close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Saugeye Vs Sauger

Discussion in 'Walleye & Saugeye Discussions' started by Mushijobah, May 31, 2007.

  1. Mushijobah

    Mushijobah Urban Angler

    I really wish there was an in depth comparison chart between the two.....Even at the OEPA, I have not heard a straight answer on the physical difference between the two. Have any of you guys seen such a comparison that has proved accurate?

    Also, please spare me your personal descriptions if they involve a white tip on the tail (many medium sized saugeye lack it), Girth (many medium sized saugeye have the identical girth to a nice sauger), or spotted/barred fins (either can have).
     
  2. JamesT

    JamesT Banned

    2,976
    19
    0
    The secret is in the dorsal fin membrane. The pigment and pigment expression is different between a saugeye and sauger. The gene that controls this pigment is dominant in female walleye and almost always gets passed on to the offspring. I don't have any up close pics of the dorsal fin membrane, but if you look closely you will tell. Saugeye have a darker pigmentation when compared to a sauger from the same water conditions. If the fish are highly stressed, such as after catching them, sauger may exhibit some different pigment shades but it will still not be as dark as the saugeye.
     

  3. if it has deffinant round or oval spots on the dorsal than it is a sauger
    saugeye do not have the well defind spots they have bars, other than the blotches they get on the side in clear water they look alot more like walleye than sauger. again, spots on the dorsal its a sauger.
    they really are not that difficult to tell apart its just that most people are clueless and say they are all saugeye because thats what they catch in the lakes. also, if you are in a river that runs into the ohio, its almost always a sauger, there are more 18+in sauger in the rivers that i fish than there are saugeye people just assume that the fish are saugeye from size
     
  4. Mushijobah

    Mushijobah Urban Angler

    I mean, like I have said, the fin markings do not tell the difference. Go catch a 16" 'eye' in the Scioto below greenlawn and try to honestly tell me which one it is. Not happening with your hypothesis.
     
  5. its how i tell the difference on the shocking boats in the ohio river doing the population survey's, and its not a hypothesis. the saugeye in the hocking river, the muskingum river, the lmr and the gmr as well as the ohio, dont have the major spots on the dorsal. its like jamesT mentioned, it has to do with the te gene carried by the female walleye, now maybe every once in a while saugeye get faint spots but the ones i have seen have shaded bars behind each of the dorsal spines. if i am ever below greenlawn and i catch a 16in eye i will be able to tell you the difference by looking at the fin markings
     
  6. fishslime

    fishslime Catch it, then eat it :)

    113
    0
    771
    Here is the two side by side saugeye on bottom

    [​IMG]
     
  7. Great picture fishslime. That's the way we tell them apart here at the river. Saugers will generally will have the spots on the fin in generally straight lines and saugeyes have them more scattered if they have them. Great comparison shot again!
     
  8. JamesT

    JamesT Banned

    2,976
    19
    0
    Get some glasses. And look more closely at the dorsal. If you want to be so scientific (which I think you do) get an internship at a breeding facility and look at 1000 saugeye and sauger. Look at the dorsal fins and do a t-test. Statistics will prove the dorsal fin theory right.

    Yes you have said what you don't want to hear and don't believe, but you haven't shown any proof. If you want scientific answers, prove to me that the theories you disbarred in your first post are not true. How many times have you had both known sauger and saugeye in a statistically valid population to compare your theories against. My guess is zero.

     
  9. that pic needs to be posted as a sticky so everyone can see exactly how to tell the difference, awesome pic
     
  10. Mushijobah

    Mushijobah Urban Angler

    My HYPOTHESIS, (not theory, please look up the definition for that) is that dorsal markings do NOT decipher the species or hybridization of the sauger and sauger/eye. I WORK ON A SHOCK BOAT IN THE SUMMER FOR THE OEPA. Different scientists have told me different things on identifying the fish, I just do not know who to believe. The fish I primarily catch in Alum Creek have only spots, yet there are low head dams preventing their migration to those areas. Therefore, any logical hypothesis would say they were SAUGEYE. I also have electro-shock reports from Alum that were done by two different scientists at two different times (1996 and 2000) that show similar numbers of SAUG fish, but one identified them as SAUGER, and one SAUGEYE. Obviously to the scientific community this is still unclear...that is the only reason I am asking. That picture I saw above...would make every single eye I have caught from Alum a sauger when I know that is not true.
     
