# The return of Hoover walleye....



## Fishingislife

I was told by a fellow OGFer that this was an early April fool's joke. Little does he know that this is not an early April fool's joke and the return of walleye are coming back to Hoover.


----------



## bluegill bill

Fishingislife said:


> I was told by a fellow OGFer that this was an early April fool's joke. Little does he know that this is not an early April fool's joke and the return of walleye are coming back to Hoover.


Back in the day .Spent many sunrise services at hoover.The state used hoover for walleye stocking program.Rip-Rap along county line bridge and dam rocks was one of the best walleye fishiers in Columbus .Thin fin shad would nock the snot out of them .Alumn was another great walleye area don't know why the state stopped stocking except about that time the saugeye came about.


----------



## Saugeyefisher

Fishingislife said:


> I was told by a fellow OGFer that this was an early April fool's joke. Little does he know that this is not an early April fool's joke and the return of walleye are coming back to Hoover.


Really???? That will be cool. Any other info on it?


----------



## Hoover 4 Me

I’ve heard rumors that with the recent lack of successful saugeye stockings that talks of taking another shot at walleye we’re taking place. 

I’ve been fishing Hoover for a long, long time and remember when it was great for walleye. It was pretty good for saugeye too until recently. However, I had a good year last year. I caught a ton of small fish, which wasn’t happening the last years.


----------



## Saugeyefisher

bluegill bill said:


> Back in the day .Spent many sunrise services at hoover.The state used hoover for walleye stocking program.Rip-Rap along county line bridge and dam rocks was one of the best walleye fishiers in Columbus .Thin fin shad would nock the snot out of them .Alumn was another great walleye area don't know why the state stopped stocking except about that time the saugeye came about.


Al linder used to hype the Hoover walleye fishing along smothers all the time.....


----------



## fishslim

Going to be a mix of Walleye and Saugeye stocked starting this year in a hope to see if they can take hold again. Hope is that they will live longer avg. Life of a saugeye now is only 3 ro 3 1/2 years walleyes will live 3 to 4 rimes that. Will be interesting to see how it goes. Still think crappie population needs drastically reduced before we see much better results.


----------



## acklac7

Wow, awesome news! Looking forward to them establishing a breeding population in the Scioto here in the next 5-7 years! (although that might be difficult with all the Saugeye to breed with on accident)


----------



## RiparianRanger

Interesting. Curious as to what is the rationale of ODNR biologists for the change in stockings protocols. I spoke with an ODNR PhD last year. As Troy alluded to, the PhD stated they suspected the low survival rates of Hoover saugeye was the result of historically stocking fry which were being preyed upon by crappie. He stated they would explore stocking fingerlings instead. There was no mention of walleye at that time (just one year ago). 

Does anyone have any official information on the purpose of the alleged walleye program? Are they anticipated to reproduce naturally and therefore supplement stocking of saugeye and walleye thereby minimizing the potential falloff from predatory crappie?


----------



## Fishingislife

RiparianRanger said:


> Interesting. Curious as to what is the rationale of ODNR biologists for the change in stockings protocols. I spoke with an ODNR PhD last year. As Troy alluded to, the PhD stated they suspected the low survival rates of Hoover saugeye was the result of historically stocking fry which were being preyed upon by crappie. He stated they would explore stocking fingerlings instead. There was no mention of walleye at that time (just one year ago).
> 
> Does anyone have any official information on the purpose of the alleged walleye program? Are they anticipated to reproduce naturally and therefore supplement stocking of saugeye and walleye thereby minimizing the potential falloff from predatory crappie?



Predatory crappie? More like predator white bass! I agree with being preyed by the crappies but don't blame just the crappies....have you ever watched what a huge school of white bass can do to fry? I have watched the white bass in Hoover destroy small fry numerous times throughout the years.


----------



## Lundy

I caught many a walleye in Hoover, Alum and Deer Creek a long time ago before the saugeye came to be.

*Saugeye Distribution and Identification*
_Saugeye are a naturally occurring hybrid in water bodies that have reproducing populations of both walleye and sauger. Trautman (1981) suggested that in water bodies with walleye and sauger a hybridization rate of about 2-3% could be expected. Billington et al. (1997) found that 4.1% of all Stizostedion (walleye, sauger, and saugeye) sampled in the Illinois river were saugeye. The sites sampled in the study were not stocked and were sustained through natural reproduction.

In the 1980s, state DNRs around the Midwest began experimenting with stocking saugeye as a sport fish in reservoirs and rivers. Throughout the 1960s and 70s, walleye were stocked with little success in turbid, structure-deficient reservoirs. In the late 70s, it was discovered that saugeye not only survive better than walleye in reservoir habitats, they also grow faster and are more easily caught by anglers. A phenomenon known as “hybrid vigor” can most likely explain the hybrid’s aggressive feeding behaviors. Saugeye were immediately popular with anglers, and states such as Ohio began replacing walleye with yearly stockings of saugeye._


----------



## Bluegillin'

I'll try and help reduce the crappie population in Hoover this year.


----------



## odell daniel

I wonder how many fish are lost through the spillways, seems like Alum loses a lot of Musky. Delaware used to have saugeye and I believe they quit stocking because of the spillway. I always thought clearfork would be perfect for walleye stocking, I get slapped around on here everytime I mention that though. Just kidding bass guys


----------



## Govbarney

odell daniel said:


> I wonder how many fish are lost through the spillways, seems like Alum loses a lot of Musky. Delaware used to have saugeye and I believe they quit stocking because of the spillway. I always thought clearfork would be perfect for walleye stocking, I get slapped around on here everytime I mention that though. Just kidding bass guys


To me this is the million dollar question. I'd love to see a study of how much of our tax dollars/license fees are flushed down to the Ohio River, and if there is anyway to prevent it. Would also like to see a comparison between spillways (Griggs) vs Dams (Alum, Hoover) when it comes to loss. 
Granted as someone who enjoys fishing the rivers more than the reservoirs/impoundmants anyway , I suppose I should be greatfull for the flush fish.


