BWCA Monster walleye caught Boundary Waters Fishing Forum
Chat Rooms (0 Chatting)  |  Search  |   Login/Join
* For the benefit of the community, commercial posting is not allowed.
Boundary Waters Quetico Forum
   Fishing Forum
      Monster walleye caught     
 Forum Sponsor

Author

Text

Savage Voyageur
distinguished member(14416)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished membermaster membermaster member
  
05/15/2019 04:49PM   (Thread Older Than 3 Years)
This guy caught a huge walleye but will not get the record because it was snagged. Have to follow the rules when taking a record fish.
 
      Print Top Bottom Previous Next
05/15/2019 06:15PM  
i'm just guessing here , but think she's a prespawn fish ;)
 
flynn
distinguished member (385)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
05/15/2019 07:11PM  
Dear Lord that's a fat fish. I'd be thrilled to catch one half the size. Foul-hooked or not... which can sometimes be out of your control... a nice catch.
 
05/15/2019 07:19PM  
shock: "i'm just guessing here , but think she's a prespawn fish ;)"

ES,

That is absolutely pre spawn and full of eggs. I have seen a few around 17.5 pounds and maybe one close to 18 pounds at one of the DNR Fisheries spawning stations in the mid 80's. Were talking 35-37inches long. Those fish were like 20 plus years old. Very old for a walleye.

Some of those North Dakota fish grow very fast with lot of forage fish and fertile water.
 
05/15/2019 07:25PM  
I think Sea Gull river up the Gunflint when fishing was allowed on the opener there,you seen 6 fish limit of over 50 pounds-yes pre spawn, also Minnesota's state record was out of the Sea Gull River,yes full of eggs.
 
05/15/2019 09:10PM  
DNR use to post no fishing innertube buoy until may 28th ? at the alpine river into seagull . but after 1996 i guess they didnt want to paddle to drop them or paddle back to get them , seagull has the make up to produce a state record , JS ask walleye_hunter ;)
 
05/16/2019 08:46AM  
Pinetree: "I think Sea Gull river up the Gunflint when fishing was allowed on the opener there,you seen 6 fish limit of over 50 pounds-yes pre spawn, also Minnesota's state record was out of the Sea Gull River,yes full of eggs."


I have met at least 6 guys unrelated to each other who all caught 10# walleyes in the sea gull river all in the same year. All of the major fishing guides with the TV shows were there (like the Lindners) with 6 fish limits averaging around 10# a fish. That fishery was decimated for years and prompted the closing since. I think that was in the 70’s?

T
 
05/16/2019 08:55AM  
timatkn: "
Pinetree: "I think Sea Gull river up the Gunflint when fishing was allowed on the opener there,you seen 6 fish limit of over 50 pounds-yes pre spawn, also Minnesota's state record was out of the Sea Gull River,yes full of eggs."



I have met at least 6 guys unrelated to each other who all caught 10# walleyes in the sea gull river all in the same year. All of the major fishing guides with the TV shows were there (like the Lindners) with 6 fish limits averaging around 10# a fish. That fishery was decimated for years and prompted the closing since. I think that was in the 70’s?


T"

It was like a ZOO according to friends of mine who were going up there before it got well known. Just think 100's of people a high percentage catching large females and keeping them. That has to rank up toward the top as one of the worst episodes in protecting our Natural resources.
Time has changed the thinking of peoples idea of what is proper and not. Many back than thought nothing of keeping the fish,including Lindners.
Many of those Big walleyes were snagged.

LIndners use to keep everything like everyone else. Give them credit now for promoting catch and release.
 
05/16/2019 11:02AM  
Quote from the article:
“There’s a hole in the mouth of the fish. There’s string burn on the side of the fish’s cheek,” indicating it had taken the bait, he told the Billings Gazette. “There’s no indication of any damage to the body of the fish.”

So I wonder how they determined it was snagged?

Apparently witnesses came forward stating it was snagged, but the provided evidence doesn't seem to reflect that. Perhaps they were just jealous of his catch.



 
treehorn
distinguished member(715)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
05/16/2019 01:47PM  
arnesr: "Quote from the article:
“There’s a hole in the mouth of the fish. There’s string burn on the side of the fish’s cheek,” indicating it had taken the bait, he told the Billings Gazette. “There’s no indication of any damage to the body of the fish.”


So I wonder how they determined it was snagged?


Apparently witnesses came forward stating it was snagged, but the provided evidence doesn't seem to reflect that. Perhaps they were just jealous of his catch.



"


Of course he's defending his catch, but I have to think/hope the Fish & Game folks had their own evidence beyond the word of the people that apparently ratted this guy out. I'm sure they inspected the fish and have their own story.
 
05/16/2019 01:57PM  
treehorn: "
arnesr: "Quote from the article:
“There’s a hole in the mouth of the fish. There’s string burn on the side of the fish’s cheek,” indicating it had taken the bait, he told the Billings Gazette. “There’s no indication of any damage to the body of the fish.”



So I wonder how they determined it was snagged?



Apparently witnesses came forward stating it was snagged, but the provided evidence doesn't seem to reflect that. Perhaps they were just jealous of his catch.




"



Of course he's defending his catch, but I have to think/hope the Fish & Game folks had their own evidence beyond the word of the people that apparently ratted this guy out. I'm sure they inspected the fish and have their own story."


I think they have quite a bit of evidence. Billings Gazette
 
05/16/2019 02:07PM  
They certainly aren't sharing the evidence in either article. The only additional tidbit I gleamed was that a "third party netted and unhooked the fish". I'm assuming that third party stated the position of the hook when they removed it.

The game and fish department let him keep his fish and did not fine him for an illegally caught fish, so that tells me they don't have sufficient evidence to prove the fish was snagged.

Maybe he set the hook prematurely, but it sounds like the fish was feeding on his lure to be hooked in the mouth. A fine line is being drawn here. Sucks for him.
 
treehorn
distinguished member(715)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
05/16/2019 03:59PM  
arnesr: "They certainly aren't sharing the evidence in either article. "


I agree. They did not say why they believe the fish was foul hooked beyond the story told to them by observers.
 
      Print Top Bottom Previous Next
Fishing Sponsor:
Canoe Country