# Lake Erie Walleye population continues to sink...



## jdavenp2 (Aug 4, 2007)

http://www.cleveland.com/outdoors/index.ssf/2009/08/lake_erie_walleye_population_c.html

Lake Erie walleye population continues to sink; fishermen can comment at open houses
by D'Arcy Egan/Plain dealer Outdoors Writer Friday August 28, 2009, 12:33 PM

D'ARCY EGAN/THE PLAIN DEALER 
Lake Erie's walleye fishing draws anglers from around the country, and national walleye tournaments, because of its potential for giving up trophy walleye. Ohio tournament anglers Greg Yarbrough (left) of Catawba Island and Gary Zart of Hinckley get ready to release a walleye caught during a Lake Erie tournament practice session. 
Lake Erie's schools of walleye may be heading for crisis management, and Ohio fishermen can give the Division of Wildlife their views Saturday, Aug. 29 on how to best manage Ohio's favorite fish at open houses held around the state. 

The annual open houses are designed to bring sportsmen and wildlife experts together to discuss wildlife issues. They are from noon to 3 p.m. at the Division of Wildlife district offices, including the northeast Ohio office at 912 Portage Lakes Dr., Akron. A special open house for walleye fishermen is at the Ottawa County Visitors Center on Rt. 53, just north of Rt. 2, in Port Clinton. 

The walleye population has perilously slumped since a bonanza hatch in 2003, and the 2009 spawning season doesn't look promising. If the Lake Erie Committee of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission estimates the lakewide population has slipped below 15 million walleye, it will call for special crisis management at its annual meeting on March 22-26, 2010 in Windsor, Ontario. The result will be lower daily bag limits for Ohio anglers and less walleye for Ontario commercial netters, the two major players in Lake Erie's walleye harvest.


Ohio's Lake Erie fisheries managers know how low they will go. 

Lake Erie program coordinator Roger Knight said if Ohio's allocation drops below 950,000 walleye, the sport fishing daily bag limit for 2010 will be five fish, four walleye during the March-April spawning season. Should Ohio's allocation be less than 850,000 fish, the year-round bag limit would be four walleye.

The Lake Erie Committee set a total lakewide allowable harvest of 2.45 million walleye for 2009. Ohio was allocated 1.25 million walleye. Knight said Ohio sport anglers are unlikely to reach that mark because of mediocre fishing weather.

Fishermen are lining up to challenge Ohio's management plans, especially the way the Division of Wildlife plans to divvy up the available walleye. 

Tony Novak, of Marblehead, challenges a proposal by the Division of Wildlife to hold off setting Lake Erie's bag limits from March 1 until May 1, after the late March meeting of the Lake Erie Committee. The change would allow Ohio to comply with the LEC's lakewide allocations in late March in setting summer limits, but not the spring limits for 2010. 

Novak wants spring walleye fishing to be curtailed. He challenges state estimates that spring reef fishermen take only 4 per cent of the total harvest, figuring that 10 percent - about 98,000 walleye - would be a more accurate count because of active fishing guides in the productive spawning reef area during the spawning season. 

"Let's keep the setting of bag limits in March, and reduce or increase (bag limits) in equal portions for the spring season and the summer season," said Novak. 

Eugene Manista, who docks his boat on Beaver Creek in Lorain, says the walleye fishing in his area in 2009 has been very poor. Manista wants the state to take more drastic measures, including a minimum length limit of 18 inches, a daily bag limit of three walleye and a closed spring season. 

"It is obvious . . . that drastic policy changes need to be made to ensure the walleye fishery in Lake Erie will not become extinct," wrote Manista. 

Knight is not optimistic about the 2009 walleye spawning season. He is keeping his fingers crossed Lake Erie's walleye population, estimated at 18.5 million fish in early 2009, will stay above 15 million, the cut-off for reduced limits.

"We needed a hatch this year approaching average to keep us where we were," said Knight. "I don't know we've gotten that. It doesn't look very positive. We'll have a better handle in September when we look at more detailed survey results from our crews and Ontario."

Knight says he has never had to deal with an allocation below 950,000 walleye, or has seen the Lake Erie population below 15 million fish.

"We're knocking on that door," he said. "Hatches since 2003 have not even been average, and I would be surprised if this year's hatch is above average."


----------



## Team Pursuit (Mar 27, 2008)

who is this guy eugene? obviously he doesnt know how to fish because we have had a great year out of lorain


----------



## stcroixjoe (Aug 22, 2005)

iridealot9 said:


> who is this guy eugene? obviously he doesnt know how to fish because we have had a great year out of lorain


I agree 100%,the fishing has been great!

Who is this Gary Zart guy?


----------



## Stoshu (Nov 6, 2004)

Big-Eye said:


> ...Who is this Gary Zart guy?


I've heard of this guy... He couldn't catch a fish if his life depended on it... He depends on his son to carry them through all the tournaments.... LOL ! ! ! ! Gotcha Gary ! ! ! !


----------



## B Thomas (Jan 21, 2005)

Ive caught a BUNCH of 15-17in walleye this year (07?) The can of worms is going to open up again!!!!!! How will cutting the limit down a fish or 2 save the lake?? Hasnt it been proven that a few fertile females can recharge the population (laying up to 400,000 eggs) if the stars and planets line up? I dont think going to an 18in min is a bad idea though.

D'Arcy should expand his interviewing, maybe he should have asked Gary how his year was since he was on his boat!!(I know hes had MANY 50+fish days this year) Talk to the guys that put the time in and take it seriously to see how they've been doing so the story isnt all doom and gloom!


----------



## BlueMax (Dec 3, 2006)

iridealot9 said:


> who is this guy eugene? obviously he doesnt know how to fish because we have had a great year out of lorain


You know the old saying...20% of the fishermen catch 80% of the fish.


----------



## FreeByrdSteve (Jun 28, 2004)

The scary thing is most likely the people attending the meetings that will be most vocal will be the "sky is falling" crowd and there will be an over reaction to restrict too much.

I just hope that whatever changes may take place are BASED ON BIOLOGY AND FACTS - not just "feel good politics."

Steve


----------



## ETC (Aug 30, 2007)

Ditto Lorain has been good to me too this year.

Ray
Erie Therapy II


----------



## duckman (Sep 18, 2004)

FreeByrdSteve said:


> I just hope that whatever changes may take place are BASED ON BIOLOGY AND FACTS - not just "feel good politics."
> Steve


Well stated Steve... I will tag on to say in the words of Dr. Phil...

"How's that working for you folks?" 

There is no question that the lake has changed since the 70's and 80's in many ways for the good. However, it is change and the management methods used today don't seem to be much different than during that time period though our science is better.

There is resistance to change and I getting more resistant as I get older so I guess I can understand that...lol.. But i do think we need to consider trying some new, well thought out programs to test their impact...

40 million fingerlings have been stocked in 32 wildlife jurisdictions in the US with the number of stocked walleye in the range of 869 million. So this isn't like we are forging new ground. Many of these jurisdictions have been very successful in augmenting the natural production by introducing stocked walleye every two or three years so as to not impact the strength of consecutive year classes natural production.

I am not a biologist but I would like to understand our resistance to trying one of these programs utilizing existing resources while protecting the lake erie strain of walleyes


Brian


----------



## lskater (Mar 19, 2007)

B Thomas said:


> Ive caught a BUNCH of 15-17in walleye this year (07?) The can of worms is going to open up again!!!!!! How will cutting the limit down a fish or 2 save the lake?? Hasnt it been proven that a few fertile females can recharge the population (laying up to 400,000 eggs) if the stars and planets line up? I dont think going to an 18in min is a bad idea though.
> 
> D'Arcy should expand his interviewing, maybe he should have asked Gary how his year was since he was on his boat!!(I know hes had MANY 50+fish days this year) Talk to the guys that put the time in and take it seriously to see how they've been doing so the story isnt all doom and gloom!


I would have to disagree with your 18 in size limit. In July and August in the Western Basin our average catch consist of 2-4 year old fish. There are lots of days when most of the fish caught down here are 16-18 in fish. So unless they put a line out of Huron like the perch I wouldn't like that. Bump it up to 16 and I'd be fine with it. Terry


----------



## brewkettle (Sep 7, 2006)

How about a slot limit to keep the big breeders in the lake. Something like 16-25" with only one over the 25" mark per boat per day. It would make a 40 lb tournament bag a thing of the past, but it may help.

