# New Walleye Limit for Lake Erie?



## kdn (Apr 27, 2015)

With the boom in hatches over the last few years I wonder if State of Ohio DOW will raise the limit of walleye from 6 to 7 or perhaps even 8 per person. I have not seen an estimated population of walleye in Lake Erie but it has to be a huge increase with the hatches. I remember numbers like 93 M. Perhaps we have like 190 million after the 12-14-15 year hatches. Now with the reports of 2018 being the second best hatch in history three years from now it will be "thick" with eye on Erie and the head count maybe 250M. I have never heard of such numbers. Heck. if you go up in the spring to the reef areas their backs may be out of the water from so many fish! What a lake!


----------



## Carpman (May 18, 2005)

TAC......


----------



## rsdata (Mar 26, 2015)

there also seems to be record numbers of recreational anglers, charter boats and new retirees with time and big boats bringing home 6 fish limits everyday of the week...


----------



## ducknut141 (Apr 26, 2017)

Unfortunately there is a record number of anglers catching more than 1 limit daily and most are getting away with it. I will give the the ladies and gentleman of the ODNR credit they are doing the best they can at catching them.


----------



## kdn (Apr 27, 2015)

Yes. that is true but we are talking a few hundred thousand vs a population of hundred million! Then you have all the future hatches from 190-250M fish rather than from 85M fish. Kind of like the deer population in the urban areas of Ohio. 
Just a population explosion!


----------



## rsdata (Mar 26, 2015)

there is not an unlimited food supply in Erie like there is for deer... all of those walleye biters the last two years must have been real hungry and that problem will only get worse... the food chain is not unlimited... walleye populations will self-limit at some point


----------



## STRONGPERSUADER (Nov 5, 2006)

Does one or two fish per ticket really matter with these hatches and bite we have been having? I think we are spoiled and getting greedy. There is nothing wrong with 6. Careful what we ask for or we will be whining about the lack of fish in 5-10 yrs. It runs in cycles and there can never be too many walleye... Why exploit it just because it’s awesome right now?


----------



## BuckeyeHusker (Feb 27, 2014)

I would like to see a limit on the big fish that are kept. You can keep 6 (or 7), but only one or two over 28". Take pictures of those big fish and turn them loose.


----------



## kdn (Apr 27, 2015)

*Walleye*

Ohio walleye anglers will catch fish mostly from the 2015 and 2014 hatches, with some fish from the 2010 through 2013 year classes. Additional trophy opportunities from 2007 and 2003 will also be encountered by anglers.

Many of the previously undersized walleye from the 2015 hatch will range from 15 to 20 inches during the 2018 season. Walleye from the 2014 hatch will range from 16 to 24 inches and accounted for just over half of the 2017 harvest of 1.3 million fish. Fish from the 2003 and 2007 hatches will continue to provide “Fish Ohio” opportunities (greater than 28 inches) and could give Ohio a new state record walleye.

The 2017 walleye hatch was near average, giving the population its third average or so class in the last four years. Anglers should expect to catch undersized walleye until these fish grow to legal size late in the 2019 season. Anglers are encouraged to release these fish with as little handling as possible.

From Ohio Game Fishing


----------



## kdn (Apr 27, 2015)

I guess my estimates were ay off but from the numbers it seems our eye population now is very high. 
From the Sandusky Journal....

It’s estimated a little more 40 million walleye are in Lake Erie, said Matt Faust, fisheries biologist for the Ohio Department of Wildlife.

Eric Weimer, station supervisor, told reporters under current Ohio rules, there’s a daily bag limit of six for walleyes from May through February, with a bag limit of four during the spawning months of March and April.

Ohio is “a long way” from having to worry about lowering bag limits, said Weimer, as the current walleye population is “an embarrassment of wealth.”

State Rep. Kent Smith, D-Euclid, who joined reporters in sitting on Weimer’s briefing, asked if the population boom means that bag limits will be raised instead.

Weimer replied that in the 1980s, the bag limit was 10, and that “in the past, we did not like what the larger bag limits had done to our walleye.”

But a discussion about raising the bag limits has come up, Weimer said


----------



## rsdata (Mar 26, 2015)

I fished a bunch in the early to late 80's and saw this kind of bite before with a bag limit of 10... back then few trollers out there... then fishing kind of died with the introduction of the Zebras in the 90's and covering water by trolling was about the only way to catch a limit...


----------



## kdn (Apr 27, 2015)

actually the best reproductive fish are the 18"-24" walleye. After a certain age the eggs are not as viable as younger breeding stock. I don't like a 10 fish limit but perhaps a 7 or 8 fish limit would be accepted better. I remember fishing with an 8 fish limit when it was reduce from 10 fish. I then remember it being reduced to 6 fish and then the 4 fish limit in the spawn season. I just think for people who pay to fish and those that keep their boats up and pay for all the gas and time it takes to travel to get to the lake a increase would make a trip just a tad longer. For those that want to take 6 fish per person then great only take six fish. I fish in northern Ontario and return all walleye we catch and only keep a few northern pike for dinners. Lake Erie is a fantastic fishery. I leave it up to the ODW to set the limits...I just thought that there may be an increase coming in the near future. You know if you have so many walleye and they eat all the baitfish they will grow slower! 

Kind of like our deer in the urban areas. You see lots of tiny does with twins and triplets. The does never get big because they have little food besides peoples shrubs and grass and the population is so large. 

If the walleye pound the baitfish they will not grow as fast as they will have to work harder of find food.


----------



## Gottagofishn (Nov 18, 2009)

Things will work themselves out as always. We will catch what we can, mother nature will manage the rest. 
Enjoy the bounty while it lasts. No need to change the limit IMHO.


----------



## sherman51 (Apr 12, 2011)

I live 350 miles from where I fish erie. I only get to make 1 maybe 2 trips eash yr. im happy with the 6 fish limit.
sherman


----------



## bridgeman (Aug 26, 2010)

I too experienced the 10 fish limit days on the big pond.. IMO six is adequate with the amount of pressure on them now. I recall reading somewhere that the 6 fish limit is a written law in ohio and any changes would be hard to do.


----------



## captainshotgun (Jul 8, 2009)

bridgeman said:


> I too experienced the 10 fish limit days on the big pond.. IMO six is adequate with the amount of pressure on them now. I recall reading somewhere that the 6 fish limit is a written law in ohio and any changes would be hard to do.





Carpman said:


> TAC......


TAC. The quota for each Erie state and Ontario is by TAC. If we do not our state(s) quotas, the Ontario netters will be drooling to take the excess. I would rather see the limit eliminated than allow the Canadians to take 1 more fish in their nets. When Ohio raised the limit from 6 to 10 the last time, in the MIDDLE of the summer, the charter boats could not catch 6 per person. We asked to leave the fish limit alone & change the 2 rod restriction so that we could at least catch 6, but that fell on deaf ears.


----------



## Jim Stedke (Dec 5, 2005)

The walleye limit is not set by the ODNR it is set by the state legislature. Sad but true, it would actually take legislation for the limit to ever be over 6.

The law as it is now written has provisions for the limit to decrease , but nothing about increaseing it.

The 3 rod rule would be a real boon to the small boat (2 fishermen) army. And it would not bother me if it were to be a Lake Erie only rule.


----------



## fishdealer04 (Aug 27, 2006)

I am perfectly fine with the 6 fish limit. I make it up to the lake probably 8-10 trips a year from 1 day to a week long trips. I have so much walleye that I eat it all year long, hold multiple fish frys, and take a bunch to deer camp. No need to raise the limit IMO.


----------



## KPI (Jun 4, 2011)

I am good with six fish !!!gets me home to enjoy the beach !!!!or getting things done at home LOL 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## madm0j0 (Sep 10, 2008)

Imho.... Even though more fish sounds like a great idea, I also think there can be too much of a good thing. It won’t always be this easy to catch fish. Besides I for one still have fish in the freezer from earlier in the year, thanks to some bona-fide fish catchers. If anything I’d support a winter limit increase to six, but even that’s a stretch cause those are the fish that are gonna make the baby fish. I’m truly thankful that we have such an incredible fishery and I hope it remains productive for decades to come. Just my humble opinion!


----------



## island troller (Nov 14, 2007)

I would like to see the 3 rod thing if nothing else. All our surrounding states do that. With one or two man trips it just gives you more options to dial in on the bite. I know its been hashed over a lot on OFG but that's my opinion for the big numbers of walleyes, instead of raising the limit.


----------



## 34181 (May 6, 2012)

island troller said:


> I would like to see the 3 rod thing if nothing else. All our surrounding states do that. With one or two man trips it just gives you more options to dial in on the bite. I know its been hashed over a lot on OFG but that's my opinion for the big numbers of walleyes, instead of raising the limit.


I agree with you Al, I fish solo many days and would certainly be nice to run a third rod. I have fished in Michigan a bunch and 3 is a good round number.


----------



## Lundy (Apr 5, 2004)

Jim is correct, this proposal was adopted into law. No provision to change limit without legislative change.


