Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 81

Thread: Louie!! Louie!!

  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Manitowoc,WI
    Posts
    197
    Ouch! Merry Christmas to you too.

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by TJB View Post
    Ouch! Merry Christmas to you too.
    I forgot no humour allowed during the holiday season:-) my bad. H
    Last edited by Homer; 12-25-2012 at 02:52 PM.

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    899

    Louie!! Louie!!

    Good... at least the record wasn't a "short" fish. Like I said, I'd like to think the WR fish would be well over 60 inches.

    Quote Originally Posted by Larry_Ramsell View Post
    hairy I can say it is "bogus" because I know the "whole" story now (didn't when I wrote my first "Compendium"). Fish was taken below the Chip Dam in April by poachers (one of whom provided "Louie" with his first "record" in 1939). It was frozen in a block of ice and brought out later. Louie was involved temporarily in that one too, but didn't want to get involved as he was still getting heat from his 1949 scam/record. He owed Hank Baroo, then owner of Sportsman's Lodge on Middle Eau Claire Lake (former "bad Detroit cop", as was learned just a few years ago) and Baroo made Malo the stooge and tried to get the fish accepted as a record. I had believed in this fish for many years and once even tried to get it recognized as the record...glad that never happened! So, sorry guys, the Malo fish too was BOGUS!

    No one has mentioned Cal Johnson's fish yet, so I'll head that one off too...BOGUS!!

    Muskie regards,
    Larry Ramsell,
    Muskellunge Historian

  4. #24
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    .
    Posts
    68
    So how big WAS the Malo fish? What is reported to be that fish is mounted and does exist at Dunrovin Lodge on the Chip. Or is that just a mirage? With all the 60 pounders reported in the last century, it's ridiculous that there is no actual World Record fish which is accepted by musky fishermen. It's time for a true world record to be named, so tht the rest of us have something to aim for.... LOUIE! LOUIE!!

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    .
    Posts
    234
    B Turg: Dispite what Saric thinks, the O'brien fish is OUT! It was proven NOT to be 58 inches long (54 actually, which is what I measured it at too), ergo, hard to think it weighed 65 pounds unless it had around a gallon of water inside of it when weighed...I weighed it 8 days after capture at 56 pounds.

    Williamson fish wasn't weighed on a certified scale, so while possibly legit, can't be a recognized record.

    I'm thinking the best for now may be the new Michigan record by Joe Seeberger at 58 pounds. The old "historic" records should be just that, historic. The methods of certification in those days just doesn't meet today's standards. The Seeberger fish is being looked at and considered and the near future will tell if it holds up to the ultimate in scrutiny.

    Muskie regards,
    Larry Ramsell
    Last edited by Larry_Ramsell; 12-26-2012 at 11:33 AM. Reason: addition

  6. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    .
    Posts
    234
    hairy, the Malo fish's true weight remains unknown. It is known however, that the pike found inside was put there by the poachers! Big fish, but not 70 pounds! And the mount has been "expanded". If you could look at the backside, you could see that...same with the mount of the O'brien fish, which by the way measures approximately 52 inches mounted!!

    Muskie regards,
    Larry Ramsell

  7. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    241
    My vote is for lawton's fish. It is just as legit as anything spray johnson or malo caught.

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    144
    From Mr Ramsell,

    "I'm thinking the best for now may be the new Michigan record by Joe Seeberger at 58 pounds. The old "historic" records should be just that, historic. The methods of certification in those days just doesn't meet today's standards. The Seeberger fish is being looked at and considered and the near future will tell if it holds up to the ultimate in scrutiny."

    Larry "records" aside is this the biggest one caught in your mind. To clarify the question do you feel that some fish caught and reported in the public domain were larger but not documented accurately...in other words whats the current "Ramsell Record" ...unofficially.

  9. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    899
    Depressing... agree that recent 60 inch fish caught are more likely legit than the old fish, but with no one weighing, measuring and especially keeping, who knows when we'll have an official record worthy of it's status?

    Even more depressing, if someone says they'll keep a 60+ inch fish they'll probably get slammed on this board! That said, I'd have a hard time putting back a biggie like that, noting I've been chasing muskies (almost exclusively) since the mid-70's. In other words, as much as I'd like it to be, I'm not delusional.

  10. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    .
    Posts
    803
    The Obrien fish is not "out.". A MDNR official witnessed the measurement and weighing of the musky. So I have no reason to doubt the length as I can't call the MDNR officer a liar. He said he has no idea why the mount etc are different. The fish was weighed vertically and that hose next to the fish is suspect. However a photo I saw of the fish after the weighing of the musky held horizontally still had that giant girth, if it was filled with water I would have thought the belly would have been thinner.

    The report on the Obrien fish like the others had flaws and some math errors, so you can't call those reports as "certain.".

    The Williamson fish was weighed and witnessed on a scale so that should be considered legit.

    The MI fish was measured and weighed on a certified scale and approved by the MI DNR. I don't need further investigation. The fact that some think the MI fish requires further scrutiny makes me believe some of the older fish may be more legit.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •