# Alum saugeye vs walleye



## Bleeding Minnow (Feb 22, 2012)

Need a little bit of identification help here. As far as I know Alum is supposed to have saugeye and not walleye but I have caught a few of these this year and to me they look like walleye. I havent caught any larger than 18" though so perhaps when they get bigger they get the darker spots that I am used to seeing on saugeyes?


----------



## terryit3 (Jul 15, 2011)

Looks like a saugeye to me.


----------



## I_Shock_Em (Jul 20, 2008)

.....saugeye


----------



## laynhardwood (Dec 27, 2009)

That is tough to tell on that fish even after enlarging it but looks like a saugeye that was caught in water that was a bit muddy IMO


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## T-180 (Oct 18, 2005)

I too say saugeye.


----------



## Mushijobah (May 4, 2004)

Sometimes saugeyes look like walleye because there is some walleye in saugeye. Say that 10x fast! It's a saugeye!


----------



## Bleeding Minnow (Feb 22, 2012)

thx guys. i figured. is there a distinguishing mark i can look for? i thought dark spots on the body and the dorsal for saugeye but yes ive noticed colors on other fish sort of washed out from the muddy alum waters as well.


----------



## fishslim (Apr 28, 2005)

Saugeye for sure i have a tracking device on it!!


----------



## Lewis (Apr 5, 2004)

Some kids look like mom and some look like dad. Its a Saugeye.


----------



## yak-on (Jul 4, 2011)

i was told once by a guy that if you count the spikes in the fin that there is a difference between the to . i cant remeber which way it was but something like 13 saugeye 14-15 walleye ..but dont qoute me on it ..just something i was told .


----------



## MassillonBuckeye (May 3, 2010)

For the most part it's pretty much established what fish are in what water. Odnr lists species by body of water. Alum = saugeye


----------



## Snyd (May 5, 2004)

MassillonBuckeye - The only reason the ODNR does not list walley at Alum is because they don't stock them in the lake anymore. This does not mean there are not any left in the lake. I caught one about 7 pounds a few years back at alum. If memory serves me correctly they used to have a big walley tournament back in 2000 - 2004 on Alum. I do agree though they are becoming very scarce in Alum but they are still a few left.


----------



## fishdontbite6 (Apr 12, 2004)

It probably is a saugeye, Alum Creek walleye stocking was stopped in 1986, saugeyes started in 87', that would mean that fish is 26 + plus years old. I dont know if they live that long,but thats a long time in a flood control lake.
Also, Hoover first stocked with saugeye June 1998, Indian 1990, Buckeye 1993,


----------



## MassillonBuckeye (May 3, 2010)

Snyd said:


> MassillonBuckeye - The only reason the ODNR does not list walley at Alum is because they don't stock them in the lake anymore. This does not mean there are not any left in the lake. I caught one about 7 pounds a few years back at alum. If memory serves me correctly they used to have a big walley tournament back in 2000 - 2004 on Alum. I do agree though they are becoming very scarce in Alum but they are still a few left.


Interesting. 



fishdontbite6 said:


> It probably is a saugeye, Alum Creek walleye stocking was stopped in 1986, saugeyes started in 87', that would mean that fish is 26 + plus years old. I dont know if they live that long,but thats a long time in a flood control lake.
> Also, Hoover first stocked with saugeye June 1998, Indian 1990, Buckeye 1993,


Thanks for the info.


----------



## jwfish (Jan 28, 2005)

Alum is mostly saugeye but there are a few walleye in th lake yet caught a 5 lb last year on a crankbait orth of 36.


----------



## Lewis (Apr 5, 2004)

This is kind of a long article from my friend and fishing partner the late Jim Corey ,dealing with Saugeye/Walleye identification.
It is full of good information.


