close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Sauger research

Discussion in 'Walleye & Saugeye Discussions' started by ohiou_98, Oct 25, 2008.

  1. Were coming into sauger season and I'm trying to brush up on my research... Unfortunately there is very little out there. Wouldn't it be nice if there was as much literature on sauger as there is on bass?
     
  2. its there its just hard to find, usually hidden down in the depths of some midwestern dnrs website. what are you looking for in particular, they're pretty similar to walleye, a few differences but researching walleye is much easier.
    i must admit it would be nice if there was funding for research on more fish species, but you have to go where the money is, so bass it is
     

  3. misfit

    misfit MOD SQUAD

    i'm sure there's plenty of info if you do enough research.as for finding as much info as you'll find on bass,that isn't going to happen.bass are much more abundant throughout the whole country,not to mention other countries,therefore a more popular species than sauger.so the amount of literature would naturally be more abundant.
    sauger are a stream fish,and only found in a few streams in ohio,whereas bass can be found just about anywhere in the state.
    where money plays into it,i have no idea:confused:
     
  4. My question i, why does the DNR stock saugeyes instead of saugers and walleyes separately? Is there an advantage to the hybrid??
     
  5. Saugeye will get bigger than the sauger and will tolerate the turbid water conditions found in Ohio's lakes better than the walleye. Saugeye were supposed to be sterile, but theres big debates on that. Hybrids are more aggressive.
     
  6. misfit

    misfit MOD SQUAD

    just my thoughts in a nutshell,to provide a put/take fishery in places where neither sauger or walleye can/will naturally reproduce.it is also more cost effective to raise/stock hybrids than it is to do so with the others.
    personally,i like the idea of a fish that is fun to fish for/catch,is easily accessible and can't be beaten as table fare:)
     
  7. EE

    EE

    861
    4
    823
    I'll second that!

    I'm sure ODNR has received it's fair share 'return' on this hybrid (license fees, etc.), with the large number of saugeye fishermen across the state. Though I like to catch other types of fish, it is saugeye that I look forward to the most.
     
  8. misfit

    misfit MOD SQUAD

    and i might add,more bang for the dnr buck when it comes to rearing/stocking.
     
  9. I Fish

    I Fish I am what I eat.

    1,518
    123
    898
    Don't forget job security. I've read just about every excuse for this, better survival, growth, etc., so if thats all true, explain why they hybridize the lake stocked catfish. They are a cross of blue cat and channel cat. These species do just fine on their own, so why cross them? Most people don't know, or can tell the difference. Next time you catch a catfish in a state lake, if it's stocked, the little fin on the back, between the dorsal fin and tail has been cut off. They do that at the hatchery.
    It's all about money. If the lakes supported themselves, the hatchery workers would be, well, out of work. If they truly wanted a self sustainable resource, they would at least try it, or ask another state, such as Kansas, how they do it. In other words prove they won't live, and thrive, don't just say it.
     
  10. The only catfish raised & stocked by the ODNR are channel cats. Last time I checked they looked like a true channel cat too.
     
  11. misfit

    misfit MOD SQUAD

    this thread is not about catfish or job security,so please start another thread on those topics,instead of hijacking this one.
     
  12. I Fish

    I Fish I am what I eat.

    1,518
    123
    898
    I'm just explaining why they don't stock pure strain fish. There are several lakes I beleive could support walleye, sauger, or both, but the state won't try them. I'm merely using what they do with catfish to further the point. And no, they are not pure channel catfish. Compare one from a state lake with one from the Ohio River or Lake Erie and you will see the difference.
     
  13. misfit

    misfit MOD SQUAD

    well,your explanation is incorrect.
    maybe if there was more info available on sauger research,it would be clear that sauger are not found naturally in lakes because they are not well suited to them.the same goes for walleyes.they only do well under certain conditions,which are not found in many lakes in this state.that is why the stocking programs shifted from walleye to saugeye in the first place.if they were self sustaining,they would not need to be stocked.it just doesn't make sense(financially)to stock hybrids in waters that could hold good self sustaining pops of walleyes:confused:
    since the 1950's, i've fished numerous lakes and rivers in ohio.many,at one time were originally stocked with walleyes in hopes of creating self sustaining pops.over the years,the stocking finally was discontinued due to lack of success.
    just because you "believe" some lakes could support certain fish,does not make it so.
     
