# Sauger research



## ohiou_98

Were coming into sauger season and I'm trying to brush up on my research... Unfortunately there is very little out there. Wouldn't it be nice if there was as much literature on sauger as there is on bass?


----------



## riverKing

its there its just hard to find, usually hidden down in the depths of some midwestern dnrs website. what are you looking for in particular, they're pretty similar to walleye, a few differences but researching walleye is much easier.
i must admit it would be nice if there was funding for research on more fish species, but you have to go where the money is, so bass it is


----------



## misfit

i'm sure there's plenty of info if you do enough research.as for finding as much info as you'll find on bass,that isn't going to happen.bass are much more abundant throughout the whole country,not to mention other countries,therefore a more popular species than sauger.so the amount of literature would naturally be more abundant.
sauger are a stream fish,and only found in a few streams in ohio,whereas bass can be found just about anywhere in the state.
where money plays into it,i have no idea


----------



## grdhandyman

My question i, why does the DNR stock saugeyes instead of saugers and walleyes separately? Is there an advantage to the hybrid??


----------



## fishing_marshall

Saugeye will get bigger than the sauger and will tolerate the turbid water conditions found in Ohio's lakes better than the walleye. Saugeye were supposed to be sterile, but theres big debates on that. Hybrids are more aggressive.


----------



## misfit

just my thoughts in a nutshell,to provide a put/take fishery in places where neither sauger or walleye can/will naturally reproduce.it is also more cost effective to raise/stock hybrids than it is to do so with the others.
personally,i like the idea of a fish that is fun to fish for/catch,is easily accessible and can't be beaten as table fare


----------



## Day81

Hope this helps youhttp://www.dnr.state.oh.us/Default.aspx?TabId=20785#sauger.


----------



## EE

misfit said:


> personally,i like the idea of a fish that is fun to fish for/catch,is easily accessible and can't be beaten as table fare


I'll second that!

I'm sure ODNR has received it's fair share 'return' on this hybrid (license fees, etc.), with the large number of saugeye fishermen across the state. Though I like to catch other types of fish, it is saugeye that I look forward to the most.


----------



## misfit

and i might add,more bang for the dnr buck when it comes to rearing/stocking.


----------



## I Fish

Don't forget job security. I've read just about every excuse for this, better survival, growth, etc., so if thats all true, explain why they hybridize the lake stocked catfish. They are a cross of blue cat and channel cat. These species do just fine on their own, so why cross them? Most people don't know, or can tell the difference. Next time you catch a catfish in a state lake, if it's stocked, the little fin on the back, between the dorsal fin and tail has been cut off. They do that at the hatchery. 
It's all about money. If the lakes supported themselves, the hatchery workers would be, well, out of work. If they truly wanted a self sustainable resource, they would at least try it, or ask another state, such as Kansas, how they do it. In other words prove they won't live, and thrive, don't just say it.


----------



## Net

The only catfish raised & stocked by the ODNR are channel cats. Last time I checked they looked like a true channel cat too.


----------



## misfit

this thread is not about catfish or job security,so please start another thread on those topics,instead of hijacking this one.


----------



## I Fish

I'm just explaining why they don't stock pure strain fish. There are several lakes I beleive could support walleye, sauger, or both, but the state won't try them. I'm merely using what they do with catfish to further the point. And no, they are not pure channel catfish. Compare one from a state lake with one from the Ohio River or Lake Erie and you will see the difference.


----------



## misfit

well,your explanation is incorrect.
maybe if there was more info available on sauger research,it would be clear that sauger are not found naturally in lakes because they are not well suited to them.the same goes for walleyes.they only do well under certain conditions,which are not found in many lakes in this state.that is why the stocking programs shifted from walleye to saugeye in the first place.if they were self sustaining,they would not need to be stocked.it just doesn't make sense(financially)to stock hybrids in waters that could hold good self sustaining pops of walleyes 
since the 1950's, i've fished numerous lakes and rivers in ohio.many,at one time were originally stocked with walleyes in hopes of creating self sustaining pops.over the years,the stocking finally was discontinued due to lack of success.
just because you "believe" some lakes could support certain fish,does not make it so.


----------



## I Fish

I realize that because I believe something, doesn't make it possible. However, since the 1950's, advancements in understanding of eco systems has changed. Also, predator/ prey relationships have likewise advanced. A joint study between Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin revealed that lakes with high black bass populations had a high mortality of walleye fingerlings. The reason? The bass were eating them. Saugeye fry as well. I'm just saying the state should be as focused on making things sustainable, instead of wasting our fishing license money. Maybe, developing spawning areas instead of just relying on what the Corps of Engineers left. We both want the same goal, more catchable (and eatable) fish.
And as far as just sauger go, what about the small streams that supported them prior to the 1970's? The state has made no attempt to restart them. Granted, I think they died out from pollution, but the waters of Ohio are quite a bit cleaner now.