Slot limits of this type are often used to help ailing stocks of redfish, snook, seatrout, grouper and various snapper in saltwater fisheries. I have seen it help in most cases, especially redfish.


----------



## tomb (Oct 9, 2004)

I can't comment on the science or how to help the population. It does sort of shock me to read there is a decline in population. We've caught more small walleyes this year than since 2004-2005. It sure seemed like there was a decent hatch last year from our catches.


----------



## captainshotgun (Jul 8, 2009)

We had a DNR official come to a Central Basin Charter Boat Assn. back in the middle 1990's & he said that the 24'" & up fish were the female egg producers. The smaller fish were mostly males, with some young females. It seems to me that the size limit is backwards. We should be keeping the small fish & putting back the hogs. Has the science changed?


----------



## B Thomas (Jan 21, 2005)

We can disagree LOL!! If you give a 15in fish another year or 2 in the system to possibly contribute to the spawn wouldnt hurt if they are mature enough at that age. I think taking ton of 15 inch fish out of the system without giving them a chance to do their thing may not help.

Capt Shotgun, from what Ive read on here they say the mid 20 to like 26 ish size fish are the best spawners and keeping the big hawgs doesnt hurt since they already contributed 10s of years and their eggs arent as viable. Im not biologist, this is just what Ive read!


----------



## Erieye (Sep 26, 2008)

why dont they use stone lab again and produce all the walleye they can to help propagate the hatch. Is this a viable option? Isnt that what they used to do the last time they had a bad walleye crash? I was invited to stone lab when i was in the OSU school of natural resources, in fisheries management. It would make sense since it is right there and functional. Its not that hard to jar hatch 10 million walleye......


----------



## Steimy (Jun 29, 2008)

Lets just keep catching them until they're gone. Then when we get old we can talk about the good old days when we used to fill our boats with walleye.............sort of the like the old timers today talk about filling up 55 gal drums full of blue pike.


----------



## bigcrank (Apr 14, 2008)

No one has even mentioned poaching! How many people get away with keeping double or triple limits. Add this to the poor spawning factor, and you could emagine how the population could be depleted in a few short years.


----------



## walleyeseizure (Jul 26, 2008)

It seems that if you fish in Ohio , you need a license and you have to abide by the rulesor get your license taken away, fines, or.jail But if you are the Bayshore First Energy power plant, you can kill as many fish as you want, pay nothing and have no rules Consider the following from: Bayshore plant is the largest fish killing plant in Great Lakes. 2005/2006 company reports show 46 million fish/yr caught against the screens & 2 billion fish thru the screens; Bayshore uses 650 million gallons of water/ day and heats the water 3-14 degrees Fahrenheit; it is said that Bayshore kills more fish than all ODNR fish hatcheries produce at a cost of $2.5 million; Bayshore kills more fish than all the other power plants in Ohio combined; Bayshore kills walleye when the Army Corps is not allowed to dredge & anglers are limited during the spawning season in March/April; Bayshores intake and outfall are separated by the ½ mile by one mile Army Corps Dredge disposal facility which reduces the ability of the fish to escape from the intake; Bayshore plant studies show that 77,812 walleye are caught against the screens, 663,715 juvenile walleye go thru the screens, and 8.2 million larval walleye go thru the screens. In addition 123,405 yellow perch are caught against the screens, 1.3 million juvenile yellow perch go through the screens a and 3.1 larval yellow perch go thru the screens

Bayshore needs to put money in a trust fund to bring fish back to Lucas County waters and put in a cooling tower. Allowing ongoing fish kills at the Bayshore plant in the Western Lake Erie Watershed reduces walleye, yellow perch, bass and other fish. Genetic studies show that walleye from Lake St. Clair and Lake Huron migrate to the Maumee River in the spring to spawn. The Bayshore plant is located at the mouth of the Maumee River where the fish move in and out of. 

Please attend the March 3rd meeting  write a letter  make a phone call and ask that the fish kills be reduced  a cooling tower is needed. Until the cooling tower is installed, Bayshore pays just like anyone else for the fish they wrongfully kill. 

This is an important issue for all the Great Lakes. Fish are an important economic resource and important for the ecosystem.. Please contact Governor Strickland at: [email protected] call 614-466-3555 and/or call OEPA Director Chris Korleski at [email protected] or call 614-644-2782


----------



## c. j. stone (Sep 24, 2006)

Maybe the impact of all the "alien", ocean species being dumped into the lake from foreign freighter bilges is just now beginning to surface/manifest itself???
Also, I seldom read a post anymore about a day on the lake when noone catches just a few, but stayed out as long as it takes,(even sometimes in adverse conditions) to limit. Personally, I've never had to take home a limit to have had a good day on the lake. I know, the State says it's OK so it must be ok, BUT the State has yo-yo'd the limits over the past few decades on both walleye and perch to the point that I don't have a good feeling when they try to sound credible! Just remember, the blue pike are long gone-perhaps history can repeat.....???


----------



## duckman (Sep 18, 2004)

Brewkettle another option that I would like to understand why we are resisting. Though I think this one falls under the resistance to change category by both biologists and fishermen.

RE: 40 lb bags, true ... and add a no cull and it would really test folks 



brewkettle said:


> How about a slot limit to keep the big breeders in the lake. Something like 16-25" with only one over the 25" mark per boat per day. It would make a 40 lb tournament bag a thing of the past, but it may help.


----------



## K gonefishin (May 4, 2004)

It's not poaching, it's not the need for a slot limit, changing the spring season won't do anything, changing the bag limit won't really help. We just need another good spawn or two and next thing you know the population will double or triple just like it did in 03, 2 good spawns and we are back to the good old days of the 80's when we had two banger spawns and Erie's population was at it's highest of 70-90 million walleye, we are at the mercy of mother nature and unfortuneatly we can't do anything to change that. A couple 100,000 fish here and there isn't going to change anything. Even a dead ass population can produce a record hatch with the right conditions (03). 

Remember Erie is a great lake that runs itself, human intervention won't help much Erie has been around since the glaciers made it and walleye have been here since and always will be, that's not going to change. So for the guys who think the sky is falling and people are jumping out of burning buildings (your acting like it) let mother nature do her thing mother Erie will bounce back like ALWAYS and fishing will be stupid easy for even the unskilled angler (the biggest whiners) once again (like the 80's). Until then, gas er up buy some worms read OGF and go find the schools of walleye that are out there and stop whining about poor fishing. It's not poor everywhere, Erie is still stuffed with tons of fish you just have to go find them and adapt to catch them like the rest of us. 

If we would have had another killer hatch since 03 this thread and the other 100 like it wouldn't even exist, a good one is bound to happen soon, hopefully sooner than later, within the next 2-3 springs, ideally, 

my 02


----------



## BlueMax (Dec 3, 2006)

In response to Kgone's comments below that is exactly what I was thinking. Way to put the pen to it Kevin.
I have seen this lake change , rebound, change, etc. I am not worried. 
It has seen much worse days. There will always be peaks and valleys in the populations of the species we like to pursue. It is a very large lake and will sustain itself with most of the guidlelines currently in place to manage it's resources.
I enjoy my outings , catch fish, and have plenty in the freezer for dinner. 
Life is good...except for the weather. and that will rebound also in the near future.


----------



## Hetfieldinn (May 17, 2004)

tomb said:


> We've caught more small walleyes this year than since 2004-2005.



Agreed. I've thrown back more 12-17" fish this year than I did during the 06, 07, and 08 seasons combined. I've also released just as many 7 lb+ fish this year as any years past. This year has been just as good as any as far as fish caught. I've had to work a little harder to get the fish this year, but that just adds to the fun of fishing. The days of catching multiple limits on anything you throw out there like it was in 05 and 06 are gone (for now), but they'll be back. You can't expect record hatches every year. It's not going to happen.

If the walleye population is as dismal as the DNR claims, reswt assured that it will bounce back. It always does, and it always will.


----------



## Coot (Jan 27, 2006)

K gonefishin said:


> It's not poaching, it's not the need for a slot limit, changing the spring season won't do anything, changing the bag limit won't really help. We just need another good spawn or two and next thing you know the population will double or triple just like it did in 03. A couple 100,000 fish here and there isn't going to change anything.





