# Thoughts on wildlife fines



## Popspastime (Apr 1, 2014)

A new year opens and sure to be over-bag or illegal activity fines with all the great easy fishing we have going right now. So I'm just thinking here thinking..(too much time on my hands right now..rain) I've seen in the past not long ago about a guy with hundreds of perch over, or the guy with double and triple limits of walleye getting caught. Seems to me they get a slap on the wrist fine, loss of license for a short time, and down the road they go. A few have forfeited some equipment but no way addresses the crime. Why, because it's a fish? What if it was a deer and you were 200 over for the season?, would the penalties be more severe?, I'm thinking it would be.. Either way the crime is the same to me, over is over. I'm not saying the "gas chamber" but think the fines need to be stepped up a good bit, even if it's to make examples over it. 
Not that it would do any good here but what do you think it should be ?, I'm not talking honest mistakes or just a bad fish count, I'm talking blatant wildlife abuse. Whats your thoughts?


----------



## ducknut141 (Apr 26, 2017)

If it's the one or two over (bad count, obviously with multiple people on the boat) The officer should use their judgement. You can only use the bad count excuse once and they will catch on I hope. If it's like you stated they should loose their equipment, whatever they were in and how they got it there. Fines for everyone over limit and loose hunting and fishing PRIVILEGES for LIFE!!


----------



## baitguy (Dec 17, 2013)

a lot of the penalties are flexible ranges, same as other "minor" crimes ... lol and some major ones too  the judge has the authority to hammer them if he wants ... there are jurisdictions here that will do just that, Fremont / Sandusky and Maumee during the walleye run comes to mind and I've heard there's a guy in Lorain that's tough on them ... to many of the judges, it's just that, only a fish or 3, perch are small and what's a few walleyes among friends, there's lots of them  it's barely considered a crime or worthy of their time when they have so much else on their plate  imagine the uproar when Bubba loses his rig after a mere 14 violations  my god man, he'd have to bank fish  the only thing they really care about are the court costs that pay their salaries  funding for wildlife activities with fines like they do for other stuff never enters their thought process


----------



## Shortdrift (Apr 5, 2004)

When you have several people Perch fishing, a miss count is easy to do for those too lazy to make a second count when they feel their boat limit has been reached. No excuse not to check again as it only takes a few minutes. The lower bag limit on walleye is easy to keep track of, so no excuses.

Under 10% of boat limit for perch at $10 per fish. Over 10% to 20% $15 per fish. Over 20% is $20 per fish, mandatory fines in all cases.
Walleye should be $25 per fish up to 25 fish. Over 25 fish is loss of all tackle as well $25 per fish fine and loss of license for one year. Fines and loss doubled for second offenders. Mandatory in all cases.

This should be a part of the license regulations so no one could plead ignorance.


----------



## Popspastime (Apr 1, 2014)

So if i shoot 20 deer this season your saying its not so bad? All things being equal the fish is as bad as the deer. If i kill 20 deer im probably going to jail besides all the rest.


----------



## H2ofowl (Jun 7, 2010)

It is not the fine in the criminal court that hurts but the civil fine for the value of the species over bagged or taken illegally. Everything animal has a value and after you are done criminally the civil fine goes in. Even a minnow killed in a pollution spill has a value. for example an over 200 class deer can result in over a $25K civil penalty.


----------



## Wow (May 17, 2010)

Fine for a short fish or over-count. 
For a piggish, criminal foul, fines, license, tags, and boat suspension. It's gotta' hurt to be taken seriously. --Tim


----------



## hailtothethief (Jan 18, 2017)

Just my opinion there are too many walleye in the lake. It is on like donkey kong. There’s no need for a limit when we have record walleye. Guy got 57 rock bass and 20 blue gill before this storm. No limits on those fish and they do just fine.


----------



## Redheads (Jun 9, 2008)

hailtothethief said:


> Just my opinion there are too many walleye in the lake. It is on like donkey kong. There’s no need for a limit when we have record walley.


With thoughts like that it will only be a few years until we start seeing the posts again about guys complaining that some are not sharing information about where they are catching them.
I would much rather read about the 13 second limits than being questioned where, what depth, what color, what speed.