----------



## Pistols Charters (Jan 5, 2010)

sherman51 said:


> I live 350 miles from where I fish erie. I only get to make 1 maybe 2 trips eash yr. im happy with the 6 fish limit.
> sherman


Atta boy Sherman....you da man....hope all is going well buddy....Pistol


----------



## Timber wolf (Feb 4, 2008)

STRONGPERSUADER said:


> Does one or two fish per ticket really matter with these hatches and bite we have been having? I think we are spoiled and getting greedy. There is nothing wrong with 6. Careful what we ask for or we will be whining about the lack of fish in 5-10 yrs. It runs in cycles and there can never be too many walleye... Why exploit it just because it’s awesome right now?


As a conservationist, my concern here is the bait source for the walleye. We are already in a shortage of shiners and smelt in Lake Erie. A MAIN food source for the Walleye.To increase the limit now would only make sense before we have a major fish die off due to lack of bait fish. Nearly every game fish in Lake Erie eat the shiners and smelt, including the perch, which are another bait fish for the Walleye. Also, never has there been the numbers of Walleye in this lake, so your thinking that the lake runs in cycles is incorrect.


----------



## KaGee (Sep 8, 2006)

Please get back on topic.


----------



## STRONGPERSUADER (Nov 5, 2006)

All of the thousands of shorts we were getting 2 yrs ago seem to have grown just fine. All of the 6 fish limits I have been getting have been fine, chunky healthy fish. Just because the bait companies aren’t finding any shiners doesn’t mean they aren’t there. I haven’t seen anything put out concerning a “baitfish shortage”. If it’s down, I’m sure it’s due to the great hatches we have had. And out of those, what we don’t get the commercial fishing industry will hit it hard. I’ve been seeing shiners and perch while cleaning these healthy fish. There no fine line between being a conservationist and a conservative biologist or hell... we would all be scientists. And yes all nature has cycles. I’ve yet to see a shoreline littered with dead walleye that have starved to death. The only eyes I have been seeing are chunky with an exceptionally, beautiful golden color to them which I assume is from being in the colder 70+ water getting themselves fat for the colder water temps coming. But then again, I’m no scientist.


----------



## Nauti cat (Nov 30, 2009)

Leave well enough alone except for maybe rod limit. You also need to consider Lake conditions as far as Emeralds go I have been doing well with goldies. I am going to give goldies a try in my ponds ?????? try being the key word.


----------



## kdn (Apr 27, 2015)

The nice yellow color on the walleye taken in deep water is because of the depth of water they are caught from. With less light the colors darken. Erynsimilar to the dark stained waters of the Canadian Shield lakes. I love to see the yellow on walleyes from deep water vs the greenies caught from nearshore waters. I started this thread thinking there maybe an increase in the limit. I never advocated it or was against it. But it is nice to see other fisherman opinions. And as for the comments on the Canadian betters. I am sure they are filling their quotas. I spend a lot of time in Ontario and I am sure they will go out everyday until they have their fair share


----------



## JerryA (Aug 16, 2004)

kdn said:


> The nice yellow color on the walleye taken in deep water is because of the depth of water they are caught from. With less light the colors darken. Erynsimilar to the dark stained waters of the Canadian Shield lakes. I love to see the yellow on walleyes from deep water vs the greenies caught from nearshore waters. I started this thread thinking there maybe an increase in the limit. I never advocated it or was against it. But it is nice to see other fisherman opinions. And as for the comments on the Canadian betters. I am sure they are filling their quotas. I spend a lot of time in Ontario and I am sure they will go out everyday until they have their fair share


----------



## JerryA (Aug 16, 2004)

Does a goldie taste better than a greenie - ha,ha - another thread


----------



## Lunderful (Aug 8, 2014)

If the lake ecosystem suffers because of a walleye overpopulation, then increase the limit. If there’s plenty of food for all, then leave it alone. The problem is that ODNR is usually making decisions based on old data and sometimes their corrective actions are a little too late. That being said, I’ve seen a lot of long, skinny fish this year.


----------



## sherman51 (Apr 12, 2011)

back in the late 70's and early 80's the lake was full of fish. we would start drifting the western basin the end of may and fish until the middle of july. we got our limits by noon just about every time we went out. I don't know how it compares to the fish in the lake now but there was fish to be had. and there was no harm to the lake from having to many walleye. I don't know if its true but I've heard at one time there was no limit on erie eyes.

the fish I caught this yr was all healthy and the fish 16" or better was chunky fish.
sherman


----------



## sherman51 (Apr 12, 2011)

Jim Stedke said:


> The walleye limit is not set by the ODNR it is set by the state legislature. Sad but true, it would actually take legislation for the limit to ever be over 6.
> 
> The law as it is now written has provisions for the limit to decrease , but nothing about increaseing it.
> 
> The 3 rod rule would be a real boon to the small boat (2 fishermen) army. And it would not bother me if it were to be a Lake Erie only rule.


what you say is true and has been for some time now. 

the 3 rod rule wouldn't help me as I usually have at least 4 or 5 people on my boat. I run 6 diver rods and 2 riggers. I can fish a total of 8 rods. but I still feel the change is needed for lake erie trolling for the guys that fish alone or with 1 or 2 passengers.



Lunderful said:


> If the lake ecosystem suffers because of a walleye overpopulation, then increase the limit. If there’s plenty of food for all, then leave it alone. The problem is that ODNR is usually making decisions based on old data and sometimes their corrective actions are a little too late. That being said, I’ve seen a lot of long, skinny fish this year.


the odnr has nothing to do with setting the limits. the way I see it if the limit stays at 6 it just gives us more fish for the future.
sherman


----------



## Jim Stedke (Dec 5, 2005)

If the walleyes actually over populated the lake the perch and perch fishermen are the ones that would suffer. The walleyes and perch have traditionally trended in a teeter-totter fashion. Even back in the 50s.


----------



## Lunderful (Aug 8, 2014)

sherman51 said:


> what you say is true and has been for some time now.
> 
> the 3 rod rule wouldn't help me as I usually have at least 4 or 5 people on my boat. I run 6 diver rods and 2 riggers. I can fish a total of 8 rods. but I still feel the change is needed for lake erie trolling for the guys that fish alone or with 1 or 2 passengers.
> 
> ...


Not if the lake can’t support it. If the walleye population increase exceeds the carrying capacity of the lake all species will suffer, not just the walleye. If there are too many mouths to feed something will have to happen.


----------



## doubleAA (Jun 25, 2013)

The baitfish were as thick as ever this year. Anybody that went out far nough to get into 73 feet and deeper can tell you he smelt were as thick as ever. Continuous clouds of them all year long.


----------



## fishkiller (Feb 6, 2007)

Bait moves around in the lake just like fish. Where bait was last week it may not be this week.


----------



## boss302 (Jun 24, 2005)

Just to clarify the 10 fish limit comments --- this was NOT in the 80's but was in the mid or late 90's and it also was a time of no minimum size limit. Some people were keeping limits of 10 fish that could easily fit in a 5-gallon bucket with ice and a few good years of fishing that way were followed by a tough spell.


----------



## dcool (Apr 14, 2004)

boss302 said:


> Just to clarify the 10 fish limit comments --- this was NOT in the 80's but was in the mid or late 90's and it also was a time of no minimum size limit. Some people were keeping limits of 10 fish that could easily fit in a 5-gallon bucket with ice and a few good years of fishing that way were followed by a tough spell.


Had my boat on Erie in the early 80's to late 80's and it was a 10 fish limit. Charter boats beside my boat would run two trips per day and limit each time out.Fishing was mostly drift and cast, with a few trollers. Size and quality of fish back then was great, but the fishing pressure on Erie wasn't anything like it is today.


----------



## Popspastime (Apr 1, 2014)

dcool said:


> Had my boat on Erie in the early 80's to late 80's and it was a 10 fish limit. Charter boats beside my boat would run two trips per day and limit each time out.Fishing was mostly drift and cast, with a few trollers. Size and quality of fish back then was great, but the fishing pressure on Erie wasn't anything like it is today.


I agree with all but your end statement, there's less pressure today then in the 80's. License sales is down an average of 300K sales a year since the 80's. The limits are fine as they are I feel.


----------



## joekacz (Sep 11, 2013)

Popspastime said:


> I agree with all but your end statement, there's less pressure today then in the 80's. License sales is down an average of 300K sales a year since the 80's. The limits are fine as they are I feel.


One thing different than the 70's & 80's is the pressure today is spread out way more now. Very few people fished the central basin for walleye, it was mostly perch and it was pretty darn good. There were walleye hear but the numbers were not as high as they are now. If you wanted walleye numbers you went west and east for trophy eyes. IMO, even when the limits were 10, the walleye fishing has never been as good as it is now. My vote is to keep it at 6.


