Record Musky Tossed Out?

  • jon_jordan
    St. Paul, Mn
    Posts: 10908
    #1247875

    Interesting story from today’s St Paul Pioneer Press.

    Posted on Wed, Nov. 02, 2005
    Something’s fishy

    Wisconsin’s Fishing Hall of Fame must decide whether Louis Spray was the world’s best muskie angler or the fishing world’s biggest liar.

    BY CHRIS NISKANEN

    Outdoors Editor

    HAYWARD, Wis.

    This much is known for sure about Louis Spray: He was a Hayward fishing legend, he knew how to make friends and enemies, and he was a fabulous carouser.

    But what the fishing world can’t decide is whether Spray was the greatest muskie fisherman to walk the planet. Or history’s greatest fishing liar.

    Emmett Brown and the institution he directs, the Fresh Water Fishing Hall of Fame in Hayward, have been thrown onto the hot seat to make that determination.

    “We take our records program very, very seriously,” said Brown, who stood Monday in front of a display case at the hall containing a replica of Spray’s record muskie, caught Oct. 20, 1949, near Hayward and known as “Chin Whiskered Charlie.” “We’re only in the hot seat if we don’t do our job properly.”

    Spray, debilitated by arthritis, committed suicide in 1984, and the famous muskies the 84-year-old caught — three world records in all, including his last, a 69-pound, 11-ouncer — were destroyed in a fire in 1959. So the fishing world is left to argue over the veracity of historic photos, documents and the written word of witnesses who may or may not have told the truth about the famous angler, who also gained renown as a logger, Prohibition-era bootlegger, and tavern owner in Hayward and Rice Lake.

    But in an effort straight from the “CSI” television show, an Illinois-based group of muskie anglers has spent the past 18 months examining historic photographs of Spray’s fish and the sworn affidavits of those who witnessed his catches, especially the current world record. They hired a Canadian firm to digitize photos of Spray and his fish and compare his known height with the fish’s reported size, a whopping 63½ inches, and had an expert taxidermist examine pictures of the mounted fish.

    The conclusion of the World Record Muskie Alliance, announced on the 56th anniversary of Spray’s trophy catch?

    “We are calling Louis Spray a liar, unequivocally,” said Rich Delaney, an Oak Park, Ill., high school teacher, muskie angler and president of the WRMA, which has some of today’s most famous muskie anglers as members.

    Delaney said the digital pictures show Spray’s world record was likely closer to 53.6 inches long, give or take 1½ inches, which could make the fish as much as 20 pounds lighter and far from a world record. The WRMA’s conclusion is that Spray lied about the fish’s weight and length, persuaded a taxidermist to augment the fish to make it longer and later earned thousands of dollars in cash and free products from companies that wanted their products associated with the world muskie record.

    “It should be that the brass ring of our sport be untarnished,” said Delaney, adding that his group has asked the Hall of Fame to disregard three record muskies Spray caught during a 10-year-period starting in 1939.

    Delaney can’t say how Spray might have perpetrated the hoax, except to speculate that the fish may have been loaded with weights or ice during weighing and that the required paperwork at the time didn’t meet today’s standards. When it came to signed affidavits, “You say to your friends, ‘Hey, do me a favor,’ ” Delaney said. “If you were willing to lie, it wasn’t hard (to get world records.)”

    John Dettloff, president of the Hall of Fame’s board of trustees, is one of Spray’s supporters. He said Spray’s record fish has always been questioned by doubters since the day it was caught, a fact he attributed to other anglers’ jealousy and “conspiracy” theorists.

    In 1992, Dettloff undertook his own photo analysis of the record that supplanted Spray’s fish in the 1950s, a fish caught by Art Lawton that beat Spray’s by mere ounces. Lawton’s fish was recognized as the world record until Dettloff proved that Lawton, a New Yorker who caught his fish in the St. Lawrence River in 1957, exaggerated the fish’s size. Lawton’s fish was thrown out of the Hall of Fame, and Spray’s became the record. Dettloff has subsequently written a book about Spray’s life called “Three Record Muskies in His Day: The Life and Times of Louis Spray.”

    Dettloff, who will help determine whether Spray’s fish will be disqualified, declined to comment specifically on the WRMA report this week, saying he wouldn’t address it until the Hall of Fame makes its decision.

    But he adamantly defended Spray’s record fish, saying his muskies are documented and historically factual. And standing on the dock of his Indian Trail Resort near Hayward, Dettloff pointed to the spot on the Chippewa Flowage less than a half-mile away where Spray caught the 69-pound, 11-ounce muskie and Spray’s friend dispatched it with two shots to the head with a .22-caliber pistol, a legal practice in its day.

    Not everyone in Hayward agrees Spray’s fish is legitimate.

