# 2007 Saugeye Stocking Totals



## Net

"Angela" from Fish Management and Research, Div of Wildlife, was kind enough to run this report for me. It shows the total number of saugeye stocked in Ohio impoundments in 2007. 

Here's the message that accompanied her report:

_Please see the attached document for the information you requested.
This stocking summary report is for the year 2007. It lists the lake in
which saugeye were stocked, date, source (from which hatchery the fish
came from: CASFH=Castalia, HESFH=Hebron, LOSFH=London,
SESFH=Sencecaville, KISFH=Kincaid, SMSFH=St. Marys), life stage
(fingerling), amount, and weight. Please let me know if you are
interested in other years besides 2007._

Enjoy!


----------



## misfit

thanks terry.if the survival rate is good,it looks like alum may be hot in a couple years or so,with the numbers it got.


----------



## crittergitter

Good information Net! Thanks for sharing that with all of us. 

CG


----------



## Net

misfit said:


> thanks terry.if the survival rate is good,it looks like alum may be hot in a couple years or so,with the numbers it got.


IMO, Alum needs the most...with all those toothy critters swimming around in there .

The top 4 lakes (in pounds of fingerlings stocked):

1. Alum Creek Lake 567.8 
2. Hoover Reservoir 361.5 
3. Indian Lake 322.5
4. Caesar Creek Lake 284.0


----------



## misfit

> IMO, Alum needs the most...with all those toothy critters swimming around in there


LOL.those toothy critters don't eat other toothy critters 
but with those numbers,there might now be as many eyes as there are boats now
ol raybob might be upset that they lowered the numbers of IL stockers though,LOL.


----------



## Net

Tell you what rick, from everything I've seen, heard and experienced first hand, Indian Lake is hands down the #1 saugeye lake in Ohio and quite possibly the country. They don't need no more @#*$% saugeye!...lol


----------



## misfit

you're right.it's a fish factory that produces lots of nice fish.ray petering said IL would make a perfect model for a top notch saugeye fishery.it just seems to have all the essentials.just wish i lived closer,so i could fish it more.no wonder ol raybob is such cantankerous old eye lover


----------



## seethe303

thanks so much for this info! very interesting. 

I need to get to Indian at least once this winter. Its hard to get away from all the decent action nearby though.


----------



## joe01

i seen BC was on the list anyone ever fish it for eyes????


----------



## Net

joe01 said:


> i seen BC was on the list anyone ever fish it for eyes????


Beach City? Never been there, but I find it interesting that the ODNR only stocks it for spillway & tailwater fishing. The lake itself looks to be marshland. 

_*Beach City Reservoir*
SaugeyeSaugeye are occasionally captured in the tail-water from November until May. In 2006, 9,638 fingerling saugeye were stocked. Beach City Reservoir has been stocked with saugeye every year since 1982, with the exception of 1986. Fishing is best following reservoir discharge and when the water just starts to clear. Twister-type jigs, tipped with minnows, are a good bet. Saugeye have been caught in good numbers well downstream of Beach City Reservoir and tail-water; Dover Dam on the Tuscarawas River would be a good place to try. It should be noted that the Beach City Reservoir boat ramp (Sugar Creek) along U.S. 250 was closed in 2001 due to the depth of the soft sediments around the launch area. *The lake itself is now totally filled in with sediments. OUTLOOK: POOR*
There is a 10 HP limit on the lake. _


----------



## fishing_marshall

Its kind of funny that it mentions downstream and then Dover Dam. Dover Dam is upstream from where the sugarcreek comes in. Then there is a lowhead dam with a 3ft drop and around 8miles upstream to the dam from there. Most of the saugeye at Dover Dam come from Atwood and Leesville.


----------



## fishslim

Great Info Terry. But Indian needs as many as they will give it,cause i fish it!! I like what i saw in stocking numbers i think it was on another thread about only stocking a far away lake to make money and forgeting local lakes. Not so fast my friend numbers say otherwise!! It might not be the scioto but  Alum Hoover sure did not get forgotten. Oh yeah that is right those are easy catching lakes where if you show up you get your limit plus .Well i think a few guys on here that fish Alum and Hoover beg to differ. I know i fished them since they were stocked there and would love to have help finding those easy to catch eyes anytime. Looks to me ODNR is doing a fine job of distributing saugeyes around the state in fair numbers. Well thanks again Terry for info by the way hit some Indian saugeyes last night before it iced over on me! Ready to hit them again Thursday. Good Fishing everybody!!


----------



## Net

fishing_marshall, yeah I thought the same thing about Dover Dam. I explored the Dover Dam area this summer and thought maybe I had my wires crossed (situation normal...lol). The other interesting tidbit was that remark about them stocking Beach City every year since 1982. I thought the ODNR didn't start their saugeye program till like the mid-80s .