----------



## TRIPLE-J (Sep 18, 2006)

STRONGPERSUADER said:


> Does one or two fish per ticket really matter with these hatches and bite we have been having? I think we are spoiled and getting greedy. There is nothing wrong with 6. Careful what we ask for or we will be whining about the lack of fish in 5-10 yrs. It runs in cycles and there can never be too many walleye... Why exploit it just because it’s awesome right now?


couldn't have said it any better strong ...
you are dead on with this


----------



## captainshotgun (Jul 8, 2009)

TRIPLE-J said:


> couldn't have said it any better strong ...
> you are dead on with this


I am pretty sure that if the TAC is not reached the left over is open to the Canadian netters. I know that this is how it used to be! Would you rather see our hook & line limit raised or let the netters get them? Does anyone know for sure if the surplus is still divided this way?


----------



## Bernie Babb (Apr 13, 2004)

I am for leaving the limit at 6 and in favor of increasing the rod limit to 3 per person.


----------



## kdn (Apr 27, 2015)

Captainshotgun, I believe it is still that way!!! Ken


----------



## captainshotgun (Jul 8, 2009)

kdn said:


> Captainshotgun, I believe it is still that way!!! Ken


Thx


----------



## Super G (Oct 3, 2012)

I heard Travis Hartman (Marine Biologist) give a talk about 4 years ago saying the average was 0.5 fish per hour of fishing (for Walleye) and i thought - man, that's crazy 2 hours per fish! Now we're spoiled a bit with these great walleye populations and catching multiple limits per hour! On a related note - I half suspect that the tough to find and reduced perch catches are a result of the netting from a few years ago and all the walleye eating the little perch! it will balance out though. Enjoy the bite! Good Luck and Good fishing!


----------



## sherman51 (Apr 12, 2011)

captainshotgun said:


> I am pretty sure that if the TAC is not reached the left over is open to the Canadian netters. I know that this is how it used to be! Would you rather see our hook & line limit raised or let the netters get them? Does anyone know for sure if the surplus is still divided this way?


if this is true then im all for raising the limit just to keep Canada from getting them. but im happy getting 6 fish per person. with the good fishing for eyes we can get our limits of 6 early then try a little perch fishing if we want. if Canada gets our fish because we aren't getting them. then why not raise the limits?????
sherman


----------



## TRIPLE-J (Sep 18, 2006)

captainshotgun said:


> I am pretty sure that if the TAC is not reached the left over is open to the Canadian netters. I know that this is how it used to be! Would you rather see our hook & line limit raised or let the netters get them? Does anyone know for sure if the surplus is still divided this way?


with the fishing the way it has been are you honestly trying to tell me we havent met our tac limit ?????
as long as everyone is catching fish and pretty much getting their limit whats the issue???


----------



## kdn (Apr 27, 2015)

JJJ. There is no issue. Just wondering if we would see an increase in the limit due to the increase in total walleye in the lake. I think we have seen that the limit would be hard to raise above the present set number.


----------



## bubbster (Jun 2, 2013)

Basic rules of Conservation. The basket will only hold so much. The excess will be taken by either starvation, disease, or predators. Meaning fisherman, as in us guys. Even the big lake will have its population limit of Walleye.


----------



## ErieGoldSportfishing (Feb 5, 2009)

captainshotgun said:


> I am pretty sure that if the TAC is not reached the left over is open to the Canadian netters. I know that this is how it used to be! Would you rather see our hook & line limit raised or let the netters get them? Does anyone know for sure if the surplus is still divided this way?


No that is not accurate. The GLC has an agreement that when establishing annual TAC, Canadian quota can never increase more than 20% in any year....even if the overall TAC exceeds 20%. Obviously there is no U.S. commercial harvest of walleyes.

The last time the limits were raised to 10 fish we succeeded in decimating a strong year class in just a few years. ODOW and the Charter Boat Association pushed for legislatively prohibiting that from ever happening again.

I have never understood why in the age of the Great Lakes Commision managing sport and commercial harvest, there are still so many people have the attitude that commercial harvest is nothing short of criminal. I understand this thread is about raising the sport fishing limits but some folks have shown their greed by saying they'd rather see their limits raised before allowing increases in commercial harvest. Same goes for the concern over "exceeding carrying capacy" of the lake. It is so rare that sportfishing in Ohio actually catches their annual portion of the TAC we might as well say it never happens...which is way better than exceeding it! Commercial fishing is well regulated on both sides of the border and it is biologically and economically critical to Lake Erie and it's communities.


----------



## ErieRider (Mar 23, 2010)

I'm good with not debating this and leaving it at 6. Never know what is the next issue coming down the road. Lake Erie is far from a stable lake right now. With the 6 fish limit and not raising it means that the good numbers we are currently seeing, would be around for a longer time, since we won't be pulling more fish out of the system in a shorter period of time. 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## MEISTERICS (May 15, 2006)

ERIEGOLDSPORTFISHING. Tell that to the blue pike, Muskie, sturgeon, and the yellow perch. I wonder how the lake survived for tens of thousands of years prior to commercial fishing?


----------



## $diesel$ (Aug 3, 2018)

I say leave it at 6. With the Asian carp on our doorstep, who knows what will happen if they they get into the lake. I have zero confidence that DNR can keep them out.......just a matter of time. And that's no dis to the DNR, these critters are very prolific and have gotten around every barrier they've set for them so far.


----------



## Popspastime (Apr 1, 2014)

Please inform us of any barriers, ive seemed to hve missed that.


----------



## ErieGoldSportfishing (Feb 5, 2009)

MEISTERICS said:


> ERIEGOLDSPORTFISHING. Tell that to the blue pike, Muskie, sturgeon, and the yellow perch. I wonder how the lake survived for tens of thousands of years prior to commercial fishing?


I'm not sure what your point is? If you're saying commercial fishing has impacted the species you mentioned you are partially correct in the case of lake sturgeon in the late 1800's when the commercial fishermen found they were valuable. Prior to that they were considered a nuisance and were killed and fed to hogs or burned. Blue walleye (aka blue pike) were highly abundant, especially in the central and east basin and harvested in large numbers but their collapse occurred almost overnight. Combination of harvest, loss of habitat (construction of dams and siltation of spawning grounds in rivers) and pollution causing anoxic zones all caused the collapse of the blue pike fishery. In both cases the collapses occured years before the Clean Water Act and formation of the Great Lakes Commision. Too late for the blue pike but lake sturgeon are rebounding. 

Musky and perch are still highly abundant in the system so I'm not sure what you're referring to.


----------



## Hatchetman (Apr 13, 2004)

sherman51 said:


> if this is true then im all for raising the limit just to keep Canada from getting them. but im happy getting 6 fish per person. with the good fishing for eyes we can get our limits of 6 early then try a little perch fishing if we want. if Canada gets our fish because we aren't getting them. then why not raise the limits?????
> sherman


I fish Erie occasionally and think the six fish limit is just fine. Since when have all the walleye in Lake Erie become "our" walleye? I do believe that Canada does control a pretty fair portion of the lake. That doesn't mean I approve of everything they do, but I don't approve of everything we do either....Just my two cents worth


----------



## KaGee (Sep 8, 2006)

Don't take it personally Eric... Some people think they know more than those actually involved.

You will never convince the anti commercial fishing crowd. Which by the way, there is an open thread in LE Discussions.


----------



## ErieGoldSportfishing (Feb 5, 2009)

KaGee said:


> Don't take it personally Eric... Some people think they know more than those actually involved.
> 
> You will never convince the anti commercial fishing crowd. Which by the way, there is an open thread in LE Discussions.


I read some of what was on there a while back and it hasn't gotten any better from a rationality standpoint! Not touching that one with a 10 foot wire diver rod!!!

I'm not pro-commercial over sport fishing or vice versa. I have always been a conservationist...meaning wise-use... and a science minded person. That means the data being collected by biologists drives the conservation and regulatory effort of GLC and individual state and provincial agencies. An earlier post mentioned some of us act like all the walleyes belong to Ohio sport fisherman. All the anti-Canadian netter sentiment seems rather foolish when they are fully cooperating and participating in the Great Lakes Commission decision making process. If they really wanted to exploit The fishery to the max they could just "take their ball and go home" as long as they stay on their side of the border. We have a great thing going in the Great Lakes with all the stakeholders.


----------



## Popspastime (Apr 1, 2014)

Don't try to explain what happens on the other side of the lake, been there and had wildlife out there also..lots of waist going on out there. Our limit is just fine and most of the time I give my fish to my friends only because I can get out more often for more. How many do we need??


----------



## fisherman 2 (Dec 29, 2012)

you can defend the netters all you want...but if it wasn't for the mercury ban in 1970 there would be no walleyes now...they just about had them wiped out...my buddy who was a sport captian back then said they only got 8, 10 fish a day...good day maybe 12- 15...and hardly ever anything over 3 lbs...ironic how pollution saved the walleye.


----------



## ErieGoldSportfishing (Feb 5, 2009)

fisherman 2 said:


> you can defend the netters all you want...but if it wasn't for the mercury ban in 1970 there would be no walleyes now...they just about had them wiped out...my buddy who was a sport captian back then said they only got 8, 10 fish a day...good day maybe 12- 15...and hardly ever anything over 3 lbs...ironic how pollution saved the walleye.


