# Are we to blame?



## BHAPPY (Feb 10, 2008)

Don't know if everyone saw this in the Plain Dealer Friday....
But Im sure there has to be better ways to help the fishery than to reduce bag limits....

http://www.cleveland.com/outdoors/index.ssf/2009/07/outdoor_notes_walleye_limit_oc.html


----------



## K gonefishin (May 4, 2004)

yep sorry I caught them all, along with Het and Blue Dolphin, once again sorry. 

No it's poor hatches and commercial fishing thieves to blame. I actually think there are way way more than 15 mil in Erie


----------



## Lou (Jul 23, 2005)

Here's a good write-up:
http://www.ohiogameandfish.com/fishing/walleyes-fishing/OH_0309_02/index.html


----------



## freyedknot (Apr 10, 2004)

if they cut the walleye limit ,there will not be a need for 3 rods per man?


----------



## bad luck (Apr 9, 2009)

why not close the snaggin---errr---spawing season? We all people snagging these things at the Berlin causeway, milton, and all over the reefs/rivers at Erie...and think how many get snagged that people dont see......every other state around us closes it.....what makes odnr think their so much smarter than everybody else.....couldn't have anything to do with money though????


----------



## wave warrior (Oct 2, 2005)

well if it were lowered i might be able to get a limit!


----------



## rattletraprex (Sep 1, 2005)

bad luck said:


> why not close the snaggin---errr---spawing season? We all people snagging these things at the Berlin causeway, milton, and all over the reefs/rivers at Erie...and think how many get snagged that people dont see......every other state around us closes it.....what makes odnr think their so much smarter than everybody else.....couldn't have anything to do with money though????


This has been discussed here many times so won't go there. Think ODNR is smarter then the average bear so we'll see what their take on it is next year. Just ban Kgonefishing,Het and Blue Dolphin problem solved! Have to agree about the nets being one of the problems so hopefully they address that when they consider everything. Think most here would be for a lower limit if that's what it took but don't think that is the case. Sure know I haven't hurt it to much. If we're lucky enough to get our limit they go on ice and everything else is released carefully.


----------



## B Thomas (Jan 21, 2005)

this is pounded how many times a year??? I think there is too much money brought into Pt Clinton/Reef area to close the spawn down. Not only that, the FLW brings a TON of money to town and they are here generally in April.

Didnt the studies show that 80-90% of the fish spawn on the reefs and the rivers only house a small percent?? Also arent most of the Maumee River spawners from St Clair/Detroit River? They say you cant hurt the fish by rod and reel so I think it only makes sense to do something about the gill netters north of the border.


----------



## Alaskan (Jun 19, 2007)

You know what, I get tired of hearing this year in and year out. I don't take much of their concerns for "reductions" seriously, as if I feel I should be supportive of it. I've seen the nets in Ontario waters for decades.....the miles of them east of Pelee. I've witnessed questionable circumstances or appearances at the border at wee hours of the AM on my way to Pelee and other Canadian haunts and what the net boats are up to. When the folks in power come up with a way to regulate fairly the commercial business, I may lend this issue an ear of concern. But when "representation from" our side continually says it's an agreement between different bodies on the harvest and continually put US in the position to give in....they will never have my support.


----------



## Lou (Jul 23, 2005)

Guy's, it's simple to enact but less simple to enforce.

Every harvested pre-spawn or spawn female walleye represents 250,000-400,000 fish taken out of the ecosystem (not including predation rates).
Any regulation should be aimed at the females, both commercial and public.

As far as the snaggers go, we should be required to wear a fishing tag with a number on it (like the hunters) so that sportsmen can give law enforcement some kind of referance information and the fines should be trippled.


----------



## LEfriend (Jun 14, 2009)

Ohio can't do anything about the netting north of border in Canadian waters. Each state gets a quota..I assume based on the water area in that state. Ohio chooses to harvest it's walleye by sportfishing, Canada theirs by commercial fishing. I don't agree with them but that is their choice. I know some of the Lake Erie fish managers personally and have worked with them...they are hard working, smart, dedicated people who do the best they can to protect and perpetuate the fine fisher resource we enjoy. It isn't easy to manage a moving resource that crosses two countries and 3 states. The Great Lakes fisheries committee structure they have has been a success story. If you really want to do something to improve the fishing, write your Congressman to pass ballast water legislation so we bring in no more gobies, zebra mussels, or white perch....


----------



## Lundy (Apr 5, 2004)

Lou said:


> Guy's, it's simple to enact but less simple to enforce.
> 
> Every harvested pre-spawn or spawn female walleye represents 250,000-400,000 fish taken out of the ecosystem (not including predation rates).
> Any regulation should be aimed at the females, both commercial and public.


That is simply not true, not in a non controlled environment anyway.

The success of a particular years hatch has everything to do with viability and survivability of the eggs and young and nothing to do with the number of eggs laid once a minimum threshold is reached..

To use your assertion that each female represents on the low end 250,000 fish taken out of the ecosystem then for a very successful hatch only 140 female would be needed to create a 35 million fish hatch. 

If there are 15 million walleye in the lake, pick a number of 40% are female of breeding age and we use your 250,000 low end number. The resulting 6,000,000 walleye would generate 300,000,000,000 young. I don't even know what that number is, it looks like our national debt, and neither would be sustainable

One of the largest successful hatches ever on lake Erie was 2003, with one of the smallest populations of walleye in the lake in 25 years.


----------



## Lou (Jul 23, 2005)

Lundy said:


> The success of a particular years hatch has everything to do with viability and survivability of the eggs and young and nothing to do with the number of eggs laid once a minimum threshold is reached..


I thought I qualified that by the *"(not including predation rates)"* part?


----------



## Alaskan (Jun 19, 2007)

Until they (our folks)start doing some political arm twisting on the commercial fishing and lack of enforcement (commercial and recreational), they will get what is negotiated, or should I say not negotiated. It is no secret that Ontario enforcement has been and still is a joke, recreational or commercial. 

The mentality that "we can't control them" is the same deaf ear attitude used in the flyway council on waterfowl. The US takes the brunt of reductions in harvest . Bluebill numbers decline....our limits get reduced to 2...they still shoot six in ontario. Canvasback numbers decline....we shoot one or none....they shoot 4. We have a reduced bag of mallard and a stipulation of one hen. They can fill their bags with hens. The US flyway guys say, hey, we cannot control them. So they do absolutely nothing. It's the same attitude that the ministry of Ontario has with the indians on Wapole. Fish, ducks...it doesn't matter. Their idea of addressing problems is staging a few "busts" as folks leave the reservation. It makes for nice news clippings...that's about all. 

Until the ministry in Ontario takes conservation seriously and actually enforces current laws.....I will not entertain the notion that we on the US side are the problem for declines in the populations of game and fish. I don't care how smart the people on our side think they are (which is quite subjective when you look at their handling of the commorant problem). With no cooperation on the other side, it is well past due to begin politically twisting the arms of the Ontario authorities. Don't tell me they can't do it. Canada depends on us for a lot of things. It wouldn't take much to get their attention.


----------



## Lou (Jul 23, 2005)

Lundy, it would be great if we could control the weather but we can't. Favorable spring weather condition was a prime factor in 2003.
So we need to stay within the realm of what is within our capacity to control.


----------



## B Thomas (Jan 21, 2005)

not to start an argument but from what I remember we had ice for a long time in the spring of 2003 and weather during the spawn wasnt what they referred to as a "textbook" one for a great hatch.