Troy, you're onto me . I mainly requested that report based on some mis-info I was starting to see.


----------



## fishslim

Good thinking Terry. Was shocked at some of those statements myself. Love river fishing and was a diehard scioto saugeye fishermen in it's hey day,those fish were 3 times more predictable then any lake saugeye i ever caught. 15-30 FISH NO PROBLEM WITHOUT MOVING. Like anyother fish know it's make up and likes and you will find them especially when heavy stocked in rivers.


----------



## Bob4246

Terry, A friend told me the 1st saugeye stockings in Ohio were in Deer Creek and Plesant Hill in about '78-79. I know that my first encounters with them were in O'shay in the early spring of '83 and these fish were already 2-3 pounders. Evidently they had been there for a few years before I found 'em.


----------



## misfit

> Terry, A friend told me the 1st saugeye stockings in Ohio were in Deer Creek and Plesant Hill in about '78-79.


that is right.i believe 78.but not exactly sure who got the first fish,but those two were definitely among the first ones.

actually,deer creek was the first in 78.


----------



## Net

Thank you gentlemen, I stand corrected. I must be thinking about when they started stocking them locally. I tried finding the answer on the web but gave up.


----------



## Lewis

A very interesting read regarding Saugeye/Walleye.
Lots of info on how it all began!
Thanks Corey!!

Habitat Preferences, Survival, Growth, Foods, and Harvest of Walleye and Walleye X Sauger Hybrids
Abstract.- We compared habitat preferences, survival, growth, foods, and harvests of stocked Walleyes Stizostedion vitreum and Walleye X Sauger S canadense hybrids in Pleasant Hill Reservoir, Ohio. Both fishes were stocked at similar rates and sizes (about 40mm mean total length) in late May or early June 1979-1982. Neither group showed consistently better survival. Growth was similar until age 2. Thereafter, hybrids grew faster than Walleyes. Age-0 Walleyes occured mostly over fine substrates in early Summer and coarse substrates by Fall. Habitat selection by age-0 hybrids was similar to that of Walleyes, except hybrids preferred finer substrates in Fall. Older hybrids and Walleyes moved offshore at temperatures above 22 degrees C. Diets of both fishes were similar, but hybrids ate more littoral fishes, where Walleyes ate more pelagic fishes. Age-1 and older hybrids and Walleyes ate mostly invertebrates in Spring. Age-0 Gizzard Shad (Dorosoma cepedianum) were the most important prey for all age of both groups. Hybrids and Walleyes were caught by anglers in proportion to their abundance and contributed most to the fishery at ages 1 and 2. Hybrids have the potential to breed with either parent species and may introduce new genetic material into existing Walleye or Sauger populations. Data from our study and other Ohio waters show that hybrids can support important fisheries, particularly in tailwaters, and may be more successful than Walleyes in impoundments with short water-retention times.


Walleyes, Stizostedion vitreum are highly desirable gamefish, but in many waters they do not reproduce (Laarman 1978; Prentice and Clark 1978). Consequently, many Walleye management programs rely heavily on stockings to maintain populations. The need for large numbers of juvenile fish for stocking has stimulated the search for more efficient hatchery production. A Walleye hybrid (Walleye X Sauger S. canadense, commonly known as Saugeye) showed consistently better growth and survival than Walleyes in rearing ponds at the Senecaville National Fish Hatchery, Senecaville, Ohio (J. Hawkinson, Senecaville National Fish Hatchery, personal communication). In 1978, the survival and growth of juvenile hybrids stocked into Deer Creek Lake, Ohio was greater than that of Walleyes in most Ohio waters (R. Schaefer, Ohio Division of Wildlife, personal communication). Rapid growth and high survival of hybrids in both the hatchery and the reservoir suggested that hybrids might be more economical than Walleyes to raise for stocking. 
Literature on the biology of Walleye X Sauger hybrids is sparse. Natural hybrids occur rarely (Nelson and Walburg 1977; Billington et al. 1988) and were first identified in 1943 in Norris Reservoir, Tennessee, where their growth rate appeared to be intermediate between those of the parent species (Stroud 1948). Hybrids are fertile (Hearn 1986) and have been stocked successfully in Ohio ponds (Lynch et al. 1982) and in Cherokee Reservoir, Tennessee (Humphreys et al. 1987).
Before feasibility of stocking hybrids as an alternative to Walleyes can be assessed, more information is needed on the biology of hybrids, especially in comparison with Walleyes. Our objectives were to compare habitat preference, survival, growth, foods, and harvest of hybrids and Walleyes stocked in a reservoir.


