# Higher stocking numbers?



## thephildo0916

Just a question I have often wondered. If the division of wildlife offered an additional $5 "Donation" to fund more steelhead smolts, would you VOLUNTARILY pay the extra 5$ on top of the $19 fishing license? I am in no way saying Ohio does not stock enough fish, because they certainly do, just want to hear what other fisherman/women would have to say if this was offered. There are no additional benefits to you as a fisherman, but 100% of the extra money goes directly to increase numbers, thoughts?

I would pay the extra $5.


----------



## ChromeBone

I would do it, I buy Tennessee, West Virginia, and Florida Off Shore fishing Licences every year, and they all cost a lot more then $19. I would even buy a separate $15 trout stamp, if that would help with numbers or improve stream habitat, its worth it to me. Anything that would help give me a chance to get 1 more great trip a year is definitely worth another $5 bucks.


----------



## Bwana J

I'm all for the $5.00 fee as long as its earmarked for the Steelhead program. Ohio stocks plenty of Steelhead and I feel that the money could be used for gaining more access points on the streams. All of us get alot out of the Steelhead program and this would be one way for us to give a little back and improve the program at the same time.


----------



## thephildo0916

Bwana J said:


> I'm all for the $5.00 fee as long as its earmarked for the Steelhead program. Ohio stocks plenty of Steelhead and I feel that the money could be used for gaining more access points on the streams. All of us get alot out of the Steelhead program and this would be one way for us to give a little back and improve the program at the same time.



Very well said.


----------



## kernal83

Absolutely


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## brodg

Yes, well worth it

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## fredg53

Yes I would 

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## Lewzer

The question is: Does the Ohio hatchery have the capability to produce more smolts for stocking?


----------



## Carpman

Hey lewzer, with 5$ extra per trout fisherman, they sure would have enough money to expand the operation and hire more people.


----------



## yonderfishin

Since the extra steelhead were mentioned , I have a question for anyone who would know. What if they stocked some rivers farther west ? I am guessing they feel that the return to western basin rivers isnt very good , but with the extra smolts it could be better than the few strays we have now. Many of the extras stocked west would still wind up boosting the numbers east so it would be win/win as far as I can see. I wouldnt mind paying an extra $5 , or even having to buy a trout stamp , but steelie fishing is already an expensive hobby for those of us who live far west or even south of steelhead alley , I doubt you would find many willing to pay extra without having some better fishing opportunity closer to their side of the state. If stocking western rivers was not an option , using the money to open up more access to already stocked rivers like someone else mentioned would be my second choice for use of the money. The only problem with that option though is that I could see so many differences of opinion on what , where , when , and why come up that some would wind up thinking the money was misused or wasted on this place or that place.


----------



## mbarrett1379

I would pay for a trout tag for sure! Extra stocking would be amazing and maybe they could introduce browns or cohos into the system with the extra money. A little extra money could really improve some of the streams


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## Golden1

I would gladly pay or donate if we knew for sure it would go to more access or aid in the stocking program. Might be a good idea to start a program or contact the right political people to get something along these lines started. I am not sure where to begin as to getting something like this started. Maybe someone on the forum here may chime in.


----------



## CARL510ISLE

The money would be much better spent to secure access to buy easements for PUBLIC access. More fish only leads to more fisherman which always leads to more access issues. If you don't believe it, you haven't been around long enough. 

Just sayin.....


----------



## Steel Cranium

It isn't as easy as just throwing more fish or different species into the streams. The states along the great lakes and Canada agree on the number of species stocked and taken by commercial/hook and line in an attempt to keep a good balance in the lakes by defining stocking numbers and possession limits per system. Too many salmonids can compete for and take food from other sport fish like perch, walleye and bass which are ultimately more important to the overall fishery.

I would pay a premium for better access and increased enforcement over stocking more fish. We have more than enough already. It has turned into more of a numbers game than a good day out with a few fish.


----------



## brodg

Cranium is right, I forgot about the limit, they can't increase the numbers unless other states reduce.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## thephildo0916

This is why I brought it up, def some things that never even crossed my mind. I think I too would like to see more public access purchased, as the number of anglers increases.