Hetfieldinn said:


> If the walleye population is as dismal as the DNR claims, reswt assured that it will bounce back. It always does, and it always will.



Exactly

Fisheries practices can work wonders on inland lakes but lakes the size of Erie and Huron rely on the blessings on Mother Nature.


----------



## Darcy (Sep 8, 2005)

Just read all of the posts about the walleye population shrinking. The basic fact that will not change is that the Division of Wildlife is telling us this year's hatch is not good, and that the walleye population will continue to go down. And that reduced bag limits are right around the corner. 

Another fact: The Division of Wildlife has no desire to further restrict the spring river or reef harvest - even if walleye numbers continue to dwindle.

I'm glad some Lorain fishermen did well this year, but the walleye numbers are not good. Don't believe me. Listen to reports from the fisheries experts. One great hatch and lots of poor ones in a decade won't keep this fishery alive.

I was at the open house in Port Clinton on Saturday - in walleye country. Even though the fishing weather was pretty poor, I was one of 13 - yep, only 13! - that attended by 2:30 p.m. during the noon-3 p.m. open house. And two of those 12 were commercial fishermen. There were almost more Division of Wildlife guys there than fishermen!

No one seems to be outraged the Lake Erie walleye are going away. If you think the walleye fishing was OK this year, talk to someone who fished the big lake in the 1980s. My wife and I both ran charters in the Western Basin back then . . . when limit catches were the rule. There were more than 1,300 Lake Erie charter captains in the 80s, many routinely running two trips per day. 

I know quality, experienced fishing guides who can still consistently produce walleye for their customers. I have also seen a lot of average anglers who have given up trying to cast for walleye, and don't want to invest in trolling gear or learn that phase of the sport. 

D'Arcy Egan


----------



## Spaniel235 (Jun 19, 2005)

What was the consensus there?


----------



## Darcy (Sep 8, 2005)

The commercial fishermen wanted more yellow perch to catch, the sport anglers generally wanted to restrict the spring fishing on the reefs.


----------



## KaGee (Sep 8, 2006)

Well, if somebody's personal experience in Lorain is considered evidence, then here's mine...
The fish cleaning stations at Turtle Creek have been lightly used in the times I've been out there this year. I the last couple of years they have been overflowing with fish guts. Not so this year.


----------



## KaGee (Sep 8, 2006)

Darcy said:


> ...the sport anglers generally wanted to restrict the spring fishing on the reefs.


Simple... Regulate yourself.
Sport anglers stay off the lake or C&R if you think that is the problem.
We do not need more state regulation.

At the Turtle Creek Hetfest somebody shouted out over the radio about the big hawg they just netted. Shortdrift hollered back and inquired if they released it back... the return answer was negative. Shortdrift responded about the number of potential fingerlings that were being removed from the lake to which there was no further reply. I doubt regulations would affect a fisherman like that anyway.


----------



## Hawkeye Mike (Sep 6, 2007)

Darcy Egan factually states what us optimistic fisherman may gloss over, or fear thinking about: The lake could well drop below what is deemed to be a critical level at around 15 million walleyes. This time maybe the lake does NOT replenish itself with another great hatch like 2003 (or the ones in 1982 and 1986) that we fished off forever. We have big problems then. 

Many people on this site are the tip of the fishing skills iceberg. As Egan said, I know 10-12 casual fisherman, who sadly stopped fishing Lake Erie since they could no longer catch walleyes casting. I also know several trollers that still struggle even when it appears the bite is hot. 

We desperately need another great hatch, and as stated by others, that is much more important than regulating the spawn or reef spring bite. It looks to me like Lake Erie is behaving like a really, big pressured inland lake: Finesse presentations like crawler harnesses are becoming the hottest program and spoons behind dipsies or crankbaits have not produced as well. Early morning and late evening are becoming even more peak fishing times than before, when less boats are on the water.

I hope for the sake of all who make their living due to our great Lake Erie that the lake does replenish itself. I have had almost 30 great years fishing Erie, and I hope for 30 more.


----------



## NorthSouthOhioFisherman (May 7, 2007)

I'm 100% with Kgone on this one

Its mother nature

Those walleyes aren't going anywhere unless they drain the lake


----------



## Steimy (Jun 29, 2008)

For those that believe that we shouldnt worry about the walleye future, that this is a great lake and "mother nature" will take care of things......................should spend a couple of minutes and do some research on the exticnt blue pike, endangered Lake Sturgeon, and many other fisheries management failures.

There are many other success storeis, all rely on creel size and season restrictions when the population is on the decline.

Denial is not a good fishery management tool


----------



## FISHIN216 (Mar 18, 2009)

Is it against the law to release a keeper walleye? I did it once and people were so surprised. Must we keep them them all?


----------



## FISHIN216 (Mar 18, 2009)

I remember when we used to catch them casting and drifting but now it seems you have to troll and i hate that! no sport involved AT ALL


----------



## Hetfieldinn (May 17, 2004)

Steimy said:


> .should spend a couple of minutes and do some research on the exticnt blue pike, endangered Lake Sturgeon,



The blue pike couldn't take the commercial over-harvest (20 million pounds a year), and the pollution in Lake Erie.

There hasn't been commercial walleye fishing in US waters since 1984, and the lake is a helluva lot cleaner than it was in the 50's and 60's.


That's what I found in my 30 seconds of researching the subject on the internet.


----------



## reo (May 22, 2004)

jdavenp2 said:


> The walleye population has perilously slumped since a bonanza hatch in 2003, and the 2009 spawning season doesn't look promising. If the Lake Erie Committee of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission estimates the lakewide population has slipped below 15 million walleye, it will call for special crisis management at its annual meeting on March 22-26, 2010 in Windsor, Ontario. *The result will be lower daily bag limits for Ohio anglers and less walleye for Ontario commercial netters, the two major players in Lake Erie's walleye harvest.*
> 
> *Ohio's Lake Erie fisheries managers know how low they will go.*
> 
> Lake Erie program coordinator Roger Knight said *if Ohio's allocation drops below 950,000 walleye, the sport fishing daily bag limit for 2010 will be five fish, four walleye during the March-April spawning season. Should Ohio's allocation be less than 850,000 fish, the year-round bag limit would be four walleye*.


Ummm. sounds like a plan is already in place??


----------



## Gju42486 (Mar 7, 2005)

theguy said:


> Is it against the law to release a keeper walleye? I did it once and people were so surprised. Must we keep them them all?


i will tell you the same thing i told the other 2 guys who pm'd me this week about the same very thing you asked about.

My boat does not run on "Thank You's" and handshakes....

The day that i am out fishing on YOUR dime, you can do what you want with the fish, untill then they WILL be kept and filleted at the end of the day--plain and simple.

I will release walleye-----once i hit my quota (limit) for the day and i see that i have a few "hangers" on my rods when pulling them in.

So to answer your question---yes i must keep them all (up to my limit)....the rest will be released to be caught (and filleted) tomorrow.

If you are wanting to see fish released, PM me for my address and i will tell you where to send the gas money.

On a side note, i agree that although you did have to work for them a little this year, the population isnt hurting. Like hetfield said--the days where you could drop a hot dog down and pull fish are over.......This year is what fishing is all about, go out and put the effort in, im willing to bet with a little work, and effort your cooler will be full at the end of the day.


----------



## reo (May 22, 2004)

Darcy said:


> Just read all of the posts about the walleye population shrinking. The basic fact that will not change is that the Division of Wildlife is telling us this year's hatch is not good, and that the walleye population will continue to go down. And that reduced bag limits are right around the corner.
> 
> Another fact: The Division of Wildlife has no desire to further restrict the spring river or reef harvest - even if walleye numbers continue to dwindle.
> 
> ...


What is truly amazing is that no one is 'outraged' at the root cause! The HUNDREDS of exotic species that have entered the system and that no one is 'outraged' that CORERATE GREED gets the nod ahead of what is best for the peoples natural resource; THE GREAT LAKES! God forbid that ocean going ships should be REQUIRED to be free of organisms that do harm to our lakes. After all that would require more evil regulation

That being said, I saw 'a lot of average anglers' that refused to 'invest' in a couple of decent spinning rods and weight forward spinners when trolling flatfish and coathanger sinkers on old glass and even steel rods became less effective than casting. Evolve or become irrelevant. 

