New statewide Pike Regs

[walleye101]

Again, your point about recruitment/replacement of small pike is accurate no matter how it was depicted. And as I said that is the reason why expanded bag limits on small pike alone will not fix the problem without some added suppression from larger pike.

[laker1]

You look at some of the biggest population studies of northern pike in Minnesota and studies have shown from the fall of the first year your going to lose about 50% of the fish annually,either by predation in the early years to natural mortality and angling in the age 2+(18-22 inches) and above.

Do the math-example start with 100 fish-50-25-12-6-3 and on. Takes only 5 years+ and the pike which would be decent are gone.

Now the plan is to reduce the angling mortality of about age 3 and up. Trying to harvest the fish 18 inches and under would be a big task in itself by angling and it usually if not always has failed.

Also many lakes with limited forage base and are hammerhandle lakes will probably always be hammerhandle lakes.

What I am saying one regulation will not be a fix all.

[delcecchi]

You guys might find this book interesting...

If you don't want to spend 35 bucks, probably your local library has it. The Rochester Public Library does, and there are always inter-library loans.

[derbier122x]

Del, I will be checking the st cloud library in the morning. Thanks for the suggestion

[Getanet]

I've been loosely following this thread, as the lake my family's cabin is on has a ton of hammer handles too (although it could be argued the bass have taken over). I'm not sure if everyone saw this Dennis Anderson story from a year ago, but I thought some of you might find it interesting. It's about some guys who have what is essentially a private lake near Walker, and they have been meticulously managing the lake for 20 years. Long story short, it does appear possible to grow larger pike, but the conditions to do it don't seem plausible on a typical lake where you can't restrict access and get everyone to agree on what to harvest:

http://www.startribune.com/sports/outdoors/246714201.html?page=1&c=y

Anderson: Could fishing on 'Dream Lake' become the norm?

NEAR WALKER, MINN. – Call it a Minnesota angler’s Dream Lake — a body of water with lots of voracious fish, some of which have been caught, measured and weighed as many as 20 times before being returned to the frigid depths below.

Perhaps someday all Minnesota lakes will be managed similarly.

“Wouldn’t it be nice,’’ said Dallas Hudson, “if everyone could fish lakes where the fish aren’t stunted or haven’t been killed off by people keeping too many?’’

One of four landowners on a 160-acre private lake that he and others are researching, Hudson spoke on a recent day while a half-dozen of us stood over 2 feet of hard water. Every 20 minutes or so, someone set the hook on a northern pike, hoping to hand-line it through a watery cylinder Hudson had bored into the ice.

For about 20 years, Hudson and lifelong fishing pal Steve Bayman, both of Akeley, Minn., and both 49, have forsworn keeping northern pike from this lake. They also release most crappies and bluegills, withholding only the smaller specimens for an occasional meal.

The reason: They got sick of catching hammer-handle-size northerns, puny crappies and miniature bluegills — the result, they say, of too many people, themselves included, catching and keeping too many fish, particularly big fish.

The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has joined Hudson and Bayman on their excellent fishing adventure, and it allows them to implant identification tags in fish they catch and release in the lake.

“Dallas’ work shows us pretty clearly how vulnerable northerns, in particular, are to being caught,’’ said DNR area fisheries supervisor Doug Kingsley of Park Rapids, Minn. “When you can catch the same fish 15 times over, and sometimes two times in the same day, it seems clear that in many lakes we need to limit the harvest of larger fish if we want bigger northern pike in our lakes.’’

For Hudson and Bayman, the conversion from fish keepers to fish researchers-cum-release artists was a long time coming. And perhaps somewhat surprising, given their northern Minnesota street cred as pickup-driving, Carhartt-wearing, gun-toting hunters, trappers and fishermen.

“As a kid after school in winter, I’d walk onto 11th Crow Wing Lake to catch — and keep — a lot of walleyes,’’ Hudson said. “And spear northerns. I killed a lot of northerns.’’

