Thoughts on Pike regulations (40"+)

[Nick Kuhn]

Goblue,

I do most of my fishing in Wisconsin who does exactly the opposite on hammerhandle factories: they change the regs to 26" minimum bag of 2, basically encouraging the harvest of bigger pike. What's odd though is it actually solves the hammerhandle problem. You don't catch many big ones, but the size structure improves. For whatever reason the hammerhandle problem is usually capable of correcting itself without angler intervention. If you did a direct comparison of a lake with a 24-36" slot and one with a 36" minimum you would see hardly any difference. As I've said, the theory works, but it never seems to work out that way when applied to a lake. Almost all the benefit lies in not harvesting larger pike.

[goblueM]

agreed, the majority of the benefit does lie with not harvesting large pike... in systems where they haven't already been overexploited

[SmellEsox]

Hello everyone. First post here. Just had to jump in on this discussion. While I agree with the theoretical stuff that goblueM has written, it is not as simple as that. There are other issues at work in complex aquatic systems. Especially with stunted northern pike situations. We had a 24-30" slot limit on Platte and Sullivan Lakes, lakes with a long history of abundant small northerns with poor growth characteristics. In addition to the slot limit, we increased the bag to six fish. We got excellent buy in by local anglers who harvested fish below the slot fairly aggressively. We had virtually no improvement in size structure by "thinning" the smaller fish. While we never studied why the population didn't respond, I have my theories.

First and foremost, I think angler behavior was one factor that contributed to failure. While harvest was intensified below the slot, anglers still kept the largest fish they were allowed. In other words, they kept mostly fish in the 22, 23, 23.5" range. And we allowed six in the bag so the majority of low 20" fish were harvested. With slow growth and high angler mortality of low 20" fish, few fish made it to the slot. We saw virtually no increase in the number of fish within the slot over the course of the study. We saw no increase in growth rate either. Probably because there were still "oodles" of 12-20" fish in the population. Anglers are just not interested in keeping northern pike of that size.

Another dynamic that needs to be addressed is that prey populations are messed up. Further, prey don't self-right just because we start harvesting some small pike. It takes time for prey populations to recover, and if we don't harvest more small pike (the ones anglers don't keep), they probably never will recover. There are also other predators out there besides pike (interspecific competition) that put pressure on prey.

The population dynamics of a stunted northern pike population are very difficult to change. We've tried with slot limits, removals through netting, and blocking spawning runs. Nothing has worked at this point. That is why we don't currently have a strategy or regulation to address the problem.

Current regs (slots, large minimum sizes) have been placed on pike populations with good growth characteristics. Often we had populations with good growth characteristics and we still weren't seeing big pike. That sends up a red flag that harvest of larger pike is too high. These are the lakes that respond well to regulations. The problem for anglers is that we have to make them "hurt" for them to be effective. Plain and simple, we need to be selective in what we harvest and careful how many are harvested or we won't see positive results. The current upswing in regulations came from a demand at the fisheries roundtable in the 90's. Stakeholders wanted us to do something about the decline in the average size of pike statewide. Thus, many lakes were identified and regulations applied to try to improve populations.

I suppose that is enough writing for now.

[SmellEsox]

Goblue,

I do most of my fishing in Wisconsin who does exactly the opposite on hammerhandle factories: they change the regs to 26" minimum bag of 2, basically encouraging the harvest of bigger pike. What's odd though is it actually solves the hammerhandle problem. You don't catch many big ones, but the size structure improves. For whatever reason the hammerhandle problem is usually capable of correcting itself without angler intervention. If you did a direct comparison of a lake with a 24-36" slot and one with a 36" minimum you would see hardly any difference. As I've said, the theory works, but it never seems to work out that way when applied to a lake. Almost all the benefit lies in not harvesting larger pike.

Interesting post. I say that because in our nettings on hammerhandle lakes, our catch is comprised of huge numbers of fish in the "teens" (15 to 19" fish), but we always seem to catch a few fish in the upper 20's or low 30's. These lakes typically have horrible growth rates for pike, but a few grow fast. These larger fish are doing something different, a different feeding strategy or something. Or they got lucky or they turned cannibalistic. I often wondered if we experimented with a "no kill" or high minimum size limit if these populations would, over time, change to a more desirable size structure. Maybe more and more of these rare larger fish would show up in the population. It may take quite a long time though.