If you refer to a prespawn female and taking it out of the system only in the spring and making a negative impact then dont keep them all summer. If you take a female out of the system either in the summer, fall, winter or spring you are taking her out of the system, eventually she will be loaded with eggs even if she isnt when you throw her in the livewell. That argument is nuts!

Lets be real, the days of getting 50 fish in 3 hours are not as often in 09 so everyone is in a panic.


----------



## K gonefishin (May 4, 2004)

rattletraprex said:


> This has been discussed here many times so won't go there. Think ODNR is smarter then the average bear so we'll see what their take on it is next year. Just ban Kgonefishing,Het and Blue Dolphin problem solved! Have to agree about the nets being one of the problems so hopefully they address that when they consider everything. Think most here would be for a lower limit if that's what it took but don't think that is the case. Sure know I haven't hurt it to much. If we're lucky enough to get our limit they go on ice and everything else is released carefully.


Anyone wanna buy 2 new Rangers and a Starcraft...or we need to start bass fishing, I'll quit fishing before I do that.


----------



## rattletraprex (Sep 1, 2005)

K gonefishin said:


> Anyone wanna buy 2 new Rangers and a Starcraft...or we need to start bass fishing, I'll quit fishing before I do that.


Should have made my IF bigger. Don't think lowering what you can keep is going to help so don't see that as an option. Just stating most would do whatever was necessary to continue to have a good population of fish. I see it as having a negative impact. Don't mind what is set now and don't see them changing it. Don't think you will have to sell your boats.


----------



## Lou (Jul 23, 2005)

Brian said:


> If you refer to a prespawn female and taking it out of the system only in the spring and making a negative impact then dont keep them all summer. If you take a female out of the system either in the summer, fall, winter or spring you are taking her out of the system, eventually she will be loaded with eggs even if she isnt when you throw her in the livewell.


Brian, I got thick skin so the argument/debate is more than welcome. That's the only way things begin to get done.
IMHO, all the female walleye throughout the summer and fall are fair game. However, IF there is really a problem (or should one ever arise) something should be in place to protect those females who have made it to the next spawning seasonas they are the ones that represent the future of the fishery.
There has to be a compromise somewhere. You can't just come out and say that all female fish need to be released.
So I agree with you, that would be nuts! Not even Minnesota does that.
We fishermen (both public and commercial) have the greatest impact on the fishery and we can impact it for good or bad.
Here's hoping we impact it for good.


----------



## Rippin Lips (Jun 12, 2009)

The major problem is canadian gill nets they kill every thing caught in them ,and they only keep 18-24 inch fish.Every thing else they kill goes back in the water.There quote is only on what they keep.If I remember correctly this year there quote is a few million pounds.:T


----------



## HappySnag (Dec 20, 2007)

Are we to blame? -NO.
if you wonet to do something you need a plan.How you make a plan you give yourself quastion what is known and than you look for what is unknown.How much sport fishermen spend to get 1lb walleye and how much comercial fisherman with netc spend to get 1lb walleye.Every year we know how many lb was harvested,the comercial fisherman has to bee converted to charter fishing if he wonet to suport his familie,we have quota how many lb comercial fisherman can harvest,that mean if charter and sport fisherman cach limit he has option to sell the fish to charter and he sales to fish market,comercial net fisherman shold be eligel,who destroyed fishing in Great Lakes-comercial fisherman becose of profit whoo destroied fishing in ocean ?ODNR should run Lake Erie managment and oversee Canada ,if Canada do not agree Stop shiping walleye from Canada,Few years back comercial fisherman in Sundusky bay strech 3/4 mile net thrue spawning season,the eyes were pushing to spawn they hit the net and try to go throo,they fait the net till they dayd,guy from eroplane report that to Odnr they went there and picked up few pick up trucks of eyes and donate them to free food bank and nothing hapen to comercial fisherman he did not do anithing wrong even when he kiled few thousend eyes around 30" long,if we wonet to protect spawning fish that is not in river where they spawn but all year around,you have to protect prime spawning fish by size limit if that is 18"to24" only feemaile,sport fisherman suport population eye more than comercial fisherman and comercial fisherman has wright to harvest more fish for hes own profit,sport fisherman do not make profit from fish.
SRY-for speling

snag


----------



## ParmaBass (Apr 11, 2004)

wave warrior said:


> well if it were lowered i might be able to get a limit!


This sounds like someone I would say too!!


----------



## HappySnag (Dec 20, 2007)

reroc 
Odnr should Videotape every time gill net is pull out for year from Lake Erie ,it should be on tape than you can know the thrue what is harvest and what is kill,

snag


----------



## duckman (Sep 18, 2004)

So in 2006, we were being told that there were 40 million plus walleye in Erie. Ohio fishermen take an ODNR estimated 2 million a year.

So where did *40 million *fish go?

How did we in 3 years go from 40 to 15 million when we had slightly below average hatches (overall in the last 6 years) of 10 to 12 million a year recruitment is considered average. Say for arguments sake we added 6 million a year

*Someone explain this to me because it is not adding up!* ... 

http://ohioseagrant.osu.edu/discuss/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1075.0;attach=115


*1*
Either someone's sampling model was wrong in 2003 or someone is getting poor sample data now and feeding it into a model that is wrong.


*2*
If what you are doing isn't working you need to do something different

So No from what I know right now


----------



## B Thomas (Jan 21, 2005)

Maybe the same folks that are doing the Walleye estimates are the same ones predicting the wave-wind forecasts?


----------



## Hetfieldinn (May 17, 2004)

duckman said:


> So in 2006, we were being told that there were 40 million plus walleye in Erie. Ohio fishermen take an ODNR estimated 2 million a year.
> 
> So where did *40 million *fish go?
> 
> How did we in 3 years go from 40 to 15 million when we had slightly below average hatches (overall in the last 6 years) of 10 to 12 million a year recruitment is considered average. Say for arguments sake we added 6 million a year



I agree. In 2007, they claimed that there were 42.5 million adult walleye (over two years old) swimming in the lake. Where did all the fish go?

On another note, I have been catching a lot of 12-17" fish this season.


----------



## ErieEye (Jul 16, 2007)

B Thomas, Amen brother.


----------



## K gonefishin (May 4, 2004)

I fish Erie ALOT, not as much as some guys but I'm out there a fair share for having a full time job and a real life outside of fishing and I have to say...I don't think these "numbers" guys have a real handle on how many walleye are truly swimming around in Lake Erie based on a couple nets they pull once or twice a year in the same spots at the same time of year every year. I agree with Duckman, someone has some explainin to do. If we have 15 million walleye in lake erie that is what we had in Erie before the 03 hatch and fishing blew the schools we are running into out there right now are sick huge and ALL over the lake not just in annual migration.


