Guests - If You want access to member only forums on HSO. You will gain access only when you Sign-in or Sign-Up on HotSpotOutdoors.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

AWH

we are 'the leading edge' I Share on HSO
  • Content count

    1,165
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About AWH

  • Rank
    Sr HSOList.com Family

Profile Information

  • Location:
    Pequot Lakes, MN
  1. Muskie Stocking

    I'm curious why they "don't belong" in Gull Lake? They are already in there and are native to those waters. Do the dams "belong there" that humans put in place to create the Gull Reservoir and prevent fish from swimming freely from the Mississippi River? The next lake that is stocked with muskies in MN that hurts other fish populations will be the first. Per the Ahrenstorff study, an average 1000 acre lake will have 47,870 northern pike. It's safe to assume that this many fish will consume an incredible number of other fish. Northern pike are currently the single biggest issue we have in the state when it comes to having a negative impact on other species. And it comes down to a numbers game and how they can deplete the forage base that other species also rely on. But that's an entirely other matter, and the reason that the DNR is looking to change/improve on our northern pike regulations. This same average 1000 acre lake with muskies will 270 adult muskies. We probably don't even need to do the math on this one when comparing 47,870 to 270 when it comes to just how much food they consume. But obviously, muskies are a larger predator. So it's not as simple as only comparing those two numbers. And what this study shows is that your typical muskie population will consume 96% LESS than your northern pike population in that same body of water. It's quite eye opening. So just how is it that muskies are feared as a species that will decimate other fish populations? If they existed in the numbers that northern pike or walleyes did, it would absolutely be a concern. But this is simply not the facts. When we look at the facts, we can see that muskies will not cause any noticeable impact to other game fish populations. And it's quite possible that they could even provide some benefits. And they certainly provide benefits to those that enjoy using these public waters and surrounding businesses as well.
  2. If you are looking at a map of 3 ramps, I believe the one on the far north end is the only public one. The other two are likely resort access points. It's been about 15 years since I've been there, but that was the case at the time as far as I know. The far north end ramp was very shallow. But it should be fine for a 16 foot boat. We launched there with a similar sized boat and had no problems. You just had to back in a ways. Aaron
  3. I saw the following when it was still a proposal. I would guess this is probably what was approved, or something close to it. But I haven't seen official word. Under the proposal: Waters that now have a 15-inch minimum length limit would retain the 15-inch minimum, but no walleye could be kept between 20 and 24 inches in length and only one walleye 24 inches or longer could be harvested. Waters with no minimum length limit would retain the no minimum length limit but allow the harvest of only one walleye 14 inches or longer. Length or slot limits on waters with other regulations (such as an 18-inch minimum length limit) would be unchanged. Aaron
  4. New statewide Pike Regs

    What exactly am I selling, Merk? Facts? I wouldn't expect you to buy those. A MN DNR representative is exactly what it sounds like, someone that works for the DNR, as Jim did back in 2003. Thanks for finding that information, Del. Nice write up on Jim, his work, and his passion for our fisheries. Interesting that even back in 2008 it says that the hammer handle problem will haunt him into his retirement. So I guess we shouldn't be surprised that he has worked tirelessly on that since he retired. Glad we have someone that cares as much as that on the side of all of us that want healthy fisheries. The MMPA (called the MMA in 2003) has a DNR representative at all of their meetings. Looks like Jim was that guy back in 2003. The DNR Representative is there for multiple reasons. The MMPA likes to be transparent in what they do. They don't like the idea of backdooring the DNR. Fisheries are managed by the DNR. Well, mostly, since we often ask our politicians to do that job for some reason. But since that is the DNR's job, it makes sense to have someone within the DNR at those meetings to provide relevant information, to answer questions, etc. If you belong to any type of fishing or hunting organization it would make sense to have a relationship with the DNR since they are responsible for managing the resource in which you utilize. Aaron
  5. New statewide Pike Regs

    Getanet - I agree completely on the education aspect. That is one of my concerns. While I think the increased bag limit of those smaller fish is a great thing and very much needed, I'm concerned if there will still be enough harvest there to have a significant impact. They are legal to keep today and not enough people keep them. So how do we change that? Do a google search for "filleting pike into five pieces". And you will see some videos on a super simple way to fillet them boneless. I have yet to try this method, as I had never seen it up until about 10 days ago. But I will certainly be trying it this year, as I think it will be the way to go on those smaller pike if you aren't interested in pickling them. My old/current method of filleting them boneless, while not difficult, isn't nearly as simple as this five piece method appears to be. Aaron
  6. New statewide Pike Regs

    Always entertaining, Merk. So thanks again for that! But once again, let's not let any facts get in the way of your argument. What does any of this have to do with muskies? Muskies Inc has nothing to do with the proposed changes to northern pike regulations. Fact: This is a DNR proposal being pushed by the DNR. Fact: The proposal as shown in that presentation were shaped largely by a retired DNR biologist/fisheries manager who was tired of seeing our pike fisheries going in the toilet and the negative consequences that result on all species. He put in thousands of hours of his own time in retirement to research so that there is better data out there to work from, something that likely would not have otherwise happened. Fact: This individual has more knowledge on northern pike in our state than arguably anyone. If there is someone with more knowledge on northern pike dynamics and their effects on our fisheries, I'd be interested to know who that is. Fact: The DNR tweaked the proposal that he was pushing to come to the proposal we see in that presentation. The DNR. Not Muskies Inc, not the MDAA, not Northerns Inc, or anyone else. Why did they tweak it? I don't know if we have that answer. But my guess is to better accommodate spearing groups. Fact: The DNR realizes that changes need to take place if we are going to reverse the current trend of the size structure of our pike getting worse and worse, and their negative effects on all species. Not small changes, but significant changes. Facts: Let's stick to them. Aaron
  7. New statewide Pike Regs