----------



## Gottagofishn

And....what about the Blues? Small walleye sound tasty to me.... I would love to see the days of big fat eyes locally but for some reason, things have changed. Maybe walleye are the answer.

And, on my wall hangs my first decent walleye. It came off the rocks by the dam at Hoover.... on a Thin Fin of course!


----------



## Saugeyefisher

Itll be fun a couple years from now watching everyone argue on here weather or not that fish is a saugeye or walleye.... or wait... theres walleye and saugeye in there,are they making sauger babies


----------



## hatteras1

RiparianRanger said:


> Interesting. Curious as to what is the rationale of ODNR biologists for the change in stockings protocols. I spoke with an ODNR PhD last year. As Troy alluded to, the PhD stated they suspected the low survival rates of Hoover saugeye was the result of historically stocking fry which were being preyed upon by crappie. He stated they would explore stocking fingerlings instead. There was no mention of walleye at that time (just one year ago).
> 
> Does anyone have any official information on the purpose of the alleged walleye program? Are they anticipated to reproduce naturally and therefore supplement stocking of saugeye and walleye thereby minimizing the potential falloff from predatory crappie?


I just attended a seminar discussing this very thing, and since Walleye historically have a longer lifespan, (more then Saugeyes, about 3 years on average) and also the stocking procedures were changed with a better success rate. Hoover will benefit from Walleye stocking. I would expect an increase of fishing pressure once this story gets out.


----------



## Govbarney

There is a lot of deep open water in the south pool those Walleyes should love suspend and chase shad in, sounds like fun for those who love to troll.


----------



## Lundy

If either Alum or Hoover was viable for a self sustaining walleye population they would still have healthy walleye populations today.


----------



## Gottagofishn

Back in the day, Alum had a healthy weed base. I hear that has returned. Maybe that will help sustain them. 
I have heard all the pro's and con's from ODNR on Saugeyes vs Walleye. With Ohio being the state to develop the Saugeye stocking program along with the slurry they came up with to feed the little guy's I'm not convinced that it was at least partially financially motivated. If I remember correctly we marketed the program to other states.
I would love to see how the walleye do. I can't imagine it would be any worse. Although..... "Be careful what you wish for" comes to mind.


----------



## Lundy

This is a 2015 report but some interesting information regarding costs to grow each species of fish on the hatcheries.

https://www.ohioauditor.gov/performance/ODNR-Fish-Hatchery-Interim-Report20150115.pdf


----------



## rutty

Lundy said:


> If either Alum or Hoover was viable for a self sustaining walleye population they would still have healthy walleye populations today.


I was reading these post and thinking the same exact thing. Everyone saying they used to catch walleye on Hoover back in the day and good ones. If the habitat was good enough for them, they would have reproduced and it would still be a good walleye fishery. However that is not the case, so I don't think adding them now will make any different. They won't take off, just like in years past. Waste of money in my opinion.


----------



## Brahmabull71

Lundy said:


> This is a 2015 report but some interesting information regarding costs to grow each species of fish on the hatcheries.
> 
> https://www.ohioauditor.gov/performance/ODNR-Fish-Hatchery-Interim-Report20150115.pdf


Great post Lundy!

So in reading, my financial brain says we are spending a significant amount more to Castalia than any other area or fish type. As far as bringing folks in to the sport of fishing and increase ‘revenues’ (I use this term loosely as government is obviously not ran as a profit driven business) I just don’t see the the cost benefit?

Fish like bass / saugeye / walleye and catfish seem to make more sense to try and stock. Low cost yet high net return to the state by increasing fish availability and potential increase in license sales.

Cost rearrangement to other sectors like keeping invasive species out of systems or other biological expenses would be of better use perhaps? Better ramps, better state fish cleaning stations and higher paid / increased amount of Wildlife Officers to manage resources could be beneficial.

No offense to steelhead (I enjoy catching them a bunch!), but when I see percentages like 190% more in labor cost to manage and maintain areas like Castalia says we are spending too much there. The study shows them ‘feed intensive’ and the facility and grounds are large to maintain meaning you have to have more workers / management officers for a fish that is relatively small on the scale of anglers that actually pursue them.

Complex issue that has more implications than just what the data shows. Interesting to ponder!


----------



## Brahmabull71

My dad has tons of ‘fish stories’ of catching larger walleye in Hoover at night. My great uncle fished there 4-5 days a week and caught some giants to the point, he laughed at my dad for wasting time going up to Erie for walleye. His opinion was Hoover produced such quality fish 15 minutes from his house that Erie wasn’t a priority. 

I used to fish Hoover as much as Alum, but the last 7-8 years I just haven’t seen the point. It’s gone down hill a bunch...not saying they aren’t there, just saying it’s not like it was. I hope that it rebounds so I don’t have to fight the Alum traffic


----------



## Lundy

My father used to take me to Hoover in the 60's and we caught walleye trolling "junebug spinners", not a lot, a 3-4 fish day was a great day. Later, 70's, I fished the dam rocks at night for the big females as the rolled along the shore. A few years later, late 70's I learned I could go to Alum along the dam and there were big female walleyes spawning and rolling on the rocks there at night but zero people but me, everyone was at hoover. Some of my first walleye in Ohio were below Deer Creek dam way, way before saugeye were invented. Used to catch them by using a syringe to blow up a nightcrawler and put a split shot 18" up the line and tight line like for catfish. Today I don't think I want to carry a syringe around in my tackle box.


----------



## rutty

Lundy said:


> My father used to take me to Hoover in the 60's and we caught walleye trolling "junebug spinners", not a lot, a 3-4 fish day was a great day. Later, 70's, I fished the dam rocks at night for the big females as the rolled along the shore. A few years later, late 70's I learned I could go to Alum along the dam and there were big female walleyes spawning and rolling on the rocks there at night but zero people but me, everyone was at hoover. Some of my first walleye in Ohio were below Deer Creek dam way, way before saugeye were invented. Used to catch them by using a syringe to blow up a nightcrawler and put a split shot 18" up the line and tight line like for catfish. Today I don't think I want to carry a syringe around in my tackle box.


you aren't that old are you?


----------



## Brahmabull71

rutty said:


> you aren't that old are you?


