# Saugeye size



## Saugeyefisher

Ok the 15" limit has been in effect for quite a few years now. How do you think it has helped or hurt the over all saugeye fishing? 
I dont think it has had a negative impact myself. At least on the lakes I fish with the limits. 
Would love to here some thoughts......


----------



## Specwar

Don’t have much input on your question as I just started targeting them this year. What I do know is that I have certainly caught a lot of 14-1/2” ers no matter where I fish.


----------



## Cobe24

I personally have not noticed much difference in quality of fish at Indian Lake due to the size limit. It seems numbers have been more consistent since the implementation of the size limit but I tend to think that is due more to successful stockings than size limit.


----------



## Cobe24

That being said, I approve the size limit 100%. I think the size and length limit on crappies has been much more beneficial on the lakes I fish.


----------



## Muddy

I seem to catch smaller eyes now with the size limit. Most of them are 14-14.99" now. I used to catch mostly 15-18" fish. There is also more pressure on them now than when the in the early days of the stocking program.


----------



## Southernsaug

Saugeyefisher and I had a conversation in the Saugeye forum and he brought it here. We agreed it would be interesting to see other's thoughts and experiences. Below is my post from there:

Fish Mngt personnel thought it was a smart decision to put a 15" length limit on Rocky Fork a few years ago and bingo now all you catch is 14.5 to 14.75" Saugeye. Saugeye are so vulnerable to exploitation (angling) that most of the legal fish literally get caught off. Previous to the length limit people would fish and catch a limit of what they were satisfied with and quit. That was usually any Saugeye over 12-14" or even less, with a couple larger ones in the bag too. They'd then switch to crappie or go home. It was not uncommon to catch 22-25" Saugeye, now they are rare. Now people stay and stay and stay fishing for those legal fish. They do not want to go home empty. In the process the legal fish get over harvested. I saw this happen on lake Oahe in SD, with walleye. It got so bad the sate allows people to keep an additional 10 Walleye under 15" and only 4 over. The other side of this is the biology of the fish. There is no need to protect them for spawning as they are not a fishery supported by natural reproduction. Also the hybrid cross produces a high percentage of males ( up to 70%). Why is that important? Males are short lived and slow growing. Most males live 4-6 years and reach lengths that average under 18". It will take Saugeye at least three seasons to reach 15" and most will be 4 or 5 to reach that length. So a lot of males will be dead before they are ever legal. Research by ODNR Fish Mngt, and OSU in the 80s, 90s and early 2000s estimated survival of stocked Saugeye at 50% the first year and significant loss still occur in their second year. By having a length limit on Saugeye they are literally removing as much as 70% of all stocked Saugeye from the legal creel and unharvested by anglers. When asked they will tell you they are building a trophy fishery....... Baloney, people fish for Saugeye to eat them! Hey, The Division of Wildlife makes more every year in their hatcheries, let us have the freedom to keep what we want and not waste all the fish we're paying the hatcheries to rear.


----------



## Shortdrift

Me and my fishing partner have no problem with the size limit on Alum or Buckeye. Great to have those ready for next year fish wait to fry next year. We don't have any problem sorting through the almost "15's and taking home the 17 to 22's we want.


----------



## Southernsaug

I'd be happy too if I could just sort through and get some legals. I haven't kept a Saugeye from Rocky Fork Lake since summer of 2017. One day we caught 53 all short of 15".


----------



## Saugeyefisher

All those 14's from last fall all already pushing 16" hit a couple yesterday...


----------



## Ronny

Go back 4th of July weekend, all those shorts will be 15.0625".
Shouldn't take five years in Ohio to reach 15". 
3-4 years is being generous. Grow 6-9" first year.


----------



## DeathFromAbove

What southernsaug said. That is some sensible science there


----------



## crittergitter

The limit is great. Wish we had it sooner. Certain year classes always produce bigger fish. This ensures numbers of a great eater/put-and-take fish. Should make the masses happy.


----------



## Saugeyefisher

Hopefully fishslim,and skippy chime in. Both have been doing it since the beginning.


----------



## ristorap

I think the 15" limit is working. It stops a lot of the 10"-14" fish from being kept. Before the size limit I mostly only kept 15" and up, I would only keep a 14 1/2" if it was fat and looked like a 15" one. I have fished for them from the bank and boat.


----------



## caught your eye

Many years ago we had liberal limits and no size limit. I would go to places like deer creek and watch people haul out buckets of 8 to 10" fish. Younger fish travel in bigger schools and are easily targeted. A 15" fish back then was hard to find. I don't think there is any doubt that lowering limits and putting a 15" minimum on saugeye has turned many lakes into very good fishing.


----------



## Ronny

DeathFromAbove said:


> What southernsaug said. That is some sensible science there


In what aspect?
First. You can't compare heavily fished Ohio lakes to a massive SD reservoir with relatively low fishing pressure.
Second. All species have higher mortality rates at younger, smaller sizes. And to say that 70% are unused because we can't harvest them due to their loss before they reach legal size is very misleading. Most people are not going to harvest 9" saugeyes anyway. So to throw that out there is just a poor use of statistics.
Finally. If people were catching a limit then switching to crappie, then I'd say the limit is helping the crappie population as well. Those people were going to keep a boat limit and come back the next day and keep another boat limit. We all pay for the stockings. The current system levels the playing field.
The entire argument sounds like a guy that want's to keep every fish he catches.
I get a bit frustrated with all the sub legal fish as well.
I'd rather catch a bunch of sub-legal fish than to see all the 10" fish go home in buckets before they reach a better size. These fish don't take that long to reach a good fillet size, so there's no reason to harvest them at a size that requires two fish for one sandwich.


----------



## Southernsaug

I guess I am in the minority on size limits, and that is ok. Majority should rule. Ronny, I am curious where you get your data from on growth rates. Can you link me some studies? You are correct younger smaller fish have higher mortality rates, and I noted that in my 50% of new stocked fish die. Growth rates do differ in various lakes. Still I stand on my 3 year or more for a legal Saugeye on average. Granted females grow faster. I also stand on my position large numbers are male and live shorter lives. Believe me I do know what I am talking about. I'll give you the point on Oahe in SD is not a good comparable, but stocks of sub-legal fish is a phenomena that has often resulted from Length limits, not always but it is not uncommon. I assure you I do not keep every fish, but I wouldn't begrudge someone who did. They restock every year. In tailwaters biologist would be ok with total harvest of all sizes so they are utilized before heading downstream. It is intriguing that Rocky Fork had a more diverse size disbursement before the 15" limit.


