# Give the "Nursery" a break this spring!



## Bluepiker (Jul 10, 2010)

This idea probably will not be welcomed by many, but then I have never agreed with the majority on a lot of issues anyway. No matter how you slice it the walleye numbers in LE are very low and have been for years. The ODNR will not close fishing for spawn. Ohio is the only State I know in the walleye's natural range that does not close the season for spawn. So it is up to us the sports fisherman to protect future populations. The western basin reefs is the "Nursery" where 90% of the spawn occurs for all of LE. When you are fishing the reefs in WEST LE take limit if you must of small males and carefully release the big females. 

Some of you please consider this: 

"If you still have walleye in the freezer from the past season(s) what is the point of killing more this spring?"


----------



## captmike (Feb 16, 2007)

when jig fishing the reefs, males is mostly what you catch.


----------



## bobk (Apr 30, 2004)

Bluepiker said:


> This idea probably will not be welcomed by many, but then I have never agreed with the majority on a lot of issues anyway. No matter how you slice it the walleye numbers in LE are very low and have been for years. The ODNR will not close fishing for spawn. Ohio is the only State I know in the walleye's natural range that does not close the season for spawn. So it is up to us the sports fisherman to protect future populations. The western basin reefs is the "Nursery" where 90% of the spawn occurs for all of LE. When you are fishing the reefs in WEST LE take limit if you must of small males and carefully release the big females.
> 
> Some of you please consider this:
> 
> "If you still have walleye in the freezer from the past season(s) what is the point of killing more this spring?"


Here we go again. A female is a female is a female. You should release them all year then right? If people can only fish a couple times a year and it's in the spring they have every legal right to keep the limit of their choice. I always release the females, but I don't tell other people what they should do.


----------



## Carpman (May 18, 2005)

Agreed, to some extent. I probably will keep 2-3 per trip. It's the fun of catching them, not eating them every meal.


----------



## Fish Scalper (Oct 31, 2009)

Regardless of what anyone does or says, there are ALWAYS enough eggs laid to have a banner hatch. It's what comes after they're laid that matters and it has ZERO to do with fishing habits.


----------



## Double J (Jan 7, 2009)

Fish Scalper said:


> Regardless of what anyone does or says, there are ALWAYS enough eggs laid to have a banner hatch. It's what comes after they're laid that matters and it has ZERO to do with fishing habits.


Exactly..if you want to be proactive,pray for ideal spawning conditions whatever that is.In the years i've been jiggin the reefs my boat has never caught a female.and if you do what difference does it make if you pluck it from the lake in april or august? You think the charter boats throw back legal fish when a limit is yet to be reached? try to explain that to 6 guys out for their annual erie trip '' that's a real trophy but we better put her back so she can spawn next spring " give me a break with this please! hope the ramps open sooner than later.


----------



## Carpman (May 18, 2005)

Hey double, not to change the subject of the thread but the ramps should be open shortly if this rain keeps up!!!


----------



## Lundy (Apr 5, 2004)

Bluepiker said:


> This idea probably will not be welcomed by many, but then I have never agreed with the majority on a lot of issues anyway. No matter how you slice it the walleye numbers in LE are very low and have been for years. The ODNR will not close fishing for spawn. Ohio is the only State I know in the walleye's natural range that does not close the season for spawn. So it is up to us the sports fisherman to protect future populations. The western basin reefs is the "Nursery" where 90% of the spawn occurs for all of LE. When you are fishing the reefs in WEST LE take limit if you must of small males and carefully release the big females.
> 
> Some of you please consider this:
> 
> "If you still have walleye in the freezer from the past season(s) what is the point of killing more this spring?"



Good intentions that unfortunately would have zero impact on the potential success of the 2011 hatch


----------



## Brownsfan1024 (Feb 10, 2010)

I want to start off with that I know nothing about the optimal spawning conditions but I am just thinking about numbers. If we leave the spawning alone and the eyes produce 1 million eggs (Dr Evil impressions added) and there is a 20% hatch rate that would give us 200K fry. Now if there are restricted dates or a slot limit and the fish produce 2 million eggs with the same rate of 20%, 400k fry. 

I dont think we should wait till the river catches fire before we do something

With all that said I will see you guys up there
Sean

"Got to stop wishing, got to go fishin"
><((((º>`.¸¸.´¯`.¸.´¯`...¸><((((º>¸. 
´¯`.¸. , . .´¯`.. ><((((º>`.¸¸.´¯`.¸.´¯`...¸><((((º>


----------



## B Thomas (Jan 21, 2005)

If I remember correctly a female can drop up to 500,000 eggs. I dont think there is a shortage of females that are full of them. Again, going alone with Double J if you put that large female back in the spring then do it any other time when shes not ready to spawn....you take her out in April its no different than doing it in July. Why does this debate come up every winter??? LOL

If you choose to release any fish during the spawn thats up to you....ODNR says you can keep 4 per person until May 1st...if you do that too then so be it.


----------



## kprice (May 23, 2009)

Take fish by legal means is all you can say


----------



## bocajemma (Dec 29, 2008)

Brownsfan1024 said:


> I want to start off with that I know nothing about the optimal spawning conditions but I am just thinking about numbers. If we leave the spawning alone and the eyes produce 1 million eggs (Dr Evil impressions added) and there is a 20% hatch rate that would give us 200K fry. Now if there are restricted dates or a slot limit and the fish produce 2 million eggs with the same rate of 20%, 400k fry.
> 
> I dont think we should wait till the river catches fire before we do something
> 
> ...


If it were purely a numbers game like that there wouldn't be a problem. It's not. I am sure someone has more specific numbers but I think the walleye population is somewhere estimated at around 18 million in lake erie. Let's consider half of them are female and half of the females are spawners. that would be 4.5 million females laying around 500,000 eggs (for larger females) each. You can do the math for yourself, but you will discover that the survival rate is the issue, not the quantity of female walleyes or eggs layed in the lake. If someone has the answer to the survival rate of the walleye fry, please go ahead and share with everyone. As is always stated when this topic comes up, one good spawn, meaning a better than average survival rate of the walleye fry and this subject will go away for another 5 or 10 years.


----------



## fishingguy (Jan 5, 2006)

Personally, I don't keep big females. Normally release all fish over 6#'s or so (if healthy and not bleeding). But, the regulations say you can, and if you abide by the regs. it's ok with me. Bluepiker you state that "the walleye numbers in LE are very low and have been for years''. That's not even close to being accurate. I bet if you took the average over the past 50 years you would find the population now to be above average. The population of catchable walleye is way down from 06, but it would have to be. It was through the roof than. The spawn depends on the mood of mother nature.


----------



## stormsearch (Apr 8, 2006)

Blue at least is pretty much only referring to the spring when people can and do target the females because they are concentrated or on a feed binge post spawn. I have never caught a limit of females in July or in August. I do agree that nature plays a bigger role in fish numbers, but with numbers being so low, fisherman's catch can have an impact.

With that said, I keep every walleye that is legal until I get my limit. With the economy and now the gas prices, people are going to maximize their enjoyment.


----------



## tomb (Oct 9, 2004)

Here's some numbers I found on a very quick search:

Walleye produce 25,000 eggs per pound. 3-10 year olds producing 53,000-426,000 eggs. Ohio seagrant often throws 250,000 around as the average.

10-50 percent of the eggs hatch.

25-50 percent of the hatching fry survive.

10 percent of the hatch live to be three year olds.

If 30 percent hatch and 25 percent live it would take 640 females to produce 12 million fry. OR 3,000 to produce the 56 million megahatch of '03. 

MORE conservative guess of 10 percent hatch and 10 percent living to three years old requires 4,800 females for 12 million and 22,400 for 56 million.