----------



## ChromeBone

thephildo0916 said:


> This is why I brought it up, def some things that never even crossed my mind. I think I too would like to see more public access purchased, as the number of anglers increases.


I live in Columbus and fish the Mad a lot, We raise money to clean the river and set up areas for improved trout habitat, on some parts of that river there is access every half mile, If we could get access like that in some of the systems up north, I think that would make a lot of peoples experiences more enjoyable, not to mention taking out some of the steel bars and asphalt I see in the water so much.


----------



## yonderfishin

I wonder why Ohio dont have a trout stamp option like many other states do ? It makes perfect sense , and that money could go right into river access projects.


----------



## Steel Cranium

yonderfishin said:


> I wonder why Ohio dont have a trout stamp option like many other states do ? It makes perfect sense , and that money could go right into river access projects.


Ohio has always tried to keep things simple. While neighboring states like PA and MI provide many pages of seasonal closings and limits, Ohio hasn't had a seasonal closing/limit until recently when implementing seasonal keep limits on Lake Erie black bass. Prior to the smallie protection, the only limitation on when you can fish in Ohio were a few rivers during the walleye spawn, where night fishing is prohibited.

Adding a stamp would just make the law officer's job a bit more difficult. We currently have quite a few folks fishing steelhead without a license. With a stamp, they would have to also worry about folks fishing with a license but without the stamp. Some understand the usefulness of an additional charge for a fishery, but many do not and would not purchase the stamp.


----------



## Salmonid

Been there, done that, was part of a ODNR concept team meeting several years back regarding a "trout stamp". Bottom line is 2 real resons why it wont/cant be done. 
First is that the way the Ohio Laws are set up, ALL funding from licenses that comes "IN" goes into the "general fund" where it gets divied up so its not possible to say that just because 100K came in from this special license fee that it needs to go into a seperate fund, doesnt work like that and laws would need to be passed before that could happen. 

Ok so you say, " Im sure if DNR wanted to get that law changed, it could happen" well this leads to the next problem, whereas the DNR would love to have additional income for funding, all the states divisions ( watercraft, Forestly, Natural resources etc) would al have to agree to allowing this "exception" from the "general fund" so unlikely at best, short of starting to play politice where as you scratch my back here and Ill help you there. 

Secondly, after many long meetings and discussions the bottom line is that the general public would look at a "Trout Stamp" as an additional new "fishing tax" ( there words, not ours) that means the voting public would be able to use such results against them (politicians who would make the law changes) and basically the state higherups which are voted in, would never allow anything as trivial as this to get in the way of them getting re-elected. So it really is a political issue and more then just do it becuase it makes sense.

I hope this helps...

Salmonid


----------



## flylogicsteelhead

Yet PA does it with relative success. I just don't see anyone getting the ball rolling on this idea. As far as imbalance goes, both states are reducing their stocking numbers mainly justified through a funding issue not a species imbalance issue. So that being said let's stock 1:1 steel and Brownies and make it a hell of a fishery!!!!!


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## yonderfishin

Yep , sounds like Ohio.............backwards and resistant to change. A seperate fee of some kind was found by most other states in order to maintain a trout program without taxing other anglers who dont fish for that species......trout being non native and more costly to manage and all. While I believe you guys in that there may be legal concerns and a negative opinion on it by a few , every trout fisherman knows about trout fees or stamps in other states and most that live in Ohio regularly buy one in Michigan every year too. Most would also happily pay it to see improvement in the fishery or access. They are most likely gonna have to rethink the stamp or fee issue moving into the future anyway because of inflation , too bad they cant just do it now.


----------



## creekcrawler

I's rather kick in extra monies for sturgeon stocking.

Too many steelies already. . . . . ..


----------



## monkfish

yonderfishin said:


> I wonder why Ohio dont have a trout stamp option like many other states do ? It makes perfect sense , and that money could go right into river access projects.


Because we have the most inept and corrupt politicians in the country. I'd pay extra too.


