Northern pike regulations to change on 15 lakes

[Gordie]

yes fish are for eating, but they are also for reproducing. so it seems to me you eat the smaller one's and release the bigger ones.

Now I think slots on pike are a good thing and it will make a difference on certain lakes but not all lakes will work with slots.

I have cleaned alot of pike under 26 inches and 90 percent of those pike are still females.

So are we killing them before thay have chance to grow?

Almost everyone says eat all the smaller pike but thats not a problem but define smaller. To most guys smaller is under 30 inches not 24 inches

Another thing I have to add is if you eat all the smaller pike won't that also deplete the reproduction stock in the males as thats what you want us to target?

Another thing to think about is when you impose a slot on a your telling some people that you can take bigger fish than what most other lakes have to offer.

Thats just another way to look at it.

[Archerysniper]

+1 Gordie I haven't cleaned a male yet this winter and you know the size fish I take

[Nick Kuhn]

Wisconsin in their summaries will often sex all the fish they catch. I've read quite a few reports, and I cannot find a single instance of a single species where there were significantly more female specimens than male specimens. The following is fairly common though:

"The population catch was composed of 14% female averaging 24.3 inches (range17.8 to 38.0), 79% males that averaging 21.2 inches (range 10.6 to 30.4) and 7% undetermined sex averaging 21.9 inches (range10.2-30.8)"

[Shawn Kellett]

Gordie,

Male pike like roosters or deer can take care of many, many females.

The problem with taking the larger pike out of the system is the biology of the pike. They will "spawn when they can." In short this means if there are no larger females in the system, the smaller females will start spawning. When they start at quickly as year 3, they start to devote more and more of their calories to eggs instead of getting bigger. This is one of the reasons why the slots are where they are on many lakes.

In a perfect world you would start with a 24-36" slot with an increased bag under 24" (assuming people would take them). As the biology of the lake rebounded you would increase it to a 28/30-40" slot to keep those top breeding females in the system. The problem is that we need to give them TIME to work. A lot of people see 8 years as enough time to change the balance of the species of a fish that can live 20. In reality we need to look at these reg's in decades instead of years to get things right in some cases. It took a few decades to ruin the pike fishery in most of the state and it'll take more then a few to return it to anywhere close to where it was.

"You can't have big pike and eat them too."

BTW Spike, I don't know anyone who thinks the slots are a bad idea and most that I know would like to see them on more if not all the lakes in MN. I guess your reality is whom you hang around with sometimes.

[Archerysniper]

I don't know anyone who thinks the slots are a bad idea and most that I know would like to see them on more if not all the lakes in MN. I guess your reality is whom you hang around with sometimes.

I will agree with you a 100% on this,most the people I hang around with wouldn't want it on all the lakes. I guess we hang out with crowds on the opposite ends of the spectrum.

[Gordie]

So Shawn your telling me that all of these pike that are under 30 inches with eggs dont spawn then? I know thats not what you mean but thats what it sounds like and there are big pike in most of the lakes.

They all spawn is what I was lead to belive.

So what happens when those pike spawn along side the bigger pike its the same thing.They still excert all that energy.

I'm not trying too start a aguement just want some claification.

Like I said I have no problems with slots I have seen them work on certain lake and its great to hear it from old timers of the spearing world that actually say at first they were against it but now they see the outcome and it has made for the good of the pike population as in size structure.

I know that slots will not work on all lakes .

As for the increased bag limits under 24" its on some lakes now and its not working so I dont think thats the road to go down either.

[Archerysniper]

I know that slots will not work on all lakes .

As for the increased bag limits under 24" its on some lakes now and its not working so I dont think thats the road to go down either.

Round lake by squaw lake is a great example of that Gordie.

