# Are they really killing 1,000,000 of our fish per hour!?!



## Walleye007 (Apr 2, 2006)

I just read this on the MAUMEE TACKLE site! 
http://www.maumeetackle.net/license_to_kill.htm


----------



## exexec (Apr 12, 2004)

I am not disputing the kill just the number- 10 BILLION annually???? The most optimistic number of walleye ( I have read about) in the lake is 100 million-so where is the other 1,900 MILLION come from??


----------



## tiffinsmallies (Mar 3, 2005)

I think the author means all spiecies of fish, not just walleye. Those numbers are most likely mostly estimates of fry, most of which would never make it to adulthood, but it still is a bad deal.


----------



## KWILSON512 (Feb 16, 2007)

I wonder where they get these numbers from because we all know people like to play with numbers and tweak them to fit theire interest. Does it really matter if the fish that are being drawn in are fry, what percentage of fry survive to adulthood? If his numbers are correct take the percentage of fry that generally survive a to adulthood and work it into his estimated loss numbers to figure out what we're losing out on.


----------



## Shortdrift (Apr 5, 2004)

I wouldn't accept this article or the numbers it claims, until such time as the author states what methods were used to support his claims.


----------



## wilson1963 (Apr 1, 2007)

Even if they kill 1/2 million, it's too many....and a licensed fisherman gets watched like they live in a concentration camp for taking 4 per day....not promoting keeping snagged fish....but 4 fish with a license by any means is better than million(s) for over priced utility bills....so they rape us twice.....thanks for the info....btw, the Maumee tackle site owner is a great guy who loves and lives his fisherie, keep up the great work!!


----------



## Hoosier Daddy (Aug 19, 2005)

Numbers look way suspect to me. I plan to do some more digging on this to see how numbers were developed and what the other side of the story is.

Bottom line the power plants have a neg. impact on the lakes fisheries, but to what extent?

I hate when folks trump up their charges and use alarmist language. I understand why they do it, but blind passion can really turn off the moderates. The Global Warming crowd is notorious for this. Don't oversell your case. Make sure your data is sound and state it as such. Once you cry wolf once or overstate your case your loose credability.


----------



## JimmyZ (May 18, 2004)

We are all guilty for those plants being there. Who's going to be the first to go turn off their house's main power breaker? We should be careful of what roads we go down. 




wilson1963 said:


> ....and a licensed fisherman gets watched like they live in a concentration camp
> 
> Would that be a holocaust concentration camp or an enemy camp? Hardly either come close to being watched by the DNR while fishing the Maumme river for walleye.


----------



## Tall cool one (Jul 13, 2006)

OK guys,lets review this:10% of lake eries 100,000,000 walleyes is what runs the maumee ea spring,that's a million fish(1,000,000). A sexually mature female produces 300,000 eggs and females 30+" produce over 600,000(Scott & Crossman,Fishes of Canada and M. Trautman,Fishes of Ohio). Lets take the avg between the two ,450,000 , and assume the hatch was'nt so great cuz of high water and only 50% came out. That's 225,000 babies/female.Males usually out# females 4/1 so approximately 1/4 of the fish are females. That's 250,000. Mutiply that times 225,000 hatched and you get 56,250,000,000 or fifty six billion,two hundred fifty million fish successfully spawned in the maumee.10bil is about 18% of the fish that get sucked into the power plant. 99% of these young of the year fish die of predation and other causes in the lake w/in the 1st year...we don't need help killing more. Not hard to believe the #'s if ya do the math. Nothing new here:the maumee is a fish factory.Fortunately most of the spawn happens in the open lake.
Yes,the language in that report is somewhat alarmist but I don't think it's untruthful .
I think we can all agree ;we don't need to kill any more wallybabies than ole ma nature does on her own and more fish in the lake and rivers probably would'nt upset any of ya'll,TC1


----------



## crittergitter (Jun 9, 2005)

one word: propaganda

CG


----------



## roger23 (Mar 7, 2007)

I have worked at Bayshore,,I have never seen any fish kills more than a few carp and other trash fish.. I have seen the screens pick up and dump them in the discharge but not very many ,,the ODNR is in there a lot as are the Game wardens,,,the Ohio State kids are in there taking samples for the state also ,,It may be true how about Toledo water intake I Have seen a lot of fish in the suction but they are also dumped back in the lake.. I guess believe what you want A million fish per hour I guess 24 million a day times 365 I hope I don't have to count them


----------



## Shortdrift (Apr 5, 2004)

Stop and think about this and suggest a solution rather than simply complaining about various things. The power plants were here through the 
80's and you couldn't find any better walleye fishing than that. Last year was terrific in spite of the purported power plant kill. Anyone that had a problem catching walleye last year should should take up another sport.
Look back and see when was the last time the fishing community took their allotted catch? 
Lets hear the practical solution(s) rather than bashing the ODNR and the Wildlife Enforcement Officers.