----------



## acklac7

Southernsaug said:


> It will take Saugeye at least three seasons to reach 15" and most will be 4 or 5 to reach that length.


News to me, source?

I'm not sure if I agree with the population being 70% males. Maybe it seems that way, but those girls can be fickle in regards to habitat, bait and feeding times. Also, they don't like to hang around the males much outside of March. If you're catching a bunch of males, try switching spots.

Plenty of Females out and about feeding right now, you just need to figure out where/when to find them.

Specwar is 100% spot-on.



Specwar said:


> There are legal length Saugeye all over Atwood, just have to think like one of them to find them. I catch a lot of shorts, however I also get several legal fish in places you wouldn’t expect to find them. Once you figure it out you can get your limit, trust me. Took a friend with me last time and made him swear he wouldn’t share the location, and we limited in 4 hours even after catching many shorts and returning them.


----------



## Ronny

https://www.researchgate.net/public..._of_Walleye_X_Sauger_Hybrids_Saugeye_in_Ponds
195-214mm first year or 7.6-8.4"; 350-400mm by end of third summer or 13.81-15.75"
Research agrees 3 or more years. You said "most are 4-5 years". Where's your study?
I think some of the issue with sub par fishing results has to be attributed to higher fishing pressure and internet speak that has turned people on to these fish. Growing up on a couple really good saugeye lakes I used to knock the bottom out of 'em. However, times have changed and now there's a parking lot full of trailers right after ice out. Good luck to you. These fish will be legal in a month or two.


----------



## Brahmabull71

I’m with Southernsaug on this. Real time data and experience says I’ve been catching these fish in Hoover, Alum and O’Shay for a long time. Back in the late 90’s I’d get home from school and it was nothing to hook up Dad’s little 14’ and go catch 16 - 18” fish while averaging 15-18 an evening. Mostly we casted roadrunners and jigs. We always seemed to catch the largest at O’Shay, the most at Hoover and the best mix of size at Alum. I think the 15” law has actually created a less diverse fishery. That’s not science, that’s my opinion and experience. I also think the fry / fingerling stocking program screwed all of these lakes up. Cheaper or not, the success rates prove it doesn’t work. Hoover is case in point.

Honestly I’m all for keeping 13-13.5” Saugeye. Perfect size fillets for the frying pan and taste incredible. If you want, make the limit 3 (13-15”) and 3 over 15” for a total limit.

Lastly, I think saugeye are my favorite species to chase. I like their grit, aggression and fighting power...especially the over 22” variety. I fished with an old family friend this weekend at Alum and I asked him if his boy ever caught a bigger one than when he was in my boat? She was 26.5” and a little over 7.5lbs. He said “nope” and I said, neither have I. I’m chasing walleye when Skippy, Fishlim and Saugeyfisher are getting the bigger ones at night, so I don’t see a lot of fish over 5lbs. Maybe 1-2 all year and I chase them a BUNCH! But I used to. And that’s how I know something has changed. Unscientific, but still valid. There is a TON more pressure now then there ever was also. That could play a huge role.


----------



## acklac7

Brahmabull71 said:


> I’m with Southernsaug on this. Real time data and experience says I’ve been catching these fish in Hoover, Alum and O’Shay for a long time. Back in the late 90’s I’d get home from school and it was nothing to hook up Dad’s little 14’ and go catch 16 - 18” fish while averaging 15-18 an evening. Mostly we casted roadrunners and jigs. We always seemed to catch the largest at O’Shay, the most at Hoover and the best mix of size at Alum. I think the 15” law has actually created a less diverse fishery. That’s not science, that’s my opinion and experience. I also think the fry / fingerling stocking program screwed all of these lakes up. Cheaper or not, the success rates prove it doesn’t work. Hoover is case in point.
> 
> Honestly I’m all for keeping 13-13.5” Saugeye. Perfect size fillets for the frying pan and taste incredible. If you want, make the limit 3 (13-15”) and 3 over 15” for a total limit.
> 
> Lastly, I think saugeye are my favorite species to chase. I like their grit, aggression and fighting power...especially the over 22” variety. I fished with an old family friend this weekend at Alum and I asked him if his boy ever caught a bigger one than when he was in my boat? She was 26.5” and a little over 7.5lbs. He said “nope” and I said, neither have I. I’m chasing walleye when Skippy, Fishlim and Saugeyfisher are getting the bigger ones at night, so I don’t see a lot of fish over 5lbs. Maybe 1-2 all year and I chase them a BUNCH! But I used to. And that’s how I know something has changed. Unscientific, but still valid. There is a TON more pressure now then there ever was also. That could play a huge role.


First off, you can't compare anything today to the 90's. Why that decade was so phenomenal for Central Ohio Saugeye I have no idea. Keep in mind that was before well Buckeye or Indian caught fire. What ever they were doing they were doing right. I'm nearly certain they stocked the River with 2-3x the eyes back then, maybe true for lakes too?

I'm just not sure if the ODNR is keeping up with demand. I mean they have their standard fish/per acre allotment, but in what year was that number generated?? I'll try and find out.

All for 13"/14" eaters. They are almost a delicacy. I have no problem keeping them given the amount of Females I release year after year.


----------



## Snookhunter52

Wow this escalated quickly haha. Comparing saugeye fishing in ohio to walleye fishing in Lake Oahe are like comparing apples to oranges. Lake Oahe is a trophy fishery. Walleye live 3 times as long and have a 1:1 sex ratio. Fish are stocked for different reasons other than recreation. For example, blue cats and wipers are stocked to control shad populations. Saugeye do eat their fair share of shad but are mostly stocked for table fare. The ohio saugeye fishery is not a trophy fishery. I do agree with southernsaug that it seems to be a waste of the money that the majority of the saugeye that are stocked that reach adulthood never reach the 15". But I also agree with Ronny that it doesn't make much sense to keep saugeye smaller than 15 inches. Saugeye were stocked because they do better in bodies of water with lower water quality. This was great in the 80s and 90s when water quality was poor, but now water quality in Alum and Hoover have improved greatly. Now ODNR has started to stocking Hoover with walleye again. Honestly, I would prefer that they be more strict with the limits (either a reinstatement of the 15" limit or a two year ban) now that they have started to stock walleye in Hoover again. I'm more in favor to begin stocking the lakes with better quality with walleye instead of saugeye. But that's just my 2 cents worth and it looks like ODNR is already experimenting with that. I'm excited to see what will come of it in 4 to 5 years. If it goes well, I would prefer saugeye to be slowly replaced with walleye in some lakes.


