Thoughts on Pike regulations (40"+)

[OnAFly]

I don't agree with the argument that slots will lead to unequal treatment of spearers. It's their responsibility to know the length of the fish they are spearing just like it's the anglers responsibility to know the length of the fish they are keeping. Is it the anglers fault that angling provides an opportunity to measure a fish before deciding to keep/release it?

I guess my counter argument would be: How is this any different from hunting. I had the opportunity to shoot a small buck when I was about 13 years old. I wasn't sure if his tines were more than 3", so I held off. I wasn't absolutely sure this was a legal animal to take, so I didn't take it. The same argument works with pheasants. I don't shoot unless I'm absolutely positive it a rooster. If the bird flies into the sun and I can't see it, I don't shoot. It's happened many times. Be sure of what you are taking before you take it. It's one of the first things you leanr as a young hunter.

If spearers want to take fish on a slot lake, all I ask is that they be sure of what they take, before they take it, just like hunting.

[merkman]

I wasn't sure if his tines were more than 3", so I held off. I wasn't absolutely sure this was a legal animal to take, so I didn't take it.

Most darkhouse spearers would be plenty happy with a one over slot such as this.

On A Fly,

I would be more than happy to take you out darkhouse spearing on a slot limit lake so you can see what it is all about.

The MnDNR method suggests a 98% success rate with look and release.

Compare that to the 5% to 30% slot limit northern pike kill rate with hook and line.

Please show me how to harvest small northern pike (<24 inches) from slot limit lakes with a darkhouse spear 100% correctly 100% of the time with the current rules.

It can't be done 100% right 100% of the time with a hook and line; that is why the current regulatons give the hook and line a free pass when a slot limit northern pike is killed with a hook.

We all know these lakes need more harvest of small northern pike, why then does the MnDNR choose to push darkouse spearers off these lakes though their current regulations?

If you do happen to make a mistake on the "underwater tail pinch" on a live fish you can explain it to a CO, face criminal charges, battle the court system, and every thing else that entails, just because you mistakenly killed a slot limit northern with a spear and not a hook and line.

[cbrooks]

Excellent post smallie_hawkgins.

[Nick Kuhn]

I still disagree with the harvest small pike thinking. Small pike don't stay small forever: small pike are simply replaced by even smaller pike if you kill them. All you are doing is increasing the survivability of the even smaller fish.

[My_Key]

Why does it ALWAYS have to be "anti-spearing" with you? Nearly every post I have seen you make is the same. Your "the world vs the spearers" is really tiresome. Considering how many lakes the state has, and how few lakes have pike restrictions, you have no valid argument.

Personally, I'd love to see a 24-36 slot on EVERY lake. I don't spear, but I have sat in a darkhouse with a friend who does. It was an experience, but I would have preferred to fish out of that hole instead.

[Esox_Magnum]

The difference between an angler and a spearer is the angler has no control on what size of fish bites his lure, a spearer has the option to throw or not.

[AWH]

Please show me how to harvest small northern pike (<24 inches) from slot limit lakes with a darkhouse spear 100% correctly 100% of the time with the current rules.

Pretty simple, really. Knowing before you throw has resulted in 100% compliance in every instance I have ever seen or heard of.

Aaron

[goblueM]

I still disagree with the harvest small pike thinking. Small pike don't stay small forever: small pike are simply replaced by even smaller pike if you kill them. All you are doing is increasing the survivability of the even smaller fish.

you're entitled to your own opinion, but you're disagreeing with decades of established science, and simple biological principles.

a lake is essentially a zero sum game - any given lake can only produce X number of pounds of fish (carrying capacity), due to biological restraints such as available food, habitat, etc.

Lets say the carrying capacity of a lake is 500 pounds of fish total. you could have 500 fish weighing 1 pound apiece, but they would never get any bigger because there isn't enough food to go around, they are limited because there's just not enough food to support any more biomass

now, if we harvested half of those fish, there's now room for more biomass - there's extra food, so the remaining fish can pig out and put on weight, and get bigger (assuming they, too aren't harvested, hence the reason for a slot limit)

hypothetically, and this is obviously all simplified for the sake of explanation, if we harvested 400 of those 1 pound fish, the remaining 100 could all grow to 5 pounds apiece! Of course, there's other mortality, both natural and from fishing, and also reproduction involved, but the principle remains the same - less fish = bigger fish

[walleye101]

Why does it ALWAYS have to be "anti-spearing" with you? Nearly every post I have seen you make is the same. Your "the world vs the spearers" is really tiresome. Considering how many lakes the state has, and how few lakes have pike restrictions, you have no valid argument.