The discovery of high mercury levels caused a ban on U.S. commercial fishing and a sport fishing ban in some U.S. waters. Canadian officials never discontinued commercial fishing through that whole crisis . The contamination was a result of heavy mercury discharges by the chemical industry on the Detroit River in Canada and the U.S. The positive things that came as a result of high mercury levels might be the fact that it contributed to the creation of EPA, forced several chemical companies to clean up their discharges, and along helped to bring about passage of the Clean Water Act of 1972.


----------



## Brahmabull71 (Jul 30, 2014)

ErieGoldSportfishing said:


> The discovery of high mercury levels caused a ban on U.S. commercial fishing and a sport fishing ban in some U.S. waters. Canadian officials never discontinued commercial fishing through that whole crisis . The contamination was a result of heavy mercury discharges by the chemical industry on the Detroit River in Canada and the U.S. The positive things that came as a result of high mercury levels might be the fact that it contributed to the creation of EPA, forced several chemical companies to clean up their discharges, and along helped to bring about passage of the Clean Water Act of 1972.


I love FACTS...call me crazy, but they hold so much more weight than unfounded opinion.

Thanks for setting the record straight former Councilman Hirzel.


----------



## fisherman 2 (Dec 29, 2012)

http://ediblecleveland.com/stories/summer-2013/the-truth-about-walleye
here's some more FACTS for the "record"... and my post was facts about how bad the fishing was back then.


----------



## Brahmabull71 (Jul 30, 2014)

fisherman 2 said:


> http://ediblecleveland.com/stories/summer-2013/the-truth-about-walleye
> here's some more FACTS for the "record"... and my post was facts about how bad the fishing was back then.


----------



## ErieGoldSportfishing (Feb 5, 2009)

fisherman 2 said:


> http://ediblecleveland.com/stories/summer-2013/the-truth-about-walleye
> here's some more FACTS for the "record"... and my post was facts about how bad the fishing was back then.


Facts from a food editor? I saw a few inaccurate things in her article but I don't think anyone disputed the poor fishing back in the pre ban years. Just to be clear the band was to protect consumers from contaminated fish, not to protect the fishery. Also the information in the article you linked mentioned Canada shutting down their commercial industry which is contrary to what I have read and been told. I guess it really doesn't matter. The moral of the story is the Clean Water Act and Great Lakes fishery Commission saved the lake and it's fisheries.


----------



## Brahmabull71 (Jul 30, 2014)

ErieGoldSportfishing said:


> Facts from a food editor? I saw a few inaccurate things in her article but I don't think anyone disputed the poor fishing back in the pre ban years. Just to be clear the band was to protect consumers from contaminated fish, not to protect the fishery. Also the information in the article you linked mentioned Canada shutting down their commercial industry which is contrary to what I have read and been told. I guess it really doesn't matter. The moral of the story is the Clean Water Act and Great Lakes fishery Commission saved the lake and it's fisheries.


I typed up a big response to fisherman 2’s post and then deleted because it probably would have gotten me kicked off OGF. I figured anyone with half a brain would pick up a food authors article with absolutely no scholastic support and it wasn’t worth it.

Bottom line, this is the same Michigan pot stirrer from last year. Posting on the Michigan site talking crap about “Ohio” guys coming to “his” neck of the woods. Just keep your opinions in Michigan and let the biologist do their job!


----------



## Brahmabull71 (Jul 30, 2014)

I just don’t get it...

Why do we not believe the actual biologists and conservationists that are intimately involved with making the laws from a biological standpoint. It’s sad what is happening within our state and it’s really sad that my kids and grand kids will have to deal with the consequences.


----------



## Brahmabull71 (Jul 30, 2014)

It gets even better...she (Karen Schaefer who wrote “cited” article) is one of those fancy “freelance journalist” that have to make $hit up so people will even read the garbage she writes about! Hell even she says that! But boy I bet her crack work on quilting barns in Ohio is SPECTACULAR!










Let’s keep the scholastic writing to folks like Travis Hartman...shall we?!


----------



## ErieGoldSportfishing (Feb 5, 2009)

Michigan man?? Oh man that explains a lot!!


----------



## LEfriend (Jun 14, 2009)

Brahmabull71 said:


> It gets even better...she (Karen Schaefer who wrote “cited” article) is one of those fancy “freelance journalist” that have to make $hit up so people will even read the garbage she writes about! Hell even she says that! But boy I bet her crack work on quilting barns in Ohio is SPECTACULAR!
> 
> View attachment 279617
> 
> ...


As one who has been interviewed numerous times by Karen Schafer, I have found her a fair, truthful, environmental reporter (print and broadcast) who asks good questions and seeks science based answers. I would hardly call her a food editor. I always find her at Stone lab, Lake Erie Center, and other environmental/science events asking hard questions about Lake Erie and reporting science based stories about the need to protect the lake. Matter of fact, she just led a day long science cruise on Lake Erie and the algal problem for journalists from across the country and around the world, and it got great reviews by the participants. She is a champion for the lake at a time when we need them. You may not agree with everything she writes and neither do I, but sorry, to bash her is uncalled for and incorrect! And I would point out the article that was linked to is 5 years old.


----------



## fisherman 2 (Dec 29, 2012)

I not stirring any pot you can say what you want believe what you want...but the facts are unregulated netting about wiped them out...few years after the ban the fish started showing up in minnow nets...that's when people first realized something was going on...it was the early sign that the fish were coming back after being allowed to reproduce and grow without being netted...back then there were no biologists looking out for the fish like there is now...doesn't matter if the author was a food author the facts in the story parallel same as erie golds story...this is not my opinions this is what happen...so don't go all republican on me and dismiss, criticize, and, insult and say fake news because you don't like it or don't want to believe it.


----------



## ErieGoldSportfishing (Feb 5, 2009)

LEfriend said:


> As one who has been interviewed numerous times by Karen Schafer, I have found her a fair, truthful, environmental reporter (print and broadcast) who asks good questions and seeks science based answers. I would hardly call her a food editor. I always find her at Stone lab, Lake Erie Center, and other environmental/science events asking hard questions about Lake Erie and reporting science based stories about the need to protect the lake. Matter of fact, she just led a day long science cruise on Lake Erie and the algal problem for journalists from across the country and around the world, and it got great reviews by the participants. She is a champion for the lake at a time when we need them. You may not agree with everything she writes and neither do I, but sorry, to bash her is uncalled for and incorrect! And I would point out the article that was linked to is 5 years old.



Steve I don't think the intention was to bash the reporter. I saw she was writing about culinary value of Lake Erie walleye and assumed she was a food editor...my bad. However, I think we can both agree she is a skilled writer but neither of us would make her our go-to source for information regarding history and/or current management of Lake Erie water quality and fisheries. You and I both know that some of what she wrote in that 5 year-old article was inaccurate......but that doesn't change her passion for the Lake. Heck some of the "loudest" champions of Lake Erie I know of spout off misinformation on a regular basis and the media prints it and that doesn't minimize their passion about the lake one bit. I doubt there are many folks out there that have more love for Lake Erie than you or me. I also know that both of us base our opinions on science.. So guys and gals on the same caliber as Fred Snyder, John Hageman, Travis Hartman, Rich Carter, and several others are who we go to for information. 

The problem I have with Fisherman2's comments is he is speculating that the mercury contamination concerns that forced a ban (the ban was not enacted to save walleyes) on U.S. commercial, and in some Michigan waters, sport fishing for walleyes "saved" them from extinction all based on his buddy's account of how bad the fishing was back then....and calling it "fact". No doubt the fishing bans helped the walleye rebound but the Clean Water Act and the formation of the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission and EPA are the events that put Lake Erie walleyes on the road to what they are today. With that said, let's not kid ourselves.....mother nature has kicked it in high gear with the colossal hatches in the 80's and 90's and again in 2014, '15, and now '18. The oldest of us has never seen what we are about to experience in the next several years and that just shows what careful management of water quality, habitat, and fisheries will do for mother nature!


----------



## Popspastime (Apr 1, 2014)

Along with ice cover has everything to do with the hatch.


----------



## Ctowner (May 9, 2017)

our smart people studying lake erie now and years ago move to slow to make changes i am good with limits i have fished around the nuke plant and when handling fish my hands burn and dont any where else somebody needs to check it out to much radiation


----------



## sherman51 (Apr 12, 2011)

back when I started fishing erie in the early 80' I was told lake erie at one time was known as the dead lake. the ohio river caught fire from all the contaminants in lake erie. but with a little help she rebounded to what we have now. with so many people catching limits of the fish thats there now I think the population will come down naturally. but if the limit stays at 6 it will just give us more yrs of good fishing. the 2018 hatch is supposed to be great. in about 3 yrs they will be legal. our catch then will be mostly 16 to 20 inch fish with the fish from earlier spawns filling the limits but they'll be bigger fish by then.
sherman


----------



## Gern186 (Feb 2, 2010)

sherman51 said:


> back when I started fishing erie in the early 80' I was told lake erie at one time was known as the dead lake. the ohio river caught fire from all the contaminants in lake erie. but with a little help she rebounded to what we have now. with so many people catching limits of the fish thats there now I think the population will come down naturally. but if the limit stays at 6 it will just give us more yrs of good fishing. the 2018 hatch is supposed to be great. in about 3 yrs they will be legal. our catch then will be mostly 16 to 20 inch fish with the fish from earlier spawns filling the limits but they'll be bigger fish by then.
> sherman[/QUOTE



Wow. Never ceases to amaze me what I have learned about lake erie.....


