resource for nothern pike enthusiasts

[Tom7227]

NORTHERN PIKE

Esox lucius is the second-most-sought-after game fish in Minnesota. Yet, when was the last time you read a book about northern pike? Or even a fishing report?

If walleye are our meat, pike are our potatoes. Or stale bread, if it's a hammer handle. Or prime rib, if it's a monster.

"Therein lies one of the most challenging contrasts for managing the fish: large pike are prized catches, whereas small pike are frequently regarded as trash fish," wrote Rod Pierce in "Northern Pike: Ecology, Conservation and Management History" ($40, University of Minnesota Press, 2012).

Pierce knows something about managing fish. For more than 25 years, he has been a fisheries research biologist for the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Based out of Grand Rapids, the 58-year-old is starting to look toward a day when he might retire -- or, at least, that's what some of his co-workers are

assuming.

"I've been working with pike for more than 20 years, and people in the department are starting asking me to pull together everything into one spot," Pierce said in a recent interview. "That's what started the idea for the book."

He has published scientific papers before but never a book.

The result is something between a desktop reference guide for biologists and serious reading for anglers who want to go beyond whatever magazine is offering "Top 10 Tactics for Monster Pike" this month. Way beyond.

With perhaps as many line graphs and charts as photographs, Pierce's book is hardly a coffee table showpiece. But it's real science -- some of the best research we know into the toothy sport fish, ranging from experiments in using pike to control other fish populations to pike reproductive cycles and feeding patterns.

The issues examined aren't merely academic. State lawmakers last year limited to 100 the number of Minnesota lakes on which the DNR could enact special regulations, effectively capping the agency's ability to manage some lakes for larger pike by forcing anglers to keep smaller fish. (As to the question of whether that works, the data in Pierce's book is persuasive: It works. And his book should be required reading for any lawmaker planning to weigh in on pike regulations.)

For his part, Pierce won't use his data, or his book, as much of a soap box. I asked him whether, if we wanted to grow bigger pike, we should really be keeping just smaller fish below 21 inches.

"Yeah, certainly," he responded. "Those fish are plentiful, and a lot of those fish die from natural causes anyway, and you can substitute fishing mortality for natural mortality. Once you hit around 22 inches, the scenario changes, and if we want to see larger fish, we should protect them. But we have people who have a huge variety of desires to catch fish. We have people who want to quickly catch a meal, people who want large fish and people who want to go out and fish and not have to worry about all these rulebooks.

"We're really blessed with a huge northern pike resource, and it comes down to finding a balance."

Like all pike stories, it's the ones about the bigger fish that draw our curiosity the most, and Pierce said his career has led him to one conclusion about big pike.

"The most important message is that those large pike are pretty valuable," he said. "It takes a long time to grow that large pike, and there aren't that many of them because they're what people are after."

Pierce detailed what he said was a "very interesting" case last year in which an angler returned a tag from a 38-inch pike he had caught and kept. DNR data showed the fish had been tagged in 1996 -- at 33 inches.

"That's 15 years to grow five inches," Pierce said. "Think about that."

[delcecchi]

It is a good book. I got it for Christmas and just finished reading it. I will read it again later and pay more attention to the graphs and tables.

There are also many pages of references to explore.

It was quite interesting, even if his definition of a large pike seems to be like 22 inches.

[merkman]

even if his definition of a large pike seems to be like 22 inches.

No different than the long range plan.

Protecting "large pike" to these guys means anything over 22 inches or so.

Some studies have that number down to anything over 18 inches.

Personally 18 to 25 inches is my prefered eater range.

.

[Gordie]

NORTHERN PIKE

If walleye are our meat, pike are our potatoes. Or stale bread, if it's a hammer handle. Or prime rib, if it's a monster.

Stale bread, I think they would be best severved for the pickle jar

[merkman]

Pierce detailed what he said was a "very interesting" case last year in which an angler returned a tag from a 38-inch pike he had caught and kept. DNR data showed the fish had been tagged in 1996 -- at 33 inches.