[pushbutton]

So why do you care if the slots do not work on all lakes? I am not as knowledgable as you guys about this subject, but i am assuming the lakes they do not work on are not worth spearing anyway. So why not just have them? Instead of you being able to take the last few big ones out of those lakes, let the little girl with a Dora rod fishing for sunnies with her dad have the catch of a lifetime. Be a steward of the resource! You admit they work on I am assuming the bigger lakes, and you admit that they are helping, what more do you want? The only answer i can come up with is to harvest bigger fish. Then we go back to if you see the benefits of not harvesting them.....why would you want to? It simply does not make sense to me. Gordie I know you and Arch are some of the good guys, so help me understand.......

[Spike76]

Experimental regulations on one lake would be too many I.M.O. if it was only to get larger pike. If the lakes were full of 40 inchers you would just want 50 inchers. If every time you go out, you get big ones there won't be no challenge. When I spear my three I'm done but a person catching and releasing might catch ten and not keeping any, but four of them die. Just close the lakes if they need bigger pike.

[Nick Kuhn]

Spike: CPR is far more successful than that. And even in lakes with high minimum length limits (see Crow Wing Chain), 40" fish are still tough to come by. It's just nature; large fish will always only be present in low numbers. The problem is now many lakes that are ~500 acres have maybe 1 or 2 pike that would be considered trophy or truly memorable. The purpose of these regulations is to get that number up to the 25 or so that the lakes that size should carry. They still will be extremely difficult to come by. A muskie study found that a 2% increase in mortality in muskies would need to be offset by doubling the number stocked in order to keep the same number of trophy fish. By that logic, if these slot limits reduce harvest by say even 4%, We should see the number of large pike quadruple.

[pike79]

spike 76 hit the nail on the head if everyone has a 40in pike on the wall can you brag where does it end I.M.O. a true trophy is in the fry pan

[Shawn Kellett]

So Shawn your telling me that all of these pike that are under 30 inches with eggs dont spawn then? I know thats not what you mean but thats what it sounds like and there are big pike in most of the lakes.

They all spawn is what I was lead to belive.

So what happens when those pike spawn along side the bigger pike its the same thing.They still excert all that energy.

I'm not trying too start a aguement just want some claification.

Sure. From what I understand, some may grow eggs, but not drop them if the spawning grounds are full of larger pike. I suspect that predation may play into this. When the eggs are reabsorbed the energy is used by the pike and it grows. When the eggs are dropped they start growing more for next year.

Spike, there's a lot more to slots then growing big fish to catch. There are direct relationships between having lakes turning into hammer handle factories and the reduction of perch in the lake (which affects everything else) as well as the ineffectiveness of walleye stocking. In fact if there are more the 7 pike per net pull, the DNR has found that they have to stock 2x more walleyes to get the same net effect as if it were below. There is also talk about stopping walleye stocking on lakes that have over 20 pike per net.

As the pike population/size structure goes so goes the lake.

For the record, I take pike home to eat all the time. In fact, many of our lakes would be healthier if people did take their limit of sub 24" fish every time out, especially in the central part of the state. There are too many lakes that are hammer handle factories and that will NEVER change until we change our harvesting habits period, end of story.

[pushbutton]

Spike and Pike I do understand your point concerning the trophy chasers that are in it soley for a wall hanger, and would rather see it eaten than stuffed. However, would much rather see it released; just for the simple fact, that many have pointed out, the the lakes ecosystem would be better off. I am not anti spearing or eating.....just anti harvest of big fish. Here is a 22 incher I cleaned up a few weeks ago, not difficult to do and plenty big for a meal!

[reinhard1]

nice job of filleting and y bone removal. good luck.

[Gordie]

Round lake by squaw lake is a great example of that Gordie.

This was my first thought was this lake

Pushbutton its not about taking the big pike or killing every pike that swims thru If the imposed slots do not bennift a lake why impose it?

Not all lakes are big pike lakes at least thats My opinion.

[Gordie]

PB that is a nice fillet job. I can do that to but not all guys can clean fish that well no matter how hard they try it doesnt always come out like that.