Work to change what will be the death of our great lakes if we are not seeing it already, EXOTIC INVASIVE ORGANISMS


----------



## Coot (Jan 27, 2006)

Steimy said:


> For those that believe that we shouldnt worry about the walleye future, that this is a great lake and "mother nature" will take care of things......................should spend a couple of minutes and do some research on the exticnt blue pike, endangered Lake Sturgeon, and many other fisheries management failures.
> 
> There are many other success storeis, all rely on creel size and season restrictions when the population is on the decline.
> 
> Denial is not a good fishery management tool


If you are referring to ME I never said don't worry about the future of Lake Erie walleye. I said slot limits and recreational limit reduction from 6-5 o r 5-4 won't fix the problem.

As Het said, blue pike were commercially over harvested before there was ANY fisheries management. 

The Lake Erie of today is not the same Lake Erie of the 80s - 90s for MANY reasons.

Did you ever see a cormorant or a zebra mussel in the mid 1980's ?


----------



## reo (May 22, 2004)

Steimy said:


> For those that believe that we shouldnt worry about the walleye future, that this is a great lake and "mother nature" will take care of things......................*should spend a couple of minutes and do some research on the exticnt blue pike, endangered Lake Sturgeon, and many other fisheries management failures.*
> 
> There are many other success storeis, all rely on creel size and season restrictions when the population is on the decline.
> 
> *Denial is not a good fishery management tool*


MANAGEMENT did NOT EXIST in the exticntion blue pike, or the cicomstaces that led to the decline of the endangered Lake Sturgeon 

*Denial is not a good fishery management tool*

Agreed BUT I wonder why it is that dozens of threads such as this are started every year but few if any about shipping interests being put ahead of the health of our Great Lakes? Could it be denial??


----------



## Net (Apr 10, 2004)

Erie held plenty of exotics back in 2003. Lots of spawning hawgs were taken too. It didn't matter. Mother nature decided when and how much to replenish.

I think the powers that be are doing all they can to manage the resource by regulating the TAC. Trying to artificially stock a 10,000 square mile lake would be a waste of money and resources.


----------



## Pole Squeezer (Jun 21, 2008)

reo said:


> MANAGEMENT did NOT EXIST in the exticntion blue pike, or the cicomstaces that led to the decline of the endangered Lake Sturgeon
> 
> *Denial is not a good fishery management tool*
> 
> Agreed BUT I wonder why it is that dozens of threads such as this are started every year but few if any about shipping interests being put ahead of the health of our Great Lakes? Could it be denial??


I agree with you. Every year I read, or listen to what some would deem alarming news about the fish populations on erie, and other bodies of water. True, it is alarming news, but like you said, what about the ships? More than just exotics in the ballast water of ships, what about the ships being on erie themselves? They don't run on nuclear power, they dump tons of pollution into the great lakes year after year, what about all the pollutants running off into the lakes? or the population explosion formula; more people using up more resources, equals more pollution? I'm a cancer survivor, and northeast ohio ranks fairly high in that illness possibly due to all of the industrialization = contamination situation affecting our natural resources, and what about the huge dead zones in parts of lake erie? could that have a much more damaging effect on the walleye population, than even the scientist realize? I could go on. Truth is there are no more so-called good old days, in fact the good old days are what got the environment to the state that it is today. Man cannot create good things too much, only destroy, and that destruction is like a locomotive with no brakes, going downhill, in a blizzard, with 50ft of track left............


----------



## fishingguy (Jan 5, 2006)

Newsflash!! dnr says walleye population is down! Ya Think? How could it be any different. With the near record population just a couple of years ago, no one could hope for those levels remain constant. Nor should you. The baitfish populations need time to replenish from the mega schools that roamed the lake in recent years. How's the smelt fishing been the last few years? Everything must remain in balance. If you are complaining about the numbers you are catching this year, get ready to get even more disapointed over the next few. Things will decline further to a more normal population. The population over the past 4 years have not been anything close to normal. Two choices the way I see it, learn to become a better and more mobile fishermen, or take up golf.


----------



## Papascott (Apr 22, 2004)

Darcy, I respect that you are a WRITER and the job of a WRITER is to sell papers. Doom and gloom will always sell more papers than the same old storys reported in the same old manner. I met you one spring at Catawba State Park. You were out prefishing with some guys getting ready for a big early april tournament, PWT I think but could be mistaken. A week or two later you wrote an article for the Plain Dealer completely bashing the PWT and all of the out of staters for coming to Ohio and running/Fishing a tournament during the spawn. I thought that was strange, since you were taking advantage of a ride out to target those same spawning walleye but in the next breath, bad mouthed others for the same? 

I am blessed to fish with alot of Lake Eries BEST tournament anglers and a few good charter capts, yes even you GR, with more combined time on the water than anyone could ever believe. This helps to almost always be on good fishing, so my view (and those guys I fish with often) my be as slanted one way as the guy who fishes twice a year and struggles for the same reasons I seem to do better than average. The key is to try and be a part of a solution, not just noise. Let those who are educated in the field (ODNR and all the other state and great lakes managers) make the decisions. They ARE edjucated in their field and I believe most love the lake and fishing as much as any of us. Let them do their job they have done a pretty good job IMHO. 

There are quite a few using this to try and put a stop to what they feel are threats to the lake, ie bayshore, ballast water, poachers and so on. I say if it helps stop these things GREAT. They all hurt the lake in some ways. If this gives you guys a platform to preach from take it and run with it. 

Bottom line is the numbers are down. Let the Lake Managment folks make their decisions on science based facts, they are the ones who know more about it than any of us. I am glad football season is starting, so some will be able to be arm chair quarterbacks at something I could care-less about!

Scott


----------



## reo (May 22, 2004)

Net said:


> Erie held plenty of exotics back in 2003. Lots of spawning hawgs were taken too. It didn't matter. Mother nature decided when and how much to replenish.


Absolutely true. Also absolutely true is the fact that over the last 20 years the population has seen steady decline EXCEPT for the 2003 hatch and is shown in graph found here: http://ohioseagrant.osu.edu/discuss/index.php?topic=1143.0
Is this because of invasives? It is at the very least possible and it could be another 20 years before we know for sure, in the mean time a dangerous game of russian roulette is being played with our natural resource.





Net said:


> I think the powers that be are doing all they can to manage the resource by regulating the TAC. Trying to artificially stock a 10,000 square mile lake would be a waste of money and resources.


Agreed. My point is that until efforts to stop STOP invasives are the TOP priority instead of corperate shipping interests we are playing chicken with mother nature and that is not a wise thing to do.


----------



## Kableguy (Apr 23, 2009)

"Trying to artificially stock a 10,000 square mile lake would be a waste of money and resources."

I am not an expert on fisheries management, but Steelhead don't naturally reproduce at all in Lake Erie, so those are all stocked. Right? I know Steelhead are not to the same population as Walleye, but maybe augmentation may be an option in the future if nothing else works and the population continues to decline? Something has to be better than nothing. Build a couple huge hatcheries and put some local people to work, and bolster the fishing economy. Possibly a win-win out of a bad situation. I'd be willing to pay a little more for a license if the money was directly going to supporting fisheries management like this.


----------



## Hawkeye Mike (Sep 6, 2007)

Papascott said:


> Darcy, I respect that you are a WRITER and the job of a WRITER is to sell papers. Doom and gloom will always sell more papers than the same old storys reported in the same old manner. I met you one spring at Catawba State Park. You were out prefishing with some guys getting ready for a big early april tournament, PWT I think but could be mistaken. A week or two later you wrote an article for the Plain Dealer completely bashing the PWT and all of the out of staters for coming to Ohio and running/Fishing a tournament during the spawn. I thought that was strange, since you were taking advantage of a ride out to target those same spawning walleye but in the next breath, bad mouthed others for the same?
> 
> I am blessed to fish with alot of Lake Eries BEST tournament anglers and a few good charter capts, yes even you GR, with more combined time on the water than anyone could ever believe. This helps to almost always be on good fishing, so my view (and those guys I fish with often) my be as slanted one way as the guy who fishes twice a year and struggles for the same reasons I seem to do better than average. The key is to try and be a part of a solution, not just noise. Let those who are educated in the field (ODNR and all the other state and great lakes managers) make the decisions. They ARE edjucated in their field and I believe most love the lake and fishing as much as any of us. Let them do their job they have done a pretty good job IMHO.
> 
> ...


