nelly Posted December 10, 2006 Report Posted December 10, 2006 For the guys who have not read this. WR musky on CBS. Oct 8/06 Don't forget to check the arrow to see if you are on page 1 or 2. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/08/...in2072501.shtml
MuskyBill Posted December 10, 2006 Report Posted December 10, 2006 I thought Jimmy Bananas was a bookee....
Cookslav Posted December 10, 2006 Report Posted December 10, 2006 Thats an interesting read... So if they can scientificly prove it was no more then 40 pounds why has it not been revoked? Especialy if the fish is proven to have been augmented by 10 inches? Is there further contadticting evidence not mentioned in this article? I'm sure this is just a peice of the puzzel But I can't quite understand what would keep it qualified as the record if the allogations are not rebuted?
nelly Posted December 10, 2006 Author Report Posted December 10, 2006 This link might help? http://www.worldrecordmuskiealliance.com/
fishindevil Posted December 10, 2006 Report Posted December 10, 2006 well it sounds like to me that there is enough contoversy over who REALLY DID CATCH THE FISH to at least put the record on hold ,or to give it to the next biggest ,verified fish the new record.....
trapshooter Posted December 10, 2006 Report Posted December 10, 2006 Hey, It's Ken O'brian. Moon River GIANT! Anyone ever read that OOD article about all the Ontario Record fish? His was a neat story. Lucky Dude, that's for sure.
jediangler Posted December 10, 2006 Report Posted December 10, 2006 Why doesn't an OFC'er just catch a 70lb'er in G-Bay or the Larry, and then the arguement will be over? I'm sure the gang in Wisconsin would love that
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now