[ErieGoldSportfishing]

I would think they would be able to accomplish this through a hatchery program if it really came down to having just producing viable frye. Having the right conditions available to support a hatch and provide for optimal growth would seem more important than sheer numbers. I would think of it like a farm pond. You can have 2,000 2" bluegills all competeing for the same food source and water quality or 200 10" healthy bluegill.

I meant to mention that in this annual discussion sombody always suggests stocking hatchery walleyes into Lake Erie. We've heard from Sea Grant folks that there are a several problems with that idea and in no particular order here are a few. They tend to be cannablistic in a hatchery situation resulting in very inefficient production, young walleye are preyed upon heavily by adult walleyes and other fish in the lake so stocking them in Lake Erie would be like a fish feeding program, and it is very expensive to produce the numbers of fish needed to sustain the kinds of numbers it would take to have released fingerlings survive into catchable sized fish.

You could spend the majority of the ODNR budget and resources on a walleye stocking program and probably still not produce what just a fair year class yields. We've lived off strong year classes for as along as I can remember (I am fortunate enough to have been fishing the lake during the "Golden Years" of the legendary '82 year class along with a couple really good ones before and after) and it appears we will continue to do so. Conserve during the lean years and enjoy the fruits of the great hatches.

 

[crittergitter]

What do you think the best course of action would be to increase the population closer to the gloy days of the late 80's / early 90's

I read that article to. Those days are long gone. I am beggining to wonder if Erie won't be a more predominant musky fishery in the next 10 years. It could develope into a sister system similar to Lake St Claire. As water quality improves and over time........the plant life improves...........and then........the musky population gradually rebounds.

Walleye will always be a part of the fishery, but we'll never see 80 million again. It just aint gonna happen.

 

[billybob7059]

I think the biggest thing the clear water has done is move walleye out to the central basin more. However I would like to see how close the walleye hatch is tied to the bait fish hatch? I have never seen the est. for the shinner pop. Hopefully the DNR can tell us this years hatch was a great one.

 

[reo]

IMHO anything that can be done to insure the greatest number of eggs are laid instead of weighed has to have a positive effect. If we want to maintain the fishery we must be willing to contribute to a sucessful hatch. We can not justify early fishing based on a possibility that the water will be too muddy, too warm, too cold, too few planktonl, too many Gobies. The greater the number of fertilzed eggs the greater the hatch and it's up to nature after that.

As has been stated several times in this thread; the science does not bear this theory out. Again, strong year classes do not need large (relatively speaking) populations to produce them. This theory was proven in 2003 when a low (relatively) walleye population produced a record year class.

The best way we can "contribute to a successful hatch" is to do what we can to make the lake biologically sound;ie clean, with no more invasive species, sound management, etc.

"The greater the number of fertilzed eggs the greater the hatch and it's up to nature after that" One more time,, A huge population of walleye laying a huge amount of eggs won't amount to much of a year class even if they hatch, if weather and other factors kill or starve them.

reo

 

[eyeangler1]

walleyes don't make a nest[/QUOTE]

Your statement made me do a little research... and you're right. Walleyes let the eggs land in cracks and crevasses on the reefs. I also found out that the "parents" have nothing to do with the eggs or hatch (which really surprised me!). Consequently, the eggs are left on their own. So much for my thought of pulling a male walleye away from "protecting" the eggs.
Source...
I looked it up on "Wickepedia".

 

[riverKing]

I just gotta throw this out there, this has nothing to due with the state or the fisherman or canada, but.
I bet erie goes down the pits sometime in the next 30 years, I think we are up to 180+invasives and there are too many parties doing one or two things wrong and blaming each other. it will be a drum fishery, but, I bet it bounces back when everyone wakes up and the entire management systems changes. also, I bet they will start stocking eyes in the next ten years.
p.s. I am a pesimest, dont hold it agains me I dont mean to offend, just throwing out an opinion
and eyeangler, I love it wickepedia was right!

now when it comes to protecting females, to everyone fighting against the idea that it will help, stop comparing anything to the 03 year class, it was a once a century type hatch. when you dont include crazy good years or bad years, the more eggs laid, the more hatch, the more become adults. in normal condtions thats how it works, Im not going to argue that fishing does or doesnt effect the number of females much, but your kidding yourself if you think more fish wont make a difference.

 

[Mushijobah]

The wise man speaks again. Prodigious!

 

[Seaturd]

The wise man speaks again. Prodigious!

Lots of words with no facts backing any of them up.

 

[ErieGoldSportfishing]

now when it comes to protecting females, to everyone fighting against the idea that it will help, stop comparing anything to the 03 year class, it was a once a century type hatch. when you dont include crazy good years or bad years, the more eggs laid, the more hatch, the more become adults. in normal condtions thats how it works, Im not going to argue that fishing does or doesnt effect the number of females much, but your kidding yourself if you think more fish wont make a difference.

Another expert! First, the class of '82 was bigger than '03 so I'd describe the latter as more of a "once per decade" type hatch. But even if you throw it out of the equation, which you can't because those spike years are a big part of it, it doesn't change the fact that walleye production goes in an "all or nothing" cycle. Look at the chart on the link here and you'll see that what you refer to as "normal" is probably far from reality. Looking at the data, "normal" appears to be pretty up and down with a fair to good year thrown in between several poor ones.

http://ohioseagrant.osu.edu/discuss/index.php?topic=1075.0

It would be nice to have steady 8 to 20 million fish annually over a monster year once every 10 or 15, but that's the way things work on Lake Erie. On the bright side, those huge year classes that come along once in a blue moon are what built Lake Erie's reputation. The reason why all those PWT records were broken year after year in the 90's was because of the huge numbers of "survivor" fish left from the '82 hatch that were 10+ years old.

