# Size limit for Saugeye, Buckeye Lake



## GerardV (May 17, 2009)

A few weeks ago we had a discussion on a thread about saugeye fishing about BUckeye Lake about trying to get the ODNR to put a size limit on the smaller fish. A friend of mine who knows some of the ODNR people and is well known in the outdoors forwarded an email I sent him to his buddies who help with fishing issues for the department. 

Today, I got an email from one of the ODNR people about how we go about making a case for a size limit. 

Before I go on the crusade, I need to know how many people here are truly serious about trying to make this happen. I have no idea if we have a chance of being successful, but am willing to give it a shot if people here are on board.

I'm waiting on approval to post the information from the email I received to the list. In the meantime, I want to gauge how many people here will help do the work.

These things have a way of creating more work than expected, having worked on state issues in the past I speak from experience. 

Gerard


----------



## puterdude (Jan 27, 2006)

Gerard,I'll do what I can to help,I'm In.


----------



## StuckAtHome (Apr 29, 2004)

Here is my take, I'll add that I hardly ever target saugeye and I would love a statewide limit on other fish, mostly SM.

Not on saugeyes, its a put and take fishery, it doesn't spawn well, almost non-existent. Its stocked for people to take and eat, or release if thats your thing, added a size restriction makes no sense, most fingerling won't make very many years, let the people keep it, buy more gear(taxes), thats the whole purpose for the fish.

Stuck


----------



## puterdude (Jan 27, 2006)

stuckathome,I respectifully disagree with your theory that having a size limit on eyes serves no useful purpose.For several reasons,First being a eye that has managed to survive to reach the size of 10 inches has a much better chance of obtaining the size of 18 to 25 inches than a fingerling by a huge margin.I admit the saugeyes are a stock & take fish with the ODNR's soul purpose to attract we fisherman to spend our dollars on license and the local economy. Secondly,size limits have been shown to work on numerous other species of fish,walleyes in Lake Erie,crappies at Delaware,Apple Valley and a few other lakes.Largemouth Bass at numerous lakes across the state.Purposely controlling the harvest at a younger rate would only tend to increase the saugeyes average size in years to follow and further increase the fisherman interest if they thought they had a better chance at a larger fish with more regularity.Not to even mention the amount of meat on a 10 inch saugeye compared to a 18 to 25 inch one.Can you inmagine the increase in interest from fisherman when possibly catching 18 to 25 inch saugeyes is the norm instead of the exception.I think any serious eye fisherman would concentrate on any lake that had a size limit verses a lake without one anytime.


----------



## killingtime (Apr 29, 2009)

well put puterdude i second that motion. it would be nice to catch a couple nice fish to eat instead of 6 dinks. i vote for quality fish instead of keeping little ones and i think the once everybody sees the bigger fish they will agree with he change. just my opinion.


----------



## misfit (Apr 5, 2004)

imo,the put/take argument isn't really a valid basis for no size limit.i disagree with the dnr's thoughts on this one.i'm with them on lake stocked trout,as those fish aren't near as hardy as saugeyes,and don't survive well in the summer water temps,with the few exceptions of certain streams.
saugeyes are not only sought for "sport",but prized as table fare.as puterdude mentioned,there is much more meat on a 15-18 inch fish,than a 10-12 incher,and it only takes about a year to make the difference.once they've survived their first summer,the odds are greatly increased that they can reach those larger sizes if left alone for just one year.
if a size limit were imposed,it could only improve the quality of fishing on a more consistent basis.not only in size,but numbers.fingerling/fry survival would then be the only real major factor.
i believe more people would adhere to the law than do now.some will never abide by the laws,but i'm sure there are many who over harvest those small fish only because it takes many more to provide any amount of meat.but if they could take home 6 fish in the 2-4 pound range vs. a dozen or more smaller ones,i really believe that would stop.that alone would make a big difference.


----------



## Bob4246 (Dec 30, 2004)

Gerard, count me in too. 99% of my fishing time is dedicated to chasing saugeyes.


----------



## StuckAtHome (Apr 29, 2004)

I see your logic, but a quick few points.

DNR stocks them because they survive well in our waters, easy to grow to stocking size(compared to others), and are easier to catch year round than purebreeds. IMO they are targeting the average fishermen, the ones who would like a chance to bring home a dinner, or snack. We all would like to catch the bigger fish, thats a no brainer, but the DNR would like some $$$$ for their investment, new anglers, part time fishermen. Us hard core guys will fish regardless, always looking for ways to get the big fish, the part timers, do you think the newcomers will if strict limits are imposed(and will they follow them is another story in itself)?

I don't have a car in this race, just my 2 cents.


----------



## CamdenGizzard (Apr 6, 2005)

Limit should be 20inch for keepers 

my 3 cents.


----------



## puterdude (Jan 27, 2006)

Valid point ,stuckathome.it would be a good question or gamble of some sort for DNR but in all honesty,in my opinion,I think far more excitement and interest would appear if the eyes were bigger in size leading to more license sales and local economically fishing related sales.


