# Walleye are NOT panfish!



## Crumdfargo (Aug 25, 2005)

You know what, its really time for a change at mosquito. I'm sick and tired of seeing guys coming off the water showing off stringers of walleyes that are less than a foot long. Why keep these fish? its hardly worth filleting them, for god's sake. I know that there is no minimum size on the walleye in skeeter, but if you look at the areas that do have minimums, the size is 15 inches. And you know what? Its easier to catch larger fish at those places. Also, the limit is 6. I'm seeing pictures up on the internet and in bait stores of one guy holding 7 or 8! To add insult to injury, half the fish are about the size of a churchill cigar! Mosquito is my home lake. I have my boat docked there, but it seems like a better bet anymore to go out and get a mess of catfish at mosquito than to get some walleye. Some may say that they are catching legal fish, and you know what? You're right, you are. But wouldn't it be fun to catch bigger fish? I think that maybe we should pursue a spring limit like that of lake erie, as well. I can remember just a few years ago of catching limits of BIG fish, not just taking limits. And to those of you that do take cigars home, what is the smallest you take? 7, 8, 9 inches?


----------



## johnboy111711 (Apr 7, 2004)

if there was natural reproduction or the state wanted a limit, there would be a limit, untill they quit stocking 13million or so fry, there won't and isn't a problem. many people have no problem going out and catching larger eyes from mosquito. If people catch bigger fish at other lakes, then they should fish there. if there isn't a problem, why fix it? it has worked for well over 20 years now and seems to be going quite strong.what lakes and where were you catching these large limits? please post some pictures, give ME a reason to want change...


----------



## liquidsoap (Oct 22, 2005)

Crumdfargo said:


> I'm sick and tired of seeing guys coming off the water showing off stringers of walleyes that are less than a foot long.





Crumdfargo said:


> I know that there is no minimum size on the walleye in skeeter, but if you look at the areas that do have minimums, the size is 15 inches.


There is not a problem, If people dont keep them there will be a serouis problem and it will be overcome by walleye



Crumdfargo said:


> And you know what? Its easier to catch larger fish at those places.


Really Where are these places??




Crumdfargo said:


> Also, the limit is 6. I'm seeing pictures up on the internet and in bait stores of one guy holding 7 or 8!


Ever here of not fishing alone??



Crumdfargo said:


> it seems like a better bet anymore to go out and get a mess of catfish at mosquito than to get some walleye.


Do it stop complaining




Crumdfargo said:


> Some may say that they are catching legal fish, and you know what? You're right, you are. But wouldn't it be fun to catch bigger fish?


Some people fish for food ya no and not just for fun

Get your facts straight man, Mosquito has no problem....
Small wallleye are better then no walleye and there are some big ones in there.


Dont go P.E.T.A on us.....


----------



## Brunswick Sportsman (Mar 21, 2006)

Crum, I agree that their should be limits as long as it's researched correctly, but I don't feel the your values are better than mine or anybody else's because you keep a self-imposed 15" or larger on walleye. 

I usually fish for lg.bass and am well acclimated to catch and release, but I have to agree w/ Johnboy's comment on state control and can't fault the persons because I can relate due to the following:

He or she goes out of their way (we all don't live at Mosquito) to get to a lake. Spends an obsurd amount of money for this great sport. Get's skunked more times than not, only to finally catch enough for a meal on a day. It's probably okay to forget that walleye is not a yellow perch and crappie is not bluegill for a day, however who really cares as long as it's legal? There are people littering the shoreline and poaching all the time and are a higher priority in my book. Just my 02.


----------



## peple of the perch (Sep 13, 2004)

it would be nice to see at least a 10 inch limit there.

liquidsoap
well put and funny all at the same time


----------



## steelmagoo (Apr 13, 2004)

I'm for a size limit on Mosquito eyes, if it will improve the average size.


----------



## chaunc (Apr 11, 2004)

about fish in a put and take lake?I've been fishing squito for over 20 years and some people still dont get the concept of put and take. I can remember when the limit was 10 and people would bring their 4 kids with them and take 50 eyes. You know what, they would just restock it with more fish. Never hurt the eye population then or now. 6 fish limit now and guys are still bringing their kids and taking limits home. No problem with the state, no problem for me.


----------



## Crumdfargo (Aug 25, 2005)

Its obvious that the people taking offense to this thread are the ones that I am talking about. If it trips your trigger to catch and eat small fish, do it. Just get used to catching and eating small fish. If there were a size limit, those guys littering the shorelines would be getting limits of bigger fish, not cigars. You want a place with bigger fish? pymatuming. the mahoning river. erie. I know erie is hardly comparable, but the limits work there. As for the people fishing for food deal, I don't fish for anything that I wont eat, and imposing a size limit would give those people bigger fish. There is definately not a problem with overcrowding of eyes in skeeter, so don't even try that one. I don't expect everyone to not keep fish, but it doesn't hurt to throw the small ones back. If you have three eyes that are 17 inches, how much more meat are you going to get from a 9 incher? And yes, I have heard of fishing alone, do it all the time, but when the picture says "cletus caught these of the causeway" that leads me to believe that he was the only one.
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f218/wish4fish/5.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"></a>Look at those fish. Why keep those?


----------



## homeworker (Oct 3, 2005)

Crum,
While I agree that those that keep walleye under 15 or 16 inches are indeed apparently desperate and certainly pathetic-the more enlightened bureaus in Minnesota and Canada long ago adopted and strictly enforce strict size limits that have overwhelmingly succeeded in helping the fisheries-I do disagree with you on one point.
Pound-for-pound, nothing in freshwater fights a meeker "fight" than a walleye.Let's be honest.Therefore, I agree with many of those in Canada who have come to acknowledge and promote the walleye as "king of the panfish", as regards both their size and desire as a food fish.
Sounds a lot better than "lamest of the sportfish," which honest anglers will always have to concede as long as there are those that still comically maintain the walleye somehow qualifies as a sportfish.
Compared to what?