Yeah he is


----------



## Gottagofishn

Good read, thanks for posting. I'll see if I can't dredge up some of the info Ohio was putting out in regards to their Saugeye program in it's infancy.


----------



## rickerd

Lundy, thank you for posting this report. Very interesting.

Brahma, not sure what you are reading about costs of steelhead. Maybe the highest costs by location but on a per fish basis $.59 per fish when the average grow to harvest size is 6# plus is the best value in Ohio IMHO. Not to mention more money spent to fish for steelhead too. 

I can't believe we spend money to raise, largemouth bass at $16.25 per fish. If a body of water cannot support those fish in Ohio, what are we doing stocking them? I'm sure someone can enlighten me?
Rickerd


----------



## Govbarney

rickerd said:


> Lundy, thank you for posting this report. Very interesting.
> 
> Brahma, not sure what you are reading about costs of steelhead. Maybe the highest costs by location but on a per fish basis $.59 per fish when the average grow to harvest size is 6# plus is the best value in Ohio IMHO. Not to mention more money spent to fish for steelhead too.
> 
> I can't believe we spend money to raise, largemouth bass at $16.25 per fish. If a body of water cannot support those fish in Ohio, what are we doing stocking them? I'm sure someone can enlighten me?
> Rickerd


It stated that it is rare for them to stock largemouth (less then %1) , and only done to reintroduce the fish if they were wiped out do to what amounts to a man-made construction project.


----------



## Lundy

rutty said:


> you aren't that old are you?


Yes, and then some


----------



## polebender

Hoover produced the state record walleye at one point I believe. It was 14 lbs 14 oz. I used to go years ago during the spawn in the evenings in March and the dam area looked liked fishing the Maumee run. Shoulder to shoulder! Those big females would come up and roll all along the rip rap! A lot of 5-6 lb’ers would be caught along with a few in the 7-10lb class. They would catch them below the dam too. Especially in the first big pool. They would be stacked in there. They were so susceptible to being caught it was probably their demise. And I think the limit was 10 back then too! And of course many were taken out of there after being foul hooked.


----------



## fastwater

Things do change...sometimes for the better...sometimes for the worse.
As kids, back in the same time frame as Lundy, dad used to take us walleye fishing at Hoover as well. Actually, some of my earliest memories of fishing were there at Hoover. Remember some really nice walleye being caught and a few excellent walleye meals being eaten. 
Far as restocking walleye into Hoover goes, I'm sure before that happens( if it does) ODNR will do their best to assure there is the right water quality and fish balance to best take the gamble.
I for one hope they find the conditions perfect for doing so.


----------



## Ronny

Brahmabull71 said:


> Great post Lundy!
> No offense to steelhead (I enjoy catching them a bunch!), but when I see percentages like 190% more in labor cost to manage and maintain areas like Castalia says we are spending too much there. The study shows them ‘feed intensive’ and the facility and grounds are large to maintain meaning you have to have more workers / management officers for a fish that is relatively small on the scale of anglers that actually pursue them.
> 
> Complex issue that has more implications than just what the data shows. Interesting to ponder!


 Castalia produces most of the yearling rainbows stocked around the state in the spring, don't they? Thus the higher costs.

Benefits more of the state then you would have it appear.


----------



## BrodyC

Knowing next to nothing about the habitat required to sustain a healthy population of walleyes I would love to have walleye in Hoover. Would just be another place relatively close to me that I could go catch a few without having to make the journey all the way to Erie.


----------



## Lewzer

It's funny. People seems to want what they don't have and don't appreciate what they do have. The ODNR used to stock saugeye in NEO at Nimisila. You could pattern them and catch a nice limit on a pretty regular basis.
Due to them not wanting to possibly contaminate Erie, they switched to walleye in the LE watershed.
Walleye are a whole different ballgame. They are wanderers and difficult to pattern. I had one going for a couple of years but it was a specific time at a specific spot with a specific bait. Anything outside that and you may catch an odd one once in awhile.
Boy, I would love to have saugeye back in Nimisila but I understand that's not going to happen.

I love Hoover. I only fish it few times a year when I am in Columbus/New Albany for work and I bring my kayak along with me.


----------



## Lewzer

I still have a 3cc syringe in my box. The only dna they would find on it is nightcrawler dna.


----------



## GPtimes2

If my memory is right from the mid 70's, they also ran up the creek in Galena a few weeks before the white bass.
My wife caught a 6 3/4# trolling in 1981 that we took to Hairy and Dots for a picture. They were teasing her that a women couldn't catch a fish that big. 
Amazing how many old people still around. If they restock, we will be supper old by the time they are 10#. We will have to find young fishing partners to help us in and out of the boats.
I wonder if the zebra muscles will help. The water seems to be cleaner on average and I think tainted water was one of the reasons walleye didn't like it here.


----------



## odell daniel

polebender said:


> Hoover produced the state record walleye at one point I believe. It was 14 lbs 14 oz. I used to go years ago during the spawn in the evenings in March and the dam area looked liked fishing the Maumee run. Shoulder to shoulder! Those big females would come up and roll all along the rip rap! A lot of 5-6 lb’ers would be caught along with a few in the 7-10lb class. They would catch them below the dam too. Especially in the first big pool. They would be stacked in there. They were so susceptible to being caught it was probably their demise. And I think the limit was 10 back then too! And of course many were taken out of there after being foul hooked.


you say you would catch them below the damn, stacked in there, that right their is the reason they aren't thriving, they are all going through the dam and down the river, same way at Alum, wildlife officer told me they actually built spawning areas at alum for the walleye in the 70's, they just were losing too many at the spillway. We would have some incredible fisheries if we didn't lose so many at the dams.


----------



## John Garwood

Gottagofishn said:


> And....what about the Blues? Small walleye sound tasty to me.... I would love to see the days of big fat eyes locally but for some reason, things have changed. Maybe walleye are the answer.
> 
> And, on my wall hangs my first decent walleye. It came off the rocks by the dam at Hoover.... on a Thin Fin of course!


The Blues will go after the more plentiful shad rather than chase the walleye/saugeye. Shad is their main diet.