Saugeye identification:
One of the most common problems with the identification of Saugeyes, Walleyes, and Saugers has to do with the lack of factual information provided to the angling public. Experienced anglers can easily tell the difference between Saugers and Walleyes but when you throw Saugeyes into the equation things can get confusing very quickly. Just as in humans, fish inherit genetic traits from both parents. Although the majority of Saugeye from any one mating of a female Walleye and a male Sauger will end up with the common physical characteristics of Saugeyes that we see in pictures and articles on the subject, there are always some that will favor "Mom" or some that will look more like "Dad". 
In one of our area reservoirs, Tappan Lake, Walleye stockings were stopped after 1976 and yearly Saugeye stocking were begun in 1990, with an experimental stocking done in 1986. Annual stockings have averaged from 300,000 to 600,000 fingerlings per year. Anglers today still claim to catch pure Walleyes here on occasion, although the odds against it are staggering. Walleye lifespans at this latitude average from 8 to 12 years, with old fish occasionally reaching 15 years of age. ( These figures are for our inland lakes and may be different for Erie) Even if there were an old female swimming around, genetically uncorrupted, the odds of her eggs being fertilized by another existing pure male Walleye are even more staggering, especially since Walleye spawning habits are not monogamous and several males may fertilize the eggs of any one female. If local anglers see no well defined saddle markings on the fish, they believe that it is a pure Walleye.
In any waters where Walleye and Sauger coexist and have overlapping spawning habitat there will be a naturally ocurring population of Hybrids (Saugeyes). Most estimates for waters like the Ohio and Missouri River systems run about 4% of the total combined species. This 4% poses no threat to the gene pool of either parent species and can be reabsorbed. When the number of Saugeyes is increased dramatically by upstream stocking programs it becomes impossible to prevent eventual contamination of the parental species. 
The following is a quote from a study titled "Evaluation of Skin Pigmentation for Identifying Adult Saugers and Walleye-Sauger F1 Hybrids Collected from Lake Sakakawea, North Dakota."
"Correct identification of brood fish from waters where sympatric species hybdidize presents a challenge to fisheries managers and hatchery biologists. Misidentification of brood stock can result in inadvertent hybridization and the failure of hatchery programs."
We are seeing the results of such incorrect identification here in Ohio. Traditional inland Walleye lakes like Seneca and Salt Fork are now being stocked with Saugeyes. When questioned about the reasons for this, the ODNR blames anglers for releasing Saugeyes into the lakes and corrupting the existing Walleye populations. Salt Fork Lake had long been a "Mother Lake", one where hatcheries personell collected female Walleyes to strip eggs for the State hatcheries programs. One of the States largest hatcheries in just below the dam on Seneca lake. Some of the fry and fingerlings from the eggs harvested made their way back into these lakes through stocking programs. The Female Walleyes were identified by morphology (physical characteristics) by the hatcheries personell at the time of capture. Here is another quote from the same study quoted above. It is based on the capture of 143 fish from Lake Sakakawea, 14 of which (10%) turned out, under genetic testing, to be incorrectly identified as Sauger by using physical characteristics.
"In the context of fish culture operations, the consequenses of a 10% error rate can be enormous. We used Hearns (1986) data to show how the genetic composition of the Sauger population of Lake Sakakawea could have been changed if the incorrectly identified fish were used as broodfish. Hearn (1986) crossed two F1 hybrid (Saugeyes) females with Sauger males and produced about 47,000 fingerlings. Of the 14 fish we identified as F1 hybrids eight were females, two were males, and the gender of four could not be determined. Given success comparable to Hearns(1986) about 188,000 fingerlings could be produced from the eight females. Hearn used one male to fertilize three females. Following this protocol, if the male hybrids were used as brood fish, a total of about 580,000 hybrid fingerlings could result."
It seems far more likely that the presence of Saugeyes in lakes like Salt Fork and Seneca stem from misidentification of brood stock and subsequent stocking of hybrids rather than by fish released by a few anglers.


----------



## MassillonBuckeye (May 3, 2010)

No walleye in Alum. I didn't think so.


----------



## Saugeyefisher (Jul 19, 2010)

LEWIS, Thanks for posting that! Lots of info in there. I miss reading you and jimcoreys trournie reports. Man you guys flat out caught fish!! Do you still chase saugeyes?? Ive actually gone back the last week and read a bunch of jim coreys old posts.. LOTS TO LEARN!!!


----------