I'm sure we'll try not to catch the last 22, 400 females out there


----------



## tomb (Oct 9, 2004)

Here's an interesting link that pops up when searching "erie walleye reproduction" http://www.fondriest.com/news/lake-erie-buoy-helps-ohio-division-of-wildlife-study-walleye-hatch.htm


----------



## 10fish (May 12, 2005)

ODNR set the regs for us to follow. If you stay within the regs the system will be fine.
Remember when the limit was 10? they dropped it to 6 for a reason and only 4 until May I believe.


----------



## Double J (Jan 7, 2009)

Carpman said:


> Hey double, not to change the subject of the thread but the ramps should be open shortly if this rain keeps up!!!


should be floatin by end of the month!


----------



## WiseEyes (Apr 7, 2010)

You guys should check out the LMB debate going on in the NorthEast Ohio Forum. Its the same thing every year on every species that a person is passionate about. I agree that if you have a freezer full and the fish is healthy, by all means release it. On the other hand the ODNR sets the limits with sustainability of the resource in mind. I think we have one of the best game management programs in the region. Look at the problems PA has had with its deer herd, ODNR does a good job


----------



## Shortdrift (Apr 5, 2004)

I have read or heard this discussion for so many years that I finally sat down and pondered the problem in an attempt to suggest a solution along with an alternate conclusion. The solution is quite simple and should result in reducing the number of future posts on this subject after graduation.:bananapartyhat: 
The conclusion, though factual in the first part, might, in the second part, start a secondary discussion that could turn into a heated and confrontational debate.


* Solution*

All the armchair biologists should enroll in college and come back with suggestions after graduation and three years of study of the Lake Erie walleye. So simple, even a cave man could think of it. 

*
Conclusion*

All the armchair biologists that do not wish to enroll in college should refrain from pursuing, catching and eating walleye as you may be eating a smaller yet legal sized fish, but yet to mature female. You could gravitate to the ranks of the dedicated steelhead or bass and musky sportsman thus becoming a complete no kill catch and release fisherman. 

In closing I will note that I harbor no Ill feeling or disparaging remarks toward those who desire to practice no kill catch and release for the true challenge and satisfaction of this WONDERFUL SPORT we all share. I have, through the years, caught, released, killed and consumed almost every freshwater fish including large gravid females, but I have settled into enjoying trolling for and eating walleye. My reason for releasing the larger walleye is not that they could be female but because they a too darn hard to clean!

LAST OF ALL. Best of luck to each of you in the 2011 season and be safe on whatever water you are on or in.


----------



## MDBuckeye (Sep 29, 2009)

Now that's funny!


----------



## Carpman (May 18, 2005)

Well, you know what......walleye populations won't matter even 5 years from now if they don't get any funding to stop the asian carp? Those 1 million dollar houses in avon will be up for auction for 10k after the carp destroy the lake. don't get me wrong, I am worried about the walleye for now.....but that can be fixed by odnr making better breeding grounds for them in the sandusky and maumee rivers. Also, closing the rivers during the spawn can't do any harm.


----------



## Mad-Eye Moody (May 27, 2008)

Shortdrift said:


> I have read or heard this discussion for so many years that I finally sat down and pondered the problem in an attempt to suggest a solution along with an alternate conclusion. The solution is quite simple and should result in reducing the number of future posts on this subject after graduation.:bananapartyhat:
> The conclusion, though factual in the first part, might, in the second part, start a secondary discussion that could turn into a heated and confrontational debate.
> 
> 
> ...


I am going to start calling you Yoda, for you are a wise one Shortdrift.


----------



## eyewannago (Dec 28, 2009)

I absolutely believe if you want to take a legal limit of fish you have that right, I also believe there will be so many fewer fishermen this year that the population will get a pretty good break so lets hope for a great hatch. Joe


----------



## juicebox (Apr 22, 2008)

i know the odnr guys don't agree with this, whats wrong with stocking them again? they say that the population isn't far enough gone for this to occur again. i say lets be proactive.


----------



## Guest (Mar 4, 2011)

Nicely written yoda!


----------



## Lundy (Apr 5, 2004)

juicebox said:


> whats wrong with stocking them again?.


Again? When were they stocked previously during the last 30+ years?


----------



## wanderin_eyes (Jan 14, 2009)

wise are yoda you. force may be with you.


----------



## highstickn (Dec 25, 2009)

Shortdrift said:


> * Solution*
> 
> All the armchair biologists should enroll in college and come back with suggestions after graduation and three years of study of the Lake Erie walleye. So simple, even a cave man could think of it.


Yes

Good to see that everyone cares about the fishery. Just different opinions on how to take care of it.

Someone asked about the stocking situation. I think that program is very expensive. Someone on here likely knows the numbers. With the current round of huge gov't budget cuts it will likely not happen.

And one of the key stipulations of the fishery management guidelines for the Great Lakes is:
Fish stocks are supposed to be self-sustaining. This isn't always done but it is an important goal.


----------



## thistubesforu (Mar 30, 2009)

stocking is not an option period.... even if every state hatchery ohio currently has converted to all walleye production they couldnt even come close to the natural reproduction on the worst year ever.... it all comes down to mother nature, just like numerous people have said here whether u keep a fish winter spring summer fall its gone.... when conditions are perfect u have years like 2003 and a couple good years in the early 80s....


----------



## jay2k (Dec 21, 2005)

Give the "Nursery" a break..?? I thought that too when I was learning to jig fish. You'll catch on.


----------



## PapawSmith (Feb 13, 2007)

I tend to be with the smart ones on this issue. A female fish taken in March is no more "female" than a female taken in August. A fish removed is a fish removed.
That said, I am really not in favor of the slaughter fest that takes place each spring in the rivers. While "fishermen" are out in the lake and bays jigging for their foray another group of "sportsmen" are ******* deep in the rivers ripping the bellies out of anything that dares bump their 60lb test line. These fish are specifically in these waters to spawn and a fair share of these "sportsmen" are specifically there to drag out meat no matter how they hook it or what they hook. In the rivers there is no deference given to healthy spawning females.
While I trust the State Fishery Biologists to determine the necessary rules for optimum fish reproduction, I'm not really sure they take into account the actual number of $hitwads that own snagging gear. For this reason I would not be opposed to the closing of the Erie Tribs only during March/April. They could draw a line at the mouths of the tribs and pretty much eradicate the primary opportunity for unlawful taking of a very valuable game fish from the Erie waters IMO.


----------



## rockytop (Mar 19, 2008)

tomb said:


> Here's an interesting link that pops up when searching "erie walleye reproduction" http://www.fondriest.com/news/lake-erie-buoy-helps-ohio-division-of-wildlife-study-walleye-hatch.htm


i agree tom 100% and i also agree with OB RON KANOBE.


----------



## firstflight111 (May 22, 2008)

to fill my freezer full of good old eyes... the limit is what it is its is a daily thing not a yearly one ...if they would quit taking them out of berlin and milton i stay at home


----------



## Tommybouy (Jun 5, 2005)

I think we have reason for greater concern anytime there is flooding. flooding takes everything with it and dumps it in the lake including chemicals etc. Fingers are crossed for a great hatch and success rate.


----------



## swantucky (Dec 21, 2004)

PapawSmith said:


> I tend to be with the smart ones on this issue. A female fish taken in March is no more "female" than a female taken in August. A fish removed is a fish removed.
> That said, I am really not in favor of the slaughter fest that takes place each spring in the rivers. While "fishermen" are out in the lake and bays jigging for their foray another group of "sportsmen" are ******* deep in the rivers ripping the bellies out of anything that dares bump their 60lb test line. These fish are specifically in these waters to spawn and a fair share of these "sportsmen" are specifically there to drag out meat no matter how they hook it or what they hook. In the rivers there is no deference given to healthy spawning females.
> While I trust the State Fishery Biologists to determine the necessary rules for optimum fish reproduction, I'm not really sure they take into account the actual number of $hitwads that own snagging gear. For this reason I would not be opposed to the closing of the Erie Tribs only during March/April. They could draw a line at the mouths of the tribs and pretty much eradicate the primary opportunity for unlawful taking of a very valuable game fish from the Erie waters IMO.


