POST 30: The Investigation Report - Page 1 ("Involved Persons")

The Game and Fish Investigation Report

After Game and Fish published the press release stating, "The North Dakota Game and Fish Department has completed an investigation into the 16-pound, 9-ounce walleye taken April 21 from the Heart River, and based on evidence provided, department officials have concluded the fish was foul-hooked, and therefore cannot be recognized as a state record," they provided the Investigation Report to the media to be published. It can be viewed on the InForum website here:  https://www.inforum.com/sports/outdoors/1022322-McFeely-N.D.-Game-and-Fish-walleye-investigation-included-video-witnesses-that-stripped-angler-of-state-record.

How many of you reviewed the Investigation Report by Game and Fish? How many of you really reviewed it? We are going to briefly break down and go through the investigation report together. I will point out some unethical and potentially illegal acts by Game and Fish.

Page 1 of the Investigation Report. 

Page 1 of the Investigation Report by Game and Fish. 

The Game and Fish report lists five "Involved Persons." But if you remember from my earlier posts in my blog, Jacob Magness and Jason Arenz were not witnesses.

Jacob Magness

On page 1 of the report, Magness was listed as an "involved person" and "interviewed." Game and Fish published comments made by Magness in their report  on page 3 and 4 stating: "Magness stated the following: Magness had been fishing that spot for 3 days and had not seen a fish over 20 inches actually bite. Magness saw 8-10 fish over 27 inches caught that morning and all of them were snagged." 

Here is the actual recorded statement made by Jacob Magness: https://youtu.be/dUNXsXHWAsg.

Magness was not an "involved person" or witness to me catching my walleye. 

When the investigator asked, “I’m assuming you weren’t down there when it (the big walleye) was caught?” Magness replied, “No. I was not.” The date, time and location Magness was fishing was never verified. Was he fishing in the same spot? Was he using similar bait? Was he casting into the same slack-water hole? Did the fishing conditions change from the morning?

Magness did not provide any relevant information on how I caught my walleye yet, his statements were included in the report. 

Considering Magness was not an "involved person" or a witness, why were his statements included in the Investigation Report? Why was it never clarified in the report that Magness was not an "involved person" or an actual witness? Were these details intentionally left out of the report to mislead you? If so, it is a crime for a state agency to omit information in written communication to mislead. See North Dakota state law 12.1-11-02: False Statements.

Were you mislead by Magness's statements in the written report by Game and Fish? Should Game and Fish continue the practice of including statements from non-involved persons or non-witnesses in a published investigation report? I asked them to change this practice. They didn't acknowledge any wrongdoing and didn't express they were making any changes to this practice.

Jason Arenz

Game and Fish listed Jason Arenz as an "involved person" and listed him as "interviewed." Here is what Game and Fish included in their report referencing Arenz: "Winkelman contacted Arenz and Arenz met Winkelman...Winkelman downloaded the video from Arenz's phone onto his computer. Arenz stated his juvenile son took the video and was standing next to the fisherman who caught the fish." 

• Even through Arenz was listed on page 1 as an "involved person" and listed him as "interviewed," Arenz was not a witness and did not provide a statement. He is the father of the witness who recorded the Witness Video. 

Now that we know Magness and Arenz were not witnesses, we are left with three people listed on page 1 as "involved persons." They are Gibbs, Knuth and myself. 

Other Involved Persons?

We will take a look at the other listed "involved persons" (me, Gibbs and Knuth) in my upcoming posts, but first, who's missing from Game and Fish's list of Involved Persons?

If you were completing an investigation into my walleye, who would you want to interview that Game and Fish did not? 

For starters, why weren't the two officers who verified my walleye interviewed or Anderson (employee of Game and Fish) who came later to take pictures? They saw the condition of the walleye minutes after it was caught and asked several questions about how I caught it. They also took pictures and video of the walleye. Wouldn't they have provided valuable information for an investigation? Wouldn't it have been good to include their images and videos in an investigation report for the public to see?

Game and Fish did not interview the two officers who verifified my walleye or their employee who took images and asked how I caught the fish. 

Why didn't the investigator interview the people involved in weighing the walleye at the three different locations? They could have spoke to the condition of the walleye and provided context to my demeanor and any statements made about how I caught the fish. Some of them even took pictures. Their statements and evidence would have been valuable in an investigation, right?

Game and Fish did not interview anyone from the three locations where the walleye was weighed. 

Why didn't they interview my wife? She was a witness who recorded a video of me reeling in the walleye yet, she was never asked to provide a statement. She helped me wrap up the walleye for storage, she helped record the condition of my walleye during the inspections, she took pictures, etc. Wouldn't her perspective be valuable for an investigation?

My wife was more than willing to provide a statement however, she was never asked.

Wouldn't you also want to reach out and interview potential witnesses at the Heart River who were posting about my walleye on social media in the public forums? There were many who stated they were at the location when I caught my walleye. Why didn't Game and Fish reach out to or include any of these statements in their report:

This person posted "Caught right across from me. Looked like it was hooked in the mouth. Not snagged." Considering this was on a public forum where Game and Fish pulled some of my statements from, why didn't they reach out and ask for a statement?

This person stated, "I was there yesterday, the walleye that were caught all bit. The fish coming in sideways are carp and suckers. Be sure to be able to identify fish before spouting off.  It's TRUE.  You dont need an 80,000 dollar boat to catch fish!!" Considering this person stated he was at the location yesterday, and all the walleye that were caught all bit, why didn't Game and Fish reach out to this person? They included statements from Magnes who was not a witness or involved person? 

Potential changes

I know Game and Fish didn't ask to investigate my walleye, but considering they opened one, they had the obligation to conduct a thorough and impartial investigation. As we learned, Game and Fish included statements from people if they supported the belief my walleye was foul-hooked which included statements from Magnes. They left out statements from people if their views supported the belief the walleye was hooked legally like the person who posted, "Caught right across from me. Looked like it was hooked in the mouth. Not snagged." 

The actions to include statements which supported the belief the walleye was foul-hooked and to leave out information which supported the belief the walleye was hooked legally demonstrated a potential bias and mislead anyone who read the investigation report.

Game and Fish should have reached out to the people making public posts about my walleye, specifically those who may have been a witness. This needs to happen in future investigations.

Game and Fish did not conduct what I would call a thorough investigation. They did not interview or include any statements from the two officers who verified my walleye. They did not interview or include any statements from their employee who took images and asked how I caught the fish. They did not interview people from the gas stations who helped verify the walleye. They didn't even ask my wife (who was a witness) to provide a statement. 

These witnesses would have been able to provide valuable information about the condition of the fish and any statements I made about how I caught the walleye.

In future investigations, Game and Fish needs to reach out and interview as many involved persons as possible. A "conclusion" should not be made without doing this first. 

By law, I was supposed to be considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. I was given a written warning and told my walleye didn't qualify for a record. I did not have the option to appeal the decision and was never able to introduce my evidence or call on my own witnesses. The one-sided, misleading investigation report was published in the media which led many people to believe I was guilty of a crime. Game and Fish published a press release stating they made their conclusion on "evidence provided" even though they refused to review my evidence including the walleye. I suffered damages and public hatred because of these things. 

If these things allowed to continue, more people will go through what I went through.

#northdakotaslargestwalleye  #volkswalleye  #justiceforthelargestwalleye