----------



## JonathanShoemaker (Dec 11, 2007)

Hi everyone. Our problem is not the weather, although evironmental conditions do assist the mortality rates on any hatch. Our problem isn't even the Canadians....although they aren't helping with the gillnets.
The MOST IMPORTANT negative impact to our native game fish such as walleye, smallmouth, and perch is the gradual degradation of the environment they live in due to invasive species. There is only so much bait and prime spawning habitat in Lake Erie to hold its entire biomass. As each new species gets added such as zebra mussels, white perch, quagga mussels, Eurasian milfoil, lamprey eels, and goby's something has to give in the cycle of life in the lake. True are native species are capable of adapting, but fish are supposed to adapt and evolve over hundreds or thousands of years, not decades. I won't bore everyone with the details of how each invasive specie has affected the walleye population.
With this said, I think our own bureaucratic conservation agencies are letting us down. THEY are the ones that help get laws made. It wasn't Sen. Sherrod Brown's idea to come up with a bill in Ohio's government to eliminate all perch commercial fishing last year. It was the enforcement agency from the ODNR that helped write the bills that get voted on by our politicians. Only after the governmental agencies propose GOOD IDEAS of how to change a problem can everyday people call their Sen. or Rep. and ask for a certain vote.
I realize the Lake Erie Commission is set up between two countries and four states, but each state has an opportunity to push others into action. Our states together can put pressure on Canada because they need our votes to make certain things happen--like fish quotas.
The ODNR and other bureaucracies involved need to apply their great lobbying power and government appropriated grants to figure out ways to stop the flow of invasive species. Its not as simple as saying no more ocean freighters can dump their bilge waters into Lake Erie. Currently, that would eliminate an entire industry. The government shouldn't have the power to shut down an entire economic industry, but how about finding a way to stop a billion dollar problem that affects millions of people-fishermen, property owners, and bait store owners. Instead of trying to track a walleye this summer how about you allocate funds to find a new substance that freighter captains can justify to clean their bilge water of invasive species.
Everyone who cares and is concerned about our fluctuating and VERY FRAGILE walleye population should call the ODNR Fisheries Units in Sandusky/Fairport Harbor, The Lake Erie Commission 419-245-2514, and The Great Lakes Commission 734-971-9135. DEMAND from these agencies something be done or you'll likely see limits down to three or four fish sooner than later. 
On the topic of fish quotas, "I THINK", Canada gets as many fish allocated as the states do every year. The difference is their GILLNETS always reach their quotas, while fishermen NEVER do in the states. For those of you who don't trust the enforcement of the Canadians I have done research (interviews), and they are getting better; but a simple solution is available and ignored. PUT CAMERAS ON THEIR BOATS. I've suggested and been laughed at about that topic with individuals on the US side of the bureaucratic chain.
You want to be involved and stand up here's your chance to help stabilize our walleye fishery. Once the greatest in America, we might not be able to say that for very long.
Forums like this makes America and assembly great!
Good Fishing to Everyone,
Jonathan Shoemaker


----------



## Lou (Jul 23, 2005)

Are there any numbers estimates that show how many fish the commercial fishermen take?


----------



## LEfriend (Jun 14, 2009)

_*Where did they go and are there numbers?*_....Indeed 4 years ago there were actually more than 40 million...in 2005 there were almost 58 million reported. For complete report of data see the Great Lakes Fishery Commission Lake Erie Walleye Task Force Reports http://www.glfc.org/lakecom/lec/WTG.htm 

It's all there in the reports, it's transparent, comprehensive, scientific, and these folks continually try to improve what they are doing. Click on the publications link and the 2009 report... http://www.glfc.org/lakecom/lec/WTG_docs/annual_reports/WTG_report_2009.pdf If you really want to have a responsible discussion, study the numbers. It is interesting reading.

As to *where did they go?* Easy. They died and weren't replaced. See tables 8 and 9. The 2004, 05, and 06 spawns were mostly busts. The fish don't live forever (kinda like us). They are either caught or die from natural causes. Fig 7 shows most of the walleye in the lake are now 5 plus years old. Again, it's the spawning stupid, and we desperately need the fall trawls to confirm a good hatch. (As to the accuracy of the trawls, take the time to compare trawl reports for the various years, to the harvest and fishing success in subsequent years. Over the years the correlation has been very good.)

One other interesting tidbit for those on the gill net bandwagon...Figure 3 and Table 3 both show the total feet of gill nets in the past seven years has averaged only 1/3 amount of what it was in the 90's when the fishing was the best.

Again, can't emphasize enough the effect of the bad spawn years and we all should be keeping our fingers crossed for a good hatch report this fall. Unfortunately... my memory of this spring is too many bad storms and rough muddy water....not what you what for prime spawning season....


----------



## Lou K (Aug 30, 2007)

I'm not sure this will be well liked (and I want to make sure that everyone knows that I am not blaming any single group), but here it goes...I know charter boats that run 2 trips every day with 2 boats, and some days especially in the spring in the WBasin they run 3 trips with two boats...Depending on the weather, they fish 15-20 days April, 20-25 days May, 25-30 days June/July/Aug/Sep and 15-20 days October, November 5-10 days...that's 150 days of fishing, so if they run triple trips for 25 days and double trips 50 days that is 225 trips/boat for 450 trips from one business...that equates to about 10,000-15,000 fish per year taken.

My question is this...would it be adviseable to have charters only be allowed to take 1 trip/boat/day? That in turn will help out the entire charter industry by spreading the customers around as well. You can't discontinue the river spawn, there are many people who don't own boats, and don't otherwise get an opportunity to fish for walleye except the spring run. You can't penalize their fishing rights and take away this season for them in my opinion. Daylight to Dark and 4 fish/day from the river spawn will not kill the walleye industry.

If the bag is lowered on the walleye, then everyone will be targeting their 4 walleye, and then trying to get their 30 perch to make up for a "shorted" trip then we will be down to a 20 per day bag on them. I don't know the answers to all of this, but I do know that just a few charter boats with double and triple trips can help get to the 2 Million allotted catch rate along with all the other anglers out there pretty quick each year.


----------



## Angler ss (May 15, 2008)

The big head boats and 6 pack charters are catching there share too.April through August = 22 weeks of fishing. If they fish 5 days per week = 110 days per year. Take 6 fisherman per trip X 6 eyes per fisherman = 36 fish per day x 110 days = 3960 fish per year x 3 pound average =11880 pounds per charter per year.How many chater boats fish the ohio shoreline? I agree the canadian gill nets should be stoped, it would be very easy pass a law that says canadian walleye can't be sold in the US and it would stop over night.I also think we need to put a limit on how many charter boat licenses we sell each year.Whats not commercial about the big charter boat business it's all about the all mighty DOLLAR


I must have read Lou's mind wrote the same thing at almost the same time.


----------



## Indian Summer (May 26, 2008)

In short, (LOL) I think another huge piece of the puzzle are the diseases/viruses such as the VHS that come here in the ballast water of foreign freighters. 

St. Clair has sure suffered several huge fish kills in the past couple years.


----------



## bigrog55 (Mar 17, 2008)

i read your article, and we are to blame! and these are the true reason's our walleye population is very low. #1 we river/lake fish in the spring run, we kill hundred's of thousand's of female walleye's that are full of egg's before they can spawn! not to mention how many females are caught thru the ice with egg's in them, not to mention the amount of walleye that are caught in the late fall that are just starting to load up with egg's.# 2 how many thousand's of pounds were the net fishing industry over in there 2007/2008 quota in the western basin alone! not to mention those who keep more then there limit of walleye, or when it's easy picking's in the spring go out for a second limit in the after noon!#3 we all have learned alot about walleye fishing in the last decade, due to pro's and avid fishermen sharing their walleye knowledge, trolling alone has become so popular, that everyone is doing it, because it produces walleye, and the amount of water being covered trolling increases the ratio of fish in the box.
My thoughts are to ban the keeping of female walleye's thru the ice, and the river/lake spawn,open season should start may 1st, and close the season october 31st for females only. And if you dont know if there female or male, throw them back. we can have plenty of fish from may thru october to feed our family's


----------



## duckman (Sep 18, 2004)

Folks these numbers are speculation and do not help... someone needs to show me some real scientific, empirical data behind this

This just doesn't pass the smell test ... if someone goofed on their numbers then they need to "man up" and say so ... Its time for an *audit* ... someone has been stuffing walleyes into an offshore acount

Seriously, the press needs to dig into this and get the facts from an independent source and publish the results. Please do not regurgitate the same results from the same people. Also, I am not just talking about Ohio and the US.

