# IL Petition on Size Limit



## zpyles_00 (Dec 15, 2004)

Hey folks, just wanted to start a general discussion and get your thoughts and input on getting a Petition started to take to the ODNR to get a Size Limit enforced on Indian Lake for the Crappie, Saugeye and possibly even the Bluegills. I wouldnt even mind seeing a #'s limit on Catfish. It's kind of sickening to see fellas at moundwood and some of the rivers filling 5or6 5gallon buckets or coolers full of channel cats everytime we get a good rain.... no one needs to keep that many fish. 

Me personally, I think a size limit would be great on Indian Lake. At least for the Crappie and Saugeye. IL is already soo infested with 4"-5" Bluegill that I think it may be risky to put a size limit on them, I believe the lake is already over populated with gills, thats why there so small. The state shouls stock about a 1/2 million Pike or Muskie to keep them under control ! LOL just kidding. 

Anyhow, Reply in your subject line as Yes for the size limit or No against the size limit, then feel free and please do tell us your thoughts and opinions on the subject.


----------



## dock dabber (Mar 20, 2005)

All for a size limit on the Crappie (9") Also believe some pike would be good


----------



## ProDeepV (Jan 26, 2006)

zpyles, I tried a few years ago to get the Hancock Parks Dept/DNR to put a size limit on wallies in the Findlay Resevoir. Their position is it is a non-sustaining fishery and they are stocked for put & take, so I doubt that they will listen to the saugeye request. I think that a size limit on the crappies is a great idea. To get the small gills reduced, a predator fish will need to be established. The small gills eat the big gills food, so none of them get big.

ProDeepV


----------



## zpyles_00 (Dec 15, 2004)

I would have to expect that it wouldn't be an easy task and that others have probally tried. I would think that the state would jump all over a size limit on the saugeye, it would reduce the number of fish being taken, therefore the state would not have to stock as many or as often. 

As far as the size of the bluegill, IL needs a different predator fish other than bass. The bass are over fished, over pressured, and SCARED to eat lol. There are soo many Bass tournaments on IL it's sickening. The bass on that lake have to live in the fear that everytime they open there mouths to eat something, that there is a chance they are going to be ripped out of the water. Indian Lake holds more bass tournaments a year than Lake Erie and the Ohio River combined.


----------



## Guest (Jan 27, 2006)

Im all for limits on ALL fish but I highly doubt it will ever happen before its to late. Mans own greed will eventually destroy him.


----------



## Hotntot (Jul 28, 2004)

I think this was brought up earlier this year by someone & I know for sure by someone in a local walleye club from what I understand as far as the S-eyes. I think they both got the same response ,as ProDeepV, is that the saugeye are considered as put & take. If I remember right someone from the DNR responded here to a thread talking about the same thing it was pretty interesting maybe someone could dig up that thread ?


----------



## TheKing (Apr 15, 2004)

Those with property on Indian would be in favor of it, for sure. But I agree that it is more of a scientific issue of health and sustainment based on study, rather than personal agenda or moral values. I favor limits when they are appropriate for a particular body of water. Maybe Indian is one of those. I have heard first hand from some that Indian is a plentiful fishery (gills and saugeyes) in size and quantity, to the contrary of first hand reports from locals that can't seem to figure them out. 
A friend just had repeated unlimited frenzy action at Indian on 17-24 inch eyes and 9+ inch gills.


----------



## zpyles_00 (Dec 15, 2004)

Interesting point King, I personally have no problem going out and getting my fill/share of 8-9" Bluegills and MONSTER saugeye on a quite regular basis. There are days when I get :S , and there are times when the 4-5" gills outnumber the 8-9" gills 100-to-1 

You would think that the "locals" would know all the hotspots and where to find the :B and that the out-of towners would be the ones struggling though. Maybe our lake locals are lazy and need to venture past there boat docks lol just joking. 

