Minnesota Northern Reg Change

  • stuwest
    Elmwood, WI
    Posts: 2254
    #1510159

    DNR proposal: Reduce population of hammer-handle-sized northerns
    • Article by: DOUG SMITH , Star Tribune
    • Updated: February 11, 2015 – 11:30 AM
    A DNR proposal would reduce their impact in what could be the biggest change to northern pike regulation in 50 years.

    A DNR proposal would try to boost the size of northerns in Minnesota lakes by encouraging the taking of younger fish and discouraging the taking of older, larger fish. The state would be divided into three northern-pike management zones, each with separate fishing regulations. Right: Officials say the proposal would create more larger northerns, like this one, while also helping the populations of other fish types, such as walleyes. Officials emphasize that the effect of the proposal would take years to be felt.
    The overabundance of small, hammer-handle-size northerns, which plagues many Minnesota lakes and annoys anglers, could be curtailed under a landmark proposal now being considered by the Department of Natural Resources.
    If approved, it would be the biggest change to northern pike regulations in more than 65 years.
    The new regulations would require anglers to release more medium-size northerns, so they could grow larger, and would encourage anglers to harvest more of those smaller northerns. But the trade-off, officials say, is that eventually anglers would catch more larger northerns, and likely more walleyes, perch and other fish, too, as the small-northern population declines.
    “It’s not just for pike anglers — this will have broader effects on the fish community,’’ said Gary Barnard, DNR area fisheries manager in Bemidji.
    The DNR’s proposal would eliminate the statewide northern bag limit of three fish, with one over 30 inches, and replace it with regulations that would differ depending on three new northern pike management zones: south, north-central and northeast. The biggest changes would occur in the north-central region — roughly north of Hwy. 55 and west of Hwy. 53 — where most of the lakes with an overabundance of small northerns are located.
    There, the northern bag limit 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.
    “This is big,” said Henry Drewes, DNR regional fisheries manager in Bemidji. “This would be a paradigm shift in pike management.”
    Officials say as those protected fish grow they would consume smaller northerns, helping balance the fisheries populations. And when they exceed 26 inches, anglers could harvest them.
    Currently the northern harvest is dominated by small fish, he said.
    While the focus is on boosting the quality of northern fishing by reducing the number of small northerns, the ramifications to other fish species are what excite Jim Lilienthal, 68, of rural Brainerd, a member of Anglers for Habitat and retired DNR fisheries biologist.
    Last year, Lilienthal did his own study showing the devastating impact current northern regulations have on lakes stocked with walleyes in the north-central region. Of the 722 lakes stocked with walleyes, 52 percent have a clear overabundance of northerns, which hurts walleye populations, he said.
    “It was frustrating for me to see how many lakes were absolutely infested with high densities of small pike,” he said. “Perch populations have been annihilated in some lakes, so you’re feeding those stocked walleye fingerlings to the pike.”
    Last year, he called for major changes, similar to what the DNR is now proposing. In that key north-central zone, he would prefer regulations that would allow only one northern over 26 inches to be kept, not two, but otherwise he likes the proposal. In the northeast, there would be a two-fish bag limit, with none over 30 inches allowed. In the south, there would be a two-fish bag limit, with a 24-inch minimum size.
    The DNR plans to hold public meetings and solicit comments this year before taking a proposal to the Legislature next year. Lilienthal said all anglers, not just those who want to catch bigger northerns, have a stake in the outcome.
    “If walleye anglers, especially, don’t get involved, they are missing out,” he said. “Doing nothing has consequences for all anglers.”
    The current statewide northern regulation does nothing to boost the quality of the northern fishery, Drewes said. “That’s why we’ve been using experimental and special regulations to improve some lakes,” he said.
    But in 2011 the Legislature restricted the DNR from imposing those regulations on more than 100 lakes — a law that would have to be changed under the current proposal. Legislators imposed the 100-lake limit at the behest of the Minnesota Darkhouse and Angling Association, which feared the length restrictions used in experimental regulations limited a spearer’s ability to take northerns.
    “We’re concerned all of the solutions are based on length, which can be problematic for spearers,” said Tim Spreck of the Darkhouse and Angling Association. “It cuts down on opportunities for sure.”
    But Spreck said he was cautiously optimistic.
    “The idea of removing the hammer-handle problem is intriguing enough to proceed with the process.”
    Even if the proposal is approved and launched in 2016, officials say it will take several years or longer for the effects to be noticed.
    But one thing is certain, DNR officials and Lilienthal say: If nothing is done, hammer-handle northerns will continue to dominate many lakes.

