Jump to content
  • GUESTS

    If you want access to members only forums on HSO, you will gain access only when you Sign-in or Sign-Up .

    This box will disappear once you are signed in as a member. 😀

  • RECEIVE THE GIFTS MEMBERS SHARE WITH YOU HERE...THEN...CREATE SOMETHING TO ENCHANT OTHERS THAT YOU WANT TO SHARE

    You know what we all love...

    When you enchant people, you fill them with delight and yourself in return. Have Fun!!!

Sign in to follow this  
Wookiee

Sauger and Saugeye -Photo Gallery

Recommended Posts

I don't think it is a blue but then I'm not sure what it is.

The few blues I have seen pictures of definitely have a blue hue to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Found this on another forum, evidently caught recently in Richardson Lake, Canada. Could just be a regular walleye with a really pronounced blue hue though.

Canada09015.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thats a really cool looking fish now if i could get 1 thats 30 plus inch that would be even better

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had to ask being that I just like eating smile walleye. What is this? It had a tiny dorsal fin, very little white along the tail and also not a spot on the tail or anywhere else. The eye was the size of a 50 cent piece.

27x13.5 keep in mind I'm almost 6'4 270 I seem to make fish look small frown

c156341daf.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we caught some sauger like that in manitoba - they were almost purplish. very cool looking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After looking at all the pics posted earlier in this thread I would have to agree that it is a sauger. It has been so long since I caught one that I thought this one with the black on it was different then the ones I remember catching up at LOTW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must not catch enough Sauger to know any better. But what makes that a Saugeye? I woulda just called it a Sauger. Nice fish by the way!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a small one I caught yesterday on pool 2. Small but I thought the very black tint was interesting. Darkest one I ever caught. Looked solid black when I brought it out of the water.

sauger_black-1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are correct it is a saugeye. I was thinking it was a very dark sauger but the gold color and a little white on the tail says it all. First saugeye I have caught. Will have to pay more attention in the future.

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You never know, that could be a full on state record sauger! Whatever it is, it's a nice one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the state record sauger is like 6 lbs/24 inches isnt it? that thing could have smashed the state record!!! what did you do with that fish?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont know of course but from looking at the pic it looks like a walleye or maybe saugeye more than a true sauger but thats just from looking at a pic on the computer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Captain Fireman was pretty sure it was a Saugeye as it had a white tip on the tail.

You really never know though until you take DNA samples. I read an article from out West somewhere about a huge Walleye that later turned out to be a Saugeye after the DNR did some testing, and is the now the current record. Can’t tell at all by looking at the picture that is was a saugeye. It looked just like a walleye.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the state record sauger is like 6 lbs/24 inches isnt it? that thing could have smashed the state record!!! what did you do with that fish?

It was a saugeye, no DNA test needed and it was CPRed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  



  • Your Responses - Share & Have Fun :)

    • I'm OK with the replay if it's used for a challenge.  The automatic review is pretty lame though.   And I agree with Dave about the playcall.  If he would have thrown to an open receiver nobody would have said it was an awful call.  Cousins effed that up.
    • I have an terrova with Ipilot, (not link),   I lay the trolling motor in the bottom of the boat which is stored in covered storage.  It has been fine for several years.   Gets darn cold up around Cook.   No problem.  On the other hand I bring my depth finders and transducer home and store above freezing due to bad experiences with Lowrance transducers in previous years and ambiguity in documents about my elite 7s I have two  
    • ^^^^^^^^   1. zimmerman and stefanski should be fired, cousins benched. (or released)   2. the review by the "experts" in NY has destroyed any legitimacy this sport may have had.   Should note cousins contract. speilman got played. (he should go too)    
    • Ive never really been a fan of replay.  I think we've all seen cases where the refs still screwed it up after replay so we're trading one bad call for another.  Its interesting to hear the rules guy they have commenting on the broadcasts.  They always give their opinions on how they see the play and whether it should be overturned or not.  Yesterday there were 2 reviews that they disagreed with how the officials called the play after review which shows how its all still subjective.    You can look at every single play during a game and probably find something to call on both teams if you look hard enough which I think is a case of what happened during Diggs touchdown that was called back.  Cook either ran into the defender or intentionally tried to block him.  I'm not sure its 100% clear either way and isn't the benchmark supposed to be "clear and indisputable"?  Unfortunately now that replay is a thing pandora is out of its box and I don't think it can ever be put back in.  
    • 1. I think the play call was fine, Cousins just F'ed it up. Play action on first down after you have been running up and down the field on a team is pretty standard but throwing into triple coverage on a play like that is not.   2. Anyone who has ever advocated for instant replay review in sports is now getting what they deserve in my opinion. I could have told you that there would be a natural progression that would lead to this point and beyond. I say get rid of replay review in it's entirety and live and die by what referees call on the field. I was told at the beginning stages of replay that the reason was "so we get the calls right". If that is really the reason, you should be happy they got it right. 
    • Only 2 comments on the game.    1. What a lousy throw by Cousins in the endzone and what a lousy play call.  They were running the ball right down the Packers throats, why would you not keep running it.  2. I think I hate the new PI replay.  To take a touchdown off the board because they noticed someone maybe sorta blocking when they reviewed the scoring play is kind of a joke.  The PI wasn't called on the field and no one challenged it.  When you're reviewing the scoring play it seems like you should only be reviewing if the player got the ball across the line without losing control.  Pretty soon they'll be reviewing every lineman to make sure they weren't holding on the play as well and that none of them moved a thousandth of a second before the snap.  If that happens I hope they also review every defensive player to make sure they didn't move early, hold, or engage a receiver after 5 yards.  It really feels like we've gone too far with this replay thing and they're using it as a answer to everything when sometime you're just exchanging one bad call for another.    I think thats all I've got besides the fact that I haven't been real impressed with the NFC north so far.  The Packers and Vikings look average to decent but hardly superbowl contenders.  The Bears squeaked out a win but they are looking like they don't have much to work with at QB.  And the Lions as usual aren't worth talking about.  
    • The roof is finally on and I got some of the wiring started.  The tin came in over the weekend so I was able to pick that up last night.  I will start to put that up this week if the weather permits.
    • This is where:   Big Dave2 HSO Legacy Member Don't know much about football, huh?   😁   Doesn't matter if we have a good QB. We're a running team! 🙄
    • I hope they draft a good QB next year. That was a shiatty play call on first and goal to begin with. Pack aren't that impressive, neither are the Vikes.
×
×
  • Create New...