Obviously I cannot disprove any of this but I only believe about half of this story.  Guess which half.

  (You need to Login or Register

Wow!
hope they left a few for the rest of us.
alan

Like most fish stories, I suspect it "improved" with the telling.   I've had a couple of 2 hours slots where I was catching either walleye or smallies at a rate of 20 per hour (or better).  Alas, it didn't last all day.

dd

Copyright infringement!!! I'm gonna sue their socks... Those guys stole my true story!!  ;D

So many questions  . . .

It's not hard to guess that they presumably enter at Nym and head south.  20 miles would get them to Jesse and be relatively consistent with the portage description.  Maybe they get into Oriana & Walter.  Things still don't match up with the travel description further down in the story.  The number of fish caught is simply delusion and embellishment.

I love this line . . .


Quote:

Riley latches onto a northern pike at least 40 inches long and broad across the back. He plays it to the canoe, where he suggests that his partner, Christensen, land it for him. Christensen reaches for the pike, then thinks better of it. “That’s not safe,” he says, staring down the maw of the pike.

And this one


Quote:

We keep no walleyes for supper that night because we’ve packed rice and Polish sausage. But the pot it’s cooking in falls off the small campstove, emptying our supper into the forest duff. We improvise a dinner of grilled cheese sandwiches, salvaging some of the rice dish, now garnished with jackpine needles.

I know I would prefer polish sausage over fresh walleye.

;D  ;D  ;D

1 portage for every 1.17 miles of paddling?

Exactly zski.  Look, I'm not banging on someones trip - I've read and heard worse.  I also know that some of your first trips to Quetico are absolutely amazing and have a way of skewing your view of reality but when these types of stories are made public they don't help.  Last fall I found a trip report on another forum by a regular poster around here (at that time) which sounded a lot like this one.  I sent him a polite PM and asked him to clarify some of his statements (and why he didn't post it on QJ).  He never got back with me and I haven't seen a post of his around here since.  Quetico is a fantastic fishery no doubt and I too have had fantastic days of fishing but these guys account is just fantasy.  

Anyway, this is again a great reminder why quietjourney.com is simply THE BEST and honest source for quetico information.  I wish I could pay db a living wage to operate this site.

Seriously...who counts that high anyway?  I lose count after about 10 or so and I have to think about it a bit to even get that far.  

Maybe it's because I wear shoes.   ;D

What is the point of a fish tally anyway?  Either you had fun or you didn't, right?  And if you aren't having fun, time to do something else.  I've had some incredible days of fishing but I couldn't even begin to say how many fish I caught.  I spent one afternoon on McKenzie where I almost got bored from catching too many walleye too easily...it was time to go fish a different place using a different method.  The thrill dies quickly if it's TOO easy.

Honestly, I've done trips with a lot of different people over the years. I could see a few of them writing something like this or something like the now infamous T. Ted whine type article.

Times are still tough and people still believe things they see in print. You get paid for print and all the fact-checkers got laid off years ago it seems. Personally the four, mile long portages ... yadda yadda ... who knows? Ya gotta wonder why sometimes too. Perhaps I'm just getting old and missed a portage or didn't stoop to pick up a little nugget ... somewhere.  :P

TIKOKAN, ONTARIO  ;D Wait. Yeah!

Thankfully they did not mention any lake names, or the place would be full of wannabees looking for 200 fish days.

40 miles ?  in four travel days doesn't sound too awfully tough to me, though the number of portages is way off for that distance.  

There were some pic's attached to the article - one, pushing a canoe across a bog didn't look familiar to me at all  - the rest were just fish pics mostly

“You don’t know how lucky you are to be out here” - Amen to that!

db wrote on Jun 27^th, 2011 at 6:57am:

TIKOKAN, ONTARIO  ;D Wait. Yeah!

The beginning & end of their credibility.   :D

It's a great story.  I would like to hear what their route was with all those portages.  One of the reasons I headed to Q was that I had heard the portages there are 1/2 what I'm used to in Central Ontario.

I never saw the pictures until today.  I'm guessing they must have bushwhacked into that lake.  Now I'm curios.

Bragging about fish you've caught is like bragging about the women you've been with.
The fish get bigger/ more of, the women prettier/more of  :-?
A true sportsman doesn't count his catch, just like a gentleman doesn't kiss and tell ;)

I'm with your PJ, why have fresh walleye when you can have a Polish sausage  ::)

I read the article by Sam Cook which was in last Sunday paper.  He has been writing for the Duluth News Tribune for about 30 years and has written a number of books.  In Duluth he has a very good reputation and I think most people would say he is an honest writer.  Typically he does not write about the number of fish that were caught, but the fishing experience.  I was personally surprised by the number of fish he said they caught.  Sam Cook is almost an institution in Duluth and he writes on  a number of topics which have nothing to do with fishing or hunting.

As for counting fish, unless you have a paper and pencil and write down each fish as you catch it, you will lose count around 25 fish.  Not withstanding the comment that a true sportsman would not count his fish, I have used a pencil and paper to write down the number of fish, my partner and I have caught.  In one particular lake which has small northerns and bass, my son and I have caught 100 fish in about 7 hours of fishing.  We stopped at 100 fish.  My son has told me that I can't count fish anymore when we go to this lake.  Again unless you mark each fish as you catch it, there is no way a person can keep track of the number of fish unless you keep a running tally on  a piece of paper.