    Doug Smith • 612-673-7667

    fishthumper
    Sartell, MN.
    Posts: 11917
    #1510224

    I see many problems with this. There are 3 lakes in central Minnesota that have been under shot limits for many years now in the attempt to glow larger pike. All 3 lakes have a protected slot of 24-36″. Now its almost impossible to catch a few fish to keep to eat. Who wants to keep and eat a 36″+ fish? ( That is a 13 Lb. + fish ) With all the fish in the 20-24″ size being keep. they have all but wiped out many year class’s of fish. If the DNR thinks a large population of small pike is bad on bait fish and other game fish. What do they think a large population of large pike will do? We all see how well slot limits attempting to grow larger Walleye’s has worked out. I don’t see this attempt being any different.

    Steve Root
    South St. Paul, MN
    Posts: 5623
    #1510264

    Besides pickling, what do you do with 20 inch Northern? I can carve out Y bones but not on a fish that small.

    Wade Boardman
    Grand Rapids, MN
    Posts: 4453
    #1510294

    I like it. I would like to see it more restrictive. Maybe none over 30″ inches. So only fish under 22″ and one 26″-30″.

    You are right however, that only leaves pickling fish.

    Buzz
    Minneapolis MN
    Posts: 1814
    #1510311

    I take what I call the backstrap by filleting off the portion above/along the spine, then the two tail sections; forget the rest.

    Timmy
    Posts: 1235
    #1510343

    As a spear fisherman, this opens up my limit……I could take two big ones in the NC zone under the proposed reg…. But I don’t think that is a good idea.

    I am all for the 10 fish limit for runts – why not? On lakes with lots of small ones it will help and lakes without big numbers, it won’t mean a thing.

    The “no fish over 30 inches” in the NE zone is not a good thing, IMO. I don’t believe the banning of taking a trophy of a lifetime benefits anyone or anything. How about 1 over 24? The big lakes of the NE are in decent shape, why not allow continued utilization of that resource? If it seems to still be working there, why change it? It appears that the rest of states issues are affecting the NE zone which does not need the radical changing?

    Bass Pundit
    8m S. of Platte/Sullivan Lakes, Minnesocold
    Posts: 1772
    #1510344

    How much meat do people get off of 6-8 inch sunfish? With being able to keep 10 fish and all the small fish here in the north-central zone everyone should be able to get plenty of practice with different filleting methods to find one they prefer. Go to youtube and you will find several different methods. So you “waste” a lot of the fish in perfecting your technique. The point of a 10 fish limit is to lose a lot of the biomass in small pike year after year after year so the slack is taken up by other fish and not eaten up by small pike in following years.

    mark-bruzek
    Two Harbors, MN
    Posts: 3867
    #1510345

    Leave it up to the DNR to come up with even more crappy ideas… They are creating too many measurements, scenarios and getting very complicated. Keep It Simple Stupid…KISS method.
    Yes a fella should know his laws but when you need to read a book every time you fish a different lake it is a sign that things are getting ridiculous.

    I enjoy eating pike but I am not going to waste my time with a 24-26″ pike. On the other hand I don’t need to eat a 40″ pike either but to say it is ok to do in one part of the state S of a highway is no way to set a slot.

    The idea has some merit but needs refinement. It seems that the DNR is trying to manage too many things at a time leading to too many things being done crappy.

