New statewide Pike Regs

[delcecchi]

Have DNR do whatever they did in Mille Lacs for the walleyes there to pike waters statewide. All trophies and slot, no eaters.

My original comment was directed to Merkman, who has only criticized and cried wolf in this thread, but since we are here, I might extend that to all the spearers.... You don't like slots, so what is your suggested replacement for slots in creating a better size structure for Northern Pike in MN?

(It is my opinion that the spearers getting the legislature to reduce and cap the number of lakes with special regs led to this zone and universal slot business)

[merkman]

It is my opinion that the spearers getting the legislature to reduce and cap the number of lakes with special regs led to this zone and universal slot business

So it is your opinion that this new proposal for statewide slot limits is all about political vengeance and really has little to do with protecting the resource as is advertised? Almost a conform to our will or we will crush you mentality?

Interesting thought..... wow del.... be careful... or muskie aaren will accuse you of being paranoid.

It would explain why in the proposal 2/3rds of the state's regulations actually increase harvest of big pike (central zone - 2 fish over 26 inches instead of the 1 over 30 we currently have) or increase harvest of large pike and make the taking of small pike illegal in the southern zone (2 fish over some inch minimum 24 (?) 30 (?) can't really tell from the slide deck ) Instead of the three fish with one over 30 we have now... (everyone knows full bag limits are rare) rather than protecting the larger pike and encouraging the taking of small pike statewide.

Do you think that is the reason why Tim Goeman of the MnDNR actually admitted that outright darkhouse spearing bans have no place in northern pike management because they now have this method to effecively ban darkhouse spearing from all public lakes in Minnesota?

Maybe that explains the total refusal to change slot limit rules to include rather than exclude darkhouse spearers from participating?

Interesting thoughts del...

So you really think the MNDNR puts their own ego above the health of the fishery?

I certainly hope that is not the case....

yeah. .. muskie aaren is definitely going to think you are paranoid.

.

[Spike76]

When the slots were first implemented, I personally went to the top and talked to Gene Merriam about them. He told me that they were experimental on these lakes and he didn't think that they pertained to spearing. He said he would look into it and have someone get back to me, and someone did. I've been affected by the slots on Lower Mission more than many of you can imagine. For most they just choose a different lake to go to. When you are at the lake with the slots, why should you have to go to another lake. I've never had any trouble finding nice northerns in mission, and the slots aren't necessary on this lake. This has always been a trophy lake to our family. If a lake needs bigger fish then it should be closed for fishing until they are there. They could net hammer handles and relocate them. I have never seen the problem of too many small fish. They do grow up. Some who run from lake to lake like the slots. If everyone liked the slots fine, but not everyone does. I don't know anyone who does. All lakes should be managed for all. Experimental slots are not for all. Maybe one over 28 would help for state wide regs.

[shamalex72]

I might extend that to all the spearers.... You don't like slots, so what is your suggested replacement for slots in creating a better size structure for Northern Pike in MN?

(It is my opinion that the spearers getting the legislature to reduce and cap the number of lakes with special regs led to this zone and universal slot business)

First off, I am a spearer. I wouldn't say that all spearers dislike slots, but most do. I don't know if the new regulations are the answer, but I do think something has to be done. In my opinion, there are way too many medium sized pike being taken(30-40"). I kind of like the tag idea of one fish over a certain size per year.

[AWH]

Don't worry, Merk. You're the only one that I see as paranoid here, as you're the only one that would try to interpret Del's post in that way. Good entertainment though. I'll give you that!

Aaron

[AWH]

Sham, thanks for being one that can bring a reality check to the situation here. And I agree 100% with your post. It's completely understandable that many spearers aren't a fan of slots, but not all of them see the world as one that is against them and their sport. And as you said, something needs to be done. The current regulations clearly are not working. Are the current proposed regulations the answer? None of us can say, as they have never been implanted to see the results. But to this point, nothing has officially been proposed and they are more talking points right now than anything. And they can certainly be tweaked or changed significantly. But it's a great start, as a significant change is needed from the current regulations to correct the issues that we are seeing in our fisheries.

