Introducing the Muskie Controversy
One of the things that I have taken solace in is that the world of the outdoors is virtually controversy free. In the course of a year, you’ll find endless stories in the sports pages about professional athletes and their contract holdouts, failed steroid tests, paternity suits, lawsuits and cheating.
The outdoors is pristine. We hunt. We fish. We recreate. There is no need for controversy. Even in the world of professional fishing, where huge cash purses are at stake, the combatants perform with the highest integrity and there is never a whisper of doubt about the outcome of a tournament.
One area where some argument has always occurred is in the area of record fish. Al Nelson’s 1982 22-pound-11-ounce giant supplanted a 1960 record because photographic evidence caused suspicion about the validity of the size of the fish. George Perry’s 22-pound-4-ounce world record largemouth bass has been the record since 1932. Incredibly, no pictures of the fish exist and he didn’t mount the fish, it ended up on the Perry family dinner table. The world record perch was caught in Maine in 1865 and is dubiously recorded at 4-pounds-three-ounces. What brings this fish into question is the fact that there are no other recorded perch over three pounds that have been caught. In fact, a two-pounder is a wallhanger in any state in the union. How can someone have caught a fish that was 33% heavier than the next biggest lunker?
The world of musky fishing has always been a hotbed of discussion about fish size. Big fish bring big tales and it is not uncommon to hear anglers tell of fifty-inch fish that, in reality, are merely forty-four. Legends of sixty-inch fish sightings come out of Canadian Shield lakes every year, but they never prove to be more than legends.
The world of musky fishing has been rocked by a new report that was commissioned by a group called the World Record Muskie Alliance. They are asking the National Fresh Water Fishing Hall of Fame to disqualify the current world record fish.
There has always been whispered dissension regarding the current world record musky. There are two organizations that put the label of “world record” onto fish. The NFWF Hall of Fame is headquartered in Hayward, Wisconsin and recognizes a fish caught by Louie Spray in 1949 weighing 69-pounds-11-ounces. Spray’s fish took over for a fish recognized as a record, caught by Art Lawton, until the Hall of Fame disqualified it, citing photographic analysis. The International Game Fish Association, headquartered in Florida, cites Cal Johnson’s 67-pound-eight-ounce fish as their recognized record. The two groups have bickered over the years and neither side will ever concede to the other. Add to all of this the 1995 near-death bed confession of Len Hartman who admitted that the 67-pound-15-ounce musky that he had submitted as a new record, was nothing more than a phony. You have a situation that is muddled and many people don’t know who to believe.
The record’s most vocal defender, John Detloff, a Hayward resort owner and one of the President of the Hayward Hall once told me, “There is no controversy. Spray’s fish is the record. A couple of loudmouths running around talking nonsense does not define a controversy.”
Larry Ramsell one of muskie fishing’s top authorities and the sport’s premier historian has always defended the record. Ramsell’s encyclopedic tome, “A Compendium of Muskie Angling History,” chronicles the disputes through the years and provides a fairly substantial argument for Spray’s record. Now, Ramsell, a WRMA member is dissecting the new WRMA findings but cannot speak about his feelings. Larry’s only interest is seeing that the record be legitimized. “I’m kind of in a spot. I may be called upon by the Hall to participate in their discussions. I really can’t comment right now,” he told me. He is definitely certain that the Johnson fish is a sham. “Look at the distance from the back pair of fins in relation to the anal fins and compare the Johnson mount to the photographs. Length has definitely been added by the taxidermist.”
There are certainly methods available to someone wanting to cheat the system. As pictures can be altered, as proven by the stream of joke e-mails that clog my inbox each week, so can a mount. When the fish skin is attached to the mold, extra skin is added in to make the fish appear longer. Due to the fact that the mount’s skin is completely painted over in the finishing process, the seams between the pieces of skin cannot be seen. In addition to altering mounts, unscrupulous fishermen have been known to fill a musky’s stomach with lead weights before putting them on the scales.
The World Record Muskie Alliance believes that they have put an end to much of the controversy. The local group, led by area resident, Rich Delaney is a group of passionate anglers who believe that Spray’s fish, and possibly a number of other fish, have not been legitimately weighed or measured. The WRMA claims that it is a group consists of “muskellunge anglers who felt strongly that the controversy over the legitimacy of the current All Tackle World Record Muskellunge could be resolved by the use of modern technology and unbiased methods of authentication.” The WRMA is also dedicated to establishing a system to ensure that future record claims are weighed and measured in a standard manner. They are also working to support scientific efforts to determine optimal muskie waters for stocking and to protecting muskie spawning and nursery habitat areas.
