Fordson's fish.....62lbs in the Sun paper

Post by **muskymatt** » Thu Oct 16, 2008 8:32 am

Page 48 in Jeff Morrisons column.

Fordson you claim that fish is 62 lbs

....you gotta be kidding..

Do you even know what a 40 lb fish looks like let alone a 60 lb fish.

Take a look at Ken Obriens fish ...58" long 28 " girth ...65lbs

Kevin Davisons fish .....58.5" .....30" girth....70 lbs.

Your fish .... a claimed 54"

....62 lbs...it would have to be
32.5" girth....Hahaha...you gotta be kidding...your Fish is Half...get it....half the size.....

I'll be clearing that up with Jeff Morrison........

Fordson your credibility is ....Gone....poof....disappeared.....

Post by **fatluke** » Thu Oct 16, 2008 8:34 am

Is it online?

Post by **muskymatt** » Thu Oct 16, 2008 8:35 am

Todays Ottawa sun , Jeff Morrison Column page 48....complete with picture...

The posting link.

http://www.fish-hawk.net/hawktalk/viewtopic.php?t=31423

Post by **Jimmy_1** » Thu Oct 16, 2008 8:37 am

Oh oh!

Post by **muskymatt** » Thu Oct 16, 2008 8:39 am

http://www.ottawasun.com/Sports/Columni ... 6-sun.html

Post by **fatluke** » Thu Oct 16, 2008 8:39 am

Did he catch it on a 12 lb smallie?

Post by **fordson** » Thu Oct 16, 2008 9:01 am

Weight a minute.

Man, credibility? I went to 4 sites to get a weight on this fish Check them out yourself.

The fish was 54 inches long and stuffed with food...fat.

The girth is put in automatically at many of these sites.

Did I measure the length? YES...54 inches. Girth? No but the sites I checked put it at 31 inches plus. I think this is fairly accurate. Weight? No, I relied on the sites to do that.

The important this was to release this old fish as quickly as possible.

I don't know why the personal attack is necessary...you obviously don't get it.

If I'm off on my estimation of the weight it is based on the tools that are available...like I said check out the sites yourself. And yes, I'm offended.

I thought this forum was supposed to be a cool place to come to? I can tell you it isn't with those kinds of posts.

http://www.kentucky-muskie-fishing.com/ ... lator.html

http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/weighit.asp

Post by **muskymatt** » Thu Oct 16, 2008 9:12 am

fordson wrote:Weight a minute.

Man, credibility? I went to 4 sites to get a weight on this fish Check them out yourself.

The fish was 54 inches long and stuffed with food...fat.

The girth is put in automatically at many of these sites.

Did I measure the length? YES...54 inches. Girth? No but the sites I checked put it at 31 inches plus. I think this is fairly accurate. Weight? No, I relied on the sites to do that.

The important this was to release this old fish as quickly as possible.

I don't know why the personal attack is necessary...you obviously don't get it.

If I'm off on my estimation of the weight it is based on the tools that are available...like I said check out the sites yourself. And yes, I'm offended.

I thought this forum was supposed to be a cool place to come to? I can tell you it isn't with those kinds of posts.

http://www.kentucky-muskie-fishing.com/ ... lator.html

http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/weighit.asp

58" 30" girth 70 lbs

58.5" 28.5" girth almost 60 lbs....took 2 guys to lift it.

Are you saying it was an honest mistake Fordson????

It's not a personal attack and yes this is a good site to come to.

I am merely stating that your fish is a nice fish but not even close to what you claim..

Live and learn.....and don't be so sensitive....you were wrong...admit it and move on.

Post by **fordson** » Thu Oct 16, 2008 9:19 am

Like I said...got to the sites I copied to my post and check it yourself.

I've got 2 pics of this fish by the way. The second one I could barely hold up the thing (I'm strong and don't have any back problem or such things)
and you can see in this pic that it has a huge belly.

The Camera sucked...I do apologize for that but that is all.

If you'd like to see that pic matt email me and I'll make the arrangements.

Like I said, I'm offended that you'd basically call me a lier. I keep a counter in my boat...ask peppino who I've fished with...to keep an accurate track of the fish I've caught so that I I don't exaggerate...Like all fisherman tend to do. That is the reputation anyway.

Post by **bass_hunter** » Thu Oct 16, 2008 9:19 am

62 pounds? i dont understand who came up with that.it was a nice fish 54 inches looks accurate but the girth looks to be no more than 24 inches , wich would be approx 38 pounds.

http://www.fish.state.pa.us/pafish/musk ... _musky.jpg

http://www.1000islandsfishing.com/01-20 ... _Musky.jpg

Post by **fordson** » Thu Oct 16, 2008 9:26 am

A disgrace...?

Nice, friendly way to be to a beginning musky guy.

I'll say it for the final time. Go to the sites I posted.

I have no need to 'exaggerate' and the length was exact.

I'm done

Post by **bass_hunter** » Thu Oct 16, 2008 9:30 am

fordson wrote:A disgrace...?

Nice, friendly way to be to a beginning musky guy.

I'll say it for the final time. Go to the sites I posted.

I have no need to 'exaggerate' and the length was exact.

I'm done

Sorry for the harsh comments , but please don't EXAGGERATE you fish in the news paper , if no one here would have seen that , we could not have corrected you. Please next time you are not sure about a weight , like you clearly were not this time , post it here with your approx weight and the musky masters on the site will correct you ( Not me by the way).

Post by **muskymatt** » Thu Oct 16, 2008 9:36 am

fordson wrote:A disgrace...?

Nice, friendly way to be to a beginning musky guy.

I'll say it for the final time. Go to the sites I posted.

I have no need to 'exaggerate' and the length was exact.

I'm done

Fordson...I don't get it.

We had a few go betweens with some e-mails and you said you have been fishing for 38 yrs.

I offered to give some info and even went on to talk about MCI and the website and how you can learn from this info.

Regardless of what your sites are telling you , it's incorrect.

No one wants to alienate you...just point out the error you made...fess up. Don't use it as a negative.....it might be now but doesn't have to stay that way..

Regards

Post by **Andy_L** » Thu Oct 16, 2008 9:36 am

ok....NO MORE PERSONAL ATTACKS please gentlemen

for what its worth i DID go look at the posted links...one of which DOES automatically put in a girth. Fordson, regardless of right or wrong about the weight...nice fish

and well done about promoting the catch and release which the other person did not do (which i believe was the whole point of the article...not a weight guessing game).

Time to get out my editing finger on a few of the posts.....

Post by **Placide** » Thu Oct 16, 2008 9:39 am

I think you guys are all missing the point of the story, atleast he released it to fight another day. He could of kept it!

Brian Daniels was fishing at the public launch in Kemptville a while back, when a fellow showed up with a dead 56-inch muskie -- bragging that he could not wait to get it mounted. Daniels left disgusted and could not understand why the man had not taken a photo of the great fish and released it.

Michael Kadoura, on the other hand, caught a beautiful 54-inch, 62-lb. muskie on the Ottawa River recently, but rather than kill the fish, chose to take photos of his trophy, remove two lampreys and release it, live and fat.

Catch and release for the muskellunge brings up a huge ethical question. Truly dedicated muskie hunters would not think of keeping a single fish and would shudder at the idea of killing a large breeding female of perhaps 20-plus years old.

Fish-Hawk.Net

Fordson's fish.....62lbs in the Sun paper

Fordson's fish.....62lbs in the Sun paper

omg