DNR wants to know what anglers think about....

[Fish Felon]

OUTDOORS

DNR wants to know what anglers think about northern pike proposal

By DOUG SMITH , STAR TRIBUNE
June 02, 2015 - 11:52 PM


The Department of Natural Resources wants to know what Minnesota anglers think about a proposal to make the biggest change to northern pike regulations in more than 65 years.

The agency has proposed breaking the state into three zones, each with its own northern pike regulations. The main goal would be to reduce the overabundance of small, hammer-handle-size northerns, which plague many lakes in the north-central region.

Besides being a nuisance to anglers, those small pike also might be hurting panfish populations and reducing the effectiveness of walleye stocking.

“We clearly have an increasing problem with small pike that are causing a lot of ecological issues,” said Don Pereira, DNR fisheries chief.

The northern pike bag limit in the north-central region — roughly north of Hwy. 55 and west of Hwy. 53 — would be 10 fish under 22 inches, with two over 26 inches allowed in the 10-fish bag. All northerns 22 to 26 inches would have to be released. The goal would be to gradually increase the average size of pike and reduce the number of smaller ones.

The proposal also would protect large northerns in the northeast and increase the northern population in the south.

This week, the DNR posted details of the proposal and an eight-minute video presentation on its website (mndnr.gov/pike). There, anglers can also ask questions or comment on the proposal and sign up for e-mail updates.

The agency has met with several sportsmen’s groups and lake associations, but that only reaches so many anglers, Pereira said. So a random scientific survey of the state’s anglers and spearers also will be done this summer to gauge acceptance.

“We have about 500,000 anglers who say they fish for pike,” Pereira said. “It’s a hugely popular fish.”

The preliminary survey results won’t be available until December, and then the DNR might hold meetings and likely will go to the Legislature in 2016 to seek regulation changes. Assuming that happens, the new regulations likely would take effect March 1, 2017.

In return for a potentially improved northern fishery, anglers would be faced with more complex regulations under the zone system.

“There definitely will be a learning curve for the angling public, that’s for sure,” Pereira said.

The proposal isn’t intended to produce trophy northerns, and special regulations aimed to do that will remain on some lakes. Reducing the number of “hammer-handle” northerns would take time. The DNR said results should become obvious in five to eight years. But the long-term effects might not be fully seen until a generation of fish has lived under the new regulations. That could take 10 years or more.

Pereira is hopeful the proposal will be a game-changer.

“I sure hope so, because northern pike management has been one of our most vexing problems for a very long time,” he said. “I’m very excited.”

Doug Smith • dsmith@startribune.com

[Fish Felon]

This is what irks me about the DNR...

...on one hand I'm excited to see some positive changes towards pike management. These new regulations would be light years ahead of what we currently have. So I kind of want to be all "rah-rah-rah, this is awesome, way to go DNR..."

On the other hand, I also don't think they go far enough. There shouldn't be a limit at all for pike under 22" and the slot is kind of a joke. I'd rather see them make it 23" or 24" to 38." On bigger lakes more capable of producing bigger fish up it to 40" or 42." Hell, why not 44"?


Regardless, the regs as is don't bug me. What irks me most is the DNR's incessant need to send out a freaking survey and see what anglers think.

Can they make one flippin' regulations change without wasting money on surveying a bunch of dipshytes and holding a few town hall meetings?

You [DNR] know there's a problem with too many little pike and these regs are the right call to make so just phucking make the call! Do it! Announce the change. I'm sure a few ass-clowns will complain but screw 'em. There is no bigger idiot than your average MN fisherman so why care what they think?

Unreal.

[Bustin Lips]

^^^ I 100% agree with everything you said. As far as I'm concerned, there is no limit on "hammer handles". I didn't name my boat "feeding the eagles" for nothing.

[OTCKid]

I could go on for pages with as much time as I've spent wrangling, arguing, and writing about pike management the last decade or so..

Couple thoughts though (and I'll spare you the rest).

This proposal is a very huge step in the right direction. I agree that if the purpose were purely to address the pike population issues so many of our lakes have, it'd look a lot different. But, the DNR does still have to find something acceptable to the public, which means compromising on what is, from a pure biology standpoint, ideal.

This is especially true with pike management. In some ways they're one of the most challenging species to manage. From a social, user/stakeholder standpoint, they're different things to different people. To some they're a trophy fish, to others they're a consumable, to still others they're a nuisance that has a demonstrated, incontrovertible negative affect on more 'desirable' species like walleyes.

With pike you also have the spearing aspect. A lot of the regulations that would improve pike populations (and by extension the health of the fishery as a whole) are, at least to some spearers, unacceptable and unfair restrictions. It was the spearing organization that convinced the legislature to cap the number of lakes with pike regs at 100, completely eliminating the one effective mechanism the DNR had available short of statewide reg changes to try to manage pike populations. (A good lesson in politics there - be careful what you wish for, because the law of unintended consequences will gnaw on your tender rear end eventually.)

Still, although I also wish they'd go further, what they are proposing is pretty bold. It's the first significant change in pike regulations state wide since the 1930s. And something has to be done. We as anglers have gotten so used to hammerhandle pike that we think an 8 pounder is 'big.' And we're also largely unaware of the detrimental effect overpopulation of small pike has on the rest of the fishery. Just the impact on walleye stocking success alone is mind-boggling (and costs the state millions), and under the current status quo, the entire fishery is less than what it could be - and that includes northern pike...

[OTCKid]

Here's a link to a more thorough description of the proposal, and the management objectives/considerations behind them...

http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/fish_wildlife/presentations/nopz/

[get-n-birdy]

X2 on the no limit for anything under 24"es. Some of the lakes like Sand, Bowstring and anything in the Whitefish Chain could really benefit from no limit on the small northerns. They are so over populated, there's no reason to even remotely have any protection on the smaller ones. If I owned a cabin on any of those lakes, I'd invest in a shredder and have a very well fertilized garden.

[OTCKid]

Re: the limit on small pike... Limits are one thing. Angler behavior is another.

Anglers are incredibly size-selective when it come to pike. Fact is, most anglers just won't keep pike smaller than 22" or so. I'm as Norwegian as they get, and even I can only eat so many pickled pike.

On most lakes, without the additional protection of the mid-sized fish, you could make the limit on small pike 100, and it wouldn't make a difference either in angler behavior, or the pike population structure. The DNR has tried high bag limits on small pike as a means of controlling pike numbers many times, on quite a few different lakes, and it just isn't effective.

[Quack]

Might help if they started an "education campaign" & figure out a publicly acceptable way of disposing of small pike w/o making people eat them.

I'm all about keeping hammer handles for pickling & look forward to a 10 fish limit. But I don't want to deal with em on every single trip and I rarely keep any unless I've got good fish to clean anyway.

So how about no limit on small pike with some encouragement to kill em, freeze em, and toss em in the trash if you don't have a better use for them? I don't want seagulls following my boat all day.

[Stute Slap]

Small pike remind me of a certain group of people
-over populated
-small
-detrimental to fish populations
-unwanted
-stink

[HnkrCrash]

Finally! About time anglers can begin to cull the hammerhandle infestation in many central MN lakes. As far as unlimited fish and the appetite by many anglers for keeping smaller fish, I agree that for many anglers this presents an obstacle.

I propose the DNR offer a special intensive harvest pike license with no bag limits for anyone that can prove Asian ancestry. Minnesota Asians flock to places like Devils Lake North Dakota to fish for white bass. If we create that same incentive in-state via pike, all of the money being spent in other states will be kept in MN. The small town MN economies win, ND suffers, and many lakes will be virtually void of pike within 3-5 years.