The WRMA has challenged the record verbally on many occasions. One of the group’s members, Pete Maina, a musky fishing legend, has been the most vocal, often getting into extremely heated conflicts with NFWF Hall of Fame members. At stake, among other things, is the possibility that the disqualification of a record caught in Hayward might cause damage to that area’s multi-million dollar tourism industry. Interestingly, Maina is an area resident who derives a good portion of his income from guiding tourists wanting to challenge Hayward’s lakes in search of the next world record. Maina claims that he is simply out to see that justice is done and he has not one iota of belief that Spray’s fish is as big as claimed.
This time around, though, the subject is not being debated by avid anglers just screaming their opinions at each other. The debate has moved to the arena of scientific research. DCM Technical Services, a company that works in the field of photgrammetric measurement and analysis, was contracted to perform an examination of the existing photographs of Spray’s alleged record fish.
WRMA’s incredibly detailed ninety-three page report, centered around the DCM findings, almost reads like a New York Times best selling mystery. Loading fish with lead weights, altered photographs, phony mounts, lying, bribery, perjury, cheating and deception are all called into play in the report’s analytical and anecdotal evidence.
Spray’s questionable reputation for veracity is called into question. I must say that it is a giant leap of faith to believe the claims of a man who has on separate occasions either caught two, or three world record muskies.
Though the anecdotal evidence, including Spray’s exaggeration of his own personal height in order to make the fish seem larger, is extremely entertaining and thought provoking, it is circumstantial. The DCM evidence proves to be the lynchpin of the attack.
The photographs are measured and assayed from almost every imaginable angle and perspective. I am reminded of the Warren Report and their analysis of the personal photos of Lee Harvey Oswald holding firearms that were taken in the assassin’s backyard. This is the magnitude that this disputed record has risen to.
DCM presents its case in no uncertain terms. To paraphrase from the report, ‘From all of the expert calculations employed, it is evident that Spray’s 1949 Muskellunge, initially claimed to measure 63.5” in length, in fact measured 53.6” +/- 1.5” in length, and therefore sorely lacked the dimensions necessary to weigh 69-pounds-11-ounces. Further, it has been shown conclusively that the skin mount of Spray’s 1949 record muskie was augmented by an average of 14.47% in length, and 8.51% in belly width. It is our considered opinion that mount augmentation of this magnitude could only have been performed to help perpetuate a fraud of historic proportions on the part of Spray.’
The entire WRMA report is compelling reading and can be found in its entirety at www.worldrecordmuskie.com . I’d definitely recommend a visit, if only to inspect the photos of Spray and his record fish for yourself.
What does the WRMA request of the NWFF Hall of Fame? “It is our recommendation that this and all Spray records be immediately disqualified from current or historic record status or consideration by the NFWF Hall of Fame and Museum, as they represent obvious cases of fraud on the part of Spray and his associates.”
Hall of Fame President, John Detloff, gave me a response to the presentation of the report and its contents, saying, “It was pretty unprofessional the way that they presented the report to a couple of individual board members, rather than to the group as a whole. It is also extremely unprofessional to go to the media with it before all of the board has even gotten the report. I have read the report and I will read it again. We take any challenge to a record very seriously. This report, I feel, represents layer upon layer of unsupported facts and supposed evidence. I find no legitimacy to this document. It is all smoke and mirrors. There does not appear to be a case. This group, for some reason, wants to create question and confusion in the mind of the public.
Detloff was once quoted as saying, ““It’s not necessarily WHO holds the world record musky title that’s important, rather that the record is accurate.” I am sure that he had no way of knowing that when he spoke those words, that the WRMA would use them to force the Hall to re-open discussion about the record fish that they have defended for so many years.
I, personally, am a member of the WRMA. In fact, they compliment me by calling me a “prominent member” on their main web page and put me in elite company with guys like Maina, Ramsell, Dick Pearson and Jim Saric. That said, my mind will remain open until I hear the official response to the WRMA report from the Hall of Fame.
I will follow this saga very closely and report the facts as they transpire. My most fervent hope, though, is that someone out there catches a new “true” world record muskie and puts all of the discussion to rest, once and for all.