----------



## Snookhunter52

Dislaimer: I don't think walleye should replace saugeye in alum because that fishery is doing really well and I firmly believe in the saying "if it isn't broke, don't fix it".


----------



## 9Left

I think the whole 15 inch size limit on Saugeye is arbitrary anyways ...If I remember right… It was put in place because so many people were complaining that they couldn't catch bigger saugeye... now that it is in place, people are still complaining that they can't catch Bigger saugeye...Furthermore, the main reason a size limit is placed on a fish is generally for reproduction reasons.
Yes, I know, there are SOME Instances that saugeye have actually reproduce... but for the most part they are a sterile fish ...Catch all the legal size you want and keep them all you want…They are a man made fish,Hatched by man, raised by a man, stocked by man...It is a put and take a resource.


----------



## Southernsaug

Ok guys I get it I made a poor choice in using Oahe as an example, but Oahe is over run with juvenile walleye and the stock is in danger as the forage base won't support it. It may or may not be related to Length limits. 

As for growth rates; the study Lynch and Scott Schell done was in small ponds and does not correlate well to larger lakes. I am quite familiar with it and I think the design was not intended to be used for Ohio's larger lakes, but examining the validity of using Saugeye in small systems. Stein, Culver, Marschall and others looked at growth rates and survival and no one could develop a strong predictor on growth rates. Typically you are looking at year 3 for 15" Saugeye, but in some impoundments that may be year 4. It is a function of prey density and many other factors. I give way on my statement and agree that 2.5 to 3 years is most likely for a 15" female Saugeye. As for the males, I have looked at thousands even millions and I know the tendencies of hybridization and males are far more frequent in this cross. With that said, males never get as big and grow slower. So a male I believe will take late year 3 or 4 to make 15". Some males will never make 15". I doubt I will win many over in this discussion, so I concede my stance. It looks like the majority wants the 15" limit so I'll just accept my medicine and hope for better fishing. It has been a very good discussion though. I don't know of any studies on exploitation of stocks, but I believe it is high.


----------



## lacdown

I'm all for a 15 inch limit, otherwise even less saugeye make it to a decent size then they already do. Also wondering if it's more our lack of ability to adjust and find the keeper sized fish... this weekend went to Hoover where I only caught a couple of keeper sized saugeye (and hardly any shorts) all last year. Tore them up ... got 5 keepers and 10 shorts doing the same thing I did last year. Curious as to whether they changed their locations due to the water not going down as low this winter.

Anyhow, whoever has connections with ODNR, ask them to stock wipers into Alum and Hoover!! Plenty of shad and it would make them even funner to fish!


----------



## Saugeyefisher

acklac7 said:


> First off, you can't compare anything today to the 90's. Why that decade was so phenomenal for Central Ohio Saugeye I have no idea. Keep in mind that was before well Buckeye or Indian caught fire. What ever they were doing they were doing right. I'm nearly certain they stocked the River with 2-3x the eyes back then, maybe true for lakes too?
> 
> I'm just not sure if the ODNR is keeping up with demand. I mean they have their standard fish/per acre allotment, but in what year was that number generated?? I'll try and find out.
> 
> All for 13"/14" eaters. They are almost a delicacy. I have no problem keeping them given the amount of Females I release year after year.


Buckeye and Indian were fire back then to,just not as much social media then to here about like we do now...


----------



## BigDub007

I would like to see ohio make 1 trophy saugeye lake and make a slot of 19-25 you have to trow back. It would be interesting to see the quality of fish would come out at the lake in 10 + years...... overall I am happy with the way they control the Lakes now.


----------



## acklac7

Saugeyefisher said:


> Buckeye and Indian were fire back then to,just not as much social media then to here about like we do now...


Were they still getting stocked with like 5x the typical fish per acre back then? I thought that started in the early 2000's.


----------



## Saugeyefisher

acklac7 said:


> Were they still getting stocked with like 5x the typical fish per acre back then? I thought that started in the early 2000's.


Idk... all I know was the saugeye fishing was outstanding on buckeye back then. I guess Indian I was just assuming the same.


----------



## Lewis

I'm all for the 15" min size limit. It has really helped the lakes I fish in southeast Ohio as far as size goes. Since the size limit was instituted a few years ago, I have been catching far more 20" to 26" fish than I have at anytime in the past. I just smile as I release all the 14 1/2 inch fish that I am catching this spring and early summer. Saugeyes are eating machines and those fish will be fat 15"+ keepers this fall. The saugeye population in the flood control lakes that I fish varies from year to year, depending on the amount of drawdown and rainfall, with some years many fish going out the dam gates. As the water cools and drawdown begins, huge schools of shad migrate to deeper waters near the dams. The saugeyes follow the bait , and have a love of current, and many are sucked out. I spoke at length with the chief ODNR fisheries biologist for my region several years ago and he explained that over the past 5 years or so there has been some experimenting on several Ohio bodies of water involving stocking fry vs fingerlings in alternating years to study which method has the best survival rate. This might have some effect on year classes. Fingerlings are typically stocked at the rate of 100 per acre and fry stocked at 1000 per acre.
My hat is off to the Ohio ODNR for their saugeye program! Without the saugeye most Ohio lakes would be pretty boring, fishing for just bass, catfish and crappie!


----------



## Saugeyefisher

Lewis said:


> I'm all for the 15" min size limit. It has really helped the lakes I fish in southeast Ohio as far as size goes. Since the size limit was instituted a few years ago, I have been catching far more 20" to 26" fish than I have at anytime in the past. I just smile as I release all the 14 1/2 inch fish that I am catching this spring and early summer. Saugeyes are eating machines and those fish will be fat 15"+ keepers this fall. The saugeye population in the flood control lakes that I fish varies from year to year, depending on the amount of drawdown and rainfall, with some years many fish going out the dam gates. As the water cools and drawdown begins, huge schools of shad migrate to deeper waters near the dams. The saugeyes follow the bait , and have a love of current, and many are sucked out. I spoke at length with the chief ODNR fisheries biologist for my region several years ago and he explained that over the past 5 years or so there has been some experimenting on several Ohio bodies of water involving stocking fry vs fingerlings in alternating years to study which method has the best survival rate. This might have some effect on year classes. Fingerlings are typically stocked at the rate of 100 per acre and fry stocked at 1000 per acre.
> My hat is off to the Ohio ODNR for their saugeye program! Without the saugeye most Ohio lakes would be pretty boring, fishing for just bass, catfish and crappie!