As far as fines go fine everyone heavily for over bagging, littering,poaching and put the money back into the state for improvements and fees.
i do not mind a license increase but more money could come from the law breakers rather than the sportsman


----------



## Deadeyedeek (Feb 12, 2014)

Redheads said:


> With thoughts like that it will only be a few years until we start seeing the posts again about guys complaining that some are not sharing information about where they are catching them.
> I would much rather read about the 13 second limits than being questioned where, what depth, what color, what speed.
> 
> As far as fines go fine everyone heavily for over bagging, littering,poaching and put the money back into the state for improvements and fees.
> i do not mind a license increase but more money could come from the law breakers rather than the sportsman


FIRING SQUAD!!!!!! No ifs ands or Doughts


----------



## JamesF (May 20, 2016)

My cousin was hand cuffed to the court house railing, for a snag mark on one fish in his limit. He didn't have $250.00 so he had to wait until his dad showed up from Canton . We also got checked at Fremont, the guy literally threw the fish into the rocks, while "stating if I find an incriminating mark you'll be arrested and fined " I was taking pics right from the beginning. He told me to put the camera away. I told him that wasn't going to happen. He gave a nasty look and left. That was the last time I ever went back to Maumee or Fremont. It's all about the money!


----------



## sherman51 (Apr 12, 2011)

many yrs ago a group of us miscounted and was 2 small fish over our limit. we seen we were over while cleaning the fish. myself and one other guy wanted to just pitch them. but the capt of the boat said we caught them now we was going to keep them. when a leo pulled up in his car as we finished cleaning the fish and counted the filets he said we were 2 over. one guy in our group started getting a little mouthy but the rest of us put him in his place. the leo said one of us had to go with him and put up a cash bond, the capt volunteered. it was 15.00 per fish and 28.00 court cost for a total of 58.00. we split it 4 ways which was still enough to make us do a better job counting in the future.

the leo said he knew it was a small infraction but it was a infraction. he said he was supposed to take all the fish for evidence but we had been so nice about everything that he was only taking the 2 over and letting us keep the rest. he was a nice guy out there after dark with the 4 of us. we could have gave him a bad time but even though we were only 2 over we were in the wrong. we let everybody keep count of there own fish then. but we count the total in the cooler now.

should we have been treated as any other poacher? or the ones that double dips or was our punishment just for making a 2 fish mistake while counting???
sherman


----------



## dcool (Apr 14, 2004)

In my opinion if you are caught poaching fish you should lose everything that was involved ( rods, boat, trailer, vehicle ) that would put a stop to people taking more than there limit, and the state could make money selling there stuff at auction. The way the state handles it now, is you get a slap on the hand and a small fine.


----------



## baitguy (Dec 17, 2013)

I think we sometimes forget that these guys do this for a living and they might not have heard every excuse but they've heard most of them  I used to officiate sports so often ruining someones day and in my real life job I sometimes have to piss in someones Cheerios ... they never like it but my associates in both of those professions always get a good laugh hearing the latest and greatest "reason" for an infraction, small or large ... geez whiz officer, were in a frenzy and didn't realize we were a couple dozen fish over  I had an associate once that regularly got cited for fishing to early in Maumee run and snagging, cost him hundreds in fines but he still kept doing it  they're often worth a laugh because you're thinking to yourself "is this guy that stupid or what???" ... the Wildlife guys must hear a dozen "reasons" a day on why someone did something they should have known better ... rules enforcement on any level is often tricky to do, it can be difficult to determine level of intent for smaller violations, but you have to draw the line somewhere, if you're gonna have rules that mean anything you have to enforce them, including punitive penalties, otherwise they're just suggestions ...


----------



## chadwimc (Jun 27, 2007)

Realistically, if the fish cops step up enforcement and such, what are they gonna do with a buncha buggys and sway back nags???


----------



## baitguy (Dec 17, 2013)

chadwimc said:


> Realistically, if the fish cops step up enforcement and such, what are they gonna do with a buncha buggys and sway back nags???


go under cover in that community


----------



## hailtothethief (Jan 18, 2017)

If you got 12 sturgeon in your boat u should be punished since they are endangered you *******. 

But there’s 100 million walleye in the lake. Walleye fines are just a racket for the state at this point. They are not endangered. There’s no shortage of walleye. People were catching shorts left and right from shore too so there are even more coming down the pike.


