Thoughts on Pike regulations (40"+)

[Jack Peterson]

Would like your thoughts on lakes smaller than 500 acres with a 40" Northern Pike regulation.

I personally get annoyed with these regulations on such small lakes, and I'm giving a speech against them in my Public Speaking class. What are your thoughts? I need to try and persuade my audience why the regulations are bad.

Note: Everyone's entitled to their own opinion. Even if you can only think of good reasons, a couple bad reasons would help!

Thanks, Jack.

[Jack Peterson]

Also, a few members of the class are tree hugging DNR students. It'll be hard to persuade those guys, I can guarantee that.

[PurpleFloyd]

They are doing it for muskies so why not for Pike? Personally I would rather see limits on Pike and less stocking of muskies.

[Dylan33]

I don't know a whole lot about it, but to me the regs don't seem like abad thing. Leave the trophy fish to reproduce(although some will say that the really big fish don't reproduce) and primarily to be caught again. Why is it bad?

[cbrooks]

I guess I would side with the "treehuggers" on supporting a 40" inch slot reg. Is this for every lake in Minnesota under 500 acres. It really depends on the lake. For the sake of the argrument I would say if you take 40 inch pike out of the lake it will be replaced by stunted pike IMO. I'm no marine biologist either. Am I right or wrong?

[Jack Peterson]

I need to clarify! I encourage keeping 40" pike in a lake!

What I don't want are thousands and thousands of 20" pike, because people can't harvest the small ones!

Edit: I want a 30"-40" slot at the least...

[JimBuck]

I would also have to side with the "treehuggers" in this case. Having fished lakes with CPR and slot limits protecting pike, I think slots and tighter regulations really do help in improving the fishery. I'm no biologist but I can't see the reason to not protect 40+" pike. I'd love to have more trophy pike opportunities in the state.

[Nick Kuhn]

I think he's singling out a few lakes (Crow Wing Chain) that have such a regulation. Small lakes can easily kick out 40" fish, so I have no problem with the regulation.

[cbrooks]

I'm a little confuse. In your first post your sounded like your not in favor of the 40" reg then in your second post you say you encourage people keeping 40" pike in the lake. Atleast thats how I understood it. Whats the conflict here? Sorry if I'm missing something.

[solbes]

I'm in support of the 40" min too. I fish some of those lakes on the Crow wing chain and it's a lot of fun. And getting better all the time I would imagine.

Two things. I don't think that the 40" min regulation will necessarily give you a population with an overabundance of 20" pike. Rather the BIG girls will keep some of that population in check and prevent it from getting out of hand.

If I owned property on one of those lakes, I would rather see a protected slot of say 25-40" because I do like to harvest the 20-25 inchers from time to time. But overall I think the regs are improving the size structure of pike. Not like it was 40-50 years ago, but trophy pike are fun to chase.

Here's a good thread from this site for additional insight from others:

http://www.hotspotoutdoors.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/2205655/Searchpage/1/Main/236952/Words/%2Areg%2A/Search/true/Re_The_Future_of_Northern_Pike#Post2205655

[goose89]

40" (30"+ IMO) Pike do more fisheries management, naturally, than any other tool we have. Top apex predators (pike, musky) are essential to healthy fisheries. Those of us that are "scared" or them, are IMO uneducated.

We should be asking the DNR for more pike management. Mille Lacs had pike restrictions WAY before all the walleye and SM regs, and even before the muskie boom. They had a healthy top apex population of pike before moving forward with the rest.............any problems with Mille Lacs in the last decade??

"Tree huggers"??? lol. Poor choice of words. You're DNR classmmates are the ones in the know in this matter.

[goose89]

Jack, you might want some input from the DNR as well. Dean B., at the Glenwood office might get back to you in time for your speech. PM me if you'd like. I've got some interesting info from him on this very subject. You might disagree with most of it, but it's solid info.

[Jack Peterson]

I'm not "mad" about the crow wing chain, I'm "mad" about a 256 acre lake that has a 40" minimum. I mean seriously?? A lake that small can't support a large amount of 40"+ fish. All the fish I ever catch are 20", 25", 30", 33", or 36"...I've seen four 40"+ fish caught out of the lake, but it's a VERY rare occasion. I just want to see the DNR open spearing on these lakes again, so people can thin out the population of stupid Northerns.

