More on Spray and the Hall

General musky fishing discussions and questions.

Moderator: Cyberlunge

Post Reply
Will Schultz
Posts: 7675
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 11:06 pm
Location: GR, MI

More on Spray and the Hall

Post by Will Schultz »

It appears the experts used to refute the WRMA report aren't happy about the way they were "used" by the hall.

http://www.ima.umn.edu/~arnold/muskie/b ... -01-06.pdf

My favorite part from the experts used by the hall...

However, since the fish is clearly in front of the angler, the length 63” must be reduced by a factor equal to the ratio of the camera distances. For instance, if the camera is 8’ from the angler but only 7’ from the fish, the fish length would change to 63” × 7/8 or about 55”.
Self interest is for the past, common interest is for the future.
Bryan Saenz

Post by Bryan Saenz »

I got a muskie book showing photo's of some big fish caught in the "glory days".. and the biggest and "most" true pic appears to be the one on the lady who caught the 51lb tiger muskie from lac view desert.
Cal Johnsons fish and Sprays fish both look smaller in photos.
I have seen many fish in video's that make spray's fish look like a 45lber.
i don't know about any of this, and it does baffle me, if 60plus pound fish were so easy to catch 30-40 years ago, how come we don't see as many caught now, even with as much catch and release and more fisherman out there? I know most muskie back in day were kept, did that kill all the monsters?
Beats me, My eyes tell me Sprays fish was not almost 70lbs... If it is watch out I will set some line class records on sanford this year...LOL

15lb bass, 2lb line, 8lb bluegill, caught on yarn... :)

Bryan
Kingfisher
Posts: 2473
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 10:45 am
Location: Muskegon, MI
Contact:

The replica

Post by Kingfisher »

Guides choice has a replica that is supposed to be made to sprays claimed size. I stood and looked at it for a very long time. I just dont think the fish in that picture was nearly as big as that replica. Louie Spray would have had to be a mighty big dude to make that fish look that small. I almost cant Imagine a Musky as big as that Replica. I would love to see Obriens mount up close. That fish has got to be just friggin huge!!! :shock: :shock: . I have to stop thinking about the giants or Ill end up spending all my money this year chartering Rich Clark :wink: Kingfisher
MuskyTom
Posts: 454
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 10:52 am
Location: Mattawan, Michigan

Post by MuskyTom »

Rest assure, it won't be long before Will catches a legitimate World Record and puts all this stuff to rest. Come on Will, take a few trips to Georgian Bay this year and end all this talk.
Tom
Will Schultz
Posts: 7675
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 11:06 pm
Location: GR, MI

Post by Will Schultz »

Yeah and monkeys might fly out of my butt...

There are many good sticks on the best big fish water and 61 pounds is the best so far by a muskie angler.
Self interest is for the past, common interest is for the future.
MuskyDan
Posts: 540
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2005 9:44 am
Location: Birch Run

Post by MuskyDan »

yeah well there is an 8 footer in Sanford!!!
MuskyDan
Scrappy
Posts: 380
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 2:02 pm
Location: Sanford, MI

Post by Scrappy »

I got dibs on that one Danny and I know her address if she can just avoid getting poked between the eyes this winter.
John E. Sox
Posts: 218
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2005 5:25 pm
Location: Yoop

Post by John E. Sox »

I think the photos say it all. Just look at the recent fish that have been legitimate 50 lbers. They all make the fish from the glory years look like 40 lbers or less. People lie about the size of their fish all the time. Most just don't have the brass to lie about a world record.
MuskyTom
Posts: 454
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 10:52 am
Location: Mattawan, Michigan

Post by MuskyTom »

I saw the photo of a Michigan caught 50-pounder and it looked significantly larger than Spray's fish and the best part was that the Michigan fish was released.
Post Reply