Study Area
The study was conducted from 1979 to 1982 in Pleasant Hill Reservoir, a eutrophic, 344 hectare reservoir in Northwestern Ohio. Maximum depth was 13m and mean depth was 5m. The reservoir was thermally stratified at a depth of 4-5m during June through early September. Temperatures in the epilimnion ranged from 20-24 degrees C. and the hypolimnion was anoxic. Midlake secchi disk transparencies usually ranged from 1 to 2 m but were lower (minimum, 0.36m) during flooding. Inshore transparencies were not measured regularly, but were generally lower than midlake readings and were directly related to substrate particle size. 
The Ohio Division of Wildlife has stocked Walleyes periodically in Pleasant Hill Reservoir since 1950. No natural reproductiuon of Walleyes has been documented since 1969. During 1976-1978, Walleyes of 44-75mm total length (TL) were stocked annually at a rate of about 35 fish/hectare. The reservoir also contains reproducing populations of Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides, Smallmouth Bass M. dolomieui, White Bass Morone chrysops, White Crappie Pomoxis annularis, and a variety of nongame species, of which Gizzard Shad Dorosoma cepedianum and Brook Silverside Labidesthes sicculus are most numerous. Muskellunge Esox masquinongy immigrate into the reservoir from a stocked population upstream.


Methods

Juvenile Walleyes and hybrids were stocked into Pleasant Hill Reservoir annually during late May or early June 1979-1982. Except in 1980, all fish were obtained from the Senecaville National Fish Hatchery, and both hybrids and Walleyes were stocked at a rate of 73 fish/hectare. In 1980, flooding delayed stocking by 1 week , during which time mortality at the hatchery was high. The surviving 17,000 Walleyes and 750 hybrids were supplemented with 10,000 hybrids from the London (Ohio) Fish Hatchery of the Ohio Division of Wildlife. The supplemental hybrids had been used in experiments with dry diets and were emaciated. In 1980, stocking rates were 49 Walleye and 31 hybrids per hectare.
Fish sampling.-Sampling began within 1 week after stocking and was conducted at least twice monthly through September. We used a bag seine (11m x 1.8m, with 5-mm-bar mesh) during the day in June and July and electrofishing (pulsed DC) at night from August through September. We categorized inshore habitats acccording to slope, wave exposure, and substrate. The open-water limnetic habitat was not sampled. To determine inshore habitat preferences, we sampled at least once each month at three to four standard stations in each habitat type. We used catch per unit effort (CPE) as a comparative measure of habitat preference. We could not use seines effectively for sampling exposed rock or steep rock areas; thus habitat preference analysis for June and July were were restricted to muck, clay-sand, and protected rock habitats. Because of delayed stockings in 1980, sample sizes of hybrids were small and these data were not included in in habitat analyses. Because there were only one or two samples per month, we combined data for 1979, 1981, and 1982 and tested for differences in habitat use (two-way analysis of variance, ANOVA) between age-0 hybrids and Walleyes within each month and between months (June and July or August and September) for each type of fish. Data were transformed as (X + 0.5)1/2 to normalize variance. 
We estimated population sizes of young-of-year hybrids and Walleyes in October of each year. Fish were captured at night by electrofishing and marked with a pelvic fin clip. In 1981 and 1982, we recaptured enough fish (>25) of both groups to enable us to use the Schnabel Formula (Ricker 1975). Recapture of Walleyes in 1979 and of hybrids in 1980 were too low to permit use of this formula. However, relatively precise estimates were obtained for the other group in each year. Because the ratio of age-0 Walleyes to hybrids was nearly constant on each night we sampled (four nights in 1979 and six nights in 1980), we based estimates of young-of-year Walleyes in 1979, and of hybrids in 1980, on their proportion in the total catch. A similar procedure was followed in 1980 for estimating hybrid numbers.
All captured hybrids and Walleyes were measured (TL) and weighed, except during for population estimates when a subsample of each group was weighed. We collected additional length and weight data from age-1 and older fish collected by electrofishing or fyke netting in April 1980-1983. Scale samples were taken from all fish longer than 350mm to determine age. Ages of fish less than 350mm were determined by length. 
Diet analysis.-Subsamples (maximun of 10/site.d) of age-0 hybrids and Walleyes were preserved in 10% formalin for stomach content analysis. Stomachs of older fish were preserved in formalin. Stomach contents were identified to species for fish and to family for invertebrates. We measured total length of intact fish taken from stomachs. Many Gizzard Shad were partially digested and impossible to measure, so we used a procedure similar to that of Knight et al. (1948) and measured either standard length (SL) or backbone length (BL). Total length was then estimated from equations derived from measurements of 180 preserved Gizzard Shad, 31-142mm TL.
Creel survey.-We conducted stratified, random creel surveys during April through September 1980-1982. Survey effort varied among years. In 1980, efort was 24 h/week and surveys were conducted on two weekdays and one weekend day (randomly selected), except in April and September when effort was 16 h/week and we surveyed on only one weekday. On each sampling day, the survey was conducted during a randomly selected 8-h period in either morning (0600-1400 hours) or evening (1400-2200 hours). A roving creel clerk counted all anglers on the lake every 2h. In 1981, effort was increased to 40 h/week and we surveyed on both weekend days. In 1982, effort was reduced to 30 h/week and was reapportioned to apply more effort during periods of highest variance. Thus a survey day was lengthened to 10 h and we again surveyed both weekend days.
Shore and boat anglers were interviewed between counts and all harvested game fish were measured. Hybrids and Walleyes less than 350mm were assigned to age classes based on length.Ages of larger fish were based on scales.
The tailwater pool below Pleasant Hill Dam is small (0.26 hectares) and subject to flooding, but does receive moderate fishing pressure under normal water conditions. In 1980 and 1982, tailwater surveys were integrated into the normal procedures for counts and interviews at the reservoir. In 1981, flooding prevented fishing in the tailwater for most of May and June; thus we did not survey the tailwater in that year.
In 1983, the Ohio Division of Wildlife conducted a creel survey on Pleasant Hill Reservoir from April through june (creel data from 1980 to 1982 showed that most Walleyes and hybrids were harvested during toose months). Effort was 20 h/week and included at least one weekend day. The tailwater was not surveyed. Count and interview procedures were similar to those in previous years, and scales were taken from all hybrids and Walleyes for age determinations.


