The Real Story of World Record Muskies
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
The Real Story of the World Record Muskie Controversies “Selective” Revisionist History Exposed by Larry Ramsell (www.larryramsell.com) Excerpted from “A Compendium of Muskie Angling History” revised, updated and expanded-3rd edition-Volume I-Muskellunge World Records-the history-the truth-2007. (Author’s note: My primary goal in rewriting my “Compendium” was not for profit, but was to make available to the world’s muskie anglers the real truth regarding the world record muskie controversies. Since limited numbers of muskie anglers are book buyers and in an endeavor to make this information available to anyone interested without cost, I decided to put together this excerpt. When asked, MuskieFirst’s Steve Worrall said, “We would be delighted to publish the excerpted version.”. Some will say, “not again”, but the truth is most muskie anglers aren’t aware of all that has transpired. A lot of the information herein was never before been published. This excerpt will cover all the highlights and pertinent information regarding this entire subject. Volume I of my book, containing over 640 pages and 250 photographs, completely supports and fully details the excerpted material contained herein, as well as containing all of the catch stories and other world record angler information since 1877, that will not be detailed here. While I concede that parts of Volume I is a lengthy and “tough read”, this excerpt too will, out of necessity, be fairly long and somewhat complex. I have tried to “simplify” it as much as possible without leaving out too much of the published material and photographs and still provide detailed information about this subject. To set the stage for this excerpt, most world record muskies caught since 1939, have long been a subject of controversy. It all came to a head during the middle part of the 1990’s, when “selective revisionist history” began. What transpired then and since has become a “travesty of justice” that cannot be ignored. That selective “re-writing of history” was egregious and needed to be exposed! This I have done by gathering together all known documentation, both published and unpublished that I could find, and revisiting the individual controversies. After reading it, you will have to decide for yourself which you choose to believe or not to believe…Larry Ramsell, April 2008) Revisionist History In 1992, John Dettloff, a self-appointed muskie historian, Wisconsin resort operator, guide and active promoter of Hayward tourism, rocked the muskie world and upset the world record applecart when he submitted The Investigation of Arthur Lawton’s World Record Muskie to the record stewards. As a result of Dettloff’s challenge, the entire Lawton world record muskie file, by then 35 years old, was dusted-off and independently reevaluated by the National Fresh Water Fishing Hall of Fame (NFWFHF) and the International Game Fish Association (IGFA). Subsequently, Arthur Lawton’s world record muskie, sanctioned in 1958 by Field & Stream following an extensive investigation that reportedly included use of the Pinkerton Detective Agency, was disqualified by the NFWFHF and set aside by the IGFA, pending further review. Dettloff’s investigation included a challenge of the Lawton record photographs that likely helped focus the IGFA’s evaluation. However, their decision to set-aside the Lawton record was based on noncompliance with the IGFA’s 1992 record protocol for an appropriate photograph rather than disagreement with Field & Stream’s 1958 evaluation. (Author’s note: Subsequent to the publishing of my book, I came to the realization that since Field & Stream did in fact certify both the Lawton catch and photograph, the IGFA has no known current valid reason to keep the Lawton record in “set-aside” status.) On the other hand, the NFWFHF relied heavily on Dettloff’s investigation and disqualified the muskie as a falsified record. The Lawton record controversy is discussed in more detail below and in Part II. Encouraged by his success in discrediting the Lawton record, Dettloff proceeded not only to challenge several of the former world record muskies but as (former) historical editor for Musky Hunter magazine he independently “disqualified” several others! He was on a roll. His selective revisionist history questioned the legitimacy of world record muskellunge attributed to Percy Haver in 1939 and 1940 and Alois Hanser in 1947. Soon many muskie anglers believed in Dettloff’s revisionist history, without realizing that Field & Stream has never disqualified an established world record muskellunge, the IGFA has set-aside only the Lawton muskie and does not recognize Louis Spray’s 1949 muskie while the NFWFHF has disqualified only Lawton! Slowly, Dettloff’s muskie records bias began to surface. It became most apparent when the World Record Muskie Alliance (WRMA) submitted an investigation of Spray’s two heaviest muskies to the NFWFHF for consideration. Ironically, Dettloff was the NFWFHF Executive Board President at the time of the submittal and ultimately