# Walleye population



## cramerk (Aug 3, 2005)

With all the recent concerns about the walleye hitting crisis levels, I have a question for all you deep thinkers, why doesnt the state start stocking the lake with walleyes? I know that this would be extremely expensive but if the harvest limits are cut, the local communities around the lake areas will be greatly affected financially. The money lost in local revenue would have to be close to that of which the state would spend to raise a few million fingerlings (5-8 inch) each year. Each year the state does release a few million saugeyes throughout our lakes and this alone brings people here from all over the Midwest for fishing. Lowering the limit or losing the title of walleye capital of the world, would def. keep many from traveling to our wonderful lake to fish. I know that with the reduction in limits, charters, hotels restaurants, bait shops, and even gas stations will feel the hit with many probably going under. I am not saying that the state has to produce 25 million fingerlings but maybe a few million each year to compensate for the possible poor hatches that Mother Nature throws at us. Thanks ahead for your responses


----------



## ShutUpNFish (Apr 17, 2007)

No need to stock IMO..it is a natural walleye fishery that shouldn't be F'ed with...High and low years are all part of the cycle...its been happening for hundreds of years. Limits can be adjusted according to prospective years and thats about all I'd agree to.


----------



## BFG (Mar 29, 2006)

> it is a natural walleye fishery that shouldn't be F'ed with


Problem is....it has been F'd with...A LOT...


----------



## Double J (Jan 7, 2009)

I'd vote for lowering the limit in the lean years.nothing wrong with C&R,no need to feed the neighborhood with our catches,I'm not sure stocking is feasible in lake erie considering what it would take to make a difference.my 2 cents.


----------



## hearttxp (Dec 21, 2004)

They will not stock due to the Canadain commercial fishery !!! It makes sense !


----------



## Hetfieldinn (May 17, 2004)

I don't know the science to guessing, or estimating the walleye population in Lake Erie, but I find it hard to believe that the ODNR can accurately estimate the population in a 10,000 square mile lake. They claimed a population of over 42 million walleyes that were over two years old in '07, and now they claim the population at 18 million, claiming they were wrong in '07. It's possible that they were right in '07, and wrong now, in my opinion. Last year, I boated a ton of walleyes in the 10-12 inch range. I haven't boated that many sub-legal fish since '05, when we had the boom hatch of '03. I had just as many 30-40 fish days last year than I did when the '03 hatch was of legal size. The fishing for the last two seasons was nothing short of stupendous.

Don't get me wrong, I'd happily go along with whatever they deem necessary to keep the numbers up, I just don't agree with the numbers that they've come up with. Of course, I could be way off base.


----------



## Shortdrift (Apr 5, 2004)

I have attended three presentations by Travis Hartman of the ODNR outlining the walleye status in Lake Erie. The presentations have have changed each time due to the methods used in an effort to make the walleye count and prediction more accurate. If you would take the time to attend these presentations and listen to what is presented, then ask your questions or offer your comments with the expectation of having them answered, you may be better prepared to comment on a subject as complimated as the past, current, and future walleye population. There is little doubt in my mind that ODNR is doing a good job in addressing problems as well as working with Canada, Michigan, Pennsylvania and New York in an effort to establish the best methods to produce more comprehensive and accurate control data.
A good parallel example is our current perch population which has rebounded due to the efforts and activity of the ODNR along with the dedicated sportsman that took the time to be part of the meetings that led to the revised commercial fishing regulations.


----------



## ErieEye (Jul 16, 2007)

The perch population has rebounded because of a good hatch or two, which is all we need for the walleye population. As far as the walleye population being in such bad shape, I'm not sure I beleive the DNRs estimates. Last year was my personal best year for walleye. 90% of the walleyes I caught were post '03 fish, most of which rainged 17 to 20". There seemed to be an aweful lot of fish swimming around the western basin last July and August.


----------



## reo (May 22, 2004)

http://www.ohiooutdoornews.com/articles/2009/10/22/top_news/news02.txt


----------



## Hardtop (Nov 24, 2004)

What we should do is shut down all those "fishing only" marinas over near the power plant. Those guys stay in their campers all weekend drinking beer all night and fishing all day.......many many limits come back to those camp grounds, and they never have to take the kids, grandkids, and wives on "boat rides" around the islands wasting valuable fishing time and fuel....shut em' down is what I say.....! Give the fish a break...!


----------



## duckman (Sep 18, 2004)

Stocking has a low return on investment due to survival rates of fingerlings that run in the 20-30% range in the first year. That and the risks of not fully understanding the impact to the full carrying capacity of the lake and not just one species. 

(Example ...Not looking long term like Asian Carp once thought a good idea by wildlife biologists)



Het... I agree and I am going try again on the numbers are out a whack question...lol... 

The problem seems to be that the models are flawed and the competition for research funding resources. 

(Flaws are documented in the Great lakes TAC executive summary I am not pulling that out of the air or some where dark)

There is a weak incentive and limited funding for those who do biological research especially in this area at the universities. This research is used by the ODNR and Great lakes agencies to resolve the issues with the models used to calculate the full carrying capacity of the lake to support a sustainable fishery. 

An example of this is the University of Toledo and University of M-word spends a great deal of biology budget on genetic research. That is the work that is being funded and therefore focused on.

Where there are significant holes in the data models are in areas such as environmental mortality. For example, we need to have a better grip on what changes in the environment impacts the mortality of fish. 

The question then becomes how do we create incentives for the appropriate funding into the projects that support our interests in a stronger walleye fishery.


----------



## BFG (Mar 29, 2006)

> University of M-word


LOL....nice!


----------



## bocajemma (Dec 29, 2008)

I know what we can do. Let's ban trolling!! Not only will we be "Green" by saving gas, but without trolling a lot of folks couldn't catch fish. :O) Just kidding. I agree that the DNR has the best interest of all of us in mind in handling the lake and conservation. We just need to follow the rules and hope we get some above average hatches before it ever gets to a critical level.


----------



## BlueMax (Dec 3, 2006)

Double J said:


> I'd vote for lowering the limit in the lean years.nothing wrong with C&R,no need to feed the neighborhood with our catches,I'm not sure stocking is feasible in lake erie considering what it would take to make a difference.my 2 cents.