Personally, I'd love to see a 24-36 slot on EVERY lake. I don't spear, but I have sat in a darkhouse with a friend who does. It was an experience, but I would have preferred to fish out of that hole instead.

And some would personally prefer NO slots on ANY lake. So we manage a few lakes with size restrictions to provide some quality fisheries, and we manage others with no size restrictions for maximum harvest opportunity. Why do some think that is not a fair and reasonable compromise?

[mainbutter]

If you do happen to make a mistake on the "underwater tail pinch" on a live fish you can explain it to a CO, face criminal charges, battle the court system, and every thing else that entails, just because you mistakenly killed a slot limit northern with a spear and not a hook and line.

There are plenty of solutions to this problem that would (probably) not result in killing more slot pikes on regulated lakes, and let honest spearers have a bit of safety when it comes to accidents and criminal charges.

I just don't like seeing people proposing "solutions" where the end result is more slot pike ending up with spears in their backs.

[merkman]

So we manage a few lakes with size restrictions to provide some quality fisheries, and we manage others with no size restrictions for maximum harvest opportunity.

Or we manage one Esox as anti-harvest, and the other as responsible harvest.

I have no problem with the intent of slot limits, I do have an issue with the way they are implemented in Minnesota.

I also have large issues with the anti-harvest crowd who uses them as politically correct darkhouse spearing bans.

I also agree that this issue is much bigger than angler vs darkhouse spearer.

It leans more toward the responsible harvest vs the "no harvest" debate.

[mrklean]

man i cant wait till open water is here then we can stop going back and forth on this till next fall

[AWH]

Slots are a tool that encourages/mandates responsible harvest on the waters that they exist. Over the years, I have even seen observant anglers see the positive effects of slots on certain lakes. And these observations have made them adhere to the same slots on non-slot lakes. A few of these people are people that used to harvest large numbers of medium to large pike. Slots have absolutely taught these people the importance of selective/responsible harvest, and this is a great thing.

From what I've read on these forums, it would lead us to believe that if Darkhouse Spearing was illegal, that slots would suddenly be a thing of the past. What causes this much paranoia?

There's a good chance that there's not two people that have posted on this thread that agree on exactly what "responsible harvest" entails. Isn't that why we have professionals with the expertise that can determine what kind of harvest will be best for the health of the fishery?

I have my opinions on what kind of harvest that entails, just as everyone does that has posted here. But when we all have different opinions, I'm sure glad that we have some people with expertise on the matter that can appropriately manage our fisheries for all interests. Maybe some day we can allow them to do their job. Maybe even in our lifetime. Better yet, maybe we can raise license fees enough to allow happy pills to be issued for all licensed anglers. Because we know the DNR will never be able to make everyone happy without them.

Aaron

[walleye101]

I have no problem with the intent of slot limits, I do have an issue with the way they are implemented in Minnesota.

The way they are implemented is through a clearly defined legal process involving considerable public notification and a extensive opportunity for public input.

Most of these regulations are initiated by lake associations, resort owners or concerned fishermen who have observed first hand the decline in pike quality on a particular water and want to do something about it. Explain to them how this new proposed legislation will circumvent the previous legal process that was followed, and despite public support and early indication that the slot limit is working, this lake does not make the top 60 list so will be dropped.

[merkman]

this lake does not make the top 60 list so will be dropped.

Remember when people were happy with 60?

60

90

112

250

10,000

Those are not destinations, they are stepping stones.

Part of the problem is that as with any statistical analysis there is just as much data that proves they work as proves they don't.

Once again when it comes to northern pike slot limits in my book I will keep an open mind until a sufficient time period has elapsed to prove that they actually work.

Most studies I have read tell me they need more time.

There is a reason they are implemented on experimental lakes and the entire premise of slots are based on a hypothesis not fact.

I am willing to give a set number of lakes a try, as long as the implementation is fair to both methods of responsible northern pike harvest.

The current implementation does not provide that level of fairness for both methods.

I don't care if you are a fellow sportsman or PETA itself, nor what tools you use... you try to needlessly ban my sport, don't expect me to go gently.

I would expect the same from any sportsman.

[Spike76]

Merkman, well said, I agree totally.