----------



## ReadHeaded Hunter

As far as fish going through the dam, there has been a study being conducted at Alum tracking the number of tagged muskie and saugeye that come through. To my knowledge results haven't been published yet, but I imagine the numbers are going to be lower than people think. 

It hasn't really been discussed, but I was always under the impression that, due to the sauger in them, saugeye would be better suited to survive in the riverine systems below our reservoirs. Of course you're going to lose quite a few individuals through the dams, so having a species that is a little better suited to survive downstream seems to make sense. Has anyone heard anything along these lines?


----------



## Gottagofishn

All this talk of Hoover during the spawn at night.... Those truly were the days. Big dreams, big fish... I'm sure I stood there next to you all brimming with excitement as those big girls splashed around.
We discovered the spawn at Alum as well when there was no one else there. One night when the water was exceptionally clear we used the trolling motor and a spot light to roam around and watch them. It was insane. There would be 3 or 4 males following, bumping the females. An experience I will never forget.


----------



## Bud Rickett

John Garwood said:


> The Blues will go after the more plentiful shad rather than chase the walleye/saugeye. Shad is their main diet.


If the plentiful catfish go after shad, what will the walleye fingerlings eat?


----------



## Brahmabull71

rickerd said:


> Brahma, not sure what you are reading about costs of steelhead. Maybe the highest costs by location but on a per fish basis $.59 per fish when the average grow to harvest size is 6# plus is the best value in Ohio IMHO. Not to mention more money spent to fish for steelhead too.


Please refer to the data from charts 8-1 (Expenditure Mix by Hatchery) and 8-2 (Operational Expenditures by Hatchery). This is stating to my feeble mind, both graphically and statistically, the greatest amount of direct expenses and operational costs are incurred by Castalia to produce two fish. The reason the cost is respectively low at $0.59/Steelhead and $2.68/Rainbow is because of the amount of fish production. They only produce Steelhead and Rainbow Trout and as most are aware, the natural habitat (the Blue Hole) to support them are there.

My point for the post is that it seems as though there are fewer folks that fish for steelhead, so why do we spend so much money producing them? Could we allocate monies elsewhere or to other fishing related issuesz They benefit the Northern portion of the state and that’s pretty much it. I’m also aware they they are sold to other states etc, but for the most part it seems like a costly venture (statistically per this report) to produce 513,000 (per Table 8-1).

Big picture is this is only one slice of information and there are many more things involved here. Just food for thought, not cause for argument.

I wholeheartedly agree with Rutty and others who mentioned the point if they didn’t make it the first time, why seemingly waste money to reintroduce?


----------



## Lundy

odell daniel said:


> you say you would catch them below the damn, stacked in there, that right their is the reason they aren't thriving, they are all going through the dam and down the river, same way at Alum, wildlife officer told me they actually built spawning areas at alum for the walleye in the 70's, they just were losing too many at the spillway. We would have some incredible fisheries if we didn't lose so many at the dams.


I don't think on a 3,300 acre lake that all of the fish go through the dam. I believe the viability of walleye in Alum or Hoover is a lot more complex than that one singular issue.


----------



## bluegill bill

Lundy said:


> I don't think on a 3,300 acre lake that all of the fish go through the dam. I believe the viability of walleye in Alum or Hoover is a lot more complex than that one singular issue.


Been doing a little digging through some of my dads things .He kept a diary of fishing notes .Found lots of info on the hoover walleye from the outdoor journal to articles from Tom Porch and the dispatch .The walleye stocking at hoover best suitable for the growth of the walleye but not the natural reproduction since the impoundment.The state would use hoover only as a stocking program.During the spawn period they [odnr ]would shock them and milk males and females for other walleye programs . Two of my best walleye came easter eve only caught 2 11.75 and 12.25 in 1982 thin fin within three casts my dad could not believe it both fish weighed at the old Dutchman.Wow did not realize dad kept such a diary.


----------



## Saugeyefisher

I think during normal draw down years we dont lose to many fish. The area fished below Hoover is tiny. It doesnt take to many fish to fill that hole up. There are exceptions like deleware and deer creek. Or most any other lake during extreme draw downs. 
And I appreciate the fact that a small portion of fish end up in the rivers. Imo if they found a way to eliminate this the central ohio rivers would be kinda boring. Plus it helps spread people out,and gives anglers with out boats and more importantly younger kids a better chance at catching these fish.
I like the idea of walleye being in Hoover for my own personal reasons. It will be cool to have them swimming around in big walnut and the sciota. An allows you to fish a little differently then you might for saugeye sometimes. But with that said,knowing they wont spawn and reproduce at a catchable rate. An if they dont plan on stocking them yearly. I say stick with saugeye. Especially if saugeye are cheaper to produce.


----------



## Govbarney

Saugeyefisher said:


> I think during normal draw down years we dont lose to many fish. The area fished below Hoover is tiny. It doesnt take to many fish to fill that hole up. There are exceptions like deleware and deer creek. Or most any other lake during extreme draw downs.
> And I appreciate the fact that a small portion of fish end up in the rivers. Imo if they found a way to eliminate this the central ohio rivers would be kinda boring. Plus it helps spread people out,and gives anglers with out boats and more importantly younger kids a better chance at catching these fish.
> I like the idea of walleye being in Hoover for my own personal reasons. It will be cool to have them swimming around in big walnut and the sciota. An allows you to fish a little differently then you might for saugeye sometimes. But with that said,knowing they wont spawn and reproduce at a catchable rate. An if they dont plan on stocking them yearly. I say stick with saugeye. Especially if saugeye are cheaper to produce.


As someone who enjoys fishing the rivers below these dams/spillways for Smallmouth, I am grateful for the bonus Saugeye, Wiper, and Musky, but the thought just occurred to me , what is the possibility these fish meant for a man made impoundment, might have a negative effect on the native river Smallmouth, from both a predation and competition standpoint. Sauger are native to the Scioto watershed, so I doubt a few Saugeye or Walleye would affect the fishery, and Musky might have once been native to... but the Wipers are not native and those things are finely tuned killing machines, combine those with the other stock fished and you have to wonder what effect it has on Smallmouth and has ODNR taken that into account its native self sustaining fish. My personal opinion is that the Smallmouth is Ohio's most valuable native non-Erie fish, and just as much effort should go into protecting them as it does trying to introduce put and take fish.