    “I’ve never had any doubt in the my mind (that the fish is a fraud),” said Pete Maina, a professional muskie angler who lives in Hayward and is a member of the WRMA. He is also skeptical that the Hall of Fame can give any criticism of the Spray fish a fair shake. “I assume John Dettloff is going to fight it. It’s a promotional thing for him because he has a business on the Flowage. He’s doing the same thing Spray did.”

    Dettloff disputed that his support for Spray benefits his business. “I have all the customers I need right now,” he said. “They come because we have good fishing.”

    If the Spray world record is thrown out, the next in line is a 67½-pounder caught in July 1949 by Minneapolis outdoors writer Cal Johnson out of nearby Lac Courte Oreilles. That fish is on display at the Moccasin Bar in downtown Hayward.

    Brown said it could be months before the Hall of Fame makes its decision, but the institution’s director said the decision will be made objectively and based on facts.

    “John (Dettloff) is part of the board, so he will obviously be giving his input. But we will give this protest all due consideration.”

    Spray, however, might be having the last laugh. In the display case at the hall, a photo of one of his largest muskies shows the fish ensconced in a glass case. Above the case is written: “The Lord was with me when I caught this fish, so for more information, contact him.”

    Online: The Fresh Water Fishing Hall of Fame’s Web site is http://www.freshwater-fishing.org.

    eyejacker
    Hudson, Wisconsin
    Posts: 1890
    #393680

    First Art Lawton, now Louis Spray. Are all fisherman prevaricators or just Muskie hunters?

    gary_wellman
    South Metro
    Posts: 6057
    #393687

    Honestly, I’m at a loss of words on all of this………

    Makes you wonder what fish is next to be tossed out of the books?????

    Brian Klawitter
    Keymaster
    Minnesota/Wisconsin Mississippi River
    Posts: 59992
    #393694

    FYI~ the MN State Record Flathead at 70 lbs still stands…but there’s a major (as major as catten can get) surrounding it too. Poor record keeping…ect.

    Anytime a record stands there’s going to be people “out to get you”…more properly…the record fish.

    Jeremiah Shaver
    La Crosse, WI
    Posts: 4941
    #393699

    there are such poor records b/c they won’t allow you to transport the fish alive to get PROPER RECORDS

    john23
    St. Paul, MN
    Posts: 2578
    #393703

    This was a pretty blatently false record, in my opinion. Many people believe that all the 60#+ fish from Hayward were falsified. Very controversial in the muskie world. Here’s a link to the World Record Muskie Alliance website which has a link to the copy of the complete (90+ page) report.

    john23
    St. Paul, MN
    Posts: 2578
    #393707

    Looks liek schrump beat me to putting up the link!

    Whiskerkev
    Madison
    Posts: 3835
    #393721

    The book mentioned above by John is a great read. I think Louis Spray certainly had the ability to fake it and he was certain to understand the fame and fortune. The world will never know the “truth” as in so many other things. The fish at the bar is an awesome specimen too. 70 pounds of musky are certainly swimming somewhere. A fellow caught a 61 incher earlier this year on the Yahara river here in Dane County. It was skinny but within and inch of the record for length. I wonder how many other records in the book were not witnessed by a CO. It will be interesting to see how this shakes out.

    eyejacker
    Hudson, Wisconsin
    Posts: 1890
    #393728

    If Spray’s muskie is disqualified, who is next in line? I know my all time favorite Muskie guru, Len Hartman, who fished the same waters (i.e. St. Lawrence River, near Ogdensburg, NY) as Art Lawton, has a 67 pound 15 ouncer in the books!

    john23
    St. Paul, MN
    Posts: 2578
    #393736

    Len Hartman admitted to lying about his record fish several years ago. Same with his wife’s fish. Sorry, eyejacker.

    The next fish in line would be Cal Johnson’s fish from LCO. It is mounted on display at Moccosin bar in Hawyard. Lots of speculation that this fish is a fake, too.

    eyejacker
    Hudson, Wisconsin
    Posts: 1890
    #393742

    Quote:


    Len Hartman admitted to lying about his record fish several years ago. Same with his wife’s fish. Sorry, eyejacker.

    The next fish in line would be Cal Johnson’s fish from LCO. It is mounted on display at Moccosin bar in Hawyard. Lots of speculation that this fish is a fake, too.


    I have seen the Moccosin bar fish (Cal Johnson’s), that is suspect also? By the way, John23, you just broke my hart man! Going to have to find a new Guru!

    jon_jordan
    St. Paul, Mn
    Posts: 10908
    #393745

    Darn prevaricators!

    fishingscout
    Saint Paul
    Posts: 156
    #393755

    I have always hated special interest groups getting record fish disqualified decades after the fish has been recognized as a record. I say once a fish is accepted then it stands regardless of today or future opinions.