Me personally, I cant see where a size limit on fish would ever hurt any body of water. But i'm also not a fisheries biologist either. If I was I would be answering questions, not asking them lol.


----------



## boaterfisherdude (Feb 16, 2005)

i would agree to a size limit on eyes, it makes me sick when you see people keeping small eyes. i personling don't keep anything under 14in, another idea would be a slot limit, maybe then there would be more larger eyes that could keep the gill population under control, although there is a lot of eyes in IL so maybe we shouldn't do anything unless the # of fish decline. i would like to see a creel survey or some reason why not to on IL to determine the best thing to do.


----------



## Tugger (Feb 25, 2005)

Yes, 9" on Crappie 30 daily. It won't happen on eyes. Gills, let the crappie go and then I'll decide.


----------



## BRUSHFINDER90 (May 3, 2005)

Fished IL sat,had a great day, buck shot jig spoon,cicada(shad)worked best.Remember:Sunday March 5th 06 is open house at all ONDR District Headquarters from NOON to 3PM.They will take down your comments. Or you can phone the ODNR,Headquarters number is 614-265-6300.w/comments. Here is one,it took years to get a size limit on Delaware Lake.For 3yr worked hard on it. One thing you will hear is cost,law officers to watch the whole lake and the state will not have the $$$ for it (LOL), we heared it alot. I would like like to see a 9 inch limit on crappie and a 30 fish a day limit too. How about astate wide 15inch limit on,Walleye,Sauger,and Saugeye? Hope rain will let up so we can fish findlay res.2 today.


----------



## BRUSHFINDER90 (May 3, 2005)

Sorry about that, Sunday march 5 th 2006 is open house.


----------



## AEFISHING (Apr 25, 2004)

I think a 9 inch limit on all Ohio Lakes for crappie would be good and 30 a day per person


----------



## davycrockett (Apr 9, 2005)

I too would be all for a length limit on crappie and s-eyes. The pike/muskie idea might work to thin out the panfish ,although I doubt it. I'm afraid there would be too much opposition from the bass tourny guys. Members of the esox family, although know to be vicious feeders, prefer soft rayed fish(shad, carp, suckers,etc.) over spiny fish. This is not to say they won't eat gills, crappie, etc. I think the only thing they would do is clean up the shad population, hence competing with other species who feed on shad(bass, s-eyes). Of course, I wouldn't object to musky stockings at IL  After all -MUSKY:Everything else is just bait!!!


----------



## TheKing (Apr 15, 2004)

My question here is what is the intended end goal of the size limits for IL? What would you be trying to acheive?


----------



## zpyles_00 (Dec 15, 2004)

I'm sure that the state would bring up the whole $ thing. Though if so, my position on that would be the fact that many times a year I personally get hassled and see MANY other people getting hassled by the game wardens up there and treated like a criminal just for fishing or being on the lake. From what I have noticed, they do plenty of routine random checks for licenses, safety equip. etc., etc., etc., Why there at that, they could go ahead and check our fish also. 

Note I have no problem being checked by the Wardens up there, I am always legal, and never have over my limit, they have a job to do and i'm glad that they are doing it. But there is a way to go about things and a way not to, and from my experiences, the way they go about it up there is wrong. No one should be treated rudely or hastly just to be asked to see if you have your license. We are on the lake to enjoy ourselves for the day and to have some big-headed GW who thinks he's god cause he has a badge is ridiculous. Dont treat us like we have done something wrong until they have proven we have done something wrong, if im out fishing without a license and get caught, then they can treat me like the dirt on the bottom of there boots. 

theking : My goal and what I would like to see come out of a size & #'s limit on IL is more, bigger, better and healthier selection of fish accross the board. A lake with a "bunch" of little fish and a few big fish, appears as an un-healthy lake. A lake where the big fish out-number the small fish appears a Healthy lake. Just my opinion is all......