----------



## misfit (Apr 5, 2004)

mike,it's not a matter of just wanting to catch bigger fish.i really don't believe a limit would make any difference in license sales.do the math...............you have 20,000 12 inch fish today.if caught and released,those fish will be 16-18 inches next year.this will repeat itself every year,which makes available the same number of fish,only much larger,as long as stockings continue and people release the smaller ones.the only time numbers would be down is in years following poor survival,which would have the same effect on the smaller fish.
and i do believe it would lessen the over harvesting,while guaranteeing bigger fish.
remember,if those fish don't survive their first season,there won't be any fewer 16 inchers than 12 inchers.the key is first year survival.


----------



## BassBlaster (Jun 8, 2006)

StuckAtHome said:


> IMO they are targeting the average fishermen, the ones who would like a chance to bring home a dinner, or snack.


I would consider myself an average fisherman, and I'm for a size limit.


----------



## HUNTorFISH (Dec 1, 2008)

puterdude said it well. buckeye needs the size limit, because the fish are easier to catch there than in other inland lakes around ohio. buckeye doesn't have major changes in depths like other lakes and less structure for them to hide. i believe that is why we don't see the "larger" saugeyes taken out of buckeye like we do alum, hoover and indian. if these 12" saugeyes that people are keeping had to be realesed then they would be 15" by fall and 18" by next spring (according to a guy who works at the hatchery and was fishing next to me this past early spring) i will do what i can to help get a size limit on these fish to produce an even better fishery. they already stock buckeye well, why not try a size limit to see if the lake does even better, and attract more fisherman for a chance at larger saugeye, and make more money for the local economy around buckeye with people making the trip. a lot more fisherman choose to go to alum, hoover and indian because of larger fish on the average, look at after ice out and people fishing the banks, it's obvious buckeye is overlooked because people catch larger fish at other lakes that have structre because the fish can hid and live to grow larger. even though buckeye produces plenty of fish 15" to 20" inches after ice out. i have never really cared about size limits but have noticed that even lake erie has succeded in a 15" size limit (look at the 2003 class of walleyes that have been caught) and i am sure buckeye would benefit with a size restriction. once again count me in for doing what i can to get this.


----------



## misfit (Apr 5, 2004)

> buckeye needs the size limit, because the fish are easy to catch there than in other inland lakes around ohio. buckeye doesn't have major changes in depths like other lakes and less structure for them to hide. i believe that is why we don't see the "larger" saugeyes taken out of buckeye like we do alum, hoover and indian


i have to disagree with the reasoning here.first,talk of limits should be geared toward statewide,not just buckeye,though a test study on one or two lakes could also be done to see how it effects the fishery.as for more bigger fish in other lakes,that is not accurate either.actually i catch more keeper size on buckeye than i normally do on hoover.as for easy,buckeye gets a lot of pressure and probably more from bank anglers than the others also.
buckeye and indian are prime saugeye lakes due to their makeup.this is the reason the dnr wants to try the st. marys thing.it is very similar to those lakes.most others are flood control,and very different.most of the fish are also caught more in depths on those lakes,similar to the depths at buckeye,not in twenty feet of water.though those lakes have more and deeper structure,the fish still prefer shallower water most of the time.
one reason(i believe a major one)is survival rates were apparently very good for buckeye in the last couple years,based on the numbers of smaller fish.that doesn't always happen,and can change from year to year.you'll have boom/bust cycles on most waters as a result of that factor alone.


----------



## GerardV (May 17, 2009)

Thank you to those who volunteered to help. Also, thank you to everyone in the discussion.

I am very new to fishing in Ohio and only hit a lake here for the first time a few weeks ago. For some reason, I didn't get into it here, like I did everywhere else I've lived. 

To be honest, I was shocked that there isn't a size limit on the saugeye when I first caught one at Buckeye. I searched via my blackberry for an hour because I didn't believe people could keep the little fish I saw on stringers. 

My personal opinion is a size limit is the answer, hell, even if it was 12" it would help. 

As soon as I hear from the ODNR guy, I will pass on more information. I don't have some secret information, I just find that it's common courtesy to ask about posting someone's email to a site like this. I think it's unfair to post it without his approval. My guess is he will gladly let me do so, but I didn't think it was right for me to make that decision.

I talked to a person the other day who admitted keeping more than his limit of saugeye because he could only catch the little fish. Honestly, I still called the poacher hot line but he was long gone before anyone showed up. 

My personal feeling is it can't hurt to try a size limit for a year or so since the saugeye is a stocked fish. It is a great sportfish, and I've fished in Illinois, Wisconsin, Missouri, California, Texas and Arizona. Pound for pound, I've had more fun saugeye fishing than anything else.

Catching a few bigger sized fish would be nice.


----------



## Big Joshy (Apr 26, 2004)

it seems to me like the odnr is already considering this. Im pretty sure it was a question on the survey they have been conducting. anyone who fishes for saugeye at several different lakes realizes that a statewide size limit would be very beneficial. I think 14 or 15 inches is very reasonable. I don't think it would help out much at at lakes like Indian where half the locals throw back anything under 14 anyways because its not to tough to get several fish over 16 in a days fishing. However it would dramatically change the fishing for the better at places like deer creek spillway where anything over 12 inches makes others jealous. ive seen limits of 6-8 inchers there. In just 1 season of having the restriction it would make all fishermen, even those that keep the dinks now very happy.