Exactly what data are you using to back this claim?? Because you certainly have not fished the rivers in a number of years.


----------



## Double J (Jan 7, 2009)

juicebox said:


> i know the odnr guys don't agree with this, whats wrong with stocking them again? they say that the population isn't far enough gone for this to occur again. i say lets be proactive.


not gonna happen first because of funding and the amount of fry it would take,second because our friends up north sell em on the market.


----------



## FISNFOOL (May 12, 2009)

I once posted this on another site. It was a reply to a poster that felt all sport fishing should be limited to catch and release. It applies to this spawning walleye issue too. Simply put, regulations based on true science are fine to follow.

Excuse the rant tone but I have seen to many emotions try to interfere with the great outdoors of this country.

*"Emotions real or disguised as caring for wildlife has ruined more species than scientific control. After this generation of hunters were looked down on and more and more people did not pass on the heritage, I have seen more winter kill in the wild in the last 25 years, than in the previous 30.
*
*There is a saying for modern times: If you want a species to thrive and prosper, regulate it as a game animal or game fish. Hunters and Anglers will make sure it survives and has habitat. The ODNR uses science to set limits and species population control.

Nothing wrong with eating, ie harvesting a natural resource, within legal limits.

If catch and release is your thing FINE. If you do not fish the spawn FINE, Just do not penalize others for having a different view.

That kind of BS seems to be a national trend. Weather about fishing, hunting, lifestyles (including boating), or political views. When will it stop.

You want to complain about the killing of small mouth bass and other game fish, complain to all these ridiculous events that think balloon releases are a good thing. In my 50 + years enjoying the outdoors, I have seen more fish and game wasted choking on these balloons released in the cities and falling in the country or lakes, than I have seen "wasted" by anglers or hunters.

That is enough for my rant. This site really is about sharing information about field and stream adventures. And congratulating others on having a great memorable day. And for sharing this great national heritage."*


----------



## Fish Scalper (Oct 31, 2009)

I'm thinking blupiker chose an apt name after this thread he started.


----------



## juicebox (Apr 22, 2008)

Lundy weren't walleye stocked in erie sometime before the cuyahoga caught fire? I'm just saying that it would be nice to let a few million 5-7 inch walleye go in the lake each year. there is plenty of tax payer money, its just not what they want to spend it on. Those walleye sure give the state alot of tax money.


----------



## markfish (Nov 22, 2007)

well for bluefin i dont do the river snagging and thats were lots of the spond is and 2nd i dont go to west to jig fish to far and if guys get there limit good for them it dont even come close too the real problem,that not one person on here brought up have you ever seen walleyes for sale at the store well i know you have and thats were your big problem is the 7 mile long gill nets,how many walleyes get tosed back in the lake when canada is pulling in there nets non, i captin i throwed her back she was a big girl, and the nature is the 2nd biggest problem,so to you my friend start your pro test at the river,you will be well recived im sure of it,


----------



## Papascott (Apr 22, 2004)

juicebox said:


> Lundy weren't walleye stocked in erie sometime before the cuyahoga caught fire? I'm just saying that it would be nice to let a few million 5-7 inch walleye go in the lake each year. there is plenty of tax payer money, its just not what they want to spend it on. Those walleye sure give the state alot of tax money.


No they were not stocked. 

There are plenty of fish hatched every year. Its a matter of weather conditions, currents, available food, etc etc, they need to survive. That has nothing to do with who or where orwjen any of us fish!

Blupiker, if you think the numbers have been down for years your mistaken or just stirring the pot?


----------



## Mad-Eye Moody (May 27, 2008)

Im guessing that $4 a gollon gas will do more to help the fisheries than anything this year.

I know it gives me pause to drive from Akron to Turtle creek to jig for fish. Especially when I am as bad at jigging as I am!


----------



## B Thomas (Jan 21, 2005)

Makin Bacon said:


> Blupiker , Did tou fish Erie in the 80's ? Talk about low numbers , fishing then was flat out tough. Everone knows population goes up and down and the lake is in no means of crisiss mode yet, Me too would like to see the canadian netters reduced but they gotta make a living too. Lets all just hope for good spawning weather and post spawn weather. I think there should be a real concern about the perch population, have'nt seen the numbers we use to.




You are joking right?? Fishing in the 80s was unreal!


----------



## ScottB (Apr 15, 2004)

juicebox said:


> there is plenty of tax payer money, its just not what they want to spend it on.


 Man I hate that mentality, "the government has plenty of money" Where do you think it comes from?


----------



## rockytop (Mar 19, 2008)

B Thomas said:


> You are joking right?? Fishing in the 80s was unreal!


i agree and someone correct me if im wrong, thought i made a mistake once but i was wrong. from memory 1982 and 1984 were the best spawning years with the spawn of 2003 coming in at number 3. they also underestimated the 2007 spawn by somthing like 5 million fish. so who really knows how many are there. and how many are spawning along the shoreline.


----------



## nooffseason (Nov 15, 2008)

PapawSmith said:


> I tend to be with the smart ones on this issue. A female fish taken in March is no more "female" than a female taken in August. A fish removed is a fish removed.
> That said, I am really not in favor of the slaughter fest that takes place each spring in the rivers. While "fishermen" are out in the lake and bays jigging for their foray another group of "sportsmen" are ******* deep in the rivers ripping the bellies out of anything that dares bump their 60lb test line. These fish are specifically in these waters to spawn and a fair share of these "sportsmen" are specifically there to drag out meat no matter how they hook it or what they hook. In the rivers there is no deference given to healthy spawning females.
> While I trust the State Fishery Biologists to determine the necessary rules for optimum fish reproduction, I'm not really sure they take into account the actual number of $hitwads that own snagging gear. For this reason I would not be opposed to the closing of the Erie Tribs only during March/April. They could draw a line at the mouths of the tribs and pretty much eradicate the primary opportunity for unlawful taking of a very valuable game fish from the Erie waters IMO.



Nice post Jack! You do an excellent job of group-classifying those "sportsmen" standing in the rivers. 

Hopefully you sensed some sarcasm. I wish there was a 'Flag as Inappropriate' feature on this site, your post should be deleted.


----------



## PapawSmith (Feb 13, 2007)

nooffseason said:


> Nice post Jack! You do an excellent job of group-classifying those "sportsmen" standing in the rivers.
> 
> Hopefully you sensed some sarcasm. I wish there was a 'Flag as Inappropriate' feature on this site, your post should be deleted.


I love the guys that pretend that this doesn't happen. I didn't mean to imply that everyone in the rivers in the spring are snagging and, yes, my term "sportsmen" was a sarcastic tag for them. There are plenty of serious fishermen, and true sportsmen, out there but the spring run river is full of aholes too. That's the problem, the aholes always ruin it for others. I haven't fished there for years because of the crowds and the crap that goes on. From those that I talk to that still do, they say nothing has changed. Every spring there are threads right here that address and complain about this practice and this year will probably be the same. Sorry that my opinion struck a couple nerves, but it is just my opinion.


----------



## wakina (May 30, 2007)

Shady4 said:


> One does have to wonder why all other states close the season during the spawn. There are a lot of people that rely on governmental agencies to impart their omniscience in these matters (...the season's open so it must be right...), but we may want to reflect on other recently demonstrated "brillance" (i.e. bank bailouts, fruitless wars, etc.) before we relinquish all individual thought.