----------



## billybob7059 (Mar 27, 2005)

there need to be something done on a lot of our lakes. But the Dnr needs more people to do what needs to be done. which means more money Heck ya there should be some kind of slot an size limit on all ohio waters for every fish. look at some other states reg's like Minnesota and Wisconsin. They really know how to protect their fisheries.


----------



## woodworker2001 (Jan 23, 2006)

IL has need a size limit on Eyes for a long time. It is bull when you see guys keeping pencil fish. I have seen guys that keep everything that bites the line. Myself I rarely ever keep fish, but when I do they are of decent size. Not only should we have a size limit on the eyes, but is there currently a number limit? I honestly cant remember. If not there SHOULD be a number limit. Dont fish for Crappie much but the 9" limit on Delaware sure has done wonders so I couldnt see how it wouldnt be a good thing on IL either. NO ONE WANTS TO GO OUT AND CATCH ALL SMALL FISH. Lets get some limits so the fish we do catch have some size to them!!!!


----------



## TheKing (Apr 15, 2004)

EFFECTS OF A 10" MINIMUM LENGTH LIMIT ON CRAPPIE IN TWO SOUTHEASTERN NEBRASKA RESERVOIRS 

Wehrspann (245-acre) and Zorinsky (255-acre) Reservoirs are two popular fishing destinations located near the largest population center of Nebraska. Fishing pressure on these lakes is extremely high and both lakes have shown signs of overharvest. A 10-inch minimum size limit on crappie (both black and white are present) was placed on both these reservoirs in 1994 in an attempt to increase the density and size structure of the crappie populations. Five years later combined crappie fall trap net CPUE had increased 312% in Wehrspann and 1837% in Zorinsky. Size structure of the populations, however, has not improved as RSD-P values have decreased for black crappie in both reservoirs. Additionally, mean population growth rates have also slowed for crappie in both water bodies. Annual black crappie mortality from 1994 through 1998 averaged 51% and 77% and white crappie annual mortality averaged 79% and 78% for Wehrspann and Zorinsky Reservoirs, respectively. The crappie populations of these two reservoirs had shifted from their overharvested characteristics and have begun to stockpile below the minimum length limit.


----------



## TheKing (Apr 15, 2004)

EVALUATION OF SIZE RESTRICTIONS AS MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FOR TENNESSEE RESERVOIR CRAPPIE FISHERIES 

We evaluated the effect of harvest restrictions on the crappie (Pomoxis spp.) fisheries in 12 large Tennessee reservoirs. A Beverton-Holt equilibrium yield model was used to predict and compare the response of these fisheries to three size restrictions: the current 254-mm limit, a 229-mm limit and a 178-mm limit (i.e., no size limit). On average, crappies recruited to the current statewide 254-mm limit at age-3, but growth was variable among systems and between species within systems. The predicted responses of crappie fisheries to size-limits differed among reservoirs and varied with rates of conditional natural mortality (CM) and exploitation. At low levels of conditional mortality (CM =30%), the current 254-mm size limit increased yield when compared to no limit in some reservoir simulations; however, a 229-mm limit provided similar predicted yields in most scenarios. The efficacy of size restrictions at CM = 40% was variable and generally increased with increases in exploitation; in most scenarios, a 229-mm limit provided higher yields than the current 254-mm restriction. Size limits were not effective in increasing yield when CM was 50% or greater. Based on average rates of conditional natural mortality and exploitation from large reservoirs across the country, we predict a 229-mm limit would prove a more beneficial restriction than the current 254-mm limit in most Tennessee reservoirs. 

That's "9 inches is better than 10". But they didn't test 8.
Here's some of the other studies.
http://www.ecu.edu/org/afs/st_louis/Crappiesymposium.htm


----------



## zpyles_00 (Dec 15, 2004)

Very interesting post/topics king. Very educational. thanks. good link also. 

