2012 Walleye hatch

[dreamcatcher]

Excellent article I honestly hope they are under estimating the numbers, but most likely not. This makes me think about why Ohio doesn't incorporate a slot limit for walleyes. I Know its is the mid length fish the healthy ones that produce the healthy spawn not so much the big hogs, is this not a big enough issue for the state yet? Personally this is something I would not have problem with, let the population get stronger again. Any thoughts on this matter? Why or why not? Just ideas thanks

[B can man]

Excellent article I honestly hope they are under estimating the numbers, but most likely not. This makes me think about why Ohio doesn't incorporate a slot limit for walleyes. I Know its is the mid length fish the healthy ones that produce the healthy spawn not so much the big hogs, is this not a big enough issue for the state yet? Personally this is something I would not have problem with, let the population get stronger again. Any thoughts on this matter? Why or why not? Just ideas thanks

You just proposed something that I had rolling around in my head. I think that a 2-inch to 4-inch slot limit starting at 20 inches would be a great idea. Any walleye from 20-22 or 20-24 would be off-limits. Would be the smartest thing to do. Why wait til the whole thing (fishery) goes to hell and then do something about it? A small slot limit now could prevent a huge one later down the road.

[weekendwarrior]

I would have to agree about the slot idea...every big successful walleye lake seems to have one

[put]

I wish there was a study to see if it is a breeding problem, hatch problem, or growth mortality problem. Basically impossible to do, but when you think about it more than just the stars have to line up to get all three of those areas to be great to produce great numbers, and they are not sure of the exact area that lacks year to year.

[bocajemma]

the subject of a slot limit has been beat to death. there are 20+ million walleye in lake erie currently which produces trillions of eggs to be fertilized. The lake has changed from years ago and may not be able to sustain 40+ milliion walleye. The reality is, it may require fewer walleye in the lake to produce a banner hatch. Fewer walleye = more available food = higher survival rate. I believe the survival rate of the fry is the real issue at hand. Everyone thinks immediately that if you have more walleye, you have more fry, and you have more survival when you can actually decrease the survival rate with more fry if there isn't available forage to sustain the fry. Many factors involved here with the least significant factor being the amount of walleye currently in the lake.

[dreamcatcher]

Excellent point, it is about the fry that survive, I apologize for beating it more. I suppose well let the biologist and wildlife management team do their job and stick to ours, catching the fish!

[FishOn205]

I believe this data and subject could be debated all day long and never get agreed upon. I don't have a problem with the slot limit but to me those r the best fish to eat. The 18-24" fish... I would have to agree with the idea of if u take out some of the fish the fish that are left have a better chance to find food and be healthier without the competition of that many more fish... I guess it's like deer hunting take out deer from the herd to keep the herd healthy... Either way I'm with dreamcatcher this issue is above my pay grade ill stick to catching fish and abiding to the rules.

[B can man]

the subject of a slot limit has been beat to death. there are 20+ million walleye in lake erie currently which produces trillions of eggs to be fertilized. The lake has changed from years ago and may not be able to sustain 40+ milliion walleye. The reality is, it may require fewer walleye in the lake to produce a banner hatch. Fewer walleye = more available food = higher survival rate. I believe the survival rate of the fry is the real issue at hand. Everyone thinks immediately that if you have more walleye, you have more fry, and you have more survival when you can actually decrease the survival rate with more fry if there isn't available forage to sustain the fry. Many factors involved here with the least significant factor being the amount of walleye currently in the lake.

You make a good point, but I have to respectfully disagree. The reason that you think that the slot limit issue has been beat to death is because it is the common sense approach. I have seen too many issues "muddied up" by political pressure. Like it or not, these issues are decided by those that likely have something to lose by instituting a slot limit.

I have not seen any studies that suggest that there is not enough forage for the fry. In fact, proving that would be pretty much impossible. (If you have seen one, please point me in that direction and I am willing to change my opinion.) With that said, it becomes a math problem. 100 fry born with a 5% survival rate = 5 surviving, 200 fry born with the same survival rate = 10 surviving.

At the risk of sounding overly simplistic (really just a common sense type of guy), the lake had a healthy population of walleye prior to the huge explosion of sport and commercial fishing a several decades back. Sport fishing has declined since, but commercial fishing has not.

While I will accept in truth that run-off nutrients helps the fry to grow bigger and faster, I will not accept the idea that more walleye breeding will equate to less fry surviving.

[eyetrapper]

Guys, check out ohio sea grants website, plenty of info there from fishery management people who are constantly studying the lake. Seems to be a lot more than just the number of eggs that are laid determining walleye population and yearly hatch success.

Jim