organization to help Northern Pike fishery

[Jameson]

...I think even people who spear would like to go to a lake that has a potential record fish, but it depends if you are hunting for a trophy or to eat. ...

I spear on a metro lake without special regs, and have seen a 40"+ pike each of the last two years. We already have lakes with potential record fish. Some are looking to make it easy to catch big fish.

It really isn't about hunting for a trophy or something to eat. It is about if you are out to fish, or just to catch.

[RK]

Hiya -

Merk - it isn't personal. With you, or anyone else frankly.

What I have a problem with is the arguments you make, and logical fallacy you've used to support them.

Quote:

Close the winter season on them, yes make it illegal to catch and release them in the winter just like the muskie is now.

Keep going until you have a state wide 48 inch minimum on northern pike too

Don’t be satisfied with that though.

Keep on pushing to ban tip-ups, bobber fishing, live bait, what ever else floats your boat.

Heck after you succeed at banning every method other than your own, the greens will have easy work of finishing the job off.

There will be lots of northern pike then, you won’t be able to do much but look at them, but they will be there.

Minnesota can then change their nickname to the land of 10,000 aquariums.

That is what the greens are after anyway isn’t it?

When you argue that supporting better pike management by using slot limits on some lakes will inevitably lead to bans on bobber fishing (huh?), live bait, 48" minimum size limits on pike, and eventually a fishing ban all together...it's a logical fallacy. Saying that a proposition (we should support things like special regs on pike) is false because if it is true it will logically lead to a conclusion that is an absurdity is reductio ad absurdum. It's no argument at all. Or at least not a valid one.

If you've read what I've written and listened to my testimony at the legislature as you say you have, then you should know I've said many, many times I'm not anti-spearing. I get asked fairly often by hardcore muskie guys why I'm not at the legislature trying to get spearing banned altogether. (There are certainly people who have that opinion, and not all of them are muskie anglers by any means...) I tell them I'm not because I don't think it should be banned. When I testified about Cass Lake, my point then, and now, was that there is a statutorily mandated process already in place for addressing issues like this, and that it should be that process, not the legislature, that decides issues like the spearing ban. The spearing interests in the state didn't seem to object when that very process was used to remove the ban from a dozen lakes a few years ago. Follow the process that is already in place. It's position I've held and publicly stated for more than a decade.

I also, still, reject the argument made by at least some in the spearing community that slot limits are discriminatory. The point of the slot limits is to eliminate harvest of fish in the protected slot. The method of harvest is irrelevant. Spear in December or hook and line in July - dead is dead. I have yet to hear a convincing argument for why being required to follow the same harvest rules as 99% of the other licensed anglers in the state is discrimination?

Saying there has to be leeway on the bottom end just for spearers doesn't make sense. If the bottom of the slot is 24", but spearers had an extra 2" allowance, how will a spearer be any more accurate telling the difference between 26" and 27" than they are telling the difference between 24" and 25"?

I have equal issue with the argument that pike harvest is regulated on too many lakes. As I said before, there are no pike size regs beyond the state wide 1 over 30" on 97% of the state's pike fisheries. Spearers make up 1% of the licensed anglers in Minnesota ( according to DNR data from 2008 - 15,000 darkhouse licenses, 1.5 million angling licenses.). So the argument boils down to this: for 1%, access to 97% of the pike lakes without any size restrictions at all isn't enough. Sorry - I can't accept that reasoning.

Wring your hands all you want about wishing for compromise, but when any limitation at all on spearing isn't acceptable, there's not much room left for debate. Is there?

I'm not asking for a total ban on spearing. Never have.

I'm not asking for pike regs on every lake in the state. Never have.

What I am asking for...have been asking for...will keep asking for, is a pike management strategy on at least a few lakes in the state that protect the fishery from the over-exploitation that has been the norm in Minnesota for decades.

It's not about you, me, spearing, muskies or politics.

It's about the fish. And it's about the fishery.