----------



## FISHIN216

I sure would pay an extra $5 for more steelhead , but browns would be a waste to stock I've been told.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## yonderfishin

Steel Cranium said:


> Ohio has always tried to keep things simple. While neighboring states like PA and MI provide many pages of seasonal closings and limits, Ohio hasn't had a seasonal closing/limit until recently when implementing seasonal keep limits on Lake Erie black bass. Prior to the smallie protection, the only limitation on when you can fish in Ohio were a few rivers during the walleye spawn, where night fishing is prohibited.
> 
> Adding a stamp would just make the law officer's job a bit more difficult. We currently have quite a few folks fishing steelhead without a license. With a stamp, they would have to also worry about folks fishing with a license but without the stamp. Some understand the usefulness of an additional charge for a fishery, but many do not and would not purchase the stamp.





Simple fix really , when the officer checks licenses , you better have a trout stamp if you have any trout in your posession.


----------



## Steel Cranium

FISHIN216 said:


> I sure would pay an extra $5 for more steelhead , but browns would be a waste to stock I've been told.


Maybe the way they were stocked in the 80s it was a waste. They dumped the fish in Geneva harbor and wondered where they went. It would be nice to see a test where a stream or two received browns a bit further upstream in the late fall, when they would typically start heading back to the lake. Erie's different now than in the 80s as well. I would like to see some steelies replaced by browns to provide more fall run fish.


----------



## FISHIN216

I was told there not salmanoids so they do not have a run...they spawn wherever they want.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## firstflight111

no i would not pay more ... do you think if they put more fish in the lake you will get more fish on your line ahhh noooo ....

do something good with the money ..fix the ramp around the state better rest room ..a tie up dock away from the ramp...or clean up some of the streams ....then i would pay more ...


----------



## Jmsteele187

I'd pay an extra $5, or whatever a trout stamp would cost for that matter. However I think stocking of other species in inland lakes and reservoirs should see a lot of that extra money too. Here in northwest Ohio, we don't really have much good fishing at all. The maumee can be okay, and if you've got a boat, lake Erie. But all the inland lakes are very poor fishing most of the time.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## ShutUpNFish

I can think of a lot better areas a $5 donation could go than the steelhead program...therefore, my answer is NO. There are enough steelhead in the system as it is, too many really. Just my .02

PA does it with relative success? By dumping totally unatural numbers of unatural fish into the few little ditches/trickles that dump into Erie?? Creating headaches for locals and drawing huge crowds of idiots into the area of Erie....LOL Not to mention making every angler who fishes Erie waters pay for something not every Erie angler fishes for.....Have you taken a look at some of the launch areas in PA? Pathetic! You guys are lucky to have what you have thus far....up to this point, people with common sense running things rather than money hungry politicians with just a few agendas. Keep it simple boys....Careful what you wish for.

Think about it...stock more fish, get more access = promotion...add more crowds. You'd only be trying to create what we have here in PA...Is that really what you want to see in Ohio???


----------



## hookmeup

Sure I would be willing to pay more for my Ohio liscense to possibly gain further access and maybe increased enforcement.

I will take it a step furhter. Why isn't our out of state fee equivallent to our ajoining neighbors. Just saying . . . Notice all the out of state plates in our Alley access points grow yearly ?


----------



## thephildo0916

Very interesting points.


----------



## bereafish

I'd pay the $5.
Did they ever stock Cohos? Is it worth it?


----------



## yonderfishin

ShutUpNFish said:


> I can think of a lot better areas a $5 donation could go than the steelhead program...therefore, my answer is NO. There are enough steelhead in the system as it is, too many really. Just my .02
> 
> PA does it with relative success? By dumping totally unatural numbers of unatural fish into the few little ditches/trickles that dump into Erie?? Creating headaches for locals and drawing huge crowds of idiots into the area of Erie....LOL Not to mention making every angler who fishes Erie waters pay for something not every Erie angler fishes for.....Have you taken a look at some of the launch areas in PA? Pathetic! You guys are lucky to have what you have thus far....up to this point, people with common sense running things rather than money hungry politicians with just a few agendas. Keep it simple boys....Careful what you wish for.
> 
> Think about it...stock more fish, get more access = promotion...add more crowds. You'd only be trying to create what we have here in PA...Is that really what you want to see in Ohio???




On the other side of that coin , from what I can tell , Pa. also has more opportunity for a larger number of residents. That cant be a bad thing , compared to Ohio only having limited opportunity and mostly just for those who happen to live in the northeast portion of the state and a few who are able to take a trip to that area. Sure the crowds and all could be a pain , but increased sales for local business and licenses to the state could be a real boost to the economy. 