----------



## misfit

some of what you mention has already been tried,but aside from not being feasible, remaking what the corps left would kinda defeat the real/intended purpose of those lakes.comparing ohio's flood control and water supply lakes with totally different types of lakes in wisc.,iowa and minnesota is comparing apples to oranges.and i'm sure ohio has done plenty of studies of their own as well.we all know that bass will eat smaller fish,so that is nothing new.


----------



## riverKing

I FISH, I agree with but you are taking some liberties. the state has done the work showing that saugeye survival rates are better than walleye. in many of these shallow muddy lakes I would rather see walleye than saugeye but they not gonna do that great. now in lakes like cc and east fork down in the sw corner of the state that both get over 80ft deep and have good mixtures of cover and sediment I think walleye would be the smarter choice. furthermore, there is a slim chance that sauger would make it in most of the lakes or in the streams above, without that connection to the ohio river they just cant seem to exist. the evidence is in the distribution records, the population of sauger is excellent in every major trib to the ohio up to the first lowhead dam. even in rives as big as the great miami they die out. now there was an exception, east fork had a population of sauger that are probably still around, some big ones on occasion, they spawned in the creek above the lake, but the numbers are way to low to even consider them fishable, I heard about one caught this year, in the creek above the lake...they do great in lakes.
frankly if the dnr was going to stock fish in the ohio river watershed other than the saugeye, channel cats, bass, musky, trout and hybrid striper they stock now. I would like to see blue sucker and paddlefish restoration, or madtom and darter habitat protection, but these wont happen on a large scale ever. the reason is the anglers, if most anglers want saugeye a fish that tastes good and is accesible, stands to reason most do. than thats what the anglers will get from the dnr MANagment team.

I think I got lost somewhere in there, nope, its just time to shut up and fish.


----------



## I Fish

I just don't like how the state handles a lot of things. It seems like they are always trying to fix a problem by throwing money at it, instead of fixing the problem. I hunt, also, and have watched what they've done with our other wildlife as well. Pheasants, for instance. They tried crossing the ringneck with a sechuan pheasant. Michigan was succesful, but Ohio's brood stock was only 25&#37; sechuan, vs Michigan's 50%. So, they just dropped the program, instead of trying 50/50 crosses. About $1million wasted. It's not just the fish. There is just too much politics involved. You scratch my back, I'll get yours. They are all afraid to point out the faults of the other, even when the sportsmen benefit. Sorry, I'm just getting fed up with the wasted resources of our great state.


----------



## BigMha

welcome to the REAL world....governments waste money, in our estimation, but it is what it is I FISH, lets just enjoy the fisheries that we've got and keep our minds off of the political cash cow....our ecomony is out of control and so is/was spending.....i say ride it out and hope for the best....while we wait LET'S FISH !!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## warden

I agree with misfit's comments on saugeye in Ohio. Does anyone remember the attempt to stock sauger in Cowin during the 80's?


----------



## Pole Squeezer

Maybe im wrong, but it seems that if I want to catch decent fish, whether panfish, or walleye, and most species I have to either leave NE Ohio, and go to Pa, or NY, or Michigan or .......... I'm talking about consistently catch fish. I'm shore bound, so I can't speak on boat fishing per se, but overall I don't think the ODNR really have our best interest at heart anymore. I travel the country 90% of the time with my job, so I see alot of different fisheries across the country, and right now it seems like ohio for the most part the worst. Lake Erie would be an exception it would seem. The lakes around the akron area, seem almost devoid of decent fish of any of the popular species, I know that competition among anglers is a factor, but is it just me, or is there something really wrong with our NE ohio fisheries?


----------



## Tall cool one

Living up in dayton the gmr up here is not sauger-water so when I caught them for the first time last year on the OR I got online and did some reading about them. About the only thing I read that really stood out in my mind(pre-occupied w/ so much else as it is) was that sauger can travel up to 30 miles in a 7 day period during times of seasonal movement,primarily spring and fall.Amazing for a small fish,TC1


----------



## Mushijobah

There is a great piece of research out there by a state bordering the O. River that discusses the saugeye's impact on native walleye and native sauger. It doesn't look good. Ohio doesn't like to talk about or focus on this issue, because the saugeye is a fish the DNR speaks highly of. I think the first reason this is can be explained by the hardiness of the saugeye..BUT..Coming a close second can be explained by the fact that the first large stockings occured in Ohio. I think Ohio kind of takes the claim for starting the 'saugeye age'. Also, a lot is invested in producing these fish; to say they are now bad would be bad business. I wouldn't call this practice corrupt, as people withhold information or ignore facts all the time to promote themselves. It's just a way of life. I will be the first one to say reservoir stocked saugeye should be replaced with native O. River valley walleye. The sauger tend to find their ways into the streams they want to be in naturally.