I kinda set my standards as far as what I keep like a slot limit. for panfish i wont keep anything smaller than 8" and i will keep them as big as they grow but for saugeye, I dont keep anything under 15" ( kind of a habit i've picked up from CJ Brown Reservoir just got used to it ) but I wont keep anything bigger than 23" either. I think they start to loose there taste at 22-23" and I hate cutting into such a big beautiful fish of that size, would much rather turn her back loose and hope to catch her again another day. Might get lucky and one of those males that fall in that micro percentage will come along and be able to fertalize her eggs in the spring.


----------



## ProDeepV (Jan 26, 2006)

I saw a few posts back on this thread that someone asked about creel limits. There is a limit statewide on all 'eyes, limit of 6. I have seen on numerous occasions at IL, people taking many more. Saw 2 teenagers last year take about 40 from below the dam  . How do you stop it, I don't know. Another interesting thought...I think they release the fingerlings just above the dam and a great many get swept over and into the river. Maybe if the turned them out at Moundwood, the lake numbers would go up. IMHO.

ProDeepV


----------



## billybob7059 (Mar 27, 2005)

ProDeepV said:


> I saw a few posts back on this thread that someone asked about creel limits. There is a limit statewide on all 'eyes, limit of 6. I have seen on numerous occasions at IL, people taking many more. Saw 2 teenagers last year take about 40 from below the dam  . How do you stop it,


I tell ya how you stop it by giving people fines and posting sings telling you theres a limit. but to do that you need more DNR Officers checking people out. No reson to take that many fish


----------



## fishin fool (Jan 17, 2006)

I'm kinda curious if many people are aware that there are other predator fish in IL besides your eyes and bass. Not many people are aware that there are pike in this lake. I didn't know it either until a old fella from Alger showed me some pics of at least 30 that he had caught over the past 10 years or so


----------



## woodworker2001 (Jan 23, 2006)

I knew there were some in there, but I think they are VERY VERY few and far between about 10-15 years ago dad and I pulled up to what we thought was a floating log and doing out boaters duty were gonna pull it out of the water so no on hit it. When we got up to it we realized it was a pike floating belly up. We netted it and thought it was dead until we went to pull it out of the water and it began violently throwing itself around in the net. We put it back in the water and it continued to float belly up. Don't know what ever happened to it.


----------



## billybob7059 (Mar 27, 2005)

fishin fool said:


> I'm kinda curious if many people are aware that there are other predator fish in IL besides your eyes and bass. Not many people are aware that there are pike in this lake. I didn't know it either until a old fella from Alger showed me some pics of at least 30 that he had caught over the past 10 years or so


Thats not what the point. there can be a ton of pike in the lake thats great. But there should be a size or slot limit on the saugeye. In fact I think all fish should have some kind of slot or size limit on them. Look at the PA rules they keep a better tap on their fish stocks. I just feel like the DNR can and should do more to make our lakes better. There is no need to keep a 8,9,10 in saugeye.


----------



## woodworker2001 (Jan 23, 2006)

Billy I totally agree with you. There is no reason to be keeping any fish that small except for some pan fish. Some people just need to think about what they are doing when they keep these fish. I mean really some of the fish I have seen kept were only big enough to make like on fish nugget


----------



## zpyles_00 (Dec 15, 2004)

"realized it was a pike floating belly up. We netted it and thought it was dead until we went to pull it out of the water and it began violently throwing itself around in the net. We put it back in the water and it continued to float belly up. Don't know what ever happened to it."

I am no fish expert by any means, but I am wondering if the female pike do the same as female carp ? A female carp will get so bloated with eggs that she has a hard time staying upright and will eventually tire out and begin to float belly up. I went fishing at a pond once, and seen all these fish floating upside down, I though the fish were dying, I tied on a spinnerbait and snagged one of the fish that I thought was dead, benounced to me, that 20lb+ carp wasnt dead at all, talk about a fight ! When I eventually got her in, she was ooooozing eggs everywhere. Thats how I learned they do that.