The mentality that all spearfishermen take only big pike and that the minute you cut that spear hole they automatically appear to spear has got to stop as well. My first 8 outings I never saw a fish and my last three outings I havent even taken a fish. I have videoed or tried to video pike under the ice and most of them except for maybe 3 pike have been over 30 inches.

Thank You Shawn

[Spike76]

I've had a very good season but only one over thirty. If it was a slot lake I would have had a poor season. If there were enough 23 and 24 inch pike I would be happy. I've had 2 pike this winter that didn't have a tine in them, but were wedged between two tines. The next day after I speared a 26 and 37 1/2 they ate them for dinner and I didn't get any. Two below the slot wouldn' have been near enough.

[pondhopper]

Relevant section from my go-to pike management article (archives.in-fisherman.com/content/pike-production-factors/1):

" Length-limits may be the most effective regulation tool for managing harvest and growing larger pike, and the correct choice of a length limit depends largely on recruitment. Where recruitment is high and there are high densities of slow growing pike, protected slot-length limits allow harvest of small pike. The intent: thin the numbers of smaller pike to improve growth and size structure of the remaining pike, while protecting larger fish within the slot. The problem: anglers generally don’t harvest small pike enough to show any effect. Improvements, if any, tend to be due to some pike making it through the growth bottleneck into the protected slot.

High minimum-length limits are a better choice for preserving or restoring trophy pike on waters with low recruitment, low density, and good growth potential. High slots, maximum-length limits, and catch-and-release are other options to restore big pike or to preserve unexploited trophy fisheries once they’re opened to fishing, such as the gator factories in the Far North.

Since 2003, over 100 lakes in Minnesota have received special length-limit regulations, one of three in a toolbox of choices based on pike population characteristics: a 24- to 36-inch protected slot, 30-inch minimum, and a 40-inch minimum. Those lakes are under evaluation for 10 years.

Pierce, however, has completed an evaluation of experimental regulations that were imposed between 1989 and 1997, lasting 9 to 15 years. “Those included some slot limits (20- to 30-inch or 22- to 30-inch), maximum-length limits (20-, 22- or 24-inch), and a few 30-inch minimums. Although the length regulations did not work in every lake, the bottom line overall was that, statewide, length limits had a relatively large effect on size structure compared to reference lakes. The strongest effects seemed to be from maximum- and minimum-length limits, whereas the slot limits had more mixed results, probably due to the modest range of lengths that we protected.

“In all, length limits seem to be one of the most promising tools we have for managing pike populations. One of the more interesting results is that we didn’t detect any consistent reductions in pike numbers with the length limits. We had fully expected that improving size structure would result in lower density, and that hasn’t happened yet,” he says. "

[RK]

Not all lakes are big pike lakes at least thats My opinion.

That's exactly correct. To grow quality pike lakes need adequate forage of the right size for larger predators, cool water refuge during the warm water period (mature pike undergo a metabolic change and cool water becomes essential. Bigger pike disappearing to cooler, deeper water is part of what led to the old wives' tale of their teeth falling out during the summer), and a lack of over-competition for forage while they reach maturity.

Not all lakes have that - they're destined to be small to medium size pike waters regardless of harvest regs, because that's what they're capable of producing, and that's true for any species - not every system can produce 6 lb bass or 12 lb walleyes or 20 lb channel cats... They may still be good fisheries, but not for large size classes.

It's also true that in some cases, regs don't work for a variety of reasons, some of which aren't at all clear. A lake may have too high a recruitment level due to an abundance of ideal spawning habitat for harvest controls to make a dent in the population of juvenile pike, or forage for larger fish may not be adequate for fish to make the jump from juvenile size to mature size. That's why they use the 'experimental' regulations process in a lot of cases. Experimental regs, by statute, have a built in requirement for evaluation, with a sunset of the regs unless there's a valid reason (i.e., they're working and angler feedback is positive) to make them permanent, or a compelling reason to maintain the experimental status.

So in cases where the regulations are experimental, there is a mechanism for removing them if they aren't working. By and large the DNR has been willing to drop regs that don't have the desired effect. But it seems like some anglers struggle with the time frame. It can take a decade to determine whether they are working or not.