----------



## chaunc (Apr 11, 2004)

I believe i read that people are keeping small eyes there.  Isn't there a size limit there? Why aren't MORE people here, posting and complaining about that illegal activity? Why are so many people getting away with keeping small eyes there? When i fish Pymy in the spring, there's always a game warden checking everybody at the ramps. Why not there? Don't they care? Do you guys catch bigger eyes at Berlin than Pymy? I hear the numbers are down at Pymy. Is that due to people keeping small fish. I know, lot of questions but i would like to hear some serious answers.... if possible.


----------



## Crumdfargo (Aug 25, 2005)

No, there is no size limit on skeeter, and there should be. And like you said, they should check when there is a limit. Its funny that candians call walleye the king of panfish. I would like to see the size pan that a 28 inch walleye can fit into!


----------



## liquidsoap (Oct 22, 2005)

chaunc said:


> I believe i read that people are keeping small eyes there.  Isn't there a size limit there? Why aren't MORE people here, posting and complaining about that illegal activity? Why are so many people getting away with keeping small eyes there? When i fish Pymy in the spring, there's always a game warden checking everybody at the ramps. Why not there? Don't they care? Do you guys catch bigger eyes at Berlin than Pymy? I hear the numbers are down at Pymy. Is that due to people keeping small fish. I know, lot of questions but i would like to hear some serious answers.... if possible.



There is no size limit there.....
Sorry crum, didnt mean to offend you in any way... I dont agree with keeping the real small ones either but alot of people eat the small ones almost exclusivley... When ice season was around we caught a few dinkies maybe 8" and we traded them to people for 14 or 15 inchers....

I have no problem with how it is now, do i think it is wrong keeping a 9" walleye yes.

But do I feel changing the regs will improve Mosquito's fisherie, absolutley not

My view still stays the same
More walleye=More population=Stunted fish.....


----------



## snake69 (Sep 26, 2005)

Crum...I don't think you read Chaunc' last post correctly. I do believe he was referring to checking the limits at the ramp at* Berlin*. Many eyes caught there are 14 and 1/2 or 3/4 inch. Anyhow, if you don't get rid of some smaller ones, you'll likely have an abundance of smaller ones!! I've kept 13 and 14 inchers before, but no, I've never kept any of those 9,10 inchers!!


----------



## Lipgripper 24-7 (Mar 24, 2006)

I don't know if this has the same effect with walleye, But according to infisherman magazine, harvesting smaller fish within legal minimum size limit actually is better for the fishery. By keeping the smaller fish for eating, and releasing the larger, brood fish ie. Big female, the chances of catching larger fish improves. Too many small fish means more competition for food by upsetting the balance of predator/prey ratio. too much prey, and not enough predator fish is a good recipe for smaller sizes overall. Infisherman admitted that they had to rethink their original point of view after researching this. In southern waters, many anglers are being encouraged to keep more of the smaller bass, and other gamefishes they catch, to alleviate this problem. Perhaps the reason for the small sizes at mosquito is due to the thousands of walleye stocked in the lake every year, having to compete with ever increasing smaller fish for food. Or previous year walleye classes whose growth rates are slow because of all of the competition for food with smaller fish.


----------



## luredaddy (May 25, 2004)

Well, the lakes that have had the biggest decline, as far as harvesting Walleyes, are the MOST regulated lakes, Berlin and Pymatuning. I have always believed that Ohio had great fishing, because of the LACK of regulations. Leave Mosquito alone, in my opinion. Just a few short years ago, the limit was 10, now it is 6. I donot think that change, helped at all. 
I have fished Mosquito since 1960, it is fine, and if it is left alone, it will be fine in the future. It is a put and take lake, and as long as the state puts, fishers will take. OH, I CAUGHT A 22" Walleye trolling this morning, plus 5 other nice ones. :T


----------



## TheKing (Apr 15, 2004)

Happy to disagree,
The walleye is a meathunter's dinner. Legal size limits are what they are.


----------



## papaperch (Apr 12, 2004)

Lets see I am 58 and as long as I remember this debate has raged on and on. I enforce a personal 15 inch limit on myself. That is my choice and makes me no better or no worse than anyone else. Walleye are Ohios glamour fish and probably always will be. Let me cite a few examples.

Back in the seventies , buddy of mine brings in 5 LM bass and 1 SM bass all fish between 4-5 LB. This is in Ohios campground @ Pymatuning. Crowd of guys around buddy opine that they are real nice fish and really nice stringer. Little other interest is shown. I wander in with my two 16 " and two 18 " walleye and this mini-crowd is all over me. What you get them on, where at , how deep etc etc ? I take picture of his bass and he releases. We fry walleye up and eat them. I confessed to him his stringer was one of a hell lot more impressive to me anyway.

Tell anyone you caught X number of 13 inch , perch . crappie or any other fish and they will show little interest. Now tell same people you caught a limit of walleyes and boom you are the star. Hence that is why walleye are more readily sought for the impression factor. Usually size is not even mentioned the fact that they are walleye is impressive enough.

Oldest son almost got me in a fight with four drunks at state park launch at Mosquito when he was 14. These four guys were parading around the docks showing everyone they're limits ( 10 then ) of 11" to 13 " walleyes. I was busy getting my boat on trailer when these guys asked my son " How you all do out there ? " Son told him we did rather well on the crappie. Guy snorted and said to my son no real fish like these walleyes huh. Son replies yeah we got some walleye but what you got aren't walleyes they are cigars. Son then shows him a 22" walleye from our cooler. Then to rub it in son says if we kept that size we would have already been home. Ever since he was five he always heard me call small walleyes that and cuss them out for running me short on bait. Guy takes offense at my 14 year old opinion and wants to smack him. I explain to drunk how that would be a REAL bad idea and usher my son to truck. I then offer to take my sons place if he still desires to smack someone. Also tell him I hope he has excellent health care cause if he does smack me he is going to need it desperately. While he was sorting it out in his alcoholic fuzzy I got in truck and drove off. Also lectured son on keeping his opinions to himself.