----------



## yakfish (Mar 13, 2005)

I have only fished IL a couple times, but I think a size and number limit are good in most cases for the improvment of a fishery.
Also what about turning this into a poll? If you did that you could probably submit this thread with a petition.


----------



## C J Hughes (Jan 24, 2006)

15 inch crappies , 15 inch yellow perch , 10 inch bluegills and more 4 to 5 lb saugeye than any other lake that I know of . I would say that the DNR is doing a great job on managing IN Lake . How can a size limit or creel limit improve on any of the fish listed above ? There are always people who take more than their limit that is why the GW check so many people at IN . If you see someone taking more write their boat numbers down and call it in to TIP it works I have done it several times . I really don't see how a limit on size or on the amount of fish you can take would make it any better . I would rather see a guy catchand keep 6 ,10 to 13 inch saugeyes and leave the lake than to catch and release fish all day . Just my 2 cents worth .


----------



## woodworker2001 (Jan 23, 2006)

That could have very well been the case with this fish, I honestly dont remember the time of year when this event happened as I was younger. so it is entirely possible, but I would guess that this event was in the summer. Dont remember, just remember looking at the teeth on that fish and being scared to death.


----------



## Wiper Swiper (May 24, 2005)

Very interesting comments, gentlemen. But, you've got your apples mixed up with your oranges.

Whereas the walleye/sauger cross does occur naturally (in rare circumstances), the stocked "saugeye" is nothing more than your state's atempt at bio-engineering with the hopes of selling more fishing licenses. The fish is not worthy of protection or even standing in any given bio-mass. I kill everyone I catch in Ohio and will continue to do so regardless of "state law". I value our native smallmouth and sauger...too highly...perhaps.

Anyone that's cleaned many saugeye knows, they're voracious feeders that have no problem consuming crappie, 'gills, or perch. They eat what's easy at any given moment. Little need for another top-end predator to control panfish populations. The State plants 750,000 to 1 million saugeye anually in Indian. 

Pike and Muskie (while native to the drainage), haven't been stocked in Indian in over 20 years. If you catch one today, you've caught a trophy. Size is irrelevant.

As to the bass tourneys...there's a reason Indian gets so much pressure. the largemouth population is tremendous. Check the winners of any given event...if you don't have 5 fish weighing 10 pounds...you won't get a smell of the placings. BTW--a 12" state minimum is enforced on black bass.

That said...creel limits for panfish statewide would be something that I could support. Say...20 to 30 fish daily. It's pathetic how many folks claim a good day fishing with a sack full of 8" crappie and 6" gills. Only makes it worse when they've got a hundred of them.

You guys that don't catch anything but dinks need to get away from green bridge, South fork, or the West bank. There's 3000 acres + to fish on Indian. You're limiting yourselves to the popular 300.

Peace.


----------



## toboso (Apr 14, 2004)

Wiper Swiper--pretty good post except I don't like hearing anyone destroying fish they don't like. It doesn't matter if it's the bass boys at Alum Creek killing muskies with their trolling motors or other anglers killing carp "just because".

I agree with the financial incentive aspect you cite--sounds a lot like deer herds in Ohio doesn't it? We see how well that is working...

Saugeye are definitely voracious predators. I think it might be an experiment gone wrong in the wild. ODNR stocks muskies mainly for shad control and sport fishing is just a windfall. I think ODNR thought saugeye would eat shad and help improve the bass populations (shad out-compete baby bass for plankton). More bass would need more small panfish. Unfortunately, the saugeye didn't read the research proposal and stuff their gullets with whatever they find. 
I wish ODNR would've stocked sauger, especially in the high flow reservoirs. Sauger escaping from spillways would not be a problem downstream, either.