----------



## acklac7

Govbarney said:


> As someone who enjoys fishing the rivers below these dams/spillways for Smallmouth, I am grateful for the bonus Saugeye, Wiper, and Musky, but the thought just occurred to me , what is the possibility these fish meant for a man made impoundment, might have a negative effect on the native river Smallmouth, from both a predation and competition standpoint. Sauger are native to the Scioto watershed, so I doubt a few Saugeye or Walleye would affect the fishery, and Musky might have once been native to... but the Wipers are not native and those things are finely tuned killing machines, combine those with the other stock fished and you have to wonder what effect it has on Smallmouth and has ODNR taken that into account its native self sustaining fish. My personal opinion is that the Smallmouth is Ohio's most valuable native non-Erie fish, and just as much effort should go into protecting them as it does trying to introduce put and take fish.


Hybrids likely have little, if any, impact on Native Smallmouth populations (In the Scioto, Little Miami/Great Miami different story). First off Hybrids are open-water piscivores, they prefer larger rivers with an overabundance of Shad/Baitfish (South of Greenlawn) They really aren't found in any sort of numbers in the riveriene sections of the Scioto, especially North of Greenlawn. Outside of the Dams you almost never hear of them being caught. Occasionally it happens, but not very often.

Also keep in mind that a lot of those Wipers are washing way downstream (i'm talking well past 270S) within the first two years of their life. They just don't seem to prefer the River up North where the Smallmouth thrive. Completely different species, completely different habitat preferences.

I would be interested in the results of Smallmouth-Impact study on the lower GMR/LMR. As you can find Hybrids in the 100's at any number of prime Smallmouth riffles. I can't imagine they aren't negatively affecting the native Species in those systems.


----------



## Mike Mouser

Govbarney said:


> To me this is the million dollar question. I'd love to see a study of how much of our tax dollars/license fees are flushed down to the Ohio River, and if there is anyway to prevent it. Would also like to see a comparison between spillways (Griggs) vs Dams (Alum, Hoover) when it comes to loss.
> Granted as someone who enjoys fishing the rivers more than the reservoirs/impoundmants anyway , I suppose I should be greatfull for the flush fish.


I was told by Mike Greenlee, ODNR fish biologist for SE Ohio that some musky's in Alum were tagged last summer and that they have a electronic monitor at the damn to see how many really do go out when they lower the lake. Maybe a call to the Columbus ODNR would answer that question.


----------



## Lundy

http://wildlife.ohiodnr.gov/stay-in...ngler/post/alum-creek-lake-fish-tagging-study


----------



## hatteras1

Lundy said:


> If either Alum or Hoover was viable for a self sustaining walleye population they would still have healthy walleye populations today.



Did anyone ever think Lake Erie could be overfished for Walleye??


----------



## Brahmabull71

Lundy said:


> http://wildlife.ohiodnr.gov/stay-in...ngler/post/alum-creek-lake-fish-tagging-study


I caught 3 last year with Floy tags at Alum. Make sure you call the number to report and help them track data!


----------



## HookSet Harvey

Lundy said:


> http://wildlife.ohiodnr.gov/stay-in...ngler/post/alum-creek-lake-fish-tagging-study


Wonder if there is a follow up article to this one? I see this one is from 2017.


----------



## Lundy

HookSet Harvey said:


> Wonder if there is a follow up article to this one? I see this one is from 2017.


I looked and could find no additional more current information


----------



## Lundy

hatteras1 said:


> Did anyone ever think Lake Erie could be overfished for Walleye??


I think you need to define "overfished". Could the population be substantially depleted through recreational fishing under regulations set forth the last 40 years?, No I don't think so based on historical harvest data from recreational fishing.


----------



## hatteras1

Lundy said:


> I think you need to define "overfished". Could the population be substantially depleted through recreational fishing under regulations set forth the last 40 years?, No I don't think so based on historical harvest data from recreational fishing.


Combination of recreational and commercial fishing to the point of dropping the limit to 6 statewide...
(Not going to start a P****** contest here) Fish management has improved tremendously over the last 20 years, with size and possession limits. The fish should stand a better chance. Hindsight is the best sight.


----------



## Lundy

If you look at the Harvest as compared to the TAC going all the way back to the early 80's there have only been 6 years where the recreational harvest exceeded the TAC, the last occurred in 1989. 

The population reduction and subsequent reduction of bag limits had much more to do with hatch success than removal of population through angling. The TAC is never more than a small percentage of the population estimates. Each walleye lays upwards of 400,000 eggs, it does not require a huge population of mature fish to provide the foundation for huge recruitment each year. However when those hatches ( viability) fail for what ever the reasons multiple years in a row the what should be a easily replenishing population begins to diminish. If every egg hatched and survived 30 adult walleye could create 100 million walleye, obviously not going to happen but the point is hatch viability has much more influence on population sustainability that angling pressure if the bag limits are regulated as they are and have been.

For Alum and Hoover, the apparent absence of any natural recruitment and with no supplemental stocking the population eventually over the years just dies of old age and ceases to exist.


----------



## fastwater

This 'fish over the dam' thing has always been a highly debated topic for a long time.
Especially on smaller impoundments.
Take Lake Logan for example. It's a 333 acre impoundment with the deepest channel being about 18' deep. And yes, that deep main channel runs straight to the dam.
Lake Logan used to be one of the best saugeye lakes around and even boast a 31" 12.42 pound state record back in 1993. It stayed a really good saugeye fishery for years until they started excessively drawing the lake down for winter pool to try and control some weed population.
Continued years of an extreme draw down has turned it into a place not even worthy of fishing for saugeye.
Many blame the lack of saugeye on other things. Many say they feel some of the saugeye loss is due to the draw down but the benefits of the draw down for the weeds outweighs the destruction of the saugeye fishery. What I have seen/heard is those old timers that live on the lake that were there saugeye fishing prior to the start of the drastic draw downs versus now, all blame the draw downs as the reason Lake Logan is no longer a worthy saugeye fishery.
Again, the reason Lake Logan is no longer even a decent saugeye fishery has been a long debated issue, but when ODNR tests water quality and it has remained good over the years, the balance of other fish species has stayed fairly the same over the years, and the yearly saugeye stocking has remained about the same, there comes a point when we have to start asking ourselves just how many fish are lost to the rivers over the dams?
Someone earlier posted that the amount of fish lost over the dam,if known, would probably be lower than we think.
I'm not at all convinced of that!
IMO, in many cases it will be even higher than expected.