 Where in the other Lake Erie States of NY, PA, MI or Ontario's part of Lake Erie do the walleyes spawn in the numbers that they spawn in Ohio's reef complex and adjoining tributaries? Which of those states or Ontario close the spawning season in their portion of Lake erie to fishing and why? When people compare Ohio regulations to other States regulations it has to be done so with that states Eco system in mind. Where in WI, MN or any other state for that matter, do walleyes spawn in the numbers that they spawn in Ohio waters of Lake Erie? This is a shared resource, so which of the boardering Lake Erie States DNR's or Ontario's DNR are complaining or not complaining about Ohio not closing the season during the spawn? 

When I get sick I go to the Doctor, for legal matters I go to a Lawyer, when I need auto repair I go to an Auto Repair Tech. Why? Because they are experts at what they do, they won't be around long if they aren't good at what they do. So I put my faith in the ODNR fisheries biologist who are experts at what they do!

The rest of your post is just political diatribe, comparing your political opinions to ODNR's fish management program, which like my political opinions are better suited for one of the political debate forums found elsewhere on the internet and totaly irrelevant to the walleye hatch and the OGF Community as a whole!! This is a fishing site, that is why people, guests and members visit and read these posts/forums.


----------



## nooffseason (Nov 15, 2008)

PapawSmith said:


> I love the guys that pretend that this doesn't happen. I didn't mean to imply that everyone in the rivers in the spring are snagging and, yes, my term "sportsmen" was a sarcastic tag for them. There are plenty of serious fishermen, and true sportsmen, out there but the spring run river is full of aholes too. That's the problem, the aholes always ruin it for others. I haven't fished there for years because of the crowds and the crap that goes on. From those that I talk to that still do, they say nothing has changed. Every spring there are threads right here that address and complain about this practice and this year will probably be the same. Sorry that my opinion struck a couple nerves, but it is just my opinion.



Understood. I have seen some definite jerkoffs in the rivers over the years. I just ignore them and, unfortunately, try to pick up after them. I've been fishing a productive spot before and moved just because of the people around, so I understand what you're saying. I just hate to be group-classified because I've met some good folks down there too.


----------



## thistubesforu (Mar 30, 2009)

just want to make this point clear. odnr hatcheries are not funded by taxpayer money. the money they get comes from fishing and hunting liscense sales, deer and turkey tags, fines, etc. also no walleye stocked by the dnr are even close to 5-7 inches the money it would take to feed walleye this size in any numbers would be unreal. walleye stocked by ohio are either fry or fingerling stockings at this point the fish are eating plankton. i would just like to point out that i fish both the reefs and the rivers. there are a holes both places whether its snaggers, overbaggers, or double dippers. their is alot more double dipping that goes on on lake erie than people like to think, and to me thats just as worse as keeping a snagged fish. i also believe that there is alot of great people both places rather its on the reefs or at the river, isnt this just a facet of life.


----------



## Hetfieldinn (May 17, 2004)

According to the DNR, the 80's had the highest population of walleyes, with estimates right around 100 million. They also estimated the number of 'angling hours' right around 100 million hours. 

Estimates these days are right around 18-20 million walleyes, with an estimated 15 million angling hours per season.

Things seem to be looking up, as I had numerous trips last year where we boated a bunch of undersized walleyes. I remember one trip where we boated 36 fish, and only twelve of those were of legal size.


----------



## Drift Away (Sep 16, 2008)

Bluepiker; I believe that your heart is in the right place, and that your intentions are noble, but I would strongly recommend attending a Travis Hartman seminar on this subject. It really is very enlightening.


----------



## juicebox (Apr 22, 2008)

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=SxJGAAAAIBAJ&sjid=LtAMAAAAIBAJ&pg=6924,1235592&dq=history+walleye+stocking+lake+erie&hl=en




i wouldn't bet my left egg on the validity of this, but apparently walleye were stocked in erie at some point.


----------



## wakina (May 30, 2007)

juicebox said:


> http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=SxJGAAAAIBAJ&sjid=LtAMAAAAIBAJ&pg=6924,1235592&dq=history+walleye+stocking+lake+erie&hl=en
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I am unsure but I believe it was in Sandusky Bay and seems like in the mid to late 60's, I can't remember for sure when, but fairly sure some were stocked in Sandusky Bay. The lake had turned into a cesspool in the early 60's. And the Walleye's had almost vanished.

I edited this to add a link! This link makes mention of stocking in the mid 60s.

http://ohiosyesterdays.blogspot.com/2008_03_01_archive.html


----------



## juicebox (Apr 22, 2008)

now the lake is just a different kind of cesspool. i would imagine that the amount fertilizer runoff from the maumee into the lake, basically right onto the breeding grounds, definately has an impact on the fisherie. Lets just keep on using the hatchery's for steelhead, cause they're pulling more money for communities than walleye and perch right??????


----------



## crg (Dec 7, 2006)

theads like this are reason why i dont post much on this website anymore. you fish within regulation of the law and 25 people jump on your back thinking their ideas are more righteous than yours or the odnr's and everyone should follow what THEY think are the rules and regs. the only thing we should be concerned following is the odnr. seems like the guy that started it just wanted to start an argument. i do not agree with culling fish especially if it as been on your stringer or in a live well for hours, for me first four and im out, but im not going to chastise the guy next to me for putting back a stressed out fish because he is well with in the legal limits of the law. 

and for the guy saying they should put a line across the river and make it illegal to fish the rivers during the run. do you realize how much money the city of perrysburg and maumee make from the fisherman, yet alone what the state generates from all the license sales. sorry but the majority of fisherman dont have a lake erie boat like you, so for the rest of us to have the chance able to catch an eye of a lifetime when they come into the rivers . . . . . thank you odnr.


----------



## Guest (Mar 5, 2011)

I think some changes need to made to the spring walleye fishing on Erie. I have thought that for years. Why should millions of Walleye eggs be taken out of the fishery? At the very least they should put a slot on the fish so you can only keep one big female. 3 fish 15-20 inches and 1 over 28 inches


----------



## flylogicsteelhead (Oct 4, 2006)

And this is what you get when you have to pleasantly await ice out......

I like seeing this thread, it shows how so many anglers are passionate about their fishery regardless of opinions. Soon it will be back to reports as usual!


----------



## wakina (May 30, 2007)

For those of you that want to change or challenge the Regulations for spring spawning season here are some numbers to think about!
After the 2003 year class of walleyes became old enough to contribute to the spawning population of adult walleyes, there were approximatley 30 million adult walleyes available to spawn, now if only 1/3 of those were females that would be 10 million female walleyes available to spawn. If each female walleye only layed 150,000 eggs that would be 1,500,000,000,000 eggs layed and with a hatch rate of only 1% that would be 15,000,000,000 larval walleyes hatched and at a survival rate of only 1% living to their first year that would mean that there would be a minimun of 150 million 3 to 6 inch walleyes left to keep the population stable. So what happened to all the little walleyes? So how does changing the regulations affect the survial of the little eyes that are hatched. Please explain!
I left the numbers of females and the amount of eggs that each female would lay on the conservative side. If the population was evenly split between boys and girls there would be an additional 75 million little eyes left at the end of the first year. 

The problem is not, and has not been the lack of adult spawing walleyes but the problem is and has been the survival rate of the larval walleyes and fry into their second year.


----------



## Fish Scalper (Oct 31, 2009)

Returning all your white bass, white perch, sheephead, gobies and even bloated yellow perch in the after life will spare more of those small walleye fry than keeping a female at any point in the year; not too mention feed a seagull or three.


----------



## wakina (May 30, 2007)

juicebox said:


> http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=SxJGAAAAIBAJ&sjid=LtAMAAAAIBAJ&pg=6924,1235592&dq=history+walleye+stocking+lake+erie&hl=en
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I have contacted a member of the ODNR, at this time it still has to be checked and verified about the Ohio walleye stocking program of the past as it would pertain to Lake Erie.