"That's 15 years to grow five inches," Pierce said. "Think about that."

I did think about this for a while.....

The first 20 years of my life I did pretty good at gettting longer (ie taller), however the 20+ years after that, I haven't even put on an inch... In the longer category anyway... I have added a few in the wider category.

I have been working at this for over 40 years... and I am still not as tall as others were in my familly. Maybe I will grow a little taller in the next 40 years....

.

[20lbSloughShark]

I did think about this for a while.....

The first 20 years of my life I did pretty good at gettting longer (ie taller), however the 20+ years after that, I haven't even put on an inch... In the longer category anyway... I have added a few in the wider category.

I have been working at this for over 40 years... and I am still not as tall as others were in my familly. Maybe I will grow a little taller in the next 40 years....

.

Its a good thing my goal is 20 pounds and not 45" then.

[davidbigreelz]

I love pike fishing, and yea a 20# or 45"er would be great! In fact i have only ever seen two 40+ pike caught, and better yet they were both released!

[SmellEsox]

LOL! Humans have determinate growth (at least height), fish have indeterminate growth. In other words, pike can continue to grow their entire lives if food availability will support them. Humans just grow rounder.

[Ice Wolf]

What's the name of the book?

[20lbSloughShark]

Jack's is Pro Tactics: Northern Pike.

[CANOPY SAM]

I could certainly be mistaken, but I would think the recently documented growth of a tagged fish that only put on 5 inches in 15 years may be a bit of an exception. I believe most pike grow much faster than this...at least healthy pike with an adequate/abundant food source. But again, I could be wrong.

[CANOPY SAM]

Out of curiosity, I read a couple research papers on this topic, and I was surprised to find out that the above statistics are actually pretty accurate.

Northern pike are shown to grow anywhere from 5 - 23 inches in their first year of life. As they mature their growth rate decreases very dramatically. At about 5-6 years of age the average growth rate is only 1-2 inches per year. At 10 years of age both males and females may be only adding a fraction of an inch each year, and most test subjects only measured in the low 30's in inches.

So those abundant pike we find in LOW or Upper Red Lake, pushing or over 40 inches are very likely 25-35 years old! That is eye-opening! I'd always thought they were quite rapidly growing fish.

I stand corrected!

[OnAFly]

Yep, that's why I believe they should be protected beyond a certain length. IMO a 30yo fish has probably earned the right not to hit the pan or the jar.

[Ice Wolf]

For you guys that haved read this book would you recommend it too a fisherman. I have read the in fisherman book on pike and liked it very much. Just looking for some input.

[delcecchi]

Which book? the one by the DNR guy is not especially targeted at fishermen. It is a book about Northern Pike by a fisheries biologist.

It is very informative. It was a little surprising to see how little actual data there is, especially for larger lakes. But I guess a pike is a pike.

[merkman]

LOL! Humans have determinate growth (at least height), fish have indeterminate growth. In other words, pike can continue to grow their entire lives if food availability will support them. Humans just grow rounder.

LOL!

Seen many 35+ inch male northern pike lately?

.

.

[CANOPY SAM]

I think there might be a bit of a "determinate" factor there. Otherwise we would probably be seeing some super giants from time to time.

Truth be told though, I do truly believe there are a few super giant fish out there, that no one ever sees, nor do they bite on anything we put in front of them as sport fishermen. I believe they are too old, and too wise to be that foolish. Just like me...

Except I wouldn't put myself in the super giant category....because I am currently experiencing "determinate" growth myself...thank Heaven!

[RK]

Hiya -

Couple thoughts...

Merk - SmellEsox is correct. Females grow bigger than males in most fish species, but males can continue to grow albeit at a slower rate once they reach maturity. While most mature males will be smaller than a female from the same cohort, there are oddball exceptions. I caught a 49" male muskie on Lake of the Woods 15 years ago or so. Thing was ancient - bony head, scars all over it. Really a dinosaur. But still, a male that was almost 50" and over 30 lbs. But they're of course the exception to the rule.

