Cumberland sturgeon

[SSKY]

I read the article in Ky afield about the effort to stock the "lake sturgeon" back into cumberland. The fish will if i am mistaken will come from wisconsin?? Why,just a question? what is the end goal? also in the article it was noted how hard it was to get native brood stock walleye from the rockcastle river but it could be done and has been.There would seem to be a source to stock in the lake for native walleye and i would assume we would put up an effort to stock river/lake sturgeon if they were still here?From what I read we will have to stock the sturgeon for many years to get a spawning population because we do not know how or where they spawn. We know where the native walleye spawn.

[PRO V LE]

SSKY,calm down please scroll down and read the reply from Dave D. on you're post about an update on the Rockcastle Walleye.
That's about as close to the "Horse's" mouth as you can get it. ;)

You're friend, Dave C.

[JoeB]

Provile, don't think that common sense will ever intervene!:D

[SSKY]

Sure it will.

[BanditMan]

I want to fish for a sturgeon in a belly boat.. :7

[steve604]

Bandit, I've got a knee board you can borrow for that trip.:P

[UYKY]

i believe they did not do well (read NO LONGER EXIST) once the lake was impounded due to lack of quality water and a river system (which is apparently essential to their ecological "well-being"). what would stocking sturgeon accomplish ? why enter another life form into the lake that has no chance of natural reproduction (read STRIPERS). seems to be a waste of (more) money to me. only thing i can remotely imagine is some sort of attempt to draw anglers here to somerset for some "world class sturgeon fishing". by the way i really got a laugh out of the idea of an angler catching a sturgeon from a belly boat.
ssky no matter what others say, i am with you on the idea of putting the proper walleye back in the lake. heck for that matter why not stock both strains. the erie strain to give the "numbers" and the native strain to generate the "hog 'eyes" our forefathers tangled with. at least no matter which of these two you might catch, it would be edible.

Merry Christmas to all on the board and have a safe and prosperous New Year.

Anthony

[mhall]

Dude, do you ever grow weiry of this Walleye thing, Geeeze...;(

[SSKY]

No, I see no reason not to as i am a walleye fishermen and I like it. I see no reason not to have the best fishery possible that can exist and that would include the native fish that were here before the lake existed. Go to your library and look at the article from KY afield winter 2001 and then look at the cover photo on page 16. Those fish have never happened on lake Erie ever,should i keep it up yes,will i stop,probably not, sorry for the posts but they will keep on coming I do not get tired ,just don't read them.

[mhall]

>No, I see no reason not to as i am a walleye fishermen and I
>like it. I see no reason not to have the best fishery possible
>that can exist and that would include the native fish that
>were here before the lake existed. Go to your library and look
>at the article from KY afield winter 2001 and then look at the
>cover photo on page 16. Those fish have never happened on lake
>Erie ever,should i keep it up yes,will i stop,probably not,
>sorry for the posts but they will keep on coming I do not get
>tired ,just don't read them.

Here's my point, I appreciate your passion for the fish you desire and admire anyone who want's to get involved and help to improve it. However complaining to US, a bunch of guys on a computer web site discussion board will NEVER help your case. You need to get going with some KDFWR officers and biologist to help make a difference, have you ever thought of that before? Moaning and complaining on this site every three or four weeks about the same ole conspiracy theory isn't helping your walleye. Just my 2 cents.

[SSKY]

They like the status quo,it is easy to keep what we have now it would a great effort to restore the genectics of the native fish to their native waters. Folks from the KDFWR have posted here and said so. It ain't no conspiracy theory just fact. Why make any effort to stock native walleye in lakes that do not have the same conditions from where they are native which is being done and not try to stock them from where they are native? and not stock the non native strain in the same water. Again I would refer you to the KY Afield article winter 2001 page 16. In that article an effort was made to create a hatchery to produce the river fish and at that time it was not possible with the rudimentary technology and very limited money. That would not seem to be a problem now with the advanced technology of the biologists and now the ability to produce native strain fish to stock lakes such as wood creek. It would seem to be a simple step to produce the native strain to stock in Cumberland from where they came from would it not? We have been told that the two strains do not interbreed so that should not be an issue. The northern strain has been stocked for Many years and make their way to the upper reaches of the south fork and one would be foolish to say they have not done so up the rockcastle. So stock the southern strain in the lake and let the northern strain peter off as they seem not to support their population unless there is suplemental stocking. Just my 2 cents and this is the best forum to see any action.

[JoeB]

Who told you the two strains would not interbreed? Someone on a public message board? The biologist in charge of the walleye program got on this board and tried to address your last rant, and you didn't bring up one issue or ask one question. Why? Why do you insist on whining to the people on this board about walleye genetics, when not one of them has any ability to change the walleye program?