    Phil Bauerly
    Walker, MN - Leech Lake
    Posts: 866
    #1510356

    I’m not sure why their goal is to protect 22″-26″ers. I think a protected slot from say 26″-40″ would make a lot more sense.

    A – Aron
    Red Wing
    Posts: 106
    #1510362

    The MDAA will nip this one in the butt, I’m up for some compromise, but lets be honest the DNR and all its mighty awesome all knowing power doesn’t know what they are doing.

    Bass Pundit
    8m S. of Platte/Sullivan Lakes, Minnesocold
    Posts: 1772
    #1510370

    Leave it up to the DNR to come up with even more crappy ideas… They are creating too many measurements, getting very complicated. Keep It Simple Stupid…KISS method.

    The idea has some merit but needs refinement.

    Allowing people to spear, tip up fish, and angle pike over 30″ on Mille Lacs was a crappy idea. Those fish are trophy’s and came out of the lake like popcorn this winter. Taking advantage of the pike’s aggressive nature to cause a fish-ocide in their population numbers is a brilliant idea provided people keep those small fish and do whatever the heck they want with them. People really need to learn to what selective harvest is all about and embrace it in all species of fish. I feel that is the only way are ailing fisheries (ie pike, panfish, and walleyes) are going to become healthy again with our modern electronics and fishing know how.

    Jonesy
    Posts: 1148
    #1510410

    Fishing leech last year I kept 3 pike. The biggest was 24 inches. The others were somewhere in the 19-21 inch range. Got plenty of meat off of them so I guess I don’t understand that argument?

    That being said I would not disagree with the slot being moved up an inch or 2

    Attachments:
    1. leech-fish-resize.jpg

    fish-them-all
    Oakdale, MN
    Posts: 1189
    #1510680

    I agree that you can get plenty of meat off a 20-22 inch pike. Plus taking the small ones will help the walleye population immensely. The small pike gobble up all the small walleye they keep stocking in the lakes. Most of the fry and fingerlings are eaten up before they even think about hitting maturity.

    stuwest
    Elmwood, WI
    Posts: 2254
    #1510684

    i’m thinking that a seasonal limit on the trophy fish would work. They are the principal breeders, so taking them out of the cycle seems foolish, but maintaining that hope in the angling public gives us funds to work with. Maybe one fish per season over 40″???

    fishthumper
    Sartell, MN.
    Posts: 11917
    #1510722

    I agree that you can get plenty of meat off a 20-22 inch pike. Plus taking the small ones will help the walleye population immensely. The small pike gobble up all the small walleye they keep stocking in the lakes. Most of the fry and fingerlings are eaten up before they even think about hitting maturity.

    And what do you think a large population of large Pike will be Gobbling up?

    fish-them-all
    Oakdale, MN
    Posts: 1189
    #1511251

    <P>And what do you think a large population of large Pike will be Gobbling up?</P>[/quote]

    Maybe the same thing, but we would have a large population of large pike. Isn’t that the goal? Large pike also will chow on little pike. Not sure what would eat more walleye fry, 100 little pike or 10 big pike, but I am guessing the 100 little pike would eat more.

    Bass Pundit
    8m S. of Platte/Sullivan Lakes, Minnesocold
    Posts: 1772
    #1511272

    I think the idea isn’t a large population of large pike, just not nearly so many little one’s, especially with the way the North Central proposal stands right now.

    fish-them-all
    Oakdale, MN
    Posts: 1189
    #1511285

    Agreed, a more balanced proportion of fish. Any lake should have a pyramid of sizes of fish with the largest at the top. The most being smallest, medium sized in the less numerous than small and the largest have the fewest proportion, but still having a good presence. When there are too many big fish or too many small the fish or food pyramid does not work.

    Bass Pundit
    8m S. of Platte/Sullivan Lakes, Minnesocold
    Posts: 1772
    #1511692

    I have an additional thought for the North-Central region. Open pike season in that region to year round. Why not? Doing that would really get the message across that all those little pike are causing problems.

Viewing 21 posts - 1 through 21 (of 21 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.