Hey Double J - They did lower the limit in the lean years. I (and I would guess you), remember when my daily limit was either 8 or 10 walleye in the 80's. That being said I am not unhappy taking home 6 plump walleye to be filleted for the table. More than enough fillets to be shared.


----------



## sploosh56 (Dec 31, 2008)

In my opinion, the lake is just experiencing a cycle. Some years are good, others are bad. There are, however, two issues that I feel have a tremendous effect on the hatch ratio. 

#1 To the best of my knowledge, most of the good spawning reefs are not far from the mouth of the Maumee river. Obviously, when the river runs outrageously high due to heavy rains ( and the run off from the farm fields) it deposits silt that smothers the eggs to the point the a good hatch is nearly impossible. I feel that this has the most drastic effect on the hatch.

#2 Canadian commercial fishing. I think this speaks for itself.

As a final note, I've noticed a growing number of fisherman who do a lot of catch and release fishing for walleyes. This, to me, seems very strange since it's usually a race to see how fast one can obtain their limit. I think it's terrific! They remove a few fish from the system, but release majority of their catch, including always releasing the big ones! Catch and release has been proven to be extremely successful every time that their are many participants. Just take a look at muskie or bass populations. It's a no brainer.

Now, by no means am I saying we shouldn't keep walleyes. I love to eat them just as much as the next guy, but it's a responsibility that we, as fisherman, should share and take part in.


----------



## eyewannago (Dec 28, 2009)

I saw Travis on Sun at BPS and he said they know this is not an exact survey but are trying to compile numbers through the years and it sounded they are just really getting started compiling info. Lets hope that your right Het with all those under fish and get a couple good hatches and all will be well. It would be nice if the Canuck commercial fisherman would start playing fair that would really be nice, you hear way too many stories about them cheating for it not to be true. As far as catch and release that is a great thing, the thing I cant understand is the retired western basin fisherman that fish every day that it is under 4 ft waves and limit out usually , what do they do with all that fish !!! If you caught 6 to 12 fish most guys fish with there wives say 4 to 5 days a week April thru July or Aug or Sept they are the ones that could probably back off a little bit but a majority of there fish are males. I wish we had the answers but we will have to let Mother Nature take care of it. Thanks for giving me a chance to rant a little Joe


----------



## Iowa Dave (Sep 27, 2009)

eyewannago said:


> I saw Travis on Sun at BPS and he said they know this is not an exact survey but are trying to compile numbers through the years and it sounded they are just really getting started compiling info. Lets hope that your right Het with all those under fish and get a couple good hatches and all will be well. It would be nice if the Canuck commercial fisherman would start playing fair that would really be nice, you hear way too many stories about them cheating for it not to be true. As far as catch and release that is a great thing, the thing I cant understand is the retired western basin fisherman that fish every day that it is under 4 ft waves and limit out usually , what do they do with all that fish !!! If you caught 6 to 12 fish most guys fish with there wives say 4 to 5 days a week April thru July or Aug or Sept they are the ones that could probably back off a little bit but a majority of there fish are males. I wish we had the answers but we will have to let Mother Nature take care of it. Thanks for giving me a chance to rant a little Joe


Maybe the answer is to put a possesion limit for X amount of days. I like to come there and fish 3-4 days and love to bring home limits so I have fish in my freezer I only fish there about every 4-6 weeks. So the no possesion limit works for me but I can see how that could be abused.


----------



## Big Chief (Dec 16, 2005)

I have to agree with Het that the numbers they report are incorrect. Counting fingerlings in a certain area is only a "guess" at the population. It is no different than those of us chasing the fish around the lake all summer/winter long, one day the fish are there and the next day they are gone. Often they are not far away, but the masses do not stay in any given area for too long. I can only surmise that the fingerlings do the same thing. The walleye fishing can be great on any given day with no rhyme or reason, and can go completely the other way on the next day. Just my 2 cents!!!!


----------



## Iowa Dave (Sep 27, 2009)

Big Chief said:


> I have to agree with Het that the numbers they report are incorrect. Counting fingerlings in a certain area is only a "guess" at the population. It is no different than those of us chasing the fish around the lake all summer/winter long, one day the fish are there and the next day they are gone. Often they are not far away, but the masses do not stay in any given area for too long. I can only surmise that the fingerlings do the same thing. The walleye fishing can be great on any given day with no rhyme or reason, and can go completely the other way on the next day. Just my 2 cents!!!!


I agree and I equate the walleye of lake Erie to Tuna in the gulf of Mexico and the oceans. They are Palegic in other words they follow the bait walleye of lake Erie do not hold to structure like they do on inland lakes. A whole nuther nut to crack.


----------



## ErieBoy75 (Aug 4, 2009)

CPR......I cringe when I see pics of a couple dozen 'eyes by the same guys on the driveway or a board. I'm not saying they're not allowed & I'm not saying I'm telling them to stop it. I'm just saying I cringe.
I think we need a fisheries biologist to tell us what size is best to release, reproduction-wise. Do the 28"+ fish produce the most viable eggs or is it the 23-26" fish that do?
And I'm ready for open water season.......
ErieBoy75


----------



## toboso (Apr 14, 2004)

Apart from the sheer science of stocking walleye in LE, I think ODNR has done it right by stocking saugeye in inland waters. I don't think people drive to Ohio to catch them (like they do walleye), but I know that "locals" enjoy the plentiful harvest and year-round fishing. There are lots of folks who simply can't fish Erie but they can fish their local water for saugeye. Besides, putting more saugeye in people's back yard increases the number of walleye per angler in Erie. This last "fact" may be a drop in the bucket, but I know folks who simply don't go to Erie any more since they can catch quality saugeye (size, numbers, taste) locally.