I'll look for that research, I know its in a past thread.


----------



## Net

I like the subject matter but I'm having a hard time following your point. Let us know when you find that research.


----------



## Lewzer

Send a PM to Corey (his username). He is (was) one of the owners of the site but he hasn't posted since January 2007.
Don't know if he is still on here but he probably knows more about saugeye than Eugene .


----------



## misfit

i'd also like to see that research,mushi.


----------



## Mushijobah

I have it! Is there a way to upload it onto the site? A biologist from Indiana just sent it to me in PDF form.


----------



## Mushijobah

As far as following my point, sometimes I have trouble explaining. I'm basically infering that the ODNR promotes saugeye for two reasons.

1. They are hardy fish, that taste great, and are more readily caught in lakes/rivers/small streams. They are also more tolerant to stressors.
2. The ODNR was basically the first government body to promote the saugeye. It was their idea to mass stock it, so they did it, and it turned out succesfully for anglers....but not for preserving native fish genetics. They simply choose to highlight that they are a great fish to catch, while leaving out the fact that they are slowly destroying native sauger and walleye stocks in the Ohio River basin.

ALSO

Here is the link to the research. It is long, but really revealing. Written by the Indiana DNR.

http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=2f85837821c28bcbd2db6fb9a8902bda


----------



## Net

My firewall won't let me access an online storage site. 

Yes, you can upload pdf files. Click on Manage Attachments. Pretty easy to follow after that.


----------



## Net

I believe there were naturally occuring saugeye in the Ohio River long before the state began their saugeye program.

I agree with your other point.


----------



## Mushijobah

OOPS. I'll do that.

Regarding the naturally occuring saugeye...they are extremely rare in nature. This article discusses it. Contrarily, we have stocked millions of saugeye in the Ohio River Basin this year alone.

Here is the attachment. Duno how I missed that option.


----------



## Net

Mushijobah said:


> Regarding the naturally occuring saugeye...they are extremely rare in nature. This article discusses it. Contrarily, we have stocked millions of saugeye in the Ohio River Basin this year alone.


 I wasn't aware the odnr still stocked saugeye directly into rivers....or are you referring to the saugeye that pass thru spillways?

I understand and respect your concern for the native Oh River sauger and walleye, but frankly I couldn't find the same level of concern in the study you provided. Yes, there were 2 pools where they found substantial saugeye numbers but I didn't see any evidence of tainting in the pools where brood stock (pure strain) have traditionally been drawn.

Thanks for posting that report mushi! Very interesting reading.


----------



## Mushijobah

Maybe you skipped over the final analysis part of this whole study. It is in the begining of the publication, giving reccomendations according to what they found. It is even in laymans terms. I'll quote.

Page 9/137 of this publication:
Propagation and Stocking
*&#8226; Saugeye should not be stocked directly into the Ohio River or its tributaries.*
*&#8226; Stock only sauger or walleye in the Ohio River system upstream of the R.C. Byrd*
Lock and Dam Complex that were derived from progeny of endemic broodstock
collected from the Ohio River or New River.
&#8226; Sauger or walleye broodstock for the production of sauger or walleye for stocking
into the Ohio River watershed should not be collected from the Belleville or
Meldahl pools, including the Willow Island, Devola, and Greenup tailwaters.


They warn of the problem in the FIRST bullet point in the reccomendations. I don't know if you interpreted it as not stocking saugeyes into the rivers directly, but they mean anywhere within the Ohio River watershed. If you don't believe me, I would ask theauthors from the collaboration of states.

I know you have a different opinion, and that is fine, but at least consider what these guys are saying. They aren't taking it lightly either, as you will see when you read on. Also, these guys aren't working in the hatchery/stocking division. They are Environmental Specialists who monitor how environments actually are. In other words, they aren't the guys squeezing eggs and milt into a fishtank. I'm sure most have a M.S. or even PhD. Again, I'm not trying to tell you that you are wrong in thinking the saugeye is an awesome gamefish, but it is clear that their presence is causing problems downstream.

Glad you liked the research. It took me a while to read it all, but it was worth it in the knowledge I gained.


----------



## Net

> It is even in laymans terms.


Easy now.  I was trying to be polite. Yes, I did read what you quoted. I went directly to the recommendations when I first opened the document.