----------



## buckeyeguy (Aug 20, 2006)

I too am for a size limit. Going to DeerCreek and see the guys keeping the 10" eyes breaks my heart. However, I still am one of those who believe it is their right to keep the small ones if they paid for the license and obey the bag limits. 

I remember a few years ago, maybe 12? that they started to issue the 9" crappie limits at DeerCreek. Everyone that I talked to at the lake were upset, but that all changed within two years. Everyone started catching larger crappie and it was more enjoyable for me and all that I know to fish. 

All that have posted so far have some valid points (and civil at that). I don't get out much anymore and when I do go out, would like to catch some larger fish so again I am for a limit even if it starts at 12" or 13".


----------



## StuckAtHome (Apr 29, 2004)

Good points.

How about this take.

If not size limit, it would be safe to say more people would get to catch and keep, we all pay for the license, and the stockings, so more people get to utilize the service DNR has laid out.

If you had a size limit, again safe to say a large drop of "legal" fish would be enjoyed by the fishing public, and its pretty safe to say a smaller minority of fishermen, with the knowledge, equipment(including boats) to harvest these fish. Now anyone can luck into a trophy saugeye, I know, I have, but the hard core guys will get a larger share, just like any other form of fishing.

Which one is fair? Which does the greater good for the people who foot the bill? 

This is not a fish that was here(in any numbers, lets not go there) before the DNR stocked them, they only exist because of the DNR, taking the small guys out changes nothing in the long haul, or having having mostly bigger fish, we all know a body of water holds only so much biomass, a population of a large number of fish with few trophys, or more trophys but a bunch less smaller fish to catch.

Stuck


----------



## symba (May 23, 2008)

I am absolutely for a size limit on saugeyes. I really dont see how it could possibly hurt fisheries, especially when the quantity of 'eyes will/can be regulated by the ODNR. I commented about the need for a size limit for saugeye/smallmouth when filling out one of the last ODNR surveys, and urge others to do the same. 

There are a lot of good thoughts and points being made by many members in this thread. Keep up the good discussion.


----------



## Timmypage16 (Jul 12, 2005)

I absolutely agree with Stuckathome about the biomass. The bigger the fish the less fish total will be around. I have to say the best way to solve this would be for the ODNR to test a size limit on suageye. Choose a few different reservoirs in central Ohio that are similar in depth/trophic levels. Use one as a control and one with a limit to see if in a few years the size and numbers of fish differ greatly. 

I do think i size limit would help with catching bigger fish though. Then again i think most of us that catch large numbers of saugeye are releasing the small ones.


----------



## misfit (Apr 5, 2004)

mike,i think you're missing the point here.it is not about a trophy fishery or even big fish at all.1 inch fish are far from trophies.
it's about hopefully reducing the number of people over bagging due to taking small fish,when they could catch/keep fewer bigger fish.it's not about access to good fishing because regardless of size,the fish would be just as accessible and in the same numbers.
as for the greater good,that is the whole point of the idea.more quality fish that are just as easily caught as smaller fish because the only numbers that would change would be fewer people over harvesting,which may even make for even higher numbers of available fish,making success more achievable by more people than it is now.


----------



## st.slippy (Oct 3, 2008)

Here's my 2 cents. It's not about making the fish bigger to catch a trophy, they will exist anyway. To me it's about being able to go every year and catch quality fish. If everyone takes 12 inch fish, there won't be quality fish to catch in years to come. There will just continue to be small fish. I do eat my fair share of saugeye, and have set my personal limit at 15. I go fishing for the sport and enjoyment not just to fill my freezer. So by inacting a limit, I would hope to increase people's enjoyment. Nobody says "I know this great place where you can catch 8 inch largemouth all day. We gotta go." There are still plenty of fish to be had, but a lot of us live for our chance to go out and catch quality fish. I do respect your opinion, and I'm sure there are a lot of people who agree with you. That's ok with me, but this is my opinion.


----------



## Capital outdoorsman (Mar 27, 2006)

Ironically I was just speaking to a friend who is a recently retired game warden in the WI DNR. He asked me about saugeyes in Ohio and then asked about a size limit. I said no size limit. He was pretty suprised. He asked how hard it was to catch a big fish and I said depends on the lake. Limits for size and bag make for better fishing he said. Wisconsin currently has limits on just about every fish, even bag limits of 25 for crappies and gills. Anyway, I'm all for a size limit, even if it were 12 inches although I'd prefer 14.


----------



## put me on 'em (Aug 6, 2007)

Put me in the size limit camp. 13 to 14 inches minimum.

Campy


----------



## GerardV (May 17, 2009)

Timmypage16 said:


> I have to say the best way to solve this would be for the ODNR to test a size limit on suageye.


A test would be great, I think that's all people in favor of the size limit are asking for. We can't know a limit will work until they try it. If it turns out to be a disaster, we can always go back to the old way since this is a stocked fish.

