Anglers for Habitat first brought this up at the DNR Roundtable three years ago. After compiling years of DNR research/netting data, we were able to show the relationship between a decline in walleye production (in stocked lakes) and an enormous increase in small pike. Here is a link to Dennis Anderson’s article. new rules
and to babysit STOCKED <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>walleye likes!!!!!!!!
Is this a riddle??
nope!!!!!! mistyped……….lakes!!!!! and strictly my opinion!!!!!!!!! take it for whatever its worth!!!!!!
nope!!!!!! mistyped……….lakes!!!!! and strictly my opinion!!!!!!!!! take it for whatever its worth!!!!!!
Taken for what is worth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>glenn57 wrote:</div>
nope!!!!!! mistyped……….lakes!!!!! and strictly my opinion!!!!!!!!! take it for whatever its worth!!!!!!Taken for what is worth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
good for you!!!!!! 
try to be open minded but what is the purpose of protecting 22-26″ northerns in the north central and it said hope is people in the northcentral will harvest smaller northerns they previously wouldn’t. I believe it when I see it for people routinely keeping northerns 22″ or below.
if you netted all the small northerns out fish would reproduce anglers wouldn’t keep small ones and your back where you started. Personally I eat northern as much as panfish or walleye but I don’t plan on keeping 18″ northerns
possible preposterous statement from a lifetime walleye, northern, bass, panfisherman. We have too many regulations and slots. lower the limit a bit simplify regulations and some lakes will be good walleye lakes some won’t. I feel like if a walleye can live in a lake our response is to try to force it to be a great walleye lake and come up with a theory and stocking to try to force them to be. everyones got a personal interest/agenda depending on what they like. I like to spear in the winter I would be fine with a 2 fish limit day and possession. im not going to spear a 18″ fish. also Im not going to spear more than 1 big northern a winter. if I routinely took a big one out of the same lake each weekend common sense would tell you it wouldn’t last long.
After compiling years of DNR research/netting data, we were able to show the relationship between a decline in walleye production (in stocked lakes) and an enormous increase in small pike.
Ladies and gentalmen, this is MN. Nothing else matters but having walleyes in all waters.
“This is why people come form all over the country to fish in MN.” ~ anonymous walleye guide 2014
It’s the walleye.
Fyi- this is not a slam toward Buzz or Anglers for Habitat.
Btw have you bought your walleye stamp this year?
not to beat a dead horse but whos going to keep 10 northerns under 22″??? might as well make it 20 under 22″ same effect
Where do they come up with this stuff? The DNR would help itself out if it provided some reasoning for the changes they make. Also, if we are trying to prevent hammer handles from overtaking lakes, wouldn’t a state wide protected slot of like 30-40″ be a better idea? It seems the DNR believes having the huge Apex predator’s in the system is best for preventing the small ones from overtaking a lake, so why aren’t all of the slots designed to accomplish that? And don’t even get me started on needing a lawyer (and now a GPS) in order to interpret the DNR regs which are slowly creeping on the IRS regs in length.
Here’s a breakdown of the regs:
• In the Northeast zone (east of Hwy. 53, running between Duluth and International Falls), anglers can possess two northerns, with one over 40 inches. Northern 30 inches to 40 inches must be released.
• In the North-Central zone (west of U.S. Hwy. 53 and north of state Hwy. 7 beginning in Ortonville, east past Hutchinson, south on state Hwy. 22 to Glencoe, east on U.S. Hwy 212 to Chaska, south on state Hwy. 41 to the Minnesota River to the Mississippi River), the northern limit will be 10, with two longer than 26 inches. Northerns 22-26 inches must be released.
• In the Southern zone (south of the west-east line noted above beginning in Ortonville), the northern limit is two, with a minimum size of 24 inches.
Where do they come up with this stuff? The DNR would help itself out if it provided some reasoning for the changes they make. Also, if we are trying to prevent hammer handles from overtaking lakes, wouldn’t a state wide protected slot of like 30-40″ be a better idea? It seems the DNR believes having the huge Apex predator’s in the system is best for preventing the small ones from overtaking a lake, so why aren’t all of the slots designed to accomplish that? And don’t even get me started on needing a lawyer (and now a GPS) in order to interpret the DNR regs which are slowly creeping on the IRS regs in length.
This has been discussed since 2015, and there have been significant efforts to receive angler feedback regarding these changes, far before making it an official regulation change. Lots of good info on this page and links to other info too. This isn’t a spur of the moment, random idea and regulation.
And don’t even get me started on needing a lawyer (and now a GPS) in order to interpret the DNR regs which are slowly creeping on the IRS regs in length.
No kidding. I had to pull up Google Maps to figure out that our cabin is in the North-Central zone.
At the lake my family has a cabin on in the North Central Zone, has had a rule for years, that all Northern 24-32″ must be immediately released. Of course most the Northern we catch are literally 24.25″. I find it tough to keep a Northern much smaller than that anyways. We will keep nice healthy thick 22-24″ northern, but anything smaller or skinnier (even at the 22-24″ range) just isn’t hardly worth keeping.
I tell you what….I’m going to release every big Northern I ever catch and let them eat the little hammer handles. What in world am I going to do with a bunch of 18 inch long pike? How much pickled pike can a guy eat?