Concerns about access for fishermen and restrictive property laws would also be more likely to be taken seriously by officials if a larger group in a more widespread area were bringing these concerns up vs. the "relatively" limited number of fishermen involved now. That could also cause extra problems in its own right , but the more voices fishermen have on their side the more officials would take note. Just a thought , not that discussing all this stuff on an internet forum would ever get the ball rolling toward change. When the time comes for the states to decide whether to pull the plug on , or deeply cut the program because of rising cost and a limited budget , more fishermen and even small business will be affected in Pa. and thus more of a voice to be heard in protest and votes. Your crowds in Pa. are probably a mixed blessing in a few ways.


----------



## yonderfishin

bereafish said:


> I'd pay the $5.
> Did they ever stock Cohos? Is it worth it?




From what Ive read , Ohio did stock salmon at one time but because salmon seek the deepest and coolest part of the lake , the extreme eastern section , way too many Ohio salmon were ending up being caught in Pa. instead of Ohio. Its not cost effective for one state to stock fish for another state. They had to stop the salmon stocking since it was a waste of money for Ohio anglers. I am not sure about brown trout , if they ever stocked them in Ohio or not , but if they did what the salmon do then it would not be cost effective to stock them either. Steelhead are more tolerant of warmer water than salmon are , so they are more reliable to stay or return to Ohio rivers than salmon.


----------



## yonderfishin

hookmeup said:


> Sure I would be willing to pay more for my Ohio liscense to possibly gain further access and maybe increased enforcement.
> 
> I will take it a step furhter. Why isn't our out of state fee equivallent to our ajoining neighbors. Just saying . . . Notice all the out of state plates in our Alley access points grow yearly ?



Ohio likes non resident anglers , they tend to spend money when they come here


----------



## ShutUpNFish

Ohio has about 10 times the tributaries that dump into the lake. As far as I see it, thats more opportunities for steelhead stream fishing. All depends on how well its all managed. I feel that a good balance in management, stocking and even private vs. public access is necessary for "most" anglers to be happy and the fishing to be optimum. Some need to click their clickers 30+ times a day to be happy, some are content with a few fish a day and others are just looking for solitude/scerenity. Thats why, IMO, a good balance is key. 

I say if it ain't broke don't fix it....I enjoy going to Ohio to fish...I'd much rather fish Ohio than PA to be honest with you. I've experienced both for many years now and I believe what you have there is dwindling with the growing popularity of the sport. Enjoy it while you can, I know I will, I don't care what the license fee in OH is.


----------



## yonderfishin

firstflight111 said:


> no i would not pay more ... do you think if they put more fish in the lake you will get more fish on your line ahhh noooo ....
> 
> do something good with the money ..fix the ramp around the state better rest room ..a tie up dock away from the ramp...or clean up some of the streams ....then i would pay more ...


It stands to reason that if they put more fish in the lake then more people "may" have a better chance in other rivers and streams other than just from the Rocky on east. An increased run up the Huron or the Black , with a few more fish might not be a bad thing , then you guys fishing the Rocky and Chagrin may have more room to yourselves sometimes. Of course that might also open up more opportunities for you to fish different areas if you wanted to. It is just theory though.


----------



## Steel Cranium

yonderfishin said:


> From what Ive read , Ohio did stock salmon at one time but because salmon seek the deepest and coolest part of the lake , the extreme eastern section , way too many Ohio salmon were ending up being caught in Pa. instead of Ohio. Its not cost effective for one state to stock fish for another state. They had to stop the salmon stocking since it was a waste of money for Ohio anglers. I am not sure about brown trout , if they ever stocked them in Ohio or not , but if they did what the salmon do then it would not be cost effective to stock them either. Steelhead are more tolerant of warmer water than salmon are , so they are more reliable to stay or return to Ohio rivers than salmon.


All states adjoining Erie stocked cohos and kings up to the 90s. I don't think Ohio's issue with the salmon was leaving the state for deeper waters - it was more about return percentages. Salmon were in the low single digits with a cap of three to five years. Steelies are still low but at least in double digit percentage with fish returning each year until the expire. Ohio quit stocking kings in the the 80s, replacing the numbers with london strain steelhead (footballs), then little manistees. Other states have quit stocking salmon more recently.