But finally, desperation set in. That’s because 11th Crow Wing is no longer the angling mecca it once was, and neither, Hudson said, are other lakes in the Akeley and Walker area.

More specifically to his fishing interests, no longer did the lake he lives on boast bragging-size northerns. Or, for that matter, plump bluegills. Or slab crappies.

“Too many people keeping too many fish,’’ he said. “It’s that way in most Minnesota lakes.’’

So along with Bayman, Hudson struck a deal with his fellow lakeshore owners. There would be no spearing. No keeping northerns caught by hook and line. And no getting greedy with big panfish — bluegills particularly.

“I’ve always been curious how things in nature work,’’ said Hudson, a hydrotechnician with the U.S. Geological Survey. “What kind of plant is that? What kind of animal is that?’’

Now he asked himself: Is it possible to once again have larger fish in his lake? Walleyes, he knew, were out of the question without stocking, because they had been fished out decades ago.

Nor would there be a comeback for muskies, a fish that was native to his lake but that also had been eradicated by fishing pressure.

But what about northerns, bluegills and crappies — the lake’s bread and butter fish? Were they forever destined to be stunted representations of their former selves?

Or could the lake — whose water quality and vegetation benefit from limited shoreline development — be returned to its more natural state, with fish across a broad spectrum of age and size structures, including older, bigger fish?

These many years later, the answer seems to be “yes.” And not just for northerns but for bluegills and crappies, too.

•••

Consider:

Of the 97 northern pike caught this winter from Hudson’s study lake, only seven hadn’t been caught previously. In fact, as a group, the 97 fish had been caught and released a total of 431 times.

And of those 97, a total of 24 measured 30 inches or longer — fish that had been caught over the course of their lives an average of 6.83 times apiece.

“Now think about how long it takes a fish to grow,’’ Hudson said. “A northern in our lake will take six years to reach 24 inches and nine years to reach 30 inches and weigh 7 or 8 pounds.

“So it becomes pretty obvious what happens if people keep not only the bigger fish, but the medium-sized fish, say 24- to 30-inch northerns. You end up with what we have in many Minnesota lakes: stunted fish.’’

Just then, another tip-up flag stood upright, and two of Hudson’s volunteer anglers for the day, Sam Hunter of Nevis, Minn., and Megan Malone of Menahga, Minn., raced in its direction.

Hunter is a DNR conservation officer and Malone an emergency medical technician. Both were enjoying some off-duty time helping Bayman and Hudson catch, measure, weigh and tag northern pike.

“Got it!’’ Malone said as she set the hook on yet another toothy fish.

This northern, once winched into the bright sunlight, proved small — and a rarity: It bore no tag; therefore, it hadn’t been caught before.

With a surgeon’s alacrity, Hudson quickly measured the fish, attached an ID tag to it and removed a scale from its side to determine its growth rate and age.

Then the fish was returned to the water, likely to be caught again. And again. And again.

•••

Kingsley, the DNR fisheries manager, believes Hudson’s and Bayman’s research, along with similar studies, shows that the often-referenced Minnesota goal of returning bigger northern pike to state lakes is unlikely to occur, given current harvest regulations that allow anglers three northerns daily, with one over 30 inches.

“Depending on an individual lake and the fishing pressure it sustains, it’s possible its northern pike population can’t even sustain a regulation allowing anglers one fish greater than 24 inches a day,’’ he said.

Conversely, smaller “hammer-handle’’ northerns likely can be harvested from most lakes in quantities greater than three a day, if anglers could be convinced to do it.

Complicating the DNR’s fish management options is a law passed by the Legislature in 2011 at the behest of spearing proponents that limits the establishment of length-based fish harvest regulations to 100 lakes in the state.

“I don’t have all the answers,’’ Hudson said. “But it’s pretty obvious we’ve been taking too many large fish from our lakes. Which might also explain why many of our lakes have so many small fish, northerns in particular, because a larger population of big fish could reduce the population of small fish.