----------



## boatnut (Nov 22, 2006)

Fish Scalper said:


> Returning all your white bass, white perch, sheephead, gobies and even bloated yellow perch in the after life will spare more of those small walleye fry than keeping a female at any point in the year; not too mention feed a seagull or three.


Forgive me if I mis-understand your post but are you advocating killing all of those above fish before releasing them? If so, I'm pretty sure that would be illegal if not un-sportsmanlike. Aren't white bass considered a "sport fish"?


----------



## Tommybouy (Jun 5, 2005)

I dont have the links anymore. Although; I read and watched on television numerous statements from different fisheries biologists studied / proved attempting to "stock" Walleye in the great lakes yields a disappointing and surprisingly low impact on the population. The biologist on North American Fisherman is one resource; there are several to support these studies. I think 45 minutes on google would furnish these studies but I recall the reports to be suprising yet I didnt feel a need to contest them. 

I'm sharing what I have learned from. Draw your own conclusion. Though it seems simple to add millions of frye to grow the population; studies have proven this unsuccessful. the rebound of the Walleye population (which I believe is way too low - Lake Erie should be held to a higher standard) will need to occur thru mother nature or other methods. 

Ironically; other great fisheries like Lake of the Woods whose Walleye population hit rock bottom used slots and reduced limits and the L.O.W. Walleye fishery is back and will be a trophy factory again. I am not saying reducing limits and using slot methods is the sole reason for rebound but a human control factor that was part of the equation. Who needs to keep more then 1 fish more then 28 inches? What is negative about 5qty. 2-4lb. walleye and 1qty. 28 inch or larger Walleye per person, per day? My closing thought is 2003 is spoke about like it was yesterday and it was 8 years ago. I am for anything that restores our populations to *staggering* numbers; AGAIN.


----------



## firstflight111 (May 22, 2008)

swantucky said:


> Exactly what data are you using to back this claim?? Because you certainly have not fished the rivers in a number of years.


the point is no mater when you take them ...your still taking the females out no mater when you do it


----------



## wakina (May 30, 2007)

It was explained to me by Travis Hartman from ODNR that if conditions for the young of year of a natural hatch were not conductive to their survival, then those same conditions would not be conductive for the survival of stocked (hatchery) walleye fry either.


----------



## idontknow316 (Mar 21, 2008)

Yeah Tucky, don't you know that only guys that fish the rivers snag fish? They are never snagged out in the Lake. Oh and they have fewer "eyes" watching them, people in boats would never keep and eye that wasn't legal.

The type of people that will keep illegally caught fish will keep them no matter where they are caught. I have ran into very few a holes at both Rivers. Same goes for the lake. They are out there, but I have not had any problems.

I think people that do not fish or have never fished the rivers, see all the people and think, man what a bunch of ...... when actually there is a lot of camaraderie at the rivers, just as there is everywhere else. 

To classify river walleye "sportsman" the way we are portrayed is not a correct assessment.


----------



## Jigging Jim (Apr 3, 2010)

Here's an idea. White Perch eat tons of Walleye Eggs every Spawning Season. How about catching and eating those fish? That way there will be less White Perch to destroy the future of "our" Walleye Fishing.... Everybody wins!


----------



## woodworker2001 (Jan 23, 2006)

Hetfieldinn said:


> According to the DNR, the 80's had the highest population of walleyes, with estimates right around 100 million. They also estimated the number of 'angling hours' right around 100 million hours.
> 
> Estimates these days are right around 18-20 million walleyes, with an estimated 15 million angling hours per season.
> 
> Things seem to be looking up, as I had numerous trips last year where we boated a bunch of undersized walleyes. I remember one trip where we boated 36 fish, and only twelve of those were of legal size.


Het, I agree with you... we had numerous trips where we caught 8-10" walleye. I love to see that as us charter captains call that job security. I hadnt caught throwback fish in the past few years really at all. I think we are on an upswing, and one great hatch could put us right back in the 80's type fishing by replenishing the 15-18" walleye population...


----------



## ErieGoldSportfishing (Feb 5, 2009)

Lundy said:


> Good intentions that unfortunately would have zero impact on the potential success of the 2011 hatch


Lundy Great point. From what I understand a good deal of what will determine how successful the 2011 year class will be is already behind us. I always get a kick out of people who think that stocking walleyes in lake erie makes sense. Or should I say cents? Please tell me whoever made the comment that there is plenty of taxpayer money to stock walleyes was joking.


----------



## Iowa Dave (Sep 27, 2009)

I agree the biggest thing to a great spawning success is the fry having proper conditions during Spring and Summer to survive. 

But in addition to that is the Cormorant! Those guy's need to be thinned out a bit. Check out these pictures of them eating not only full grown walleye but full grown pike as well. Imagine what they can do to schools of walleye fry!










These are perch fry but the same can and does happen to walleye fry



















Look at this one eating a pike.










I agree catch what is legal limit and if you prefer to release large fish do so. If not leave others alone that decide to keep them. Personally I keep legal fish up to my legal daily limit no matter how big or small they are as long as they are over minimum length.


----------



## eyewannago (Dec 28, 2009)

Maybe Reel Science can chime in here if you see this Travis but last year in the spring DNR guys went out of Turtle Creek to West Sister with shotguns and bags of sawdust and were going to take out a bunch of Cormorants and were suppose to cover them up with sawdust so hopefully they do it again this year I agree with Dave they are a problem. Joe


----------



## juicebox (Apr 22, 2008)

just a thought here. if they did stock walleye in the sixties because they were almost nonexistant, then there just might be a connection to the amount of walleye in the lake in the eighties.


----------



## reo (May 22, 2004)

Time for some one to post the dead horse


----------



## K gonefishin (May 4, 2004)

juicebox said:


> just a thought here. if they did stock walleye in the sixties because they were almost nonexistant, then there just might be a connection to the amount of walleye in the lake in the eighties.


No Erie had 2 record hatches in the 80's I believe 82 and 86 and also some good hatches in the 70's. The 2 in the 80's where hatches similar to 03, really good hatches that put tons of fish in the lake. Look at the historical data charts and you'll see the influx in the populations based on spawn, right now we are on a downward spiral of maintaining due to recent medicore hatches we need a good one real soon.


----------



## KaGee (Sep 8, 2006)

For the record, there wasn't anyone out on the Maumee snagging fish today.


----------



## Jim Stedke (Dec 5, 2005)

There were no Ohio stocking (or any other that I know of) in the 60s. And there were fewer fish by far before the '82 hatch then there are now. 

In the 60s we worked all summer for fewer fish than we can catch in 1 day now.


----------



## boatnut (Nov 22, 2006)

reo said:


> Time for some one to post the dead horse


I'll be happy to oblige ya!


----------



## juicebox (Apr 22, 2008)

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=lmExAAAAIBAJ&sjid=YgEEAAAAIBAJ&pg=1677,1195655&dq=history+walleye+stocking+lake+erie&hl=en--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...2&dq=history+walleye+stocking+lake+erie&hl=en---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=vsROAAAAIBAJ&sjid=PgEEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6911,1579946&dq=history+walleye+stocking+lake+erie&hl=en 
http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...4&dq=history+walleye+stocking+lake+erie&hl=en


Look everyone i'm not here to argue, or to try to discredit anyone in any way. I'm not talking about this topic because i think i know everything, because i don't. i just think that the state should explore the options available. and although i caught plenty of fish last year,which i ate and am still eating, i'd like those fish to be there when my daughters grow up and have there own kids. my grandfather passed down this fishing tradition to me and i'd like to do the same for my kids and their kids. no disrespect.



a few more articles about walleye being stocked in *LAKE ERIE* in the sixties.