----------



## rod bender bob (May 19, 2004)

ErieBoy75 said:


> CPR......I cringe when I see pics of a couple dozen 'eyes by the same guys on the driveway or a board. I'm not saying they're not allowed & I'm not saying I'm telling them to stop it. I'm just saying I cringe.
> I think we need a fisheries biologist to tell us what size is best to release, reproduction-wise. Do the 28"+ fish produce the most viable eggs or is it the 23-26" fish that do?
> And I'm ready for open water season.......
> ErieBoy75


If you read the Ohio Sea Grant board you will find that they have told us over and over what fish are the best producers, but people who don't want fishermen to keep fish never agree with the right answer, they always want the experts to agree with them. As for stocking, READ the Sea Grant board -- IT IS NOT feasible and not in the best interest of Lake Erie.


----------



## Iowa Dave (Sep 27, 2009)

ErieBoy75 said:


> CPR......I cringe when I see pics of a couple dozen 'eyes by the same guys on the driveway or a board. I'm not saying they're not allowed & I'm not saying I'm telling them to stop it. I'm just saying I cringe.
> I think we need a fisheries biologist to tell us what size is best to release, reproduction-wise. Do the 28"+ fish produce the most viable eggs or is it the 23-26" fish that do?
> And I'm ready for open water season.......
> ErieBoy75


Fran the problem as I see this is that what do you do when all you catch are 25-27" walleye? I honestly rarely if ever catch many of the below 24" I agree with Hetfield I think the numbers are off of what the ODNR reports and no it isn't an exact science. I honestly don't think anyone has the "correct answer".

If I would have a vote in this I would say close walleye season from ice out to May 1st and let the fish spawn then go with things as they are. Maybe cut back on the netters of Canada also.


----------



## Hook N Book (Apr 7, 2004)

For the guys that think the western basin retiree's/campers take daily limits, I say that's a bunch of HOGWASH...! Most of the one's I know, seldom limit every time they go out. I know very few that even fish every single day. After around mid June (Mayfly's), most will start perch fishing for the remainder of the season. 
Last summer was extremely good throughout the summer for walleye. But most guys did not want to make the long runs to find the fish which is typical FOR that time of year...but the fish were definately there all season.

As Het mentioned, I caught a bunch of 10-14 inch fish last season which indicates these fish were likely 2-3 year old's. The 2006-07 hatch was not suppose to have been a good hatch. That said, those hatches must have been a lot better than the numbers indicated. Erie is an enormous body of water and it's impossible to get an accurate estimate of the walleye population.


----------



## Fish Scalper (Oct 31, 2009)

Erieeye, you mentioned the Perch population rebounded because of a good hatch or two. Seems if the Perch had a good hatch, the Walleye should of as well under the same conditions. I think perhaps the Perch rebounded some because the Walleye have not been thinning them out as much. Even if we have a good population of Eyes, it is lower I'm sure. Big Eye's eat little Perch of course. And Big Perch eat little Eye's. So with a healthier Perch population, we will lose a lot more Walleye fry to predation for sure. Big sheephead, white bass and white perch eat little eyes too! And since Walleye fishing has been so good and easy, a lot of people haven't bothered with Perch and that had to help the Perch as well. 

If I had my own way, I would lower the limit in October when we're all mostly Hawg hunting anyway and keep it down until March 1st. Then, I would count up all the money they spend or research, trawling or whatever isn't an exact science, in all the US States bordering Lake Erie and send it to Canada in trucks. I would buy out all the Canadian trawlers, make them rich for life so they would stop taking Walleye commercially. Raise em on a farm or catch em yourself. I know the Canucks have a right to em, so buy em off forever; that would have to help in the long run. Probably cost less to buy em off then to keep guestimating what we have swimming. Set a limit and forget it after that, on Perch and Eyes because when you mess with one, you mess with the other.


----------



## BlueMax (Dec 3, 2006)

ErieBoy75 said:


> CPRI think we need a fisheries biologist to tell us what size is best to release, reproduction-wise. Do the 28"+ fish produce the most viable eggs or is it the 23-26" fish that do?
> And I'm ready for open water season.......
> ErieBoy75



They have told us....you just were not there to listen.
The eggs of an older fish are of no lesser quality than those of a younger fish. However a younger fish has the ability to lay eggs more times than an older fish.


----------



## boatnut (Nov 22, 2006)

Hardtop said:


> What we should do is shut down all those "fishing only" marinas over near the power plant. Those guys stay in their campers all weekend drinking beer all night and fishing all day.......many many limits come back to those camp grounds, and they never have to take the kids, grandkids, and wives on "boat rides" around the islands wasting valuable fishing time and fuel....shut em' down is what I say.....! Give the fish a break...!


I think you need to take a deep breath and really think about what you are saying. Do you really want to shut down a half dozen businesses AND their employees in an already distressed economy??? Do you think that the owners of these marina's have ANY control over who stays there and how many trips they make ? I realize there has been some problems with people double dipping and the ODNR has busted quite a few through their much appreciated efforts. But to come out and say the best solution is to shut the marina's down is ludicrous!
my 2 cents.


----------



## harle96 (Aug 2, 2005)

what about this, perhaps it was mentioned.

1)2003 huge class..lotso hungry eyes, could be canibalism be part of the equation on the shortage walleye fry?

or

2) For the most part IMO nothing was the same last year as far as location compared to the year before. We had a great year, don't get me wrong, but the weather was crazy, kept me on my toes. Perhaps the site for the sampling was not as accurate in years past because of migrating and un typical conditions.

Who knows, is there any open water yet?


----------



## Hook N Book (Apr 7, 2004)

harle96 said:


> what about this, perhaps it was mentioned.
> 
> 1)2003 huge class..lotso hungry eyes, could be canibalism be part of the equation on the shortage walleye fry?


ABSOLUETLY...! Good point Dave.


----------



## Iowa Dave (Sep 27, 2009)

Oh and don't forget those pesky Cormorants.


----------



## LEfriend (Jun 14, 2009)

Shortdrift said:


> I have attended three presentations by Travis Hartman of the ODNR outlining the walleye status in Lake Erie. The presentations have have changed each time due to the methods used in an effort to make the walleye count and prediction more accurate. If you would take the time to attend these presentations and listen to what is presented, then ask your questions or offer your comments with the expectation of having them answered, you may be better prepared to comment on a subject as complicated as the past, current, and future walleye population. There is little doubt in my mind that ODNR is doing a good job in addressing problems as well as working with Canada, Michigan, Pennsylvania and New York in an effort to establish the best methods to produce more comprehensive and accurate control data.
> A good parallel example is our current perch population which has rebounded due to the efforts and activity of the ODNR along with the dedicated sportsman that took the time to be part of the meetings that led to the revised commercial fishing regulations.