“Someday, I’d like to see the DNR allow everyone to tag fish. Then when they catch fish and see they’re tagged, they’d understand the fish have been caught before and that maybe the fish should be released so they can be caught again.’’

Dennis Anderson • [email protected]

[laker1]

Book mentioned above is very good.

[CANOPY SAM]

Excellent article, Getanet. Thanks for posting.

Seems fairly straight forward really. If we want to see more big pike on a regular basis we can't keep killing 30+ inch pike.

I did a little research on pike growth last year, and I was really surprised to find out that young pike grow incredibly fast, but then growth rates drop dramatically into years 3,4,5, etc., to where they are sometimes growing less then an inch per year after only a few years of age. This means that a lot of those 28-34 inch fish are actually pretty old. And the 40+ inch fish are the real old timers. Take those out of the system, and we're eliminating the prime spawning fish in the lake or river.

Guys, I don't presume to know all the answers, but it seems pretty obvious that if we want to see big pike in the future we've gotta stop harvesting the 30+ inch fish.

I completely agree with what SloughShark said earlier, that every lake does not produce trophy sized fish (which, by the way, is why I said "most" lakes, and not "every" lake). Some lakes simply have much better topography, water quality, forage, ecology, etc., to support and nurture the growth of big fish. While others are little more then duck ponds.

I suppose that's why the DNR do not apply blanket regs covering every lake in the state. Perhaps it would be best to implement Trophy Regulations on the premier pike lakes in the state? Protecting all fish over 24 inches in the 50 best pike lakes in Minnesota?

I often fish a little lake north of Bemidji where they have implemented Trophy Bass regulations. If I remember correctly, all fish larger then 16 or 18 inches are to be immediately released back to the water? This has worked remarkably well, and the remainder of the lake is rich with a broad age group of walleye, pike, and panfish as well! I'd imagine the same approach would work just as well on pike, wouldn't it?

It seems like the Northern Pike in Minnesota are finally starting to get the attention they deserve. The way people view fishing, and harvesting fish, is changing dramatically. That's good. It's about time.

There were about 19 pages of drivel in this thread. I really like the way the tone of this thread has changed as well. Thanks for the recent intelligent, and applicable input guys. Nice to see meaningful, unbiased discussion.

[RK]

I've had very very little time to keep track of this whole discussion much less chime in, but...

One thing to not lose sight of is that these proposed regulations are not just about developing a quality pike fishery, but about trying to correct some of the very real negative effects out of balance pike populations have on the fishery as a whole.

Especially in the Central region of the proposed regs, the evidence around the effect high populations of what are essentially juvenile (smaller than 22") pike is pretty hard to argue with. Walleye stocking success rates suffer, perch populations suffer (or flat out disappear). The entire fishery suffers.

Those saying that not every lake can produce big pike are absolutely correct. But that doesn't mean they can't have a better population balance in relation to the rest of the fishery, and a better fishery overall as a result. If the sole objective of these regulations were to create a better pike fishery, I think the proposed regs would look very very different than they currently do.

The "pike problem" in Minnesota isn't anything new. You can go back to stuff written in the In-Fishermen by Denny Schupp, the former fisheries manager in Brainerd, more than 20 years ago. What is different now is, thanks to guys like Rod Pierce, and years of experiemntal and special regs research, we have a much better understanding of pike biology and population dynamics actually work.

It's impossible to talk about pike without spearing, etc., coming into the discussion. And I definitely think a better pike fishery is not only possible but something to aspire to.

But for many of the bodies of water out there, these regs have less to do with quality pike, spearing, etc., and a lot more to do with what the current reality of pike populations is doing to the rest of the fishery.

[merkman]

There were about 19 pages of drivel in this thread. I really like the way the tone of this thread has changed as well. Thanks for the recent intelligent, and applicable input guys. Nice to see meaningful, unbiased discussion.