If this wasn't a stocked fish, I might not be so quick to want the limit. 

There sure are strong feelings on this issue!


----------



## Dipbait (Apr 13, 2009)

Living all my life on buckeye I would welcome a size limit, not to mention would love it if the size limits that stand now were enforced. But that is a different post..
It would be a very real possibility that if a size limit was made that the stocking rate and numbers would decrease due to the amount of forage fish that would be availible. Other gamefish would become forage as well as the competition with other gamefish of the same size. I was told by ODNR that the Hyb Striped Bass stocking program was stoped at buckeye due to the amount of forage they eat. 
Also ODNR may show how many saugeye's they stock at buckeye each year but that is what was scheduled to be stocked not what what actually put in. There are many time that a truckload that was destined for somewhere else, but ended up at Buckeye for whatever reason that kept it from going to it's original dump site. 
So we must ask how will this effect the lakes? Other Gamefish? Chain reaction?
As I said before I would like to see a size limit, but I also realize that the amount being stocked each year may go down.

Just my 4 cents worth. You have support!

Dipbait


----------



## misfit (Apr 5, 2004)

forage base is another issue to consider,but from what i've seen in my years of fishing a few saugeye lakes,most have an abundance of baitfish.i've seen schools so big and thick,you could walk halfway across the lake on them.i'm not sure an extra year of growth for saugeyes would negatively impact that base enough to be detrimental.but i'm no biologist either.i do believe that anglers (to some extent) would stop over harvesting if they could catch more better sized fish.even if stockings were downsized,it may not effect overall harvest much,for that reason alone.fewer fish taken would possibly offset smaller stockings if that were the case.

ps to dipbait.........when did the wiper stockings stop?i know it had been discussed and maybe even stopped temporarily at one point,but from what i've seen,they seem to still be stocking,at least up till last year.


----------



## puterdude (Jan 27, 2006)

I have been hearing the story about stopping the hybrid stocking at Buckeye lake for years now ,blaming the reduction of the perch population,ect on them foraging themselves on them,also the rumor about how a stocking truck broke down and they dumped a load of fish intended for eleswhere in Buckeye.That rumor generated once when it actually did happend,back in the late 70's and the fish involved,Muskies and Buckeye had a few years of decent Muskie fishing in the early 80's as a result but you never hear of one being caught now as they have all been caught or died.The rumors continues today I see.Buckeye is the pride of the ODNR 's stripper program in central Ohio as it has been so sucessful,last year they even started stocking Dillon with them for the first time with somewhat good survival rates.Look for it to continue in Buckeye for sometime yet.The shad hatch can more than provide for the stippers sucess without them damaging others to the point of irreversible harm.


----------



## Dipbait (Apr 13, 2009)

2 yrs ago I was there for youth duck blind drawing and was talking with an guy that I used to archery shoot with and he works there at the Hebron site. He told me about stopping the stocking wipers and for the reason that I talked about prior. He also was telling me that htey were having such great success with the saugeye program (not only here but with what ever deals they work out with other states) that they were growing saugeyes and Channel Catfish and Muskeys. (Soon to be Blue cats also starting the Fall of 2010). 
I did not consider it a rumor do to who it came from, but like most things everthing is up for changing (and Back again). I used to target them was for years it was no problem to catch 50-70 a day (no lie) with no problem. I wasn't catching them like I used to and was trying different tactics and locations along with the old favorites and the numbers just kept reducing. So I had no reason to doubt the guy when he told me this. For those of us that have lived there, we have seen Buckeye go through different things and this was just another one. I have also been an eyewitness to the unscheduled stockings and am greatfull when we get an additional 50 to 100 thousand a year. 

Dipbait


----------



## Critter Getter (Jan 30, 2007)

I love fishing for saugeye but have been fish for walleye lately becoulse I can catch more walleye over 15" than I ever did saugeye I would fish closer to home and more often if I could catch more saugeye that was bigger than 10"-12" . I have caught some saugeye over 18"but they are few and far between


----------



## Lewis (Apr 5, 2004)

I am all for a size limit on Saugeye in all inland lakes...but just to play devil's advocate...it seems Oklahoma tried it and here are the results....
By the way...457mm is 18"

Evaluation of a 457-mm Minimum Size Limit on Saugeye in Oklahoma Reservoirs

BRANDON BROWN
Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, HC 32 Box 580, Lawton, Ok 73501, (580) 529-2795,Fax # (580) 529-2889 [email protected]

JEFF BOXRUCKER
Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, Oklahoma Fisheries Research Lab, 500 E. Constellation, Norman Ok, 73072, (405) 325-7288, Fax # (405) 990-9754, [email protected]

LARRY COFER
Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, HC 32 Box 580, Lawton, Ok 73501, (580) 529-2795, Fax # (580) 529-2889 [email protected]