----------



## island troller (Nov 14, 2007)

It was the Cuyahoga River in down town Cleveland that caught fire due to oil and pollutants dumped into the river from industries.


----------



## miked913 (Feb 29, 2008)

Popspastime said:


> Along with ice cover has everything to do with the hatch.


Maybe but how do you explain 2018 hatch #2 of all time and pretty much non-existent ice? I was fishing the reefs in my boat in February

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## ErieGoldSportfishing (Feb 5, 2009)

miked913 said:


> Maybe but how do you explain 2018 hatch #2 of all time and pretty much non-existent ice? I was fishing the reefs in my boat in February
> 
> Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


Ice is definitely a common denominator with good year classes but it's not necessarily the end all. 2014 and '15 was the most ice I've seen in my lifetime and both years had huge year classes of walleyes and perch. Ice is not the end-all for big hatches but it is well documented that harsh winters and big hatches are synonymous. Another factor researchers are starting to look at is water levels and in particular, high water. Water levels this year as well as 2014 and 2015 mirror those when we had the mother of all hatches in '82. The long and short is the stars need to align but the list of stars is somewhat vague. 

We did ge t significant ice cover very early last winter that got thick in a hurry but a couple warm spells and big blows made it unsafe to fish by the end of January with the exception of a few days in late February off Catabwa. This picture of Mike Patterson and I was taken a few days after Christmas at H-can. We walked almost to D-can that day from Camp Perry and never spudded through less than 5". The next picture was January 17th in the South passage near Starve Reef. I ran clients out there for 3 weeks on 8-12" of ice until rain and wind made the 911 crack unsafe to cross. Another warm up/south blow at the end of January made access impossible without an air boat. Like you said we fished out of the boat by mid to late February.


----------



## sherman51 (Apr 12, 2011)

island troller said:


> It was the Cuyahoga River in down town Cleveland that caught fire due to oil and pollutants dumped into the river from industries.


you are right on. it was june 1969 that it caught fire. I don't know why it was called the ohio river fire. easier to pronounce than Cuyahoga river, LOL.
sherman


----------



## jokim_99 (Jul 7, 2008)

Don't want to sidetrack this conversation which is excellent. But where do the walleye sold at Meijer, Kroger, etc. Come from? Even jolly Roger's. 

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk


----------



## fishkiller (Feb 6, 2007)

Canada


----------



## Walleyehunter72 (Jun 29, 2017)

fishkiller said:


> Canada


Yep Canada. we probably pay twice what we should, if they were caught in ohio.


----------



## jokim_99 (Jul 7, 2008)

So we are promoting the netters in Canada if we buy those things? 

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Popspastime (Apr 1, 2014)

Absolutely buying into and promoting the Gill Netting going on in our lake.


----------



## fishkiller (Feb 6, 2007)

I am pretty sure Canada, MI, NY & PA also have ownership in our lake.


----------



## ErieGoldSportfishing (Feb 5, 2009)

jokim_99 said:


> So we are promoting the netters in Canada if we buy those things?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk


So what you're saying is unless a person has their own boat, has the means to hire a charter, or even has the desire to want to fish to catch their own.... should not be entitled to purchase walleye fillets at a fish market or a walleye dinner at a restaurant?


----------



## Popspastime (Apr 1, 2014)

Eriegold.. nobody has said that so don't troll an argument please.


----------



## KaGee (Sep 8, 2006)

Popspastime said:


> Eriegold.. nobody has said that so don't troll an argument please.


How else should a reasonable person interpret your comment? Buy walleye, support the netters?


----------



## ErieGoldSportfishing (Feb 5, 2009)

How else would they get walleye fillets? Black market from poachers?


----------



## Brahmabull71 (Jul 30, 2014)

It’s simple biology. Someone already mentioned it. I’m an objective analytical person who really could care less what someone’s OPINION is. It’s just my Stoic nature. Give me proof and give me facts that I can make an informed decision about.

Biological carrying capacity is defined as “the maximum number of individuals of a species that can exist in a habitat indefinitely without threatening other species in that habitat. Factors such as available food, water, cover, prey and predator species will affect biological carrying capacity. Unlike cultural carrying capacity, biological carrying capacity cannot be influenced by public education.”

https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-biological-carrying-capacity-127889

Whether someone chooses to harvest fish within their limit, cull 100 fish per day, catch all females during the spawn, allow netters to take ALL available fish within the defined TAC limit, it comes down to this basic biological principle we all learned in 10th grade (if you weren’t too busy staring at the hot blond across the room ) of carrying capacity. These limits have to be maintained by biologist the best way they are able and we as the public need to be aware and hold those in charge accountable. What we do NOT need is politicians making these calls which is precisely what IS happening. I also agree that biologists react slow, sometimes too slow which is equally frustrating...well at least to me. I still trust that they have a closer eye on the resource than I do and know the impacts from their research better than the rest of us. I can do my part, we all can to be Conservationists. But what we should NOT do is criticize those who truly have the resources best interest in mind. They are not politicians, they are scientists whose agenda is Biology. Look at income levels for those in science based professions versus lets say a Congressman. Now who do you think has the most to loose or gain?

We should all be on the same side, but we aren’t. I RESPECTFULLY disagree with Eric about netters. My personal views (while non biological) are there seems to be a direct correlation between having them in an area and a population decline. I have also seen enough seagul smorgasbords through pictures etc that say “responsible” netting practices are in place, however MANY more fish are killed than what comes in on a boat and is “accounted for” in these limit discussions. Again, I have to put my trust in that biologist have this covered.

Final point...back to carrying capacity...

All these factors mentioned above still may not really matter IF there is not enough food to allow them to be successful. If there is food for 10 mouths and there are 20 to feed, than everyone will compete and be hungry until balance is restored naturally. Take all the fish you are allowed by law to take, and let biologists tell us if it’s too much...there is no better way YET!

Brahmabull


----------



## Popspastime (Apr 1, 2014)

KaGee said:


> How else should a reasonable person interpret your comment? Buy walleye, support the netters?


 When you purchase a gill netted fish most know where it came from and how it got to market. You want to buy it, buy all you want, it's your right as a consumer. 
Now let me give you a taste of why I'm so bitter with the gill netting across the fence. Had a trip to take Bass fishing, crossed over to fish East Sister shoal, when I cleared the island headed north as far as I could see were gulls on dead floating fish and a pile of gull chasing the boat clearing their nets. Every one of these fish were all from 18 to 21 inch walleye with gill net marks, thousands of them. I immediately called Canadian wildlife and within 30 minutes we had a plane circling and shortly after the wildlife boys showed. Needless to say they told me to leave the site for the safety of my crew and boat. and we did. 
So here's the deal.. Your a fisherman holding a license to net 10 million pounds of walleye a year. The highest price fish 16 to 17 inch fish bring $10.00 a pound while the 20 inch fish fetch $6.00 per pound. Both can be caught in the same size mesh. Now I ask you, what do you do with that 20 inch $6.00 fish when those $10.00 fish are so plentiful and the 10 million pond quota can easily be made. Wildlife needs to be riding with those boats when their picking nets. That goes on every season.. It's sickening as a sportsman to see and witness that kind of behavior.


----------



## sherman51 (Apr 12, 2011)

Popspastime said:


> When you purchase a gill netted fish most know where it came from and how it got to market. You want to buy it, buy all you want, it's your right as a consumer.
> Now let me give you a taste of why I'm so bitter with the gill netting across the fence. Had a trip to take Bass fishing, crossed over to fish East Sister shoal, when I cleared the island headed north as far as I could see were gulls on dead floating fish and a pile of gull chasing the boat clearing their nets. Every one of these fish were all from 18 to 21 inch walleye with gill net marks, thousands of them. I immediately called Canadian wildlife and within 30 minutes we had a plane circling and shortly after the wildlife boys showed. Needless to say they told me to leave the site for the safety of my crew and boat. and we did.
> So here's the deal.. Your a fisherman holding a license to net 10 million pounds of walleye a year. The highest price fish 16 to 17 inch fish bring $10.00 a pound while the 20 inch fish fetch $6.00 per pound. Both can be caught in the same size mesh. Now I ask you, what do you do with that 20 inch $6.00 fish when those $10.00 fish are so plentiful and the 10 million pond quota can easily be made. Wildlife needs to be riding with those boats when their picking nets. That goes on every season.. It's sickening as a sportsman to see and witness that kind of behavior.