The objection I sometimes hear, and really, truly don't understand is "why do we have to have all this experimental stuff?" Because that's how we learn things. It's how management gets better. Frankly, they probably learn more from the experiments that *don't* work than the ones that do. Looking at cases where regs didn't have the desired results will help them better select candidate lakes where they will work. If that leads to fewer experimental reg lakes and a higher success rate on the lakes where they are in place, how is that not better in the long run... But that's just it...this is about the long run, not next season. Results become apparent over decades, because that's how it is with fish that can live for 20 years.

When they do work, they can dramatically change a pike fishery. Here's the lake survey report from one lake that has had special regs for several years (emphasis mine).

"Northern pike 24 inches or greater in length have been protected from harvest by an experimental regulation since 1996. This regulation was intended to allow more pike to survive to larger sizes and to reduce the number of small pike. Thirteen years after the beginning of the regulation [RK: note the time frame], both of those expectations appear to have been met. The number of pike larger than 24 inches was 5.4 per test net in 2009. In six surveys before the regulation started, the average number of pike over 24 inches was 1.0 per net and the number never exceeded 2.0 per net. Also, the average length of sampled pike before the regulation was 20.6 inches while the average length of pike sampled in 2009 was 29.5 inches. Northern pike catch rates have declined during the past five years and the portion of small pike in the catch has never been as low as it was in 2009, when just 6% of northern pike sampled were less than 24 inches long. Before the regulation, small pike averaged 80% of the population sample in Lake [redacted]. This may indicate that large pike have begun to act as a control on the numbers of small pike in the lake."

When they work, they can work remarkably well. This lake went from a hammerhandle factory where 80% of the fish were under 24", and the average length was 20" (a size, by all accounts, that very few anglers will keep) to a balanced population of small, medium and large fish. I wish I could post the graphs showing the size distribution change, because it's dramatic.

When they don't work, drop them. I don't think even the loudest supporter of pike regs (which is probably me) would be in favor of keeping regs on just for the sake of having regs if they're not achieving their intended goal. So drop them off the list...

But to me, dropping them all would be worse than throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Cheers,

RK

[pike79]

has any lake that seen larger pike pop. rebound to the point where dnr could allow at least some fish in slot to be havested maybe even 1 over 24in. allowed would change opinions on both sides of issue?

[Gordie]

has any lake that seen larger pike pop. rebound to the point where dnr could allow at least some fish in slot to be havested maybe even 1 over 24in. allowed would change opinions on both sides of issue?

yes right now 1 I know of ...Cass Lake

Thank You RK that is very intresting. I know that one lake in particular where the percenatge is way up and the old timers of the spearing world love it they love watching those pike cruse thru the hole thats all I hear about at the family reunion how most of these guys were agaisnt it at first but now they are loving it. They just love to see pike grow too.

[Scott M]

Gordie,

Pike sexing can be tough. Here's a snippet from "Synopsis of biological data on the northern pike, Esox lucius" by Alexander J. P. Raat:

"There are no obvious external differences between the sexes. Casselman (147) examined 5,199 northern pike from 1961 to 1969 and concluded that spontaneous passage of reproductive products from the urogenital pore is the most accurate indicator of sex. However, it can be used to differentiate only a small percentage of individuals annually. A technique of sexing mature and immature pike by external appearance of the urogential region is described."

Later the author says the sexing technique described above is "better ascribed to immature than to mature northern pike, because of variation on seasonal basis."

Gonad examination can be tricky. Females get a grainy look when they aren't flush with mature eggs. In the open water period, the ovaries tend to look pinkish and the testes are translucent or white. But they can look a heckuva lot alike.

I'm just bringing up the possibility that all those cleaned fish may not be sexed correctly. If you speared them this winter, I would think you probably got them right, as we are only a month or two away from spawning and the gonads are getting darn close to ripe!