Personally it does bother me to see people keeping walleye smaller than the crappies I am keeping. But I make no big issue of it. People keep or release fish as their personal taste or local laws permit. I eat the fish I keep but I would not call it fishing for food. Just what I spend on icefishing tackle each year would proabaly keep my freezer filled with prime beef.


----------



## bigpimpin1261 (Apr 4, 2006)

to me different kinds of fish taste better to me that arnt huge if you know what i mean fish is fish if there going to good use and your eating them and not killing them for gigles then heck with it if they stay within the law then there should be no problem me i dont have to worry about the size becuase i never catch any walleye lol o well but good debate fellas


----------



## STUMPY (Apr 14, 2004)

The state should just stop stocking walleye in skeeter! The lake will never be a really good walleye fishery, what the lake is and always will be a excellent crappie fishery. The lake is polluted with those darn cigars! I think the abundancy of crappie in that lake has something to do with the small average size of walleyes in mosquito. Lets face it, the two species compete for food. You could be out on skeeter trollin with large cranks and 8 inch rapalas and still put more 15in. slab crappie in the cooler than walleye. The lake is what it is, a great crappie lake. If I want walleye, I go to the big pond up north, so I have no problem with anyone takin those cigars. It will only lead to bigger crappie and consequently the walleye that are in the lake now will get bigger. :B


----------



## fisherman261 (Apr 25, 2004)

I did a net survey out there last year with the ODNR and let me tell you, there is no shortage of big fish out there.


----------



## johnboy111711 (Apr 7, 2004)

amen fisherman, I have seen the nets in the spring


----------



## MadMac (May 2, 2005)

I wish they would take some of the 13 million fry and spread them around to other lakes myself. And I also think the state should consider slot limits.


----------



## Whaler (Nov 16, 2004)

Papaperch, Bravo to you and your son !


----------



## viper1 (Apr 13, 2004)

I'm just glad to live in america where people can arque weather a law is wrong or not and am only suprised that more bitch and do nothing when you can legally change it here. There seems to be so much passion and so little acting on either side. My self I like my walleye 18-22 inches but have no quarrel with you eating a 6 incher if the law says you can. Keep more than your allowed and break the law and i'll be the first to turn you in. Like it or not thats the way it is. But hey go ahead this does make good reading.


----------



## peple of the perch (Sep 13, 2004)

chaunc said:


> about fish in a put and take lake?I've been fishing squito for over 20 years and some people still dont get the concept of put and take. I can remember when the limit was 10 and people would bring their 4 kids with them and take 50 eyes. You know what, they would just restock it with more fish. Never hurt the eye population then or now. 6 fish limit now and guys are still bringing their kids and taking limits home. No problem with the state, no problem for me.



they restock it with smaller eyes


----------



## chaunc (Apr 11, 2004)

peple of the perch said:


> they restock it with smaller eyes


And the cycle continues. Put more in, take more out. What's your point?


----------



## fiiretiger (Apr 29, 2006)

I will always take 1 20-25 inch hog over a 6 fish limit of anything under 16 inches...Whatever happened to fishing for a wallhanger.Pops,brother and me boated 20 + eyes today at skeeter all under 15 inches and all put back to fight another day.Would rather see these eyes in 2 years..We need a size limit at skeeter............


----------



## Shortdrift (Apr 5, 2004)

Mosquito seems to be doing OK under the guideance of the ODNR in spite of what all the backseat fisheries experts say. What might happen to the fantastic crappie fishing if all those eyes are allowed to grow larger in size and appetite? Is there enough forage base to support the increased need? Just put forth some factual data and supporting information regarding the need for the restrictions recommended and I would think the ODNR would review it and adopt it.


----------



## esox (Dec 26, 2004)

Well, it's the annual "size limit at Mosquito" thread. The fact is that an approximate 40% average annual mortality rate per year class, (all causes combined), is the norm in virtually all bodies of water. A size, slot, and bag limit would have a negligible effect on the 'eye pops at Mosquito. If 13 million fish are stocked and nearly 40% die each season of all causes combined, that's around 6 millioin fish that die the first year they are in the res. Of that 6 million, around 1.2 million will die the following year.
The next year there are 1.8 million left, then around 720,000 are left, and on and on. All the fish caught combined, (each year), whether released or kept, do not even begin to approach these numbers. 
Of course, the same is true on Lake Erie. The only reason for a size/bag limit there, would be to provide a source of revenue for the DNR/DOW folks. But you can't blame them, afer all, somebody has to sponsor their retirement.
Gamefish? Panfish? Depends on one's definition. A local writer who pens a weekly column in a suburban/rural daily 10 pager, once proclaimed bass as the premier sportfish because it jumps. Since largemouth only jump between certain water temperature perimeters, (don't recollect what they were for certain, something like 65 degrees - 82 degrees-for purposes of discussion), then the largemouth is only a sportfish for the duration of the year when the water is between those temp perimeters, if using the "it jumps" criteria. So, what would it be the rest of the year? Certainly not a panfish. After a foot or so they taste poor. Oh well, an "outdoor" writer has to make a livin' somehow. 
This may come as a shock to some, but In-Fish declared many years ago that carp were the number one freshwater sportfish in North America and I might add that carp were imported into this country in the late 19th/early 20th century as a food fish. Phew, those folks must have been hungry.
In the early years, (1920's or there abouts), of the 20th century when commercial fishing began during the winter months under the ice in the back/northwoods of Canada, white fish, lake trout, and northern, were the preferred fish. Walleye were considered trash fish and were fed to the dog teams as there was no market for them in Chicago, New York, Detroit, etc. where the fish were shipped and sold each winter. The trout, white fish, and pike were considered much more flavorful than walleyes, which indeed they are. Try this sometime. Cook a walleye fillet with absolutely no flavor added through breading or seasoning. It will have virtually no taste at all - good or bad.
How times have changed...