  14. I Fish

    I Fish I am what I eat.

    1,518
    123
    898
    I realize that because I believe something, doesn't make it possible. However, since the 1950's, advancements in understanding of eco systems has changed. Also, predator/ prey relationships have likewise advanced. A joint study between Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin revealed that lakes with high black bass populations had a high mortality of walleye fingerlings. The reason? The bass were eating them. Saugeye fry as well. I'm just saying the state should be as focused on making things sustainable, instead of wasting our fishing license money. Maybe, developing spawning areas instead of just relying on what the Corps of Engineers left. We both want the same goal, more catchable (and eatable) fish.
    And as far as just sauger go, what about the small streams that supported them prior to the 1970's? The state has made no attempt to restart them. Granted, I think they died out from pollution, but the waters of Ohio are quite a bit cleaner now.
     
  15. misfit

    misfit MOD SQUAD

    some of what you mention has already been tried,but aside from not being feasible, remaking what the corps left would kinda defeat the real/intended purpose of those lakes.comparing ohio's flood control and water supply lakes with totally different types of lakes in wisc.,iowa and minnesota is comparing apples to oranges.and i'm sure ohio has done plenty of studies of their own as well.we all know that bass will eat smaller fish,so that is nothing new.
     
  16. I FISH, I agree with but you are taking some liberties. the state has done the work showing that saugeye survival rates are better than walleye. in many of these shallow muddy lakes I would rather see walleye than saugeye but they not gonna do that great. now in lakes like cc and east fork down in the sw corner of the state that both get over 80ft deep and have good mixtures of cover and sediment I think walleye would be the smarter choice. furthermore, there is a slim chance that sauger would make it in most of the lakes or in the streams above, without that connection to the ohio river they just cant seem to exist. the evidence is in the distribution records, the population of sauger is excellent in every major trib to the ohio up to the first lowhead dam. even in rives as big as the great miami they die out. now there was an exception, east fork had a population of sauger that are probably still around, some big ones on occasion, they spawned in the creek above the lake, but the numbers are way to low to even consider them fishable, I heard about one caught this year, in the creek above the lake...they do great in lakes.
    frankly if the dnr was going to stock fish in the ohio river watershed other than the saugeye, channel cats, bass, musky, trout and hybrid striper they stock now. I would like to see blue sucker and paddlefish restoration, or madtom and darter habitat protection, but these wont happen on a large scale ever. the reason is the anglers, if most anglers want saugeye a fish that tastes good and is accesible, stands to reason most do. than thats what the anglers will get from the dnr MANagment team.

    I think I got lost somewhere in there, nope, its just time to shut up and fish.
     
  17. I Fish

    I Fish I am what I eat.

    1,518
    123
    898
    I just don't like how the state handles a lot of things. It seems like they are always trying to fix a problem by throwing money at it, instead of fixing the problem. I hunt, also, and have watched what they've done with our other wildlife as well. Pheasants, for instance. They tried crossing the ringneck with a sechuan pheasant. Michigan was succesful, but Ohio's brood stock was only 25% sechuan, vs Michigan's 50%. So, they just dropped the program, instead of trying 50/50 crosses. About $1million wasted. It's not just the fish. There is just too much politics involved. You scratch my back, I'll get yours. They are all afraid to point out the faults of the other, even when the sportsmen benefit. Sorry, I'm just getting fed up with the wasted resources of our great state.
     
  18. BigMha

    BigMha QQn 4 that "ONE" big fish

    461
    0
    821
    welcome to the REAL world....governments waste money, in our estimation, but it is what it is I FISH, lets just enjoy the fisheries that we've got and keep our minds off of the political cash cow....our ecomony is out of control and so is/was spending.....i say ride it out and hope for the best....while we wait LET'S FISH !!!!!!!!!!!!
     
  19. I agree with misfit's comments on saugeye in Ohio. Does anyone remember the attempt to stock sauger in Cowin during the 80's?