  11. Mushijobah

    Mushijobah Urban Angler

    Check this out also....

    "How can you identify a saugeye from a walleye or a sauger? Since saugers are primarily found in the Ohio River, the identification problem most likely to occur is between the saugeye and walleye."

    LAST PARAGRAPH OF http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/wildlife/Feature/FishF/saugeye.htm

    That is simply untrue that they are primarily found in the OR. And everyone knows the main identification problem would be between a sauger and saugeye. It just sounds like the ODNR is trying to persuade the public that they would be stupid to even question the actual genetic makeup of their 'saug' fish because it is obviously a _______. Every minorly educated fisherman knows the difference between a walleye and a saugeye, it is just sad that they can actually spew out such a crappy lie and assume people would believe it. The bottom line is no one has provided me with documented proof online (which shouldn't be rare seeing that everything is online these days) that can easily decipher a sauger from a saugeye.

    Keep looking:p !
     
  12. misfit

    misfit MOD SQUAD

    my THEORY is that since you've formed your own HYPOTHESIS,and have rejected the HYPOTHESES of several scientists,including ones from the epa and dnr,that any supposed "documented" proof offered in this forum would most likely be subject to your scrutiny also;)
     
  13. Lewis

    Lewis ORIGINAL TEAM OGF

    5,133
    283
    2,368
  14. Mushijobah

    Mushijobah Urban Angler

    I just wish someone could come up with a writeup published by an acclaimed institution that lays the rules down. It just seems that the traits passed are just variable making identification close to impossible on some specimens.
     
  15. JamesT

    JamesT Banned

    2,976
    19
    0
    Mush-
    Just curious - why do you wish this? Why do there need to be further rules. The dorsal fin membrane markings will account for 99% of good IDs. Show me a picture of what you believe to be a saugeye that does not have these characteristic markings...

    What speciments are impossible to identify??Please provide pictures.

    I'm trying to understand where you are going with this...

    And what are five examples of "acclaimed institutions" whose answer you are willing to accept?

    James

     
  16. JamesT

    JamesT Banned

    2,976
    19
    0
    Let's look at your hypotheis step by step.

    "Different scientists have told me different things on identifying the fish, I just do not know who to believe."
    It is good to be skeptical of scientists -they are not always rights, nor do they always pass on accurate or complete information.

    "I WORK ON A SHOCK BOAT IN THE SUMMER FOR THE OEPA."
    So what.

    "Different scientists have told me different things on identifying the fish, I just do not know who to believe."
    Make up your own mind. Please clarify the names of the scientists and what they have told you. I know most of Ohio's marine biologists both working for the state, academia and other research institutions. I may be able to provide you with some insight if you can give better details about who told
    you what.


    "The fish I primarily catch in Alum Creek have only spots, yet there are low head dams preventing their migration to those areas. Therefore, any logical hypothesis would say they were SAUGEYE."
    Flooding can allow for 2 way migration. There is no logical hypothesis there.

    "I also have electro-shock reports from Alum that were done by two different scientists at two different times (1996 and 2000) that show similar numbers of SAUG fish, but one identified them as SAUGER, and one SAUGEYE."
    Either one of the scientists misidentified the fish or made a simple, clerical error on the report, or there was a significant population shift over a 4 year period. Can you forward the electroshock results to me? I'd be curious to know more information about sizes of the fish and locations of the shock.