With regards to other comments on the "non-accuracy of the survey site or survey", Shortdrift has it right above. These numbers are not based on just sticking a finger in the water to see which way the fish are swimming. They start with real trawls and real nets and real counts of real fish caught over numerous defined routes over many days. Whole thing is repeated at different times of the year,and different places in the lake. It is not one spot! The sites, sets, and routes are consistent from year to year to compare apples to apples and give a valid long term data set. Last fall the trawl boat was temporarily docked in slip next to my boat for several days while they did their route in that area. Had a chance to talk with some of them.

Guys who are themselves fishermen and spent 4 or likely 6 years in college studying biology and chemistry and mathematics and advanced statistics, then take these numbers and use accepted scientific principles to make the best estimates available on how to manage the lake.

They then sit in a room, with like counterparts from Mi, PA, NY, US Fish and Wildlife, EPA, and Canada and, debate the numbers, methods, and challenge each others data, science, processes and conclusions. They do to each other what many of you do to them on here. What comes out of this is their consensus that this is where the numbers are at today, with the best information available, and this is what we should do. 

Sure they revise numbers. Two years from now they will have more data with how to evaluate this year than they do right today while we are in it.

They will be the first to admit it is not an exact science, they would like more data, better scientific tools, more information - but they are honest people who do the best they can with all the information available and try to and continually do improve the process. 

I was not involved specifically with this program or the people who do this, but with a 37 year career in conservation in the Great Lakes, I crossed paths with them and know many and have watched them work. They are good people, highly trained, and dedicated to perpetuating and protecting the fishery.

We can and should take a civil and healthy look at their methods, debate their information, wonder about why this or hows come that. But when we attack them, or the overall credibility of what they are doing, or pretend we know more than them because we catch a few fish on a hook - as always happens when this topic is posted - well, we bite the hand that feeds us our fish. These folks and what they are doing are the best friends we fishermen have in protecting and managing a huge and complicated resource, a magnificent lake unlike anyplace else in the world. What they do, can and does make a difference to us. It is challenging, complicated, and we should support them.


----------



## duckman (Sep 18, 2004)

LEfriend said:


> We can and should take a civil and healthy look at their methods, debate their information, wonder about why this or hows come that. But when we attack them, or the overall credibility of what they are doing, or pretend we know more than them because we catch a few fish on a hook - as always happens when this topic is posted - well, we bite the hand that feeds us our fish. These folks and what they are doing are the best friends we fishermen have in protecting and managing a huge and complicated resource, a magnificent lake unlike anyplace else in the world. What they do, can and does make a difference to us. It is challenging, complicated, and we should support them.



The thread was regarding stocking and the viability of doing so. Therefore, it is relevant to ask do we really understand the total carrying capacity of the lake. The point people are making in a nutshell is that we do not understand carrying capacity well enough to begin making artificial changes such as stocking.

With your wealth of knowledge, experience and presumably connections, how do we answer my question.

How do we create incentives for the appropriate funding into the projects that support our interests in a stronger walleye fishery?

That would be a more productive thread that perhaps should spawn off of this since it comes up so often and people are so passionate about it.

Significant issues in my mind that the great lakes fishery biologist need help with:

There are significant holes in the data models.
Small pool of biologist making big long term decisions 
Limited talent pool willing to take this on as a career and bring continuity to the programs
They are biologist, not deities, they can't be expected to do it all
Too much group think. We need to expand who is challenging our research and plans from other disciplines.
Good research but is it the right research to answer the right questions

Let us be real about the problems facing the fishery and how it is managed so that we can get real resolutions that meet our objectives and a sustainable fishery.


----------



## rod bender bob (May 19, 2004)

Hardtop said:


> What we should do is shut down all those "fishing only" marinas over near the power plant. Those guys stay in their campers all weekend drinking beer all night and fishing all day.......many many limits come back to those camp grounds, and they never have to take the kids, grandkids, and wives on "boat rides" around the islands wasting valuable fishing time and fuel....shut em' down is what I say.....! Give the fish a break...!


If this isn't a troll it is the dumbest post I've ever read on here.


----------



## CarpetBagger (Sep 21, 2009)

Maybe we should all just quit fishing all together....


----------



## rickerd (Jul 16, 2008)

Maybe this will help give more relavant data to the scientists. 
Why don't we have the charter captains provide the number, length basin caught and date of every fish caught on their boats. Have them provide this as a requirement for their license. It won't cost the state much money to have someone input the data into a base system. It won't cost the charter captains much more time since I would bet many of them keep this data for themselves anyway. None of the specifics have to be shared with the public. If we had 20 or 30 years of this type of data, would that be as valuable to the scientist as the netting data they retrieve. Between those 2 databases, seems the scientific percent of error would be lessened. 
I'm not bashing what the ODNR does for us, only trying to point out that with a minimal effort and cooperation from our Charter companies, we would have twice the data to draw conclusions from.

I also want to give a bit of hope. I remember reading something this past year that may relate. I think it was a study in Wisconsin of perch populations compared to walleye populations when they both inhabit the same lake. It seemed the walleye population would go up after the perch population goes up. Then walleyes increase to the point of eating too many perch. Then walleyes decrease because no perch to eat so perch goes back up again. This is oversimplifying things I know and each change took place over 5 to 10 years. 

I think the biggest thing to affect the perch population in the WB has been the absence of the commercial fleet. This will be the 2nd full year in WB and we should see even bigger average perch this year. I know we caught more bigger perch there last year compared to previous years. I think it is good to keep the fleet out of the WB. This will keep plenty of perch on that end of the lake for the walleye to eat and grow to maturity.

Rickerd


----------



## Hardtop (Nov 24, 2004)

Go easy.........just want to see if Cramerk was still on here.......