Since the regulations started, the crappie population disappeared, and the bluegill population shrunk drastically. The neighbor kids can't even catch eater panfish off of the dock anymore. All the panfish are the size of a silver dollar.

I just want some other opinions so I know what I'm going to get back from my speech (feedback).

Goose: Tree huggers wasn't a poor choice of words. These few kids are serious tree huggers. Ha...seriously!

[Jack Peterson]

I'm in support of the 40" min too. I fish some of those lakes on the Crow wing chain and it's a lot of fun. And getting better all the time I would imagine.

Two things. I don't think that the 40" min regulation will necessarily give you a population with an overabundance of 20" pike. Rather the BIG girls will keep some of that population in check and prevent it from getting out of hand.

If I owned property on one of those lakes, I would rather see a protected slot of say 25-40" because I do like to harvest the 20-25 inchers from time to time. But overall I think the regs are improving the size structure of pike. Not like it was 40-50 years ago, but trophy pike are fun to chase.

Here's a good thread from this site for additional insight from others:

http://www.hotspotoutdoors.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/2205655/Searchpage/1/Main/236952/Words/%2Areg%2A/Search/true/Re_The_Future_of_Northern_Pike#Post2205655

Thanks for the thread solbes! That had some good opinions and info in it!

I wish the DNR would put a 30"-40" slot on my local lake rather than only over 40"...I just want to get rid of some of those smaller fish that are consuming my panfish too.

[reinhard1]

i am also confused. do you want 40in plus pike or not? i am in favor of saving big pike. actualy i am in favor of realeasing all pike over 36 inches. the pike take care of themselves. all predators do. if your in favor of spearing and helping the pike population than favor a law of realesing all pike over 36 in. regulations on smaller lakes may have to be adjusted with a higher small pike populations with increased limites on small pike with the 36 in. max in place. just my opinion. good luck.

[DTro]

Well, it's possible that with such regulations you will see more 40" pike in those small lakes.

But....I can see your point in wanting to possible keep a 30"er to eat.

In the end it comes down to either people wanting fish to eat, or fish to catch. My personal opinion is that there can be a happy medium with a protected slot.

Probably doesn't help your argument....sorry

[DTro]

For those confused, I'm pretty sure he is referring to a 40" minimum to harvest.

[Jack Peterson]

For those confused, I'm pretty sure he is referring to a 40" minimum to harvest.

What he said. Thanks buddy.

[Jack Peterson]

Oh yeah, I absolutely LOVE catching big pike and walleyes, but when they consume my panfish it's a different story.

I want big pike, and less tiny pike.

Wouldn't thinning out the smaller pike make the bigger pike bigger?

[reinhard1]

i have had a long day, sorry i am still confused. are you saying anything over 40in can be kept or anything under 40in can be kept? good luck.

[Jack Peterson]

Anything over 40" can be kept, anything under 40" must be IMMEDIATELY put back in the water.

256 acre lake + 40" minimum slot = bad idea in my opinion. would like a better slot. 28-40", 30-40", or 36-40" protected would seem like a better option to me.

[goblueM]

ok now that we've had 3 pages of posts and finally got things cleared up...

like you said, a 30-40 inch protected slot would be much better, encouraging harvest of the smaller pike while keeping the big girls around. whether you want to do that by encouraging angler harvest or spearing harvest is the "how", not the "why"

keep in mind when you are giving your talk, its not about "winning" over the "tree huggers"... clearly thought out points and good logic + not being overzealous will do a much better job for you than getting frustrated at someone because of their ideology

remember, separate the people from the problem, and be soft on people but hard on the problem

[Jack Peterson]

Thanks! I won't mention the opposite side. Just give my stance, and say that's how it should be.

[reinhard1]

ok. i agree with the 30 to 40 in protected slot. some may want to realease pike over 40 as i do and some may want to mount them. personaly, i realease all pike over 30 in. . just my thing. good luck.

[goose89]

Whoa. I was confused as well. Still not sure why you'd encourage fish over 40" being harvested, but I totally agree with the slot "at least". I can appreciate the option of keeping over 40"s, but wouln't encourage it out of fear of them damaging the fishery.

Do you think the tree hugging DNR students really would have a tough time swallowing a 30-40" slot?? I don't, but I guess I don't know them. Your suggestion (now that it's a bit more clear) is pretty close to what the DNR has proposed / suggested around Alex area, but with much opposition. Good luck with the project.