----------



## Popspastime (Apr 1, 2014)

hailtothethief said:


> But there’s 100 million walleye in the lake. Walleye fines are just a racket for the state at this point. They are not endangered. There’s no shortage of walleye. People were catching shorts left and right from shore too so there are even more coming down the pike.


So that's reason to over harvest and abuse the species, because their doing well?


----------



## chadwimc (Jun 27, 2007)

baitguy said:


> go under cover in that community


Why? They're blatant and in the open with their poaching. Ray Charles could see 'em...


----------



## hailtothethief (Jan 18, 2017)

Walleye aren’t an abused species. They havent had a die off. They are setting record numbers. 

Crappie were no limit on pyma til they had a die off. Now there’s a 20 limit. That’s a good use of regulation. Let em get their numbers back up. 

Obviously everyone wants walleye to dominate the lake. Walleye are fun to catch, easy to fillet and taste good.Having regs in place to keep them dominating is beneficial. But i dont see reason to punish people for being over the limit on a species in no sign of decline and that is reproducing at a tremendous pace. Id much rather raise fines on endangered species than punish someone for taking extra on a plentiful fish like walleye.


----------



## sherman51 (Apr 12, 2011)

hailtothethief said:


> Walleye aren’t an abused species. They havent had a die off. They are setting record numbers.
> 
> Crappie were no limit on pyma til they had a die off. Now there’s a 20 limit. That’s a good use of regulation. Let em get their numbers back up.
> 
> Obviously everyone wants walleye to dominate the lake. Walleye are fun to catch, easy to fillet and taste good.Having regs in place to keep them dominating is beneficial. But i dont see reason to punish people for being over the limit on a species in no sign of decline and that is reproducing at a tremendous pace. Id much rather raise fines on endangered species than punish someone for taking extra on a plentiful fish like walleye.


if the laws and limits are enforced then we'll have good fishing for many yrs to come. if everybody took this view it wouldnt take long to deplete the large number we have now.

i've seen the fishing go up and down during the 35 + yrs i've been fishing erie. I only get up there 1 sometimes 2 times a yr. so your saying it would be ok for me to catch as many as I want to clean.
sherman


----------



## hailtothethief (Jan 18, 2017)

You can keep fish or dont keep them. Id just like to see more regulation on the government. Prove that overfishing is causing a decline in the walleye. It isn’t. Snagging and netting can put a big dent in walleye but fishing is a skill. Not enough fishermen to put a dent in the wall eye population. 

Deer population is down so id like to see more deer fines or better yet be required to raise some deer if you are caught poaching too many.


----------



## chadwimc (Jun 27, 2007)

"...Deer population is down so id like to see more deer fines or better yet be required to raise some deer if you are caught poaching too many..."
We sure as heck don't need that idea. The group that cannot be named is solely responsible for CWD in Ohio. And our tax money paid them for the trouble. No deer farming in Ohio outside of a research setting!!!


----------



## WETSHIRT (Jun 29, 2012)

chadwimc said:


> "...Deer population is down so id like to see more deer fines or better yet be required to raise some deer if you are caught poaching too many..."
> We sure as heck don't need that idea. The group that cannot be named is solely responsible for CWD in Ohio. And our tax money paid them for the trouble. No deer farming in Ohio outside of a research setting!!!


 That went over my head. Give me a hint who that group is.


----------



## chadwimc (Jun 27, 2007)

WETSHIRT said:


> That went over my head. Give me a hint who that group is.


I don't know how to label them without the Mods deleting it or worse. Must be a big sponsor or buy advertising or something.


----------



## baitguy (Dec 17, 2013)

chadwimc said:


> Why? They're blatant and in the open with their poaching. Ray Charles could see 'em...


it was a joke chad, lighten up


----------



## I Fish (Sep 24, 2008)

What I'd like to see is higher fines for non residents. I have reasons. One of which is I met some people in a nearby midwestern state. When they found out I was from Ohio, the conversation immediately went to fishing Lake Erie. They all laughed at our fines, and admitted they, and everybody they know that come from out of state, double trip and overbag every time they can. They said it's because the fines and the chances of getting caught are so low, and if they got caught once every other year, they were still money ahead.