The browns are another story. Ohio stocked geneva harbor with browns for a few years. They didn't get expected returns so quit the program. The real reason for the low returns probably wasn't known = some thought that they headed east during the summer and just stayed over there (NY) to run their rivers while others thought that catches were being made in the harbor area by tight-lipped anglers that didn't contribute their success to the catch rate. Maybe somewhere between, since more browns are starting to show up in the chagrin and rocky each year. I don't think it would hurt to stock them in a river or two (rocky & chagrin) to monitor returns by fin clip or tag for a few years.

If you want to see what was stocked and when, check this website: http://www.glfc.org/fishstocking/rangesearch.htm

Some data is missing, but this gives you an idea of which states are stocking.


----------



## CARL510ISLE

Fishing is great; it's always human nature to think things can always be better. IMO, better is just a state of mind and some people are just never satisfied with just accepting and enjoying a day out on the water. Real good fishing is typically most enjoyed when it's not publicized or pimped out to the masses which is nearly impossible this day and age with all the instant information and media outlets available. 

People fish for different reasons and some never really understand what draws them to the water. I also believe there's a journey in the life of all that take to fishing and I think that's why many guys come and go as some of the "glory days" of their youth are now distant memories and they search for excuses and reasons as to why they may not be having as stellar of a fishing days as years past. The truth is there is no better day to fish than the day you go fishing as your blessed just to be there. 

Good steelhead fishing for most guys is typically timing related; a fresh run moving in on a drop in water to prime conditions - a no brainer. What I think separates the mob chasing perfect water and those that catch fish all the time is that the latter thinks outside the box and fishes all conditions and adapts successful methods relative to what the current conditions are.

Stocking more fish is just way too narrow minded thinking as far as believing that's what strictly leads to a great fishery. 

Enjoy what we do have day to day as nobody can forecast what the coming years will bring as far as size, quantity, crowds and all the good and bad in the future especially when dealing with a fishery that is very weather dependent and man made. All states stocking trout and salmon in the great lakes have their pros and cons with their programs and we're fortunate to live near them.


----------



## yonderfishin

Steel Cranium said:


> All states adjoining Erie stocked cohos and kings up to the 90s. I don't think Ohio's issue with the salmon was leaving the state for deeper waters - it was more about return percentages. Salmon were in the low single digits with a cap of three to five years. Steelies are still low but at least in double digit percentage with fish returning each year until the expire. Ohio quit stocking kings in the the 80s, replacing the numbers with london strain steelhead (footballs), then little manistees. Other states have quit stocking salmon more recently.
> 
> The browns are another story. Ohio stocked geneva harbor with browns for a few years. They didn't get expected returns so quit the program. The real reason for the low returns probably wasn't known = some thought that they headed east during the summer and just stayed over there (NY) to run their rivers while others thought that catches were being made in the harbor area by tight-lipped anglers that didn't contribute their success to the catch rate. Maybe somewhere between, since more browns are starting to show up in the chagrin and rocky each year. I don't think it would hurt to stock them in a river or two (rocky & chagrin) to monitor returns by fin clip or tag for a few years.
> 
> If you want to see what was stocked and when, check this website: http://www.glfc.org/fishstocking/rangesearch.htm
> 
> Some data is missing, but this gives you an idea of which states are stocking.




If I can find where I got the infomation on too many of the Oh salmon ending up in Pa I will post it on here but I was reading through a TON of stuff at the time so I dont know if I can find it. They had some way of tracking the Ohio stockers so they could identify them and all but a few wound up in Pa according to the article.


----------



## yonderfishin

Here ya go , not for arguement , but so peoples questions about the salmon can be answered I found this here:

http://ohioseagrant.osu.edu/discuss/index.php/topic,322.0.html


The whole page is good reading but speciffically:


First, please direct future questions/comments to the NEW SEA GRANT DISCUSSION BOARD SITE:

www.ohioseagrant.osu.edu/discuss

This site you are currently on is due to EXPIRE within just a few days.