Results
Habitat Preference

During June and July, hybrids and Walleyes were most frequently collected in inshore habitats with fine substrates. Habitat preferences did not differ between hybrids and Walleyes in June or July (P>0.2) but were significantly different in August and September (P<0.001), when hybrids were more common than Walleyes over fine substrates and Walleyes were taken mostly in exposed rock or steep rock habitats. There were no differences in habitat selection for either group between June and July (P>0.2) or between August and September (P>0.08).
Walleyes and hybrids may have inhabited exposed rock and steep rock habitats in June and July, when we could not sample these areas effectively. However, occasional electrofishing samples in these habitats in mid to late July and occasional seine hauls in exposed rock areas produced few stocked fish.
We did not capture enough yearling and older fish to analyze inshore habitat use, but electrofishing CPE suggested that both hybrids and Walleyes moved offshore during Summer. In July and August, CPE averaged about 0.3-0.05 times the CPE in Spring or Fall. There are many possiblee reasons for this movement (e.g., changing prey distribution), but, in Pleasant Hill Reservoir, offshore movement coresponded to the period when surface temperatures exceeded 22 degrees C. Field studies indicate that adult Walleyes prefer temperatures of 21-23 degrees C. (Hokanson 1977) and avoid temperatures of above 24 degrees C. (Fitz and Holbrook 1978). During midsummer in Pleasant Hill Reservoir, temperatures of 22-24 degrees C. (with at least 2mg/L dissolved oxygen) were available only at depths of 3-5 m, beyond the range that we could sample effectively by electrofishing.

Survival
Survival rates from stocking to October varied from 7 to 36% for hybrids and from 9 to 28% for Walleyes. Neither group had consistently better survival than the other; in 1981 and 1982, rates were similar between groups, but hybrids survived better in 1979 and Walleyes in 1980. Poor survival of hybdids in 1980 was probably due to their poor condition when stocked. Poor survival of Walleyes in 1979 may have been due to transport and stocking stress. We were not able to measure mortality at time of stocking, but many more Walleyes than hybrids were seen floating dead after release in 1979. In 1981 and 1982, stocking mortality appeared to be low for both groups of fish.
For each year class, ratios of age-0 hybrids to Walleyes in seine and electrofishing catches throughout Summer and Fall were similar to ratios in the Fall population estimates and in the harvest in subsequent years, except in the 1982 year class in the 1983 harvest. Persistence of these ratios in the harvest indicates that mortality rates were probably similar between the two groups after age 0. Differences in survival in 1979 and 1980 apparently developed by the end of June because ratios of hybrids to Walleyes in field samples remained constant after June.
Annual variations in survival of Walleyes and hybrids may also be related to differences in water discharge rates among years and loss of fish through the dam. Apparently, hybrids and Walleyes were lost through Pleasant Hill Dam at similar rates because survival rates were similar in 1981 and 1982, and ratios of hybrids to Walleyes for each year class were consistent over time. During our study, 1979 and 1982 were dry years and reservoir discharges were after stocking were low. In 1980 and 1981, heavy rains in late May and early June produced high discharges. However, in 1980, stocking was delayed until floodwaters had receded, thus newly stocked fish experienced relatively nlow discharges. If poor survival of Walleyes in 1979 and hybrids in 1980 was due to physiological stress, a negative correlation is indicated between survival and reservoir discharge rates after stocking for both Walleyes and hybrids.

