“Record” Lake Trout Follow Up

Posted in USA Today.

AP In early February, Minnesota ice fisherman Rob Scott hauled in a 52-pound, 3-ounce trout after an hour-long struggle on the Ontario side of Lac la Croix. Scott’s catch would shatter the record for the largest trout to be caught by tip-up by more than 20 pounds — but a four-pound trout he caught earlier in the day cost Scott the record.

A fisherman’s exact position on Lac la Croix, half of which is in Ontario, is extremely important. Scott caught the massive trout on the Ontario side, where the limit is one fish per day. Once he caught a second fish, Scott gave away his first catch to another fisherman, and took his prize back to Minnesota on a snowmobile. Scott was just 100 feet from the Minnesota side, where the limit is two.

Scott took the fish to a taxidermist and thought he was in the clear, until a Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources officer saw a report about his record catch. The officer had seen Scott on that fateful day, but before he had landed the 52-pound trout, according to GrindTV. Remembering that Scott had already caught a smaller fish and therefore violated the law by keeping a second, the officers sprang into action. The record fish was confiscated by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, delivered to the Canadian border and handed over to the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources

Scott told the Star Tribune that he knew of his position and the laws, but figured that he would be in the clear by giving away his first catch.

“I called the Ontario officers Tuesday morning and told them I owed them an apology. It wasn’t illegal for me to keep fishing after I caught the first trout. But when I caught the bigger fish, with the adrenaline and everything I had going, and the fact that it wasn’t going to survive if I released it, I figured if I gave the smaller fish away, that would be OK.”

If Michelle has taught me one thing, it’s to spot bs a long way away. And I am calling bs.

This is where I call bs:

Quote:

---

Scott told the Star Tribune that he knew of his position and the laws, but figured that he would be in the clear by giving away his first catch.

…

But when I caught the bigger fish, with the adrenaline and everything I had going, and the fact that it wasn’t going to survive if I released it, I figured if I gave the smaller fish away, that would be OK.

---

Sounds to me like he knew the rules. Then the red flags are he makes excuses like “adrenaline” and “the fact” the fish wasn’t going to survive.

Be a man. Just admit you are wrong. Don’t try and cover it with if, buts and excuses.

I am sure some of my fellow IDOers will be willing to fall into the same trap of excuses by making some up for him, but I hope I am wrong.

I bet he is not the 1st guy to break the law to keep a trophy fish. Not even close to the 1st.

Mike, you were one of them I was hoping wouldn’t.

My main point is if you do break the law and get caught, man up. Don’t make excuses.

Just like a moth to the light I couldnt stay away.

Guess the story might bring some attention to the practice of giving fish away and the legality of it.

Not really sure if that was a excuse for him or not. More of just a statement. Didnt say it was right. He is one of the few that just got caught.

If Mike W ever turns in a record walleye some people may be suspicious…

Would like to think I would be a little smarter than telling people I had caught and kept my limit that day before keeping this one.

So what are they investigating? Why not send him a ticket, he pays it, and everything goes on. The only one that is going to see any time over this is that fish. My guess is it will sit behind bars in a freezer until dry rotted away. That or end up on some DNR persons wall. Smart thing might of been to wait until after the taxidermist was done before confiscating it.

Especially when you are fishing Ontario there.

Might be a good time to be constructive and inform people for 2014.

MN regulations:

New 2014:

New Regulations for 2014
• Updated list of infested waters
• Provided definition for culling (sorting)
• Modified Lake Superior regulations
• Modified seasons for taking rough fish
• New early bowfishing season
• Updated list of lakes with northern pike spearing bans
• Modified minnow transportation regulations
• Provided a QR (quick response) code for finding a conservation officer

Immediately released or returned to the water
–
Fish must not be retained longer than is needed at the site of capture to unhook, identify, measure, and photograph. Placing the fish in any type of container or on a stringer is not immediately released. Any fish not immediately released is considered to be “reduced to possession.”

Daily and possession limits (bags)
–
For most species of fish, daily and possession limits are the same. One exception would be the inland limit on yellow perch, which is 20 per day and 40 in possession. The daily and possession limits include fishpossessed by the person at all locations including such places as livewell, cold storage, at home, or at a resort. Daily limit is the number of fish an angler can take in one calendar day. Eating those fish or gifting them away on the same day does not allow an angler to possess additional fish taken in the same calendar day.