----------



## fshman_165 (May 26, 2004)

You will never see a size limit on saugeye. The state's view is that they are a put and take species. Personally, I think that any "sportsman" who makes the comment that they will kill a particular species everytime they catch one,
based on personal opinion, or even worse "back-room biology", does NOT deserve to hold a license. I challenge ANYONE to bring forth scientifically proven data showing the degradation of fishing at Indian, Alum, Piedmont etc, I fish Indian quite often, and I have turned in 3 or 4 saugeye killers in the last 5 years(cell phones are great.) There looks to be a misinformed bunch of saugeye haters up there, good thing there are alot more fisherman who love to catch them and praise the fact that they are stocked.


----------



## Net (Apr 10, 2004)

> Anyone that's cleaned many saugeye knows, they're voracious feeders that have no problem consuming crappie, 'gills, or perch. They eat what's easy at any given moment.


If that's true why are the saugeye at other central OH lakes so fussy about what I'm presenting to them 95% of the time? Seriously. I can sit and catch panfish one after another until I run out of bait...but anything more than two keeper saugeyes is a banner day. Should I switch to fishing with live crappies?


----------



## Master Angler (May 26, 2004)

Wiper Swiper... while I share your passion for native species your kill em all attitude is pretty ignorant. Judging by your handle you fish for another frankenfish - the wiper. why waste your time? or do you kill of them too? Face it boys - most of our waters would be carp holes if not for stocking. I've people would put their greed aside for a few moments they'd pressure the state to put money into habitat improvement and native fisheries - not into stocking cesspools so people can catch something.


----------



## Wiper Swiper (May 24, 2005)

Ignorant? Please...I've been following saugeye and wiper stockings since the late 80's. Some of you are so enamored with these genetic mutants, and the ease at which they can be caught, that you've lost sight of what we should be protecting. My garage freezer has more zip-lock bags full of stomach content samplings than I care to admit. What I've been able to determine over the years is that wipers (during specific calander periods) most certainly target panfish. Big saugeye won't pass up a perch dinner on a bet, and bluegills can't even hide in the pads when mr. eye is hungry. This is particularly clear during years with poor shad spawns. 

First and foremost...I clean what I kill and I prefer the little ones. Too much waste on the big ones...the red meat, the belly meat, and the tail are for the most part...inedible. An 8 lb. wiper MAY yield 2 lbs. of flesh when I get done with it. To my knowledge, I've never broken the law in killing what I catch...I hope it stays that way. As long as the anglers who thrive on instant gratification fail to further impress the state, I should be OK.

A little food for thought when evaluating the impact bio-engineering has on our native fishes.

--This entire "experiment" is new. Who can say with any certainty what the fishing will be like on Indian in 25 years? What I do know for a fact is that my killing every saugeye I catch won't hurt it. Releasing all of them?...I ain't so sure.

--The state KNOWS releasing saugeye directly into the river is detrimental to native smallmouth and sauger populations. Witness the suspension of direct stockings into the GMR. Ask them why they quit. Now, knowing (the state told me so) that they are a problem...how in the wide world of sports could I release one because it washed over the spillway? That makes them less dangerous?

--Since the programs inception, the state has refused to stock saugeye in drainages North of the "Ohio continental divide". Why is that? Obviously, the walleye in Erie are worth protecting, but the walleye and sauger in the Ohio River aren't? Funny sidebar...Grand Lake St. Mary's has recently been stocked with walleye...yet the fish farm at the East end has about 23 one acre ponds...MOST of which are dedicated to the production of saugeye.

--I've seen fat on muskie before...but has anyone seen fat on fish like you see it on saugeye? I mean...2-3 lb. fish that are simply obese. They don't eat to be satisfied...they're gluttons...x millions.

I've got more but that's enough for now.

Master Angler wrote--*"I've people would put their greed aside for a few moments they'd pressure the state to put money into habitat improvement and native fisheries - not into stocking cesspools so people can catch something."* 

For the most part...we're in agreement on this point.


----------



## C J Hughes (Jan 24, 2006)

So what is the reason that you are keeping stomach content samplings in your freezer ?