----------



## ErieEye (Jul 16, 2007)

Rickerd the problem with this idea is everyone wants to know how the walleye hatch was on a particular year by August or September of that year. That is info that the charter captains will not be able to help with. Although I do like the idea and it could potentially help. As far as the perch population goes, the Ohio waters are allotted X number of pounds that we can take from our Ohio waters. That figure is then divided amoung the western, central and eastern basins. The reason we don't now have the commercial guys taking perch from the western basin is because sport fisherman have been able to meet or exceed our allotment, unlike the central and eastern basins. What I'm saying is there are more guys taking more pounds of perch via hook and line in the western basin than there are in the other two.


----------



## CarpetBagger (Sep 21, 2009)

More guys taking perch in the west than out in central basin? Im not saying your wrong, but id like to see where those numbers come from...

Man I know theres a lot of boats down in that area, but some of the perch packs off Geneva - Erie, PA are unreal and the perch are bigger in this end of the lake as well.




ErieEye said:


> Rickerd the problem with this idea is everyone wants to know how the walleye hatch was on a particular year by August or September of that year. That is info that the charter captains will not be able to help with. Although I do like the idea and it could potentially help. As far as the perch population goes, the Ohio waters are allotted X number of pounds that we can take from our Ohio waters. That figure is then divided amoung the western, central and eastern basins. The reason we don't now have the commercial guys taking perch from the western basin is because sport fisherman have been able to meet or exceed our allotment, unlike the central and eastern basins. What I'm saying is there are more guys taking more pounds of perch via hook and line in the western basin than there are in the other two.


----------



## Fish Scalper (Oct 31, 2009)

Me too because it seems a lot of the guys fishing the Sandbar area are coming from the West end due to the lower limit and smaller fish. Fisherman's Wharf brings the Miss Cindy for the same reason.


----------



## BFG (Mar 29, 2006)

Most days in the Western basin you gotta sort a lot of perch to get your 25 over 9...not so over East.

Charter captains are not required to report their catches in Ohio? Seriously? Wow....that is flat out amazing.


----------



## rickerd (Jul 16, 2008)

BFG,
I don't know if they are required to report their catches or what they take home. I'm only saying add more detailed information to their reports and you will have valuable data that can be used year after year to compare results. I would trust the fleet of charter captains notes as a more accurate count of adult walleye than the nets simply because they cover a greater area and more time in the area than any state could ever cover.

It would verify if there are more adult walleye in the lake than the trawling nets calculation estimation. If more captains report catching sub 15 inch fish, than other years, we may be able to conclude that regardless of what hatch we had the year before, more adult walleye are making it to spawning age. If we knew that the 07 hatch was a fair hatch year, but it seems the 07 adult count is average or better, Ohio could raise the kill limit to 17 or 18 inches and keep many more of those fish to spawn next year. 

As it seems now we rely on one system which has as much science as the state can afford and I do trust their numbers. They have no reason to skew the numbers. But as others have said and I have experienced, walleye can be there one night and virtually gone the next morning. Or atleast moved off of a half mile area.

Rickerd


----------



## crittergitter (Jun 9, 2005)

Well, what we really need to do is stock more sheephead in the lake. That's obvious!













j/king


----------



## Lundy (Apr 5, 2004)

duckman said:


> .
> 
> How do we create incentives for the appropriate funding into the projects that support our interests in a stronger walleye fishery?


What projects specifically do you propose need funding and implementation?



duckman said:


> .
> 
> Significant issues in my mind that the great lakes fishery biologist need help with:
> 
> ...


Duckman, 

You are a quackpot!


----------



## fishingguy (Jan 5, 2006)

QUACKPOT, lmfao, now that there is funny!


----------



## duckman (Sep 18, 2004)

What projects specifically do you propose need funding and implementation?

This was in reference to the previous comments in the thread about university research.

What basis do you use to arrive at that conclusion? 
If you had read my prior post you would have seen the reference to the TAC Executive summary in which the it notes the issues and assigned the task to be investigated.

Do you know how many are involved in these decisions? I know that it is more than ornithology and significantly less than biotech. The point was that it is a relatively small community that I would like to see expanded.

REALLY? Maybe you have a new calling in your life
I have considered it and I am looking at how to fund it on top of two other college bills that will come due in the next 5 & 7 years respectively.

Do you mean like control mother nature? 
NO I mean that our expectations of what the biologist can accomplish without additional assistance is unrealistic.

Not touching the politics ...

Good research but is it the right research to answer the right questions 
Yes

This was in reference to the previous comments in the thread about university research. EG Does focusing genetic research improve a resume or answer the questions that a Travis Hartman needs answered.

Do you think some are not being "real" 
Again, this is about realistic expectations and some of the barriers to moving us in the right direction and at what rate that can happen.

You are a quackpot!
Nice, same as the politics, not touching this here as I wouldn't want to get booted


----------



## ETC (Aug 30, 2007)

Rickerd

About your idea of the charter Capts having to keep a detailed record of their catch. I remember approx 1989 for a few yrs we WERE required to do just that, keep a log of the numbers and approx area we caught them in. Then one yr they said we did not have to do it any more. Personally I thought that it was absurd that we were no longer required to do it. I thought it was free info for the DNR and biologists to work with. It HAD to have some value to them since we actually had to give the area were we caught them. It wasn't costing them anything for us to provide what I thoght was valuable info. Just my two cents.

Ray
Erie Therapy II


----------



## Playbuoy (Apr 6, 2005)

I have only been fishing Erie for the last 4 years (a novice compared to many of you), but I noticed the average fish was much better size the last 2 years (03 class), but I also caught a lot of 10-14 inchers last year (a good sign, I believe). I managed on most days to get a limit even though I drive over 2 hours each way to fish. I fish for the enjoyment of it - not just to fill a freezer as fast as possible. I also buy gas and eat at the local restaurants, stay at local motels, etc. 

I heard Travis Hartman speak a couple of years ago and left very impressed with the knowledge and effort being used to ensure the quality of fishing in Lake Erie. This appears to be the only thing the state of Ohio has gotten right in 10 years. 