----------



## ostbucks98 (Apr 14, 2004)

No one gets along anymore and now were always pointing the finger.Lets just ban fishing all together.


----------



## JimmyZ (May 18, 2004)

crittergitter said:


> one word: propaganda
> 
> CG


Exactly! 

And like ostbucks98 says about banning fishing and pointing fingers. You start pointing fingers and 4 point back at YOU. I'm sure there are other groups we all know about that would love to ban fishing.


----------



## wilson1963 (Apr 1, 2007)

well Jimmy....thanks for copying and pasting my quote, I am sure people couldn't read it the first time.... the point was the government charging us 19$ so they can watch us take 4 legal fish, while a power plant kills million(s) and overcharges the customers....I guess some people like being screwed without the complementary reach around....not me...best of luck from a government worker.


----------



## chilliguy (Apr 8, 2007)

Hmmmmm.... If you check out the organization that the writer of this article belongs to, you'll find ( be it good or bad ) that the President of "Waterkeepers" is Robt. Kennedy Jr.... and after checking out some of their pet causes listed on the website, I see they are promoting an anti Wal-Mart documentary film.

Not that his means anything, of course.


----------



## MSmith2004 (Sep 12, 2006)

Oh god we don't need another walmart debate again! lol


----------



## TRIPLE-J (Sep 18, 2006)

Tall cool one, you took my thunder, thank you for doing the math, yhose numbers are not hard to believe when you are talking about small fry. Thanks for the info. 
TRIPLE-J


----------



## Young Whiskers (Feb 23, 2005)

Tall Cool One,

There are a few mistakes with the math...

First, 10&#37; of 100,000,000 fish is 10,000,000 fish.

Second, if males outnumber females in the ratio of 4:1, that means that 1/5, or 20%, are female.

This then works out to 2,000,000 females each laying 225,000 eggs, as was assumed in your post. 

450,000,000,000 fry- Four hundred and fifty billion fry

10 billion fry/year out of an assumed 450,000,000,000 fry is 2.2% killed by the plant. This means that about 98% (conservatively 95%) of the hatch is left to fend for themselves, the vast multitude of which are eaten. 

I don't fish Erie, I don't live near Erie, I just wanted make sure you saw more accurate numbers following your assumptions...


----------



## MSmith2004 (Sep 12, 2006)

Young Whiskers said:


> Tall Cool One,
> 
> There are a few mistakes with the math...
> 
> ...


Ya, the percentage was inaccurate but his ratio was right. A 4:1 ratio isn't 1/5. 4 males for every 1 female. so 4/1 in terms of males or 1/4 in terms of females. Either way, I have mixed feelings about this whole thing. You hate to see fish unnecessarily killed. However, as shortdrift said, the fishing in erie is fine.


----------



## Young Whiskers (Feb 23, 2005)

Actually, a 4:1 ratio of males to females IS 20% percent females

1 female / (4 males +1 female) = 1/5 = 20% 

This response is just a matter of principle, and not that I think the numbers are completely relevant


----------



## kmb411 (Feb 24, 2005)

All in all, it is called progress. We all want to fish, we all want electric, we all want cars and trucks and boats and such. There really is no reason to travel this road, it all becmes political in the end.

Just remember, the Alaskian Pipeline was supose to end wildlife in Alaska- it did not- animal numbers are at historic high levels. The subdivision that you live in that was built from wood (forest) were both suppose to kill off the deer- it did not. 

If you want to save the world, quit driving your cars and trucks, quit running your boats, and cancel the cable, tv, heat, and lights. I, for one, will not. I will continue to be white tail deer population reduction specialist, eat some of the fish I catch, and drive my V 8 truck as I pull my boat to the lake. I will also continue to spend money to keep the economy healthy, and will live into my 70's or 80's (God willing).

Soap boxes are fun things to stand on- just be sure that you are right and on firm ground. Otherwise, your just playing king of the mountain and we all know where that ends.


----------



## kmb411 (Feb 24, 2005)

Sorry for the rant. There are two sides to every story. If the headline was "Power Plants in America to close down to save wild life- Electricity banned in te US" how would y'all respond?


----------



## MSmith2004 (Sep 12, 2006)

Young Whiskers said:


> Actually, a 4:1 ratio of males to females IS 20% percent females
> 
> 1 female / (4 males +1 female) = 1/5 = 20%
> 
> This response is just a matter of principle, and not that I think the numbers are completely relevant


I agree the numbers aren't really that relevant. But a 4:1 ratio is the same as 100:25 ratio. Which is obviously 25%. 4*25=100 1*25=25. Also, you just divide 1 by 4.


----------



## MSmith2004 (Sep 12, 2006)

kmb411 said:


> Sorry for the rant. There are two sides to every story. If the headline was "Power Plants in America to close down to save wild life- Electricity banned in te US" how would y'all respond?