> &#8226; Saugeye should not be stocked directly into the Ohio River or its tributaries.


So what's the big reveal here? Show me where the state is stocking saugeye directly into the Ohio or its tribs? Why would the authors of this study conveniently choose to ignore transient saugeye from the spillways or naturally occuring saugeye? I'm guessing because the numbers are low enough to fall within acceptable tolerances. 



> &#8226; Stock only sauger or walleye in the Ohio River system upstream of the R.C. Byrd


Redundant. The state doesn't stock saugeye above the RC Byrd.

This study addresses a myriad of normal, everyday fish management topics -- the least of which is tainting of the brood stock. As an independent project, they are not going to take into account what the ODNR is already doing to mitigate the recommendations. Perhaps I don't have the advanced technical training required to read between the lines.


----------



## Mushijobah

The Ohio River system includes all reservoirs within the Ohio River watershed. Again, if you don't believe me, ask the guys who did the research.

I wasn't trying to insult you either, it's often easy to overlook the clear and concise within a jumble of ichthyology jargon.

All in all, the study says saugeye=bad. If there was reason to defend the saugeye, I would. They are fun to eat and catch. Don't worry, this study is a few years old, and they havn't stopped stocking them yet. You will still be the king saugeye catcher of Central Ohio...only second to Bennylovessaugeyes......OK....KIDDING!!!  But maybe we could further this debate out on Alum, possibly at one of your sweet eye spots... I won't tell the others, I swear


----------



## seethe303

I will take it upon myself to catch and eat as many saugeye (>15") as I possibly can to try and offset this problem!


----------



## Net

Mushi, I suppose when you add the words "system" and "watershed" to that first bulleted item you can completely change the meaning. I'm just trying to interpret what the authors wrote. I've read enough fisheries reports to know the jargon. If they wanted to include upstream reservoirs in their recommendations they sure as heck wouldn't just say "tributaries".

If I saw room for interpretation then yes, I might attempt to contact the authors. I'm not convinced.


----------



## Mushijobah

During my days at the OEPA, and having countless fisheries biologists tell me about the situation, I am pretty confident with my statement. As the saugeye fisherman you portray, I'm sure you know how transient saugeye are. If you are stocking them in a reservoir, you might as well be stocking them in the stream the reservoir is on. And concerning reservoirs such as Griggs and Oshay...those are basically just big low-head dams. They obviously still stock 'em in those places. I think they stock them in the GMR too.

If you happen to try and contact the authors, would you mind forwarding the e-mail to me? Let me know when you get an answer, I'll PM you my address. I will be thoroughly shocked if one of them blatantly says 'Reservoirs Don't Apply'.

I feel as if this has been a healthy debate; but I apologize for being off topic.


----------



## Mushijobah

seethe303 said:


> I will take it upon myself to catch and eat as many saugeye (>15") as I possibly can to try and offset this problem!


That mentality is about all the infamous Wiper Swiper and I have in common


----------



## misfit

mushi,i tend to agree with terry on the reservoirs.i've also read other studies and that one isn't a lot different.saugeyes are transient,but from what i've read,they don't travel extremely long distances(i.e. 75 miles+).i can understand the concern with stocking the lower muskingum,etc,but the central ohio and mwcd areas,etc are probably not a concern.
i trust the results of the study,but am not going to interpret the true meaning by reading what i don't see between the lines


----------



## Mushijobah

Everyone interprates things their own way! Nothing wrong with that.


----------



## C J Hughes

I fished the Ohio River this past weekend for sauger . Fished 4 hours Friday and 4 hours Saturday . 35 saugers and 5 saugeye walleye x fish call them what you want were caught Friday . 20 saugers and 5 of the whatever they are were caught Sat . Over the last 10 years looking back on my records more and more of these fish are showing up . Boy are they fat and do they fight ( X Fish ) . I think they are here to stay , Not all but most of the X fish were caught shallow casting spoons in water less than 10 ft , most of the saugers were caught in 17 ft on spoons or minnows . Their flesh is different than the sauger , not as pink more white to it . No dots on the dorsal fin just smeared black ,white tip on the tail and green backs . Water temp was 55 they are really starting to school .