I would not be opposed to reducing the limit to perhaps 4 per day until we have a good hatch or two. It would not lessen the number of trips I make. I would rather catch walleye all day long and only keep 4 than work my butt off all day just to take home a limit. For me it is all about the experience. I apologize for going on and on, but I live for my days on Lake Erie.


----------



## Jim Stedke (Dec 5, 2005)

Many of us "live for our days on Lake Erie". That's why I enjoy helping others learn how to maximize the experience. CATCH MORE FISH !!

With guys like Travis around, you just know caring people are watching.

good luck


----------



## Shortdrift (Apr 5, 2004)

ETC said:


> Rickerd
> 
> About your idea of the charter Capts having to keep a detailed record of their catch. I remember approx 1989 for a few yrs we WERE required to do just that, keep a log of the numbers and approx area we caught them in. Then one yr they said we did not have to do it any more. Personally I thought that it was absurd that we were no longer required to do it. I thought it was free info for the DNR and biologists to work with. It HAD to have some value to them since we actually had to give the area were we caught them. It wasn't costing them anything for us to provide what I thoght was valuable info. Just my two cents.
> 
> ...


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Great piece of information Ray. It would be interesting to see the response if a number of captains would again present this to the ODNR. I will ask and suggest this next time I see Travis. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## ETC (Aug 30, 2007)

Shortdrift

It really wasn't a problem keeping the log as long as you did it after each charter. The info was fresh in your mind, and again I feel it HAD to have some value to the DNR and biologists. Most important, it was FREE info to them. I would be interested in their reply (yes / no) and reasoning to going back and implementing the log requirement.

Ray
Erie Therapy II


----------



## Fishers of Men (Jul 29, 2005)

ETC said:


> Rickerd
> 
> About your idea of the charter Capts having to keep a detailed record of their catch. I remember approx 1989 for a few yrs we WERE required to do just that, keep a log of the numbers and approx area we caught them in. Then one yr they said we did not have to do it any more. Personally I thought that it was absurd that we were no longer required to do it. I thought it was free info for the DNR and biologists to work with. It HAD to have some value to them since we actually had to give the area were we caught them. It wasn't costing them anything for us to provide what I thoght was valuable info. Just my two cents.
> 
> ...


FYI... BUT....

1533.511 Fishing guide daily record.
Except as otherwise provided by division rule, every fishing guide who furnishes services that result in the taking of fish from the Lake Erie fishing district shall keep an accurate daily record of all fish caught upon monthly report forms, provided by and in the manner prescribed by the chief of the division of wildlife. The catch data shall be recorded on the respective date upon the monthly report no later than twelve noon on the day following the day in which the fish were taken and shall include the number of fishermen, hours fished, locality fished, numbers or pounds of each kind of fish taken, and such other data as the chief requires. Every licensee shall submit such a completed monthly report form to the division of wildlife within fifteen days after the end of the calendar month in which the fishing guide service is provided regardless of whether the service is discontinued for one or more months. If the service is so discontinued, the licensee shall state that fact. The report form shall be open to inspection to any employee of the division at all reasonable hours.
No person shall fail to comply with any report procedure provided for in this section, other provision of this section, or division rule adopted pursuant thereto.
In addition to other penalties provided in the Revised Code, the license of any person who is convicted of two violations of this section that occurred within a twelve-month period is suspended upon the second such conviction by operation of law for a period of five fishing season days immediately following that conviction.
In addition to other penalties provided in the Revised Code, the license of any person who is convicted of three or more violations of this section that occurred within a twelve-month period is suspended upon the third or subsequent such conviction by operation of law for a period of twenty fishing season days immediately following that conviction.
During any period of suspension, no person shall use or engage in fishing for hire with gear owned, used, or controlled at the time of conviction by the licensee whose license has been suspended.
Effective Date: 10-20-1994
1533.56 Daily records of fish processing.
Except as otherwise provided by division rule, every person, in any county adjoining Lake Erie, who for consideration, hire, or resale, scales, fillets, dresses, or in any manner processes fish taken with other than commercial fishing gear shall maintain accurate daily records. Those records shall show the name and address of each owner or other person from whom the processor receives fish, the species, the weight of each species, and the date of receipt during the day. The name, address, species, weight, and date shall be recorded on monthly report forms provided by, and in the manner prescribed by, the chief of the division of wildlife. The processor shall keep each batch of fish he receives from one owner or other person separate and shall attach to the batch or its container a tag or label showing the name of that owner or other person and the weight of the fish until the information required to be recorded on the daily records is recorded as prescribed by law or division rule. The processor shall mail the monthly report form to the division on or before the fifteenth day of the month following the calendar month in which the fish were received by the processor. Any wildlife officer or law enforcement officer who has authority to enforce the wildlife, hunting, and fishing laws may enter the premises at any reasonable hour and inspect the records and premises.
No person shall fail to comply with any provision of this section or division rule adopted pursuant thereto.
Effective Date: 10-20-1994

*Now for the BUT...*

On the back of your guides license under 1501:31 (C) it says:
"It shall be unlawful for any individual to operate on Lake Erie as a fishing guide with out possessing a valid Ohio Fishing Guide License. 
Provided further, persons properly licensed as a fishing guide *shall be exempt* from keeping catch reports as required in section 1533:511 of the Ohio Revised Code.


----------



## saugeyesam (Apr 20, 2004)

From what I see and read on here, the DNR will never be able to please everyone who fishes Erie and it's tributaries for Walleye. Some complain that the spring river runs should be closed to fishing altogether, others bicker about the "fish only marinas" or the late summer and fall fisherman searching for trophies. Regardless of what regulations the DNR post each year the fact is there will always be a group of people who disagree. As far as I'm concerned, the DNR knows far more about the proper management of the lake than me, and probably the majority of the people who fish it. I remember just a few years ago when the limits were pretty liberal and when they implemented the 4 fish limit till May 1st then upping it to 6, I thought am I really gonna drive from Canton to Perrysburg just to catch 4 walleye? I decided the trip and experience were all part of the reason I fish the run in the spring, And to be honest, four 22" to 26" walleyes will feed my family for at least 2 meals. So losing those 2 extra fish from our limits in the spring never really made a difference to me. Sure there are guys out there that break the rules, double dip, cheat, or whatever which is the reason a lot of the Erie guys despise the large river run crowds. But if you think about it, if they closed the run to fishing the local economies along the Maumee and Sandusky rivers would take a hit. I think there are too many factors for most of us to speculate what is best for the lake and everyone who fishes it. As for the original question on stocking Walleye into lake Erie, it just isn't a practical decision, I really think the amount of fry it would take to make an adequate difference would be astronomical and would probably have an effect on the number of Saugeye and Walleye fry available for stocking the inland lakes. I say why trouble ourselves with arguing amongst ourselves, we should be using that time and energy on fishing, which is really what this is all about anyway... The DNR is here for a reason Let's let them do their jobs.