Meaningful, unbiased discussion..... another way of saying thanks for agreeing with my biased opinion.

.

[delcecchi]

[Note from admin: edited]

[merkman]

[Note from admin: edited. Please read forum policy before posting again. Thank you.]

[walleye101]

There were about 19 pages of drivel in this thread. I really like the way the tone of this thread has changed as well. Thanks for the recent intelligent, and applicable input guys. Nice to see meaningful, unbiased discussion.

Well it was nice while it lasted. Apparently it didn't take long to go back to the drivel.

[CANOPY SAM]

Awww, don't sweat it Walleye101. It's "old hat" on this site. You can't even throw out a compliment without getting hamstrung here.

Water off a duck's back....

Quack...quack....

Almost March!!! Gettin' the tip-ups ready for the Woods in only a few more days!!!

[20lbSloughShark]

I just requested the book through my college. It should be here monday. I think the general consensus on this board is that splitting the state into 3 sections like was proposed is a bad idea. What I am interested in is the regs that are currently on Mille Lacs. I would be willing to bet the size of pike will improve on the lake, as well as other species. I'd love to see more lakes with less restrictive regs other than protecting the larger fish. The one over 30" is a great way to go, and promotes harvest of the abundant small fish.

[delcecchi]

One thing I found peculiar was that in the book a "large pike" is like 22 or 24 inches. Excellent book.

[walleye101]

I just requested the book through my college. It should be here monday. I think the general consensus on this board is that splitting the state into 3 sections like was proposed is a bad idea. What I am interested in is the regs that are currently on Mille Lacs. I would be willing to bet the size of pike will improve on the lake, as well as other species. I'd love to see more lakes with less restrictive regs other than protecting the larger fish. The one over 30" is a great way to go, and promotes harvest of the abundant small fish.

The one over 30" is the ultimate feel good regulation. Everyone loves it because it doesn't effect their harvest, but we all get to feel like it protects large fish.

[merkman]

One thing I found peculiar was that in the book a "large pike" is like 22 or 24 inches. Excellent book.

Just to clarify....

are you saying you agree with the classification of large pike as a pike over 22 to 24 inches and that all large pike(pike over 22 to 24 inches in this case) need to be protected? (from my understanding the definition of the term protected that many use in these forums is NO or extremely reduced kill)

Thanks for the clarification.

.

[walleye101]

Here is how the sizes are defined in the new proposal.

Small = Less than 22"

Medium = 22-30"

Large = 30-40"

Trophy = over 40"

[pushbutton]

Thanks 101, but Merc is just trying to out the head of the Rochester chapter of Pretty Pike International. Be careful when communicating in these forums. .....they are everywhere. These PETA type pike lovers will try to lure you in with buzz words like protection of the resource, health of the lake, and balanced populations.......and once they suck you in, they indoctrinate that it is bad to kill anything anytime. I have seen the more militant wings out picketing and throwing pike slime on spear houses, especially targteting the houses with small children and......puppies. It simply is not pretty. Yes, vigilance is needed

[walleye101]

I see your point and will proceed with caution.

[delcecchi]

Merk, I was referring to the definitions as used in the book and his research as best as I can recall them.

[20lbSloughShark]

Thanks 101, but Merc is just trying to out the head of the Rochester chapter of Pretty Pike International. Be careful when communicating in these forums. .....they are everywhere. These PETA type pike lovers will try to lure you in with buzz words like protection of the resource, health of the lake, and balanced populations.......and once they suck you in, they indoctrinate that it is bad to kill anything anytime. I have seen the more militant wings out picketing and throwing pike slime on spear houses, especially targteting the houses with small children and......puppies. It simply is not pretty. Yes, vigilance is needed

Lol, I think I've used all those words and half the meat I eat I harvested myself. I absolutely love rabbit. Then again, PETA doesn't want to protect animals, they would rather "humanely" put down every domestic animal. PETA is about as bad morally as the KKK.