Growth
Growth did not differ between age-0 hybrids and Walleyes, either within or among years (ANOVA;P>0.05). Fish in both groups completed annual growth by mid-October, when mean total length was 235mm and mean weight was 110g over all years. Mean lengths and weights did not differ between hybrids and Walleyes before age 2, when hybrids became consistently longer and heavier than Walleyes (P<0.05). By Fall 1982, the 1979 year class of hybrids averaged 555mm and 1,902g, and that of Walleyes averaged 519mm and 1,482g. We did not capture enough fish identifiable by sex to evaluate differences in growth between males and females.
The relation of length to weight was nearly identical for hybrids and Walleyes over all years. We developed length-weight regressions for both groups based on data combined for all years.

Foods
We examined stomachs from 1,305 hybrids and 789 Walleyes of all ages over all years. About 20% were empty. Invertebrates were eaten by both groups in all years but were an important part of the diet only for age1 and older fish in early Spring. Both hybrids and Walleyes were mainly piscivorous within 1 week after stocking. The most common fish eaten were Gizzard Shad. Hybrids had a slightly lower percentage occurrence of Gizzard Shad in their diets than did Walleyes in all years and also ate a wider variety of other fishes, most of which were littoral species. Predation by one stocked fish on another was noted only once, when an age-1 hybrid had an age-0 hybrid in its' stomach.
Lengths of forage fish in stomachs of stocked fish were similar among years; thus we pooled data for all prey species over all 4 years. For age-0 predators, we ran linear regressions of both mean and maximum lengths of forage fish eaten versus mean predator length, grouped by 25mm intervals. Mean and maximun total lengths of prey were directly related to predator total length. Regression slopes did not differ between hybrids and Walleye for either data set. For age-0 predators longer than 50mm, mean prey length was about 30% of predator length, which agrees with data from Cherokee Reservoir, Tennessee (Humphreys et al. 1987).
There was a discontinuity in the predator-prey length relations for age-0 and age-1 predators. Mean and maximum lengths of prey were lower for small age-1 predators (250-325mm) than for large age-0 predators, but for for predators longer than 325mm, values were similar to those of large age-0 fish. This discontinuity was due to the predominance of young-of-year Gizzard Shad in the diets of all age groups. In Fall age-0 hybrids and Walleyes averaged about 225mm and fed mainly on Gizzard Shad 50-90mm long. In Spring, at age 1, they fed on invertebrates before switching to young-of-year Gizzard Shad in early Summer. At that time, young-of-year Gizzard Shad averaged about 20-40mm. This produced a large decrease in mean and maximum prey lengths at predator lengths of 225-250mm, the length interval during which the transition occured from age-0 predators feeding on one year class of Gizzard Shad to age-1 predators feeding on the next year class of Gizzard Shad.

Harvest
Walleyes and hybrids in Pleasant Hill Reservoir showed similar seasonal and annual trends in vulnerability to angling. Angler success (harvest per 100 angler-hours) for all species was higher in 1980 and 1983 than in 1981 and 1982. Harvest rates for hybrids and Walleyes in the reservoir were about 1-3 fish/100 angler-hours in 1980 and 1983, but only 0.2-0.6 fish/a100angler-hours in 1981 and 1982. Most anglers did not distinguish between Walleyes and hybrids, but those who did found hybrids to be an acceptable alternative to Walleyes. From 1980 through 1982, 64-94% (mean,84%) of total harvest of both hybrids and Walleyes occured during April-June. Catch per unit effort for hybrids and Walleyes averaged 6.3 times higher during April-June than during July-September.
Harvest rates for both groups were higher for boat anglers than for shore anglers in all years except 1980. The discrepancy in 1980 may have resulted because nearly all Walleyes and hybrids harvested were yearlings, whiuch may spend more time inshore than do older fish. Most stocked fish were caught in the reservoir but, in 1980 and 1982, 6-33% of the total harvest for each group came from the tailwater. Harvest rates for hybrids were higher in the tailwater in 1980 but were similar in the tailwater and the reservoir in 1982. Most stocked fish taken in the tailwater were yearlings.