I know a couple of great writers read this forum .... (Hi Guys!)... lol... Time to get back to old school journalism and present the facts and just the facts without bias to provide the whole story which in this case is the health of the walleye fishery on the whole.


----------



## tambora (Jun 15, 2008)

Everyone is intitled to an opinion,I for one don,t think knee jerk reactions fix anything!Stopping commercial fishing for instance,give some thought to how many tons of what we call junk fish are hauled out of this lake every year.Now stop that completely & see how long it takes for the junk fish to take over!Some scientific facts is what I want to see before I,ll make my decision.Our dnr is mainly interested in what makes the most money.


----------



## rod bender bob (May 19, 2004)

bigrog55 said:


> i read your article, and we are to blame! and these are the true reason's our walleye population is very low. #1 we river/lake fish in the spring run, we kill hundred's of thousand's of female walleye's that are full of egg's before they can spawn! not to mention how many females are caught thru the ice with egg's in them, not to mention the amount of walleye that are caught in the late fall that are just starting to load up with egg's.# 2 how many thousand's of pounds were the net fishing industry over in there 2007/2008 quota in the western basin alone! not to mention those who keep more then there limit of walleye, or when it's easy picking's in the spring go out for a second limit in the after noon!#3 we all have learned alot about walleye fishing in the last decade, due to pro's and avid fishermen sharing their walleye knowledge, trolling alone has become so popular, that everyone is doing it, because it produces walleye, and the amount of water being covered trolling increases the ratio of fish in the box.
> My thoughts are to ban the keeping of female walleye's thru the ice, and the river/lake spawn,open season should start may 1st, and close the season october 31st for females only. And if you dont know if there female or male, throw them back. we can have plenty of fish from may thru october to feed our family's


Rog, You need to tell the biologists who spend their lives studying Erie your theories since they totally disagree with you. Ontario takes 2 million or more eyes EVERY YEAR. They never miss their quota, but I CAN'T remember the last time Ohio sportsfishermen took their quota? The big illegal net catch you refer to was PERCH and their numbers are OK. Guess that pokes another hole in your theory. Another really big problem with your theory is that THE VAST MAJORITY of eyes spawn in the lake and not the rivers so the small number taken during the river spawn is just that A SMALL NUMBER. Also it doesn't matter when you catch a female she is just as dead in the summer as she is in the spawn. And since I am sure you don't know a female unless she is full of eggs don't worry so much about it. We have plenty of females for the spawn we just need Mother Nature to do her part and give us a good hatch. She will, remember all of the whining and hand wringing in 2002? There are millions and millions of eyes in Erie including a lot of 13 to 15 inchers. One good spawn and we're back in business and and all the nay sayers will have to wait until the numbers drop again to write Erie's obituariary AGAIN!!!!! Of course I am sure that politics will once again prevail and they'll cut the limit again and save another 5,000 fish like they did when they cut March and April to 4 fish. But it will make Ontario cut their slaughter.


----------



## DancinBear (Apr 21, 2009)

I thinks it a little of both. The invasive species have clearly hurt the fish. But so have we. The ODNR should have protected this hatch like it was gold. Drop the limit to 4 not 6. Have a trophy limit of 1 fish over 27 inches allowed per man on the boat. Absolutly no fishing in the spring for the spawning fish. I mean thats common sense. I have a small lake myself and its rule 1 to leave the fish alone when they are spawning. I am not claiming to be a holier than thou type on this matter. I always follow he rules in place. i just think we should realize that we are not angels in this matter. Fishing is just going to get a little tough after this hatch is through.


----------



## MEISTERICS (May 15, 2006)

If you keep 12 4-6lb walleye's that will feed how many people? 12-18 persons?. So how many times a year do we all have to keep a limit? Going every weekend and taking a cooler seems to be quite excessive. 

We all play are part in this lake and just because the State lets you keep them does not mean you have to. Its a small peice but at least your contributing.

Netter's have limit's too. Canadian's are not exempt. I would prefere there were none. I guess we all should have made a bigger effort to get rid of them 2 years ago!

I favor:

CLOSED Season (jan-Late april/may). 
18 Inch size minimun(The 15inch fish are just becoming mature)
Quadrupaling the Fishing license fee's
Enforcing regulations.

Its YOUR lake and YOUR RESPONSIBILITY!


----------



## Alaskan (Jun 19, 2007)

My question with gil netters was not with how many, etc., but as pointed out, more concern with the overall lack of enforcement and or effort of enforcement. From observations on the north shore and north of the border, one cannot help but question who is really keeping them all in line. As I said before, enforcement is a joke in lower Ontario.


----------



## fishingguy (Jan 5, 2006)

I am starting to put the fish back. I might keep a couple 22''ers, but I don't feel the need to keep them all. I am not hurting for fish in the freezer. I havn't brought a fish home in the last 3 times out. Just having some fun. If your freezer is empty, by all means keep ''em''. But there is no need for us to be gluttons.


----------



## swantucky (Dec 21, 2004)

What cracks me is how selfish most of you guys are with regards to further regulations. I see few calling for rules that have any consequence to how _they_ fish. "Limit the charter boats", "shut down the gill netters", "close the rivers", "shut down the ice fishing" etc. 

I love how most here have all these great ideas as long as they don't effect _them_. You guys are priceless


----------



## Papascott (Apr 22, 2004)

swantucky said:


> what cracks me is how selfish most of you guys are with regards to further regulations. I see few calling for rules that have any consequence to how _they_ fish. "limit the charter boats", "shut down the gill netters", "close the rivers", "shut down the ice fishing" etc.
> 
> I love how most here have all these great ideas as long as they don't effect _them_. You guys are priceless


and absolutely no snagging of chinese dudes in the river!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## K gonefishin (May 4, 2004)

Papascott said:


> and absolutely no snagging of chinese dudes in the river!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Closed river seasons= Saving Wreg's one wreg at a time


----------



## crittergitter (Jun 9, 2005)

This thread is freakin hilarious. "The charters are running two trips a day" boohoo. "The river guys snag all of the femails" bohoo. "The commercial fishermen are jerks" booho. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa waaaaaaaaaaaa waaaaaaaaaaaaa. 

All of that took place in the 80's & 90's folks all day long! So what has changed? Ask yourself what is different about the lake from 1990 to today. Does it look different? Does it have different animals in it? Do you fish it today like you did back then? I remember when there was no bag limit on yellow perch. Now there is. Does anyone know why? I believe a previous post mentioned invasives, biomass and aquatic diversity. Go read that post and then re-read it.


----------



## Captain Kevin (Jun 24, 2006)

Ok, here is just a thought. Who said quit buying Canadian Walleye? You might be on the right track. How many guy's here have fished salt-water? What is one of the first things you see when your boat ties up after a trip? BUYERS! If we were allowed to sell at the docks, Walleye which were caught by LEGAL means, what impact would that have on the Canadian's? If you have fish in warehouses in Canada, and no market, I would think it would drive the netters out of business. The person who said the state should have treated the hatch of 03 like it was gold, All I can say is they did. Look at the fishing business along the lake the last couple years. From charters being booked, to tackle, ice, food, lodging, gas, boat sales, boat repair, and any other TAXABLE INCOME. The problem is the gold is in the government, and a select few other's pockets, not in the lake. Oh, and one other point, Maybe Canada isn't telling the truth about their real take.......not that anyone has lied about catch totals on Lake Erie or anything before


----------



## Captain Kevin (Jun 24, 2006)

One other point I'd like to make as to why we will never be allowed to sell direct to buyers at the dock is the state would have a hard time taxing it. They'd legalize prostitution if they could figure out a way to put an hour meter on one of those things.