[merkman]

It's not about you, me, spearing, muskies or politics.

It's about the fish. And it's about the fishery.

Mr Robb Kimm,

I have read enough of your articles and listened to enough of your testimony in the MN Legislature to know where you stand on issues such as tip-ups, bobber fishing, live bait, and darkhouse spearing sportsmen (to name a few).

Once again

Thank You for your input.

[AWH]

Some are looking to make it easy to catch big fish.

It really isn't about hunting for a trophy or something to eat. It is about if you are out to fish, or just to catch.

Catching big fish is great. I don't know anyone that would rather catch a hammer handle than a big pike. But that's really not what it comes down to and it's not about "making things easy". It comes down to helping to create more healthy fisheries. Lakes with healthy pike populations with a good distribution of large fish are far more healthy all around fisheries than lakes with large numbers of hammer handles. Anyone that enjoys fishing for ANY species should encourage regulations that support healthy pike populations.

Aaron

[merkman]

Anyone that enjoys fishing for ANY species should encourage regulations that support healthy pike populations.

.... while not killing their sport in the process.

[Nick Kuhn]

I don't mind that slot, but a 24-40" protected seems to make more sense to me. I guess if the lake does not have a lot of spawning areas the 0-40" makes sense.

In spending 2 hours fishing a 0-40" lake, we boated a 35 incher so I do believe it works.

That regulation comes mostly from SE Wisconsin. In terms of chances at big pike I think that area is second only to Canadian waters. URL/BWCA come in at a distant 3rd.

[AWH]

Absolutely, Merk. And I've yet to see anyone's sport that is killed by smart regulations that help to enhance our fisheries. On the flip side, regulations that do not promote healthy fisheries can kill many people's enjoyment on the water from panfishermen, to walleye fishermen, to pike fishermen, and even spear fishermen. I live near a local lake without any special regulations. It's absolutely loaded full of pike...they're all stunted. Interesting that I've never seen a spear house out there. So has the lack of regulations killed spear fishing on that lake? It's not because there's a lack of pike that people don't spear on this crystal clear water.

Aaron

[merkman]

I live near a local lake without any special regulations. It's absolutely loaded full of pike...they're all stunted.

Would that be Sibley or Rice?

No lakefinder info on Rice but here is the info on Sibley

Past northern pike catch rates generally have ranged from "low" to "average," where the 1997 catch fell.

Pike were 16-35 inches long, averaging 23 inches and 3.7 lbs. in size.

Growth was "good."

The 1993 year class was most abundant of the six year classes sampled.

[AWH]

Neither one and Sibley is anything but crystal clear.

Aaron

[B420]

Merk,

Try Lake Edward in Crow Wing County, I believe this is what AWH is talking about. I fish there in the winter and you cannot keep the pike off the line no matter what you are fishing.

[AWH]

That's a good one too, B420. But that's not the one I'm referring to. No spear houses on Edward either?

Aaron

[B420]

I haven't seen any out there myself. I am guessing if a guy did set up there you would have non-stop action!

[AWH]

So what you're saying is that the lack of pike regulations on Edward is a defacto spearing ban because of all the stunted pike???? Instead of the 45 out of 48 that I've heard about...48 out of 48 must choose to go elsewhere as a result!

Aaron

[foulpole18]

Aaron why do we keep getting sucked into Merks arguement? He asked tons of the same questions but never answers any that others ask him. Any regs on any lakes will never make him happy. He wants the minority to get everything regardless of what's good for the fishery. I think he's an excellent troller though. Based on how he always gets us to argue the samething with him.

[AWH]

Not getting sucked in at all. Just need some entertainment this morning. Merk's argument is...give me everything I want and once you do that, give me more!

Aaron

[foulpole18]

I suppose it like watchin Caddyshack, I've seen it 100's of times and always watch it when it's on. Sometimes the classics are better than the fresh material.