----------



## fshman_165 (May 26, 2004)

If you have empirical data, "verifiable by means of observation or experiment"
Why don't you forward your "samples" to the DNR? Seems to me that someone who feels so strongly about the stocking of hybrids and has proof, would have been alot more pro-active. If you you have evidence of fishery degradation, send it to them.


----------



## wave warrior (Oct 2, 2005)

kill all he see's??? did this goon put that in righting???man i'm stoked!!! stay away from n.e. ohio,,,u WILL BE TURNED IN!!!!!


----------



## woodworker2001 (Jan 23, 2006)

You can say whatever you want about Saugeyes and them being mutant fish, but if you are any kind of sportsman you wouldnt kill all of them you saw. Who are you to play god and say that this species of fish doesnt deserve to live?  Let me guess you dont like Muskie either because they feed on fish. It is people that do things like this that give all fisherman a bad name


----------



## irasapper (Jul 9, 2005)

After reading the last few entries I figured I'd chime in. I see it like this, I handle fishing like I do hunting, if I don't plan on eating it, and it ain't bleeding, I'll drop it back in the water. I have tried to teach my kids the same thing. I hope that they will fish with their kids when they get older, like my Dad did. If I put some back, maybe someone fishing with their kids will get a shot at catching a fish. I am not a high and mighty type, but I am will to bet the answer to the problem, mostly stocking cesspool, sets someplace in the middle of all sides of this issue, I know slot limits worked in Florida with red fish populations. They re-bounded well, me I have been here a year, before that I lived in Utah, there it is the same only with rainbow trout. They stock those like dropping candy at a parade. Stocking may not be the total answer, it will fall on outdoorsmen to teach those behind how to be better stewards of resources. Unfortunately it is the ones who do the right thing who get the short end of the stick.

Just my two cents worth


----------



## shroomhunter (Aug 6, 2004)

Please stop! I'll never keep another 10" saugeye again, even if it's bleeding from the gills! I bet by now the guy who kept those fish that started this thread has eaten them fish and smiled while eating them, I would have!
There is a hatchery out at Buckeye Lake where they raise the saugeye, there are tours available and people there to talk to about saugeye management in the lakes. They can explain the reasoning behind their decisions about length limits etc. Buckeye is not the only hatchery that does this, a list of hatcheries and their open hours is available on the ODNR website.
Sauger and Walleye do mate occasionally in the wild, that's where the idea had its origins. The world record saugeye was a naturally reproduced fish from N.or S. Dakota, Devils Lake. I know nothing about the Wiper so I will leave that one alone.
PS: The hatchery tours are FREE!


----------



## C J Hughes (Jan 24, 2006)

Where can you find the latest stocking info on Saugeye from the DNR ? I would like to know which lakes they have stocked in recent years and how many they have stocked . Thanks for any info .


----------



## irasapper (Jul 9, 2005)

I went to the ODNR web site and there was a stocking schedule for this year on that site


----------



## boaterfisherdude (Feb 16, 2005)

i did some reserch and found this:

Many Indian Lake fishermen have expressed concern that the saugeye program has had a negative effect on other fish in the lake because they feel the saugeye are eating everything in sight. Their catch rates for other species have sometimes been lower than in past years. But officials believe it has helped balance the predator-prey relationships in the lake, creating a healthier all-around fishery.

so it sounds like there isn;t any real threat but instead it is helping the fishery at IL, but i do remember an article in a IN Fisherman magazine saying that saugeye should not be stocked in a lake where the tail waters are home to native sauger or walleye because they will bread with each other and mess up the pure jeans. i like saugeye and see no harm in them in stocking them in ohio lakes.


----------



## C J Hughes (Jan 24, 2006)

Was that trout or saugeye schedule irasapper ? What tab was it in ?


----------



## irasapper (Jul 9, 2005)

I saw the trout schedule I will get back in there and see if I can find the saugeye schedule C J


----------