    Sorry Merk, you don't even know who you are talking to here. I am not Aaron Meyer. And I am certainly not a co-chair of the MMPA and never have been. This shouldn't surprise us that you are missing the facts. But I will somewhat answer your question anyway. I do not have a proposal. I do not have the answers like so many other internet experts claim to have. I like the DNR's outline of what they are thinking, because it's a great starting point. I feel our fisheries are largely in a sad state due to the many hammer handle factories that we have. The negative effect that our fisheries as a whole suffer when overrun with large numbers of small pike is significant. And something drastic needs to change. This is far more obvious in the central part of the state than it is in the southern or NE part of the state, which is why their proposal is broken into 3 regions. Although I do question a few things within the proposal, they have far more research and expertise on the subject than I do. And they have solid reasoning as to why they are proposing what they are proposing. I am willing to ask those within the DNR about the proposal and why other ideas may or may not work. If you are willing to listen with an open mind to their information, you can learn quite a great deal. I like some of the ideas posted within this thread. But I don't know if they would be any better than the DNR's proposal in either the eventual outcome or their effects on anglers/spearers. But there has to be a balance there, which is where the challenge comes in. Aaron
  8. New statewide Pike Regs

    Sham, thanks for being one that can bring a reality check to the situation here. And I agree 100% with your post. It's completely understandable that many spearers aren't a fan of slots, but not all of them see the world as one that is against them and their sport. And as you said, something needs to be done. The current regulations clearly are not working. Are the current proposed regulations the answer? None of us can say, as they have never been implanted to see the results. But to this point, nothing has officially been proposed and they are more talking points right now than anything. And they can certainly be tweaked or changed significantly. But it's a great start, as a significant change is needed from the current regulations to correct the issues that we are seeing in our fisheries. Aaron
  9. New statewide Pike Regs

    Don't worry, Merk. You're the only one that I see as paranoid here, as you're the only one that would try to interpret Del's post in that way. Good entertainment though. I'll give you that! Aaron
  10. New statewide Pike Regs

    Not getting bent out of shape at all, Merk. As I've stated before, I just like it when discussions are based on actual facts. Something that you willingly stray from more than you stick to them. You like to talk about "sportsman against sportsman". But it sure seems that you are the one that likes to resort to that tactic, not others (until you push their buttons enough to get them to turn on you). Why else would you feel the need to use false information and extreme hypotheticals that you and everyone else knows have no chance in happening? Interesting tactics that you have. And if you really believe what you say, I feel sorry for your level of paranoia that you have. My slots? Do I support slots for pike? Sure I do. They have proven to be very effective on most waters where they have been used. Do I think they are the only way? Hardly. And I'm open to looking and listening to alternatives if they can achieve the same results. Who wouldn't? You say there has to be a better way. And maybe there is. But if there is, maybe we should work to that end rather than fighting with blatant mis-information. The biggest obstacle there is that we absolutely need more harvest of the smaller pike. How do you achieve that without somehow restricting (I didn't say eliminate) the harvest of the medium to larger sized pike? I know you like to paint the picture that anyone that supports more restrictive pike regulations (when it comes to the medium to larger fish) are somehow anti-spearing and anti-harvest...yet another fallacy that you cling to with every step. But nearly every time that I have been on the ice in the last 6 to 8 years, it has been in a spear house. So do you think I am anti-spearing or want spearing to go away? Stick to factual information, and I'm sure you will find many more people that you see eye to eye with. But you have to be willing to admit that it's not you against the world for that to happen. Aaron
  11. New statewide Pike Regs

    Don't let the facts get in the way, Merk. May as well tell us that those proposals have a 20" to 40" protected slot. But that might be too blatant of a lie to sneak past people. Aaron
  12. New statewide Pike Regs

    Merk, you wouldn't be happy if you didn't have anything to complain about. You make that abundantly clear with every post that you make. I'm sure that Muskies Inc, the MMPA, and anyone associated with muskies in anyway owes you a personal apology for caring about the fisheries as a whole, and not just one species or each person's "right" to harvest anything that they want if it's done "responsibly". Aaron
  13. New statewide Pike Regs

    It looks like Merkman is making a desperation Hail Mary attempt with that last post. So the northern pike problems that are common in the majority of our lakes are a muskie issue? That's funny stuff! Aaron
  14. New statewide Pike Regs

    Thanks, B420. Good to know that they are at least taking that part of the sport into account. Now let's focus on improving the statewide pike regulations and improve the overall health of our fisheries. I would anticipate some tweaks to the proposed changes shown in the presentation here. But it's a great starting point to making some long overdue changes to the regulations. Would love to be able to take more than 3 pike under 22" to help thin out the hammer handles and have some great table fare as well! Aaron
  15. New statewide Pike Regs

    I'm really not trying to compare anything. I just want the comparisons being made to be using actual real life facts. Seems deceptive to act like it's either a dead fish or zero harm done when spearing. I don't know what any of this has to do with the potential new pike regs. But it's a shame to get off track with the same old nonsense all the time. Aaron