I have heard of them doing this with bigger fish. but I don't know it is fact. but if you seen it happen then I am more inclined to believe it.

if the limit stays at 6 i'm happy. if they raise the limit to 10 i'm still happy. the only thing is it'll take longer to get a limit. I fish 8 rods total with usually 5 people fishing. thats 50 fish with those 8 rods with a 10 fish limit. thats a little over 6 fish per rod. unless the fishing stays like it was this yr there will be times when I come in with less than a limit. the people that will benefit from higher limits is guys that run big boards usually charters. because they can run more rods.
sherman


----------



## fishkiller (Feb 6, 2007)

Popspastime said:


> When you purchase a gill netted fish most know where it came from and how it got to market. You want to buy it, buy all you want, it's your right as a consumer.
> Now let me give you a taste of why I'm so bitter with the gill netting across the fence. Had a trip to take Bass fishing, crossed over to fish East Sister shoal, when I cleared the island headed north as far as I could see were gulls on dead floating fish and a pile of gull chasing the boat clearing their nets. Every one of these fish were all from 18 to 21 inch walleye with gill net marks, thousands of them. I immediately called Canadian wildlife and within 30 minutes we had a plane circling and shortly after the wildlife boys showed. Needless to say they told me to leave the site for the safety of my crew and boat. and we did.
> So here's the deal.. Your a fisherman holding a license to net 10 million pounds of walleye a year. The highest price fish 16 to 17 inch fish bring $10.00 a pound while the 20 inch fish fetch $6.00 per pound. Both can be caught in the same size mesh. Now I ask you, what do you do with that 20 inch $6.00 fish when those $10.00 fish are so plentiful and the 10 million pond quota can easily be made. Wildlife needs to be riding with those boats when their picking nets. That goes on every season.. It's sickening as a sportsman to see and witness that kind of behavior.


Most of the fish (walleye) I have seen in the local grocery store are skin on fillets. These fish have all been bigger than 16-17” judging by the fillets.


----------



## LEfriend (Jun 14, 2009)

ErieGoldSportfishing said:


> Steve I don't think the intention was to bash the reporter. I saw she was writing about culinary value of Lake Erie walleye and assumed she was a food editor...my bad. However, I think we can both agree she is a skilled writer but neither of us would make her our go-to source for information regarding history and/or current management of Lake Erie water quality and fisheries. You and I both know that some of what she wrote in that 5 year-old article was inaccurate......but that doesn't change her passion for the Lake. Heck some of the "loudest" champions of Lake Erie I know of spout off misinformation on a regular basis and the media prints it and that doesn't minimize their passion about the lake one bit. I doubt there are many folks out there that have more love for Lake Erie than you or me. I also know that both of us base our opinions on science.. So guys and gals on the same caliber as Fred Snyder, John Hageman, Travis Hartman, Rich Carter, and several others are who we go to for information.
> 
> The problem I have with Fisherman2's comments is he is speculating that the mercury contamination concerns that forced a ban (the ban was not enacted to save walleyes) on U.S. commercial, and in some Michigan waters, sport fishing for walleyes "saved" them from extinction all based on his buddy's account of how bad the fishing was back then....and calling it "fact". No doubt the fishing bans helped the walleye rebound but the Clean Water Act and the formation of the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission and EPA are the events that put Lake Erie walleyes on the road to what they are today. With that said, let's not kid ourselves.....mother nature has kicked it in high gear with the colossal hatches in the 80's and 90's and again in 2014, '15, and now '18. The oldest of us has never seen what we are about to experience in the next several years and that just shows what careful management of water quality, habitat, and fisheries will do for mother nature!


All's cool Eric


----------



## captainshotgun (Jul 8, 2009)

Popspastime said:


> When you purchase a gill netted fish most know where it came from and how it got to market. You want to buy it, buy all you want, it's your right as a consumer.
> Now let me give you a taste of why I'm so bitter with the gill netting across the fence. Had a trip to take Bass fishing, crossed over to fish East Sister shoal, when I cleared the island headed north as far as I could see were gulls on dead floating fish and a pile of gull chasing the boat clearing their nets. Every one of these fish were all from 18 to 21 inch walleye with gill net marks, thousands of them. I immediately called Canadian wildlife and within 30 minutes we had a plane circling and shortly after the wildlife boys showed. Needless to say they told me to leave the site for the safety of my crew and boat. and we did.
> So here's the deal.. Your a fisherman holding a license to net 10 million pounds of walleye a year. The highest price fish 16 to 17 inch fish bring $10.00 a pound while the 20 inch fish fetch $6.00 per pound. Both can be caught in the same size mesh. Now I ask you, what do you do with that 20 inch $6.00 fish when those $10.00 fish are so plentiful and the 10 million pond quota can easily be made. Wildlife needs to be riding with those boats when their picking nets. That goes on every season.. It's sickening as a sportsman to see and witness that kind of behavior.


Right on poppa! I also have witnessed more than a mile of dead fish, mostly walleye, from dumped nets. This was not in Canada, or even near the line. This was from a US boat in US waters!


----------



## portney (Aug 7, 2015)

How about moving towards a slot limit in Ohio. Keep fish 15-19 for eating - only 1 over 19 per license. Or pick a size that makes the most sense for the fishery.

Keeps more of the larger fish making more babies in their prime breeding years.

i haven’t seen this discussed on here.

Any thoughts?


----------



## Jim Stedke (Dec 5, 2005)

Just one.....absolutely unnecessary!!!


----------



## kdn (Apr 27, 2015)

Prime Walleye breeding ages are not 30" fish. I have not Checked lately but I would guess prime breeding fish are 20-26" fish. After that length and age their eggs are not as viable or heathy as a younger females eggs. I'll check this out but I have always heard this when visiting the former hatcheries in Akron and Seneca.


----------



## kdn (Apr 27, 2015)

*







Fred Snyder, Ohio Sea Grant Extension*


Division of Wildlife studies have shown consistently that most female Lake Erie walleye reach sexual maturity at age four; most of the males are ripe at two or three years old. Of course, a few fish always vary from the norm; age at maturity can be affected by things like food availability and growth rate. In a few certain years the females have all been mature by age three. 

A widely acknowledged principle in fishery science is that while long-lived fish species may produce more eggs as they get older and larger, the percentage of those eggs that are viable (capable of being fertilized and incubating into normal fry) drops off significantly. That's why hatcheries tend to rotate broodstock on a regular basis, replacing older females with youger ones. 

The word "fecundity" refers to the numbers of eggs produced. The word "fertility" refers to the number of actual offspring produced. After reaching sexual maturity, Lake Erie walleye are likely to be at peak fertility for around three to five years. Their peak fecundity may occur later.


----------



## portney (Aug 7, 2015)

I fish Ontario inland lakes once a year for the past 25 years. We go various places. Mostly English river and Montreal river systems. Think they implemented slot limits 10-15 years ago. My memory not perfect, but think directionally right.

Ive read where slot limits are used in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Nebraska.

To me, think the logic is sound. Protect the prime breeding fish during their peak years.

A slot limit on Lake Erie could be used to better police the commercial netters on the lake. Perhaps preventing what was described earlier in this post. Ive caught mostly 17-20” fish this year on Erie, nothin huge yet.

From a conservation point of view, just wondering if it might accomplish what is voiced most on these forums?


----------



## kdn (Apr 27, 2015)

Where I fish in Ontario the residents are only allowed 4 walleye! Three under 18 inches one over 18". Then they "can't" possess any walleye until those are eaten...called possession limit...really. the residents put them in the freezer and go back out the next day ignoring the "possession " limits. I have fished one lake and caught my first two walleye this past summer in three years. We released them. We eat northern pike and release all walleye. Where we go a slot would make sense and mediatory release 18"-24" fish. But the OMNR thinks they do a good job...they stock 3-4" speckle trout and splice in lakes that have bass, northerns and walleye. The loons, gulls, osprey and otters clean them up quite quickly. Natural reproduction makes sense but the 18"-24 or 26" fish should be a slot size anywhere where reproduction is warranted. We have quite a bit of reproduction on Lake Erie. and you couldn't catch many fish this year over 20-22" because there are so many of them and they are aggressive. Sorry for the rant but OMNR gets me ticked.


----------



## fisherman 2 (Dec 29, 2012)

by catch wasting goes on world wide by netters...


----------



## ErieGoldSportfishing (Feb 5, 2009)

portney said:


> How about moving towards a slot limit in Ohio. Keep fish 15-19 for eating - only 1 over 19 per license. Or pick a size that makes the most sense for the fishery.
> 
> Keeps more of the larger fish making more babies in their prime breeding years.
> 
> ...


Yes I have a thought. Totally unnecessary and impractical to create a slot limit on Lake Erie. Yes they work on smaller shield lakes but Lake Erie is way different. Any fish that is caught, handled, and returned to the water has a high probability of becoming a mortality, especially in the deeper central and east basins. A slot limit ensures a lot of those fish are actually handled more because they have to be put onto a bump board or tape measure. From a conservation standpoint we are far better off with a minimum size limit than a slot. 

With that said........