responsible for the review! The WRMA investigation of Louie Spray was not submitted to the IGFA because the IGFA does not recognize Spray as the holder of the muskellunge world record. The WRMA investigation included professional photogrammetric analysis of Spray’s two heaviest muskies and their mounts. The photogrammetric analyses identified that the reported length of Spray’s muskies was appreciably greater than their photogrammetric solution and that an analytical comparison of mount and fresh caught fish photographs support that the mounts had been enlarged. Since the NFWFHF disqualified the Field & Stream sanctioned Lawton muskellunge in 1992 following a review of Dettloff’s investigation, the WRMA anticipated similar treatment and disqualification of Spray’s records based on their comprehensive protest. Instead, soon a double standard for record evaluations became apparent! Dettloff encouraged the use of selective criteria for evaluation of Spray’s muskies that differed considerably from the criteria used to evaluate the Lawton muskie. For example, Dettloff’s 1992 investigation of the Lawton muskie used his amateur photographic analysis to support a claim that Lawton’s muskie was shorter than reported, conversely; professional, peer reviewed, photogrammetric solutions that support shorter Spray muskies were dismissed. As an Advisory Governor to the NFWFHF, I protested the inconsistent evaluation of records. Under Dettloff’s direction, in response to the WRMA’s protest, the NFWFHF undertook a campaign to support and maintain the 69-pound, 11-ounce NFWFHF all- tackle muskellunge world record, supposedly caught in the Chippewa Flowage in 1949 by Louie Spray within a few hundred yards of the Dettloff resort. I wonder how Art Lawton would have fared had a similar campaign been waged in his regard? I soon learned that Brad Latvaitis (editor and collaborator of Compendium Volume I), a charter NFWFHF Advisory Governor and volunteer long active in resolving record matters also submitted a protest. Unfortunately, the NFWFHF Executive Board supported President Dettloff’s approach and Brad and I were not allowed to participate in review of Spray’s muskies. Undaunted, we independently detailed our concerns and submitted formal protests. When our concerns were summarily ignored, we independently tendered resignations and they were accepted. Dettloff told me with regard to my removal from the Spray record evaluation process ...that is the way I want it. Information regarding the WRMA Spray muskie Protest is available at www.worldrecordmuskiealliance.com. Why, I wondered, was this course selected? Why was a recommendation by a group of esteemed mathematicians to impanel a group of experts on mathematics and photogrammetry for the purpose of obtaining a more definitive length evaluation of Spray’s muskie ignored? Why had Dettloff’s critical eye ignored challenges to the Hayward area’s record muskellunge, namely; the Spray and Johnson records? There had to be more to it. So, in early 2006, after the NFWFHF rendered their decision to uphold the Spray record, I decided to conduct a lengthy and more detailed review of Dettloff’s Lawton Investigation. As a result of my review, Lawton investigation oversights were identified and Dettloff’s motives became clear as additional supportive data was accumulated. I submitted my extensive review and a long overlooked photograph to the IGFA and proposed the reinstatement of Lawton’s record. The review will be excerpted in Part II of this book and can be found on the Internet in its entirety at http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/articles/02.22.2006/1012/Did.Fomer.Muskellunge.World. Record.Holder.Art.Lawton.Get.A.Fair.Shake.When.His.Record.Was.Disqualified?/index. htm In addition to my review, I discussed Lawton archive photographs and duplicated several of Dettloff’s exhibits at a meeting with IGFA officials in Dania Beach, Florida. I demonstrated that Dettloff’s calculations and methodologies were inconsistent and self- serving, at best! Nevertheless, the IGFA Executive Board voted against reinstatement of the Lawton world record based on the uncertainty regarding the existence of a photograph of Lawton’s record muskie, which was the basis for their set-aside of the Lawton record in 1992. While the IGFA agreed that the photograph I submitted was not of the commonly known Lawton fish, to them it was inconclusive. A photogrammetric analysis of the Lawton photographs has not been commissioned. Interestingly, the current officers of the IGFA concurred that the Dettloff investigation was inadequate to disqualify the Lawton record, however; the record remains in set- aside status! Why? Because when the IGFA reconsiders a record they use their current protocol and their current protocol requires an acceptable photograph for all records. (Author’s note: As noted above, the Lawton photo was certified by Field & Stream). Likewise, the IGFA rejected the Spray muskie because it was shot; although legal at the time of Spray’s catch, shooting is contrary to retroactive IGFA protocol, as is the number of hooks used by Spray.