Good stuff,from a great saugeye angler! Thanks lewis!


----------



## Saugeyefisher

lacdown said:


> Anyhow, whoever has connections with ODNR, ask them to stock wipers into Alum and Hoover!! Plenty of shad and it would make them even funner to fish!


With the issues we have had at hoover,and muskie in alum,I dont think they have any desire at all to stock either lake with wipers. Altho it would be cool! Try fishing buckeye sometime,they can be hard to find at times but are in there...
An somehow a few are making it into alum now. One posted up on here a few years ago. And I beleive josh/brahmabull71 mentioned missing one a couple wks back.


----------



## Southernsaug

The high stocking rates did start in the early 2000s. All the discussion brings to light one point, every lake is different and what works on one will not on another. I spent 6 hours on the water today and tried everything I could think of I hadn't tried. I caught 9 Saugeye and 1 was a 17" keeper. Someone asked what was different back in the 90s. One thing was where the eggs came from. Sauger males came from the Ohio river and still do, but the female walleye came from inland lakes like Senecaville, Salt Fork, C.J. Brown Reservoir and even Rocky Fork. In early 2000s they switched to using Walleye from Lake erie. Many of the inland stocks had adapted to inland lakes over decades. That may and may not have made a difference. Now most all those lakes are Saugeye lakes and there are no walleye in them.


----------



## Ronny

You could always just switch lakes. Paint creek and Deer creek have no size limit.


----------



## acklac7

lacdown said:


> Anyhow, whoever has connections with ODNR, ask them to stock wipers into Alum and Hoover!! Plenty of shad and it would make them even funner to fish!


Hoover would be a seriously solid choice, but the DNR likely doesn't want to interfere with the excellent White Bass Fishery there. One of the DNR's main goals is to preserve native species.


----------



## acklac7

Southernsaug said:


> All the discussion brings to light one point, every lake is different and what works on one will not on another. I spent 6 hours on the water today and tried everything I could think of I hadn't tried. I caught 9 Saugeye and 1 was a 17" keeper.


Have you tried every _time, _every _spot _you could think of, though?

It's hard to catch a male right now at the spots i'm fishing. Usually these girls won't move in until right at dusk this time of year, however water clarity issues have them feeding early.


----------



## Southernsaug

I haven't tried it after dark yet and I probably won't. I have fished until I could barely see to navigate. Yes the bite picks up a bit, but just more shorts. I appreciate all the help and suggestions and I'm trying some. I have spent 50+ years fishing this lake and know it pretty well. It is a fantastic bass lake, good catfish, fair crappie lake, and at one time a top Muskie lake. It went from great to bad in the late 80s and early 90s due to sewage pollution. Then it came back like gangbusters when the sewage problem got fixed. For several years it was a Saugeye producing machine with a lot of big fish. Then this length limit came and all we have seen is a decline in the over 19" fish. This lake got a lot of fishing pressure, but I doubt it was a lot more than other Saugeye lakes. It has always lost a lot of fish to the stream as it has an overflow dam. This actually counts the same as angling and studies have shown bigger fish egress more than small. I truly believe the 15"+ fish are being caught or leaving. Stocking has also decreased. You used to have to pick and choose where you Saugeye fished or get in line. Now you may see one other boat on the Saugeye spots. You can fish anywhere you want most week days, that was not true 3years ago. The people have quit fishing for Saugeye. That may help as it will reduce what is leaving. I started this conversation after talking to some other anglers who said they fish other Saugeye lakes and found the same thing. I am happy to see a lot of other lakes are actually doing well. I also see my opinion is not shared by most here, so I accept it is just a local problem. I will say I am not a single grumbling old man, I know most of the diehard Saugeye fishers on this lake and they all are singing the same song. Most have quit fishing this lake for Saugeye, again that may help. This is what makes us great as sportsmen, we can debate and argue and still work out what is good for all.


----------



## lacdown

AJ, is that really what you've heard from the DNR? Interesting as I've never gotten the vibe or heard that white bass were a priority/focus. I love catching white bass, just would prefer catching bigger, stronger versions of them too  Maybe just drop a few thousand in there for kicks.



acklac7 said:


> Hoover would be a seriously solid choice, but the DNR likely doesn't want to interfere with the excellent White Bass Fishery there. One of the DNR's main goals is to preserve native species.


----------



## crittergitter

Hoover is owned by the City of Columbus. The ODNR can't just drop in whatever they want. lol

Also, Hoover is the primary source for water for the entire city of Columbus and goes through massive water fluctuations seasonally. That could affect what and how they stock it as well.


----------



## sherman51

i've never fished for them but the 15" size limit will be great in the yrs to come. it allows those small fish to grow up. all those shorts of close to 15" will be legal next yr. by doing the size limit now will improve your fishing by next yr. the larger fish will have more meat on the bone.
sherman


----------



## Saugeyefisher

crittergitter said:


> Hoover is owned by the City of Columbus. The ODNR can't just drop in whatever they want. lol


Ya I really just dont think alot of people realize how the city lakes are ran. I do to a point. But dont know all the details. But wouldn't consider it funny that someone else might not realize it. Just not as "in the know" as some people.


----------



## Southernsaug

Ronny said:


> You could always just switch lakes. Paint creek and Deer creek have no size limit.


Yeah Paint Creek is even closer to me, but it has been muddy all year and even now is cloudy. It was 40 feet over pool once this spring and most of the spring was high muddy water. I have never figured the Saugeye out on this lake. A few years ago you could find some, but in the last three years you may as well sit in your boat in the drive way and cast into the grass. Now the tail waters are another thing, I do quite well there and down stream


----------



## Ronny

Gotcha. However. Cloudy water can be a blessing. My goto lake has 10' visibility and is tough to trick fish with artificial. I mentioned to try a different lake because I've been kind of stuck in a rut myself. I used to be more open minded and rotate between five lakes that surround me. But then I got lazy and stuck with one. We'll call that lake Piedmont. Growing up bass fishing and occasionally eye and ski fishing. I learned that the best lake isn't the best lake every year. Case in point with bass and eyes this year. Piedmont is not even in the top three, of those five, for bass or eyes this year. Wish I would have realized that two months ago.