LOL exactly...I'm all for saving these fish that are being killed, but I also enjoy electricity. Can't really have it both ways in this particular situation.


----------



## Robzini (Jun 9, 2006)

Not to beat a dead horse but 4:1 ratio is 20%. 4+1=5, and 1/5=.20. Not that I agree with the premise that there is a major problem.


----------



## fishingful (Apr 5, 2004)

anyway the numbers work out nature has a plan to even it all out thats why a walleye lays so many eggs........ if you look at the survival rate for fry that survive to reproduction age in any body of water by any fish the numbers are really low from egg to reproductive maturity no matter how that egg or fry dies...............there is even a low survival rate in fish hatcheries where it is a controlled enviroment compared to the number of fertilized eggs they start out with .......this may be seen as a problem but look at all the other great fisheries in the country that have the samething going on and they seem to survive


----------



## MSmith2004 (Sep 12, 2006)

Agreed no major problems. But dammit 4:1 is the same as the fraction 4/1. lol that's my point You don't add them. If you did than 1:1 would be 50&#37; which isn't the case.


----------



## the weav (Mar 22, 2007)

1:1 = 50%. Ratio is one sum compared to another, 1 female -1 male .One sex is 50% of the total,sorry just had to say!


----------



## Fishing Flyer (May 31, 2006)

Since the point of this site is to share information and help make everyone more knowledgeable.... here is a math website about ratios.

http://www.math.com/school/subject1/lessons/S1U2L1GL.html

The ratio 4:1 means that out of 5 "things" that make up a population, 4 are one type and 1 is another type. You can write the ratio as 4:1, 4 to 1, or 4/1, but be careful to realize that 4/1 is still the ratio, not the fractional percentage. Since you have 5 things in the total population in a 4:1 ratio, the 4 that are of one type make up 80% (4/5) of the total population and the 1 of the other type makes up 20% (1/5) of the population.

Think about it... you have 5 coins. 4 are heads and 1 is tails. So.. you have a 4:1 ratio of heads to tails, and 4/5 coins are heads while 1/5 coins are tails. 

It is easy to forget math learned in elementrary school. So... if you have been proved wrong by anyone on this site or by math.com, don't feel too bad. It doesn't make you dumb... it just means you don't waste braincells storing every last detail you have ever learned.

Besides, I would hate to see more people getting laughed at on "Are you smarter than a 5th grader?".


----------



## crittergitter (Jun 9, 2005)

I have an idea! Let's all argue about math! OMG! Are you freakin kidding me????? 

CG


----------



## uglykat23 (Jun 13, 2004)

ok im gonna sum this up in one word HHHHHHHHHHHHHUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH i got lost after the first word thats like saying thats like saying the ration of a pythonus bivatus birth ratio is 12/1 over the birth ratio of tigrus pythonus is 24/2 or heck lest throw in some molurus bivatus to eat the 2/1 germanus raticus over the past twelve monthsucus ....... i have no clue what i just said but i thaught it was funny


----------



## MSmith2004 (Sep 12, 2006)

well played...lol i blame fractions and damn gambling odds.


----------



## kmb411 (Feb 24, 2005)

Who cares about the ratio? All I care about is that the lights work, the boat starts and beer is in the fridge!


----------



## MSmith2004 (Sep 12, 2006)

kmb411 said:


> Who cares about the ratio? All I care about is that the lights work, the boat starts and beer is in the fridge!


Amen to that brother.


----------



## preacherman (Dec 26, 2006)

can we please close this post? i have math phobia and, in response to an earlier post, this poor old hose has been beat well past death.


----------



## mikeofborg (Feb 15, 2005)

The kills by the plants of fry are neglible compared to what mother nature does on her own. Its the reason they lay so many eggs, to overcome the super high mortality rate. The article is pure scare tactics. Sure, there is some negative impact to the enviroment, there always is when man tinkers with water supplies and water temp. But, its not as doom and gloom as this author would like it to appear. Bluegill, crappie, whitebass and other predator fish kill more fry in a year than probably all the power plants combined. Yet we still have decent runs of walleye. Unless they start pumping the rivers dry, I don't see the plants having an impact on the ecosysytem that the author was trying to portray.


----------



## fugarwi7 (Sep 20, 2006)

After reading this thread, I sold my boat, tackle and all ancillary gear for $.20 on the $1.00...now is that 1:4, 1:5, 4:1, 20% or 25%...HHHMMMM?? Anyway, since there are no more fish to catch and consume, I started a garden and will live off the land! And since this horse has been beaten to a pulp, I can't even have a sliver of horse meat with my salad! 
EAT GREEN!


----------



## krustydawg (Apr 26, 2004)

There is a thread started at the Seagrant site regarding this issue.

http://ohioseagrant.osu.edu/discuss/index.php?topic=793.0


----------



## Hoosier Daddy (Aug 19, 2005)

Thanks for the link.


----------