----------



## sherman51 (Apr 12, 2011)

I Fish said:


> What I'd like to see is higher fines for non residents. I have reasons. One of which is I met some people in a nearby midwestern state. When they found out I was from Ohio, the conversation immediately went to fishing Lake Erie. They all laughed at our fines, and admitted they, and everybody they know that come from out of state, double trip and overbag every time they can. They said it's because the fines and the chances of getting caught are so low, and if they got caught once every other year, they were still money ahead.


I don't know about others but i'm happy with the 6 fish limit. I don't over catch and I'm not good enough to double dip. so all out of state guys don't practice these things. of course with the fishing now it would be easy to double dip. I wouldnt care if they did fine out of state guys a lot of money depending on how bad they were over the limit. but why not raise the fine to include everybody that poaches. a poacher is a poacher no matter where he's from.
sherman


----------



## I Fish (Sep 24, 2008)

sherman51 said:


> I don't know about others but i'm happy with the 6 fish limit. I don't over catch and I'm not good enough to double dip. so all out of state guys don't practice these things. of course with the fishing now it would be easy to double dip. I wouldnt care if they did fine out of state guys a lot of money depending on how bad they were over the limit. but why not raise the fine to include everybody that poaches. a poacher is a poacher no matter where he's from.
> sherman


True enough, but its been my experience that the nonresidents are more likely to violate. Remember our law regarding the cleaning of fish implemented a few years ago? The words directly from a state fisheries biologist was it was because of nonresidents cutting up their fillets so they couldn't be counted. Now, that law effects the residents to a much larger degree, but it's in response to the actions of the nonresidents.


----------



## Harry1959 (Mar 17, 2011)

Determine your fine amount based on where you live? That’s not right.


----------



## I Fish (Sep 24, 2008)

Harry1959 said:


> Determine your fine amount based on where you live? That’s not right.


Why not? They determine your license fee based on where you live.


----------



## Harry1959 (Mar 17, 2011)

I Fish said:


> Why not? They determine your license fee based on where you live.


 Simply put I don’t think it’s right to have one penalty for one group of people and a separate penalty for another. Whether it’s based on your residence, social status or whatever. That’s as clear and simple as I know how to say it.
Non resident outdoorsman dont contribute anything to the other states wildlife fund other than the license purchase, while some of the residents tax money goes to support hunting and fishing in the state they live. I guess that would be the reason nonresidents pay more.


----------



## sherman51 (Apr 12, 2011)

he ** if they would impose harsh fines for the ones they do catch from everybody then it would deter most poaching. 1 fish over 100.00 fine and double it for each fish over. 2 fish would be 300.00 the 3rd fish would be 400.00 plus the 100.00 for the 1st fish and 200.00 for the second fish the fine for 3 fish over would be 700.00 and for the 4th fish it would be 800.00 on top of the 700.00 for 4 fish over the limit would be 1500.00 in fines. and keep doubling for every fish over the limit. it would put a stop to guys making mistakes counting there catch. and make the fine mandatory the same for everybody. not smack this guy on the wrist and throw the book at another guy. but game fines are just to lax.

but to fine a nonresident more is against the constitution to treat everybody the same, or they could fine atheist double what they charge a Baptist, LOL.
sherman


----------



## JamesF (May 20, 2016)

Fine them enough to make them think twice. If there in the system, confiscate gear.


----------



## sherman51 (Apr 12, 2011)

JamesF said:


> Fine them enough to make them think twice. If there in the system, confiscate gear.


yes repeat offenders should lose everything. but for nonresidents only, LOL.
sherman


----------



## Harry1959 (Mar 17, 2011)

Lol sherman


----------



## fastwater (Apr 1, 2014)

sherman51 said:


> yes repeat offenders should lose everything. but for nonresidents only, LOL.
> sherman


I say a finger per fish over limit marking these non-resident poaching scumbags for life so all can see.
First time resident poachers must pass a math test to insure they can count.


----------



## sherman51 (Apr 12, 2011)

fastwater said:


> I say a finger per fish over limit marking these non-resident poaching scumbags for life so all can see.
> First time resident poachers must pass a math test to insure they can count.


yes I think resident fishermen that has to many fish should have to share them with the leo that caught them. then they should be set free to do it again.

nonresident poachers losing a finger per fish wouldnt be long until all over fishing would be done by resident fisherman. because it would be hard to fish with only my thumbs, LOL. 
sherman


----------



## I Fish (Sep 24, 2008)

Harry1959 said:


> Simply put I don’t think it’s right to have one penalty for one group of people and a separate penalty for another. Whether it’s based on your residence, social status or whatever. That’s as clear and simple as I know how to say it.