----------



## Snookhunter52

The big saugeye are out there. It's best to fish big lures slow for big fish in high pressure waters. Most of the time you won't catch big fish where the smaller fish are. Big fish got big because their patterns are different. I got this 21 inch fish slow retrieving a super rogue tonight while everybody else fishing small swimbaits or grubtail jigs weren't catching anything. I was really surprised to find out this fish was a male!!! I'm only saying this to show that sometimes if you catch yourself in a rut to try different things and sometimes taking risks can be worth it.


----------



## 9Left

I'm not too sure that fish get 
"bigger "because they have a different "pattern "...They all have the same pea sized brain...It's probably more a matter of not being eaten when they are smaller, not being caught and fried Before they have a chance to get bigger… and having access to what they need to get bigger, like food.


----------



## 9Left

My thoughts on the subject… I think people need to stop "thinking like a saugeye" and start " thinking like a shad" because when it comes down to it… That's the driving force, food.( with the exception of spring )....I think if someone actually took the time to study schools of shad, and their movements, cycles, migrations, or whatever... there catch rates would significantly go through the roof. Because let's face it, saugeye will hit most any lure, I know that I for one have caught them on spinner baits, crank baits, jerk baits, jigs, Nightcrawlers, wax worms, minnows, bass Lures, musky lures... you name it, I've caught them on it at some point or another. Which tells you that the only thing on their mind is eating.....Understand the food source and you'll catch the fish


----------



## Snookhunter52

Forgive me, I explained that wrong and it make it sound like bigger fish are smarter. What I meant to say agrees with what you're saying. The reason why bigger fish survive is that their behavior is different which doesn't translate as smarter...big saugeye don't just decide one day that they're going to eat only bigger baits because all their friends are being caught. What I meant to say big fish survive to become bigger because most of the fish that are being harvested by "popular tactics" which leaves the outliers. And I do agree certain factors such as food availability and natural mortality do play key roles. I was just meaning to say that fishing mortality serves as an additional selection factor that we don't often think about. And you are also right about it being important to find out where the schools of shad are.


----------



## trekker

Saugeyefisher said:


> With the issues we have had at hoover,and muskie in alum,I dont think they have any desire at all to stock either lake with wipers. Altho it would be cool! Try fishing buckeye sometime,they can be hard to find at times but are in there...
> An somehow a few are making it into alum now. One posted up on here a few years ago. And I beleive josh/brahmabull71 mentioned missing one a couple wks back.


What are the issues they've had ?


----------



## Saugeyefisher

trekker said:


> What are the issues they've had ?


Issues with the "catchable" saugeye population. No issues with muskie at alum. Just not sure they would put muskie an wipers both in alum(but I'm not for sure)......


----------



## fishslim

Saugeyefisher said:


> Buckeye and Indian were fire back then to,just not as much social media then to here about like we do now...


Shhhhh it was terrible back then. Trust me.


----------



## acklac7

fishslim said:


> Shhhhh it was terrible back then. Trust me.


Oh, I'm sure they've been on fire since day 1. Just that they didn't _catch_ fire until the 2000's. Like there was a 75% decrease in activity on the River during that time period, basically everyone flocked out to those two lakes. I can remember guys Fishing shoulder to shoulder below Griggs in the winter back in the 90's, before the explosion. Now you're lucky if you see someone down there period (during the winter). Not to complain by any means...


----------



## Saugeyefisher

acklac7 said:


> Oh, I'm sure they've been on fire since day 1. Just that they didn't _catch_ fire until the 2000's. Like there was a 75% decrease in activity on the River during that time period, basically everyone flocked out to those two lakes. I can remember guys Fishing shoulder to shoulder below Griggs in the winter back in the 90's, before the explosion. Now you're lucky if you see someone down there period (during the winter). Not to complain by any means...


That's just it. You think north shore gets crowded now,you should have seen it in the 90's.....literly shoulder to shoulder,assholes to elbows. Crowds that put today's crowds to shame. At times they played bumber boats trolling the towpath and hard bottom island areas in may andJune. Now your lucky to see 2-3 boats out there trolling at a time,unless a tournie is going on.....


----------



## Dillon.R.Nott

Little late to the thread but I feel like the 15" limit is pretty good for all saugeye fisheries. Keeps young fish from being taken, and allows fish to get to eater size. I would like to see how a slot would work. Like 6 fish 14" to 19". Maybe allow one over. I think the absolute biggest problem today is that those 15" fish and up are NEVER being released. Like 85% ( my guess; not a stat ) of saugeyes that make it to 15" in LAKES are being taken for harvest. We could have so many bigger fish swimming around if people didn't keep every fish they catch. But I really really like the small group of people how are actively on these cities and other online pages and have gotten the ' catch and release memo, to let them grow into trophy fish for the future ' I think thats key.


----------



## odell daniel

Snookhunter52 said:


> Wow this escalated quickly haha. Comparing saugeye fishing in ohio to walleye fishing in Lake Oahe are like comparing apples to oranges. Lake Oahe is a trophy fishery. Walleye live 3 times as long and have a 1:1 sex ratio. Fish are stocked for different reasons other than recreation. For example, blue cats and wipers are stocked to control shad populations. Saugeye do eat their fair share of shad but are mostly stocked for table fare. The ohio saugeye fishery is not a trophy fishery. I do agree with southernsaug that it seems to be a waste of the money that the majority of the saugeye that are stocked that reach adulthood never reach the 15". But I also agree with Ronny that it doesn't make much sense to keep saugeye smaller than 15 inches. Saugeye were stocked because they do better in bodies of water with lower water quality. This was great in the 80s and 90s when water quality was poor, but now water quality in Alum and Hoover have improved greatly. Now ODNR has started to stocking Hoover with walleye again. Honestly, I would prefer that they be more strict with the limits (either a reinstatement of the 15" limit or a two year ban) now that they have started to stock walleye in Hoover again. I'm more in favor to begin stocking the lakes with better quality with walleye instead of saugeye. But that's just my 2 cents worth and it looks like ODNR is already experimenting with that. I'm excited to see what will come of it in 4 to 5 years. If it goes well, I would prefer saugeye to be slowly replaced with walleye in some lakes.


I would like to see them stock alum with walleye again, they built spawning areas and really tried years ago, bass guys hate when I say this but Clearfork would be a great walleye lake, water quality has improved on a lot of central ohio lakes, walleye spawn may take off nowadays.