I’ve been fishing the same lake near Aitkin for almost 30 years. It’s a resort lake, and I see a lot of small Northerns in the gut bucket. Over the years there has been a steady non-stop consumption of the Northerns. And they just keep getting smaller and smaller and smaller. They keep killing them and they just keep getting smaller. 30 years ago you’d catch a lot of 2 to 3 pounders in an afternoon. Then they were 1.5 pounds, and now they’re maybe half or 3/4 of a pound on average. It’s ridiculous. Meanwhile finding and catching a Walleye has become a real challenge, as they can’t compete with the hordes of small pike.
I tried to make this point to the DNR during the comment period but never heard back. I think they’re flat wrong on this one.
SR
The DNR better put this information on the Fishing Regulations section of the Lake Finder page. Like what they do for Muskellung and Tiger Muskellung.
I see this from a spearfishermen’s standpoint since I do not fish for them in the summer, but enjoy spearing in the southern zone throughout winter. The minimum size of 24″ is going to make spearfishermen’s job incredibly tough where I’m at, if not impossible. The majority of Pike in the dozen or so lakes I enjoy are in the 22-26″ range. I would consider myself good at spearing, but judging 1-2″ in 8 FOW, forget it…even after using all the judging techniques…I have no issue stabbing 20-22″ Pike for the pickle jar. In fact, I only harvest fish if they are visibly under 30″. No need to stab a 40″ fish for the wall…I can’t afford the mount anyways!
This isn’t a spur of the moment, random idea and regulation.
I fully understand this, and support the DNR in trying to do something about it. My point is two fold. First the DNR would help itself by making these announcements in a fashion that explains the reasoning behind it. We follow this stuff closer than anyone, and it still took 3 links to find the reasoning. And secondly, other than the NE regs, they don’t seem to address the main goal of increasing the amount of trophy caliber pike. How does allowing harvest of 24″+ or 26″+ pike help achieve that goal?
Guys Don’t be blaming the DNR for this one. They (the DNR) is trying to appease the loud group of (mostly) walleye anglers that were complaining of all the hammerhandles being caught while walleye fishing.
Damned if you do and damned if you don’t.
I’m not going to comment on the regs because I haven’t followed it close enough.
The main goal of these regulations are not for producing trophy pike. That is more for the 100 lakes with special regulations. These regulations are aimed more so to increase harvest in the southern and north central zone. These regulations in the north central part of the state are meant to move the smaller fish above 26 inches. The allowing of the 10 fish limit is more to allow people who want keep more fish to do so since the fish are plentiful and harmful to fisheries. The goal is to maintain the fishery in the N.E. part of the state.
Guys Don’t be blaming the DNR for this one. They (the DNR) is trying to appease the loud group of (mostly) walleye anglers that were complaining of all the hammerhandles being caught while walleye fishing.
Not even so much that, but the heavy depredation by over abundant hammerhandles on walleye fry, fingerlings and YOY walleye, whether stocked or naturally reproduced.
Are walleye anglers planning on keeping small northerns they were previously releasing? don’t see the 10 limit helping. what would be the thoughts when doing the dnr net counts keeping the small northerns putting them in the small metro ponds with no fish would think they’d grow fast with no competition. moneys been spent in worse ways. just an off the wall idea. if no one wants to keep them move them.
Dnr would not stock trout into a lake full of hammer handles-they will kill off the lake, block off pike spawning areas first then stock the lake. Stocking trout is very very expensive-stocking walleyes is also very expensive.
Stocking trout is very very expensive-stocking <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>walleyes is also very expensive.
Stocking walleye fry or fingerlings is very expensive when as soon as they are released are immediately preyed upon by packs of hammerhandle pike. Remove them from the equation and the cost per littoral acre of water for walleye stocking is not at all that costly on a comparative basis.
The fisheries most in balance are the NE zone, fewer fish of any species but typically larger fish if considering pike. Perhaps because they are the least fertile?
But then there are those that might say they aren’t what they once were. 
The last few years I’ve found myself taking home more pike because I’ve been trying to learn how to fillet them right. Guess I will try keeping the small ones at leech this year
TransAm I too have been practicing filleting pike because they taste so good. A customer gave me a tip. She bakes the whole pike with a stick of butter inside, then the bones weren’t a problem. I’m going to try it. Wondering if it works.
You bet it works Greg!
Might want to scale them first. Picking out bones is easy compared to picking out those little scales. Don’t ask how I know.
If you guys haven’t tried pickled pike, you should. I won’t eat herring any longer. Too slimy.
Fish a lot of ND waters and I noticed that they have similar problems to MN. You go to a particular body of water or bay and it nothing but 15-22″ pikes all day. You drive 30 minutes, hit a different area and it 24-30″ pikes every once in a while…
I have caught and ate plenty of them bigger pike (make great meatball for the kids) but never seen a smaller pike in it belly but I have seen eyes or perch. However, the same can be said for walleyes, saw plenty of smaller eyes and perch in them larger fish as well.
The DNR should pass a regulation banning northerns from having Y bones. If they did that, more people would keep more northerns because they’d be easier to filet.
I just emailed a Mn fisheries agent in the northern zone of MN as I was concerned about getting checked in the southern zone on our way home.
my fear was getting accused of being over possession in the southern zone and how to convince the LEO or whoever checked us that we were in fact in the right and how to prove it.
here is his reply,and it doesnt sound like the regs have been put into effect yet or will be any time soon.
Sheldon
The new rule, if it ever takes effect, will have possession limits clearly addressed in the regulation book, including provisions to possess legally taken pike across zone boundaries.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