Some people have a tough time grasping the concept of how astronomical 50 million fish of catchable size (the '03 hatch estimate) but then again, there are lots of people that are hardened to the word "trillions" when it's used to describe the national debt.

 

[reo]

I just gotta throw this out there, this has nothing to due with the state or the fisherman or canada, but.
I bet erie goes down the pits sometime in the next 30 years, I think we are up to 180+invasives and there are too many parties doing one or two things wrong and blaming each other. it will be a drum fishery, but, I bet it bounces back when everyone wakes up and the entire management systems changes. also, I bet they will start stocking eyes in the next ten years.
p.s. I am a pesimest, dont hold it agains me I dont mean to offend, just throwing out an opinion
and eyeangler, I love it wickepedia was right!

now when it comes to protecting females, to everyone fighting against the idea that it will help, stop comparing anything to the 03 year class, it was a once a century type hatch. when you dont include crazy good years or bad years, the more eggs laid, the more hatch, the more become adults. in normal condtions thats how it works, Im not going to argue that fishing does or doesnt effect the number of females much, but your kidding yourself if you think more fish wont make a difference.

Alright then what about the 82 hatch? or was that the hatch of the century for the last century? I used to argue the same "more fish has got to mean a better hatch" argument too. I sure sounds logical BUT science just does not back it up. Read up on the science, for example in the late 80's the walleye population was at their highest in modern history, did those HUGE numbers of fish produce good hatches?? the answer is NO, record high populations could NOT produce a decent hatch. I am not advocating throwing sound management out the window, far from it, but the "more fish has got to mean a better hatch" theory has not been historically factual.

For the record, I have not fished the reefs or rivers for spawning eyes in 20 years as I am busy doing other types of fishing and a closure of said fishing would have no direct impact on me, I am merely trying to make the point that Lake Erie walleye recruitment is not as simple as "the more eggs laid, the more hatch, the more become adults". My 'bet' is with history, facts and science to create sound management. This practice has created the best walleye fishery in the world and IF the folks charged with disseminating all the complex data tell us that stricter regulations are needed at any time of year i will support it.

reo

 

[tomb]

More people should attend next time Travis Hartman gives a seminar. I couldn't believe all the empty seats when he spoke at the boat show. This thread , or one's like it wouldn't exist if more people took advantage of opportunities to listen to guys like him.

 

[riverKing]

82 was twenty years prior and last century......
and the biggest thing I wanted to point out is that erie has much bigger problems than great vs. poor year classes. didnt want a crazy argument just wanted to add another side in there. I never claimed to be an expert, I told you it wasnt meant to offened, just an opinion, and you went crazy? and yes spikes are natural, I never argued that, all I said is that more eggs laid more hatch, within the same conditions. the conditions have more to do with it than the numbers, but what if there were more big hens 03, could have been a 60 million hatch. dats all I'm saying

 

[reo]

82 was twenty years prior and last century......
and the biggest thing I wanted to point out is that erie has much bigger problems than great vs. poor year classes. didnt want a crazy argument just wanted to add another side in there. I never claimed to be an expert, I told you it wasnt meant to offened, just an opinion, and you went crazy? and yes spikes are natural, I never argued that, all I said is that more eggs laid more hatch, within the same conditions. the conditions have more to do with it than the numbers, but what if there were more big hens 03, could have been a 60 million hatch. dats all I'm saying

RK

To be clear I was not offended nor did I mean to offend, or go crazy

Just pointing out some science based factual history on the fishery that is important to all that took the time to add their $.02 worth to this annual discussion.

Again no ill will intended.

 

[reo]

More people should attend next time Travis Hartman gives a seminar. I couldn't believe all the empty seats when he spoke at the boat show. This thread , or one's like it wouldn't exist if more people took advantage of opportunities to listen to guys like him.

Could not agree more. The OSG guys ain't bad to listen to either

 

[rod bender bob]

Riverking, I am not arguing but just want to point out that we have the numbers -- we didn't have a "huge" female population in 2003 but we got a super sonic hatch. Right now The Great Lakes Fishery Commission estimates that we have roughly 9 million adult females. Experts say 200,000-600,000 egs per female so with just a 400,000 average we could have more than 3 TRILLLION eggs this spring! Even if they over estimate it, the number is still mind boggling....In 03 millions hatched!!! MILLIONS! Erie is just such an incredible fishery that so much can go wrong and right -- I hope the stars line up this time...

82 was twenty years prior and last century......
and the biggest thing I wanted to point out is that erie has much bigger problems than great vs. poor year classes. didnt want a crazy argument just wanted to add another side in there. I never claimed to be an expert, I told you it wasnt meant to offened, just an opinion, and you went crazy? and yes spikes are natural, I never argued that, all I said is that more eggs laid more hatch, within the same conditions. the conditions have more to do with it than the numbers, but what if there were more big hens 03, could have been a 60 million hatch. dats all I'm saying

 

[Papascott]

Bob you need to learn that hope and praying, according to the armchair experts means nothing! lol

Yep every female taken out of the system means 200,00-700,000 missing from the system the following year! Leave the fishes alone!!!


:bananalama:

 

[Mushijobah]

Many people on this forum forget that Erie is extremely dynamic, sensitive to human impacts, and changing ALL THE TIME. It is not a set in stone fishery. I'm sick of armchair biologists arguing their own inferences against things that are actually studied by people who have PhDs in this exact field, and funding that would make Donald Trump need a new set of boxers.

If you can't listen to the experts, fine. I can't wait for the excuses when the belovid walleye fishery keeps declining. It's the power plant!!! No, the females! No, 1982!! No, 2003!! Aliens!! George Bush!! Barrack Obama!!

I digress...

 

[rod bender bob]

I agree Papa - leave the fishes alone - more for me and they are delicious LOL