Papascott, I have to disagree with your view. I have read the PD as long as D'arcy Egan has been its outdoor columnist. He has been a fair journalist, and not writing columns to "sell" newspapers as you allege. Not fair to D'arcy. If you noted his follow up, he was one of only about 15 people that actually showed up for Saturday's public forum on the walleye population. 

D'arcy columns have tried to be part of the solution to the current issues facing Lake Erie. Don't shoot the messenger, who is reporting factually what is occurring.


----------



## ezbite (May 25, 2006)

If they lower the daily bag limit, I'll just have to put in more days


----------



## ShutUpNFish (Apr 17, 2007)

IMO, they don't need to change a thing...I've been fishing for Erie walleyes since I was in my teens, I'm now 41 and I've seen the cycle go from good to great to average and back again....It has never been BAD, you just had to work a little harder and longer to get fish at times, but the good years always managed to roll around. I don't know why people always feel the need to help out or control nature....we have a great natural walleye fishery on Lake Erie, and I say don't screw around with anything and let it take care of itself!


----------



## duckman (Sep 18, 2004)

K gonefishin said:


> It's not poaching, it's not the need for a slot limit, changing the spring season won't do anything, changing the bag limit won't really help. ......
> 
> A couple 100,000 fish here and there isn't going to change anything. Even a dead ass population can produce a record hatch with the right conditions (03).
> my 02





Papascott said:


> Bottom line is the numbers are down. Let the Lake Management folks make their decisions on science based facts, they are the ones who know more about it than any of us...
> 
> Scott


Pappascott and Kgonefishin... Both a couple of intelligent guys but not biologists and neither am I...

Which is my point I want to hear from the experts why those options should not be considered and why 30+ million walleye disappeared from their model as noted in an earlier thread this year Are we to Blame?...  or is it that the models we are using based on 1970's research no longer applies and is taking us down this wandering path of discussion and angst for no reason... (My wife likes long walks .... I'd rather fish ...)

Example: In the model the Mortality rate is assumed to be the same and constant as the early 1970's research it is based on... a lot has changed in 40 years 

The point of this rambling is that if their models are crap then they don't have a way of reliably measuring whether any of the programs offered actually worked or if it was God's will!

Brian


----------



## rod bender bob (May 19, 2004)

I've been fishing Lake Erie since the early 50s. Like anything else in nature it has its UPS and DOWNS -- Almost died in the 60s, came back like gang busters, hit its high in the early 80s, got very tough in the late 90s, everyone was writing it off at the beginning of this decade and then came 2003!!!!! and the fishing was incredible from 2005 on. Spring fishing on the reefs was excellent and TOUGH this spring but the biggest culprit was WEATHER! When the weather has been good this year the fishing has been very good. When we had good weather in AUGUST the fishing in the western basin was very, very good -- large numbers of 2007 fish. Every time Mom Nature lets the lake dip everyone is wringing their hands and writing Erie's obit. We are at a low level because Mom has not given us good hatches. We need a couple good hatches, not even great, and she'll come back and everyone will say how great it is. The powers that be are trying to do the right thing and hopefully won't be swayed by the C&R crowd, the DON'T FISH THE SPAWN crowd or the rest of us and just do their job. Next year's spawn should be the first for the 2007 hatchlings? Oh, let's not write off this year's spawn until it is official. I remember the 2003 didnt look so good officially until the perch fishermen started catching all kings of small eyes in late sept. and oct. Let's let the experts work on it and not panic yet


----------



## bud690 (Jun 23, 2009)

Why nnot quit fishing the spawn? they did it to the smallmouths. I think it would help alittle. They catch at least ten percent of the total harvest during the spawn(dnr numbers, not mine).I say lets try it 2 years and see what happens.I myself i dont fish it until june.


----------



## K gonefishin (May 4, 2004)

bud690 said:


> Why nnot quit fishing the spawn? they did it to the smallmouths. I think it would help alittle. They catch at least ten percent of the total harvest during the spawn(dnr numbers, not mine).I say lets try it 2 years and see what happens.I myself i dont fish it until june.



It'll never happen due to the economic impact it would have on the western basin economy, everyone from gas stations, hotels, deli's, charters, bait shops, they would literally go out of business, March thru May is the busy season and would be detrimental to them staying in business, not to mention what the big tourney's bring as far as revenue goes to the western end of the lake as well. It would be a dead area until the vacationers and party people come which doesn't happen until the official kickoff of summer of Memorial Day weekend...for the most part at least, cedar point etc. 

You sir are the exception to the norm (and can't be considered) 98% of walleye fisherman on Erie hit Erie very very hard come April, if you have never been to the western basin in April you will see why it's the Walleye capital of the world.


----------



## bud690 (Jun 23, 2009)

Very true. Money always controls the game in the long run.


----------



## rickerd (Jul 16, 2008)

I would have loved to attend at Catawba if I had an earlier notice when and where. I'm sorry I have a family that just started school last week and I find out Friday about a meeting an hour away on Saturday. If ODNR really wanted to see a good turn out and have a rational discussion, give everyone a months notice and have all the groups buy tables to have their discussions kind of like at the sport and outdoor show in the spring. Wouldn't cost ODNR anything and would go a long way to make us comfortable that they do care about what we recreational fisherpersons have to say.

I feel the ODNR were cowards to give such a short notice and now say only 13 people showed up. Yes I do mean cowards.

You people who say wait for mother nature to fix it are fools. If you really want to stand back and let mother nature fix it, we must keep all human intervention away from the act of spawning. This means no power plants, fishing, tournaments during spawning period end of story. We have to accept that we may be affecting the spawn in a negative way by fishing during the spawn. It is only rational and scientific.

Rickerd


----------



## justin (Oct 26, 2005)

I am a Lake Erie biologist. Most of my research has been on the lower levels of the food web, but I do keep myself up to date with recent all lake research. Population fluctuations are generally the result of differences in the survival of the newly hatched fish or called recruitment. For example, several years of low recruitment will lead to a small adult population, but one year with high recruitment will dramatically bust the adult population. This is what we are seeing with the walleye population. To understand walleye recruitment better, the hot research topic is to understand the conditions the eggs and newly hatched fish face. What is happening under the ice? Will less ice cover result in eggs being covered up by sediment stirred up by strong winter winds? Where are the currents pushing the newly hatched fish? How does water temperature affect survival? These are questions that are being worked on and answers will give managers tools to make better decisions. 
Also, I read a few posts about zebra mussels and diving birds affecting walleye populations. For the zebra mussels, and their close relative the quagga mussel, they first established themselves in the lake in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Since 1990 walleye recruitment has been poor to excellent, while the mussels have increasing and since leveled off. This means that walleye can have good recruitment in the presence of a lot of mussels. For the birds, a recent article about fall diets of mergansers and walleye showed that they are not in direct competition with each other because they each prefer fish of different sizes. This study did not look at cormorants, but it does shed some light on the topic.
Justin


----------



## K gonefishin (May 4, 2004)

rickerd said:


> You people who say wait for mother nature to fix it are fools. If you really want to stand back and let mother nature fix it, we must keep all human intervention away from the act of spawning. This means no power plants, fishing, tournaments during spawning period end of story. We have to accept that we may be affecting the spawn in a negative way by fishing during the spawn. It is only rational and scientific.


When the 03 fish had a booming hatch, the tourney's took place, everyone still fished the spawn in March & April and into May and the rest of the year, the limit was the same, no slot limits, the power plants still running and everything else was AS IS as it stands today, FACT. This is rational and based on FACT, not my opinion or anyone elses. MOTHER NATURE and the NATURE all lined up properly and busted out a record hatch WITH a pretty darn low population of spawning walleye. 

That my friend is the way it goes. FACT. 

Your a fool for thinking people can change the way mother nature works, like I said in my earlier post way back when, if we would have had another really good hatch since 03 this post and many like it wouldn't even exist and neither would any of these discussion with ODNR, Biologists etc. Everyone would have chalked it it for. welp all the stars and moons aligned and Erie was blessed with another great hatch, it's been happening since the beggining of time, this won't change. They can put restrictions and rules on the fisherman all they want. Until we have another great hatch by the forces of mother nature and Erie does it's thing....the population will continue to drop. Going to a stupid meeting isn't going to solve a thing, besides put a bunch of whining fisherman in a room that don't want to trailer there boat and adapt to the "new" erie of the year 2009 to fill a cooler of keepers.