----------



## BFG (Mar 29, 2006)

Well, lots of variables here...99% of which are out of our control. 

If they lower the limit, for sure I will still fish. I did it for back to back years not very long ago when they were trying to protect the '03 class and the spring limit was 3 fish per day. Heck...they even talked of going to 2 fish per day but never did it. Heck, I'm sure Swantucky would tell you that myself of all guys who fish the river would probably welcome the 3 fish limit back..as I would save myself about an hour every trip to the river....


----------



## CarpetBagger (Sep 21, 2009)

Id have no issues reporting catches should it mean for more productive years down the road...However there are guys who fish just as often if not more often than "charters"...

You can do a fair estimate on captains...6 fish a day 6 guys 36 fish...Now a guy who is local...fishes everyday (maybe in some cases 2-3 times a day)...

3 Years ago I was up there when they busted *1 guy* in Oak Harbor for having over 1000 Walleye fillets in a 120qt cooler...Now thats doing some damage...How many times did he get away with it PRIOR to being caught...How many others are participating in similar acts?

I think if everyone played by the rules things would be a lot better...But thats just not possible...


----------



## Nauti cat (Nov 30, 2009)

I use to fish the river run can't take it anymore. One thing about it you never know who you are standing next to. I fishe next to a ODNR guy didn't know it till he walked down river and got a guy for snagging.I am retired have aplace&boat at CI private still only take what is legal We throw 17" and under back just my way of fishing


----------



## Papascott (Apr 22, 2004)

CarpetBagger said:


> Id have no issues reporting catches should it mean for more productive years down the road...However there are guys who fish just as often if not more often than "charters"...
> 
> You can do a fair estimate on captains...6 fish a day 6 guys 36 fish...Now a guy who is local...fishes everyday (maybe in some cases 2-3 times a day)...
> 
> ...


. As for the figuring on charters having 6 guys with 6 limits thy IMHO is WAY OFF. I would guess that less than half the charters actually limit each time out when factoring in all trips from all charters!

Scott


----------



## Hook N Book (Apr 7, 2004)

Papascott said:


> As for the figuring on charters having 6 guys with 6 limits thy IMHO is WAY OFF. I would guess that less than half the charters actually limit each time out when factoring in all trips from all charters!
> 
> Scott


Yep, that about sums it up. Most of the charter guys I know will tell you it's hit or miss. Some days it's quick limits and other days just partial limits.


----------



## Fishers of Men (Jul 29, 2005)

Papascott said:


> No way would 1000 Walleye fit in a 120 quart cooler. I doubt they would dot in 4 coolers that size. As for the figuring on charters having 6 guys with 6 limits thy IMHO is WAY OFF. I would guess that less than half the charters actually limit each time out when factoring in all trips from all charters!
> 
> Scott





Hook N Book said:


> Yep, that about sums it up. Most of the charter guys I know will tell you it's hit or miss. Some days it's quick limits and other days just partial limits.


1000 percent agreement here


----------



## BlueMax (Dec 3, 2006)

I cannot believe that whatever the number of people abusing the daily limit might be that that could hurt this lake. There are not that many compared to those who follow the rules.

I will throw this out there....If the walleye population is in such terrible condition then will lowering the daily limit help? As walleye numbers drop the lake will set the limit .....fewer anglers will reach it. (6/day) Charters will not book, out of staters will stop traveling here, x number of anglers will stop fishing, and the result will be less fishing pressure. Net result is less fish taken by anglers. 
If the ODNR lowers the limit same results.
Do either of these scenerios make a difference? I do not know.


----------



## ShutUpNFish (Apr 17, 2007)

BlueMax said:


> I cannot believe that whatever the number of people abusing the daily limit might be that that could hurt this lake. There are not that many compared to those who follow the rules.
> 
> I will throw this out there....If the walleye population is in such terrible condition then will lowering the daily limit help? As walleye numbers drop the lake will set the limit .....fewer anglers will reach it. (6/day) Charters will not book, out of staters will stop traveling here, x number of anglers will stop fishing, and the result will be less fishing pressure. Net result is less fish taken by anglers.
> If the ODNR lowers the limit same results.
> Do either of these scenerios make a difference? I do not know.


Good points....its ALL part of the cycle...been going with the flow since the mid eighties and things haven't changed much. You'll have your up years, you'll have your down years. Being a multi-species fisherman just helps me deal with it all a little better

AND...some people need to realize and understand the vastness of Lake Erie and all the additional water which flows into it. The primary areas which people actually fish are so minute compared to the rest of the lake and the fish that are in there as a whole IMO. You can do all the studies and make all the predictions you want, but ultimately, its like the weather...a concrete and accurate forecast will always be difficult to predict. Just go with the flow, respect and be thankful that its in our back yard.


----------



## CarpetBagger (Sep 21, 2009)

You will note that I said 1000 walleye FILLETS not 1000 Walleye...divide by 2 thats 500 fish. Even with 20 or 30 charters a year I'll have a hard time hitting that number so one guy catching my whole years worth of walleye in one weekend Id say is a bit destructive...Plus I am sure he got away with it more than one time...

This was 3 years ago and happened about last weekend in april possibly the first week of may. Weather was beautiful and the reefs were on fire. It was an absolute slaughter that whole week and jigging was pretty fast and furious...Every year I see the ODNR down at Fenwick hauling guys away for too many fish...Its not just isolated incidents...It happens there every weekend and multiple times each weekend...Ive watched them run around turtle creek for hours busting guys at different fish cleaning stations, going through cars, checking boats, ect, ect...ANYWAYS Moot point...