PAUL WATKINS
Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, HC 32 Box 580, Lawton, Ok 73501, (580) 529-2795, Fax # (580) 529-2889 [email protected]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Oklahoma statewide minimum harvest size for saugeye (Stizostedion canadense x S. vitreum) was established at > 457 mm in 1993 (no prior size restriction). We investigated the regulation's effect on saugeye populations in eight Oklahoma reservoirs. Saugeye catch rates and length frequencies from gillnetting before and after the regulation indicated that two fisheries had benefited, but the number of > 457 mm saugeye had not increased or had possibly decreased in six lakes. Four reservoirs were chosen as representative saugeye fisheries and further investigated to determine why abundance of large (> 457 mm) saugeye was not increasing. These reservoirs were electrofished (spring and fall) and lengths, weights, ages and stomach content of saugeye recorded. Fall gillnetting was also conducted and catch rates, relative weights, length-at-age and shad abundance calculated and compared. Relative weights and catch rates were unsatisfactory at lengths > 432 mm in three of the four fisheries. Possible explanations were low forage abundance, competition and possibly emigration during heavy outflows. These factors combined with angler dissatisfaction and unneeded or ineffective crappie control by saugeye have led to a reduced length limit at three fisheries to increase angler harvest and satisfaction, reduce competition and possibly increase growth and relative weights of older fish.


----------



## Lewis (Apr 5, 2004)

Indiana instituted a 15" minimum size limit in 1997 on a test lake and saw great electrofishing results with 70% of the fish above 14".

Thirty-seven saugeye were sampled that weighed 72.55 pounds. They ranged in length from 6.1 to 24.1 inches. Seventy percent of the saugeye were at least 14 inches in length and 43 percent were at least 18.0 inches. Saugeye accounted for 2 percent of the collection by number and 13 percent by weight. The electrofishing catch rate was 19 per hour and the gill net catch rate was four per lift. The electrofishing catch rate in 1997 was 35 per hour and the gill net catch was 2 per lift. The imposition of the 14 inch minimum length limit has helped produce more bigger saugeye than in 1997. Saugeye growth rates have declined since 1997, but their growth was still good.


----------



## Big Joshy (Apr 26, 2004)

i would argue that all of the lakes in central ohio have more than enough forage fish to support a size limit. yes It would mean more predator biomass, but tell me honestly when is the last time you caught a saugeye that was even slightly on the skinny un healthy looking side. I think as hard as our waters get fished all of us would be suprised to find out just how much predator biomass our local waters could hold if we just leave the small fish alone. Like misfit said, shad are EVERYWHERE you look. Besides I think saugeye get a bad rap as a fish that destroys other young gamefish. yes they eat gills and crappie but that only leaves more food for the adult panfish to grow on. Show me a good saugeye lake and Ill show you a good crappie lake. Besides Saugeye are very adaptable and don't only eat fish. Last winter on indian most of the 16-18 saugeye I caught had Zero fish in them but their stomachs were full of bloodworms.


----------



## misfit (Apr 5, 2004)

interesting info,lewis.one thing that stuck out was theat indiana seemed to have much more positive results with a 14 inch minimum than oklahoma did with the 18 inch limit.as mentioned,that could be due to several factors,which seems plausible,but it sounds like the study wasn't really conclusive,so it's hard to really judge.it also didn't say how long the study lasted,how long fish had been stocked before the study,or other factors.
also,the 18 inch limit is a little high,which could also be a factor.
indiana seems to have had much better success with a 14 and 15 inch limits,which might be something to consider.


> Possible explanations were low forage abundance, competition and possibly emigration during heavy outflows


this is something else to consider,which i have.forage in many of our lakes seems to be plentifulk and shouldn't be a problem.but high water is a problem we already have in flood control lakes,and i wonder if that made much difference,since you'll always lose fish to heavy outflows,regardless of size.but then that usually provides good fishing in tailwaters,so i can't see the negative there.
again,i'm no biologist and maybe i shouldn't play one either


----------



## misfit (Apr 5, 2004)

> Show me a good saugeye lake and Ill show you a good crappie lake


i think you're onto something there,josh
i know you fish indian and can vouch for the crappie sizes there.and buckeye has amazed me the past couple years since i started fishing it again.we've accidentally caught more fishohios this year while trolling for saugeyes,than i catch on purpose at hoover in a season
and they are some healthy brutes too


----------



## GerardV (May 17, 2009)

I caught two of the biggest crappie of my life at Buckeye, the very first time I fished there - ever! So, from my limited sample of two fish, the crappie at Buckeye are huge!


----------



## misfit (Apr 5, 2004)

after a quick search of oklamoma's saugeye program i noticed the state record is only 10 pounds.that seems a little light compared to some states,which leads me to wonder if they just don't know how to grow them there in the first place
seriously,it could be a small piece of the puzzle as to why their size limit experiment didn't have great results.slow growth rates and other factors could be at play,whch is a problem we don't seem to have here.
there has to be some underlying factorsi haven't gone further,but wonder what kind of numbers they actually stock and what kind of survival they get year to year.


----------



## Rocky Forker (Feb 7, 2009)

A 14" limit would be good in my opinion. Last weekend I caught at least 30 saugeyes. I took 6 home, the smallest 14" the bigest 22".And I believe that all the jack handles I threw back are going to be a lot more fun to catch next year.