So then why is it acceptable to charge more for nonresident licenses?



Harry1959 said:


> Non resident outdoorsman dont contribute anything to the other states wildlife fund other than the license purchase, while some of the residents tax money goes to support hunting and fishing in the state they live.


And is exactly the reason violations by nonresidents should carry a higher penalty. They are violating the people of Ohio's resources.


----------



## Harry1959 (Mar 17, 2011)

I Fish said:


> So then why is it acceptable to charge more for nonresident licenses?
> 
> 
> The second paragraph you quoted from me is my explanation of why it’s acceptable to charge more for non residents. No need for me to keep repeating it. Obviously we just disagree.


----------



## sherman51 (Apr 12, 2011)

I really hope you guys are kidding. poaching by anyone is wrong no matter where you live. no one has any proof what so ever that nonresidents poach more than anyone elce. residents have much more time on the water to do wrong than nonresidents. just because I fish says its so doesn't make it so. now lets all go fishing and be legal. and I believe the higher license is fair. we use the resources of that state and should pay our fair share. however we bring a lot of money to the local economy. gas food lodging fishing gear and other things. even though I only fish 1 week per yr I pay for the whole yr. I have bought more of my fishing gear from karrens shop in Geneva than anywhere else. we buy our food from the local stores or from the pizza place by the tracks, LOL. 
sherman


----------



## TRIPLE-J (Sep 18, 2006)

hailtothethief said:


> You can keep fish or dont keep them. Id just like to see more regulation on the government. Prove that overfishing is causing a decline in the walleye. It isn’t. Snagging and netting can put a big dent in walleye but fishing is a skill. Not enough fishermen to put a dent in the wall eye population.


----------



## fastwater (Apr 1, 2014)

Uncle Sherm...thank you for your contributions to our state. 
And please feel free to take home all the carp you can catch.


----------



## TRIPLE-J (Sep 18, 2006)

hailtothethief said:


> You can keep fish or dont keep them. Id just like to see more regulation on the government. Prove that overfishing is causing a decline in the walleye. It isn’t. Snagging and netting can put a big dent in walleye but fishing is a skill. Not enough fishermen to put a dent in the wall eye population.
> 
> that was already proven time and time again,, but they were called the blue pike and lake sturgeon...
> yea and if they allowed your thinking there wouldnt be a walleye in that lake in about 3 years
> but i bet you could get an awesome fish dinner at all the local bars and restaurants cheap for those 3 years


----------



## hailtothethief (Jan 18, 2017)

Sturgeon only reproduce every ten years and were overfished. Walleye on the other hand reproduce every year and live 10-20 years. I dunno what killed the blue pike whether it was pollution of the spawning grounds overfishing or just the species had peaked. 

There’s suppose to be closing in on 100 million walleye in the lake. You cant eat all of them. 1-2 million are harvested a year. There may never be bad walleye fishing again in lake erie. Reminds me of the fears over bass extinction in the lake when everyone in ohio has a bass pond. Bass get fished out every year yet they are back. I think bass do well because they get overfished it thins the herd and the little bass dont have so many big bass trying to eat them.


----------



## sherman51 (Apr 12, 2011)

fastwater said:


> Uncle Sherm...thank you for your contributions to our state.
> And please feel free to take home all the carp you can catch.


hey I can fix up a pretty good platter of them lake erie carp I catch. you just have to clean them right.
sherman


----------



## TRIPLE-J (Sep 18, 2006)

hailtothethief said:


> Sturgeon only reproduce every ten years and were overfished. Walleye on the other hand reproduce every year and live 10-20 years. I dunno what killed the blue pike whether it was pollution of the spawning grounds overfishing or just the species had peaked.
> 
> There’s suppose to be closing in on 100 million walleye in the lake. You cant eat all of them. 1-2 million are harvested a year. There may never be bad walleye fishing again in lake erie. Reminds me of the fears over bass extinction in the lake when everyone in ohio has a bass pond. Bass get fished out every year yet they are back. I think bass do well because they get overfished it thins the herd and the little bass dont have so many big bass trying to eat them.


no fears here there's just no reason to have to take more than 6 per day per fisherman... if you need more in your household then take your wife or gf or kid or parent or whoever.
and the TAC for walleye in lake erie is set for 8.5 million fish


----------



## hailtothethief (Jan 18, 2017)

8.5 million. That sounds more reasonable. More people go out every day since the fishing is good.