[jeffreyd]

Merkman, i do not know what you think my stance is on look and release, but i will make it very clear to everyone right now. I support the Look and Release, as long as that is the only way the fish is released. If you snag, spear, catch, or bring that fish out of the water by any method then to me it is not look and release. To me this is no different than a person who wants to see wildlife up close but does not have a tag (az term) to take one legally. So if i want to risk my life to enter an active hunting area to watch wildlife, then i am able to.

You and I have never met, do not know each other except for exchanging thoughts on this HSOforum. I am a firm believer that if anyone, resident or not, feels that there is a possibility of habitat and species destruction or loss from any place in the US, can voice his/her concerns to the dnr.

I do not fish with cameras, never have, heck would not know how to even go about it. Do I think it is right, I do not think it is for me, how others want to fish is their deal not for me to worry about. If the Dnr feels it is ok then i guess that is good for the folks that fish that way, to me it takes the challenge away.

But from what I have read on this forum, clearly there is some heartburn between you and others about this subject.

Me, i have no heartburn toward anyone or any part of the sport, however the fact still remains that if a person spears a pike, that pike is done, will not ever grow any bigger unless you can get the taxidermist to make it larger.

Not doing my own research, only going off of what numbers are posted on here, it is clear the darkhouse spearers are not the majority. However 15k of the people pay for license and put their monies into the state fund each year. So while the voice may not be heard as loud from this group, one has to think where the state generates the most funding from. I would guess it is from the hook and line guys that pay the most of the cost for the fishery. Not saying that your money does not go into the fund, but if you take the 15k vs the overall number, 1%-2% is not going to impact the fund that much. So in the best interest of the people, they are going to change the whole structure of fishing based on 1% of the people. Right or wrong, this is just the fact. Heck they may not change it if 90% of the people asked, they are going to do what the scientist tell them.

What i can tell you from a wildlife statistic is that if too many people start raising cane over this issue, they will and probably shut the sport down. Fair no, right no, can they do it, yes. Will they, depends on how much yelling and screaming and lack of NEW agenda the people have. If the spearers go in with the same mentality as they have had in the past, eventually if not already, the dnr will not be willing to listen.

I will be the first to say that i do not know much about the sport, or the fishery that you all discuss, i am going off of common sense approach and experience as the president of a hunting group that deals with similar issues. I can give you names of people that the AZGFD commission will not listen to. It is because of the approach they have taken in the past to get their agenda heard.

I will say that I will agree to disagree and leave it at that.

[merkman]

Merkman, i do not know what you think my stance is on look and release, but i will make it very clear to everyone right now. I support the Look and Release, as long as that is the only way the fish is released.

[jeffreyd]

One last question Merk, and i hope you give me an honest answer. What would you and the other darkhouse spearers do if DNR said they were going to shut the sport down? How would your sport approach this?

[RK]

I have read enough of your articles and listened to enough of your testimony in the MN Legislature to know where you stand on issues such as tip-ups, bobber fishing, live bait, and darkhouse spearing sportsmen (to name a few).

Once again

Thank You for your input.

You seem to feel you know my opinions on these issues, but in case anyone else is wondering (and maybe on the off chance it'll clear up any misconceptions you might have)...

Tip-ups - I think used responsibly there's no issue at all with tip-ups. I've written several articles on fishing pike with tip-ups in fact. I use them a lot. The only issue I see with tip-ups is when they're unattended and fish (of any species) swallow the hook. I'd like to see guys use quick strike rigs more. There is a lot of research showing that single hook swallow rigs like the Swedish hooks a lot of guys use for pike under tip-ups have pretty high mortality rates on released fish. I'd REALLY like to see the language defining a lure changed in the regs so that quick strike rigs aren't illegal without a completely superfluous spinner blade. All of those points are ones I've made in print in the past. It's just a matter of education and, in the case of the lure definition, fixing the unintended consequence of a rule that's supposed to prohibit snagging with a bare treble hook...

What I've never said is that tip-ups should be banned. Suggesting that because I think they can be used irresponsibly I therefore think the should be banned is another fallacious argument - a straw man.