What I find personally surprising is that the whole group used paper and pencil to keep track of their tally of fish.

Westwood

Quote:

Not withstanding the comment that a true sportsman would not count his fish

I should probably clarify my rather harsh comment. I could see how someone or a group might keep track for a little campfire re-telling but to put the numbers out in a publication just seems wrong, at least to my way of thinking.

I find it even more troubling that someone who is considered a valid source would do it.

There are differing philosophies on fishing.  Take me & my brother for example, we couldn't be further apart on the issue.  He considers it a failure to not catch fish.  I consider it a bonus to catch fish.  Sure I get a little dejected when I come up empty, but catching is not why I fish.

Niether is wrong.  The buddhist in me says that one philosophy is a path to suffering.   ;)

The only time I keep count is for my spring trout trip.  I participate in a survey which helps the ministry to track whatever trends they track.  The APP Trout Survey also helps me decide where to go the next year.
  (You need to Login or Register

Quote:

The only time I keep count is for my spring trout trip.  I participate in a survey which helps the ministry to track whatever trends they track.  The APP Trout Survey also helps me decide where to go the next year.   (You need to Login or Register

A survey for scientific/research information is quite different than the story in discussion. Hopefully someone that took the time to participate and read the survey would plan their trip not only for the catch but to not over-fish the source.
Counting and publishing the results makes it seem that there's a abundance of fish which some miscreants might take as a sign that they can take what the like, regardless of the rules.

I've never been asked for a fishing license, never been approached by a back country ranger. I buy a Conservation license, but could easily have fish 3x a day and no-one but myself and my conscience would be the wiser.

I sure most honest people feel the same way, but it only takes a few to decimate a small lake.

remember those grainy black-and-white photos from deer camps of yester-yore, with 5 or 6 deer hanging from a pole propped between two trees?

i have a vision of a battleship-strong cable strung between two centuries-old pine on either side of Pickerel, with 279 fish hanging down.

-- kypaddler

Completely agree with you ST.  I have been asked while in back-country, met several rangers & park staff in some areas including APP.

Attitudes have, for the most part, changed.  The existence of a conservation licence illustrates.

Nobody does this anymore, do they?
  (You need to Login or Register   (You need to Login or Register

Preach,

that you, second from left, right?

-- kypaddler

I count 30 fish in that picture Preacher.  If that was in MN, between the six of them they are still under daily possession limit.  Not that I would condone it - just sayin' (before wally chimes in.)  ;)

They paid their money, they took their fish.  Wierd how you are frowned upon for maximizing your take.  When did it become honorable to consume less than allowed?  The only honorable thing is whether you follow the rules and pay for your liscense.  If these guys are "legal" in the above pic....then I applaud them.  We need a return to those times.

Gorgeous catch, and it looks like they had a ball.

PhantomJug wrote on Jun 30^th, 2011 at 3:30pm:

I count 30 fish in that picture Preacher.  If that was in MN, between the six of them they are still under daily possession limit.  Not that I would condone it - just sayin' (before wally chimes in.)  ;)

Add MENTALIST to PJ's Pipe Playing/Scotch drinking/fishing prowess ;D

I get what your saying Wally. You can't blame someone if they've paid their money and following the rules as written. But, in some cases being legal doesn't mean it's the " right" thing to do in every case. Depending on where you fill your daily limit could mean the difference between fishing a spot out or sustaining the resource.

kypaddler wrote on Jun 30^th, 2011 at 2:21pm:

Preach, that you, second from left, right? -- kypaddler

Back in the day it would have been!  I was not so enlightened as a child.  Once I filled someone's sailboat (a sunfish full of rainwater) with sunfish caught off the dock!

This is me,   (You need to Login or Register

@wally It has always been honourable to be moderate in your consumption.  We're not talking about stocking up for winter vs. starving here.  The difference between taking what you're allowed and taking what you need is called "class".  You wouldn't call the slaughter of the buffalo honourable, would you?  They took what they were allowed.  There are put-and-take fisheries that are stocked to be fished, but native populations should be treated with respect.

You guys miss the point....
someone takes a limit u don't agree with, a legal limit...and now they're without class?  Class is following the law.   Class is allowing others the grace to follow a law u might disagree with.  Class is realizing that what's good for u may not b good for someone else.

But then, since I know how to manage a resource better than those in charge, I have the most class?

Taking a limit is now equated with depleting a resource?  We have bean counters to determine that.

wally wrote on Jul 5^th, 2011 at 7:35am:

Class is following the law.

Class is not about following the letter of the law.  It's in how you choose to follow laws & conventions.  It's also culturally & situationally contextual.

Staying on topic.  While individual situations do mitigate what a classy act would be, we are in the situation of having a maximum quota.  Let's take a look at Frank Capra's masterpiece, It's a Wonderful Life. 

Who has more class?  Old Man Potter who would be completely within his rights to foreclose on defaulted mortgages (taking his allowed quota) or George Bailey who says, "...this rabble you're talking about... they do most of the working and paying and living and dying in this community. Well, is it too much to have them work and pay and live and die in a couple of decent rooms and a bath?"

Who has more class?  The guy who when the depression hits wants all his money out of the B&L (taking his allowed quota) or the lady who just asks for $17.50 to tide herself over.