----------



## sherman51 (Apr 12, 2011)

TRIPLE-J said:


> no fears here there's just no reason to have to take more than 6 per day per fisherman... if you need more in your household then take your wife or gf or kid or parent or whoever.
> and the TAC for walleye in lake erie is set for 8.5 million fish


its a 350 mile trip each way so I usually only fish a few days each yr and I still think 6 per day will keep the fishing great for many yrs. the fishing was getting a little tough for guys that only fish one trip a yr. with the 2003 hatch dwindling down. now with the new fish in the lake it should be great for yrs to come even with the poaching that goes on.
sherman


----------



## Morrowtucky Mike (May 2, 2018)

hailtothethief said:


> You can keep fish or dont keep them. Id just like to see more regulation on the government. Prove that overfishing is causing a decline in the walleye. It isn’t. Snagging and netting can put a big dent in walleye but fishing is a skill. Not enough fishermen to put a dent in the wall eye population.
> 
> Deer population is down so id like to see more deer fines or better yet be required to raise some deer if you are caught poaching too many.


5 man limits in 45 minutes could seriously put a dent in the population if everyone went out 3 times per day. And right now that’s how the walleye fishing is on Erie. Sure most people aren’t doing it but your basically saying if they did “no big deal” cuz they aren’t endangered! Makes no sense to me. At one time the sturgeon weren’t endangered either till man came along.


----------



## steelhead steve (May 5, 2012)

I think that if there are 4 people in the boat and you have 25 walleye you probably miscounted and the same if you have 2 perch over the limit maybe a warning or a very small fine but if you have 12 eyes over the limit you are just a poacher period the fine should be very high say $150 per fish and a loss of fishing priv. for 3 years second offence triple the fines and never fish . the fines should go directly to restocking programs because the court already get theirs.thats my opinion . I do think the fines should be uniform and not case tot case. also people that break the laws over and over theres a thing called jail .


----------



## DJA (Jun 18, 2004)

Catch your first 4 walleye and start throwing back and looking for some bigger ones when you start getting tired fill your limit and go home. Of course the skipper will get nervous as they like to get their full pay for 2 hours of fishing. But what about the restitution charge/ fine- for a trophy whitetail that money should go to the landowner or go buy a similar buck at a Game farm and replace it in the same area it was harvested


----------



## sherman51 (Apr 12, 2011)

DJA said:


> Catch your first 4 walleye and start throwing back and looking for some bigger ones when you start getting tired fill your limit and go home. Of course the skipper will get nervous as they like to get their full pay for 2 hours of fishing. But what about the restitution charge/ fine- for a trophy whitetail that money should go to the landowner or go buy a similar buck at a Game farm and replace it in the same area it was harvested


the only problem with giving it to the land owner is he doesn't own the deer the state does. 
sherman


----------



## hailtothethief (Jan 18, 2017)

Unless you hit the deer with your car then the state dont own the deer and is not responsible for the damage.


----------



## I Fish (Sep 24, 2008)

hailtothethief said:


> Unless you hit the deer with your car then the state dont own the deer and is not responsible for the damage.


Funny how that works, isn't it?


----------



## hailtothethief (Jan 18, 2017)

It’s a kangaroo court.

It’s important to have rule of law but a 6 fish walleye limit was not the right number every year for 50 years. There were lean years where people especially netters shouldnt of been keeping and the government didnt change perch limits when the central basin was all wiped out. Seems fishy to me to have a beuracracy that just sets it and forgets it. There should be some accountability and response to real changes in the fishery imo.

Netting walleye was banned in the 70’s. There hasnt been a 10 fish limit since the 80’s. The trend is to keep the limit low regardless of walleye population.If the walleye population declined dramatically would the limit change? Prob not. The state has been very rigid on the number.