----------



## Lundy (Apr 5, 2004)

It is nice to see so much involvement and concern about the Lake Erie fishery. I too would like to hear from the ODNR biologists charged with the protection of this fishery. To learn and be educated on the models used and science involved in reaching their decisions on how to best protect the fishery. I am working on a plan that would make this information more readily available to all of us.

I believe this information would help us all in being able to separate fact and sound science from emotional ideas offered in a sincere belief that may help.

There are a few facts that are widely known today.

The level of success of any yearly walleye hatch is a not as simple as a mathematical equation using the number of eggs laid as a base. A larger number of eggs laid does not directly equate to a larger recruitment. The 2003 hatch is evidence of this fact. This fact alone would seem to diminish any need for eliminating or reducing the spring harvest providing a minimum ( unknown to me)population exists in the lake.

A female walleye removed from the system no matter when removed has exactly the same impact. A 17" female removed in July will never again spawn, or reach what many believe to be the most viable spawning age or size. A 20-31" female removed in May off of Cleveland, or November out of Huron, has exactly the same impact that a 20-31" female removed in February through the ice or if removed in March or April on the reefs or rivers. This would seem to reduce the possibility of slot limits having any significant impact on the walleye hatch viability or overall population.

The ODNR has limited ability to control what effects a successful hatch. One area that they can control is the yearly harvest percentage of the available population. They can adjust harvest bag limits based upon the walleye population in an effort to ensure a minimum population, beyond that is it pretty much up to mother nature


----------



## Alaskan (Jun 19, 2007)

KaGee said:


> Simple... Regulate yourself.
> Sport anglers stay off the lake or C&R if you think that is the problem.
> We do not need more state regulation.
> 
> At the Turtle Creek Hetfest somebody shouted out over the radio about the big hawg they just netted. Shortdrift hollered back and inquired if they released it back... the return answer was negative. Shortdrift responded about the number of potential fingerlings that were being removed from the lake to which there was no further reply. I doubt regulations would affect a fisherman like that anyway.


Maybe I missed something. I thought I remember the biologists saying the larger females were older, and not very productive spawners. So, shouldn't you be more upset about folks keeping 5lb fish instead of 10 lb fish? Sure those eggs look like enough to repopulate the entire lake when you clean a hog, but if the eggs are too tough, what good are they?


----------



## krustydawg (Apr 26, 2004)

Screw it I'm selling my boat ! Within the next few years we will have another good hatch, I can feel it. I agree with what a few others have said in regards to invasives. The sub-par hatches will not be the downfall of Mother Erie, invasives will. We all better pray to the big man up stairs that a population of Asian Carp does not enter the Great Lakes system, that my friends will be the beginning of the end. Let's worry about what we (Man) can control (invasives, bag limits, poachers, etc.) and worry less about what we cannot (nature and the hatch).


----------



## boatnut (Nov 22, 2006)

"The point of this rambling is that if their models are crap then they don't have a way of reliably measuring whether any of the programs offered actually worked or if it was God's will!"

don't you mean Darwin?


----------



## captainshotgun (Jul 8, 2009)

This is a really good thread. I don't know what the answers are, but I am sure that if populations really are low, there is more than 1 factor at work, hence no simple answers. I am not against managing the Lake, but I tend to agree that nature is the overwehlming single factor in determing populations. I grew up 1 beach W of Davis Besse. In the 50's I caught "pickerel", whether eyes, or blues, on the beach with a cane pole & a worm. In the late 50's & early 60's U could not catch a "pickerel" at all in the W basin, but there were a ton of perch. The "old timers said that this had happened before, & when the perch population went down, the "pickerel" would come back. Kinda sounds like 2003. In the 60's, if U could see your prop on a short shaft OB, that was a really clear/clean day. In 1962/63 I caught 1000,s of perch, sometimes as many as 40 through the ice before dark after school. BIG PERCH!!! I never saw or heard of anyone catching a "pickerel" In 1964 I moved to Ruggles Beach, & Dad & I were amazed the the folks there were catching "eyes". We trolled using the long trolling weights & harnesses, just like in the "old days". In 1969 we started fishing back in the W Basin using weight forwards & casting. I never did like casting! About 1989, Easter Sunday. I did my best day ever, limit was 10. 45 minutes from the mouth of the Toussaint & back again, 2 of us, 20 eyes & 10 monster perch. The next year I was introduced to planer boards & dipseys, all with spoons. I love to fish that way, esp. not having to use live bait. I fish mostly out of Lorain & Avon, but have trailered my 26' Chris to Geneva. My sister has dockage on the Portage River, & I still fish the W Basin some, (too many people most of the time to suit me). Now it looks like that if U really want to suceed, U best be using, or at least be willing to use harnesses. I had sold or given away all of mine.

The only point I am trying to make with this long narrative, is that the the Lake is always changing. There used to be peach & apple orchards another mile out from the beach near Turtle Creek, out from Locust Point Beach & Long Beach, think about the loss of spawning ground & fishing area, if those orchards were still there! 
All & all I think that the Zebras have been a boon to the Lake, but some of the other invaders sure scare me!
I would like to see more scientific evidence of what is going on before I panic. I think that netters, both in the states & & esp. Canada have a very large impact on the population of all fish. Sometimes it seems that the blind are leading the blind. 
Good luck to all of us!
Jack


----------



## wakina (May 30, 2007)

To put further regs on now, such as (not fishing the spawn, slot limits, ect.) would seem like closing the gate after the horse has escaped. In 2003 we had a one of the best hatches in several years maybe ever. My question to those who want more regs now and not back in 03-08 is. Were those fish that hatched in 2003 impotent? Or. Is there another factor that would be causing the 30+ million adult spawners to fail the fisrt year and every following year? If the number of adult spawners is the most important thing in the survival of the Lake Erie Walleye population then we are certainly in trouble. That massive hatch of 2003 has had at least three good years to produce another massive or above average hatch but has failed to do so. Why? Even if the whole TAC was caught during the spawn there still would have been over thirty million adult spawners left to repopulate the lake after the first year the 2003 fish became mature. Fact of the matter is if fishing for walleye had been totally banned during any one or all of those three years we would still be where we are today. Yes we would still have a larger population of spawners left for the next spawning attempt but with out the right conditions those eggs and fry will not survive. If it is a fact that hen walleyes become sexually mature at or about 18"(3yr's) then the legal size limit needs to be increased so every walleye that makes it past the fry stage will have at least one chance to reproduce. I have never caught a walleye in the 15" to 18" range that had a tag on it that said I'm a girl release me back into the lake. For that reason I personally don't make a practice of keeping 15" to 18" fish unless badly injured. I agree with K-Gone that mother nature has the final say as to, if and when there will be another good to excellent hatch and survival of walleye fry.


----------



## duckman (Sep 18, 2004)

boatnut said:


> "The point of this rambling is that if their models are crap then they don't have a way of reliably measuring whether any of the programs offered actually worked or if it was God's will!"
> 
> don't you mean Darwin?


sure now your trying to hijack the thread with evolution versus creationism.. that won't spin off in the wrong direction... lol

It must be my hungarian heritage.... "Don't trust anyone who smiles" and if they are hungarian and don't smile... "Trust but verify" ...lol

teasing boatnut a bit here


----------



## rickerd (Jul 16, 2008)

K gonefishin said:


> When the 03 fish had a booming hatch, the tourney's took place, everyone still fished the spawn in March & April and into May and the rest of the year, the limit was the same, no slot limits, the power plants still running and everything else was AS IS as it stands today, FACT. This is rational and based on FACT, not my opinion or anyone elses. MOTHER NATURE and the NATURE all lined up properly and busted out a record hatch WITH a pretty darn low population of spawning walleye.
> 
> That my friend is the way it goes. FACT. [end quote]
> 
> ...


----------



## Hawkeye Mike (Sep 6, 2007)

duckman said:


> sure now your trying to hijack the thread with evolution versus creationism.. that won't spin off in the wrong direction... lol
> 
> It must be my hungarian heritage.... "Don't trust anyone who smiles" and if they are hungarian and don't smile... "Trust but verify" ...lol


I believe in evolution over creationism, but for the sake of the walleye population and one or two good hatches, I would take some divine intervention also. Whatever it takes...buring incense, meditation etc.