Id have to estimate that most captains who are weekend guys or even friday-sunday guys like myself who do 20-30 charters a year easily see 300-400 walleye each year. Full time guy who in the sping can run 2 trips or more a day...man those numbers could go through the roof...

Many of the capts I know do very well, and many of them move or change tactics when the season shifts. I know personally I move from Fenwick in early June and last season was probaly the first year I had that we struggled...We did well jigging, but really the weather didnt get hot enough to push the fish too far to the east...At least not like it did in years past...

The 03 fish have been overly abundant the past few years and have made for some real easy days for a lot of captains and fishing buddies alike.

You combine commercial fishing, recreational fishing, bad hatch years, and a bunch a guys not playing by the rules, well you get slow years, and we just deal with em and hope for another boom. Past few years have been great years to be a capt.

Again there are many contributing factors...I cant say its all from illegally taken fish, however its a contributing factor...Maybe we will have some stable weather this spring and have another huge hatch...Man Id love to see back to back big hatches...



Fishers of Men said:


> 1000 percent agreement here


----------



## Papascott (Apr 22, 2004)

What you said sounds good but the facts just don't support it. The "03" hatch took place with lower numbers of available spawning fish than are available now. 

The calm weather theory was blown out of the water in 03! That was a down right miserable year, and a lot of people were convinced that it was going to be another bad hatch until record numbers of 7-9 inch walleye were caught that fall perch fishing. 

If you ever have a chance to listen in on a seminar done by Travis Hartman go. He is a wealth of knowledge on the subject and makes a person feel that the people in charge DO CARE!

Scott


----------



## CarpetBagger (Sep 21, 2009)

Point well taken Papa maybe I am a bit mistaken...However I was always under the impression that the weather during the spawn was the biggest factor to a successful hatch year...

Is it just downright luck?



Papascott said:


> What you said sounds good but the facts just don't support it. The "03" hatch took place with lower numbers of available spawning fish than are available now.
> 
> The calm weather theory was blown out of the water in 03! That was a down right miserable year, and a lot of people were convinced that it was going to be another bad hatch until record numbers of 7-9 inch walleye were caught that fall perch fishing.
> 
> ...


----------



## Double A (Dec 27, 2006)

Papascott said:


> If you ever have a chance to listen in on a seminar done by Travis Hartman go. He is a wealth of knowledge on the subject and makes a person feel that the people in charge DO CARE!
> 
> Scott


100 % agree. Everybody should take the time to attend one of these. It is time well spent. I believe they can even be seen on you tube.


----------



## Papascott (Apr 22, 2004)

I wish I knew for sure what it is. Personally I think it has a lot to do with algae and nutrients for the fry. But that is just a theory of mine.



CarpetBagger said:


> Point well taken Papa maybe I am a bit mistaken...However I was always under the impression that the weather during the spawn was the biggest factor to a successful hatch year...
> 
> Is it just downright luck?


----------



## fishingguy (Jan 5, 2006)

Here's a theory. The 03's put a hurtin' on the bait fish all across the lake. Low population of bait fish, more walleye fry get eaten, by all predator species. Lower population of predator species, bait fish flourish. Allowing more walleye fry to grow up. This past fall I was happy to see the large schools of smelt return to the Cleveland area. The previous few years had very little show up. I take that as a good sign, that the bait fish populations are on the rise. I really have no clue, just sayin' is all.


----------



## Fish Scalper (Oct 31, 2009)

Smelt showed back up because the Canadian trawlers did not harvest them in 07-08 for some reason. They did in 09 though. Walleye had plenty to eat and many Candadian fisherman had trouble catcthing anything last year due to the excessive bait.


----------



## swantucky (Dec 21, 2004)

I RIKE KATCH WARREYE!!

How do I, as a simple man help the walleye other than by not eating them??? That is the question Could someone teach me how to not catch them??


----------



## BFG (Mar 29, 2006)

> Could someone teach me how to not catch them??


You must un-learn...what you have learned....to accomplish such a feat.

Unfortunately for you, I fear that there may not be enough Honey Brown in the world to get the job done.


----------



## Shortdrift (Apr 5, 2004)

There isn't any lack of forage for the walleye. I saw plenty of emerald shiners swimming around the boat as well as many bait balls on my sonar throughout the season. Plenty of small perch and tons of shad. How about the Mayfly hatch and the other bugs and fly's. The smelt were also a pleasant surprise. 
My GUESS would follow along the thinking of Papascott regarding depletion of plankton and algae by the zebra muscles which is the food chain for walleye fry, but I don't have a degree in biology so I rely on those that are professionals.


----------



## K gonefishin (May 4, 2004)

Shortdrift said:


> There isn't any lack of forage for the walleye. I saw plenty of emerald shiners swimming around the boat as well as many bait balls on my sonar throughout the season. Plenty of small perch and tons of shad. How about the Mayfly hatch and the other bugs and fly's. The smelt were also a pleasant surprise.
> My GUESS would follow along the thinking of Papascott regarding depletion of plankton and algae by the zebra muscles which is the food chain for walleye fry, but I don't have a degree in biology so I rely on those that are professionals.


I agree. NEVER a shortage of bait fish in Erie. I can mark bait balls for miles while running.


----------



## Fish Scalper (Oct 31, 2009)

Not sure if this is correct, but I believe the Asian Carp are primarily plankton and/or algae eaters as well. If they do get into Lake Michigan, they will have to feed near shore to survive. The Zebra's depleting these things may end up being some help down the road even if it takes away from the Walleye to some extent as well.


----------



## slystarnes (May 3, 2008)

I tried to read through the 3 pages of posts so forgive me if I missed this, but does anyone have an idea about what the walleye limit is going to be after May 1?


----------



## Iowa Dave (Sep 27, 2009)

slystarnes said:


> I tried to read through the 3 pages of posts so forgive me if I missed this, but does anyone have an idea about what the walleye limit is going to be after May 1?


Your answer is 5 posts below this one

http://www.ohiogamefishing.com/community/showthread.php?t=138418


----------