----------



## Crumdfargo (Aug 25, 2005)

I know that they die of other causes besides being caught, but once they reach a certain size, they're mortality rates decline. Once they reach about 12 inches, they don't have anything to worry about in terms of predators, other than humans. The reason 40% (if your numbers are correct, or even if they're not) of the fry die every year is that they are eaten. And its also true that once they get so big and the water temps rise to about 80, they start to die off because of the low oxygen, but here is my point. I was out at the lake again and saw another two guys with a stringer full of 10 inch fish. Now, if he let those fish go, in another year, they would be of decent size, say 15- 16 inchers. That is not hard to understand. I don't get it. A size limit would increase the size of the fish, give people more meat on the table, and improve the fishing conditions. Just think of the thousands of unused minnows that get dumped into the lake everyday. There is a good forage base. Anyone that has been night fishing out there has seen the clouds of baitfish that are attracted to the lights of the boat. I would bet my boat that if a size limit was enforced, even if it was 12 inches, that the size of the fish would increase. Its common sense, and I don't need any scientific studies to show me that. In regards to Erie, I'm not sure what was meant by the size limit is there to pay for the ODNR's retirement funds. What? Just look at the hogs you pull out of there, and tell me that a size limit doesn't work. I know that the two lakes are totally different, but when it comes down to it, we could use the same management strategies. And when is the last time you didn't flavor your fish at all? I don't eat any fish plain. I like my recipes to include more in depth methods than dropping the fillets into boiling water.


----------



## bigpimpin1261 (Apr 4, 2006)

ive never fished misqito or skeeter but lake erie is totally different way different because of the size of it to me a fish is a fish im keeping what i caught if there is no limit but thats my opinion


----------



## chuckie (Nov 12, 2004)

Someone in this "book" mentioned the exceptional fishery Moquito is for crappie. The reason is half the small walleye that are "stocked" end up in their bellies and thus they continue to grow!! That's some expensive fish food if you ask me! Of course the flip side is that the few bigger walleyes eat the crappie fry/fingerlings and get bigger. You can't catch a decent walleye in squito because the abundant small fish clean your hook before the bigger ones get to it!!! I'm just kidding here but this is really a NO WIN discussion!! 
Poor WB on the other hand gets NO WALLEYE stockings!(since 1992!) And yet the same people who keep the little put and take walleye at Mosquito think they can do the same thing at WB because there's no size limit. With the very tentative population, meager natural reproduction at WB, you just can't continue this or guess what-NO walleyes! Think about it..............


----------



## Crumdfargo (Aug 25, 2005)

Start a new thread for that discussion. WB definately should be wathced under close scrutiny by the ODNR. Mosquito is a put and take sytem, while WB is a natural reproduction lake. The two lakes can benefit from the same types of management. You know another put and take sytem in ohio? The stealhead. There is a size limit on those, so why not the walleye. THe limit is 12 inches, which is small for steelhead, but it is still a limit. The limit works for them! You can constitently pull 24 to 28" steels out of Erie and the Rivers, with the hogs reaching the mid 30's in length and 13 to 15 pounds in weight. I'm not calling those of you who are keeping cigars criminals or anything like it, but I hold myself to a standard of being able to release something that I deem too small. Its kind of like the mighty pittying the weak. Let them grow up, you'll be happier


----------



## Master Angler (May 26, 2004)

yea - I hate hearing of any kept out of WB...it is a very fragile pop....sickening really - our waters aren't your fridge!!! just what do you think you "deserve" for your $19? The real problem with no regs is that it promotes lack of respect for fish and fisheries. Ever single sportfish species and waterway should be regulated.


----------



## liquidsoap (Oct 22, 2005)

Crumdfargo said:


> Start a new thread for that discussion. WB definately should be wathced under close scrutiny by the ODNR. Mosquito is a put and take sytem, while WB is a natural reproduction lake. The two lakes can benefit from the same types of management. You know another put and take sytem in ohio? The stealhead. There is a size limit on those, so why not the walleye. THe limit is 12 inches, which is small for steelhead, but it is still a limit. The limit works for them! You can constitently pull 24 to 28" steels out of Erie and the Rivers, with the hogs reaching the mid 30's in length and 13 to 15 pounds in weight. I'm not calling those of you who are keeping cigars criminals or anything like it, but I hold myself to a standard of being able to release something that I deem too small. Its kind of like the mighty pittying the weak. Let them grow up, you'll be happier


I have never caught a steelhead that was not a keeper....
But I do not believe it is from size limit,steelhead dont make it to the river till they are 2-4 years old, by that time they are already a keeper size, so there are going to be no smaller steelhead in the river.
Born in the river- go out to the lake and get big for 2-4 years- come back to the river to spawn.
The only time below average steelhead are caught is in the lake, come to think of it, has anyone caught one below 12". I caught a 13" but never below 12".


----------



## chaunc (Apr 11, 2004)

I understand that a 10" walleye is a small fish and that i, personally, wont keep them, but to ask people that like to eat fish to throw them back to let them get bigger is a bit much. What are they going to eat now. 15- 16" eyes have good meat on them but who's going to wait a year to eat walleye that's availiable now. You and i can impose our own size limit but we all need to understand that we dont have a say what other people's size limit is. If it's legal, leave them alone. Otherwise, fish a lake that has the eye regulated. JMO


----------



## Brunswick Sportsman (Mar 21, 2006)

Master Angler said:


> Ever single sportfish species and waterway should be regulated.


Do you mean regulated by law, or regulated if it's not currently or perhaps to your liking?


