Trophy Pike ideas

[Muskiefool]

During the Esocidae Workshops and round tables the past 2 years I had the idea of converting some of the designated Muskie lakes into trophy pike managed waters.

MN has very few good pike lakes and as one DNR biologist said "He would challenge anyone to find a Pike lake that is better today than it was 50 years ago."

My thought was that the special regs involved 24-36, 24-40 and 24 + C&R only would only effect anglers and not the Darkhouse guys due to the fact they cannot spear on these 26 lakes as it is anyway.

I was talking to a DNR officail the other day and the subject of Designated Muskie/Trophy Pike scenario came up, he said not all designated lakes have trophy pike or potential, so I started looking into the creel surveys for some possible candidates.

So far I'm through 13 of the 26 looking for low density above average weight and 6 lakes met and exceeded this criteria, so far Baby, Bald Eagle, Cass, Deer(Average pike was 27.4 inches), Lobster(3/4 of the fish exceeded 21 inches), and Mille Lacs(Special Reg exists 24-36).

4 Lakes that are a fraction away are Beers,Cross(quality Pike), Eagle(High numbers of bigger fish are present and fast growing), and Forest.

So 10 of the 13 thus far are plausible, do any of you guys have any personal experience on any of these lakes with Pike?, whats your thoughts on the idea and possible implementation.

I'll work on the next 13 asap

[DHanson]

I'm sorry to say this, but Lobster is not a trophy pike lake. It is very far from it. I have spent hundreds of hours fishing that lake and maybe the biggest pike I ever caught was around 8 lbs. Lots of hammer handles in there and the 21 inch average you refer to is tiny imo.

If you want trophy pike....you need to look at the forage of a lake. Lakes with abundant tulibees, whitefish, and possibly white bass are going to produce big pike. This usually means the bigger lakes (5,000 + acre lakes), but not always as some smaller lakes can produce bigger pike.

[Muskiefool]

Thanks for the info DHanson, this is exactly what we need, angler input, also the point is not to find an existing Trophy Pike, I'm looking for potential lakes because few trophy lakes really exist in MN, well Red, Mille Lacs and a couple that already have regulations to help that effort do have good pike, so 6-8 out of 7000+ that hold pike, I agree 21 is not big by any means but unfortunately for average its better than most with 2.67# and relative low density from the latest creel survey.

Thank You

John

[eyehead]

Lobster does have some nice Northerns in it. We got this one and another 36" in October last year. We also caught a few in the low 30" range through out the summer.....

I wish Northerns got half the respect the muskies do. If they did there would some awesome Northern lakes around the state.

[Dan L]

I like the ldea. It seems like a good fit. I would like to see more of the lakes where you can't take a big fish . Catch and release only or everything over 24 inches has to be released.

[Hoffer]

Which Eagle Lake?? Many of them in the state...

[Muskiefool]

Sorry Eagle in Hennepin Co

[Scott M]

Muskiefool, you might be on to something. Seems to me that a multivariate analysis could reveal a set of lakes that fulfill their requirements and show some trends that lead to the rare balance that allows a trophy size structure. As you say special regulations are already in place on these lakes to support large muskies so a balance has been struck already in some ways to achieve the goal of large Esocids. That Pike/Muskie dynamic is already successful and could possibly improve. But before jumping into new regs it would be nice to evaluate the effectiveness of the toolbox regs on pike on some lakes just to see if it works and if so to what capacity. Some of the toolbox regulation lakes contain muskie, such as Mille Lacs.

The trouble with most pike lakes is its hard to sustain the harvest that some lakes receive. Pike are trophy fish to some, nuisance to others, and food fish to many. If we want trophy pike lakes we have to polarize the effort (on those lakes) to that of muskies, where they are viewed purely as a trophy fish.

[fishin58]

The nuiscance factor is huge for most fisherman because the fishery is already wrecked with Hammer handles, there is a small majority of fisherman that actually understand that we must let fish over 24/26 inches go. I have guys that beg me to bring them 5-10 lb northens, they would take every one they could ( I do not give them any). I have a buddy that hates them, but he caught a 36 incher last year and he sure was grinning! There is a lot of work to be done to restore small fisheries as well as the big.