Discussion
The life history and behavior of a hybrid fish might be expected to be intermediate between those of the parent species. Nelson (1968) found that Walleye x Sauger hybrids showed morphological characteristics intermediate between those of the parents but more closely resembled the female parent. In our study, the biology of hybrids was similar to that of the Walleye (female) parent, but hybrids also exhibited some of the characteristics associated with Saugers
Our data on inshore habitat use by age-0 Walleyes agree with most published information. Age-0 Walleyes prefer sand or gravel substrates (Johnson 1969), although in early Summer they can be found over muck (Johnson 1969) and sometimes over all bottom types, including silt and rubble (Raney and Lachner 1942). The preference for finer substrates shown by age-0 hybrids agrees with the preference of Saugers for more turbid habitat (Schlick 1978) and suggests that hybrids may be more sessitive to light than Walleyes. The offshore movement by older hybrids and Walleyes during Summer agrees with data for both Walleyes (Rawson 1957; Johnson 1969) and Saugers (Cady 1945) from other waters.
The diet of Walleyes in Pleasant Hill Reservoir was similar to that reported in the literature. In general, Walleyes are pisciverous after reaching 50-60mm if forage fish are available (Maloney and Johnson 1957; Priegel 1970). When available, Gizzard Shad are typically the most common forage item (Walburg et al.1971; Fitz and Holbrook 1978). In Pleasant Hill Reservoir, Gizzard Shad were found primarily offshore and in the upper portion of the water column. Although hybrids also ate mostly Gizzard Shad
they ate more of other forage fishes than did Walleyes, including many species commonly associated with the bottom; this is typical for Sauger (Swenson 1977). In Cherokee Reservoir, Tennessee,hybrids fed mostly on Dorosoma spp. but also ate some littoral species (Humphreys et al. 1987). Lynch et al. (1982) found that hybrids fed readily on centrarchids and cyprinids in shallow ponds with dense macrophytes, habitats where Walleyes typically do not do well.
Growth of Walleyes in Pleasant Hill Reservoir was faster than average Walleye growth in Ohio reservoirs but slower than in Norris Reservoir, Tennessee. Hybrid growth was faster than most Walleye, Sauger, or other hybrid growth in Ohio. Growth of Hybrids in other recently stocked Ohio reservoirs has also been faster than average Walleye growth in the state. Hybrid growth in Pleasant Hill Reservoir was similar to that of hybrids in Norris Reservoir through age-2, but older hybrids had higher mean lengths than any Walleye, Sauger, or hybrid in Norris Reservoir. The fastest growth recorded for hybrids was for the initial year class in Cherokee Reservoir, Tennessee, where fish averaged 305mm at age-1 (Humphreys et al. 1987).
The difference in growth between age-2 and older Walleyes and hybrids in Pleasant Hill Reservoir may have been due to (1) hybrids use of energy for somatic growth rather than for gonadal developement, (2) heterosis in hybrids, or (3) Protracted feeding by hybrids. Failure to develop gonads was probably not a major factor. Under controlled conditions Walleye x Sauger hybrids have matured (Hearn 1986;T. Nagel, Ohio Division of Wildlife, personal communication). we sampled several ripe male hybrids (age 2) in 1981 and two gravid females (age 3) in 1982. Mature and immature hybrids of the same age were similar in length and weight. Thus, some portion of the hybrid population in Pleasant Hill Reservoir did develop mature gonads, and at the same time as Walleyes.
Heterosis in hybrids may have increased growth rates, but this possibility was outside the scope of our study. Work on the genetics of hybrids and Walleyes is needed to answer this question.
Protracted feeding by hybrids appears to be the most likely cause of their faster growth. After age-1, Walleyes lost weight over Winter, while hybrids gained weight. Walleye and Sauger differ in Winter feeding activity; Saugers feed more than Walleyes and contain more visceral fat (Dendy 1946; Schlick 1978). If hybrids, like Saugers, feed more than Walleyes over Winter, that could account for their faster growth.
Neither Walleyes nor hybrids exhibited consistently better survival in Pleasant Hill Reservoir. For hybrids stocked into small ponds, Lynch et al. (1982) estimated first-Summer survival rates of 31 and 83% in two of four ponds and no survival in the remainin ponds. They attributed poor survival to predation. Physiological stress and reservoir discharge appeared to be important in determining survival rates during our study. Reservoir discharge may be coorelated with many factors that could effect fish survival (e.g., turbidity, temperature, food supply), but we feel that direct loss of fish through the dam was the most likely cause for reduced survival after high discharges. Losses of Walleyes and Saugers through dams have been documented in various waters; heaviest losses occured among juveniles during high discharges from late Winter through Spring (Groen and Schroeder 1978;Smith and Andersen1984; Jernejcic 1986). Large losses of Walleyes have resulted in reduced population sizes and year class strengths in impoundments (Groen and Schroeder 1978). 
Harvest rates of Walleyes in Pleasant Hill Reservoir was low compared to other Ohio impoundments. Harvest rate in the tailwaters was also low but similar to Dillon Lake Tailwater, which is considered one of the best Walleye tailwater fisheries in the state. Walleyes typically have not produced good tailwater fisheries in Ohio even after years of stocking. Hybrids harvest rate was low in Pleasant Hill Reservoir but typical of other systems where hybrids have recently been stocked. However, in all these systems, harvest rates for hybrids in the tailwater were higher than in the reservoir and were similar to rates for Walleyes in some of Ohio's better Walleye reservoirs. Apparenty hybrids are more likely than Walleyes to remain in tailwaters or to move into tailwater areas from downstream. These fishery characteristics are further indications that hybrids exhibit some Sauger-like behavior. Sauger fisheries are typically better in tailwaters than in reservoirs (Nelson and Walburg 1977). Saugers are more migratory than Walleyes (Collette et al. 1977). In Southeastern reservoirs, Saugers congregate below dams in Fall and remain there through Spring, whereas Walleyes congregate there only during the Spring spawning run (Hackney and Holbrook 1978). Thus, an extended Winter fishery is possible for Sauger but not for Walleye. In Ohio, hybrids are commonly taken in tailwaters in Winter (R. Schaefer, personal communication).