----------



## Govbarney

I bet if you could figure out a way to keep the Shad from going over the dam, you could keep all the fish eating them from going over.


----------



## hatteras1

Years ago, I was at a boat ramp loading and a truck that resembled a street cleaner backed down the ramp, dropped in a 12 inch pipe and all h*** broke loose. the water boiled with what looked like whitebass on a feeding frenzy and the birds stood on the backs of the fish to get at the fingerlings. It was a depressing sight, seeing all those fish eaten (Like shooting fish in a barrel) I asked the driver if he thought any made it (being sarcastic) I know it's not his fault, but there has to be a better way. The cost of feeding and growing the fish, and watching this happen. Why can't they stock by aircraft as other states do?


----------



## acklac7

Govbarney said:


> I bet if you could figure out a way to keep the Shad from going over the dam, you could keep all the fish eating them from going over.


There's alot more to it than food. The main reason Fish hop the Dams is to search for adequate spawning habitat.


----------



## 3 dog Ed

Thanks for bringing back the Hoover memories. I went up there a few times in the late 80’s as a young guy. Thin Fin was the bait! Snagged a giant on my second trip on the dam and released her. The guys around me were looking at me like I was crazy. Saw fish rolling right and left, eyes everywhere. Good times.


----------



## odell daniel

fastwater said:


> This 'fish over the dam' thing has always been a highly debated topic for a long time.
> Especially on smaller impoundments.
> Take Lake Logan for example. It's a 333 acre impoundment with the deepest channel being about 18' deep. And yes, that deep main channel runs straight to the dam.
> Lake Logan used to be one of the best saugeye lakes around and even boast a 31" 12.42 pound state record back in 1993. It stayed a really good saugeye fishery for years until they started excessively drawing the lake down for winter pool to try and control some weed population.
> Continued years of an extreme draw down has turned it into a place not even worthy of fishing for saugeye.
> Many blame the lack of saugeye on other things. Many say they feel some of the saugeye loss is due to the draw down but the benefits of the draw down for the weeds outweighs the destruction of the saugeye fishery. What I have seen/heard is those old timers that live on the lake that were there saugeye fishing prior to the start of the drastic draw downs versus now, all blame the draw downs as the reason Lake Logan is no longer a worthy saugeye fishery.
> Again, the reason Lake Logan is no longer even a decent saugeye fishery has been a long debated issue, but when ODNR tests water quality and it has remained good over the years, the balance of other fish species has stayed fairly the same over the years, and the yearly saugeye stocking has remained about the same, there comes a point when we have to start asking ourselves just how many fish are lost to the rivers over the dams?
> Someone earlier posted that the amount of fish lost over the dam,if known, would probably be lower than we think.
> I'm not at all convinced of that!
> IMO, in many cases it will be even higher than expected.


deleware reservoir was stocked with saugeye for a few years, when I was a teen we would get under the spillway during high water and I would catch one on every cast, little saugeye, we kept them, didn't know any better. They basically drain deleware in the winter, the original river channel is all that's left for most of the lake, ODNR told me they quit stocking because they were losing all their fish through the spillway. I'd say the lakes with huge draw downs aren't worth stocking,


----------



## Govbarney

acklac7 said:


> There's alot more to it than food. The main reason Fish hop the Dams is to search for adequate spawning habitat.


Don't fish usually go 'upstream' to spawn?


----------



## John Garwood

Lundy said:


> I don't think on a 3,300 acre lake that all of the fish go through the dam. I believe the viability of walleye in Alum or Hoover is a lot more complex than that one singular issue.


Issue is Wildlife seems to want Alum Creek to be a premier Muskie Lake now


----------



## hoffman24

I am convinced many fish go over the dam. I fished below Hoover every spawn from 2011 to 2016. 2011 was an insane year. I have never caught so many 5-9lb eyes in a spring, let alone on single days. My best 6 in a day were all 6-8lb fish. Hooked plenty that were much bigger that spring and saw my share of 10lb+ fish. 2012 was great but not as great. 2013 declined, 2014 declined and so on. I understand a lot of fish get snagged and or legally caught and harvested. But speaking on the quantity of fish in general, each year got progressively worse. I don't think its a coincidence that people up in the lake are also seeing a decline or having trouble finding quality fish.


----------



## Saugeyefisher

hoffman24 said:


> I am convinced many fish go over the dam. I fished below Hoover every spawn from 2011 to 2016. 2011 was an insane year. I have never caught so many 5-9lb eyes in a spring, let alone on single days. My best 6 in a day were all 6-8lb fish. Hooked plenty that were much bigger that spring and saw my share of 10lb+ fish. 2012 was great but not as great. 2013 declined, 2014 declined and so on. I understand a lot of fish get snagged and or legally caught and harvested. But speaking on the quantity of fish in general, each year got progressively worse. I don't think its a coincidence that people up in the lake are also seeing a decline or having trouble finding quality fish.


Like I said,that's a really small area down there.it dint make to many fish to fill that hole up . In the spring your getting both fish moving upstream and over the dam. And it's been like that for years,having it's good years and not so good years. Imo the decline you seen had nothing to do with losing fish over the dam. And more to do with the size of the fish they stock,and the bazillion crappie(and white bass and saugeye) eating up the fry.


----------



## acklac7

Govbarney said:


> Don't fish usually go 'upstream' to spawn?