----------



## wakina (May 30, 2007)

juicebox said:


> http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=lmExAAAAIBAJ&sjid=YgEEAAAAIBAJ&pg=1677,1195655&dq=history+walleye+stocking+lake+erie&hl=en--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...2&dq=history+walleye+stocking+lake+erie&hl=en---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=vsROAAAAIBAJ&sjid=PgEEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6911,1579946&dq=history+walleye+stocking+lake+erie&hl=en
> http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...4&dq=history+walleye+stocking+lake+erie&hl=en
> 
> 
> ...


I am sure glad that you found these articles, I was beginning to think maybe my memory had finally failed me. I am still waiting to find out if there was a stocking in Sandusky Bay. Travis thought it might have been sauger in the bay that I am thinking of instead of walleyes but he was unsure also but said he would check, it is very possible there may have not been any.


----------



## juicebox (Apr 22, 2008)

no problem wakina.


----------



## walleyeseizure (Jul 26, 2008)

Secret formula for the 03 07 and10 hatch seems to be the lake warming fast and clean water. 2009 was poor yr. Lake was cool all year and muddy in spring. Maybe a biologist could elaborate on this.


----------



## Jim Stedke (Dec 5, 2005)

I stand corrected!! Thanks.


----------



## NorthSouthOhioFisherman (May 7, 2007)

wakina said:


> I am sure glad that you found these articles, I was beginning to think maybe my memory had finally failed me. I am still waiting to find out if there was a stocking in Sandusky Bay. Travis thought it might have been sauger in the bay that I am thinking of instead of walleyes but he was unsure also but said he would check, it is very possible there may have not been any.


There were SAUGERS stocked in sandusky bay in the sixites or seventies. My Dad has an old fishing booklet like our "sportsman connection" version today. On the back it specifically states that the odnr did stock saugers in sandusky bay and I think it says it was a failed attempt, I will scan it tonight and post it~


----------



## Papascott (Apr 22, 2004)

walleyeseizure said:


> Secret formula for the 03 07 and10 hatch seems to be the lake warming fast and clean water. 2009 was poor yr. Lake was cool all year and muddy in spring. Maybe a biologist could elaborate on this.


There were some very warm periods in April of 2003 but also alot of 30s and 40s and the winds were fairly sting much of the month. I remember the talk that spring was its going to be a bust for the hatch because of the winds. Lol 

Truth is no one knows for sure what is exactly needed. Latest I've heard is a in flowing current, keeping the little fish near the shore, is a major criteria?


----------



## bocajemma (Dec 29, 2008)

I was at a seminar this weekend in which this exact question was asked to Travis Hartman about closing down the spawn. The reality is that closing down the spawn would do very little to "save" the spawning females. I believe the numbers for fish caught in march and april last year were somewhere around 100,000, and of those 90% were males. He stated that the reality is the months of june/july or it may have been july/august would be better choices to shut down the fishery since that is when the highest amounts of fish are caught (I think somewhere around 500,000 for the two months) and 50% of them are females. So how many of you are willing to give up your best months of trolling, and stop chasing the females east????


----------



## Double J (Jan 7, 2009)

bocajemma said:


> I was at a seminar this weekend in which this exact question was asked to Travis Hartman about closing down the spawn. The reality is that closing down the spawn would do very little to "save" the spawning females. I believe the numbers for fish caught in march and april last year were somewhere around 100,000, and of those 90% were males. He stated that the reality is the months of june/july or it may have been july/august would be better choices to shut down the fishery since that is when the highest amounts of fish are caught (I think somewhere around 500,000 for the two months) and 50% of them are females. So how many of you are willing to give up your best months of trolling, and stop chasing the females east????


excellent point....that about covers it!


----------



## joerugz (Feb 28, 2007)

I love the concern of my fellow OGF'ers on this subject. But IMO I think the lake and it's walleye population are soo big that you couldn't put a dent in the population one way or another with a typical rod and reel. 

Look at how many fish are killed each day at the utility plants water intake systems. Now those numbers are alarming and should be addressed along with the asian carp lurking in the Chicago river system. Mother nature will take care of us if we only take what we need from her to survive. It's only when we get stupid and selfish for the sake of the almighty dollar that over fishing, pollution, invasive species and litter bite us in the a$$. 

I've read earlier about not waiting until our river catches fire before we do something about it, but we should put our efforts together to attack a large scale problem such as carp, litter/polution, or intakes.


----------



## flylogicsteelhead (Oct 4, 2006)

bocajemma said:


> So how many of you are willing to give up your best months of trolling, and stop chasing the females east????


The cost of gas may do a pretty good job of this curbing those lovely mid summer runs


----------



## Reel Science (Apr 8, 2004)

Stocking records indicate that walleye (mostly fry) were stocked in Lake Erie and connected waters at varying levels from 1953 until as recently as 1975 with most of the stocking happening in '59-'61 and '66. Every year in the '60's had at least some stocking. The areas stocked included the main lake, Sandusky Bay, the Grand River (Fairport), the Sandusky River, the Portage River, the Cuyahoga River, the Huron River, and the Maumee River (ordered from most stocked to least stocked).

Travis


----------



## Hook N Book (Apr 7, 2004)

Reel Science said:


> Stocking records indicate that walleye (mostly fry) were stocked in Lake Erie and connected waters at varying levels from 1953 until as recently as 1975 with most of the stocking happening in '59-'61 and '66. Every year in the '60's had at least some stocking. The areas stocked included the main lake, Sandusky Bay, the Grand River (Fairport), the Sandusky River, the Portage River, the Cuyahoga River, the Huron River, and the Maumee River (ordered from most stocked to least stocked).
> 
> Travis


Wow, now this is interesting. The least stocked is the most heavily fished and with good numbers too.
Thanks for the info, Travis.


----------



## wakina (May 30, 2007)

Reel Science said:


> Stocking records indicate that walleye (mostly fry) were stocked in Lake Erie and connected waters at varying levels from 1953 until as recently as 1975 with most of the stocking happening in '59-'61 and '66. Every year in the '60's had at least some stocking. The areas stocked included the main lake, Sandusky Bay, the Grand River (Fairport), the Sandusky River, the Portage River, the Cuyahoga River, the Huron River, and the Maumee River (ordered from most stocked to least stocked).
> 
> Travis


Travis:
Since I was the one who PM'd you last Sat. and asked for your input on this matter and also asked that you post your comments on OGF as a favor to me. I feel that it is only right that I thank you in public for the research that you did on my behalf as well as the other OGF Members who find your data useful and interesting.

Once again!
Thank You Travis!

Wakina


----------



## Indian Summer (May 26, 2008)

joerugz said:


> I love the concern of my fellow OGF'ers on this subject. But IMO I think the lake and it's walleye population are soo big that you couldn't put a dent in the population one way or another with a typical rod and reel.
> 
> Look at how many fish are killed each day at the utility plants water intake systems. Now those numbers are alarming and should be addressed along with the asian carp lurking in the Chicago river system. Mother nature will take care of us if we only take what we need from her to survive. It's only when we get stupid and selfish for the sake of the almighty dollar that over fishing, pollution, invasive species and litter bite us in the a$$.
> 
> I've read earlier about not waiting until our river catches fire before we do something about it, but we should put our efforts together to attack a large scale problem such as carp, litter/polution, or intakes.


Couldn't agree more. Those problems are ones that are so huge that we better think about them now instead of worrying about recreational fishermen. We have total control over what we do and can take immediate and effective action. If these mega factors sneak up to bite us in the arse our efforts on any of these issues will likely be a day late and more than just a dollar short. Good post Joe.

Wakina you are a class act!


----------



## ErieGoldSportfishing (Feb 5, 2009)

highstickn said:


> Yes
> 
> Good to see that everyone cares about the fishery. Just different opinions on how to take care of it.
> 
> ...


