# Surprise catch in East Harbor.



## bassmaniac (May 10, 2004)

Yeah, there might be pike in there.


----------



## bassmaniac (May 10, 2004)




----------



## Snakecharmer (Apr 9, 2008)

Not sure if it is the current record but at one time, East Harbor had the state record for pike.


----------



## sdkohio (Jul 26, 2008)

I caught this one last year in a Lake Erie Marina. 42 inches!!!


----------



## Flannel_Carp (Apr 7, 2014)

Snakecharmer said:


> Not sure if it is the current record but at one time, East Harbor had the state record for pike.


Current record is from a club owned private lake just north of Dayton, Lyre Lake. Wish I could fish it!


----------



## fishingful (Apr 5, 2004)

I caught pike in east harbor in the 90s when I was a kid.


----------



## Shortdrift (Apr 5, 2004)

My dad and I would catch one or two pike each year during the late 40's and early 50's in East harbor while bass fishing.


----------



## TDD11 (Aug 5, 2015)

Buddy caught a 38" northern 4-5 years ago on Memorial Day weekend in East Harbor. Maybe he can send me a pic..


----------



## Bassthumb (Aug 22, 2008)

You see incidental catches of Pike all over Erie, they definitely live in the lake, just not in targetable numbers.


----------



## freshwaterexperience (May 23, 2014)

I was surprised by one last night fishing in a river for smallmouths with a brass 2/32 oz dardevle spoon!! Not nearly that size tho nice fish!!!!


----------



## borderbuckeye (Jul 5, 2009)

sdkohio said:


> View attachment 212972
> 
> 
> I caught this one last year in a Lake Erie Marina. 42 inches!!!


Nice fish!


----------



## steelhead steve (May 5, 2012)

nice fish i caught them as long as 42inch in the cuyohoga river in akron but the record is in a private lake and i dont think that should be allowed . if i cant fish it and you cant fish it then we have no chance at a record . the same is the record on largemouth bass private pond. seems to me a record should only be in water available to everyone. just my opinion.


----------



## jetboatbass (Dec 5, 2014)

steelhead steve said:


> nice fish i caught them as long as 42inch in the cuyohoga river in akron but the record is in a private lake and i dont think that should be allowed . if i cant fish it and you cant fish it then we have no chance at a record . the same is the record on largemouth bass private pond. seems to me a record should only be in water available to everyone. just my opinion.


There should be two types of records public and private


----------



## beaver (Sep 28, 2010)

steelhead steve said:


> nice fish i caught them as long as 42inch in the cuyohoga river in akron but the record is in a private lake and i dont think that should be allowed . if i cant fish it and you cant fish it then we have no chance at a record . the same is the record on largemouth bass private pond. seems to me a record should only be in water available to everyone. just my opinion.


I disagree. That just opens up too many variables. If we start excluding private water, then guys without boats will start wanting separate bank fishing records, and guys with small boats will want separate inland records because they can't venture out on the big lake, etc. I have 3 private ponds, and I guarantee you have more of a chance catching a record on public water than I do in one of them. Besides, who cares about a "record" anyway? A nice fish is a nice fish regardless of what book its in or where it came from.


----------



## fishmounter (Jun 24, 2008)

What it all boils down to is, the state wants bragging rights to promote fishing here. There is money in it.


----------



## steelhead steve (May 5, 2012)

beaver most people dont care about a record but if the records are in private water the public has no chance . if you live on a private lake that your comunity stocks and only 1/2 or less fish the chances of fish getting bigger would increase . like i said its my opinion glad you joined in with yours.


----------



## beaver (Sep 28, 2010)

steelhead steve said:


> beaver most people dont care about a record but if the records are in private water the public has no chance . if you live on a private lake that your comunity stocks and only 1/2 or less fish the chances of fish getting bigger would increase . like i said its my opinion glad you joined in with yours.


So do you also think that hunting records shouldn't be allowed on private land?


----------



## fishmounter (Jun 24, 2008)

Lol. Can't see the difference? Animals are at least free to move around. Fish....not so much. Fair chase is at least a higher percentage for birds and mammals. Deer in hunting preserves are not allowed to be state records. And for good reason. Just like the breeders raising whitetails that score 500+ inches, I know there are people out there that, if they really wanted to, could raise state record fish of several species, in one private lake.


----------



## beaver (Sep 28, 2010)

Do you have any idea how long a fish needs to live to be record size? Nobody is farming record fish. 

I guarantee there are more record sized fish in public water in Ohio than private.


----------



## AtticaFish (Nov 23, 2008)

There are certainly some species that i believe could be purposely grown to large sizes in closely managed settings, but not many. Bluegill or carp or catfish trained to eat pellets from a timed feeder come to mind. Still would be tough and a long shot. Would need to transplant in fish with good genes to begin with..... then you are just as bad as a pay lake in my mind. Try this link if you want to see locations for actual record fish, looks like only a few from what could be private lakes/ponds.

http://outdoorwritersofohio.org/current-ohio-record-fish/


----------



## fishmounter (Jun 24, 2008)

Growth rates of fish vary immensely in different waters. Properly managed impoundments are capable of astounding results, even with natural food sources. Natural food sources can be supplemented also. Some waters are just more fertile, especially if there is flowage through it. Dissolved oxygen levels are imperative also for optimum growth.


----------



## Atwood (Sep 6, 2005)

I caught a 42" pike that was 5 lb under the record and it was a fat fish. It made me wonder if it should be spelled Liar Lake


----------



## steelhead steve (May 5, 2012)

i dont know why but the pike i caught that was 42 inch was 17 lbs but i caught a 36 inch tat weighed almost the same both in the same area and same time of year.


----------



## Saugeye Tom (Oct 6, 2010)

Atwood said:


> I caught a 42" pike that was 5 lb under the record and it was a fat fish. It made me wonder if it should be spelled Liar Lake


The pike at lyer lake was a FAT FISH....stuffed with shad.....there are bigger pike there....I've fished it with a member as a guest


----------



## odell daniel (Nov 5, 2015)

seems like in a private lake or a good size pond a guy could feed the bass and try to grow a state record without any public fishing. for instance, Perfect North ski slope in Lawrenceburg Indiana has a 10 acre lake full of big bass, the guy has it stocked with shad, we fished it a few years ago and caught big bass all day. I wouldnt be suprised if a state record was caught right there.


----------



## Saugeye Tom (Oct 6, 2010)

odell daniel said:


> seems like in a private lake or a good size pond a guy could feed the bass and try to grow a state record without any public fishing. for instance, Perfect North ski slope in Lawrenceburg Indiana has a 10 acre lake full of big bass, the guy has it stocked with shad, we fished it a few years ago and caught big bass all day. I wouldnt be suprised if a state record was caught right there.


Lyer lake is a huge pit....they don't feed but they do stock 2000 lbs of trout every march.....


----------

