Skip to main content

POST 42: Potential Bias by Game and Fish

Did Game and Fish demonstrate a bias?

Please take your time and read through this post carefully. It is the most important post of them all. I will detail actions by Game and Fish which demonstrated a potential bias.

1. Game and Fish contacted Gibbs's place of employment and stated, "witness to the violation" just hours after announcing my walleye broke the state record.

If you remember, I caught my walleye on April 21st. It was around 9:00 am on Monday, April 22nd, the day after I caught my walleye, Game and Fish published a press release stating my walleye was the new state record for North Dakota. Again this was done even though I NEVER submitted the application to be recognized for the state record. See the image of the press release below:


It was less than four hours after the press release, Game and Fish contacted Gibbs's place of employment and stated my fish was "under investigation" and Gibbs was "witness to the violation." This was done even though Game and Fish stated people make false allegations, "all the time," jealousy becomes an issue and you hear that all the time.
  • Robert Timian, North Dakota’s chief game warden stated, “Anytime somebody claims a new record, it’s common that people will make allegations,” And further stated, “Anytime you get into record books, jealousy becomes an issue.” Here is a link to the New York Times article with these published statements: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/25/us/fishing-records-cheating.html. 
  • The director of Game and Fish stated, “people saying it was foul hooked…ok well, you hear that all the time whether it’s a big deer or big walleye…there is somebody always has…they did it wrong…they did it illegally.” Here is the recorded sound clip from the InForum podcast with the Game and Fish Director, Terry Steinwand: https://youtu.be/gieQdBFJk7A. 
Game and Fish admitted people make false claims against others “all the time” and "jealousy has always been an issue," yet, they stated my walleye was "under investigation" and Gibbs was "witness to the violation" just hours after they published their press release. 
Considering people make false allegations all the time, why wasn’t there a better process in place to verify my record fish or why wasn’t a more thorough investigation completed? 

2. The investigator stated to Magnes they were "certainly working" to prove my walleye was foul-hooked.

The second incident of what I believe demonstrated a bias occurred when the investigator was speaking with Jacob Magnes (who was not a witness). Magness stated, "In the back of my mind...there's a 99% chance that fish was snagged and caught illegally down there." The investigator responded, "I think you are probably right...of course it is up to us to prove that at this point...and we are certainly working to try and do that..."  After making this statement, the investigator changed his tone quickly, probably realizing the conversation was being recorded and will be later shared. You can hear these statements starting at 1:12 of this recording: https://youtu.be/JW2_S3KBuCA.
The statements made by the investigator demonstrate to me, he already had his mind made up and was only looking for information to support his beliefs.
What's worse, we learned that Magnes was not a witness to me catching my walleye. His exact location where he was fishing and the time he was fishing was never verified. Yet, Magnes's statements were included in the report without these clarifications. His statements had nothing to do with me catching my walleye.
The details about Magnes NOT being a witness were intentionally left out of the Investigation Report to mislead the public. The intentional act to omit information to mislead is a crime and demonstrated a potential bias. 

3. The investigator told Gibbs he had "no doubt" the walleye was "foul-hooked" and stated both Gibbs and I were not telling the truth. 

When you listen to Gibbs's official statement, the investigator made several comments which demonstrated a potential bias.

The Game and Fish investigator questioned Gibbs for nearly 47 minutes where he asked over 55 questions. In the interview with Gibbs, the investigator stated things like, “No doubt in my mind it was foul hooked…you need to tell the truth…I have a hard time believing you…the reason you would have to lie would be to protect Tom…I don’t think you told the whole story…the story Tom is telling everybody is not the truth…” 

 When Gibbs was explaining how he felt the fish flop in the net, the investigator made these statements to Gibbs, “I have had enough. You need to tell the truth. It's on the video...the fish didn’t even move in the net…didn’t even flop…I’m not BS’n you…it didn’t move. The story Tom is telling everybody is 100% not what happened...not the truth..." You can listen to some of these clipped comments here: https://youtu.be/5i3lVhyXaY8.

 The investigator continued to state, "What reason would the witnesses (Knuth) have to lie? No doubt in my mind it was foul hooked…I’m sure the fish was foul hooked…I’ll be honest…I have no question on that. The story Tom is telling everybody is not the truth.” 
Witnesses did lie, and the investigator did not want to believe Gibbs even though nearly everything Gibbs stated could have been proven true with the images and videos Game and Fish had in their possession. 