There is an article in a past issue of the Ohio Outdoor News that had some astounding numbers regarding what it would take to successfully stock enough to equal the numbers of 2 year old fish in an average Lake Erie year class. Here are some points I got from it.

Elmer Heybob, ODNR Fish Hatchery Administrator says currently there are 137 acres of ponds are dedicated to walleye rearing at the Hebron hatchery. Various species need to be kept separate now because of VHS concerns. 

According to Roger Knight, Lake Erie Fisheries supervisor for ODNR an average L.E. year class is 10 million fish. At the estimated 4.5% survival rate it would take 224,000,000 fingerling walleyes to get 10 million to age 2. To get there, doing simple math, it would take 4384 acres of ponds, which means 32 times more manpower, equipment, and space that what is currently available. Hatchery personnel would have to handle 72,800 female 'eyes to get the 896,000,000 eggs, since only 50% hatch and only 50% of those make it to fingerling size. (once walleyes get to be over 1/2" long they become cannabalistic and need space to keep from eyeballing another buddy like he's a chocolate donut)

Stocking fry instead of fingerlings has been mentioned. To hit the same target 2 year olds, fry needs to be stocked at 10X the rate of fingerlings. So for a 10 million fish 2 year old class, the number of females that need stripped of eggs is 720,000 (what's our TAC for Ohio?) and the eggs would number 22,400,000,000! Those are numbers that only congress understands! 

I've only seen ripe females in late March through late April. Lets say the ODNR folks have 30 days to collect those eggs from the 720,000 fish (by the way that's 4% of the total estimated population of 18 million). That means on 8 hr shifts, they'd have to strip 3000 females per hour! Thats one every 1.2 seconds with no breaks. That would take an army to get that done. I know a lot of tournament guys that won't appreciate all those shocker units on their spots! Heck I can't find 4 fish in a whole day. How can they corral 3/4 of a million of them in a month?

Here's the kicker, even if the fry avoid getting eaten, there's a good chance they'll starve to death, just like the naturally reproduced fish due to muddy water impeding their vision, temperature swings, or zebra/quagga mussel or other small fish competition depleting their food source. 

OK that is the main points of that article which I will ask the author if it can be reprinted on this web site. The whole point is the State of Ohio is set up to stock maybe 50,000 acres of inland lakes with walleyes. Lake Erie is 2.24 million acres. Ohio's constitution says we must balance the budget every 2 years so even if the entire state wanted to sacrifice schools, Medicade, and prisons for more Lake Erie walleyes, it would be years before the infrastructure could be put in place. 

Keep praying for the stars to align and give us another '82 or '03 hatch!


----------



## ErieGoldSportfishing (Feb 5, 2009)

Reel Science said:


> Stocking records indicate that walleye (mostly fry) were stocked in Lake Erie and connected waters at varying levels from 1953 until as recently as 1975 with most of the stocking happening in '59-'61 and '66. Every year in the '60's had at least some stocking. The areas stocked included the main lake, Sandusky Bay, the Grand River (Fairport), the Sandusky River, the Portage River, the Cuyahoga River, the Huron River, and the Maumee River (ordered from most stocked to least stocked).
> 
> Travis


Were those all walleyes or were there saugers too?


----------



## Reel Science (Apr 8, 2004)

They were all walleye. The sauger stockings took place later. Nearly all of the walleye stockings were fry, compared to most of the sauger stockings being fingerlings.

I'll have to double check the years of the sauger stockings, but I believe they were in the 70's and maybe into the early 80's.

Travis


----------



## juicebox (Apr 22, 2008)

lets all thank *blue piker* for getting this thread started. although we may all have differing opinions, and thats o.k., i feel that if we keep our minds open we may have learned something from this thread. as others have stated it's nice to see that us humans still have some passion in our blood, and that we give a damn about tradition and our fishery. i still believe that these previous stockings of the lake, when walleye populations were dismal, contributed to the fishery that lake erie is today. jmo... *reel science* thank you for your interest and your research.


----------



## seahawk (Aug 1, 2008)

There's a couple of things I still just still don't understand. 

1. If a single female laid, say 100,000 eggs and 1% (1000) made it to adult, wouldn't it always be better if two females laid 200,000 eggs and 2000 made it to adult?

2. If a single female was not caught during the spawn wouldn't that simply be one less female caught that year? Put another way, the female caught during the fall would be #2, because female #1 was already removed from production in the spring under the current way of doing things.

I just don't understand what makes LE so different than any other fishery. It seems like a lot of funny math and logic.


----------



## highstickn (Dec 25, 2009)

GoBuckeyes85 said:


> There is an article in a past issue of the Ohio Outdoor News that had some astounding numbers regarding what it would take to successfully stock enough to equal the numbers...


Hey Thanks for the info

"(once walleyes get to be over 1/2" long they become cannabalistic and need space to keep from eyeballing another buddy like he's a chocolate donut)"

Chocolate donut, Haha


Good luck to everyone fishing this year!


----------



## NorthSouthOhioFisherman (May 7, 2007)

Proof is in da puddin'


----------



## FISNFOOL (May 12, 2009)

How they set the regs.

http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/Default.aspx?tabid=23325


----------



## bocajemma (Dec 29, 2008)

seahawk said:


> There's a couple of things I still just still don't understand.
> 
> 1. If a single female laid, say 100,000 eggs and 1% (1000) made it to adult, wouldn't it always be better if two females laid 200,000 eggs and 2000 made it to adult?
> 
> ...



It's not funny math. the estimated walleye population in lake erie is a little under 20 million. if we consider half are female and half are spawning females, that would be at least 5 million females laying on average 250,000 eggs. You can do your own math, but you will see that it's not the quantity of spawning females that is the issue. It's purely survival of the walleye fry. I am sure someone has the exact numbers, but every year there are millions of walleye fry that survive. And every once in a while there is a monster hatch. After 2003 there were an estimated about 60 million walleye in lake erie and at a walleye population of 60 million they could not produce an above average spawn. I think it's even possible that you can get a better spawn from fewer numbers of walleye. There are only so many sources of food and shelter for the walleye fry and if they are all competing against one another for them that can only make them weaker and less likely to survive. I think in 2002 there were fewer walleye in the lake than what we have now and they produced the 2003 hatch. Just something to consider.


----------



## BFG (Mar 29, 2006)

> Elmer Heybob


Best name ever.....


IMO...I remember 2003 being a very dry spring. River was low...real low...never had the big purge to start things off that typically makes fishing better. 

I've said it before and I'll say it again...the reason that 2004-2006 hatches were low is because 30 million 2003 fish ate 'em all!!!!!!!!


----------



## Reel Science (Apr 8, 2004)

That's an incorrect spelling of his name.... should be Elmer *Heyob*.

I remember two things about the 2003 spring. In late Feb/early March the Sandusky area was flooded, all the yards and fields were under water. Then, at the end of the river run the Maumee flooded after some hard rain. I don't recall what happened in between, but I know that it started really wet when all the snow melted off and then ended really wet with the rivers flooding in late April.

As a follow up on the sauger, they were stocked in the 70's, with the last of them being stocked in '81. Mostly fingerlings were stocked, and the three main stocking locations were Sandusky Bay, the main lake, and the Grand River.

Travis


----------



## Gern186 (Feb 2, 2010)

quote from pawpawsmith

"I love the guys that pretend that this doesn't happen. I didn't mean to imply that everyone in the rivers in the spring are snagging and, yes, my term "sportsmen" was a sarcastic tag for them. There are plenty of serious fishermen, and true sportsmen, out there but the spring run river is full of aholes too. That's the problem, the aholes always ruin it for others. I haven't fished there for years because of the crowds and the crap that goes on. From those that I talk to that still do, they say nothing has changed. Every spring there are threads right here that address and complain about this practice and this year will probably be the same. Sorry that my opinion struck a couple nerves, but it is just my opinion. "




Hey buddy there are plenty of a-holes on the lake too.....how many guys go out jigging and take 2-3 limits per day on a regular basis and get away with it?