In answer to your question/comments above------

The Ohio Coho Salmon stocking program was discontinued due to the fact that, although some coho were returning to Ohio tributaries where they were stocked, the majority were being caught by Pennsylvania and New York anglers.
Why?

Coho, unlike steelhead, prefer much colder, deeper depths in which to spend their summer months. These cold, deep habitats are found in Lake Erie's Eastern Basin------offshore of Pennsylvana and New York.
Theoretically, stocked salmon are SUPPOSE to return to tributaries where they were released. Yes, Ohio did drip an imprint chemical into these tributaries during stocking AND in the fall for the fish to identify and return to.

However, as they were concentrating in the Eastern Basin, most chose to migrate into any river or stream entering the lake once they moved shoreward in their spawning run.
Hence, Ohio dollars were paying for the pleasure of Pa. and NY anglers.
Tagging and fin clip studies done by our DOW, compared with creel checks from fish checked by creel clerks in Pa and NY provided the definite proof.

Our ODNR/DOW made the wise decision to NOT use Ohio sportsman dollars to stock a salmonid where the majority were being caught outside of Ohio. Instead, they decided to put these dollars into stocking steelhead; a salmonid which can withstand warmer summer waters and, through tagging studies, had shown excellent returns to Ohio tributaries.

Consequently, Ohio's steelhead stocking program has become a major success. Not only are anglers able to enjoy stream-run steelhead angling from virtually late October through late April, but are also enjoying great offshore trolling during the summer months for the so-called "silver bullet".

Ohio has increased the number of steelhead being stocked (now at 450K) and actually began stocking the popular Vermilion River a couple of years ago in addition to the Rocky, Chagrin, Grand and Conneaut Creek. Certainly, the best steelhead runs can be found in the tributaries where stocking occured. However, anglers are also experiencing great steelhead fishing in virtually any tributary, creek or river from Huron east. The Cuyahoga and Black rivers are good examples of this.

End the steelhead stocking program? Highly doubtful.

A study done by The Ohio State University, Ohio Sea Grant Program during 2002-2003 of Ohio tributary steelhead anglers revealed that DIRECT angler expenditures far exceeded the cost of annual stocking; a definite eco-tourism impact for Ohio's North Coast. During this study, many anglers commented on how Ohio's steelhead angling opportunity far exceeds other Great Lakes states, and even the Pacific Northwest.

Ohio's ODNR/DOW has done an excellent job in providing angling opportunity for a great Lake Erie trophy fish, the steelhead----a major success story.

Hopefully you will take advantage of this opportunity this fall, winter and spring---and steelhead are already in tributary streams and rivers.

David Kelch, Ohio Sea Grant


----------



## yonderfishin

Does Pa. or N.Y. or even Canada stock salmon in Erie these days ?


----------



## yonderfishin

yonderfishin said:


> On the other side of that coin , from what I can tell , Pa. also has more opportunity for a larger number of residents. That cant be a bad thing , compared to Ohio only having limited opportunity and mostly just for those who happen to live in the northeast portion of the state and a few who are able to take a trip to that area. Sure the crowds and all could be a pain , but increased sales for local business and licenses to the state could be a real boost to the economy.
> 
> Concerns about access for fishermen and restrictive property laws would also be more likely to be taken seriously by officials if a larger group in a more widespread area were bringing these concerns up vs. the "relatively" limited number of fishermen involved now. That could also cause extra problems in its own right , but the more voices fishermen have on their side the more officials would take note. Just a thought , not that discussing all this stuff on an internet forum would ever get the ball rolling toward change. When the time comes for the states to decide whether to pull the plug on , or deeply cut the program because of rising cost and a limited budget , more fishermen and even small business will be affected in Pa. and thus more of a voice to be heard in protest and votes. Your crowds in Pa. are probably a mixed blessing in a few ways.




