bassjnkie Posted December 3, 2007 Author Report Posted December 3, 2007 I get my 2 scales (digital and mech.) certified every year. Answer this one, why does one carp look bigger than the other, when in fact the smaller one(#1) is 16Lbs and the other (#2) is 14Lb 4oz. 1. 2. This will settle the fact that all pictures are deceiving. Daniel OCH
Guest gbfisher Posted December 3, 2007 Report Posted December 3, 2007 There are several Georgian Bay muskie fishing legends that most people have never heard of... Stan is definitely on that exclusive list. Tight lines, y'all... TITAN (Mike Dalakis) Im pretty sure thats Lornie with him as well...Another die hard.
Grandman Posted December 4, 2007 Report Posted December 4, 2007 the issue with the obrien fish was the scale it was weighed on. I can't remember exact details but I'll give a shot (maybe TITAN can fill in the blanks) The scale that was used had a valid Canadian inspection sticker, but the IFGA requires yearly (?) inspections of scales (in the states??) The fish was weighed 65 # even. 65 POUNDS EVEN. The IFGA tested the scale at 65 pounds and found it to be within 2 ounces of true weight. Therefore the fish weighed between 64 pounds 15 ounces and 65 pounds 1 ounce. BETWEEN 64 POUNDS-15 OUNCES AND 65 POUNDS-1 OUNCE. Wow, what an uproar.
Gerritt Posted December 4, 2007 Report Posted December 4, 2007 I get my 2 scales (digital and mech.) certified every year. Answer this one, why does one carp look bigger than the other, when in fact the smaller one(#1) is 16Lbs and the other (#2) is 14Lb 4oz.1. 2. This will settle the fact that all pictures are deceiving. Daniel OCH because of the reference our eyes see... the person in pic #1 is alot larger the the person in pic #2... our brains are wired to perceive things in this manner (based upon available reference info..in this case this size difference of the angler..) G
titan Posted December 4, 2007 Report Posted December 4, 2007 Grandman, In addition to rumours surrounding the handling of the fish, there was an issue with the annual certification of the scale to CSA standards that was identified and reconciled. Regardless of what issues were associated with the catch, it is recognized as the Canadian record muskie. Is the O'Brien fish bigger than the Cal Johnson fish? Is it bigger than the Louie the "Lumberjack" Spray fish? Should all the records be set aside in order to have the Williamson fish take its rightful place as the true record? You be the judge... that's the beauty of Winternet!! Tight lines, y'all... TITAN (Mike Dalakis)
irishfield Posted December 4, 2007 Report Posted December 4, 2007 Winternet There's a new one... Love it !
Roy Posted December 4, 2007 Report Posted December 4, 2007 It's been a nice run. I know that passions flare when this topic comes up (and it does come up quite often) and I suppose there's good reason. However, Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Williamson nor any of the others post here to admit to nor refute anything that is said. So, without any "proof" one way or the other, I think that the whole excercise is redundant. All this is is conjecture. Let's please take a break from this and get our facts straight before condeming a fisherman for having caught a very large fish that most of us would kill to have caught. I'll lock this now and if any of the mods think I'm out of line, unlock it......no hard feelings at all.
Recommended Posts