----------



## Scorpio V (Aug 23, 2013)

What I feel people miss here is it’s the courts. If they don’t take wildlife violations seriously then they aren’t going to be enforced. It lies with court system, not wholly but a large part of it does. Just my couple of pennies. Let the beatings begin. I’ll be out catching limits.


----------



## fastwater (Apr 1, 2014)

G&G Sportfishing said:


> What I feel people miss here is it’s the courts. If they don’t take wildlife violations seriously then they aren’t going to be enforced. It lies with court system, not wholly but a large part of it does. Just my couple of pennies. Let the beatings begin. I’ll be out catching limits.


Agree with this!!!
Of course...the courts are not only this way with wildlife violations. Sadly, with backlogs in dockets, seems they are that way across the board with violations in general.


----------



## sherman51 (Apr 12, 2011)

G&G Sportfishing said:


> What I feel people miss here is it’s the courts. If they don’t take wildlife violations seriously then they aren’t going to be enforced. It lies with court system, not wholly but a large part of it does. Just my couple of pennies. Let the beatings begin. I’ll be out catching limits.


a lot of it is that the judges don't have a clue whats going on. with them whats the big deal with only being 50 fish or 10 deer over the limit. smack the back of there hand and they'll be better.
sherman


----------



## hailtothethief (Jan 18, 2017)

If i changed the walleye fine it would be on taking obvious females. Put the females back or 1,000 $$$ fine per female. That a fine that keeps the walleye population good.


----------



## Popspastime (Apr 1, 2014)

hailtothethief said:


> If i changed the walleye fine it would be on taking obvious females. Put the females back or 1,000 $$$ fine per female. That a fine that keeps the walleye population good.


I see that working.. Guys looking for lipstick.


----------



## sherman51 (Apr 12, 2011)

hailtothethief said:


> If i changed the walleye fine it would be on taking obvious females. Put the females back or 1,000 $$$ fine per female. That a fine that keeps the walleye population good.


I don't really know any way to tell them apart. but keeping the females doesn't hurt anything on erie. a large walleye will lay around 500,000 eggs per yr. its the survival of them that determines the quality of the hatch. and with thousands of large and smaller fish laying millions of eggs it doesn't hurt to keep females. back a few yrs ago when we had a great hatch we probably had a very low amount of females that laid millions of eggs that survived. and nature plays the biggest role in survival.
sherman


----------



## hailtothethief (Jan 18, 2017)

I can tell females by their torn up bellies and the males are obvious leaving their jizz all over the boat.


----------



## sherman51 (Apr 12, 2011)

hailtothethief said:


> I can tell females by their torn up bellies and the males are obvious leaving their jizz all over the boat.


thats only true in spring when they are spawning. I only fish the central basin in the summer months. but I still say it depends more on conditions for the eggs and fry to survive. it wouldnt make much if any difference how many eggs were there if a big blow washed most of the eggs off the reels. or if we had a bad cold spell kill the fry.
sherman


----------



## hailtothethief (Jan 18, 2017)

Speaking of fry with the record rains do you think this years hatch will be awful? The rivers have been mud for months. There were a lot of walleye fingerlings being caught in the spring but i would assume they were last years hatch.


----------



## sherman51 (Apr 12, 2011)

hailtothethief said:


> Speaking of fry with the record rains do you think this years hatch will be awful? The rivers have been mud for months. There were a lot of walleye fingerlings being caught in the spring but i would assume they were last years hatch.


I cant really answer your question. but with 3 of the last 5 yrs being good and with the 18 hatch being the best on record I don't think a couple of off yrs will hurt.
sherman


----------



## Morrowtucky Mike (May 2, 2018)

hailtothethief said:


> If i changed the walleye fine it would be on taking obvious females. Put the females back or 1,000 $$$ fine per female. That a fine that keeps the walleye population good.


Yep there aren’t enough walleye in Erie we better throw back all females. Here we go again on this one! The only way it would make a difference is if everyone, and I mean everyone threw back all the males and only kept females for years. We have too many fish biologists, lol.


----------



## sherman51 (Apr 12, 2011)

yeah it takes 1 thousand females to lay 10 million eggs, lol. but true.


----------



## Popspastime (Apr 1, 2014)

So whats that got to do with fines?


----------