For example, let's look at the comments made about how the walleye flopped in the net. Here are screenshots from the Witness Video:
Screenshot from the Witness Video. The walleye was upside down in the net.
A few seconds later, the walleye was upright in the net. The hook was not visible. 
It is a little difficult to see here, but again, the fish is upright in the net. The hook is not visible. 
The fish is now upside down in the net. The hook is not visible. 

If the investigator would have reviewed the Witness Video which they had in their possession, he could have proven the fish flopped in the net corroborating Gibbs's statements. The investigator could have also proven the hook was not visible on either side of the fish, back of the fish, tail or anywhere on the outside. He could have proven just how long Gibbs walked with the fish in the net before he finally put it down to look inside. The investigator could have heard how the witnesses reacted to the walleye being caught where witnesses were cheering and celebrating showing there were no concerns.
If the investigator would have reviewed the evidence they had in their possession and compared it to what witnesses were stating, it would have proven Gibbs's statements were true. 
I believe the investigator held onto the belief from the very beginning the fish was foul-hooked. I believe this perception prevented the investigator from looking for evidence which supported the walleye was hooked legally.

Game and Fish had the picture of my son holding up a walleye (with Knuth in the background) with the hook in the mouth of a fish. See image below:


Image provided to Game and Fish showing my son with a walleye hooked in the mouth. Witness Knuth is in the background. This picture was taken at 2:49pm. 

The image above was provided to the investigator and could have proven what Knuth said as false when he stated, “he let his kids reel in a couple little fish before that…and they bring in the fish…and the hook would be in the back fin…or center of the fish…I seen em pull two fish in before that…and they both had the hook in the top fin...” 
As you can see in the image, the walleye was hooked in the mouth proving Knuth lied. 

 In Gibbs's official statement, the investigator stated, “One of the guys that was standing right next to you guys (Knuth) said the two that were caught before that one were smaller…but both of em were hooked in the same exact spot as that one (the record walleye). What reason would people who are standing there fishing have to lie to me about that?...probably no reason." Video: https://youtu.be/EAPlEMVzee8.
Instead, of reviewing the evidence in their possession, the investigator sided with and believed Knuth who provided false statements. And when speaking with Gibbs, he stated Gibbs lied and what I (Tom) was telling everyone was "not the truth...not what happened" even though nearly everything I stated could be proven with direct evidence. 

4. Game and Fish intentionally left out information in their report which supported the walleye was hooked legally. 

I made several statements to the media about how the walleye bit, how it fought, how there was a hole in the mouth, etc.
  • “Caught 10 to 12 nice walleye prior to the big one.”
  • “When that fish bit (record walleye), you could feel it.”
  • “They were aggressive. When they bit, they bit.” 
  • “Very aggressive. You can feel the ‘tunk’ on the jig. Have to set the hook fast. It didn’t move. Stayed down. Felt the big head shakes. Reeling hard. Want to fight it out in the current. Drag was loose. Rolled or flipped in the current…or something. Goes back down.”
  • "it was fighting so strong...I don’t know what the heck’s going on. 
  • “When he lifted the net, everyone was cheering.” 
  • “It was mouth hooked, absolutely."
  • “You have the hole in the side of the mouth. When I was looking it over to get it mounted, you can see there is a huge hole in the side his mouth where it had been hooked. Game and Fish does a look over on the fish too…wipe it down…took pictures and video.”
You can listen to some of the sound clips from one of my statements referenced in the Investigation Report here: https://youtu.be/Fs1F48Ybvuw.
I specifically stated many things which supported my belief the walleye was caught legally yet, the investigator intentionally left these details out of the report.
Information was intentionally left out of the report to mislead you and others which demonstrated a potential bias. All of the information should have been included in the report for review especially considering it was reasonable to assume it was going to get published.

