Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the State Symbols Fisheries topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sponsors pitch walleye as Ohio’s state fish, citing tourism and fisheries data
Summary
House Bill 312 received a first hearing in the Arts, Athletics and Tourism Committee where sponsors argued the walleye (Sander vitreus) should be designated Ohio’s official state fish, citing Lake Erie harvests, tourism events and economic impact figures; no committee vote was recorded.
The Arts, Athletics and Tourism Committee held a first hearing on House Bill 312, in which sponsors argued the walleye should be designated the official state fish of Ohio and highlighted the species' economic and cultural importance.
Representative Brennan, the bill sponsor, told the committee that Ohio is one of only three states without an official state fish and urged lawmakers to designate the walleye (Sander vitreus). Brennan said Lake Erie is central to the case: he cited figures that roughly 71 percent of sports-fishing effort on Ohio’s portion of Lake Erie targets walleye and that Lake Erie sport-fishing supports an economic output he described as about $1.19 billion for the state's portion of the lake.
Brennan also cited statewide figures from the Ohio Department of Natural Resources presented in testimony: a total economic impact for statewide fishing of about $5.5 billion and an estimate that approximately 72.1 million walleye age two or older are present in Lake Erie. Brennan said prior legislation on the topic (cited in testimony as HB 59 in the last general assembly) had passed earlier committee stages and the House floor and that the current proposal enters the committee with broad cosponsorship.
Representative Swearingen, co-sponsor, framed the bill as both an economic and cultural recognition, noting festivals and events—such as regional walleye festivals and charter tournaments—that draw visitors to Ohio. He told members that walleye-related tourism and charter fishing supports guides and local businesses across lakeshore and inland communities.
Committee members asked sponsors to explain competing claims and the choice of species. Representative Gamari and others engaged in light exchanges and jokes about alternative species; no opposing testimony or formal amendments were offered in the transcript. The hearing record shows discussion and questions but no committee vote on HB 312.
The committee adjourned after the first hearing; the bill remains at the hearing stage in the Arts, Athletics and Tourism Committee.