----------



## BFG (Mar 29, 2006)

LMAO at this thread....


I still would like to be able to run three rods per person on the lake. Let me figure out if there are fish around or not.


----------



## Lundy (Apr 5, 2004)

I don't understand the the animosity towards the commercial fishing for walleye in Canada. I mean I can understand the emotional side of it for sure but have trouble understanding when you consider that Ohio doesn't own the lake or the fish in it.

Lake Erie is a shared resource, 4 states and one other country. Representatives of each all meet to allocate the resources. Ohio has the largest share of walleye allocated with Ontario being second, MI and PA are very small allotments.

Ohio does not own Lake Erie of the fish in it, it is shared. We elect to harvest(yes we have exceeded our TAC in Ohio before) our share of the allotment through sport fishing, Ontario takes their share through commercial fishing methods.

Are some of you really arrogant enough to try and tell another country how they must harvest their agreed allotment of walleye from a shared resource? Or would you have them harvest none?

They have a much right to those fish as anyone does and we should be very, very happy that they agree to *ANY* limitations on the walleye take each year.


----------



## Angler ss (May 15, 2008)

Ohio commercial fisherman can not catch walleye and sell them in Ohio so tell me why should the canadian fisherman be able to sell them in ohio? I don't want to tell them how to run there side of the lake I want to be fair if ohio law stops Ohio commercial fisherman from selling walleye it should also stop the canadian fisherman from selling in Ohio as well. If the canadians want to catch and sell in canada good for them. If we protect are side of the lake lets do what is in are power to protect walleye on the other side of the line also.
Angler ss


----------



## HappySnag (Dec 20, 2007)

if the comrcial fishermen are so anest why canada set ther gill net in ohio waters,they stell do not have GPS,few years back Odnr cut 5 boats Canada gil neter seting net in Ohio waters they were find $5000 all togeder,if guy snag fish he has to pay $100 how you compare that,if you fish in Canada and you have ilegal fish they cofiskate everithing why Odnr not confiskate Canadien boat and everithing,i think somebode is geting kik back,did you ever see anest politician only if money did not exist,if you can not trust big boat with belast create new job stop every boat and do that for them and charg them for that,that way thay can not scru up,1982 perch population was low next 3 years it came back and Canadian gil net reported 13 milion lb harvest that is 30 milion peses of perch and plus how many milion kiled in net and throw out,why they over harvest =profit,
Why Odnr does not aply for stimulus money from gavermant to fix existing hacheries all of them and if they can not bee fix build brand new ones and operate 100% capacity no exuses,why we avarded comercial fisherman and pay them 1/4 milion for there license,becose they were destroing the fishery how they got there licence at fist place for life,maybe they were merid to indians,no only lawyers ,judgis rip the money of sport fisherman,do whot is wright and wrong not what the money say,that is Canadien woter let them do what they wonet-if they dump poison in Lake Erie that would be ok,the woter is on there land and it do not belong to them and if they can not manage that we have to find who can manage that,they do only harvest=profit that is not management,how many walleye or perch they hach and relese,they operate like Comunist destroy everithing for profit,

snag


----------



## wakina (May 30, 2007)

How many adult spawning Walleyes were in the lake for each of the following years.2001,2002,2003,2004,2005,2006,2007,2008. Do the math, survival of the Little Eyes is what makes for large numbers and no way does the Gill Netters, Spring River fishermen or Spring reef fishermen contribute to the mortallity rate of Walleye fry, white perch do and so do gobies they are both voracious feeders, just ask any Western Basin Perch Fisherman about the white perch and gobies. The little eyes have to deal with them until they become large enough to discourage these predaters since they spend their fry to fingerling stage in the food rich waters of the Western Basin , add to that the number of fry eaten by perch, sheephead and whitebass, Factor in the weather and maybe you will have a better handle on what is really going on. We have had some pretty dry Junes the past 5 years and with out the rains to help load up the lake with nutriants from the run off, there is very little food for those little guys to eat. Of all the above mentioned years there has only been one good hatch even though we have had three to five times the numbers of adult spawners leading up to this year. Why haven't the 2003 class fish produced a massive hatch to date? It certaly wasn't because of a lack of adult spawners. Maybe we will get lucky and this will be their year!! Just seems to me that the blame is being placed on certain groups because the brood stock has shrank and all of a sudden its everyones fault. If you are really concerned about the number of adult beeders then lets get the legal length increased to 18" so they at least have a chance to spawn at least one time in their life.


----------



## Lundy (Apr 5, 2004)

HappySnag said:


> if the comrcial fishermen are so anest why canada set ther gill net in ohio waters,they stell do not have GPS,few years back Odnr cut 5 boats Canada gil neter seting net in Ohio waters they were find $5000 all togeder,if guy snag fish he has to pay $100 how you compare that,if you fish in Canada and you have ilegal fish they cofiskate everithing why Odnr not confiskate Canadien boat and everithing,i think somebode is geting kik back,did you ever see anest politician only if money did not exist,if you can not trust big boat with belast create new job stop every boat and do that for them and charg them for that,that way thay can not scru up,1982 perch population was low next 3 years it came back and Canadian gil net reported 13 milion lb harvest that is 30 milion peses of perch and plus how many milion kiled in net and throw out,why they over harvest =profit,
> Why Odnr does not aply for stimulus money from gavermant to fix existing hacheries all of them and if they can not bee fix build brand new ones and operate 100% capacity no exuses,why we avarded comercial fisherman and pay them 1/4 milion for there license,becose they were destroing the fishery how they got there licence at fist place for life,maybe they were merid to indians,no only lawyers ,judgis rip the money of sport fisherman,do whot is wright and wrong not what the money say,that is Canadien woter let them do what they wonet-if they dump poison in Lake Erie that would be ok,the woter is on there land and it do not belong to them and if they can not manage that we have to find who can manage that,they do only harvest=profit that is not management,how many walleye or perch they hach and relese,they operate like Comunist destroy everithing for profit,
> 
> snag


Wow that was hard to read. However I think I got your intended meaning.

The Canadians choose to catch their AGREED to limit by commercial fishing, and yes there is big money involved. Ohio chooses to catch its limit with sport fisherman and there is even MORE money involved.

Ohio does not allow a commercial walleye fishery, they CHOOSE to utilize the sport fishermen for the AGREED to harvest numbers because of the huge revenue it generates for the entire economy across northern Ohio. The sport fishing community and the businesses this sport supports is a much larger scale in dollars than a commercial fishery could ever possibly generate. 

Canada does not have anywhere near the scale of a sport fishery that Ohio does. They choose to support their commercial fishery and the revnue it creates.

What part of an AGREED TAC is so difficult to understand. Why does Ohio receive a larger allotment than Canada??


----------



## JonathanShoemaker (Dec 11, 2007)

For all you guys looking to cut our fishing in the spring or reduce charter trips you are in the wrong state. Go live in Minn.! They love to overmanage their waters. You'll fit right in and have a seven month offseason to read and re-read your fishing regs.
Hooks cannot hurt Lake Erie's population with our meager limits, even factoring in the over-harvesters. The Ohio quota is set for SAFE populations and we don't even reach it. To say so is VERY silly like my putty.
I think everyone interested in throwing their females back in the spring should do so; I need all the help I can get catching those big girls all year.