----------



## Southernsaug

Dillon your thoughts would probably be true for a species like bass, but Saugeye are a different critter. Being a hybrid they are predominately male offspring (probably 80%). Males are short lived and will not live long enough to obtain trophy size or even 15". Very few males live past 4 yrs old. Your thoughts are good just don't apply to Saugeye. Why waste 80% of the fish,


----------



## Dillon.R.Nott

Southernsaug said:


> Dillon your thoughts would probably be true for a species like bass, but Saugeye are a different critter. Being a hybrid they are predominately male offspring (probably 80%). Males are short lived and will not live long enough to obtain trophy size or even 15". Very few males live past 4 yrs old. Your thoughts are good just don't apply to Saugeye. Why waste 80% of the fish,


I knew males dont grow as large as females but the life span is shorter? Also just in my time fish i always find the males to be real aggressive so you’re saying they don’t grow as fast either? I don’t quite get what your saying by waste 80% of the fish? I’ve caught plenty of males in the 15” - 18”. What are you’re thoughts on the regulations and what do you think would be best for growing the biggest saugeyes? Looking for a good convocation always like learning new things


----------



## Southernsaug

I guess I should have went into more detail. What I meant is that most likely only 20 percent of the males will ever reach the harvest length of 15". In the 90s and 2000s OSU looked at survival of stocked Saugeye and they even done research to try and manipulate the embryos to get more females. What they found was 50% of the Saugeye die in the first year, then a few more die in the next year (irc approx. 20% of what's left) so in the third year you only have 30% survival. It takes a min. of three years to reach 15" and most males will take 4+ years to be legal. Females fare much better, but their so few of them. When you factor in hooking mortality and normal harvest your not leaving much. They are now stocking big numbers of fry to try and build stock. Saugeye, in my opinion are not a natural as a trophy fish, they are mainly targeted as food fish. What you get is exactly what you said, almost all legal length fish are harvested and your population gets weighed with immature short fish. A few survive to get big, but not a high percentage. Without the length limit many anglers are happy with a limit of eaters, say 12-16". They catch a limit and go home. Under the length limit they fish all day if needed to get keepers and everyone goes into the box. How many of those hooked fish die? Before length limits it a usual limited looked like this: 1 -20-22; 3 -16-19 and 2 12-14 or 6 at 12-16 and off the water in 2-3 hrs. I know guys who stay all day now and catch 50 to keep 3. The thing with Saugeye is ODNR makes more every year. they don't need protecting for spawn. The other issue is a large number of the bigger Saugeye leave the lakes. If you fish tailwaters or down stream of Saugeye lake you know this.


----------



## Lewis

On the MWCD lakes that I fish, I have experienced the exact opposite. Sure I'll have a day every now and then where I catch large numbers of sublegal saugeyes, but since the 15" size limit was instituted the difference for me has been night and day. Many fish over 20" which was a rarity before. I have been catching limits of legal fish even quicker and the throwbacks are there as next years keepers instead of in someone's frying pan.


----------



## Southernsaug

Lewis said:


> On the MWCD lakes that I fish, I have experienced the exact opposite. Sure I'll have a day every now and then where I catch large numbers of sublegal saugeyes, but since the 15" size limit was instituted the difference for me has been night and day. Many fish over 20" which was a rarity before. I have been catching limits of legal fish even quicker and the throwbacks are there as next years keepers instead of in someone's frying pan.


Just goes to show every system is different and that is why regulations should be looked at for each lake/area. From reading this forum alone I see more comments about too many sub-legal than ones like yours. I wonder if the MWCD lakes get less over all pressure. What are the dam discharges like, in other words do a lot of Saugeye escape the lakes? I wish the length limit worked on the lakes I fish, but I have not seen good results. I know some of the MWCD lakes have shown the ability to grow big fish rapidly in the past, they are good ecosystems. Consider yourself fortunate


----------



## Dillon.R.Nott

Seeing how many Saugeyes die every year really makes me wonder how much money and time is wasted when fish survival rates are so low. Saugeyes are definitely a interesting fish. Perhaps in the future we’ll figure out how to perfect a genetically modified fish to our best abilities. I think Walleyes would do great in places like Alum and Hoover as some do already but places like Indian and Buckeye I bet wouldn’t do nearly as well. I’m all for whatever the ODNR is doing for the future and am really curious how things will change if anything.


----------



## Dillon.R.Nott

One thing that frustrates me though is spillways. Love love love fishing them during high waters but summer time; it’s rough. Especially Indians. Once water levels drop there’s no where for fish to go but to sit and bake in the 90 degree weather, with no flowing water. One thing I always try to do is it’s always loaded with the fingerlings saugeyes from 8”-12” If i catch those i always try to throw them up above the spillway into the actual Lake. That way they’ll have a way better chance to thrive on.


----------



## Southernsaug

Dillon.R.Nott said:


> Seeing how many Saugeyes die every year really makes me wonder how much money and time is wasted when fish survival rates are so low. Saugeyes are definitely a interesting fish. Perhaps in the future we’ll figure out how to perfect a genetically modified fish to our best abilities. I think Walleyes would do great in places like Alum and Hoover as some do already but places like Indian and Buckeye I bet wouldn’t do nearly as well. I’m all for whatever the ODNR is doing for the future and am really curious how things will change if anything.


Those are actually not low numbers. In the wild survival is much lower. That's why fish have large number of offspring. The transition from Walleye to Saugeye was made in the 80s and 90s because of their suitability to inland reservoirs. Walleye survived less and hatchery production of Saugeye is better. They can rear millions and even at those survival rates DNR has built a strong fishery around Saugeye, I wouldn't call it a waste. Literally 100s of thousands are caught by anglers. We should all think in relative terms.


----------



## Hatchetman

Southernsaug said:


> Those are actually not low numbers. In the wild survival is much lower. That's why fish have large number of offspring. The transition from Walleye to Saugeye was made in the 80s and 90s because of their suitability to inland reservoirs. Walleye survived less and hatchery production of Saugeye is better. They can rear millions and even at those survival rates DNR has built a strong fishery around Saugeye, I wouldn't call it a waste. Literally 100s of thousands are caught by anglers. We should all think in relative terms.