In Gibbs's official statement, he made several comments which supported the walleye was hooked legally. Here are just a few:
  • Gibbs stated, "I don't think we foul-hooked any walleye...he (Tom) has pictures." 
  • Gibbs stated, “it (the record walleye) was ripping drag…fighting like a normal fish…you could see the head shakes…fighting like a normal-hooked walleye the entire time...had no doubts.” 
  • Gibbs stated, “He (Tom) said he thought he saw it hooked in the mouth.” 
  • Gibbs stated, “It was staying underwater…head was upstream...” 
  • Gibbs stated, "It (the walleye) has a hole in its mouth." 
  • Gibbs stated, "Tom's saving the fish for you. He want's you to come get it." 
Here are some sounds clips from Gibbs's official statement:
The investigator intentionally left out statements made by Gibbs's in the report which supported his belief the walleye was caught legally. This demonstrated a bias. 

5. Game and Fish intentionally left out the details of Mathew Knuth's voice message. 

If you read the investigation report by Game and Fish, it referenced only two individual statements made by Knuth (an email and phone interview). Yet, Knuth left a voice message with Game and Fish intentionally left out of their report. Here is that recording of Knuth's voice message to Game and Fish: https://youtu.be/YDSs0F020Ww. 

This is what Knuth stated, “I’m almost like 100% positive it was snagged in the tail. I kinda didn’t put 2-and-2 together until later that day. I’m 100…like 99.5% sure it was snagged. 
Knuth himself made statements which implied he wasn't sure my record walleye was foul-hooked and expressed reasonable doubt. 
Knuth stated, "almost, like 99.5% sure, didn't put 2-and-2 together until later, probably and I don't know." Game and Fish had this recording and intentionally left it out of the Investigation Report. This demonstrated a potential bias.  


6. Game and Fish left out statements in their report made by Mathew Knuth which supported his belief my walleye was caught legally. 

In Matthew Knuth's official statement, he referenced how he believed my walleye was caught legally. Here is what he stated:
  • Knuth stated, "Everyone was like Boo. Boo. Let it go. Let it go. You know. I was like, why? I was like...he just caught this massive fish. This is just such a...such a epic moment for this guy. He's with his family and he's all happy...but everyone else and me, we didn't quite know what was going on..."  Again, here is the recording from above where he made these statements: https://youtu.be/gUBBSQTtb7g. 
The only witness who provided an official statement admitted my walleye was caught, NOT snagged.  
Knuth admitted I "caught this massive fish" and it was such an "epic moment" and how he "didn't know what was going on." He even admitted it was an epic moment. These details were intentionally omitted from the investigation report demonstrating a potential bias.