Aaron

[merkman]

So

AHW; Aaron Meyer; Board Member of your local Muskies Inc. chapter and the Co-Chair of the Minnesota Muskie and Pike Alliance, tell me your proposal to protect large pike while maintaining the ability to darkhouse spear. Also tell me how your proposal does not allow the slippage that the muskie fishery has seen that has turned the entire muskie fishery in Minnesota into the no-harvest summer time only catch and release only fishery that it is.

.

[AWH]

Sorry Merk, you don't even know who you are talking to here. I am not Aaron Meyer. And I am certainly not a co-chair of the MMPA and never have been. This shouldn't surprise us that you are missing the facts.

But I will somewhat answer your question anyway. I do not have a proposal. I do not have the answers like so many other internet experts claim to have. I like the DNR's outline of what they are thinking, because it's a great starting point. I feel our fisheries are largely in a sad state due to the many hammer handle factories that we have. The negative effect that our fisheries as a whole suffer when overrun with large numbers of small pike is significant. And something drastic needs to change. This is far more obvious in the central part of the state than it is in the southern or NE part of the state, which is why their proposal is broken into 3 regions.

Although I do question a few things within the proposal, they have far more research and expertise on the subject than I do. And they have solid reasoning as to why they are proposing what they are proposing. I am willing to ask those within the DNR about the proposal and why other ideas may or may not work. If you are willing to listen with an open mind to their information, you can learn quite a great deal. I like some of the ideas posted within this thread. But I don't know if they would be any better than the DNR's proposal in either the eventual outcome or their effects on anglers/spearers. But there has to be a balance there, which is where the challenge comes in.

Aaron

[20lbSloughShark]

...If a lake needs bigger fish then it should be closed for fishing until they are there. They could net hammer handles and relocate them. I have never seen the problem of too many small fish...

Really? You have never seen the problem off hammer handle pike? You talk about regulations for all, but you are completely ignorant to the problem others are trying to fix? I want future generations to have better fishing than I have, not a lake full of 18" pike and not much else. Pike are top predators, they will kill everything if you have too many of them. We might as well have open season on timber wolves too. Before anyone jumps on me, I support wolf hunting.

[merkman]

.

[merkman]

Sorry Merk, you don't even know who you are talking to here. I am not Aaron Meyer. And I am certainly not a co-chair of the MMPA and never have been. This shouldn't surprise us that you are missing the facts.

[creepworm]

Muskies Inc does not have a good track record of balance; so excuse my being more than a little leary of these proposals the muskie groups love pushing on people.

MDAA does not have a good track record of balance, pushing regulations on people through the legislature, disregarding all biological factors. So excuse my being a little leary of the MDAA and whatever their members have to say, because I truly do not believe they care about the health of the fisheries, only harvest amounts.

Thanks for the response though...

[AWH]

Always entertaining, Merk. So thanks again for that! But once again, let's not let any facts get in the way of your argument. What does any of this have to do with muskies? Muskies Inc has nothing to do with the proposed changes to northern pike regulations.

Fact: This is a DNR proposal being pushed by the DNR.

Fact: The proposal as shown in that presentation were shaped largely by a retired DNR biologist/fisheries manager who was tired of seeing our pike fisheries going in the toilet and the negative consequences that result on all species. He put in thousands of hours of his own time in retirement to research so that there is better data out there to work from, something that likely would not have otherwise happened.

Fact: This individual has more knowledge on northern pike in our state than arguably anyone. If there is someone with more knowledge on northern pike dynamics and their effects on our fisheries, I'd be interested to know who that is.

Fact: The DNR tweaked the proposal that he was pushing to come to the proposal we see in that presentation. The DNR. Not Muskies Inc, not the MDAA, not Northerns Inc, or anyone else. Why did they tweak it? I don't know if we have that answer. But my guess is to better accommodate spearing groups.

Fact: The DNR realizes that changes need to take place if we are going to reverse the current trend of the size structure of our pike getting worse and worse, and their negative effects on all species. Not small changes, but significant changes.

Facts: Let's stick to them.