[wahoo]

Terrific info and arguments on all sides. Does the type of prey make a difference? E.g. Does a lake with high fat prey (tullibees, whitefish, ciscoes) play a significant part in all this/

thanks again for a good forum and good posts.

[Nick Kuhn]

I think prey makes a difference in the ultimate size of a pike. Pike can grow to 50", but they only seem to do so on lakes with cisco/whitefish/grayling. If a lake is just perch and maybe a few suckers, you are probably looking at low 40's for the maximum length of a pike. I'd look at the fish you catch. Do they look thin or are there heads disproportionally large compared to the body? If so there is probably a lack of food. On the other hand if you are catching chunky fish, food isn't a problem. On some lakes I catch a mix of both.

[SmellEsox]

Terrific info and arguments on all sides. Does the type of prey make a difference? E.g. Does a lake with high fat prey (tullibees, whitefish, ciscoes) play a significant part in all this/

thanks again for a good forum and good posts.

Absolutely. You need the right kinds of prey as Nick mentioned, and you need the appropriate size prey for pike of different size or age. No doubt cisco/whitefish make a huge difference.

Most of the 40+" lakes the OP was talking about have excellent prey bases including an abundance of ciscoes.

[merkman]

SmellEsox I have 2 questions.

1) How much of this perceived "hammerhandle" problem is our own doing as we force feed this sized northern pike by dumping oodles of properly sized "hammerhandle forage" or as others like to call it gamefish stocking into our lakes?

2) How do you "fix" the percieved problem without forcing 45 of 48 darkhouse spearers off these lakes since they do not want to be made a criminal for an honest mistake? We have figured out the solution to include the 1.4 million hook and liners, and the 10 to 50 percent of those that are non compliant to the slot. How do you propose we also include the 15 thousand who would like to darkhouse spear these lakes?

Thanks

[SmellEsox]

1. Not sure what you mean by "perceived" because I think most people would agree that hammerhandle situations do exist and they are a problem for a variety of reasons. But, yes, you are correct that stocking additional predators on top of a hammerhandle situation definitely can make the situation worse. In most cases, however, stocking walleye is done for social/political reasons. We have quit walleye stocking on lakes in the past where we have had high pike populations and low perch populations but were forced socially to resume stocking. Walleyes are king in this state as you know. Muskies are typically not stocked in hammerhandle lakes, but in some cases they have been. In some of these lakes, muskies may actually have had a positive influence on pike populations (read fewer but larger pike). Shamineau is an example.

2. I understand that regulations make it more difficult for spearers, and for that matter anglers that would like to keep fish. Change is difficult, and this change hits spearers hardest because they are a harvest oriented group with a tradition of targeting large pike. But even on lakes w/o regulations, the spearer must use caution w/ the existance of the one over 30" rule. If a spearer harvests a 30" northern, he must be sure the next one is smaller. If he isn't sure, he better pass. It is the same with slots only 24" instead of 30". In most lakes you should have no problem encountering many fish below 24". Creel surveys suggest that anglers are more than willing to keep fish in the 20 to 24 inch range so the argument that there isn't enough meat on one that size is not truthful. From a selective harvest standpoint, these are the best fish to keep on these regulated lakes anyways. The deer hunter, the duck hunter, the pheasant hunter, etc. all must use restraint in pursuit of their quarry. Anglers and spearers will have to do the same.

[OnAFly]

Well said.

[mainbutter]

Interesting post. I say that because in our nettings on hammerhandle lakes, our catch is comprised of huge numbers of fish in the "teens" (15 to 19" fish), but we always seem to catch a few fish in the upper 20's or low 30's. These lakes typically have horrible growth rates for pike, but a few grow fast. These larger fish are doing something different, a different feeding strategy or something. Or they got lucky or they turned cannibalistic. I often wondered if we experimented with a "no kill" or high minimum size limit if these populations would, over time, change to a more desirable size structure. Maybe more and more of these rare larger fish would show up in the population. It may take quite a long time though.

Great post. Studies have shown that as little as 3 generations of selective removal of slow growers or fast growers significantly affects the genetics of the system as a whole. While relatively little in terms of total generations, the fact is that pike are slow-growing fish. They grow twice as slow as muskies, and just look at PANFISH who can reproduce at only two years old. It takes time.