Correction: I was wrong , Ohio has more access and opportunity than Pa. , I dont know what I was thinkin


----------



## ShutUpNFish

CARL510ISLE said:


> Fishing is great; it's always human nature to think things can always be better. IMO, better is just a state of mind and some people are just never satisfied with just accepting and enjoying a day out on the water. Real good fishing is typically most enjoyed when it's not publicized or pimped out to the masses which is nearly impossible this day and age with all the instant information and media outlets available.
> 
> People fish for different reasons and some never really understand what draws them to the water. I also believe there's a journey in the life of all that take to fishing and I think that's why many guys come and go as some of the "glory days" of their youth are now distant memories and they search for excuses and reasons as to why they may not be having as stellar of a fishing days as years past. The truth is there is no better day to fish than the day you go fishing as your blessed just to be there.
> 
> Good steelhead fishing for most guys is typically timing related; a fresh run moving in on a drop in water to prime conditions - a no brainer. What I think separates the mob chasing perfect water and those that catch fish all the time is that the latter thinks outside the box and fishes all conditions and adapts successful methods relative to what the current conditions are.
> 
> Stocking more fish is just way too narrow minded thinking as far as believing that's what strictly leads to a great fishery.
> 
> Enjoy what we do have day to day as nobody can forecast what the coming years will bring as far as size, quantity, crowds and all the good and bad in the future especially when dealing with a fishery that is very weather dependent and man made. All states stocking trout and salmon in the great lakes have their pros and cons with their programs and we're fortunate to live near them.


WOW! Best read I've had the fortune to read on a forum in years! Well said...


----------



## Steel Cranium

yonderfishin said:


> Does Pa. or N.Y. or even Canada stock salmon in Erie these days ?


I don't think any state is stocking salmon into Erie anymore. Everyone probably feels that putting the better returning steelhead are a better investment along with browns on the east end.

That's a lot of good stocking info. The fish staying east probably was the greatest contribution to the low return numbers. Erie probably has the issue with salmonids heading and staying east except for the steelhead, which like to summer in the north end of the central basin. The few salmon that do show up are probably natural reproduction from Canadian streams or coming in from Huron. There was a period in the early 1990s where some pink salmon were showing up in even numbered years although never stocked in Erie. At that time, the only stocking was in Superior.


----------



## BassSlayerChris

Yes sir I would!


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## reo

No, I would not. Ohio stocks enough fish now but access could be improved.

I always get a kick out of the "we should stock more streams" plea. Like these fish actually imprint to a stream in the couple of weeks (at most) they are actually in the stream as opposed to the 1+ year they would be in the stream under natural conditions. LOL


----------



## Mepps3

Bwana J said:


> I'm all for the $5.00 fee as long as its earmarked for the Steelhead program. Ohio stocks plenty of Steelhead and I feel that the money could be used for gaining more access points on the streams. All of us get alot out of the Steelhead program and this would be one way for us to give a little back and improve the program at the same time.



Conneaut river has no real access. Still don't understand why it is stocked. Those fish should be stocked in other rivers.


----------



## Govbarney

I'd pay an extra $5 for a trout stamp, But I don't think more smolts are needed, I think the habitat needs to be improved so the smolts have a better shot at survival. First thing that needs to happen is the removal of more dams. That's something I'd gladly pay a higher tax for, and it would benefit all species, not just the non- native trout. 


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## PARK92

i couldnt imagine having a steelhead run on the maumee river. look at the walleye run and how many people come and crowd the river. on any given day during the spring run you might be standing next to a guy from kentucky, indianna, michigan, illinois, and one year an entire family from romania. i think the steelhead would do the same thing and i dont think thats needed.


----------



## firstflight111

yonderfishin said:


> It stands to reason that if they put more fish in the lake then more people "may" have a better chance in other rivers and streams other than just from the Rocky on east. An increased run up the Huron or the Black , with a few more fish might not be a bad thing , then you guys fishing the Rocky and Chagrin may have more room to yourselves sometimes. Of course that might also open up more opportunities for you to fish different areas if you wanted to. It is just theory though.


there's steelhead from conny to the black river that i know of ..never fished past that for them and my buddy crushes them at avon point all winter long .. i have been in all of them and got steelhead out of the all .....


----------



## Bwana J

Mepps3 said:


> Conneaut river has no real access. Still don't understand why it is stocked. Those fish should be stocked in other rivers.


Pa stocks Connie as well as Ohio. If your willing to do some homework and some legwork you can get landowner permission to fish many areas on Connie. This is the stream I was thinking about when I talked about using the extra money to gain access points. Fish Management has done a fantastic job bringing this species to the Lake Erie tribs and I'm not going to second guess which streams to stock or not stock. It would be nice to see some Public access points open up on Connie but with a little work talking to Landowners you can fish it any time you want.