Typically, but the main thing they home-in on when it comes to spawning is current. You'll hear guys swear they only Swim upstream to Spawn, but I think that is a bunch of BS. All those hogs that pile into the Hoover honey hole after highwater events are not coming from downstream (in a small creek), they're coming from above the Dam.


----------



## mashunter18

I caught some smaller eyes in spring this year. I think they should remove the size limit on crappie at hoover. I know it wasn't very many years ago they changed hoover to 9" minimum.

Also I think saugeye are no minimum length at hoover, so whatever they do walleye, saugeye, make those 15" minimum size for keepers.


----------



## Fisher1672

ODNR stated that this is long term study on fish through dams Hoover/Alum I mentioned that when and if they meet with Corp maybe they can let more water over top instead of thru pipe ...don’t know if this has been considered $$ also thought of possibility of electric barrier at pipe they can even dial it in for size specific target barrier


----------



## Morrowtucky Mike

When did they stop stocking Hoover with walleye? I’ve only fished there a few times and don’t really know much about the lake. I knew they were putting saugs in there but never really knew about the walleye fishing from years ago. This is a very interesting thread to me.


----------



## Fisher1672

Talking with Odnr does make a difference Talked about restriction on black bass in Erie two years ago at expo recommended an allowance if someone was to catch a new state record during this time ...new reg 1 fish over 18” (trophy season)


----------



## Saugeyefisher

Morrowtucky Mike said:


> When did they stop stocking Hoover with walleye? I’ve only fished there a few times and don’t really know much about the lake. I knew they were putting saugs in there but never really knew about the walleye fishing from years ago. This is a very interesting thread to me.


I'm not sure of the specific year,but I'm sure someone does. With that said what ever walleye that were left just never reproduced enuff to stick around....
I'm kinda curious now to. When they transitioned from walleye to saugeye,how was the fishing the first few years? Any solid mixed bags of w-eye an s-eye? My uncle always boasts about the days of big walleye in the sciota river south of 270,using rebel craws below riffles and into the deep pools.....


----------



## odell daniel

John Garwood said:


> Issue is Wildlife seems to want Alum Creek to be a premier Muskie Lake now


its really turned into a premier smallmouth lake, probably the best around.


----------



## note

odell daniel said:


> its really turned into a premier smallmouth lake, probably the best around.


Whether it be walleye or Saugeye you need to do something about the crappies and the white bass in that Lake and then it will take off like it used to be and I hope they do it it used to be one of the best Lakes for walleyes and saugeyes


----------



## Govbarney

note said:


> Whether it be walleye or Saugeye you need to do something about the crappies and the white bass in that Lake and then it will take off like it used to be and I hope they do it it used to be one of the best Lakes for walleyes and saugeyes


My guess is the the Crappies number one predator is us fisherman, guess I got to try to do my part this spring and hit Hoover up for some meat.


----------



## homepiece

Question then. I am not a big Saugeye fisherman, more LM and SM...

Every time I went by hoover this winter, the water was coming over the top and almost flooded. Is the anticipation this year that there were a bunch of Saugeye that went through at hoover since water was rolling over the top for an extended period due to the excessive amount of rain we got this year?


----------



## Shad Rap

homepiece said:


> Question then. I am not a big Saugeye fisherman, more LM and SM...
> 
> Every time I went by hoover this winter, the water was coming over the top and almost flooded. Is the anticipation this year that there were a bunch of Saugeye that went through at hoover since water was rolling over the top for an extended period due to the excessive amount of rain we got this year?


A bunch of saugeye go over the dam or through the pipes every year at Hoover...they keep Hoover high...gonna be primetime here soon for the crowd below Hoover.


----------



## Gottagofishn

In regards to eyes going over the dam.... Once upon a time I went downstream at Hoover as they were shutting down the flow during the "spawn". Folks were clambering around on the rocks up by the spillway with pillow cases looking for fish in the rocks... 
If you read "what makes a great Saugeye/ Walleye spot" you will see that one of the things that attract fish looking to snack is current. It is a HUGE factor. Yep, they are surely surfing over the dam. (or through it) IMHO


----------



## bruce

stop messing with nature.


----------



## Saugeyefisher

bruce said:


> stop messing with nature.


If they did that we wouldn't have many fish to catch around here.depending on what you mean by "messing" with nature.....


----------



## mashunter18

We need to send deer farmer over to hoover every day with a special "no limit" crappie permit and let him clean hoover out.

They could get rid of the 30 a day limit and let everyone go crazy at galena this spring.


----------



## RiparianRanger

Shad Rap said:


> A bunch of saugeye go over the dam or through the pipes every year at Hoover...they keep Hoover high...gonna be primetime here soon for the crowd below Hoover.


The intentional foul hook crowd? Yea, they’ll be there starting any day now. Poor understaffed rangers can’t keep up. Guess this is a good time to remind everyone if you see illegal activity you can call #ODNR or 1-800-Poacher to dispatch a ranger. 

https://www.ohiogamefishing.com/threads/dial-odnr.309510/



mashunter18 said:


> We need to send deer farmer over to hoover every day with a special "no limit" crappie permit and let him clean hoover out.
> 
> They could get rid of the 30 a day limit and let everyone go crazy at galena this spring.


The guy is good no doubt but if the bucket sitters under Smothers and Sunbury keeping limits+ everyday of white bass and crappie haven’t cleaned that lake out, nothing short of a plague will do the trick.


----------



## bruce

They took the walleye out of Hoover (Most all of them) to stock other lakes (mainly Lake Erie) about 30 years ago and put saugeye in. Now, by wanting to put them back in Hoover they are admitting the gross error in judgement. So we suffered for 30 years for nothing but we had intermittent years of saugeye fishing to make up for it.


Saugeyefisher said:


> If they did that we wouldn't have many fish to catch around here.depending on what you mean by "messing" with nature.....


----------



## Saugeyefisher

bruce said:


> They took the walleye out of Hoover (Most all of them) to stock other lakes (mainly Lake Erie) about 30 years ago and put saugeye in. Now, by wanting to put them back in Hoover they are admitting the gross error in judgement. So we suffered for 30 years for nothing but we had intermittent years of saugeye fishing to make up for it.