I find it interesting that the thread started out discussing raising the limits because of the "over abundance" of walleyes and now we are talking about a slot limit? Look at the numbers and the quality of the fishery! The management plan for Lake Erie IS WORKING! There are more walleyes in the system right now than anytime in the history of collecting year class data in spite of a sustainable $1 billion dollar sport fishing industry AND a $250 million plus commercial fishing industry. I get the anti commercial fishing sentiment. Many of the people posting are of the belief that all Lake Erie walleyes belong to U.S. sport fishermen even though another country owns half the lake. Floating net mortality is not pretty but that comes with the territory. But lets not kid ourselves. The same thing occurs for sub-legal hook and line caught fish that are thrown back and die because of injury from hooks or pressure change damaging internal organs when they come from deep water. The difference is out of sight, out of mind. However, the real scientists...the biologists who are collecting the data, analyzing it, and using it to make management decisions on the resource account for mortality that occurs as a result of non target species ending up in nets and sport fishing throwbacks and TAC's reflect that. 

Wasteful? Absolutely. But its a necessary evil that can't be denied. It is very similar to most agriculture harvesting operations. There are tons of leftover grains, vegetables, etc. left behind after harvest but the industry accepts that and budgets for it.


----------



## c. j. stone (Sep 24, 2006)

STRONGPERSUADER said:


> Does one or two fish per ticket really matter with these hatches and bite we have been having? I think we are spoiled and getting greedy. There is nothing wrong with 6. Careful what we ask for or we will be whining about the lack of fish in 5-10 yrs. It runs in cycles and there can never be too many walleye... Why exploit it just because it’s awesome right now?


Just more for the Canadian netters! More fish, higher quotas! They are very efficient......!


----------



## fishkiller (Feb 6, 2007)

I see an awful lot of “dog in the manger” attitude in this thread.


----------



## fisherman 2 (Dec 29, 2012)

ErieGoldSportfishing said:


> Any fish that is caught, handled, and returned to the water has a high probability of becoming a mortality, especially in the deeper central and east basins.





ErieGoldSportfishing said:


> Yes I have a thought. Totally unnecessary and impractical to create a slot limit on Lake Erie. Yes they work on smaller shield lakes but Lake Erie is way different. Any fish that is caught, handled, and returned to the water has a high probability of becoming a mortality, especially in the deeper central and east basins. A slot limit ensures a lot of those fish are actually handled more because they have to be put onto a bump board or tape measure. From a conservation standpoint we are far better off with a minimum size limit than a slot.
> 
> With that said........
> 
> ...


----------



## fisherman 2 (Dec 29, 2012)

fisherman 2 said:


> [/QUOTE reason not to go overboard with c&r


----------



## sherman51 (Apr 12, 2011)

lets just be happy with 6 fish. but if they pass a bill to raise the limit i'll be happy with more fish. I'm just happy that we have so many fish in erie right now.

I fished the western basin drifting back in the early 80's and had no problem getting limits by noon most days. then along came the zebra mussel and cleaned the water. as time went on the amount of fish dropped. so the drifting wasnt producing like it had been. so we started trolling and caught more fish. the early and mid 80's the fishing in the western basin was awesome. if we have more fish now than we've ever had before then we should have many yrs of great fishing.
sherman


----------



## KaGee (Sep 8, 2006)

Daggum Eric! There you go with facts and common sense.

I want to go back to the front end of this thread and remind everyone what Jim Stedke and Lundy posted... Again more facts... The Ohio Legislature is the only body that can increase the limit. Not the scientists. Not the ODNR bureaucracy. Not the wants and wishes of fishermen. Sorry folks. We're stuck at 6 unless the TAC is reduced. Which case, the limits can be reduced.


----------



## island troller (Nov 14, 2007)

Actually if they reduced the limit to 2, I still would be happy to be on the lake fishing.


----------



## Jim Stedke (Dec 5, 2005)

Some of us are absolutely obsessed and helpless.


----------



## Brahmabull71 (Jul 30, 2014)

Great article in the Blade...

Please notice some of the contributors spoken with...THANKS Eric!

https://www.toledoblade.com/sports/...pageversion=evoke&fbclid=IwAR2UIZyAJCcjk4mFgt


----------



## c. j. stone (Sep 24, 2006)

island troller said:


> Actually if they reduced the limit to 2, I still would be happy to be on the lake fishing.


X2-Back in the early 70's, we might catch two or three 18" walleye during a July WB trip("many" white bass, perch, couple SM, and of course, drum). We had a great time, thinking this must be what fishing a Canadian wilderness must be like! Can't remember what the limit was(or if there even was one?), but two or three walleye was "hoped" for and considered a real good one day trip back then. This attitude hasn't changed for me-just glad to be out there on a beautiful lake fishing and enjoying the experience. Catching "all that is allowed" is/remains a secondary consideration.


----------



## island troller (Nov 14, 2007)

I can relate c.j.stone
Exactly how my grandpa raised me to appreciate and fish Lake Erie back then.


----------



## tnt1958 (Sep 20, 2014)

I can't believe all of this talk about raising the limit. This year has been catching and not fishing!
I was a first mate back in the 80's out of Anchors Away marina and back then we fished!!
We would always try and give the customers a fun day of FISHING!
This year all I heard was how fast did you limit out !! REALLY.
I know guys that save money,maybe wait a year to fish with friends or family and it's over in a couple of hours. 
Do you really need your freezer filled with walleye? Or is it just to brag about how many packs you have !!
Leave it like it is. There is a lot of water out there.


----------



## MEISTERICS (May 15, 2006)

Eric lost me when he said perch and musky are “abundant” and commercial fishing is necessary to keep the lake healthy. Muskie and northern pike were one of the first fish overharvested from Lake Erie. Then their spawning habitat was destroyed and have not recovered since. That’s from a biologist.

Where are all the burbot, whitefish, Cisco, and sturgeon?

Here is a history of commercial fishing on Lake Erie. Complimentary of the USGS. 

https://pubs.usgs.gov/unnumbered/81373/report.pdf


----------



## ErieGoldSportfishing (Feb 5, 2009)

MEISTERICS said:


> Eric lost me when he said perch and musky are “abundant” and commercial fishing is necessary to keep the lake healthy. Muskie and northern pike were one of the first fish overharvested from Lake Erie. Then their spawning habitat was destroyed and have not recovered since. That’s from a biologist.
> 
> Where are all the burbot, whitefish, Cisco, and sturgeon?
> 
> ...


I never said commercial fishing was necessary but I did say the lake supports it. If you think perch and musky are scarce then you don't fish the west basin or lower Detroit River portion of the system.


----------



## portney (Aug 7, 2015)

Thanks - great article


----------



## MEISTERICS (May 15, 2006)

ErieGoldSportfishing said:


> I never said commercial fishing was necessary but I did say the lake supports it. If you think perch and musky are scarce then you don't fish the west basin or lower Detroit River portion of the system.


Clearly, I guess the only reason they shut down netting perch in the western basin was to run a science experiment to see how fast they will rebound. Voila! Nevermind the other 75% of the lake is struggling, I wonder where the nets went. 

I suppose they only portion you fish is the extreme west end. Tell me how many musky and pike charters you are running around Kelly’s to Buffalo.


----------



## MEISTERICS (May 15, 2006)

My apologies, “commercial fishing is biologically and economically critical to Lake Erie and it’s communities”.


----------



## G3guy (Feb 21, 2013)

Isn’t Buffalo harbor a destination for huge muskies? Especially this time of year through first part of winter?


----------



## Seaturd (Apr 14, 2004)

The "good ol' days" are here right now. We have an incredible walleye fishery, quite possibly the best in the world, right in front of our noses. Enjoy it. Take a kid fishing for a trip they'll never forget. Share some of your catch with friends, co-workers, etc. Mother Nature, combined with our own foolishness, has a tendency to kick us in the head when we least expect it.


----------



## dcool (Apr 14, 2004)

Seaturd said:


> The "good ol' days" are here right now. We have an incredible walleye fishery, quite possibly the best in the world, right in front of our noses. Enjoy it. Take a kid fishing for a trip they'll never forget. Share some of your catch with friends, co-workers, etc. Mother Nature, combined with our own foolishness, has a tendency to kick us in the head when we least expect it.


I agree with taking a kid fishing on Erie right now. Give him something to talk about 50 years from now. He might be saying that they caught their limit in two hours and the limit was 6 fish. You never know what will happen to the great fishery that we have now. Be happy with the limits we have now, and hope the future of the lake only gets better.


----------



## fisherman 2 (Dec 29, 2012)

with backing from the staff seems the only facts and views presented in this thread that are relevant are eg's.


----------



## ErieGoldSportfishing (Feb 5, 2009)

G3guy said:


> Isn’t Buffalo harbor a destination for huge muskies? Especially this time of year through first part of winter?


Yes it is.


----------



## Fishcat (Mar 13, 2015)

Hey MEISTERICS, Thanks for posting that booklet/report link. It was a very interesting read. Bill


----------



## oneton (Jul 29, 2008)

madm0j0 said:


> Imho.... Even though more fish sounds like a great idea, I also think there can be too much of a good thing. It won’t always be this easy to catch fish. Besides I for one still have fish in the freezer from earlier in the year, thanks to some bona-fide fish catchers. If anything I’d support a winter limit increase to six, but even that’s a stretch cause those are the fish that are gonna make the baby fish. I’m truly thankful that we have such an incredible fishery and I hope it remains productive for decades to come. Just my humble opinion!