[Nick Kuhn]

A lake may need a great forage base to grow mid to upper 40 inch fish, but I've seen lakes that really don't have all that good of forage base kick out pike with mid 30's fish average. The lake I'm thinking of was 5 feet deep and ~60 acres. It had been prone to so many winterkills they poisoned it off, restocked and aerated it. Nobody fished it for the longest time so the pike got to that size safely. It was then fished out in a single winter. Now it's a bass numbers lake. 20 pike days were common before, now even 1 is a rarity.

[Newcastle]

It seems like there are so many smaller lakes (700-1250 acre range) that are overrun with a huge stunted sunfish and crappies population. I know there are a couple down in the Mankato area and a lot in the Metro. I don't claim to be a fishery expert (and I'm sure its a lot more complicated that this) but wouldn't some of these be excellent candidates for a slot for a predatory fish like pike. Thinking if you put say a 24-36" C&R on the lake-the pike would help cull some of the panfish population and give anglers another option in seeking larger pike for sport. The remaining balance of panfish not competing for the limited forage allowing a larger sized panfish population to exist.

[Nick Kuhn]

 Originally Posted By: Newcastle

It seems like there are so many smaller lakes (700-1250 acre range) that are overrun with a huge stunted sunfish and crappies population. I know there are a couple down in the Mankato area and a lot in the Metro. I don't claim to be a fishery expert (and I'm sure its a lot more complicated that this) but wouldn't some of these be excellent candidates for a slot for a predatory fish like pike. Thinking if you put say a 24-36" C&R on the lake-the pike would help cull some of the panfish population and give anglers another option in seeking larger pike for sport. The remaining balance of panfish not competing for the limited forage allowing a larger sized panfish population to exist.

Actually I'm hoping to use this argument to try have a slot put on the lake at my cabin. Unfortunately it's Wisconsin and they don't have a slot for pike anywhere, but I can still try. It's also to try to quell the exploding bass population, as the things they've tried on other nearby lakes haven't worked, and they've already started seeing stunted bass on one of the lakes.

[Newcastle]

Does wisconsin ever put a mandatory C&R on a body of water? Might work the same. I know the DNR did it to a Metro area lake I use to frequent to trim the panfish population down--100% catch and release largemouth for a couple years helped bring up the size of pannies and give the lake a great base of 4-5 lb. bass- A win-win if you ask me-I don't know many anglers that don't want to increase the quality of a fishery.

[fishin58]

That is the other side of the coin that people leave out is the stunted panfish! The big Norts keep them in check also..I stay at a small campground, I have thought about putting up a sign at the access to please catch and release these nice pike, but it would prolly have bullet holes in it after a week!

[Newcastle]

Ya-- I often wonder why the DNR doesn't do a little more "suggestive" measures. A simple explaination of the potential benefits of releasing fish of a certain size on a lake maybe a useful read for some anglers while waiting at the launch. Not a rule-just something stating "The MN DNR believes in order to maintain and improve the fishing quality on this body of water, one should ...." Again-not everyone would take it to heart but something is better than nothing.

[fishcast]

I agree with what newcastle said about educating anglers about the results of certain actions, and it would save a lot of work and be a lot less confusing as far as regs go if more people understood selective harvest so the DNR didn't have to regulate stuff so much. However, some people are set in their ways, and some even seem to hate the DNR for some reason.

Also what VahnTitrio said about Wisconsin not having special regs for pike, they not only don't have them but in the south half of Wisconsin (if I remember correctly) you can't even keep a pike untill it is 26". If you ask me this reg pretty much encourages the stunting of the pike pop. in a lake. I really can't see the point of this reg.