(Lake Superior) Trout, salmon, muskellunge and catfish must be
transported with head and tail intact.

(Mille Lacs) Northern pike; Tullibee (cisco); Walleye; and Smallmouth bass.

These regulations and any future changes will be posted at public access sites and the DNR website at http://www.mndnr.gov/fishing/millelacs.html

Quote:

---

Would like to think I would be a little smarter than telling people I had caught and kept my limit that day before keeping this one.

---

I believe that a Ontario CO had already had contact with him and saw the first fish?

In most states, once you KEEP your limit your done fishing for that species.

Quote:

---

Serious question I’ve always wondered about.

He already has his limit of one lake trout but continues to fish for them, legal right? As long as he doesn’t keep anything else?

What happens when he catches another fish but the struggle to get it out of the water wears the fish out too much to be revived and swim away.

What’s the protocol for that? Leave it on the ice to die/be eaten by some birds? Leave it sitting in the water? Or is it tecnhically illegal to continue fishing once you have your daily limit?

---

By law, you put it right back in the drink. If the fish makes it fine. If not, the state/province doesn’t seem to have a problem with wasting it.

I’d prefer that over having to pack up and leave once I hit my limit. I mean if I were a meat hog.

In Ontario, he was legally able to keep fishing once reaching limit, the remainder of the fish he caught would have to be released. The ethical thing to do would be to stop fishing for that species once reaching limit as to not damage a fish you cannot keep. In his situation, his nephew had not caught a trout yet so what he should have done was let his nephew take the tip up, fight the fish to the surface and claim possession, record and all. Bottom line like Pug mentioned is this guy was allowed 1 daily limit fish and he took 2.

For MN:

Once a daily or possession limit of fish has been reached, no culling or live well sorting is allowed. No culling is allowed on Mille Lacs, or on Wisconsin, South Dakota, or North Dakota border waters (see pages 37 and 60-65).

Immediately released or returned to the water
–
Fish must not be retained longer than is needed at the site of capture to unhook, identify, measure, and photograph. Placing the fish in any type of container or on a stringer is not immediately released. Any fish not immediately released is considered to be “reduced to possession”.

In WI you are supposed to quit fishing for the species of fish you have a limit of… I guess that prevents culling, generally if I cull at that time, I am keeping smaller fish and releasing larger ones, though its illegal in WI.

Mark

I would have tried to “release” the smaller one…

Quote:

---

I would have tried to “release” the smaller one…

---

Mounties saw the frozen 4 lb.’r on the ice. That was game over.

“oh that one over there, thats not mine. I figured this spot was good after I saw that on the ice!”

Edit: never mind that one wouldnt work either if they saw it before he caught the big one and already claimed it…

Sheesh, you guys are as bad as this guy! “Oh I was dehydrated and didn’t know what I was doing”! I am surprised he didn’t try the “I WAS fishing on the Cnadian side originally, but then moves 300′ to the US side when I hooked into this one”.

So this declined record is for a Laker caught by tip up? IS the Rod and Reel record like 70#s?

BK correct me if I’m wrong but on MN border waters “Party fishing” is permitted. In this case though, the MN side was in the BWCA so he would have had to leave his snowmobile on the Canadian side and used a hand operated auger. The “Party Fishing” while permitted in MN wouldn’t have worked either, since his nephew was all the way at the end of the lake. I think you need to be within a certain distance from one and another?

Yep, you have to be close enough to communicate un-aided

Here is some info via the StarTribune Outdoors:

“The trout would tip the scales at 52 pounds, 3 ounces; it was 45 inches long, with a 32-inch girth.

Had it been caught on the Minnesota side of Lac la Croix, just 100 feet from where Scott fished, it would have handily beaten the state record of 43-8, a fish that was caught in Lake Superior in 1955.”

Wondering about bait? He reportedly used frozen shiner minnows which were thawed with hot water prior to use to make them pliable.

What a waste of a amazing fish! It would have been great boon for business locally, and he could have rented it out for shows! Oh well I guess his 32 year retirement checks from the Navy will have to do!

http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id/430920/

Look like jury is out. $400 fine, sounds like he is going to get a replica of the Trout…