----------



## esox (Dec 26, 2004)

I read a Mich. State study years ago, (around '92-'93), which was published in Tri-state Sportsman that claimed studies showed a 38% average annual year class mortality rate for the Erie 'eye, all causes combined. Guess what the COMBINED percentage of sport and commercial harvest was of that 38%. EIGHT PERCENT. That's right. The total sport and commercial harvest was 8 percent of the total annual mortality rate of 38%. That means that out of every 38 'eyes, (per hundred), that die every year in Lake Erie, 8 of them are taken by sport or commercial fishers.
That's why I said that a bag limit is irrelevant and the fines levied on those who violate bag laws are used to pay the retirement of the game wardens, which to my way of thinking is the only reason for bag laws on Lake Erie since 30 'eyes die of natural causes out of every 38 fish that die. In other words, a whole lot of 'eyes are being "wasted" so to speak. It's true many of these are fry/fingerlings, but certainly not all and many 'eyes big enough to fillet, die of disease, injury, or what have you, just like every other species of animal life. The bottom line is, that numbers of fish caught every year, whether by sport or commercial harvest, have negligable effect on the over all 'eyes pops. Since this is obviously the case, then why have bag limits on Erie?
Since there is no commercial fishing on Mosquito, then the mortality via fishers out of the overall, (all causes combined), mortality, is an even smaller percentage than what it would be on Erie. 
At any rate, I see no rational for size limits on Mosquito as the over all combined mortality rates more than make-up for any fish that are released. While true the year class over all mortality rate would decline as the fish grow larger, (less are eaten), disease still would take many more fish than fishers would.
Look at it this way, if there were no fishing on Mosquito, the 'eye pops would not be appreciably altered and over all mortality rates would be comparable to those now. I believe that maybe 8-10 out of every hundred 'eyes stocked actually make it to the frying pan.


----------



## misfit (Apr 5, 2004)

i'll not contribute my thoughts on limits,regs or the laughable premise that fines,etc are only incorperated for the retirement fund of dnr employees  
because i am not endowed with the vast education or knowledge that others possess.but my backwoods common sense tells me that with no limits,anglers could possibly add more than 8% to the mortality rate of walleyes on ANY body of water if they had a mind to.therefore,it stands to reason that the 8% figure could be in part,a result of such limits.
of course this is just the simple reasoning of one simple hillbilly mind.


----------



## collinwoodie (Sep 23, 2005)

misfit, you are being awfully modest.You made more sense in just a few simple sentences than the psuedo-intellectual that preceded you made-or ever makes-in any of his long-winded and short-on-sense rambles


----------



## Crumdfargo (Aug 25, 2005)

Esox, if you think for one moment that fishing for walleye on mosquito or any other body of water has barely any effect on their population as a whole; I can no longer debate any further points with you. I will not try to reason with someone who is irrational. If there were no limits of walleye on mosquito, that lake would be fished clean in two years. All the people saying that they caught "15 eyes of various sizes" would keep those fish instead of just six. And, creel surveys have their flaws. I assume that the study you cited was a creel survey. They use the size of the given area of the area of the lake they are at and calculate how many fish they "think" they should catch, and base the findings on that. If they stock 13 million fry, there is no possible way to account for a number of them that is even close to accurate. Also, when the state puts in a given number of fry, they have already calculated how many they believe will make it, so the original number of fry they stocked becomes irrelevant.


----------



## esox (Dec 26, 2004)

When the 38 % annual mortality rates were published by Mich. State, the daily bag was 10 'eyes on both Erie and Mosquito for the entire season. Then, as now, most fishers don't catch the daily bag limit every time they go fishing, or even most of the time. Since obviously bag limit regs have no appreciable impact on over all mortality rates, then why else have them other than to sponsor the DNR/DOW?
Your right, misfit. You do have a simple mind. I'd be willing to wager that if mfit and cwoodie were around when it was discovered that the world was indeed round, they would have scoffed at that fact as well instead of offering evidence to support their position.
My position has been that hook and line fishers cannot catch enough 'eyes to significantly alter the over all mortality rates and the available facts seem to support this. 
Perhaps the "simple minded" ones can offer support for their position instead of merely running their mouths.


----------



## TheSonicMarauder (Mar 9, 2006)

so when does this session of congress end so we can go back to fishing?...................just remember that the sport of fishing is derived from mans necessity to eat and some do still depend on what they catch..... its like selective harvesting french fries..... its dumb........... whats next... gonna start a strike on caviar eaters and trout fisherman that use salmon eggs? how about people who eat eggs for breakfast..... dear lord that coulda been chicken!!!......... what im trying to say is... its in human nature to keep what you catch...... im not saying that people are depending on what they catch but thats why theres bag limits.. atleast the odnr is atleast trying make some sort of effort to maintain a breeding population... which is why ODNR is jumping on the double baggers on lake erie

now with that said im not saying that im totally for people bringin in small eyes... i catch and release every fish i catch.... is keepin the little fish wrong? yes but there are people who dont give a rats arse about the balance of nature.. why do you think you find all those propane tanks on the 88 causeway........ if a lot of these cradle robbing fishermen actually cared about the fish populations and the habitat that keeps the fish healthy then places like mosquito and WB would be spotless and the fish populations wouldnt need a periodic restocking.......................... 


my point in general is this.... human society is littered with morons... weeding them out would be pointless... we are stuck with them.... deal with it...


----------



## Crumdfargo (Aug 25, 2005)

Fine, you want to go the support my argument route? Here:
"In an effort to boost Lake Erie's walleye population, fisheries scientists working with the Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC) met last week and agreed to cut in half international harvest quotas for walleye on the lake, according to the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR)." That was in an article released by the ODNR in 2001. They are saying in that article that a 7.7 million strong harvest was too much for the fishery, so they cut it in half to 3.4 million. 
By golly, you know what? lowering the total allowable catch in lake erie, they effectively raised the population of the walleye! SO, it seems that FISHING HAS A MAJOR IMPACT ON FISH POPULATIONS! Who could have guessed it? Surely not a simple minded individual like myself or misfit! 
The lowered total limit of walley raised the population enough by 2005 to be able to increase the allowable catch to 5.8 million fish, and you know what? The bag limits increased! So, I rest my case. They lowered the total limit of walleye harvested by half, and THE LAKE REBOUNDED DUE TO LOWERED TOTAL WALLEYE BAG LIMITS!!!! I rest my case; limits on fish are there for a reason, not just to pad the pockets of the ODNR's bigwigs. The facts can't spell it out any clearer, esox.