Management Implications
Our data indicates that the biology of hybrids is intermediate between those of the parent species and that hybrids can be a reasonable alternative to Walleyes for stocking. The question remains, "What criteria should managers use in deciding whether to stock Walleyes or hybrids?" We feel that size and water retention time (reservoir volume divided by annual discharge) of impoundments may be useful in making that decision. Erickson and Stevenson (1972) related environmental features of Ohio impoundments to the success of Walleye stocking and concluded that large impoundments with clean gravel shoals and gradual water-level fluctuations were optimal; flood control reservoirs, which are characterized by large drawdowns, rapid water-level fluctuations, and variable discharges, had not maintained good Walleye populations because large numbers of Walleyes were apparently lost downstream. Willis and Stephen (1978) found that Walleye density and stocking success in Kansas reservoirs were directly related to retention time (low retention time indicates high discharge) and felt Walleye stocking was not justified in reservoirs with retention times less than one year. In Ohio, impoundments supporting the best Walleye harvests generally have high retention times-greater than about 0.7 year. There is a general relation between retention time and size of impoundment; thus, better Walleye reservoirs tend to be large, i.e., greater than about 1,000 hectares. High retention time does not guarantee good Walleye harvests, but no Ohio impoundment with a retention time of less than about 0.1 year has developed a good Walleye fishery(Ohio Division of Wildlife, personal communication), even after years of stocking. In contrast, excellent fisheries for hybrids now exist in tailwaters associated with impoundments of less than 500 hectares and retention times of less than 0.12 year. All of these impoundments (except Paint Creek Lake) had been previously stocked with Walleyes but never developed significant Walleye fisheries. These data indicate that, for large impoundments with retention times of about 1 year or more, stocking Walleyes is likely to be successful. For small impoundments with retention times of 0.1 year or less, stocking hybrids is more likely to produce a good fishery, particularly if anglers have access to tailwaters. More work is needed to determine the feasibility of stocking hybrids in impoundments with intermediate to high retention times.
A negative aspect of stocking hybrids is the possible dilution of gene pools in reproducing Walleye or Sauger populations. During this study we captured mature male and female hybrids. Male hybrids from Deer Creek Lake have been backcrossed with female Walleyes and the resulting eggs had about 10% hatching success (T. Nagel, personal communication). Hearn (1986) produced viable offspring from a cross of reciprocal hybrids and from backcrossing female reciprocal hybrids with male Saugers. Introgressive hybridization of Walleye and Sauger has been noted in natural populations (Billington et al. 1988). Where hybrids occur together with either parent species, they might interfere with reproduction of these fish or possibly spawn successfully with the parent species and introduce new genetic material into existing populations. More work is needed to determine the reproductive potential of hybrids in the field and the likelihood of backcrossings.
In conclusion, it appears that hybrids are a feasible alternative to Walleyes for stocking, particularly in impoundments with low retention times. However, before hybrids are stocked, consideration should be given to the possibility of genetic intermixing with existing populations of Walleyes or Saugers.
__________________
__________________


----------



## acklac7

Net said:


> I mainly requested that report based on some mis-info I was starting to see.





fishslim said:


> Good thinking Terry. Was shocked at some of those statements myself.


I would very much like to know how I am "mis-informing" people, assuming those comments were directed at my post.

http://www.ohiogamefishing.com/community/showthread.php?t=81973


----------



## C J Hughes

Thanks for the info I had asked this question a while back but no one knew . Now when you go to the dead sea ( CC ) and catch nothing you know why . There is only 552,000 of them swimming in there from last year lol talk about making you feel like you don't have a clue about fishing . Thanks again


----------



## Net

acklac7 said:


> ...assuming those comments were directed at my post.


 They were not. I was referring to a post I saw recently that said the state had stopped stocking Oshay with saugeye.