I for one was fishing back when the limit was 10 not any people pulled 10 fish, I say let stay at 6 fish MORE THEN ENOUGH.


----------



## dipNrip (Mar 1, 2010)

So what is the new limit? Not reading through 6 pages of “I’m right. Your wrong” discussions.


----------



## mkalink (Mar 28, 2010)

Popspastime said:


> Along with ice cover has everything to do with the hatch.


Please explain your theory on ice cover and it’s effect on the walleye hatch? I don’t ever recall ice being on the lake when the walleyes spawn. Ice was gone end of February this year and we had an outstanding hatch. No ice in 2017 and had a better than average hatch. I can’t seem to find anything to help predict the quality of the walleye hatch. This weather for this past hatch, wasn’t exactly pleasant. It rained a lot and was dominated by north and northeast winds. The water quality was horrible. It resembled chocolate milk until early June and sort of cleaned up a little for a week or two. Lots of wind out of the north this year kept the lake pretty stirred up this summer. Still a great summer but I can’t remember the water ever being really clear.


----------



## mkalink (Mar 28, 2010)

dipNrip said:


> So what is the new limit? Not reading through 6 pages of “I’m right. Your wrong” discussions.


There is no limit change.


----------



## Gradyfish (Jan 22, 2017)

mkalink said:


> There is no limit change.


Yes, but I hear they are going to double the amount of rods that can be used.


----------



## Willyfield (Apr 1, 2007)

mkalink said:


> Please explain your theory on ice cover and it’s effect on the walleye hatch? I don’t ever recall ice being on the lake when the walleyes spawn. Ice was gone end of February this year and we had an outstanding hatch. No ice in 2017 and had a better than average hatch. I can’t seem to find anything to help predict the quality of the walleye hatch. This weather for this past hatch, wasn’t exactly pleasant. It rained a lot and was dominated by north and northeast winds. The water quality was horrible. It resembled chocolate milk until early June and sort of cleaned up a little for a week or two. Lots of wind out of the north this year kept the lake pretty stirred up this summer. Still a great summer but I can’t remember the water ever being really clear.


The more ice the longer it takes to melt. The longer it takes to melt, the colder the water. The colder the water, the spawning season lasts longer. ODNR stated we had a good hatch last year because it was a cold spring, which it was.


----------



## KaGee (Sep 8, 2006)

Gradyfish said:


> Yes, but I hear they are going to double the amount of rods that can be used.


FAKE NEWS!


----------



## Popspastime (Apr 1, 2014)

The longer the ice covers the lake it adds protection on the reefs and eggs from being silted over and lost to rough water.


----------



## kdn (Apr 27, 2015)

Makes sense....also colder water keeps predators out of the picture longer also. Must be very interesting to study Lake Erie and the western basin.


----------



## Gern186 (Feb 2, 2010)

Popspastime said:


> The longer the ice covers the lake it adds protection on the reefs and eggs from being silted over and lost to rough water.


The walleye dont spawn while the ice is on the lake. So your theory doesnt add up.

Walleye spawn when water temps are between 44 and 48 degrees from what I have studied. Not sure how ice would be on the water when the temps are 44 degrees. Just saying.


----------



## kdn (Apr 27, 2015)

Yes. We are mistaken and you at correct. What was I thinking? I must have been in a funk from another Browns loss


----------



## boss302 (Jun 24, 2005)

mkalink said:


> Please explain your theory on ice cover and it’s effect on the walleye hatch? I don’t ever recall ice being on the lake when the walleyes spawn. Ice was gone end of February this year and we had an outstanding hatch. No ice in 2017 and had a better than average hatch. I can’t seem to find anything to help predict the quality of the walleye hatch. This weather for this past hatch, wasn’t exactly pleasant. It rained a lot and was dominated by north and northeast winds. The water quality was horrible. It resembled chocolate milk until early June and sort of cleaned up a little for a week or two. Lots of wind out of the north this year kept the lake pretty stirred up this summer. Still a great summer but I can’t remember the water ever being really clear.


my understanding - is that it is likely that the populations of some of the forage fish species are knocked back a bit with a good hard winter. Thus, when the walleye eggs are laid and the little guys are tiny and vulnerable, there are less fish munching on them - I'm sure there are many little things that add up though.


----------



## Keith R (Feb 19, 2006)

I would rather see them raise the rod limit to 3 per angler, than raise the fish limit. With a six fish limit, if you fish every weekend you have enough fish to last all winter.


----------



## Gern186 (Feb 2, 2010)

Why do we need a 3 rod limit if the fishing is so good that this thread is about raising limits? Do we need to catch our limit in 5 minutes? Im extremely happy with the way everything is and has been set up. I vote to leave everything remain the same.


----------



## brad crappie (Sep 29, 2015)

Just looked at the thread 3 rods per guy no big deal! The eye bite has been crazy good and guys go out a couple times a week I just don’t how they can eat that many! 90 % are trolling to me it gets boring! Spider rigging for craps is boring! I think a lot of guys are making money off the filets! I know I guy that was caught and got busted! Get rid of the commercial guys in the states and up north and let the rod reel guys do it! Make them buy a permit!


----------



## sherman51 (Apr 12, 2011)

Gern186 said:


> Why do we need a 3 rod limit if the fishing is so good that this thread is about raising limits? Do we need to catch our limit in 5 minutes? Im extremely happy with the way everything is and has been set up. I vote to leave everything remain the same.


we may not need the 3 rod limit now but the fishing may not stay as good as it is now. the 3rd rod would just be nice to have for finding fish. it wouldn't really help me because I fish 4 or 5 people. I can only run 8 rods so 2 rods each is all I can run. back in july we only run 6 rods with 5 people and had trouble keeping up with them. but I think 3 rods would really help the guy that fishes alone or with 2 or 3 people in the boat. but the limit of 6 fish should stay the same. thats my opinion and i'm sticking to it, LOL.
sherman


----------



## $diesel$ (Aug 3, 2018)

Sorry, i don't get the arguement *at this time.* Me thinks, the guys are catching SO MANY fish, we've got nothing else to grip about.
Lets enjoy this wonderful, renewable resource while we can!
I'm get'n pretty old and none of us know how long were going to be here, so............just have fun with it while we can and leave this stuff to the pro's.


----------



## fisherman 2 (Dec 29, 2012)

the dnr wants everyone to catch more fish but I see the point of 3 rods statewide might impact some areas...so just make it a lake erie provision.


----------



## Ctowner (May 9, 2017)

Gern186 said:


> The walleye dont spawn while the ice is on the lake. So your theory doesnt add up.
> 
> Walleye spawn when water temps are between 44 and 48 degrees from what I have studied. Not sure how ice would be on the water when the temps are 44 degrees. Just saying.


a good hatch has a lot of variables most important is fat momas with plenty to eat and no mud on the eggs i raise fish been around fish for 40 years i keep learning thx


----------



## HappySnag (Dec 20, 2007)

Gern186 said:


> The walleye dont spawn while the ice is on the lake. So your theory doesnt add up.
> 
> Walleye spawn when water temps are between 44 and 48 degrees from what I have studied. Not sure how ice would be on the water when the temps are 44 degrees. Just saying.


trow the books away.the fish spawn unther the ice,they do not spawn by water temperature,they spawn by the egg ripnes.
if they spawn by temperature all eyes would spawn in 2 days,they spawn in month,it is on the age,health and food off the fish.
when we had the long ice season ice fisherman vere catching eyes spawned out.

the limit should be 6 fish for sportsman and for comercial fisherman


----------



## Popspastime (Apr 1, 2014)

Gern186 said:


> The walleye dont spawn while the ice is on the lake. So your theory doesnt add up.
> 
> Walleye spawn when water temps are between 44 and 48 degrees from what I have studied. Not sure how ice would be on the water when the temps are 44 degrees. Just saying.


Nobody said they were spawning under the ice. Let me break it down for you again.. longer ice = less silt being deposited on the reefs thru the winter months pounding water for the eggs to be deposited on..


----------



## gotagetm (Mar 7, 2018)

Keith R said:


> I would rather see them raise the rod limit to 3 per angler, than raise the fish limit. With a six fish limit, if you fish every weekend you have enough fish to last all winter.


we have a 3 rod limit here in NY and honestly me and wife did just fine limiting on 2 rods out each and many days only one off each side of boat fishing was insane this year!!


----------



## Sawyer304 (May 12, 2014)

HappySnag said:


> trow the books away.the fish spawn unther the ice,they do not spawn by water temperature,they spawn by the egg ripnes.
> if they spawn by temperature all eyes would spawn in 2 days,they spawn in month,it is on the age,health and food off the fish.
> when we had the long ice season ice fisherman vere catching eyes spawned out.
> 
> the limit should be 6 fish for sportsman and for comercial fisherman


O
M


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## KaGee (Sep 8, 2006)

Turn out the lights, the party's over.


----------