Aaron

[certified jumbo]

I'm not sure about the new regulations. But in general I think its a good idea.

The thing about the proposal that I found the most interesting was the picure of the northern under "quality" in the plan. We caught that northern in 2003 on Red Lake fishing crappies. Not sure how the picture ended up in there. But kinda cool, I guess.

[Getanet]

One thing the DNR and/or groups interested this effort could do is help educate people on how to clean these smaller pike - demonstrations at outdoors shows, things like that. Many people just don't know what to do with them and continue to throw the hammer handles back because they don't don't like the idea of killing them without eating them.

I still don't know how to do it, but my buddy does. Once he learned our fishing trips definitely got better. It's fairly easy to get skunked fishing for walleyes, but on almost any lake if you troll around for a while you're going to hook into enough pike for a fish fry. And they taste great.

[AWH]

Getanet - I agree completely on the education aspect. That is one of my concerns. While I think the increased bag limit of those smaller fish is a great thing and very much needed, I'm concerned if there will still be enough harvest there to have a significant impact. They are legal to keep today and not enough people keep them. So how do we change that?

Do a google search for "filleting pike into five pieces". And you will see some videos on a super simple way to fillet them boneless. I have yet to try this method, as I had never seen it up until about 10 days ago. But I will certainly be trying it this year, as I think it will be the way to go on those smaller pike if you aren't interested in pickling them. My old/current method of filleting them boneless, while not difficult, isn't nearly as simple as this five piece method appears to be.

Aaron

[pushbutton]

Yeah, it is a strange cultural thing. Many will spend hours cleaning potato chip filets from a bucket full of 5 1/2 inch sunfish, but pass up a decent piece of meat on an 18 inch pike ....that only takes 2 more cuts. Also find it interesting that all the "hardy" sotans that will gut a deer or breast out foul, but then dance and eeek like a little girl who has seen a mouse when a little slimer is thrown their way

[DTro]

All I know is I've been watching a bunch of YT vids on how to remove Y bones and now I'm hungry.

[mwal]

Yes the 5 piece method works great on smaller pike but in the State of where nothing is allowed you can't use it unless you are cleaning then cooking the fish right away. more than 2 pieces cannot transport or store.

Mwal

[minky]

Yep, the 5 piece method works well.

The wife and I enjoy eating a small pike every now and then.

Those small pike are great chunked up and deep fried!

And to think by taking a few I am not hurting the lake at all.

[merkman]

One thing the DNR and/or groups interested this effort could do is help educate people on how to clean these smaller pike - demonstrations at outdoors shows, things like that. Many people just don't know what to do with them and continue to throw the hammer handles back because they don't don't like the idea of killing them without eating them.

I still don't know how to do it, but my buddy does. Once he learned our fishing trips definitely got better. It's fairly easy to get skunked fishing for walleyes, but on almost any lake if you troll around for a while you're going to hook into enough pike for a fish fry. And they taste great.

18 inch northern = 12 inch boneless filet = deliciousness

[delcecchi]

Yes the 5 piece method works great on smaller pike but in the State of where nothing is allowed you can't use it unless you are cleaning then cooking the fish right away. more than 2 pieces cannot transport or store.

Mwal

So, take the fillets home and take out the Y bones in the other manner. I use the fillet first method anyway. Didn't have much luck with the five piece method the one time I tried it. And the other way works for me.

[merkman]

What does any of this have to do with muskies? Muskies Inc has nothing to do with the proposed changes to northern pike regulations.

Fact: The proposal as shown in that presentation were shaped largely by a retired DNR biologist/fisheries manager

[delcecchi]

Oh, and by the way, Merkman, your silence as to a proposal that you would find acceptable to improve the size distribution of the state's pike population is deafening.

You hate everything state proposes but have no counter proposal. I can only presume you want to remove the slots and have at it. Like the old Farside cartoon....