----------



## GerardV (May 17, 2009)

One thing I know is they sure are fun to catch. The other day I happened to be watching as my lure got close to shore and saw a little dink saugeye attack it out of nowhere. You could barely see the flash in the water as it hammered the little minnow swimbait. 

Fun, fun stuff. After fishing in Illinois, Wisconsin, California, Arizona, Missouri, Texas and now Ohio, I have to say the saugeye fishing here is some of the most fun I've had. 

Bass fishing is really fun, but being able to keep the fish without as much guilt because it's stocked adds to the pleasure. So, saugeye are a blast. 

Getting the little 12 inchers is still fun, but the 17 incher I caught on a small grub tail was a blast, and that isn't even that big based on what else I see here. My son, the five year old, casts a spinning reel combo I have that is perfect for saugeye, and then reels the grub tail in with the rod tucked under his arm and even he can catch saugeye.

He loves catching them, but just lights up when we catch a decent sized fish. 

Everywhere I have fished, a species like saugeye, even when they are stocked, has a size limit. That's why I want to see a test done here. 

Once again, I want to thank everyone for taking part in the discussion. 

We can get this size limit, I'm sure of it. All we have to do is put the right pressure in the right place.


----------



## puterdude (Jan 27, 2006)

Another factor to consider regarding Oklahoma is their lake overall makeup or design.Do they suck it nearly dry annually flushing the eyes out in great numbers.Buckeye's overall makeup would be excellant as both dams are now designed to release water from the upper levels.One actually is just a roller type dam where the lake level has to rise considerably to permit the water to roll over the top and out.Just another idea.But Misfit may have nailed it,they may just not know what they are doing period.


----------



## walleyevision (Aug 4, 2005)

Big Joshy said:


> Show me a good saugeye lake and Ill show you a good crappie lake. .


I agree 100%. I could be wrong but I believe Oklahoma started stocking saugeye to be a benefit to their crappie fishing. I read an article online about this a few years back I will see if I can find it. Every good saugeye lake I have fished has had great crappie fishing!


----------



## walleyevision (Aug 4, 2005)

www.wildlifedepartment.com/newsreleasearchive/01-06nr.htm

Scroll down to where mentions 2 state record fish swimming in lake Thunderbird and it talks about the benefit to the crappie.


----------



## GerardV (May 17, 2009)

After another quick look at Ohio's limits, it seems like we don't have a size limit on anything. That's really odd, based on my experience in other states. That doesn't mean Ohio is wrong, I'm not saying that. Just that it seems a lot different than other states. 

http://www.ohiodnr.com/wildlife/dow/regulations/fishing_limits.aspx

We don't have a size limit on musky, that's really shocking. Again, I'm not sure Ohio has it wrong. I just expected a size limit for Musky, Walleye and saugeye in particular.


----------



## puterdude (Jan 27, 2006)

Gerald,we do have size limits on various species on various lakes.Others can chime in on that as I don't keep up on them anymore.Lake Erie I believe is 15 inches on walleyes and some lakes even ask you keep certain length of largemouth to thin them out a little,but like I said other will have to advise you better.


----------



## killingtime (Apr 29, 2009)

fishing rod and reel $50.00
stocked tackle box $100.00
gas money to go fishing for the day $20.00

big fat saugeye on the end of your rod (PRICELESS)


the lake is full of catfish,crappie,bluegills, and stripers. if people are wanting fish to eat they can keep as many as they want of them. one thing that ticks me off is when people bring a bunch of kids to the lake and while the kids are off playing the adults are catching the kids limits too. that is just greed. something has to be done. sorry for poppng off i had to many beers while mowing.lol.


----------



## misfit (Apr 5, 2004)

gerard,did you miss this part at the top of the page?what you read is only part of the regs. 
http://www.ohiodnr.com/wildlife/dow/regulations/fishing_sites.aspx


> These regulations apply to all public waters in Ohio, EXCEPT that site-specific regulations apply to water areas included in the Specific Water Areas, Lake Erie and its Tributaries, Ohio River, and Pymatuning Lake regulation sections.


----------



## GerardV (May 17, 2009)

Yep, I must have missed part of it. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. 



misfit said:


> gerard,did you miss this part at the top of the page?what you read is only part of the regs.
> http://www.ohiodnr.com/wildlife/dow/regulations/fishing_sites.aspx


----------



## E72 (Apr 4, 2009)

I would support a size limit. 14" sounds fair. Id bet the majority of fisherman would'nt mind a limit either.


----------



## Bassnpro1 (Apr 6, 2004)

Lewis said:


> The electrofishing catch rate was 19 per hour and the gill net catch rate was four per lift. The electrofishing catch rate in 1997 was 35 per hour and the gill net catch was 2 per lift.


I would like to point out the negative info that Indiana posted that has seemed to be ignored. Although everyone was quick to point to the Oklahoma study. After imposing a size limit the catch rate decline by a whopping 45%. Though the fish were bigger there were less of them around. 

I know this could have been caused by a multitude of variables, but the size limit has to be included as a possibility as well.

For the record, I am for the size limit.