----------



## ErieGoldSportfishing (Feb 5, 2009)

Reel Science said:


> That's an incorrect spelling of his name.... should be Elmer *Heyob*.
> 
> I remember two things about the 2003 spring. In late Feb/early March the Sandusky area was flooded, all the yards and fields were under water. Then, at the end of the river run the Maumee flooded after some hard rain. I don't recall what happened in between, but I know that it started really wet when all the snow melted off and then ended really wet with the rivers flooding in late April.
> 
> ...


Travis I just now noticed that I misspelled Heyob's name! Also thanks for the info.

In '03 it seemed like the ice never really set up safe til late in the winter but then we fished it until March 10th. Once it was gone we had a very wet and windy spring like Travis said. Conditions during April for fishing were horrible and I that fall when the estimates came out from the trawl counts I recall thinking to myself "no way!" because of the kind of spring weather we had.


----------



## ezmarc (Apr 6, 2004)

The 2003 PWT in mid to late April was cancelled for one day with 16 foot waves from the NW. The lake was totally dirty. The fry managed to survive anyway in spite of flooding, mud, big winds and big waves. 

We'll get what we get and human interference doesn't seem to make any difference (on big water) until we start messing with genetics. Then it is usually too late. 

I remember in the 80's finding big walleye with holes in their bodies from netters gaffing them out of their nets since they couldn't keep them, at least the state had the sense to stop that practice, but did it really make a difference in the spawn success?. 

I also think that big females have done their job over and over for many years and deserve to be rewarded with hot oil . Those 18" fish everyone keeps may have been lucky to spawn once. and by keeping them you are taking out many years of future egg production. .... but thats just me.


----------



## wakina (May 30, 2007)

Quote from ezmarc

*QUOTE"* I also think that big females have done their job over and over for many years and deserve to be rewarded with hot oil . Those 18" fish everyone keeps may have been lucky to spawn once. and by keeping them you are taking out many years of future egg production. .... but thats just me." *END QUOTE*

I agree 100%. This reason alone, is reason enough to turn me against any form of slot limits in Lake Erie that would target the 15 to 20 inch fish which may or may not be sexually mature, and give major protection for the older fish which could die of old age at any time, or (just being older) die from the stress related to being caught, netted, handled, possibly photographed and finally released. Walleye fishing is mostly a *catch and consume fishery*, and most but not all slot limits are put in place to maintain a *Quality Trophy **fishery* such as Musky and bass. There is no other place that can boast of the growth rate of walleyes on the scale or magnitude of Lake Erie!


----------



## ErieGoldSportfishing (Feb 5, 2009)

Marc you are bringing back BAAAAD memories about the lake conditions in '03! 

In regards to keeping big old females vs smaller "eaters", we've been told many times by biologists that the most productive females in Lake Erie are the ones that range in size and/or age from just sexually mature to "mid" sized, or 3-5#ers. I'm not sure on what all the reasons are but if memory serves me well (that happens fewer and fewer times the older I get) that group produces fewer eggs per fish, but thinner walled (easier to fertilize) and a higher percentage of viability. Personally I prefer eating 16-20" fish which technically could be doing more harm to the fishery, but it always goes back to the point that is so difficult for people to comprehend. This is Lake Erie, not Mosquito Creek Reservoir or some inland lake in northern MN. 

Just a note of interest. Ice fishing this winter on the lake I kept only fish that fit into my selfish 16"-20" slot. Cleaning them, I discovered at least half a dozen that were on shorter end of that range, like 17" or so, that had eggs in them. I've fished Lake Erie for 35 years and before this winter remember only one or two fish that short with eggs in them.


----------



## K gonefishin (May 4, 2004)

GoBuckeyes85 said:


> Marc you are bringing back BAAAAD memories about the lake conditions in '03!
> 
> In regards to keeping big old females vs smaller "eaters", we've been told many times by biologists that the most productive females in Lake Erie are the ones that range in size and/or age from just sexually mature to "mid" sized, or 3-5#ers. I'm not sure on what all the reasons are but if memory serves me well (that happens fewer and fewer times the older I get) that group produces fewer eggs per fish, but thinner walled (easier to fertilize) and a higher percentage of viability. Personally I prefer eating 16-20" fish which technically could be doing more harm to the fishery, but it always goes back to the point that is so difficult for people to comprehend. This is Lake Erie, not Mosquito Creek Reservoir or some inland lake in northern MN.
> 
> Just a note of interest. Ice fishing this winter on the lake I kept only fish that fit into my selfish 16"-20" slot. Cleaning them, I discovered at least half a dozen that were on shorter end of that range, like 17" or so, that had eggs in them. I've fished Lake Erie for 35 years and before this winter remember only one or two fish that short with eggs in them.


Reel Science Travis Hartman says there is no such thing as a prime female for laying eggs and producing offspring, a female that is 10 pound vs 5 pounds, all eggs are considererd equal. I was under the same impression as you (as many were at that same seminar put on my Travis judging by the looks around the room) which was surprising to say the least.


----------



## ezmarc (Apr 6, 2004)

K gonefishin said:


> Reel Science Travis Hartman says there is no such thing as a prime female for laying eggs and producing offspring, a female that is 10 pound vs 5 pounds, all eggs are considererd equal. I was under the same impression as you (as many were at that same seminar put on my Travis judging by the looks around the room) which was surprising to say the least.


Yeah, i was surprised by that when i heard it a couple years ago also. Most other animal species reproduction decreases in old age and i just assumed fish did as well..... so much for assuming anything!

Doesn't change my mind though. I'm still gonna target those with the biggest scales. By the way while I was running charters it was surprising to me that so many people wanted to release the big fish. And believe it or not I rarely keep fish for myself and a lot of trips are catch and release. However I prefer a large chunk of meat that flakes into bite size pieces in my frying pan and they taste great! To each his own as long as you keep within the regs.


----------



## ErieGoldSportfishing (Feb 5, 2009)

Marc my rationale for returning big ones (other than my cravings for a pan sized fillet) is the idea that there's a remote chance I'll catch her again some day.


----------



## Hetfieldinn (May 17, 2004)

I've been told numerous times by Lake Erie biologists that the larger walleye's eggs are every bit as viable as the smaller fish. I was also told that the larger the fish, the more eggs they lay. I also learned that tests nets in the past year or two had fish in them from the 2003 hatch that ranged anywhere from 13-15 inches, to fish that were upwards of 24-26 inches. That would lead me to believe (I could be wrong), that certain fish had genes that allowed them to grow larger, and pass those genes to their offspring, whereas other fishes genes would not allow those fish to grow to 'trophy status', and their offspring had little chance of doing so. Kinda like the belief that a large buck will pass it's genes on to the next generation.


----------



## BFG (Mar 29, 2006)

Het...

I agree with what you posted. One only has to look at the dramatic decrease in size of Lake Michigan kings to see what happens when inferior genetics come into play. 

They are learning much too late that they should be taking eggs/sperm from the biggest of the kings that come to the weirs, and leave the little ones alone. Yes, they have a baitfish problem, but they also have a poor genetics problem as well. If it was totally a baitfish problem, then all of the fish would be small. Case in point..the cohos are fat and healthy....

I can see all sides of the argument here. Shutting down the river fishing is not the solution. Shutting down the reef fishing is not the solution. Shutting down ice fishing is not the solution. Shutting down the fall fishing is not the solution. 

The solution is to use the scientific model that has been established to adjust daily limits based on population estimates. Its the best thing available, and should be the only determinant in all of this.


----------