I didn't realize they took the actual walleye out of Hoover to put into lake Erie. I always thought they just phased out the walleye and phased in the saugeye. But I was only 4 years old 30 years ago.
I always thought hoover was a great saugeye lake up until a few years ago..
Was it that much better when it was walleye? I would think if it was they wouldn't of put saugeye in it to begin with...


----------



## bruce

h
Hoover *was* a great walleye fishery.


----------



## Ronny

John Garwood said:


> Issue is Wildlife seems to want Alum Creek to be a premier Muskie Lake now


Not sure that's the case. Alum had been a premier muskie lake up until about 5 or so years ago. I think they may just be getting a bit frustrated loosing so many of these $19/ per fish stocked through the dam.


----------



## jray

This stuff is incredibly fascinating to me. I had a 45 minute conversation with some fisheries guys at alum a couple years back and they had mentioned that this was a possibility. Personally I don’t see a whole lot changing with how they fish. I never fished Hoover or alum when they had walleye but I did fish apple valley and I caught those fish basically the same way I catch saugeye and I caught them shallow. Whichever species it is a certain amount of them will be wherever food is. Even on Erie they aren’t all pelagic some stay shallow all year long, and some saugeye stay deep all year long. I hardly fish alum shallow than 20 feet in the summer and often over 30. Not because it’s necessary or even better, it’s just what I like to do. All that to say I don’t think it matters whichever lives better is the way to go. As far as reproduction goes, I did a project in fisheries biology at Ohio state on small water walleye reproduction. There are lots of factors including current and bottom composition. Silt is the enemy of walleye eggs for sure, but alum and Hoover both have areas that on paper should work. Not in the feeder creeks but in the main lake. I’ve always thought if you could find a way to manufacture the necessary current you could have something, and nothing says they couldn’t reproduce at some level now. (Obviously not at a sustainable level or they would still have walleye). Someone already mentioned though that the existence of saugeye is very much a hinderance to reproduction. Who knows time will tell.


----------



## Fish With Teeth

Ronny said:


> Not sure that's the case. Alum had been a premier muskie lake up until about 5 or so years ago. I think they may just be getting a bit frustrated loosing so many of these $19/ per fish stocked through the dam.


Ohio musky lakes lakes are stocked with roughly 1 musky per acre every fall. The up and comer to watch is CJ Brown Res. near Springfield. It received it's first stocking of muskie last fall. I have heard the dam is constructed in such a way that it won't let fish escape like Alum. Although it might take 10 years for it to be really good like Westbranch. I hear Brown has lots of walleyes too.


----------



## Lundy

I really got my Monday chuckle reading that the ODNR removed the walleye from Hoover. 

To "remove" the walleye from Hoover all they had to do was stop stocking fry or fingerling walleye into Hoover. The elimination of walleye from hoover was taken care of by the walleye themselves over time. That is what this entire thread is about. Hoover was proven years ago to not be able to provide a self sustaining walleye population. Without help (stocking) they all eventually die and are gone.


----------



## Saugeye Tom

Lundy said:


> I really got my Monday chuckle reading that the ODNR removed the walleye from Hoover.
> 
> To "remove" the walleye from Hoover all they had to do was stop stocking fry or fingerling walleye into Hoover. The elimination of walleye from hoover was taken care of by the walleye themselves over time. That is what this entire thread is about. Hoover was proven years ago to not be able to provide a self sustaining walleye population. Without help (stocking) they all eventually die and are gone.


Hey...I helped move those eyes to erie...


----------



## fastwater

I did too...me and ST had to make a lot of trips with 5 gal buckets to move all them walleye. 
But thankfully ST and I got those walleyes moved to Erie. After seein the satelite image of those eyes stretching several mile long and wide, it's hard to believe all them walleyes were in Hoover.


----------



## Fishingislife

Ronny said:


> Not sure that's the case. Alum had been a premier muskie lake up until about 5 or so years ago. I think they may just be getting a bit frustrated loosing so many of these $19/ per fish stocked through the dam.


I agree with you Ronny, I used to catch atleast 1 muskie per 15 trips saugeye fishing at alum 5-6 yrs ago.... I haven't even caught a muskie out of alum in the last 3 years and that is atleast 75 trips to alum per year.


----------



## dwy8979

Saugeyefisher said:


> Itll be fun a couple years from now watching everyone argue on here weather or not that fish is a saugeye or walleye.... or wait... theres walleye and saugeye in there,are they making sauger babies


I want to come down to Sunbury in mid April to take my brother in law fishing.
Saugeye- Hoover or Alum Creek?
Crappie- Hoover or Alum Creek?
Where to launch?
Thanks
Dennis


----------



## Saugeyefisher

Saugeye-alum
Crappie-hoover 
Good chance at both-alum
There are several launches up an down both lakes. Google maps will take you to them. Going for both species at alum I would launch at Cheshire. It's the closest to the middle of it all. If one sucks you can always trailer up an go to the other. We have done that many of times....


----------



## odell daniel

Fishingislife said:


> I agree with you Ronny, I used to catch atleast 1 muskie per 15 trips saugeye fishing at alum 5-6 yrs ago.... I haven't even caught a muskie out of alum in the last 3 years and that is atleast 75 trips to alum per year.


we were trolling for saugeye last year just north of Cheshire, caught a nice 40" musky, have to have your gear ready when a fish like that hits, luckily I was using my trolling rods(for erie) had 12 lb test on, nice surprise.


----------



## dwy8979

Saugeyefisher said:


> Saugeye-alum
> Crappie-hoover
> Good chance at both-alum
> There are several launches up an down both lakes. Google maps will take you to them. Going for both species at alum I would launch at Cheshire. It's the closest to the middle of it all. If one sucks you can always trailer up an go to the other. We have done that many of times....


----------



## dwy8979

Thanks for reply, as for saugeyes trolling stick baits or casting them, swimbaits or jigs with minnows etc....?


----------



## Govbarney

I was doing a little research on Hybrids just now and discovered that they are known to have a taste for black and white crappie, and are sometimes stocked in lakes and ponds to control crappie populations... maybe this can be answer to Hoovers Crappie problem...?


----------