----------



## rutnut245

PARK92 said:


> i couldnt imagine having a steelhead run on the maumee river. look at the walleye run and how many people come and crowd the river. on any given day during the spring run you might be standing next to a guy from kentucky, indianna, michigan, illinois, and one year an entire family from romania. i think the steelhead would do the same thing and i dont think thats needed.


I think steelhead in the Maumee would be a great idea. You can't actually believe steelhead would draw the same huge crowds as walleye. I think that would be highly unlikely. And why is that such a bad thing to begin with ? It sure pumps a lot of money in the local economy and there are miles of river to fish with plenty of access.


----------



## fishingfoolBG

Hell, I'd love to pay 24 bucks for a YEAR, in New Mexico its 25 bucks plus they add on a habitat stamp which is $5 and habitat management and access for another 4 bucks and if you want to fish with a second rod its another 5, which equals out to 40 bucks....

Well the more I think about it, there is 3x more people in Ohio then NM, I feel adding a 5 dollar trout stamp will just improve a great steelhead fishery.


----------



## steelheadBob

Bwana J said:


> Pa stocks Connie as well as Ohio. If your willing to do some homework and some legwork you can get landowner permission to fish many areas on Connie. This is the stream I was thinking about when I talked about using the extra money to gain access points. Fish Management has done a fantastic job bringing this species to the Lake Erie tribs and I'm not going to second guess which streams to stock or not stock. It would be nice to see some Public access points open up on Connie but with a little work talking to Landowners you can fish it any time you want.


the problem with conny is that there is a certain guide/person who is buying up alot of fishable water on ash,conny and p.a. rivers. conny land owners are just like the owners on the chag, you ask and 99% of them will tell you,,,,, well if i let you, then people will see you fish and think they can.... I had alot of property to fish on chagrin and conny that was private,,,, but people not paying attention to the no tresspass signs,,,, well kinda ruind that for people asking for perm!!! Im with Mepps on that one!


----------



## fredg53

steelheadBob said:


> the problem with conny is that there is a certain guide/person who is buying up alot of fishable water on ash,conny and p.a. rivers. conny land owners are just like the owners on the chag, you ask and 99% of them will tell you,,,,, well if i let you, then people will see you fish and think they can.... I had alot of property to fish on chagrin and conny that was private,,,, but people not paying attention to the no tresspass signs,,,, well kinda ruind that for people asking for perm!!! Im with Mepps on that one!


As a property owner on the shag ur right on i quit invite a while ago more uninvited showed up 

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## creekcrawler

Seems to me, part of the problems with land access were brought about by the higher stocking numbers.


----------



## ShutUpNFish

Yep, exactly...If the state plans on higher stocking, they should also plan on trying to buy up more access points for fishermen. If Donny B. is buying up properties, then properties must be available right?

Money Talks!!


----------



## Bwana J

steelheadBob said:


> the problem with conny is that there is a certain guide/person who is buying up alot of fishable water on ash,conny and p.a. rivers. conny land owners are just like the owners on the chag, you ask and 99% of them will tell you,,,,, well if i let you, then people will see you fish and think they can.... I had alot of property to fish on chagrin and conny that was private,,,, but people not paying attention to the no tresspass signs,,,, well kinda ruind that for people asking for perm!!! Im with Mepps on that one!


I do agree with you about the illegal tresspass problem. It has cost many miles of once accessable river property to be lost. Mabe what we need first is more enforcement help stop this issue and mabe the fines paid by the guilty party's could be set aside to help secure river access points. Let the bad guys pay for it. 

I do disagree with ending the stockings on Connie. We need more miles of steelhead waters, not less. I don't pretend to know all the answers but do agree that something needs to be done.


----------



## Mepps3

Those signs were pulled over a year ago on Connie...Donny B. went belly up from what I read.

http://midcurrent.com/2011/09/21/well-known-private-colorado-angling-club-files-for-bankruptcy/


----------



## CARL510ISLE

SRC is the one that leases on Lake Erie tribs, sure sounds like it's still above water.


----------