    "Obviously to the scientific community this is still unclear...that is the only reason I am asking. "
    You have referenced very few scientists in making your conclusion that the "community" is unclear about this. The "community" will tell you to look at the dorsal fin membrane as there is sound scientific evidence that the female walleye possesses a dominant gene for these markings that gets passed on to a very high percentage of saugeye. Yes, genetics are not always 100%. If you need 100% accuracy you need to take my class at OSU on marine genetics.


    "That picture I saw above...would make every single eye I have caught from Alum a sauger when I know that is not true"
    Are you sure - how do you know that is not true. Please post pictures of the fish you are claimaing to be saugeye and not sauger. I'm not sure how you can say "I know that is not true" if you posted on not knowing how to tell the difference between the 2???

    Let's get this settled, as I don't want you to be confused any more than you are...I'm here to help.

    Prof. James
     
  17. Mushijobah

    Mushijobah Urban Angler

    Prof.,

    Like I have asked..show me a write-up stating the difference from an acclaimed institution. Replying to your replies would simply be a waste of time, although the task would not prove difficult...just the time. You have provided nothing so far worth a damn! If you cannot provide me with what I asked originally, why are you still posting? Flaunting your E-cock-a-doodle-doo will only get you so far, and with this thread, it gets you no where.

    You seem like a smart guy who has his facts together, only if you could find a bit of documentation!
     
  18. Mushijobah

    Mushijobah Urban Angler

    Ah and for the proof/shock stats you asked for, Mr. James.

    1986 Report shows:

    Saugeye: 1
    Sauger: 0
    captured between RM .8 and RM 7.5. This is believeable seeing the condition of the stream at that time was much worse than the latter years.

    1996 Report shows:

    Saugeye: 21
    Sauger: 4

    Captured between RM's .8 and 9.2. Interesting catches include 3 Muskies from a secret location in that stretch...Averaging 14 LBS.:D

    2000 Report shows:

    Saugeye: 2
    Sauger: 52



    That sounds a little 'fishy' to me. I also know both scientists who shocked each year...And know for a fact that they have differing views on Saug identification. The DNR is also like this. It is not uncommon for even the pros to get the fish mixed up.

    If you would like to get these shock reports yourself, please contact the OEPA just like I did...or you could paypal me some money to copy/send them to you;)
     
  19. JamesT

    JamesT Banned

    2,976
    19
    0
    Please reply to what I had to say. You appear to know squat about science and statistics. Real science is difficult. There are so many posers that have some scientific skill, but as I stated, there was obviously a mixup or a case of someone not knowing what they were doing.

    Send me some money and I will provide you with a report. You have already dismissed the definition by ODNR - I'm not sure what qualifies you to do such?

    If ODNR is not an acclaimed institution, what are you looking for? A peer reviewed scientific journal?

    Read this:
    Billington, N., R. C. Brooks and R. C. Heidinger. 1997. Frequency and natural hybridization between saugers and walleyes in the
    Peoria Pool of the Illinois River, as determined by morphological and electrophoretic criteria. North American Journal of Fisheries
    Management 17: 220-224.

    You will learn that up to 3% the fish you question are actually triploid hydrids and may not experience the dominant female gene. As I said, genetics is not 100%.

    Your shock reports tells the whole story - the two different guys that did the tests had differing views on ID - THUS THE DIFFERING RESULTS...Sounds like one of "scientists" has a personal agenda, which is common amongst reputed scientists.

    Now go study. Read this while you are at it:
    Trautman, M. B. 1981. The fishes of Ohio (2nd edition). The Ohio State University Press. Columbus, Ohio, USA.

    As for wasting time - you are lucky I am educating you! But as an academic servant, I feel blessed to be able to offer my services. If you think I have provided nothing worth a damn, you are not reading. And obviously understand ZERO about genetics. Go read a book. Working for a summer on an electroshocking outfit is a start, but you have many years before you are as smart as you think you are....

    As you my E Cock a Doodle Do - you are only showing your immaturity. Grow up and learn something. I don't need to get anywhere on this thread - I'm trying to help you.

    Recess is over - go study your genetics!