----------



## Lou (Jul 23, 2005)

Lundy said:


> Lake Erie is a shared resource, 4 states and one other country. Representatives of each all meet to allocate the resources. Ohio has the largest share of walleye allocated with Ontario being second, MI and PA are very small allotments.
> 
> Ohio does not own Lake Erie of the fish in it, it is shared. We elect to harvest(yes we have exceeded our TAC in Ohio before) our share of the allotment through sport fishing, Ontario takes their share through commercial fishing methods.


Is that really how it works?
If that's the case then I for one really don't care how the others entities harvest their allotment. So long as they stick to their part of the agreement.


----------



## Lundy (Apr 5, 2004)

Lou said:


> Is that really how it works?
> If that's the case then I for one really don't care how the others entities harvest their allotment. So long as they stick to their part of the agreement.


Yes, exactly how it works.


The Lake Erie Committee recommended a binational TAC for walleye in 2009 of 2.45 million fish, compared to the TAC of 3.594 million fish in 2008. Actual walleye harvest in 2008 was 2.917 million fish, or 77% of the TAC. The Committee&#8217;s Walleye Task Group&#8212;comprising scientists and field biologists&#8212;reported that walleye hatches had been weak in 2002, 2004, and 2006; below average in 2005 and 2008; and moderate in 2007. The last above-average walleye year class in Lake Erie was the colossal hatch of 2003. The Lake Erie Committee noted that the walleye fishery continues to be reliant on that ever-diminishing 2003 year class. The number of walleye in Lake Erie is expected to decline from 18.4 million fish in 2009 to 15.7 million fish in 2010. Because these abundance levels represent a fishery in &#8213;rehabilitation&#8214; status, the committee believes the reduced TAC is reflective of the current and projected state of the resource. Lake Erie agencies together monitor the status of walleye spawning and recommend walleye TACs to ensure the future of the fishery. Based on the data collected and interpreted together by the Canadian and U.S. jurisdictions on Lake Erie, the reduced 2009 TAC will allow the agencies to adhere to their objectives of allowing harvest while protecting future spawning and substantially manage the resources

Under a 2009 TAC of 2.45 million fish, Ohio will be entitled to 1.252 million fish, Ontario 1.055 million fish, and Michigan 0.143 million fish. The TAC is recommended by the Lake Erie Committee and is allocated to Ohio, Michigan and Ontario by an area-based sharing formula of walleye habitat within each jurisdiction in the western and central basins of the lake. The walleye fisheries of eastern Lake Erie remain outside the allowable catch management area


----------



## Lundy (Apr 5, 2004)

BASIS FOR TAC DECISIONS &#8213;The walleye and yellow perch fisheries of Lake Erie naturally fluctuate from year to year based on the success of annual spawning and survival,&#8214; said Lake Erie Committee chair Mike Morencie of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. &#8213;To manage around these fluctuations, the Lake Erie Committee needs to continually monitor the state of the fishery, consider the probable future state, and recommend annual harvest allocations. The committee bases its decisions on a consensus understanding of the science that all jurisdictions collect and evaluate together. All jurisdictions&#8212;Canadian and American&#8212;are motivated by a desire to allow sport and commercial harvest balanced by a need to take the steps required to ensure future harvest.&#8214; &#8213;All Lake Erie Committee members remain committed to building and maintaining a close, working relationship with those who depend on the walleye and yellow perch fisheries for food, income, and recreation,&#8214; Morencie continued. &#8213;Moreover, the members work hard to advise stakeholders about long-term trends in the Lake Erie fishery and how those trends might affect future allocations. For example, the committee is deeply concerned about the frequency of weak walleye year classes during the past decade. The 2003 year class remains the only strong year class present in the fishery. As time goes on without adequate recruitment, future harvest levels will decline. As the committee did last year, we advise constituents that the outlook for higher walleye catch limits is unlikely for the foreseeable future. Although the outlook for the yellow perch fishery is solid for 2009, the committee is cautious about the future strength of that fishery.&#8214; Committee vice-chair Bill Culligan of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation added: &#8213;The Lake Erie Committee understands how its recommendations relate to the needs and benefits of Lake Erie stakeholders. The committee has placed much emphasis on incorporating the human needs into the decision-making process and will work continually to improve this commitment, through the establishment of a human dimensions task group.&#8214; LAKE ERIE COMMITTEE
The Lake Erie Committee comprises fishery managers from Michigan, New York, Ohio, Ontario and Pennsylvania. The committee&#8217;s work is facilitated by the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, a Canadian and U.S. agency on the Great Lakes. Each year the committee recommends a total allowable catch for walleye and yellow perch. Total allowable catch represents the number of fish that can be caught by sport and commercial fishers without putting the stocks at risk. The individual agencies implement the recommended total allowable catch. For more information, visit the Lake Erie Committee online at www.glfc.org/lec. &#8212;


----------



## Seaturd (Apr 14, 2004)

Good posts Lundy.

Erie is slowly becoming like most inland lakes where 10% of the fishermen catch 90% of the fish instead of 90% of the fishermen limiting out each time. I don't think it's time to panic just yet - I think the fish are there although not in as great of numbers as some past years. I think the clearing water has put them on a more traditional evening to night bite especially as the water has warmed. I think some non-traditional tactics are going to be devised to turn these lethargic fish into daytime biters. i hope I'm one who comes up with a new idea to get those bottom hugging slugs into a feeding mode.


----------



## LEfriend (Jun 14, 2009)

I agree with Lundy. That is exactly how it works.

Per my earlier post the process is scientific, multi-jurisdictional and transparent. All the numbers are available in the report tab at http://www.glfc.org/lakecom/lec/lechome.php as is the committee membership list.

Last summer I rode the Jet to Put in Bay and found myself sitting beside the ODNR Chief Lake Erie Fisheries biologist. Nice guy. We had a very interesting conversation about the hatch. He recounted how they have analyzed the past years hatches result against hundreds and hundreds of combination's of variables (wind direction, ice, temp, storms, sediment, etc ) trying to find the elusive trigger of conditions that makes some years boom and some years bust.

They know a whole lot more than we did 20 years ago... but bottom line is that it is still a mystery of mother nature how she puts 15 or 20 variables together one year with almost no survival and the next 50 times that number survive as occurred with the 2003 hatch.


----------



## wanderin_eyes (Jan 14, 2009)

Its a mix of everything. and could just bew a cycle the lake goes through. I do think the balast water is hurting but the smallies, eyes and perch are starting to eat the gobies to. I've found alot of them in their bellie and they have a gobie bait now also. Plus the water snakes like the gobies.

I think the main problem with the fish this year is Donkey!!! The promise land is a large pen that he heards the fish into and then catchs them all. Thats why no pics of it. LOL

No one will ever agree on the fix. I know I don't get my limit everytime out and I do get selective when they are hitting good. Alot of times I toss back anything under 18". My freezer is not bursting or even 1/4 full but I do have fish in there all winter and will have a few fish frys.
Do you you think is best but you can't blame one group or everyone for whats happening. I know the sheepheads are bad this year but think what it would be like if there were no nets.
The gobies and zebra mussels are not native but the lake will adapt. The mussels cleaned the lake and helped plant growth and the gobies are not the only fish that eat the eggs of other fish. they may eat more but it will work it's self out. JMO


----------



## crittergitter (Jun 9, 2005)

I think we might be looking at a world class musky fishery in 10-12 years. With the improved water clarity and the continued growth of aquatic plant life I can see this as a possibility. If they can find spawning habitat, they'll take off and be just as awesome a musky fishery as Lake St Clair.