    By the way, from the photos I saw, that new state record largemouth had a very small mouth for a 9 pound fish….

    jldii
    Posts: 2294
    #393756

    Quote:


    Len Hartman admitted to lying about his record fish several years ago. Same with his wife’s fish. Sorry, eyejacker.

    The next fish in line would be Cal Johnson’s fish from LCO. It is mounted on display at Moccosin bar in Hawyard. Lots of speculation that this fish is a fake, too.


    Imagine that, a fisherman who lied about the size of his fish! No wonder they say you can’t get any closer to heaven than when you are fishing.

    john23
    St. Paul, MN
    Posts: 2578
    #393764

    Fishingscout,

    The true WI record muskie may well be more than 10# less than the Spray fish’s purported weight of 69lbs 11oz. If a () prevaricator holds a false record that prevents a true record fish from being registered, wouldn’t that be a shame? What if the MN walleye record were listed at 22#, when it’s really 17lbs8oz? How would you feel if you caught an 18#er?

    Moreover, what’s the point of keeping records if they aren’t accurate?

    John

    fishingscout
    Saint Paul
    Posts: 156
    #393799

    That is kind of my point. No records are accurate decades after they are verified…

    terry
    River Falls WI
    Posts: 24
    #393806

    Quite interesting that a group called the World Record Muskie Alliance sets out to disprove the world record muskie and amazingly only gathers infomation supporting their position.

    danno34
    Posts: 170
    #393819

    Rich Delaney should spend all that time he wasted on 3 big fish regardless if they are World records or not. And :toast spend more time outlawing Musky Tournaments nuff said.

    tracker18
    DeWitt, IA
    Posts: 41
    #393869

    It seems that every world record fish is being reviewed right now. In my opinion, all of this research on past records is just raising credibilty issues with any record catch that is recorded. Just depends on what you are looking for. Groups trying to discredit the records are more prevelant obviously, then people trying to support a current record. Anyway, since we are on a muskie topic a thought I would share a picture of a 52-1/4″ muskie that I landed in the Minocqua, WI area this May. Not a record of course, but probably the biggest fish that I will ever catch in freshwater.

    Brian Klawitter
    Keymaster
    Minnesota/Wisconsin Mississippi River
    Posts: 59992
    #393870

    Awesome!

    What were you using? Did you see her nail it?

    tracker18
    DeWitt, IA
    Posts: 41
    #393871

    I was fishing for smallies with a Rapala x-rap suspending jerkbait. The muskie came out from under the front of the boat and hit it with about 10 feet of line out. Pretty intense!

    Gianni
    Cedar Rapids, IA
    Posts: 2063
    #393894

    Thanks for posting this Jon, I’ve caught a few incidental muskies while bass fishing and wasn’t always sure how to handle them.

    Quote:


    Spray caught the 69-pound, 11-ounce muskie and Spray’s friend dispatched it with two shots to the head with a .22-caliber pistol,


    gary_wellman
    South Metro
    Posts: 6057
    #393985

    I don’t know………

    The Muskie Alliance isn’t impressing me. They seem to have an agenda or motive to disqualify any record musky or potential record musky, if “they” don’t like how it was recorded.

    As others have said, it seems quite biased.

    Maybe Pete, Jack, or others from that site can pipe in here to explain more??? I know Pete has been here before…….

    Something “just doesn’t feel right” about all of this………

    fishingscout
    Saint Paul
    Posts: 156
    #394089

    I wonder when they will report the 90 page analysis of the next-in-line to the current record fish, and then the one after that and so on…

    jldii
    Posts: 2294
    #394105

    It does seem as if a few people there have some sort of agenda doesn’t it.

    gary_wellman
    South Metro
    Posts: 6057
    #394117

    That is the problem with this Jack, in that they have a “mission statement” that appears to be only to discredit what existed.

    Even though I agree that “falsified” records or people shoving buckshot into the gullets of fish to get weights should be thrown out.

    However they are using a “baseline” weight formula to calulate the fishes weight, soley based on the demensions of Spray’s picture.

    “WHAT IF” the fish just inhaled a 6lb bass, right before being caught, or maybe a 10lb walleye??? That would be an extra 10lbs on that fish, that “MAYBE” the pics don’t reveal???

    “WHAT IF”, the weight calculations that are used as a base line don’t “work” on a fish that is that big?

    jon_jordan
    St. Paul, Mn
    Posts: 10908
    #412500

    Follow up to the original post. Record musky stands: From Star Tribune: >>> http://www.startribune.com/767/story/186214.html

    Husky muskie’s record is a keeper
    The National Fresh Water Fishing Hall of Fame has decided that Chin Whiskered Charlie, a muskie caught in 1949, is the weightiest — despite a challenge from a muskie fishing group.
    Paul Levy, Star Tribune
    Last update: January 17, 2006 – 1:25 AM
    Printer friendly E-mail this story
    Louis Spray held his fish, Chin Whiskered Charlie, in 1949.