----------



## johnboy111711 (Apr 7, 2004)

crum, how do you feel about all the commercial netting that goes on at lake erie? I garentee it has a bigger impact on fishing and fish populations that limits set for anglers. While the candians and selct few americans rape the fishery, take that into consideration and I must assume that angler limits are set to offset the commercial harvest. with out the commercial harvest a 10 fish limit or more would not make quite the impact that would be assumed. the same goes for the perch. looking at mosquito in the same light, if the the total number of fish going into the lake is a constant (which happens to be much more reliable that natural repoduction) then why would it matter what the size of the fish is if the same number of fish (roughly) were leaving the lake in a creel every year?


----------



## misfit (Apr 5, 2004)

ok,you want evidence?so do i.
can you show me evidence that without limits and laws,that walleye pops would not be harmed in any of those lakes?NO,you can't.that's a SIMPLE fact.
if you think that all the fishermen,charters,and commercial netters on erie couldn't take any more than your 8%,than you are farther out there than i thought.though many fishermen may not limit every trip,there are times when it's easy for many to load their boat if they wanted,without any restrictions.then there's the netters.they could net 24/7 and keep any size fish in staggering numbers.and without any regs in place,i believe the number of fishermen,commercial and others,would surely grow in order to cash in on the gold rush.that's not rocket science,it's just SIMPLE logic.
now,you show me your proof and i'll show you mine.
as i've told you before,for someone as apparently well read and intelligent as you seem at times,you SIMPLY amaze me at other times


----------



## esox (Dec 26, 2004)

According to the Lake Erie Walleye Task Group 2003 report, .37 walleyes were caught per angler rod hour. That means if one has their bait in the water for 10 hours, they will average 3.7 fish. This is up from .32 fish in 2000. Like I said, most fishers do not catch their limits most of the time.
The TAC, (Total Allowable Catch which includes sport and commercial harvest) quota has been discontinued on Erie. Was this because it significantly impacted overall walleye pops, or was it discontinued because it was usually not attained, (which it wasn't)? However, they don't say why it was discontinued.
I will naturally agree that unregulated commercial harvest will fish down the pops if all sizes are harvested and fish are not permitted to spawn. However, there is no evidence to indicate that hook and line fishing can significantly impact overall mortality rates, at least on large bodies of water. If you read the reports made by the LEWTG, (it's available on the web), it will specifically say as much. Some will call these reports, "pseudo-intellectual", yet this same rocket scientist is unable to provide facts via his own research to back his mouth. Only some goofy post that contributes nothing to the disussion. Hey Einstein, (Collinwoodie), tell us about your tracking data, tagging data, creel surveys, seine/trawler y.o.t.y. data, forage dynamics, commercial harvest catch data, etc. How many years you say you've been compiling this data? Put it all together and please, show us what you've got, (this otta be good)...
When there is a walleye sport harvest of around 1.5 million fish out of a total mature fish population, (as opposed to all sizes combined), of 15, 20, or more million, then one can get a better grasp of the situation.
Once again, I maintain that 'eye bag limits are irrelevant and don't contribute significantly to overall mortality rates, (the facts support this), and are used only as a revenue device.
The annual Erie hatch, (or stocking programs in the case of Mosquito), is far and away more important to 'eye pops than bag limits.


----------



## Brunswick Sportsman (Mar 21, 2006)

Master Angler said:


> yea - I hate hearing of any kept out of WB...it is a very fragile pop....sickening really - our waters aren't your fridge!!! just what do you think you "deserve" for your $19?


Whew! Radical and knarly dude! 

And then theirs CRUMD and his opinion, he wants those that litter our lakes and poachers to catch larger fish if we can just pitch in with a self-imposed 15" limit. Isn't that nice?

What should everybody think people deserve for their fishing, hunting, driving, or any other license? 

*Answer:* Protection from self-righteous and pompous individuals who have their own interpretation of the LAWS governing any license!!!! 

Just imagine, this group probably has no boundaries and will eventually classify all of you as "abusers" for keeping one walleye under their self-imposed 15" at Mosquito, or killing more than two pheasants during the hunting season, or simply driving 1mph over the speed-limit. 

We already have laws and regulation in place and most of us abide by them. I agree that their are a few who don't abide, but if it's within the regulations, what are you really going to do? May I recommend contacting ODNR or some goverment agency? By the way, don't let me ever catch you driving 1mph over the speed limit or I'll get radical on you.

FYI: It is early in the morning, I haven't had my first cup of coffee and I am not intending to hurt M.A and CrumD, just stating my opinion. I'd be glad to have both of you on my boat, however if you get thrown in the drink after I keep a 14" walleye at Squito' for the first time in my life, it's your problem.


----------



## misfit (Apr 5, 2004)

here are your words.and this is what i'm disputing.


> The bottom line is, that numbers of fish caught every year, whether by sport or commercial harvest, have negligable effect on the over all 'eyes pops. Since this is obviously the case, then why have bag limits on Erie?


 you do not have any evidence to prove this "theory",and you can't supply any.
again,i say to you,the reason the sport anglers AND commercial fishermen have a "negligable effect" is the direct result of those limits you say are only in place to supply the funds to pay for retirement plans.regarding your thoughts on that retirement "scam",i think that's a real stretch,even for you.
one scenario to consider is if other factors(i.e. environmental)were to severely limit spawning activities,(as happens from time to time)for any period,the fish pops would drop dramatically.add to the equation,unlimited/unrestricted harvest,and your theory goes out the window it blew in through.
in closing,i'd like to request that we all(everyone) keep this conversation/debate civil,and not let it deteriorate into a free for all of verbal personal attacks.