[Scott M]

MN DNR News

February 9, 2012

Open houses scheduled to discuss northern pike special regulations

The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) invites the public to visit a DNR area fisheries office Friday, Feb. 17, from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., to provide comments and learn more about why the northern pike special regulations were dropped on a permanent basis on 15 lakes.

The DNR dropped 15 lakes with northern pike special regulations on Nov. 1, 2011. This action was necessitated by a change in state law that restricted the DNR to no more than 100 northern pike special or experimental regulation lakes. The 15 lakes that were dropped were lakes where fisheries biologists felt the regulation was least likely to achieve its management goal, or smaller lakes connected to larger lakes that also had a special northern pike regulation. Emergency rule was used to drop special regulations on these lakes. In order to drop these regulations permanently, the DNR is required to solicit additional public comment.

Open houses are scheduled at the following locations:

CENTRAL REGION

Long and Crooked lakes (Stearns County), Montrose Area Fisheries headquarters, 7372 State Highway 25 SW, Montrose, MN 55363; 763-675-3301.

Ogechie Lake (Mille Lacs County) and Little Sauk Lake (Todd County), Little Falls Area Fisheries headquarters, 16543 Haven Road, Little Falls, MN 56345;

320-616-2450.

NORTHWEST REGION

Cotton and Big Floyd lakes (Becker County), Detroit Lakes Area Fisheries headquarters, 14583 County Highway 19, Detroit Lakes, MN 56501; 218-846-8340.

Lake Louise (Cass County), Walker Area Fisheries headquarters, 7316 State Highway

371 NW, Walker, MN 56484; 218-547-1683.

Lake Latoka (Douglas County), Glenwood Area Fisheries headquarters, 23070 North

Lakeshore Drive, Glenwood, MN 56334; 320-634-4573.

Campbell Lake (Beltrami County), Bemidji Area Fisheries headquarters, 2114 Bemidji Ave., Bemidji, MN 56601; 218-308-2330.

NORTHEAST REGION

Caribou Lake (St. Louis County), Duluth Area Fisheries headquarters, 5351 North Shore Drive, Duluth, MN 55804; 218-525-0853.

North Branch Kawishiwi (Lake County), Tower Area Fisheries headquarters, 650 Highway 169, Tower, MN 56470; 218-753-2580.

Scrapper, Rice, Unnamed (#31-0881), Haskell lakes (Itasca County), Grand Rapids Area Fisheries headquarters, 1201 East Highway 2, Grand Rapids, MN 56744; 218-327-4430.

Those unable to attend an open house may submit written comments or comments by phone to appropriate area office. All comments must be received by 4:30 p.m. on Feb. 17. Public comments will also be accepted during an open house Feb. 22, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., at the DNR central office, 500 Lafayette Road, St. Paul.

[Gordie]

Gordie,

Pike sexing can be tough. Here's a snippet from "Synopsis of biological data on the northern pike, Esox lucius" by Alexander J. P. Raat:

"There are no obvious external differences between the sexes. Casselman (147) examined 5,199 northern pike from 1961 to 1969 and concluded that spontaneous passage of reproductive products from the urogenital pore is the most accurate indicator of sex. However, it can be used to differentiate only a small percentage of individuals annually. A technique of sexing mature and immature pike by external appearance of the urogential region is described."

Later the author says the sexing technique described above is "better ascribed to immature than to mature northern pike, because of variation on seasonal basis."

Gonad examination can be tricky. Females get a grainy look when they aren't flush with mature eggs. In the open water period, the ovaries tend to look pinkish and the testes are translucent or white. But they can look a heckuva lot alike.

I'm just bringing up the possibility that all those cleaned fish may not be sexed correctly. If you speared them this winter, I would think you probably got them right, as we are only a month or two away from spawning and the gonads are getting darn close to ripe!

Thanks dachise this is very intresting but even if you could positively ID the sex of pike this way my problem is that its hard to see that when your looking down over the top of them.If you know what I mean.

Thanks for this info its is nice to that it could be done and its the info I was looking for.