----------



## Papascott (Apr 22, 2004)

Lundy, that is just messed up! Everyone on this thread was speaking from there heart with no scientific reasoning behind it, Making for some of the funniest and most illiterate posts since last year when the people who could not catch fish went through this same conversation. 

So Lundy thanks for being the Party Pooper! lol


----------



## rattletraprex (Sep 1, 2005)

So now we're all illiterate but better informed.


----------



## Binks61 (Apr 16, 2006)

K gonefishin said:


> Anyone wanna buy 2 new Rangers and a Starcraft...or we need to start bass fishing, I'll quit fishing before I do that.



CARFULL ! I hear bass fight back


----------



## sea oxx (Sep 28, 2008)

Its funny many ask who's keeping the Canadians honest. Ive been fishing Lake Erie my whole life, 40 years, and have never had my cooler checked, and I have only been asked for my license 1 time. Just lucky I guess.


----------



## rod bender bob (May 19, 2004)

Lundy, could you point out to me the years when Ohio exceeded its walleye quota? I realize we have to remain "scientific" here but maybe the fact that Ontario uses "gill" nets (nets that don't care what they kill) has something to do with the animosity? Oh, would you also point out the years that Ontario has NOT taken its FULL quota. Quota enforcement among commercials has been a problem in both the U.S. and Ontario but up until a few years ago the enforcement in Ontario was done by the companies OWN personnel. so, there is a bit of room for animosity among us illiterates


----------



## bud690 (Jun 23, 2009)

Im all about dropping the limit one fish to five. One fish aint much and we could all live with that.Also i dont understand why the let us fish the spawn.That should be a catch and release only.But they nare so esy to catch then and they make a lot of money at that time so that will never happen even if they proved that is whats hurting the spawn, I myself refuse th fish the spawn for that reason, but im just one person.Just my thoughts, thats all.


----------



## Lundy (Apr 5, 2004)

Bob,

First of all I never called anyone illiterate.

I was told by a fisheries biologist for the ODNR that the TAC had indeed been exceeded in past years. I will contact him again to get more detailed data.

The point to me isn't really whether the quota is met or not, it is a fact that there are quotas. If Ontario has an agreed to quota and they fill it how is Ontario being bad? They have filled what they were allotted. If that is too much the quota needs to be lowered. Of course they fill their full quota every year, that is how a quota works. Very few variables to effect a commercial fishery achieving its allowable catch. This is also, or should be anyway, a very verifiable harvest quantity and total

Ohio chooses to utilize or allocate its quota to recreational fishermen. Projections must be made and creel surveys conducted to estimate the total harvest. Models have been created to arrive at a total fish harvest total. This is far from an exact science. What are the margins for error in these models? I don't have a clue. There are far more many variables that would play into this attempt to document total harvest that you would experience with a commercial fishery. I sure wouldn't want to be responsible to determine how many Walleye, perch, bass are taken each year from Ohio waters.

The Great Lakes Committee and all of their agreed regulations and TAC (total allowable catch) are no better than how well all involved follow the rules. If one group or groups violate the agreements with no verification process or accountability the TAC is pretty meaningless. I don't see the agreed TAC as a problem rather the adherence to and enforcement of the agreed TAC

If all involved follow the rules, an agreed TAC seems like a fair and equitable way to allocate a shared resource. How one chooses to harvest, commercially or recreationally, their share shouldn't matter at all.


----------



## Lundy (Apr 5, 2004)

rod bender bob said:


> Lundy, could you point out to me the years when Ohio exceeded its walleye quota?


Bob,

Here is the information you requested

Between 1980 through 2008 Ohio has exceeded the TAC 9 times, 1980,81,82,84,85,86,87,88 and 1989 for a total excess of 6,073378 walleye taken.

Ontario during the same span of years has exceeded the TAC 7 times,1985,87,91,2001,04,05 and 2008 with a total excess of 2,104,963 walleye taken

Michigan, again during the same time frame, has exceeded the TAC limit 6 times, 1985,87,88,89,90 and 2002 with a total TAC excess of 2,893,005 walleye taken


Thanks,
Kim


----------



## swantucky (Dec 21, 2004)

Granted those numbers are over an almost 30 years period but 11,000,000 extra eyes over the TAC is not an insignifacant number. That is over 350,000over on average per year.


----------



## Lundy (Apr 5, 2004)

Swantucky,

I haven't added up all of the numbers but the total harvest for all involved during that time frame is somewhere around 140,000,000 walleye!!!!!


----------



## harle96 (Aug 2, 2005)

Lundy said:


> .
> 
> Ohio does not allow a commercial walleye fishery, they CHOOSE to utilize the sport fishermen for the AGREED to harvest numbers because of the huge revenue it generates for the entire economy across northern Ohio. ?





Lundy said:


> Between 1980 through 2008 Ohio has exceeded the TAC 9 times, 1980,81,82,84,85,86,87,88 and 1989 for a total excess of 6,073378 walleye taken.Kim


Thank you Lundy for help me understand more than I did. 

My facts may not be 100% accurate, but I am told in the 80's the limit was 10 walleye per angler. Pretty plentiful limit and lotso fish...and yet Ohio still managed to over harvest. That's a lot o fish.

I'm not sure when the limit was dropped to 6, but I'm glad Ohio seen what 10 per angler can do and kept a limit 40% lower during the hayday of the 2003 hatch.

I'm assuming it was slim pickings in the 90's

Am I even close?


----------



## swantucky (Dec 21, 2004)

Lundy said:


> Swantucky,
> 
> I haven't added up all of the numbers but the total harvest for all involved during that time frame is somewhere around 140,000,000 walleye!!!!!


350k per year in that case be pretty insignificant That is an amazing number. I wonder if these numbers will change any minds about "stocking" the lake and how little we can control the ups and downs of the population.

I compare leaving too many fish to what QDM experts have said about deer. You cannot "stockpile" them. Disease will thin the water/woods to what the water/woods will support.


----------



## Lundy (Apr 5, 2004)

Hey there harle96

The full report with all of the numbers. This was also posted on the second page of this thread by LEfriend.


http://www.glfc.org/lakecom/lec/WTG_docs/annual_reports/WTG_report_2009.pdf


----------



## Lundy (Apr 5, 2004)

swantucky said:


> You cannot "stockpile" them.


Yes, no and maybe.

Walleye can live 20+ years but It just isn't that simple.

http://www.ohiogamefishing.com/docs/walleyeagesummary.pdf


----------



## harle96 (Aug 2, 2005)

Lundy...ty, both were great reads.


----------



## duckman (Sep 18, 2004)

The report indicates that it hasn't been sport fishing or we would have been over TAC by 7 million a year just for '03 fish.