----------



## misfit (Apr 5, 2004)

that indiana study can't be taken to seriously in my opinion.it was done on a 188 acre lake where the average annual stocking is maybe 10,000 fish.deduct for some mortality(which can be high at times) and that's not a lot of fish.we also do not know the makeup or forage status or other factors.according to the dnr,there is still good fishing in the lake,with a 14 inch limit.plus good numbers of bigger fish caught.


----------



## GerardV (May 17, 2009)

OK, more fun on this issue. 

Below is part of the email I was sent. Like I said before, it isn't some super secret information, I just didn't want to post it unless the guy who sent it to me knew I was doing it. Make no mistake, in my opinion and based on past experiences, just filling out the surveys won't be enough. 

So, here it is. I'm not convinced we will get our way by just filling out the survey. I think we need to get on the petition bandwagon at Buckeye. Other than the people who already threw their hat in to help, is there anyone else willing to circulate petitions? 

If so, email me at [email protected]. 

If we want to get this done here is how we do it. I'm speaking from experience here since we got a huge issue resolved with ODNR with regard to the concealed carry law a couple of years ago. We need, first of all, to be polite at all costs. I know everyone here will be, but it's worth mentioning. 

We also need to make this an issue they hear everywhere and that gets mentioned to them every time they talk to someone who saugeye fishes at Buckeye Lake - even if you're against the size limit. 

So when you see an ODNR official at Buckeye Lake, even if he's writing you a ticket for violating the no wake zone, mention that you know a bunch of people that want a size limit on saugeye. 

If we get a fair number of people involved we can even get bumper stickers everyone can put on their car and boat. 

No matter what side of the fence you are on, if this issue gets pushed, you want your voice to matter. So, even if you're against the size limit then you need to make your voice heard. 

So, don't feel like we're trying to railroad anyone on this issue. 

I'm in this because I think it's the best way to make the saugeye fishing even better than it is - and make no mistake, it is great. I've lived in seven states and saugye are more fun to catch, for a lot of reasons, (especially from shore) than just about anything else I've encountered. 

Anyway, here is the an excerpt from the email. 


_It sounds like you are no doubt aware that we have had a banner year for
saugeye fishing in Buckeye Lake. Conditions in recent years have really
boosted saugeye survival and produced strong numbers of all year classes
at Buckeye. In particular, a banner hatch of shad last year contributed
to outstanding survival of last years saugeyes which are the 7 to 8 inch
fish you refer to. We have received countless reports of outstanding
saugeye fishing at Buckeye Lake all year long.

I understand your concern with the taking of these yearling fish. At
this time the Division of Wildlife does not have a size limit for
saugeye in inland lakes. Traditionally, the Division has relied solely
on stocking of these fish to maintain the saugeye fishery in any of our
reservoirs. Minimum size limits are most often established to protect
fish until they can spawn...and because saugeye are sterile that is
obviously not necessary. 

However, we do recognize that harvesting small fish could potentially
limit the ability of a lake to provide fish of reasonable size where
harvest makes sense, and is not acceptable to many anglers. That is why
for over a year the Division has been heavily involved in a
comprehensive evaluation of the need for and potential effectiveness of
minimum length limits for saugeye. We consider both fishery data and
angler opinion data (collected from creel surveys obtained directly on
the lake or from online surveys...see below) as part of our evaluation
process. The Division has not formally established a minimum length for
regulatory consideration at this point; however a regulation is expected
to be considered within the next year. 

I note in Mr. XXXX's email that he suggests taking the Division of
Wildlife's online angling survey. This is in fact a tremendous way to
let the Division know how you feel about a minimum size limit for
saugeye. You can take the survey by visiting the following web link: 

http://www.ohiodnr.com/Home/News/NewsReleaseArchives/tabid/19075/EntryID
/1111/Default.aspx

The survey includes a specific question about minimum length for
saugeyes, as follows:

8. Ohio currently has three reservoirs with a 15-inch minimum length
limit for walleye. How do you feel about a 15-inch length limit on other
inland lakes and reservoirs for walleye and saugeye?

*	Strongly approve 
*	Approve 
*	Neutral 
*	Oppose 
*	Strongly oppose 
*	Don't know / Don't care 

You also have the ability to add comments at the end of the survey. 

I highly recommend you take the survey and comment. The Division
carefully evaluates all the comments we receive when we consider
establishing regulations for a fish.
_


----------



## eatwhatyoukeep (May 2, 2005)

I would welcome a 12" or 15" size limit. If you think no size limit is needed wait until you see a stringer full of cigars which happens on Caesar creek. These fish are expensive to raise and shouldn't be harvested until there is some meat on their bones.


----------



## eatwhatyoukeep (May 2, 2005)

About a week after my last post I was stopped for a creel survey at Caesar Creek and one of the questions was whether I would support a 15" size limit. So, the dnr must be thinking about it


----------



## bopperattacker (Sep 12, 2008)

misfit said:


> i do believe that anglers (to some extent) would stop over harvesting if they could catch more better sized fish.


Couldn't have said it better. Up in canada when we fish walleye, we would hardly ever keep a limit of 6. Usually 2-3 18-25 inch walleyes would be more than enough for one man. We called fish around 15 inches. 