7. The May 10th conversation asking Game and Fish to review my evidence. 

The most convincing evidence suggesting there was a bias by Game and Fish was the recorded conversation between me, the investigator for Game and Fish and my attorney. You can listen to clips here: https://youtu.be/3pGiEFcWGmA. Here is a summary of what was stated:
  • Attorney, “Tom has pictures and videos. The fish has a hole in the mouth and no scales missing. And, there was a witness stating it was hooked in the mouth.” 
  • Investigator, “Again, I am only writing you a warning.” 
  • I stated, “But it just that the record wouldn’t be recognized. And, I don’t think I did anything wrong…that’s the problem. Would you be willing to look at these images and pictures and bring this back?”
  • Winkelman, “Right now, my investigation is closed.” 
  • Attorney, “If we could provide evidence that would substantiate that this should be the state record, I think that is in everybody’s best interest.” 
  • Attorney, “The fish hasn’t been taken to the taxidermist…the only thing wrong with the fish is a torn soft dorsal…Tom does have pictures…no damage to the body of the fish…fin…does have a tear in it…it’s clean through…would think that if the fish would have been hooked on that, it have come off in the water… 
  • Winkelman, “Right, it wasn’t hooked in the fin.”
  • Attorney, “So then there should be some damage to the back of the fish…shouldn’t there?”
  • Winkelman, “I’m sure there will be a hole, certainly.”
  • Attorney, “If you examined the fish…to haul a fish of that size…it would have to leave a decent hole in the thing…?” 
  • Winkelman, “Not necessarily…depends on drag…type of rod…obviously the fish wasn’t coursed to get in, that’s for sure.” 
  • Attorney, “Do you think if you looked at it you would be able to determine that?”
  • Winkelman, “I don’t know what it’s going to tell us other than what we already know…”
When my attorney asked the investigator to review the walleye and the evidence to determine whether or not the walleye was foul-hooked the investigator responded, "My investigation is closed. I am only writing you a warning. I don’t know what it’s going to tell us other than what we already know…”
Refusing new evidence and making the statement about how new evidence wouldn't tell them anything new demonstrated a bias. 
  • Attorney, “If you could look at it and see if there are no scales missing…point this to one way or other…we do have video of the fish…Tom reeling the fish in…see the fish breach the water in the current…don’t know if that would enlighten…or not…it’s a better video…”
  • (12:12) Attorney, “It is not often…when there’s not going to be criminal charges…offer to give up evidence…before you issue the warning, Scott, how about this…what would you think about taking a look at the fish and the video Tom has and after that make a decision as to what you want to do…” 
  • (12:39) Winkelman, “I don’t know that I am going to do that right now…again, the decision was made to issue a warning…when I talked to Tom last week…we would make our decision based off what we have…it’s just a warning.” 
My attorney asked, "Before you issue the warning Scott, how about this, what would you think about taking a look at the fish and the video Tom has and after that make a decision as to what you want to do." The investigator responded, “I don’t know that I am going to do that right now…again, the decision was made to issue a warning."
Again, refusing new evidence demonstrated a bias. 
  • Attorney, “If you think that looking at the fish would give you any indication as to how it was hooked…”
  • Winkelman, “Even if there is a hole in the mouth, that doesn’t prove it was legally hooked. It could have been hooked by someone before Tom caught it…” 
My attorney asked, “If you think that looking at the fish would give you any indication as to how it was hooked…” The investigator responded, “Even if there is a hole in the mouth, that doesn’t prove it was legally hooked. It could have been hooked by someone before Tom caught it…” 
Game and Fish refused to review my evidence which included the walleye itself. 
They then referenced this May 10th conversation in their investigation report but failed to mention I offered them all my evidence including the walleye. Again, Game and Fish intentionally omitted information in the report to mislead you and the State's Attorney. They deliberately attempted to make me appear like I just accepted the written warning. This couldn't be farther from the truth! Their actions demonstrated a bias.  

Things need to change!

When Game and Fish opened their investigation, they were obligated to conduct a thorough and non-biased investigation. Did this happen?
  • Witness statements were not fact-checked against the evidence which means false statements made by witnesses were included in the Investigation Report.
  • Game and Fish didn't seek out additional witnesses like the one who made the public statement, "Caught right across from me. Looked like it was hooked in the mouth, not snagged."
  • Game and Fish never interviewed the officers who verified my walleye or the people at the gas stations who witnessed the condition of my walleye.
  • Information was intentionally left out of the Investigation Report which supported my walleye was caught legally like my comments about the "huge hole in the mouth of the fish."  
  • Information was intentionally included in their report if it made it appear my walleye was foul-hooked such as statements made by people who were NOT witnesses and statements pulled out of context. 
  • When offered, Game and Fish refused my evidence which included the walleye. 
  • Game and Fish "concluded" my walleye was foul-hooked even though they provided NO direct evidence documenting where the hook was located at the time my walleye was caught and netted.
The above points demonstrated the belief there was a bias during the investigation. 
Because Game and Fish opened the investigation into my walleye and "concluded" it was foul-hooked, they were required to provide direct evidence a crime occurred. Did they do that? Where is the picture or video documenting the location of the hook at the time the walleye was caught or netted? Where is the official statement from a witness who said they saw the hook when the walleye was caught? The only hole in the walleye is in the mouth. Game and Fish provided NO direct evidence to prove my walleye was foul-hooked when it was caught, yet they somehow concluded it was.
It is my belief, the investigator wasn't looking to prove my walleye was caught legally therefore, he wasn't reviewing evidence to corroborate the fact it could have been hooked legally. 
I believe, Game and Fish held onto the belief my walleye was foul-hooked from the very beginning and that this belief skewed the way things were perceived, documented, and published in their report. When a "conclusion was made," it was NOT based on all of the facts and evidence.

*To this day, after several attempts, Game and Fish has expressed no interest to correct their mistakes. I will show you what these attempts looked like in a future post.


#northdakotaslargestwalleye #volkswalleye #justiceforthelargestwalleye

Comments

Post a Comment