fish. It's always going to look big unless you're Andre the Giant.
They said the mount was 58.9 which is 1.1 inch under 60. I would think it would have shrunk that much in all the years that thing has sat in the box. I dont think anything has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Larry told me he thought there was a couple inches added to the mount when it was made. Who knows? I wasnt there. Mike
Boy, that Jason Schratwieser comes across as a real piece of work. I'll bet the WRMA had too much info for him to read. He probably just got lazy and figured it's easier to blow you guys off than to have meeting upon meeting to recind the record.
The pics look more rediculous every time I see them. The 2 comparable pics that really do it for me is Tom Gelb's fish, and the cardboard cut-outs.
This is all good reading and I'm glad the truth is being shown, but like Jim is saying, just look at the pictures and compare them to the legimate 60 lbers (or even 50 lbers) that have been caught… there is absolutely no comparison. Just a glance at the pictures alone makes me wonder how anyone can think this is a world record fish.
"Kingfisher" said:
They said the mount was 58.9 which is 1.1 inch under 60. I would think it would have shrunk that much in all the years that thing has sat in the box. I dont think anything has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Larry told me he thought there was a couple inches added to the mount when it was made. Who knows? I wasnt there. Mike
Did you read the report?
Which one of these is bigger?
"><url url="[Permission to view this media is denied]<url url="[Permission to view this media is denied]
"><link_text text="[Permission to view this media is denied] … nweeds.jpg">[Permission to view this media is denied]
” alt=”
"><link_text text="[Permission to view this media is denied] … nweeds.jpg">[Permission to view this media is denied]
” />
"><url url="[Permission to view this media is denied]<url url="[Permission to view this media is denied]
"><link_text text="[Permission to view this media is denied] … record.jpg">[Permission to view this media is denied]
” alt=”
"><link_text text="[Permission to view this media is denied] … record.jpg">[Permission to view this media is denied]
” />
You read my mind Will… I was thinking about these two exact pictures. I considered people's reaction to pictures of the state record fish where a younger, stronger guy is struggling to hold a fish versus an interesting gill hold on supposed 60+ lb fish, where an older guy is smiling and looks like he could hold another 10 lbs. If I knew nothing else, and I looked at this old picture, my initial thoughts are that it would be lucky if it was 40 lbs. All you have to do is put the pictures together like this and it should be obvious that the past world records are fairy tales.
Also, consider the odds of a single angler catching multiple world records and the chances of the world record changing hands so many times in such a short time period by mere ounces. It is an obvious back and forth battle for supremacy.
HOLY DETECTIVE/RESEARCH WORK!!THESE GUYS HAVE SOME TIME ON THEIR HANDS.GUESS A 60 POUNDER IS A REAL FREAK.PIXS AND STUDIES MAKE SENSE TO ME.GUESS I CAN THROW AWAY MY OLD COMPEDIUMS OF MUSKY ANGLING HISTORY.IT`S SAD…BUT REALITY..
A GUY WHO JUST BOUGHT MY ICE AUGER KNOWS OF TWO 80 POUND MUSKIES DYNAMITED AT THORNAPPLE IN THE EARLY DAYS…GUESS THEY WERE EATING THE HEFFERS OFF THE BACK FORTY AND THEY HAD TO KILL THEM…..
HE WAS SERIOUS TOO..
LMAO [smilie=deadhorse.gif]
DU
"edalz" said:
If you ever want to watch a Canadian Musky fisherman get really mad you can bring up the world record musky.
I happens with some MI muskie fishermen, too, apparently.
The arrogance of that WGFA spokesman is quite astonishing. They are damaging their credibility with responses like that.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Jason Schratwieser
Conservation Director
International Game Fish Association
300 Gulf Stream Way
Dania Beach, FL 33004
954-924-4320
Director Schratwieser,
I’ve recently become aware that the IGFA found no reason to remove the Calmer Johnson muskellunge as the IGFA world record despite evidence presented by the World Record Muskie Alliance (WRMA). It is my opinion that the IGFA has made an error and/or not reviewed the WRMA report. It is my understanding that the IGFA has removed and reinstated records with much less information than that presented in the WRMA report. While the number of muskie anglers in the US is not huge it is currently the only growing segment of the angling public. I assure you the IGFA is now viewed in a different light, among the muskie community, because of the decision to keep the Calmer Johnson record in place.
I urge the IGFA to take a serious look at the WRMA report as it appears that was not done initially. I do not believe you would find someone that is skilled in photogeometry that wouldn't support the WRMA report.
Sincerely,
Will Schultz, President
Michigan Muskie Alliance – Muskies, Inc. Chapter 47
I hate form-letter PC responses…
Dear Will,
Thanks for taking the time to email me your thoughts on this. I really do respect the passion and time the WRMA has put into their investigation. Unfortunately we at IGFA do not agree with their analysis. I can also assure you that this issue has been vetted at the highest possible level here at IGFA and does not represent the decision of one staff member. We also have no issues whatsoever if the WRMA or any other organization would like to recognize a different record, as this is totally their prerogative.
In the end, IGFA must politely agree to disagree with the WRMA’s feeling on this subject.
Best regards,
Jason Schratwieser
Conservation Director
International Game Fish Association
Jason,
I think what bothers me and others the most is that there is no reference to why the IGFA doesn't agree. I'm also concerned that in your response to me you state the IGFA must agree to disagree with the "feeling" of the WRMA when in fact science and not feelings are what makes up the evidence presented by the WRMA.
If the IGFA truly evaluated the WRMA report using a professional that could refute the photogeometry and didn't rely on their feelings we wouldn't be having this exchange. If the IGFA did utilize a professional to review the WRMA report that should be or should have been stated when the IGFA decided to uphold the Calmer Johnson fish. If the IGFA didn't use a pofessional to review the WRMA report then we have to assume the record was upheld due to "feelings" and not up to a standard with which one would expect of a record keeping organization.
Thank you for your time,
Will Schultz, President
Michigan Muskie Alliance
114
112