I agree 100%. Saugeye have become my favorite fish to chase. What Dillon is forgetting is they are a put and take fish, ODNR puts em in, we take em out. There is a very very low reproduction rate and they are also an excellent eating fish. It always amazes me though how many people talk of how "trophy" fish should be released. In the case of saugeye, why? Can't reproduce but they sure fry up nice. Catch a couple big ones and get a replica made and have a good fish fry. Trouble I have at Piedmont is catching 25-30 with no keepers. Now Tappan, BIG fish. I usually keep enough over the year for the wife and I to have 8-10 nice fish dinners. I like the 15 inch limit with 6 keepers....


----------



## Skippy

Mr. Hatchetman Sir,,, That's enough about Tappan !!!!


----------



## Dillon.R.Nott

Hatchetman said:


> I agree 100%. Saugeye have become my favorite fish to chase. What Dillon is forgetting is they are a put and take fish, ODNR puts em in, we take em out. There is a very very low reproduction rate and they are also an excellent eating fish. It always amazes me though how many people talk of how "trophy" fish should be released. In the case of saugeye, why? Can't reproduce but they sure fry up nice. Catch a couple big ones and get a replica made and have a good fish fry. Trouble I have at Piedmont is catching 25-30 with no keepers. Now Tappan, BIG fish. I usually keep enough over the year for the wife and I to have 8-10 nice fish dinners. I like the 15 inch limit with 6 keepers....


I understand that ,,, people love to eat these fish. I do too on occasion. You guys do your thing thats great. But for the people that don't fish for food, they fish for sport. For the joy and adventure it takes to catch those larger fish. Thats why a few of us saugeye guys like to release bigger fish; to make them bigger for other guys to break their PB or just simply to catch big fish. 
I myself like eating saugeye but i don't eat them often, my family in specific are not too fond of fish unfortunatly. So I generally release my fish. THATs why i release them, ( most of the time )


----------



## Dillon.R.Nott

Southernsaug said:


> Those are actually not low numbers. In the wild survival is much lower. That's why fish have large number of offspring. The transition from Walleye to Saugeye was made in the 80s and 90s because of their suitability to inland reservoirs. Walleye survived less and hatchery production of Saugeye is better. They can rear millions and even at those survival rates DNR has built a strong fishery around Saugeye, I wouldn't call it a waste. Literally 100s of thousands are caught by anglers. We should all think in relative terms.


Just to be clear ,,, when i said how many fish go to waste; i was talking about spillway fish. To be more specific the ones that are trapped under dams in the summer. Many die offs occur in the summer in spillways that have barely any oxygen and no moving water. I know this is pretty much inevitable but I've seen it a few years and many many fish die in these areas in the hot months. At Indian this year we had tons of rain just pouring saugeye into the spillway but once summer came around all those below keeper sized Saugeyes had no where to go; even some bigger ones too. Spillway was littered with dead saugeyes.


----------



## Southernsaug

That's interesting dillon. I have never seen a spillway die off, but then I'm only familiar with a few. I am surprised they are not fished out. That is a waste when that happens. My local lakes you can catch fish all year at the tailwaters, but they do keep flows up. More reason to keep what you catch in my opinion, at least at those sites


----------



## Dillon.R.Nott

Southernsaug said:


> That's interesting dillon. I have never seen a spillway die off, but then I'm only familiar with a few. I am surprised they are not fished out. That is a waste when that happens. My local lakes you can catch fish all year at the tailwaters, but they do keep flows up. More reason to keep what you catch in my opinion, at least at those sites


 Yes the Indian Lake spillway is very small compared to other lakes. Right below the spillway there is a " trough " thing. Its about 2 feet deep, 50 feet across and maybe 15 feet wide, After that section it just leads into the river. The saugeyes swim upstream into this trough and once there pretty much impossible for them to go anywhere else. 

Usually within a few weeks most of the saugeyes are fished out, but all the fingerlings and 12" saugeyes are stuck. People catch those but just throw them back into the spillway. Where once water gets lower the spillway doesn't spill water over anymore , literally. Leaving fish in that trough in 90 degree water with no fresh water or oxygen. This year it was bad hundreds and hundreds of dead saugeyes right below the spillway. Even some small flatheads dead. I was wondering if i could walk around with a net and scoop as many fish up as i could and throw them above the spillway but the odnr would probably think im doing something illegal LOL


----------



## lacdown

Saugeye in Alum Creek spillway just become muskie snacks in the summer


----------



## acklac7

Dillon.R.Nott said:


> Just to be clear ,,, when i said how many fish go to waste; i was talking about spillway fish. To be more specific the ones that are trapped under dams in the summer. Many die offs occur in the summer in spillways that have barely any oxygen and no moving water. I know this is pretty much inevitable but I've seen it a few years and many many fish die in these areas in the hot months. At Indian this year we had tons of rain just pouring saugeye into the spillway but once summer came around all those below keeper sized Saugeyes had no where to go; even some bigger ones too. Spillway was littered with dead saugeyes.


Must be an Indian thing? Never seen a more than one or two dead Saugeye (at a time) below any of the Scioto Spillways.


----------



## Dillon.R.Nott

acklac7 said:


> Must be an Indian thing? Never seen a more than one or two dead Saugeye (at a time) below any of the Scioto Spillways.


 Probably. Indians spillway is tiny compared to anything like something on the Scioto or Alum. Like super small. So I guess my statement really only correlates to Indians Spillway lol


----------



## Hatchetman

acklac7 said:


> Must be an Indian thing? Never seen a more than one or two dead Saugeye (at a time) below any of the Scioto Spillways.


Never seen it at the MWCD spillways either....


----------



## Hatchetman

Skippy said:


> Mr. Hatchetman Sir,,, That's enough about Tappan !!!!


OOPS !!


----------



## hatteras1

I have always agreed with size or slot limits as it's a pro active attempt to protect the species while improving the harvest, but it's 5 years to see the results according to ODNR. I remember a very rainy day many years ago watching to men fill a cooler keeping every single Saugeye they caught, and none that I saw over 10". It was disgusting to say the least. Last year was the best year I've had for Saugeye's in a long time, boating 16 and 5 were keepers, all before 10:30am. I believe long term that it does work, just some lakes better than others.