[delcecchi]

5 minutes on google

http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/areas/fisheries/littlefalls/news.pdf

Quote:

Area Fisheries Supervisor Jim Lilienthal Announces

Retirement

Longtime Little Falls Area

Fisheries Supervisor, Jim Lilienthal, is

retiring from DNR service in January

2008 after 38+ years of service. Jim’s

service began after three years of college

at the University of Minnesota. He was

first hired by the Department as a

Natural Resources

Conservation Aide,

equivalent to a Fisheries Technician

today, on September 24, 1969. He

worked in St. Paul in this capacity until

1974 when he became the Assistant

Fisheries Area Supervisor at the

Montrose Fisheries office. He held that

office until 1980 when an area office

was established at Little Falls and he

was promoted to the Fisheries Area Sup-

ervisor position there.

Jim has basically been

the only supervisor to work at the

Little Falls Office. When he

arrived there he had a desk, an

empty file cabinet, and a small

handheld calculator. His first

employee, Lloyd Anderson, was

hired a month after Jim arrived,

and they were appropriated their

first work truck a month later. Jim

and Lloyd worked tirelessly to

obtain large rearing ponds to help

produce walleyes for Region III

Areas that included Aitkin,

Brainerd, Hinckley, Little Falls,

and Montrose. In their first

year of production, Jim and

Lloyd produced half the

Region’s walleyes, a feat that

required long hours and

much hard work.

During his tenure

as Fisheries Supervisor, Jim

has been responsible for

pioneering, or partnering in

establishing, many of the

processes and techniques

used in rearing walleye and

muskellunge in natural

ponds. These techniques,

although streamlined over

the past 27 years, are still

utilized today.

Rearing fish in

shallow “duck” lakes has

come under scrutiny by

waterfowl managers and

waterfowl hunting

enthusiasts in recent years.

A career highlight for Jim

has been participation as

Regional representative at

the Shallow Basin Study

Group. This group, made up

of all shallow lakes interest

groups, has met several times

to discuss future sustainable

management of these basins.

Another career

highlight has been Little Falls

Area’s cooperation and

participation in research projects,

especially in regards to northern

pike special regulations. While

controversial with some groups,

Jim has pressed for more

protection for large pike while

encouraging the harvest of small

northerns. In the process, many

contributions have

been made to

the DNR Research Unit and to

management of pike statewide.

While not all northern pike

management has been a success,

some very positive results have

been obtained in the area.

Jim has tried to manage for big

northerns and against “hammer-

handle” pike populations.

Other highlights in

Jim’s career were participation

in research involving

muskellunge and smallmouth

bass on the Mississippi River. Jim’s

support and participation in these

efforts has lead to current catch and

release management for muskellunge

on the river, and contributed to the

early September closure of

smallmouth bass harvest statewide.

In addition, ongoing smallmouth bass

management on the Mississippi

continues to increase the state’s

understanding of river smallmouth

biology.

Over the years Jim has

found it to be increasingly important

to be a participant and advisor to

county governments in

the Little Falls

Area. Providing input from a

conservation perspective to local

water and comprehensive planners

has been critical in maintaining clean

water and healthy fish and wildlife

habitats in area lakes and streams.

Another positive change

Jim has observed has been the recent

emphasis DNR is placing on

shoreland restoration. Over the years,

much of our lakeshore has been

transformed from natural trees, shrubs

and grasses to sand blankets,

Kentucky bluegrass, and rock riprap.

The establishment of the DNR

Shoreland Habitat Program will

hopefully begin a trend of more

sustainable shoreland management.

Jim’s participation in this

effort has been to have Area

personnel collect native plant

seeds that are raised at the

Ramsey County Correctional

Facility, and eventually

planted on private lakeshore

properties. These efforts will

hopefully lead to better fish

and wildlife habitat, more

stable shorelines, and cleaner

water.

A couple of issues

left undone that will haunt

Jim in his retirement include

the lack of a tool to “fix”

hammer-handle pike

populations, and the lack of a

socially acceptable way to

protect quality panfish

fisheries.

Jim’s retirement

years will be spent at his

home on Lake Alexander in

northwestern Morrison

County with his wife Cindy

and faithful chocolate lab

Meg. Jim will have plenty of

time to pursue his fishing

and waterfowl hunting

passions in the near future

when all his days will be like

Saturdays.