[goblueM]

i think i hear black helicopters overhead! quick! to the tinfoil darkhouse!

[RK]

Remember when people were happy with 60?

60

90

112

250

10,000

[OnAFly]

You can always tell when we are between seasons. The chatter gets going until people can get out and do something besides type away at a computer.

Merk - I can understand your fear of your sport being banned. Like you said, any sportsman wouldn't sit back and let it happen. But, no one is trying to ban you from spearing. The DNR is trying to manage the lakes for the better size and in turn a healthier lake. This means less taking or more selective taking of fish. It doesn't mean no taking. It doesn't mean only taking by angling. It simply means that if we want better fisheries, we have to show some restraint in what we take. Unfortunately, we can't rely on people to do this themselves, so size regulations are required. If we could rely on everyone being a responsible sportsman all of the time, we wouldn't need any regulations.

[Scott M]

Part of the problem is that as with any statistical analysis there is just as much data that proves they work as proves they don't.

[Nick Kuhn]

I still disagree with the harvest small pike thinking. Small pike don't stay small forever: small pike are simply replaced by even smaller pike if you kill them. All you are doing is increasing the survivability of the even smaller fish.

[goblueM]

...guess what happens when a small pike can eat more food? It gets bigger

[Nick Kuhn]

That's the thinking for sure, but anglers simply will not harvest enough pike ever to make a difference. When you look at people, how much extra does a fat person eat compared to a skinny person? It's almost double. If anglers were out there wiping out 50% of the predatory biomass of a lake year in and year out the fishery would be completely out of wack. Really, having anglers take a few extra pike here removes maybe 2-3% more of the total predatory biomass of the lake, certainly not enough to make a huge difference in fish size/growth rate. In human terms, that would be the equivalent of having 50 extra calories a day.

[gotum]

The increased limits on smaller pike have not worked for many reasons one is that in the lakes they are on bowstring for example the recruitment is simply too high and most people refuse to keep many smaller pike.

[goblueM]

If anglers were out there wiping out 50% of the predatory biomass of a lake year in and year out the fishery would be completely out of wack. Really, having anglers take a few extra pike here removes maybe 2-3% more of the total predatory biomass of the lake, certainly not enough to make a huge difference in fish size/growth rate.

you're trying to argue against the most basic of fisheries science, nick: density-dependent growth. ask any fisheries biologist out there. i know its a little difficult to wrap your head around. it does seem a bit counter-intuitive that removing a bunch of small fish will result in bigger fish, but its well established fact.

comparing fish growth to human growth is.... beyond apples to oranges. I know its hard because that's an easy reference point, but try not to think of the fish growth in terms of human growth, because its not a valid comparison.

many lakes are out of wack precisely BECAUSE anglers remove enough pike to make a difference - that's a big part of why we have hammer handle factories, we remove a lot of the biomass because we selectively target large pike, and as you mentioned, pike are prolific, so we have a ton of hammer handles that are competing against each other. that intra-specific competition results in stunted populations, the most well known of which are potato-chip sunfish populations and hammer handle pike factories.

are you familiar with the term "maximum sustainable yield"? Although we’re beginning to realize the traditional use of maximum sustainable yield in commercial fisheries is not necessarily easy or the most prudent of actions, it is a useful tool for understanding how fish populations grow – which I hope might help explain why when we reduce population size, we actually get much faster growth and can harvest more fish than at extremely high population densities

This is a simple representation of growth rates as a function of population size. At high densities, growth slows because there isn't enough food and all the fish are competing over limited resources (intra-specific competition). However, at half of carrying capacity (the maximum biomass a lake can sustain) the growth rates are fastest, because there are enough individuals to reproduce a lot and we have good recruitment of new individuals into the population, but food is not yet a limiting factor so all fish can still grow fast.

The important point to take away here is that growth in fish is density dependent - the more fish there are, the slower they grow. Remove fish and we get much faster growth, and a much better size structure in our pike population

However, as Gotum astutely pointed out, and you sort of danced around, something that throws a wrench in the works is when anglers do not shift harvest patterns from their preference of harvesting larger pike, and actually do not keep the smaller ones once regulations are applied. So you're partially correct - sometimes anglers do not remove enough pike to make a difference, but this only occurs when anglers aren't harvesting sub-slot pike... after we removed enough pike to have an absolutely MASSIVE effect on the growth rates and sizes.