Also VahnTitrio mentioned something about the bass populations gettig real high and stunting. Not sure where your cabin is but in NW Wisconsin I think they have a reg. where you can't keep a bass untill it is 15". Here is another reg. where I scratch my head and wonder what Wisconsin is thinking? It is roughly the same concept as the northern issue. They don't even allow the harvest of fish in the size range that would be best to take for the health of the overall population, and instead only allow harvest of larger bass. Makes no sense to me unless they want lakes with stunted bass. I'm glad Minnesota seems to have stuff figured out better and is managing for trophy fish more and more.

Back to northern pike lakes I think what muskiefool said about adding the protected slot on muskie lakes would be good, cause it would probably create more trophy northerns and not anger the spearers since they can't spear them anyways like he said.

But I wish they would add a few more that don't have muskies in them. Especially with the new reg. about not fishing muskie after Dec. 15, I would like to be able to drop down big suckers and jig real large baits for northerns without gettting in trouble for fishiing skies.

Also while a lot of lakes may not produce "trophy" northern pike (not sure what is designated trophy) I still think most should be able to produce a number of fish over 30" and up to 36", and a similiar protected slot I think would help create more lakes like this.

[Bassman55]

I fish a couple lakes that the DNR has put restrictions on the panfish, but has made it C&R only for bass and northerns trying to increase the size of the panfish. It has worked great for everything. The crappies and sunfish I rarely fish for are big, but the bass and northern size has also increased drastically. IDK what you real pike guys think are big northerns but I have went there in the spring and has seen multiple 10-15lb fish. I have also caught maybe 10 fish over the 10lb mark fishing bass. So if you don't mind releasing the fish that does work.

[Nick Kuhn]

Yeah Wisconsin does put min lengths on Pike, and it does promote a lot of fish smaller than the min length with few over. The bass reg is a 14" min, but they've removed it on a few lakes to promote the harvest of them. The worst is the walleye slot, which is normally 14"-17", or the best eating fish. Every walleye I caught last year fell in that slot, and I only caught them on slot waters. We will have the NW Wisconsin Senior Fisheries Biologist on hand for meetings this year to discuss new management policies, so we'll see what can be done. I'll probably round up some humbers from MN and Ontario/Manitoba.

[Muskiefool]

I think healthy Pike fisheries would improve all fishing in the lake, but its going to take a change in angler perception and attitude towards harvesting big fish, Thanks guys.

[hanso612]

I argue fiercely against any statewide slots. Lakes need to be managed individually. The trophy guys should have their lakes and the eating guys should have theirs. If I was an eater guy and lived on a lake that was made into a trophy lake I would cry foul, but my neighbor might be overjoyed. We cant't make everyone happy-but we can offer up many types of lakes. This is why I would love to see a few catch and release only lakes, but not many.

I trust the professionals at the DNR (When they aren't afraid to bite the hand that feeds them) to manage each lake individually for its best productivity way more than I trust politicians to do the best thing for the resource.

But more and more these days its not about protecting the resource, but keeping the constituancy happy.

Lakes ebb and tide-go through boom and bust cycles. Chasing the next hot bite is part of the game. Use Red lake as an example. Hitting the walleys hard allowed for a awesome crappie bite and now some giant northerns. The walleyes will be back. We could limit the walleye catch once they are back and have mediocre fishing for all species or we could let the natural boom and bust happen again.

I think the most important thing is to to protect the watershed from people. We need to buffer lakes and streams, limit constuction and urban sprawl, limit chemicals in the environment, and slow global warming. If we do this we can pound a hot bite knowing the reproductive potential of a great fishery will lead to a boom in something.

The problem is we have resort owners and lake homeowners who need the lake they are on to be good every year. This leads to an outcry whenever the bite is slow for one's favorite species, leading to all kinds of artificial manipulation of the fishery. Man's best efforts will pale in comparison to mother nature's natural cycles.