All of that really underlines the importance of LEAVING IN big pike.

[merkman]

Change is difficult, and this change hits spearers hardest because they are a harvest oriented group with a tradition of targeting large pike.

You could have stopped right there.

I see you are pushing the a same agenda.

I can only assume you believe that northern pike can not be released with the darkhouse spearing method either.

It is amazing the state of Minnesota even allows me to angle if I come from a tradition like that.

Thanks for your input and good luck out there.

-

[cbrooks]

Merk, are you gonna fight the whole world? I would love to see the day that everybody could have a mutual agreement on pike management.

[goblueM]

some people just like to feel like they're persecuted and have to fight the man, i guess

[merkman]

I would love to see the day that everybody could have a mutual agreement on pike management.

+1

We are not going to get there by disrespecting sportsmen who choose to use the darkhouse spearing method with half truths such as that.

The truth is both methods come from those same "traditions"

I am sorry but when people imply that a sportsman can change when using a hook and line but that very same sportsman can't change when using a darkhouse spear it is very offensive to me.

He is entitled to his opinion though.

[cbrooks]

Whats your biggest fear with Pike management, Merk?

I'm not working a angle or anything. Just trying to figure out where a good starting point would be with you thats all.

[merkman]

I often wondered if we experimented with a "no kill" or high minimum size limit if these populations would, over time, change to a more desirable size structure. Maybe more and more of these rare larger fish would show up in the population. It may take quite a long time though.

Or we could save some of the dead 8 to 16 lbers that float up in winterkill lakes, test them for disease and or invasives, protect them with a no harvest over xx inches slot, and dump them into one of these experimental "hammerhandle" lakes, and find out alot quicker.

[SmellEsox]

My agenda is that there needs to be more bigger pike in our waters for a variety of reasons. I would think that spearers and anglers alike would share that desire. I have no agenda against any group. I applaud any spearer or angler that is willing to change and accept regulations for the betterment of the resource.

[SmellEsox]

I think Goeman did a similar study back in the 90's but I don't know if the pike were protected with a regulation. I'll check on that.

[merkman]

I think Goeman did a similar study back in the 90's but I don't know if the pike were protected with a regulation. I'll check on that.

I would be very interested in reading up on that.

[merkman]

I applaud any spearer or angler that is willing to change and accept regulations for the betterment of the resource.

Make the regulations fair for both methods and I am sure you will see alot of your "opposition" comming on board.

[SmellEsox]

If there was a reg that would work for both that would also reverse the trend of fewer big pike in our waters, I'd be interested in hearing about it.

[merkman]

If there was a reg that would work for both that would also reverse the trend of fewer big pike in our waters, I'd be interested in hearing about it.

I personaly would like to see regulations based on the sportsman and not the method.

If it is Ok for 1.4 million sportsman to throw dead slot limit northern pike back down the hole with the hook and line method then it should be ok for 15 thousand of those very same sportsmen to throw dead slot limit northern pike down the hole with the darkhouse spearing method.

If it is wrong for sportsmen to make mistakes and unintentionaly kill slot limit northern pike then let's hold the sportsman responsible for that crime no mater the method they choose.

If it is a hybrid regulation then let it apply to the sportsman equally regardless of the method.

I am pretty sure the resource don't care what legal method is used.

[My_Key]

SmellEsox(Great name btw), if Merk had his way, the anglers would have to abide by slots, and the spearers could throw at anything and eveything they wanted.

In his world, that is the only way slots would be fair.

Today 106 of the 3,351 Minnesota waters containing pike have special regulations. With the exception of Olmsted County, no special pike regulations have been added since 2008, when the final draft of Minnesota's Long Range Plan for Muskellunge and Large Northern Pike Through 2020 was published. The plan called for special pike regulations on up to 125 waters. But public comments were divided. Some people didn't think the plan went far enough to protect pike; others thought it was too restrictive.

3% of our lakes with pike populations have retrictions and he still complains that he can't spear those lakes, fo fear that he may kill a slot fish. Apparently the 3,245 lakes still available to him aren't enough. Your posts have been very informative, but as you're already finding out, some people just have tunnel vision and only see things their way.

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/volunteer/janfeb11/pike_management.html

[cjac]

Make the regulations fair for both methods and I am sure you will see alot of your "opposition" comming on board.

How is it that following the same regulations for both methods is not fair?