----------



## Crumdfargo (Aug 25, 2005)

esox you said and I quote, "However, there is no evidence to indicate that hook and line fishing can significantly impact overall mortality rates, at least on large bodies of water." So what you are saying is that hook and line fisherman can impact overall mortality rates in a small lake. This is the very reason the bag limit debate got underway, you originally said that fisherman have no impact on population, even on small bodies of water. Now you're saying that bag limits can improve the population on a smaller body of water such as Mosquito, but then you go back and say that they have no impact at all. What gives? THen you want me to compile the research that I have done over the past 10 years to support my "theory". YOU have no such research to back your opinion, so why should I have to? I will say this. Those numbers of walleye caught per rod hour are just surveys of fisherman. THey basically walk up to someone and ask how many did you catch in how long of a time on that particular day. They son't even ask that many people. For just such a survey on steelhead, they asked like 120 anglers. That is a terrible representation of the actual population of steelhead fisherman. And, as you know, there can be hot days and cold days. A 10 hour day on erie only catching 3.7 walleye is a cold day. 
Thats right, brunswick sportsman, I believe that there should be a statewide size limit on Walleyes. According to you, I guess that also means that I'm against speeding, pheasant hunting, smoking in public places, teaching evolution or creationism in school, gays in the military, killing does instead of bucks, having a set of the ten comandments in front of a government building, singing the politically incorrect version of the national anthem, and just being proud to be an american. Man, where did that come from? I must just be so pompous that I don't know my beliefs, so i need to be told what i believe on a puplic fishing forum. Why don't we keep this discussion on the topic of fishing?


----------



## TheSonicMarauder (Mar 9, 2006)

hmm seems what i said was taken the wrong way....that happens a lot..... what i was just trying to say is.... we are stuck with these morons lacking common sense until odnr takes notice in a billion years and puts a size limit on them


----------



## bigpimpin1261 (Apr 4, 2006)

wow you guys got all your points out there this subject is old a fish is a fish lol you guys go way into all the scientific part of fishing lol good day


----------



## Shortdrift (Apr 5, 2004)

I guess by now, everybody knows how much everybody else thinks they know or thought they knew.


----------



## billybob7059 (Mar 27, 2005)

All in all there should be a size limit on walleyes every were in the state and that includes saugeye!


----------



## liquidsoap (Oct 22, 2005)

esox said:


> According to the Lake Erie Walleye Task Group 2003 report, .37 walleyes were caught per angler rod hour. That means if one has their bait in the water for 10 hours, they will average 3.7 fish. This is up from .32 fish in 2000. Like I said, most fishers do not catch their limits most of the time..


Interesting fact, you people are getting way to out of control.
All I see is Erie this Erie that, Erie is on a whole different ball field, the lake is huge compared to mosquito. So all the facts about erie are completley useless. But they are indeed interesting thats it. For the most people dont keep cigars on erie, unless they dont follow the regs. And they will get penalized for it.

Why dont you people let it go, seriously, there is enough walleye to go around. Start fishing like a diehard and maybe you will get the trophy eye from mosquito or from wherever, they are in there thats for sure. If you dont agree with the size limit go complain to the ODNR not on the public forums. And if you do complain to them, you will get absolutley no were. There is no problems with our walleye fisheries. 

End of story 

I said this in the last thread about spawning bass, go complain about the people who catch steelhead or brown trout, take the eggs out and throw them on the bank. At least mostly everyone can aggree on it. Its wrong!


----------



## vc1111 (Apr 13, 2004)

Interesting thread.

The mortality rate for fish and just about anything else that swims, fly, runs or crawls is much more than a function of time passing.

I'm sure this has been mentioned by PYmatuning has had a 15 inch restriction for a long, long, long time, yet for the same amount of time, it had a reputation for producing large numbers of 14 and 3/4 inch walleye.

The microbiology of each body of water is an important variable in growth rates, longevity, etc. We have people in charge of these matters whose education and collective experience trumps the average Joe with a spinning reel and a jig/twister/minnow combo and a 14 foot fishing boat.

My two cents? Its nice that we have lakes with size restrictions and its nice that we have lakes that don't. Choice is a wonderful thing.


----------



## bigpimpin1261 (Apr 4, 2006)

yea thats a good reply liquid look at all the steel head that get caught and the only thing they get used for is the eggs and left to rot on the bank at least the people who catch the walleye are keeping them for food.. yea theres plenty of fish going around yea its probably not as good as past years but its in decent shape


----------



## Hook N Book (Apr 7, 2004)

Shortdrift said:


> I guess by now, everybody knows how much everybody else thinks they know or thought they knew.


Yeah, and when it's all said and done....a lot will have been said, but nothing will be done...!


----------



## Crumdfargo (Aug 25, 2005)

Yep, I think that this thread is about dead. I can't really say anything about the topic. At least the people eat the small fish they are taking out of the lake. If you take and eat small walleyes, more power to you. Enjoy, they taste marvelous. I, on the other hand, have been raised to have pity on the little guy. I don't go by any certain standard size, and I don't measure the fish that I catch. I just kind of think to myself, is this of a decent size to eat? I was raised that way and I will raise my kids that way(when I have them)