----------



## Hatchetman

Dillon.R.Nott said:


> I understand that ,,, people love to eat these fish. I do too on occasion. You guys do your thing thats great. But for the people that don't fish for food, they fish for sport. For the joy and adventure it takes to catch those larger fish. Thats why a few of us saugeye guys like to release bigger fish; to make them bigger for other guys to break their PB or just simply to catch big fish.
> I myself like eating saugeye but i don't eat them often, my family in specific are not too fond of fish unfortunatly. So I generally release my fish. THATs why i release them, ( most of the time )


Number one....I don't fish for food, I have a couple dollars laying around that I can buy a burger or two to survive. I keep a few fish every year and release far more than I keep so don't throw that "You guys do your thing" crap at me or anyone one else that likes to eat fresh fish now and then....


----------



## Dillon.R.Nott

Hatchetman said:


> Number one....I don't fish for food, I have a couple dollars laying around that I can buy a burger or two to survive. I keep a few fish every year and release far more than I keep so don't throw that "You guys do your thing" crap at me or anyone one else that likes to eat fresh fish now and then....


Calm down; no need to be aggressive on a fishing site, re-read the posts.
You said in you’re previous post that “why” should you release these fish, when they stocked to eat. You implemented the fact that you think there’s no reason to release them when they are stocked as a food fish. Now in you’re second post you say you don’t keep a lot of fish and “ don’t need to “ okay lol....... you’re two posts lead for 2 completely different reasons. If you reread, I said i too eat Saugeye. Nothing bashful against anyone who keeps them for food. Like you said; that’s their purpose. Have a good one Hatchetman.


----------



## Southernsaug

I hope this thread doesn't go off the rails, it's been a good discussion. My family eats most of the Saugeye I catch. We eat more fish than chicken. I don't think I'm wrong in doing that nor is the person who releases them. For me almost everyone I know that targets Saugeye keep them to eat. I actually don't know anyone outside this forum that is primarily a catch and release Saugeye fisherman. Yet I have nothing for or against either side, if you enjoy what your doing your getting pleasure out of your sport and some food that is good. Catch and release seldom results in bigger fish. If you've watched you know some lakes have a reputation for bigger Saugeye. Water quality, lake environment, forage and over all fish density dictate size more than releasing fish. Actually, if you get too many and the carrying capacity is reached they won't get as big. when DNR tags fish most tag recoverys are within a year or two. Not long enough for a lot of growth. survival of stocking year classes seem to influence catch and size more. the more that survive the greater chance of fish with the "big gene" to be in the system. It's more about forage and survival than how many you release. Try cutting the top point of the tail fin off your releases and see how many you catch later. Again I like the discussion and I have my beliefs and others theirs and that makes for good talk. I hope no one has hard fillings over anything we've discussed, it's all good


----------



## Dillon.R.Nott

Southernsaug said:


> I hope this thread doesn't go off the rails, it's been a good discussion. My family eats most of the Saugeye I catch. We eat more fish than chicken. I don't think I'm wrong in doing that nor is the person who releases them. For me almost everyone I know that targets Saugeye keep them to eat. I actually don't know anyone outside this forum that is primarily a catch and release Saugeye fisherman. Yet I have nothing for or against either side, if you enjoy what your doing your getting pleasure out of your sport and some food that is good. Catch and release seldom results in bigger fish. If you've watched you know some lakes have a reputation for bigger Saugeye. Water quality, lake environment, forage and over all fish density dictate size more than releasing fish. Actually, if you get too many and the carrying capacity is reached they won't get as big. when DNR tags fish most tag recoverys are within a year or two. Not long enough for a lot of growth. survival of stocking year classes seem to influence catch and size more. the more that survive the greater chance of fish with the "big gene" to be in the system. It's more about forage and survival than how many you release. Try cutting the top point of the tail fin off your releases and see how many you catch later. Again I like the discussion and I have my beliefs and others theirs and that makes for good talk. I hope no one has hard fillings over anything we've discussed, it's all good


Good man. I love seeing everyone’s opinions on the topic. Gives anyone an opportunity to learn. Overall a good thread


----------



## Draggin along

While we are on the topic of eating fish, does anyone know the purpose of the ODNR asking 'how much fish you eat per month' when they stop you for a survey ?


----------



## Southernsaug

Draggin along said:


> While we are on the topic of eating fish, does anyone know the purpose of the ODNR asking 'how much fish you eat per month' when they stop you for a survey ?


They work with the EPA, Health dept. and USDA to sample for heavy metals, pesticide residue and other contaminates. Dnr provides the meat samples for testing. Could be USDA or someone is wanting to build a baseline of average consumption to establish allowable levels.


----------



## Draggin along

Thank you for the explanation.


----------



## Gottagofishn

Interesting opinions... Alum is the lake I cut my teeth on. I too enjoyed the early days of wallhangers from both Alum and Hoover. Somewhere along the line for reasons probably discussed above somewhere the big ones have shifted to a night bite thing. If you follow the forums, now that it is cooling down, you will see posts of all the little piggies caught at night. 
I have fished Alum for years and the last ten to 15 years I have caught primarily 14 to 15 inches during the day. It seems as though they have adapted to the armies of fisherman during the day by switching to feeding at night.
My solution, Erie. I sure enjoyed the heydays... Alum was much closer (and cheaper).


----------



## hatteras1

Dillon.R.Nott said:


> I understand that ,,, people love to eat these fish. I do too on occasion. You guys do your thing thats great. But for the people that don't fish for food, they fish for sport. For the joy and adventure it takes to catch those larger fish. Thats why a few of us saugeye guys like to release bigger fish; to make them bigger for other guys to break their PB or just simply to catch big fish.
> I myself like eating saugeye but i don't eat them often, my family in specific are not too fond of fish unfortunatly. So I generally release my fish. THATs why i release them, ( most of the time )


I love to catch and release the Saugeye's. Most are too small anyhow, but it's a test for my lure designs.

"I troll a Glock-g26 with Bloodred treble 2.0 Mustad"


----------



## Snyd

It's only been the last few years where I have actually started to target saugeye and I like the size limit. I was out at Alum last year where I caught 4 shorts fish just before dark in a total of 20 minutes and threw them back but noticed a guy next to me keeping his short fish.
I have caught countless sauger in the ohio river in the 12-14 inch range and they are very tasty.


----------



## FishnBob

Specwar said:


> Don’t have much input on your question as I just started targeting them this year. What I do know is that I have certainly caught a lot of 14-1/2” ers no matter where I fish.


That just means that this fall, or next year will be very good fishing!


----------



## Jim white

FishnBob said:


> That just means that this fall, or next year will be very good fishing!


You do realize this post is from 2019


----------