----------



## Lundy (Apr 5, 2004)

rickerd said:


> The only thing we can do is take care of how we negatively effect the reproduction


How do we negatively effect the reproduction?



rickerd said:


> Not even the scientists can tell us how this lake really works


If even the scientists don't know how the lake really works then what basis do you use to reach your conclusions? How have you determined which actions, that we do now, negatively effect the reproduction?

Thanks,
Kim


----------



## K gonefishin (May 4, 2004)

My statement regarding fools is to show all of us that we are being foolish if we do not do what we can to help with reproduction. We are certainly fools if we do nothing and let the numbers of walleye plummet further. ---

and my answer to this statement was, imposing a new limit of 4 or 5 a guy won't do much and closing the spawn won't help much either, like I said a couple 100,000 fish will still be swimming around yeah but that's it...the only cure to a low population is another good spawn...once again, who controls that...mother nature, NOT US FISHERMAN OR ODNR...what is so hard about this that you don't understand? They could close walleye fishing for the next 5 years and not allows another walleye to get plucked from the lake...without a good spawn. Guess what pal....the walleye will still die and dissapear due to old age, disease, natural predators etc. 

Without a healthy spawn....no more new waldo's. PERIOD. I don't know how much more simple to put it for you to understand man.


----------



## bocajemma (Dec 29, 2008)

What we really need to do is have someone come up with a recipe for sheephead that will taste better than walleye. Let's make Lake Erie the sheephead capital of the world. Then everyone will be catching hundreds of sheephead every day without having to motor all over the lake and be happy. No one will even want to fish for those nasty tasting walleye. With no one fishing for walleye, enventually you will be knocking them off your swim platform cause you can't get to the sheephead.


----------



## rickerd (Jul 16, 2008)

K-gone,
So you do not think that having thousands of guys walking through the rivers when the walleye are dropping eggs at their feet will have a negative effect on the number of walleye fry? You also don't think hundreds of boats with anchors dragged over the spawning reefs have no negative effect on the success of walleye spawning? When the adult walleye protecting a nest are removed, that has no effect. Haven't we learned anything from the smallmouth population lately?

You are entitled to your opinion. I simply disagree. 
In my opinion it is foolish to think we play no part in this.

Rickerd


----------



## Papascott (Apr 22, 2004)

bud690 said:


> Why nnot quit fishing the spawn? they did it to the smallmouths. I think it would help alittle. They catch at least ten percent of the total harvest during the spawn(dnr numbers, not mine).I say lets try it 2 years and see what happens.I myself i dont fish it until june.


You nailed it. YOU don't fish til June, Why not just close the lake for the months od july and August, those are when I fish the least?


----------



## K gonefishin (May 4, 2004)

rickerd said:


> K-gone,
> So you do not think that having thousands of guys walking through the rivers when the walleye are dropping eggs at their feet will have a negative effect on the number of walleye fry? You also don't think hundreds of boats with anchors dragged over the spawning reefs have no negative effect on the success of walleye spawning? When the adult walleye protecting a nest are removed, that has no effect. Haven't we learned anything from the smallmouth population lately?
> 
> You are entitled to your opinion. I simply disagree.
> ...


I would hate to be your wife man, geez. 

So you do not think that having thousands of guys walking through the rivers when the walleye are dropping eggs at their feet will have a negative effect on the number of walleye fry? 2003 ring a bell. 

You also don't think hundreds of boats with anchors dragged over the spawning reefs have no negative effect on the success of walleye spawning?2003 ring a bell. 

When the adult walleye protecting a nest are removed, that has no effect. Walleye don't protect eggs, females are drop and go and do not hang around the nest to protect.

Haven't we learned anything from the smallmouth population lately? Different fish for one, 2 anglers can still catch them, just need to toss them back, plus golbies don't eat walleye eggs like they do with smallie eggs. 

When a hatch is good it's good no matter what, regardless of the amount of feet or anchors. The rivers are pretty irrellevant anyways, almost all the fish (estimated 80%) in the rivers spawning aren'teven lake erie's fish those fish are coming down from St Clair, 80% of Erie's fish spawn on lake Erie's reefs. 

Learning something today aren't we.


----------



## reo (May 22, 2004)

rickerd said:


> K-gone,
> So you do not think that having thousands of guys walking through the rivers when the walleye are dropping eggs at their feet will have a negative effect on the number of walleye fry? You also don't think hundreds of boats with anchors dragged over the spawning reefs have no negative effect on the success of walleye spawning? When the adult walleye protecting a nest are removed, that has no effect. Haven't we learned anything from the smallmouth population lately?
> 
> You are entitled to your opinion. I simply disagree.
> ...


Guys were walking those rivers every time we had great spawns.

Hundreds of boats with anchors were out every time we had great spawns.

Walleyes do not build nests nor do they protect their eggs

The smallmouth regs were put in place because of goby (an invasive) preditation


----------



## Net (Apr 10, 2004)

If I was to point finger at anything it would be those rivers of mud flowing onto the spawning grounds each spring. Although I honestly don't recall if water clarity was any better during the 2003 spawn.


----------



## ezmarc (Apr 6, 2004)

Net said:


> If I was to point finger at anything it would be those rivers of mud flowing onto the spawning grounds each spring. Although I honestly don't recall if water clarity was any better during the 2003 spawn.


There were 14 foot waves during the PWT in Mid April 2003 and it was windy, cold, dirty water and rainy the 2 days it wasn't cancelled. 

I'm no biologist either but those fish lay their eggs and the males can't wait to fertilize them every year. It's nature and there is a reason they lay a couple hundred thousand eggs each and that is because they have to, to survive. It is a very inefficient way and even the great hatch of 2003 saw bazillions of unhatched fry, hatched fry and small walleyes die in unimaginable amounts. what looks like a great hatch to us was probably less than 1/10000 of a percent or more of eggs fertilized.

Imagine if you will 5 million fish laying 150000 eggs each in the rock piles of the west basin. What is that, somethng like 750 trillion eggs or something and I'm sure there are more than 5 million fish doing it out there. Eggs in some spots must be 6" deep. Maybe they are smothering themselves out? Maybe those anchors being dragged across them are actually helping out by dispersing them. Jeesh, anythings possible including your typical doom and gloomers being right. The fact is that we don't know and any action taken other than curtailing harvests is just guess work and could be damaging. Let Roger and his crew do their trawls and studies and do their jobs the way they are trained to do them. I know a lot of the research guys personnally and none of them have a hidden agenda that I can see and most want to take home limits of fish as badly as most of you.

Personally I would favor an 18" minimum size limit, captains limit not counted toward boat limits on charters and 4 fish all year (including spring, winter and fall and in the rivers during spawn), along with a possesion limit for freezer fish. What Darcy reported is much more liberal than what I would do if I had a say in it but then my opinions are based on gut instinct rather than scientific fact so I will bow to the wise ones that actually earn the right to make those educated decisions.


That said I have heard numerous reports of a lot of small fish being caught in New York. I doubt seriously that those fish swam from the west basin so maybe the eyes are adapting in new ways. Sounds like Dunkirk and Barcelona may have theirselves a year round walleye fishery soon!


----------



## WBSA (Feb 11, 2009)

Sept 15th WBSA will have an open meeting at the Green Springs Ohio Fire Department. We will have 1 or 2 speakers from the Sandusky Fisheries Research Lab on hand to discuss the above issues. 

We will be having some type of cookoput, possibly burgers and dogs, another speaker discussing the in's and outs of fall trolling technigues and harness tying and the ODNR will also be speaking about their August trawl results and any other topic that might come up. 

It promises to be an informative evening and you are all invited. The fire station is large enough to handle a good crowd and the food is on us but BYOD.

We will gather at around 6 PM and then start the meeting at 7 PM.


----------



## On Erie (Apr 6, 2004)

invasives...........when will the Govt. wake up?

catching, and snagging spawners out of Erie's rivers in the spring..... Govt. says it only amounts to 5% of the hatch. hmmm 10 million females times 5% more per hatch.......do the math. stupid #1

poor hatches..........it happens

10 walleye a day limits..........not too long ago......stupid #2

Canada's commerical fleet still in service, and half the fish are their's, what are their regs. on walleye, perch, etc. we regulate, they don't! ever see walleye in the stores, signs that say Lake Erie Perch all you can eat. guess what it all comes from Canada! stupid #3

putting Govt. in charge of any fishery, postal service, health care, cash for clunkers, social security, yada, yada,............... you rank that one!