----------



## misfit (Apr 5, 2004)

> We have people in charge of these matters whose education and collective experience trumps the average Joe with a spinning reel and a jig/twister/minnow combo and a 14 foot fishing boat


 i second that. 
now,i'm grabbin' my spinning rig and jigs and hitching up my 14 foot boat so i can go chase some SAUGeyes cause there ain't no walleyes in hoover   


and yes,i really do have a 14 foot boat


----------



## esox (Dec 26, 2004)

Never said that bag limits improve fishing at Mosquito as I don't consider it small. Don't put words in my mouth in an attempt to support your position. Use facts.
I've presented the facts as has been compiled by the fisheries pros. They are deemed "skewed, inaccurate, unreliable, " etc., etc., and hence "prove nothing". I might add, that I've been the only one to present data to support my position.
Even though the fisheries pros have reliable data that indicates about 1/3 of a walleye is caught per hour of fishing on Erie, this fact doesn't support the agenda of those who disagree with me, and so it's deemed inaccurate, even though those who deem it so can not come up with there own figures. Their position is supported merely by opinion and conjecture. If the average walleye catch per hour fished is not .37 fish, then what is it? In order to say it's not .37 fish, then one must know what the average is. I might also ask, just how did you arrive at your figures.
If the fishery bios believe that 6 walleyes per angler per trip is the max that can be sustained before the fishery is significantly impacted, and about half that many fish are actually caught, then how can that bag limit significantly affect overall mortality rates? The answer? It obviously doesn't.
I've supplied resources that provide the data that shows average yearly overall mortality rates and the percentage of those rates that are caused by harvest. The average yearly overall mortality rates are consistently in the high 30's, while the percentage caused by harvest is consistently in the 8%-10% category. I'll also add that the TAC quota has usually NOT been attained and has been discontinued. 
As I've stated, I'm the only one who has provided facts and these have been compiled by the Lake Erie Walleye fisheries bios that have been accumulating data since 1978.
You asked me for facts. I've provided them. Now you say they are "skewed" because these facts don't coincide with your opinion.
The earth is indeed round, shooting the messenger that says so, doesn't make it flat.
The Lake Erie hatch and, (more specifically), the weather and water conditions just following the hatch, (hence fry survival), are the primary factors that determine the productivity of the Erie walleye fishery. There are other factors as well such as water temps, oxygen, predation, etc., etc. These all have one thing in common, they are beyond the control of man. The only factor that can be controlled by man is the harvest. When the recruitment is poor, fishers complain because the fishing is poor and look for someone or something to blame. The state is delighted with this because it gives them the power to dictate bag limits since harvest is the only controllable factor. Violations of bag limits provide revenue. 
Lets take the Maumee spawning run as a good example of anticipated violations creating revenue.
Ten percent of the Erie spawn is river oriented, the rest of the spawn takes place on the reefs. Since only 10 percent of the spawn takes place in the rivers, then the entire population of river spawners could be wiped out by fishers and only 10 % of the spawn would be affected. Since wiping out the entire Maumee spawning run would only impact 10% of the spawn, then why bother with a bag limit? There is certainly no way that fishers are going to catch all of the river run fish, or even any where close to all of them. The bag limit of 4 during spawn appears to be totally arbitrary. I'll also add, that even at 4, most anglers don't catch their limit most of the time.
If the walleye pops were so low that steps must be taken to controll the harvest, then why allow ANY fishing during the spawn? The answer? Once again, it's revenue. The Maumee run provides millions in local revenue and no small amount to the DOW via tags and violations/fines. This tells me one of two things. Either the state puts revenue before conservation, or, there is no threat to the 'eye pops and bag limits are merely arbitrary devices of revenue.
It's got to be one or the other.
It's unlikely I've changed any minds, but perhaps at least I've provided another way of looking at the big picture.
Now, I gotta go outside and cut the grass.


----------



## Brunswick Sportsman (Mar 21, 2006)

Crumdfargo said:


> Thats right, brunswick sportsman, I believe that there should be a statewide size limit on Walleyes. According to you, I guess that also means that I'm against speeding, pheasant hunting, smoking in public places, teaching evolution or creationism in school, gays in the military, killing does instead of bucks, having a set of the ten comandments in front of a government building, singing the politically incorrect version of the national anthem, and just being proud to be an american. Man, where did that come from? I must just be so pompous that I don't know my beliefs, so i need to be told what i believe on a puplic fishing forum. Why don't we keep this discussion on the topic of fishing?


I never mentioned smoking,evolution/creationism,gays in the military, killing does instead of bucks, ten comandments in gov, national anthem in my posts. Guilty of misinterpreting posts? Your probably just enjoying this as much as I am. Isn't that why were here.

I'm sure your a fine fisherman w/ morals, never said you were wrong, did I? Just a tiny bit pushy. 

Think back to the post about the guy with those cigars. I think that if someone is quick to point out a guy who has had a quality day of fishing in his mind and is proud of his little stringer within the law, is classifying him as inadequate in one way or the other without knowing his circumstanses. Prove me wrong and answer the following:

Is he handicapped? Does he fish occasionally or infrequently? Has he ever thrown back undersized fish? Is he a reflection of all fisherman who keep one or more self-imposed undersized fish? Is everyone that doesn't believe in self-imposed size limits o/s of the law wrong and your right?

I believe in things too, especially obeying the law and having enough sense to throw back an occassional undersize pan fish and 99.9% of all bass, except for the one or two bass within the law that may not make it after being hooked, they will need to get baked and eaten. 

Just trying to have a little fun, sorry if it offends you or anybodyelse. Good luck to you and your cause, however, since your so adamant about it and before this thread dies, where do you go with this outside of this forum?


----------



## collinwoodie (Sep 23, 2005)

Frankly,I'm still waiting for "evidence" to support the original libel that the state agency is using discretionary funds intended for elsewhere to line their own pockets through feathered retirement plans,etc.


----------



## Shortdrift (Apr 5, 2004)

I guess by now, everybody knows how much everybody else thinks they know or thought they knew. 

As we drone on into oblivion.


----------



## TheKing (Apr 15, 2004)

The small ones are known as "hammer-handles" to you beginners.
Throw them back and wait for something bigger.
My lineage says that if it's under 3 lbs, it is a hammer-handle !


----------



## chaunc (Apr 11, 2004)

TheKing said:


> The small ones are known as "hammer-handles" to you beginners.
> Throw them back and wait for something bigger.
> My lineage says that if it's under 3 lbs, it is a hammer-handle !


And that is YOUR lineage..  You think anybody else cares about your standard of feeding their family? Get real dude


----------