    Fishing
    Husky muskie’s record is a keeper

    Cure for ‘compulsive fishing’? Ely, Minnesota

    Fish tales: Catfish built for two

    Dennis Anderson: From Graylings to Pinks

    Fishing on the Web
    HAYWARD, WIS. — This is the fish tale of a record that almost got away — 56 years after the fact.
    The 69-pound, 11-ounce, 63½-inch muskellunge caught in 1949 by Louis Spray, a known Prohibition-era bootlegger, is probably the most scrutinized muskie ever caught, said Emmett Brown, executive director of the National Fresh Water Fishing Hall of Fame in Hayward. And despite those who have cried foul, it’s a catch that will continue to be recognized, Hall of Fame members voted Monday.

    Behind Brown was a life-size black-and-white photo of Spray, who was recognized as the Babe Ruth of muskie anglers, holding his record catch. But other than photos and signed affidavits from people who claim they saw the fish, that’s all that’s left of Spray’s prize catch.

    Chin Whiskered Charlie, caught in the Chippewa Flowage in northern Wisconsin, was destroyed in a fire in 1959. Spray, too, is gone; he committed suicide at the age of 84 in 1984.

    But the controversy lives on, and came to a head last October when a group known as the World Record Muskie Alliance presented a report to the Hall of Fame, alleging that the size of Spray’s fish had been falsified and should be expunged from the record books.

    The group said that Spray likely forced 25 pounds of ice inside the fish to balloon it to a record weight, knowing that the ice would have melted before a taxidermist was given the muskie to preserve.

    Adding to the dispute were the published observations of a University of Minnesota mathematician, who concluded after looking at a photo of Spray and Charlie that the fish couldn’t have been as tall as Spray claimed.

    “I don’t know how you dispute a record that has stood since 1949,” Doug Arnold, director of the University of Minnesota’s Institute for Mathematics and its Applications, said from his home in the Twin Cities before members of the National Fresh Water Fishing Hall of Fame met to draw their own conclusions.

    Members of the Hall of Fame may not have agreed with Arnold’s measurements, but they agreed with his logic. Of the 11 prospective voters, eight upheld Spray’s record, two declined to vote, and one voter abstained.

    “The all-tackle world record will not be overturned,” Brown said. “In many ways, it’s further validated.”

    The challenger to the record

    Encased to Brown’s left was the challenger to the record — a mounted version of the previous record holder, a 67½-pounder, also caught in 1949, by the late Cal Johnson, a former Minneapolis sportswriter.

    But Monday also was the day for Spray’s fishing legend to grow — or shrink, depending on your frame of reference.

    Arnold concluded that camera angles and distance may have distorted the actual size of the Spray’s catch.

    “I don’t know how long it actually was, but it could not have been 63 inches,” he said.

    A Toronto-based company hired by the World Record Muskie Alliance came to the same conclusion — looking at a different photo. That group claimed that the fish was closer to 53.6 inches tall, and not the 63½ inches that Spray claimed. The group also concluded the fish weighed no more than 55 pounds — before Spray allegedly filled it with ice.

    Impossible, said Brown. In 1949, there were no bags of ice cubes and it would take hours to chip 25 pounds off a block of ice and place the chunks inside a fish.

    But the disputing group’s expertise began to disappear when the “vanishing points” of the photos were discussed, Brown said. Among the experts who said that evidence from the photos was inconclusive was Bonnie Higgins, assistant professor of the Department of Technological Studies at Bemidji State University. “It’s difficult to determine what is perpendicular,” she wrote after examining one of the 1949 photos.

    “Obviously 53.6 inches is at great odds” with the 63½-inch length Spray reported, Brown said of the findings by the experts hired by the World Record Muskie Alliance. “Quite frankly, it was poor science,” Brown said.

    Money or fame?

    So why the dispute? Why would Spray misrepresent his fish’s size?

    The questioning group claims he did it for money, but Brown said Spray received only $30 in merchandise from National Sportsman magazine.

    “The documentation of this fish was well put together,” Brown said. “I wish every record catch was this well documented. It left no doubt.”

    But this fish story is not likely to end, Brown said. Could the record of Spray, a well-known self-promoter, be challenged once again?

    “I’m sure it will,” said Brown.

    Paul Levy • 612-673-4419

    john23
    St. Paul, MN
    Posts: 2578
    #412716

    The Hall of Fame in Hayward was a joke … now it’s not even a funny one. The IGFA got rid of the Spray fish ages ago. If you want to talk about self-interest, consider the location of the Hall of Fame and the business interests of the record’s strongest supporters.

    Here is a link to the Hall of Fame’s response. It would be great if someone would crack a 70#er so we could have an undisputed world record.

    John

Viewing 30 posts - 1 through 30 (of 41 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.