----------



## fishslim

Was referring to same info that Terry mentioned. Your statements as to Indian being states baby to make money is in my opinion way off base. It is flat out the Best saugeye lake in state and produces healthy numbers every year. With that in mind worthy of large stockings,as well as fishing pressure. State is putting fish all over state but making wise use of our money by putting the fish in lakes where the fishermen can catch more of them an where the numbers stay in place instead of washing money in saugeye away by large stocking of rivers where they flush away. Your point on catching saugeyes from lakes like Alum and Hoover (narrow channels)are easy pickings is very mis-informed. I have fished both river and lake and no comparision to which is a easier catch. Rivers when stocked heavy are fish for slaughter and easy to find. As it was for years below Oshay and Griggs for years. Now is different i agree tuffer to find but only because they are fewer. But come on over to Alum or Hoover and start showing us how easy those fish are to catch,especially this time of year. Again only my opinion as you are allowed yours just do not let the river in you over take your feelings on the lake fishing not even close to the same


----------



## Saugeyefisher

I was tring to find current stockings on saugeye in ohio and stumled upon this. Theres alot of info in here


----------



## saugmon

The stocking numbers were down a couple years because majority of the females that they'd get eggs from up in maumee had some sort of virus,so they had to get the eggs from inland lakes like cj brown for a couple years. Last year another member that I guided has a son that works at the hatchery.He said they solved the virus issue and now treat the eggs from the maumee walleye which increased production.

I'm not sure about the total state numbers,but the latest numbers for Indian:
2018-6,907,875 fry only
2017-5,125,133 fry only
2016-5,123,783 fry only
2015-540,426
2014-5,081351 fry only
2013-510,240
2012-505,137
2011-524,876 fingerlings/2m797,350 fry
2010-231,529
2009- 265,320
2008-595,083
2007-688,807

The ODNR goal is 100 saugeye fingerlings per acre of water.


----------



## Saugeyefisher

awesome,thanks for the info!


----------



## Dandrews

Here's a similar thread from last year

http://www.ohiogamefishing.com/community/archive/index.php/t-179803.html


----------



## saugmon

I updated my last post of the Indian Lake stockings.If everyone is curious about the slowness of the saugeye activity this season,here is a couple pie charts that shows this slowness. Take note of the 1/2 stockings at Indian and most lakes in 2009 and 2010 in my last post:.

Record season 2012:










2013's poor quantity totals,but impressive length quality










You'll see that the class of 2009 and 2010 saugeye would be this years 15"-17" eyes and just not in there like they are most years.These are the ones that keep us busy.This is at Indian,but I bet it is throughout all saugeye stocked lakes throughout ohio. And remember,the state didn't stock some lakes in those 2 years.


----------



## koonzie99

I know there not in atwood like they should be. Ive got 85 saugeys this year with only 7 keepers. Idk the totals for 2010 but i emailed the dnr about this years a couple months ago and the guy said they put 1.5m fry in atwood this spring.


----------



## saugmon

You'd figure that all the emails everyone sends the ODNR about the numbers being stocked yearly,that they would have that info readily available and easy to find for everyone online. I haven't heard what the numbers for 2013 was.

koonzie: If you're talking about fry,then they have a very,very slim chance of making it to keeper size. The slightly larger fingerlings have a better chance. I'm not sure why they stock fry instead of fingerlings. I do know once they get past that fingerling size,they'll start eating each other in the holding ponds.


----------



## koonzie99

Here i copied the answer i got from the DNR.


I was asked to respond to your E-mail. Atwood Lake was indeed stocked with 1,566,466 saugeye this spring. HOWEVER, these were all fry, which are approximately 0.25&#8221; in length. We have stocked much smaller numbers of fingerlings (1&#8221 in the past, usually around 231,000 per year. We are experimenting on a statewide basis with saugeye fry stockings for a few years to see if we can get good results using this life stage of fish. I also left you a message on your cell phone. If questions, please E-mail or call me between 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM daily.


----------



## saugmon

I still haven't found any info for the saugeye stocking numbers for 2013.

Anyone else hear anything?


----------



## saugmon

Still not much info about the stockings of 2013 and 2014.

Here's my pie chart for this season's haul,which is almost a repeat of last year's.Again,I rounded down. Example: 15 3/4= 15".

Numbers down but quality is nice.Avg 17.6" this season but the latter part is yielding mostly Fish O's out of the few keepers and virtually 0 dinks.The eyes were so picky,that I had to switch to a totally different crankbait off the getgo. Skunked on bandits. 90% on flickershads and rest on B-02 A's and Flat A's in the latter part of season. Even my channelcat,flathead,and crappie numbers are way down,but the flatties are getting huge. Skunked 2 straight years without a perch.

Water temp's still cold and may make a few more trips before calling it a season and I'll edit in the new info into the chart.

Take note of the poor 2009 and 2010 stockings which would now be in the 18"-20" range this year. The odd part of the chart is the lack of 15"-17" which would have been the 1000's of 13"-14.999" we all tossed back last season.We're still tossing back tons of them again this season so the future looks bright..


----------



## runningantelope

Sorry to bring up such an old post but does anyone have the stocking report from the original post?


----------