----------



## Lundy (Apr 5, 2004)

On Erie said:


> catching, and snagging spawners out of Erie's rivers in the spring..... Govt. says it only amounts to 5% of the hatch. hmmm 10 million females times 5% more per hatch.......do the math. stupid #1


The number of eggs laid, once past a minimum threshold, has little to do with spawn success or the viabilty of walleye fry 





On Erie said:


> 10 walleye a day limits..........not too long ago......stupid #2


It has only been NINE years



On Erie said:


> Canada's commerical fleet still in service, and half the fish are their's, what are their regs. on walleye, perch, etc. we regulate, they don't! ever see walleye in the stores, signs that say Lake Erie Perch all you can eat. guess what it all comes from Canada! stupid #3


Actually Ohio had a 51% allocation of this years TAC, Ontario's was 43%, MI was 6%



On Erie said:


> putting Govt. in charge of any fishery, postal service, health care, cash for clunkers, social security, yada, yada,............... you rank that one!


You, of all people, know full well we don't play the politics game here. You have your own sand box for that. Don't bring it here. Not very well educated or informed #1, #2, # 3, and less than smart #4


----------



## BFG (Mar 29, 2006)

> I know quality, experienced fishing guides who can still consistently produce walleye for their customers. I have also seen a lot of average anglers who have given up trying to cast for walleye, and don't want to invest in trolling gear or learn that phase of the sport


The lake has changed dramatically for a myriad of reasons. I laugh at the notion that folks think they can consistently catch fish with the same methods that they used 25 years ago. Sure..you'll have your days...but the 'ole golden nugget just don't produce like it used to.

Here is something that nobody has mentioned yet...

30 million walleyes out of the 2003 class. 30 million mouths to feed...only so much food...along comes 2004...2005....2006....while those 30 million walleyes are now 1...2...and 3...years old. They had to eat something...what was it?

Anyone ever consider that one of the reasons behind the poor reported hatches of the three subsequent years was because all of those fry were eaten? I'm sure perch eat walleye fry as well.

We'll have another good spawn when the time is right. Anyone who has ever had fish in a pond knows that magically...when fish populations get high...growth is stunted and reproduction drops. 

It won't be long boys and girls. Have some faith...and in the meantime continue to strive to protect the lake itself from foreign invasives and pollution. 

I respect what the DNR is telling us. If they lower the limit, so be it. We'll adjust and move on and trust that they are the ones who know exactly how we should act....not necessarily react.


----------



## Kableguy (Apr 23, 2009)

I've been looking into the reproductive results of walleye in Lake Erie since this thread started, and I'll be the first to admit any hard answers are difficult to come by. One of the more interesting things I found was a set of charts that show both Walleye and Yellow Perch hatch by year. Coincidentally, for the most part both were up in the same years and down in the same years. Correct me if I am wrong, but perch don't spawn in the rivers, do they? Also, I don't think perch are targeted during spawning season as much as the walleye are. Maybe larger factors like weather and food supply, etc... play a more important role than anything else. I also noticed that even though there are large hatches and small hatches, if you look at four to five year periods of time the hatches across those periods total about the same size. 2003 was a freakish large year however, so not sure how that will effect things. And then you have the el nino effect, which a few other people have mentioned, bringing less precipitation in the winter and milder springs. Theoretically these conditions will help spawn rates. We have one of those this year. I'll be curious what kind of discussion we'll be having next year.


----------



## Bud Riser (Aug 28, 2009)

Why is is coincidentally, that every walleye hotspot we've fished is surrounded by a bunch of trapnets?
On shore, offshore, by the weather buoy off Vermilion, all over the sandbar?
What do you hear on the radio and on posts?
I'm catching walleyes by the net flags?
They need to go now!

Bud


----------



## wakina (May 30, 2007)

Quote{ "Why is is coincidentally, that every walleye hotspot we've fished is surrounded by a bunch of trapnets?
On shore, offshore, by the weather buoy off Vermilion, all over the sandbar?
What do you hear on the radio and on posts?
I'm catching walleyes by the net flags?
They need to go now!"} End Quote.


The nets are there to target perch and so are the walleyes. Makes perfectly good reasoning that the netters who target only perch would not set their nets where there are no perch. Walleyes are the same as they feed heavily on perch as well as shad and just about anything that swims that will fit into there mouth as long as there are large numbers of their pray in the area. That I think is the coincidentally of the nets being close to the walleye schools. Why target fish you can't keep, I know of no netters that fish strictly catch and release, they net fish to sell for a living and it is illegal to take walleyes commercially in Ohio waters.


----------



## brewkettle (Sep 7, 2006)

"Here is something that nobody has mentioned yet...

30 million walleyes out of the 2003 class. 30 million mouths to feed...only so much food...along comes 2004...2005....2006....while those 30 million walleyes are now 1...2...and 3...years old. They had to eat something...what was it?

Anyone ever consider that one of the reasons behind the poor reported hatches of the three subsequent years was because all of those fry were eaten? I'm sure perch eat walleye fry as well." BFG

BFG-I have pitched the same thought to some pretty smart guys a couple of times and barely got a nod. I think you are really seeing the big picture


----------



## BlueMax (Dec 3, 2006)

I have mentioned it. And I think it has merit. 
Another think is that all the perch in the lake now need to eat also. And the eggs of other fish they consume. That is why I will be on a mission to reduce the perch population starting September 20.


----------



## BlueMax (Dec 3, 2006)

wakina said:


> Quote{ "Why is is coincidentally, that every walleye hotspot we've fished is surrounded by a bunch of trapnets?
> On shore, offshore, by the weather buoy off Vermilion, all over the sandbar?
> What do you hear on the radio and on posts?
> I'm catching walleyes by the net flags?
> ...


I thought the walleye were attracted to the perch in the nets and the fishermane were attracted to the walleye.


----------



## wakina (May 30, 2007)

BlueMax said:


> I thought the walleye were attracted to the perch in the nets and the fishermane were attracted to the walleye.


Thats the point, the perch are there in numbers and that attracts the netters and the walleyes who are targeting the perch. Those trap nets are not set to capture walleyes but are set to trap the perch, although I'm sure they do get some as incidental walleye catch that must be returned to the lake. So along come the fishermen targeting the walleye's and perch.


----------



## BFG (Mar 29, 2006)

> BFG-I have pitched the same thought to some pretty smart guys a couple of times and barely got a nod. I think you are really seeing the big picture


Anyone who duck hunts on Lake Erie remembers the days of 10's of thousands of bluebills that used to migrate through here between the end of October through the middle of December. Coincidentally...the zebra mussel showed up...and guess what...the bluebills ate 'em.

Bluebill numbers plummeted "for unknown reasons" according to researchers. They had problems with poor egg production as well as thin-shelled eggs that were easily destroyed. Hmm...

Zebras filter the water...cleaned it up alright...but they also store and contain concentrated levels of whatever it is that is in the water...PCB's...methyl mercury...pesticides...herbicides...fertilizers, etc. etc. 

Didn't take long for me to put 2 and 2 together. A lot of people acted surprised some 6 years later when some prominent waterfowl researches "broke the news" about the bluebills....

I sorta look at the walleye population thing the same way...open your eyes...and the answer just might be right there in front of you.


----------



## K gonefishin (May 4, 2004)

I still say Hetfieldinn caught them all.


----------



## Hetfieldinn (May 17, 2004)

K gonefishin said:


> I still say Hetfieldinn caught them all.



Pics, or it didn't happen.

It's been a really good year, but it wasn't me.


----------



## boatnut (Nov 22, 2006)

I'm doing my part by mostly taking canadian fish and messin' with their TAC numbers


----------



## Lundy (Apr 5, 2004)

boatnut said:


> i'm doing my part by mostly taking canadian fish and messin' with their tac numbers



Perfect!


----------



## Net (Apr 10, 2004)

boatnut said:


> I'm doing my part by mostly taking canadian fish and messin' with their TAC numbers


That may be the funniest line I've ever seen on this site.


----------