----------



## riverKing

the reason those are showing up more is not because they are saugeye, those greener ones with the blotched backs and the white tiped fins are the native ohio river strain of walleye. and they are making a big comback with the help of a WV stocking program. ...please release the green ones!! 
back to the topic, the saugeye dont often make it to the ohio, however in rivers like the gmr and the muskingum when you reach the lower sections still have significant populations of saugeye from the lakes upstream. these fish do move into the ohio and elsewhere, I caught some saugeye that have apparently moved up the whitewater from the gmr this year, I was very surprised btw. I have also seen these fish below louisville, and they where fish that I would consider stocked saugeye, the wild ones wich are the native walleye x sauger actually look noticably different than the stocked saugeye, I have only seen one, it is preserved in a jar in the next room. stocked saugeye are not evil, they are a great fisheries "management" tool (they keep man happy) however they are a very poor fisheries conservation tool as they do compete genetically with the native percid stocks, and only continue ohios record of management long before conservation.


----------



## Mushijobah

riverKing said:


> the reason those are showing up more is not because they are saugeye, those greener ones with the blotched backs and the white tiped fins are the native ohio river strain of walleye. and they are making a big comback with the help of a WV stocking program. ...please release the green ones!!
> back to the topic, the saugeye dont often make it to the ohio, however in rivers like the gmr and the muskingum when you reach the lower sections still have significant populations of saugeye from the lakes upstream. these fish do move into the ohio and elsewhere, I caught some saugeye that have apparently moved up the whitewater from the gmr this year, I was very surprised btw. I have also seen these fish below louisville, and they where fish that I would consider stocked saugeye, the wild ones wich are the native walleye x sauger actually look noticably different than the stocked saugeye, I have only seen one, it is preserved in a jar in the next room. stocked saugeye are not evil, they are a great fisheries "management" tool (they keep man happy) however they are a very poor fisheries conservation tool as they do compete genetically with the native percid stocks, and only continue ohios record of management long before conservation.


I approve this message!


----------



## I Fish

Yep, W.Va. is doing what Ohio says can't be done. Stocking PURE strain Walleyes. I know, their biologist, and information are probably inferior.LOL But seriously, about the easiest way to tell a Saugeye from a Walleye is that a Saugeye has spots on their dorsal fin, but a Walleye has none. Just because it has a white tip on it's tail, doesn't make it a Walleye, but you can release it if you want. Me, I'm for keeping (killing) all of the Saugeye in the Ohio.


----------



## Day81

The best thing is not to mess with nature. it will mess back with you.


----------



## riverKing

I Fish
if there are spots on the dorsal its a sauger, walleye have "dusky" dorsals, saugeye look like someone spilled ink next to each spine. very easy to mix this up so I try not to(in my nerdness) hold eye mis ID's against anyone lol

and, wv biologist and informantion are in no way inferior, one of the co-authors of the study that showed the genetic differences in the ohio river vs erie walleyes, is a now retired ohio biologist who also co-authored many of the saugeye findings, I only know this because I asked a biologist about them and it turned out to be him, lucky. ohio doesnt want to listen because(this is just my opinion) they dont want to jeapordise there wonderful management program with a wonderful but less profitable conservation program. they need the money so I cant fully hold it against them.

day81 that is the best thing I have read in a long time, good call


----------



## C J Hughes

Riverking I agree with you that the saugeye program is a good thing . I hope all of these fish are walleye ,boy it will be fun in about 5 years . Most of them are about 17 inches some upto 5 lbs . I have not caught any over 5 .


----------



## I Fish

I was being sarcastic about the WVa remark. With the holier than thou attitude of alot of Ohio's DNR people, I can just here one saying ODNR (and their research)is far superior. And I feel we should all hold it against them as far as the money is concerned. I think they should be held more accountable for their actions. When was the last time the sportsman got to vote for the DNR's directors? NEVER. And why not? If some of these guys actually had to be elected, maybe they would concern themselves with actually doing something right, instead of scratching each others backs, and sucking each others, well never mind....... Oh, and by the way, if you go to WVa's DNR site they have a fish ID page that makes telling the difference pretty easy.


----------



## C J Hughes

Thanks I fish that WWv site confirms what I thought when I caught them they are not walleye but saugeye . I will post pics later so everyone can add their 2 cents worth .


----------



## C J Hughes

walleye or saugeye or x fish


----------



## C J Hughes

They sure look like saugeye to me


----------



## misfit

the small pics don't give the best view,but look like saugeyes from what i can see.


----------



## riverKing

those are not the walleye I was talking about, the natives are very green. they do actually look like saugeye, but that is more large saugeye than I have ever seen in a day out of the ohio, my guess is that you fished in the marietta area?? being near the mouth of the muskingum would be the only logical explination. if you can answer without giving up your honey hole it, also a bigger pic would help. but they really do look like saugeye


----------



## C J Hughes

They were caught in the Greenup Pool . Just about everytime that I have fished this year summer spring or fall for saugers I have caught some of these at least one . They are really healthy looking their heads are the smallest thing on them .


----------