I wish they had an real executive summary in 500 words or less. I had 5minutes to read this interpret it

_Example of an executive summary: The dramatic losses noted between 2005 and 2008 for walleye greater than 2 years old subsided in 2008 from 11 million a year to 4.3 million due decreased number of commorants, decreased fishing pressure, etc_

*What I read and interpreted to to say...*

We know our models are not perfect and that Aaron Berger QFC will investigate the walleye models with a focus on the 
weightings used in the models over the next 2 years

Sport fishing pressure decreased in 2008 by 33% but the 
take of those fishing for walleye increased by 20%

In 2005 the report states tha the 2003 year class was 55.8 million
It also indicates that in 2008 2003 year class was 22.7 and in 2009 2003 year class 18.4 million

Then the decrease betweeen 2008 and 2009 reports is 4.3 by extrapolating from their numbers;

The report indicates that there was an avg decrease between 2005 and 2008 was 11 million walleye per year

*More questions from me:*
Why the deviation if not sportfishermen since the mortality remained steady at the same rate as the last decade?


----------



## rod bender bob (May 19, 2004)

Come on Lundy that was 20 YEARS ago when you didn't even need bait to catch walleyes LOL You do remember that at that time and almost to the present Ontario commercial guys "policed" themselves -- that is the inspectors were company employees -- very convenient. Take a look at the Ontario violations -- mostly current when the gov't started inspecting them!!!

I have no problem with a 5 fish as long as they don't cut the 4 fish in spring, or how about 5 years round -- 10 months of cut and 2 months of one more fish????

2009 great hatch could solve a lot of problems !!!!





Lundy said:


> Bob,
> 
> Here is the information you requested
> 
> ...


----------



## crittergitter (Jun 9, 2005)

rod bender bob said:


> 2009 great hatch could solve a lot of problems !!!!


The jury is still out on that one. I checked the OSG board last week. One preliminary trawl off Stone Lab that produced a few fingerlings, but that is nothing official. The DNR test trawls run predominantly in Aug & Sept so we have a few more weeks to find out. 

Conditions of this past spring seemed fairly favorable. The Maumee flooded early and then was relatively stable through the rest of the spawning run. I don't know if high dirty water provides the nutrient base and protection for the hatchlings or not? Also, I don't recall any late freezes so that shouldn't have been an issue. Hard to say really with all the variables involved.


----------



## rod bender bob (May 19, 2004)

Lundy, the illiterate note was a response to something someone else said, not you, sorry. I really don't have a problem with what you say except there is a long, long history of problems with commercials so no one trusts them (ours included).I have been told by biologists from several agencies that deal with Lake Erie that "rod and reel" fishermen could NEVER affect Lake Erie. They all said there is more natural mortality each year than the creel quotas for sport fishermen. We play the quota game to try and keep the net carnage in balance. Ontario, of course, has the right to do as they see fit with their portion of the lake. Just seems funny that they are the "conservationists" of the world except when it comes to Lake Erie -- political pressure is tough to fight.
bob

PS I hope none of this is personal, it is not ment to be. I find you a good guy to discuss this issue. I have no doubt you believe what you say, I do also LOL




Lundy said:


> Bob,
> 
> First of all I never called anyone illiterate.
> 
> ...


----------



## Papascott (Apr 22, 2004)

Bob did u read all the posts? I was making referance to one of the hardest to read posts I have ever read, sorry to everyone that thought I was calling them illiterate.


----------



## HappySnag (Dec 20, 2007)

1982 perch had no limit,1986 Canada reported 13 milion lb perch harvest,next year in Ohio was 50 perch limit,we get limit that Canada gil neters can cach more fish,i have no problem with charters they do not kil extra fish and they generate good money for state like sport fisherman,how many gil net was last in Lake Erie they are made from nylon and they will kil fish next 50 years,2005 we had 45 milion waleye sport fisherman harvested 6 milion fish that is 39 milion and now we have 15 milion where the 24 milion go,i do not think golby and zebra eat tham,if they set trap for perch there is no sighn for waleye Detour they get in and dyi they pul them out and throw them over bord that way they did not do anything wrong they did not take them,What PHD is estimating the quota for gil neters should be divided by 2 every year than we may be lucky the quota was right,

snag


----------



## Lundy (Apr 5, 2004)

Bob,

No offense taken here by me.

I have no love for commercial fishing for sport fish in Lake Erie at all, never have, never will.

I am however always amazed when this topic starts every year when I read comments from many about how we should protect the resource by closing the rivers during the spring runs, or not fishing the reefs during the spawn, or stop ice fishing because of the egg laden females being caught. This to me illustrates a weak understanding of lake Erie and walleye spawn success and are mostly emotional knee jerk responses.

These same people that suggest restrictions at locations or times of the year and suggest that the ODNR is derelict for not doing so, are the same people that think nothing about keeping their limits throughout the year. In those coolers full of fish are many many females, whether they are 20" or 30" doesn't really matter much. They fact that they are not currently full of eggs doesn't matter. They won't be around to lay any eggs in the spring. So in reality it doesn't matter if a female is removed 6 months prior to the spawn or 6 minutes, the results are the same.

With Canada the reality is however that Lake Erie is shared resource, Canada is a country not a state. I am thankful that they choose to agree to a established TAC each year. I hope that they stay within the limits and that they are are both responsible and accountable for the large part they play in protecting one of the greatest fisheries on earth.


----------



## smiley (Dec 20, 2004)

I am up to my ears with controls to fix everything for us. Most sport fisherman are the best at conservation and taking care of OUR resources. The walley resource belongs to the people not the Commercials or Canada or the government. I think it is B.....it that the American sportsman and citizens are always taking it in the shorts for our liberty(responsibilty comes with it) and freedom.
Screw the CFs,Canada and the rest. They don't own the resource.


----------



## rod bender bob (May 19, 2004)

I agree with your Lundy. I believe what I have been told by biologists who have worked on the lake for years and years -- sport fishing will not destroy the lake. I have a problem with commercials because they will take their quota every year, even the bad ones. I understand the other country thing but I think some publicity and political pressure would make a huge difference. It won't happen but I can still bit** about it  Papa I was just being funny (I thought, but wrong) about the illiterate thing -- sorry.
Yeah, let stop the river and reef spawn fishing and kill the females the other 11 months. There are plenty of females, we just need everything else to come in line for good spawns.


----------



## Reel Naughty (Apr 8, 2007)

As others have said we have pulled alot of 14 to 17" fish this year in MI waters. On most of our trips as of late it has been either a 1:1 ratio between those and fish larger then, or sometimes a 2:1 ratio. 

Lets see what the fall numbers show, and in the mean time, I will start to stock up on more steelie spoons and bigger body baits for the Musky in a decade or so. In the MI waters we have seen the "bi-catch" of the toohty critters double just about from last year (from what I see from reports). In years past is was rare to pull one in Brest Bay, now during the spring it can be common place. No size to them however.

JD


----------



## Reel Naughty (Apr 8, 2007)

As a side note we pulled a Musky today off of B can - between it and cone.

JD


----------



## MEISTERICS (May 15, 2006)

The reasoning for having a closed season:

1.Protect fish during spawn.
2.Limit the the time frame in which fish are being harvested. 
3.Protect fish during their most vulnereble state.

Canada has seasons on almost every lake. Including Lake Erie. 

U.S. anglers line up to go to Canada to fish their lakes. More often then not the reason being the fishing is top notch. Ever wonder why they have excellent fishing in so many lakes.

I know there are exceptions. Some lakes are fished out.


----------



## Alaskan (Jun 19, 2007)

That isn't the case according to this.
Check out page 2 for zone 19 which is Lake Erie.
Under walleye, it states open all year.



http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/MNR_E001338.pdf



Don't drink the conservation Kool Aid that Ontario spews. It isn't reality.










MEISTERICS said:


> The reasoning for having a closed season:
> 
> 1.Protect fish during spawn.
> 2.Limit the the time frame in which fish are being harvested.
> ...


----------