Fish where the bite is hot- don't try to make each lake a trophy lake. What happened on Red lake was good and happens naturally all over the state. Trying to stop this cycle is like trying to play god. At best it lets mediocre fisherman catch a trophy and at worst it cheapens a real trophy. Hans

[Newcastle]

I agree-with the exception of certain species (sturgeon-muskie-etc.) I don't think a statewide slot is a great idea. But the idea of "meat fisherman" targeting larger northerns-walleye-muskie or whatever being upset for not being allowed to keep fish within in the slot shouldn't play a factor in the DNR's decision on what is best for a body of water.

As for a resort owner-I'd rather claim and enjoy the benefits my lake being a 'DNR designated trophy lake' or something along those lines.

Isn't Red lake is kinda a funny example of allowing a lake to naturally cycle--Wasn't overfishing the reason that the crappie population boomed. The DNR closed it for walleye for how many years, then added a slot limit in order to restore a health, good size walleye population?

I think on the issue of pike--if someone is looking for a meal, it seems like it would easier to round up a few hammer handles vs. trying to catch a trophy sized fish.

[hanso612]

I think there would be a good market in Minnesota for a lake that was managed as a trophy fishery or catch and release only. I know I would stay at a resort like this, but would also like to fish in a lake where shore lunch was the focus. But how do you decide which lakes to make catch and release without stepping on lakeshore owners? My point is that nature decides best. Hit a lake hard and remove upper preditors and prey species will rebound, hit the panfish hard and the lake will be full of minnows-one good spawn and a great year class of preditors will emerge. The problem is that it might take twenty years, but so what. Some lake is going to be hot for something somewhere, as long as we keep the watershed healthy(my biggest point).

Lakes that get fished hard will be fished less as the population of upper preditors gets cropped back but regulars on these lakes will get first shot at a good year class down the line when fairweather fisherman have moved on to the next hot bite. You will never fish a lake completely out and many true trophies come from lakes that are overfished leaving just a few monsters.

At the sportshow I talk to resort owners who use catch and release only as a huge selling point for their remote operations. As an aside, I have noticed in some instances they also have great pictures of fresh fish shore lunch-whats up with that?. My point is we can't please everyone and the quickest way to upset alot of people is to make statewide changes.

You are right about the Red Lake example I used it because it is so well known, but I can think of many smaller lakes that fit the bill as well. Think of winter kill lakes that explode with crappies when all the top preditors die out.(Sunset north of vermillion is a great example)

My point is about fairness. Managing for one species at the expense of another is sure to upset the fisherman who targets the undermanaged species. Nothing is fairer than mother nature. Nothing is more fun than finding the new mother load, and I truely believe that if all fish in lake are trophy fish that we have to let go -they no longer are trophies because it is all relative- then we might as well fish for carp. Hans

[Newcastle]

I think the problem most normal sized lakes' ecosystem cannot handle hard pressure--its not exactly "natural" to have 100's fishing out of a 125 HP fishing boats with depth finders, flashers, GPS, artifical lures, etc.

Perfect example is the lake within a block from my house. 800 acres and the DNR has put over 2,000,000 walleye fry into in the last 8years. Tough to catch any walleye over 12". My guess the reason is becasue of the 100+ permanent ice houses on the lake all winter, mine included. Nothing against taking fish-but I would love if the DNR put a slot of this lake to give a portion of these a chance to reach some size. Sure there would be some [PoorWordUsage] and moaning about it, but as soon as guys start catching 24" walleyes instead of 10", they will probably change their tune.

I love both fishing for trophies, panfish, and eating fish. Given the choice however between spending a day on the water tangling with quality fish all day that had to be released and catching undersized 'eaters', I'd go for the quality route and just stop at the grocery store on the way home.

[Neighbor_guy]

I was told buy a fisheries guy that if you want to catch a lot of good panfish fish a lake that has a lot of fry stocked in it. Walleye fry looks good on paper but all it does is feed the panfish. The only stocking that works is fingerling. The trouble with that is it is very expensive to stock fingerlings and fry are cheap.

Trophy lakes have to be managed for trophys. Usualy that means protected slots, usualy larger fish. If people are encoraged to take the smallest most numerouse fish in a system it will encorage the larger fish to get bigger.