Fish do continue to grow, but rates decline as they get older and may stop depending on a huge variety of factors. The theoretical max age/max growth is called 'ultimate size at age.' USA can vary from lake to lake due to genetics, forage/habitat, water chemistry, growing season, and a host of other factors. Research on muskie ultimate size at age done in Ontario by Drs Ed Crossman and John Casselman were the biological basis for Ontario's system of setting minimum sizes on many of their muskie lakes. Some lakes have the potential for hig max size at age, others don't. So it doesn't make much sense to put a 54" minimum on a lake like Fluke where fish top out - for the most part - at 38". Within that there is always the chance for outliers. I have caught two 35 pounders from a system that is known for small to medium size fish - a 'numbers' fishery.

Ultimate size at age also depends on rate and longevity. It's often the case that fish at the cold extremes of their habitable zone get bigger because they typically live longer - muskie on Lac Suel, or pike in Great Slave or Athabaska or the Yukon River are good examples. Fish with longer, warmer growing seasons may grow faster but don't live as long, like muskies in warm reservoirs in Kentucky or Missouri.

[mallardnwalleye]

The author makes some good points.

If you want big Pike you have to protect them for a long time. On most lakes that is not going to happen as there are people like myself that keep em all and pickle them or bake them. There are also spearers (which I also like to do from time to time) that like those 27+ inch fish.

The only way you're going to get large pike in quantity is through regulations that limit the harvest of med-large to large pike. The problem is the "catch 22" that many that fish or spear for Northerns don't want the regulations that would make them more appealing to those that don't target them specifically right now.

Look at L.O.W and the large Northerns that are there now. They weren't there in that quantity 20 years ago. My guess is they are there because of the regulations.

[CANOPY SAM]

Look at L.O.W and the large Northerns that are there now. They weren't there in that quantity 20 years ago. My guess is they are there because of the regulations.

MNW, not to be contrary, but I think those pike were definitely there 20 years ago. I think they've always been there. Same thing with Upper Red Lake.

These two lakes are absolute pike factories. They have now, and always have had, just the right make-up for pike spawning, rearing, and long term survival. All the components are there for a tremendous population of pike.

However, I don't disagree at all that the slot limits that were imposed 6-8 years ago have been a true God Send to the pike population. I clearly remember people going up in previous years, around this time of year, and literally stacking up 10-20 lb. pike like cord wood on the ice. They didn't let anything go. They killed em' all, filleted em' up, and after several months in the freezer, very likely threw a bunch of em' in the garbage.

[mallardnwalleye]

MNW, not to be contrary, but I think those pike were definitely there 20 years ago. I think they've always been there. Same thing with Upper Red Lake.

These two lakes are absolute pike factories. They have now, and always have had, just the right make-up for pike spawning, rearing, and long term survival. All the components are there for a tremendous population of pike.

However, I don't disagree at all that the slot limits that were imposed 6-8 years ago have been a true God Send to the pike population. I clearly remember people going up in previous years, around this time of year, and literally stacking up 10-20 lb. pike like cord wood on the ice. They didn't let anything go. They killed em' all, filleted em' up, and after several months in the freezer, very likely threw a bunch of em' in the garbage.

Yep, I agree about the guys going up, filleting them, letting them sit in their freezer and then throwing them away. Kind of a shame.

I don't think you had the same shot at getting a 38-40+ inch fish on L.O.W. 20+ years ago. That thought is based on a talk with an old timer several years ago that told me he used to spear up there for many years up until a few years ago. You could be right though as I don't have any data and what I'm basing it off is one antidotal conversation.

It would be interesting to see what the DNR netting data shows has changed through the years? If memory serves me correct the special regs have been on LOW for long time.