I think a good size limit would be 14 inches. Three 18 inchers beats 6 10 inchers any day.


----------



## Orlando (Apr 12, 2004)

There is no size limit on Indian Saugeyes and its full of trophy fish and theye are pretty easy to catch.
No reason what soever for a size limit as a size limit is for fish to reach maturaty to spawn. Since suageyes do not sucessfully spawn to any degree there is no reason for one.

I think once the eyes get more established you will see more and bigger fish.
No I dont keep small fish, infact I rarely keep any saugeyes
I have caught many 5-6lb range eyes on Indian


----------



## Capital outdoorsman (Mar 27, 2006)

Indian is a bit different animal. Still there are other reasons for size limits than reaching maturity to spawn. Like creating a quality fishery. Like others have said, it would be interesting to try it on a couple of lakes to see what the results are.


----------



## puterdude (Jan 27, 2006)

Orlando,I beg to differ with you on the size limit need.For example back in the early 90's it was discovered that one could take rattle traps,husky jerks,rogues,ect and catch quality size eyes around dark at the Northshore ramp area.Word soon was shared and for a few years it was common to see the area look like the maumee & sandusky rivers during spring.Once word got out and the masses appeared the quality went down as people were keeping two eyes & a tail 10 inches or smaller back when 10 fish was the limit.Only after the stocking numbers were increased sinificantly on an annual basis did the numbers recover to what is present today,but now the masses are back taking the small 10 inch fish and the numbers will go down again as the fish are too easy to catch.Misfit & I were catching 50 to 60 10 inch fish a day & throwing them back.We had a boat rule of 15 inches at least.Inmagine what damage we alone could have done to the fish population if we kept all we caught.Some others did so damage was done to some extent.If size limits were in force it wouldn't have and next year and the years to follow would have been quality years in catch sizes.Also what do you determine or define established as? Buckeye has been stocked for years upon years with saugeyes and was actually one of the first lakes stocked with them.I would think Buckeye Lake is as established as any lake with saugeyes.Personally I think a size limit would only enhance the future fishing sizes & populations at Buckeye and no harm would result from doing so.It's worth considering or at least having a trial period and seeing.


----------



## EE (Apr 13, 2004)

I would support a size limit of 14" or 15" and would like to see ODNR get a pilot started (somewhere). I'm guessing (and this is truly a guess) ODNR will not institute a new policy state wide until our own (Ohio) data has been collected. Maybe 1 reservoir in each region of the state to pilot; based on those results, they could then make a decision for other bodies of water around the state. It'll probably take a year or two of experimenting before a decision is made, so I'd be all for getting a pilot project in place sooner rather than later.


----------



## crittergitter (Jun 9, 2005)

Orlando said:


> There is no size limit on Indian Saugeyes and its full of trophy fish and theye are pretty easy to catch.
> No reason what soever for a size limit as a size limit is for fish to reach maturaty to spawn. Since suageyes do not sucessfully spawn to any degree there is no reason for one.
> 
> I think once the eyes get more established you will see more and bigger fish.
> ...


From what I have heard as a musky fisherman this is EXACTLY how the ODNR feels about size limits. If the fish doesn't naturally reproduce then it doesnt need protection. Seems kind of arbitrary to me, but that is their stance and I don't see them changing from it(not in the near future anyway). 

Also, I'll contend that if the size limit is not enforced then it is pointless. Try to keep a musky on the Canadien side of St Clair that is under their established size limit. They will threaten to take your boat and they mean it!


----------



## scappy193 (May 11, 2009)

i agree with critter. if the limit isn't enforced it's pointless. i am a small voice bc i only fish deer creek spillway in the spring for saugeye unlike guys that fish alum and buckeye for the better part of the year for them, but i am for the limit. i just don't know if a size restriction will do any good because i see countless fisherman disregarding the bag limit when they fill a bucket, go home, come back to fill another bucket. i've never seen a warden monitoring the fishermen let alone fine anyone. so would this be the same for a size limit?


----------



## Orlando (Apr 12, 2004)

Capital outdoorsman said:


> Indian is a bit different animal. Still there are other reasons for size limits than reaching maturity to spawn. Like creating a quality fishery. Like others have said, it would be interesting to try it on a couple of lakes to see what the results are.


How is it different? Buckeye and Indian are actually very similar fisherys. Just a shallow mud hole full of fish.
Only difference is Indian Saugeyes have been there longer and have gotten established
True fishermen will not harvest hammer handles. Even with size limits small fish will still be taken. I see undersized bass in buckets all the time.
I my opinion there isnt enough meat on a 15 inch Saugeye to harvest.


----------



## eatwhatyoukeep (May 2, 2005)

I have never fished buckeye, usually fish Caesar Creek as it is much closer. On our last trip we caught three cigars and four fish over 14" which is the minimum I like to keep. But, all of the fish were very thin with sunken stomachs, they are not getting enough to eat. Caesar Creek has seen an explosion in the white bass population in the last two years and I think it has affected the forage. Caesar Creek also has a nine inch limit on crappie which could also impact the foraging on shad. Then you add in muskies feeding on the breeder size shad and ...


----------