Bobbers? I know I hate it when the bobber stop gets jammed in the little hole at the top, but that's my own fault for buying cheap bobbers and forgetting to put on a bead.... Maybe you mean something along the same lines as tip-ups? If so - straw man.

Live bait? Live or dead, if someone's using it for pike or muskies, I've advocated using quick strike rigs, (again, a position I've publicly held for a decade and change) because used properly they're the most fish-friendly if people want to release fish. They have the added benefit of having the best hooking percentage besides, so they just plain work better, release and hooking mortality completely aside. There are some muskie guys who look down their nose at using live bait. I'm certainly not one of them. Using suckers in the fall is a hoot. My wife's biggest muskie (a 35 pounder) was on a sucker a few years ago. But are you suggesting that because I support using quick strike rigs to reduce delayed mortality, I'm against live bait use? If so - straw man.

The MDHA... I have no issue at all with the organization's stated objectives. I disagree with some of the organization's positions on what it takes to achieve those objectives. And I disagree with some of the methods they've used to achieve them. Simple as that. But spearing as a traditional method that should be preserved? Totally agree...

Not sure what argument you're making with this post. Certainly none that address the points I brought up... I ask about specific issues, and you choose to bring up my thoughts on tip ups, live bait, and bobbers, of all things. (The bobbers angle has me totally baffled...)

But maybe here's why you brought it up:

1.) Topic A is being discussed.

2.) Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A, when topic B is in fact not relevant to topic A.

3.) Topic A is abandoned.

That logical fallacy is called "The Red Herring."

If you want to debate the issues, debate the issues. But come up with some real arguments for your position, not logical fallacies so old they have Latin names...

[merkman]

One last question Merk, and i hope you give me an honest answer. What would you and the other darkhouse spearers do if DNR said they were going to shut the sport down? How would your sport approach this?

[cbrooks]

I wonder if Merkman will thank you for your input this time:)

[smnduck]

How would you feel about spearing that big cat on you avatar Elwood? Would you honestly try for a bigger one?

[jeffreyd]

Merk, this quote was taken from the State of MN accountability HSOforum. Clearly there are far more anglers in MN than you think. So lets for the sake of of the number we say 1.2 of the licensed folks are residents. At the 17 bucks a year for a license that is 20.4 mi into the system, where the spearers (15000) bring in roughly 187k per year. Do you really think that they would shut the whole sport down for 187,000.00 a year? even a million? these numbers to not represent the non resident who pays double of the normal resident fee. If you do, then your praying for a miracle and there will be more people upset about that then the handful of darkhouse folks that are mad now. Please know that this is not a personal attack toward you in any way, just disputing facts.

"Minnesota’s rich natural heritage is integral to its citizens’ high quality of life. Minnesota has 578,000 hunters and trappers (ranked seventh in the nation in 2006), 1.4 million licensed anglers (fourth in the nation), and 2.1 million wildlife watchers (14th in the nation). In 2006, Minnesota was ranked 12th nationally for retail sales related to hunting and trapping ($494 million) and first for retail sales related to angling ($2.7 billion)."

[merkman]

jeffreyd,

There are 5.2 Million residents in Minnesota, of that 5.2 Million 1.4 Million bought a fishing license. Add the non licensed and I can see where that would be somewhere between 27 to 29%.

Yes, if the majority of Minnesotans who don't fish voted to remove all fishing from the minority of Minnesotans who fish, I could see that causing a uproar.

It does kinda make you think though since we are talking what if's;

What if the 2.1 million wildlife watchers told the 1.4 million anglers we could not hunt or fish anymore, because it threatens their enjoyment of the resource?

None of these "what if's" really matter anyway,

I think we are at the point of trying to argue for arguments sake.

I will agree that it is best that we agree to disagree.

At least we can agree that it is not a crime nor unethical to responsibly harvest a deer. We do have that in common anyway.