# Spearing all species???????



## Bomba (Jul 26, 2005)

Why is ok to spear pike and muskie but you can't spear walleye, bass,
Trout or other fish? Seems to me it would make more sense to have spearing seasons on a species which is numerous in tons of lakes rather than spear a species that in is only limited lakes and does not reproduce well or at all.?? Doesn't it make sense to be allowed to spear these other species?


----------



## jimbo (Dec 29, 2007)

i think the laws were made from an old tradition of spearing big game fish.
so it has little to do with making sense.


----------



## thill (Aug 23, 2006)

Maybe for the same reason you can't shoot all species during gun or bow season. 

DNR might be trying to manage different species in different ways.


----------



## Will Schultz (Aug 4, 2004)

I find this idea very interesting. Why not allow spearing for species that are stocked in large numbers or that have excellent spawning success vs. a species like a muskie that is very low in number in any water and has poor spawning success.



thill said:


> Maybe for the same reason you can't shoot all species during gun or bow season.
> 
> DNR might be trying to manage different species in different ways.


Yes, and in this case it appears they are being managed backward. Long open season and spearing allowed on low density species but closed season (bass) and no spearing on hig density species. Please explain how that works... Don't get me wrong though, I'm not blaming the DNRE because they don't have the power to change regulations. Somehow that is in the hands of the legislature :yikes:


----------



## naterade (Nov 30, 2008)

I don't believe you can spear muskie anywhere in the state. if you read the fishing guide you will see that spearing of different species on different bodies of water is regulated quite a bit.


----------



## Bomba (Jul 26, 2005)

naterade said:


> I don't believe you can spear muskie anywhere in the state. if you read the fishing guide you will see that spearing of different species on different bodies of water is regulated quite a bit.


Better re-read the regulations!!!!!!!!!!!!

Although I wish that were the case.


----------



## D-Fresh (Feb 8, 2005)

naterade said:


> I don't believe you can spear muskie anywhere in the state. if you read the fishing guide you will see that spearing of different species on different bodies of water is regulated quite a bit.



You might want to reread the fishing guide, because it is legal to spear muskie in certain lakes in Michigan.
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/full-no-ads_272056_7.pdf


----------



## D-Fresh (Feb 8, 2005)

Beat me to it Bomba!


----------



## naterade (Nov 30, 2008)

Bomba said:


> Better re-read the regulations
> 
> Although I wish that were the case.


 
That's what I get for being an LSC angler. But as you can see there are regulations to protect certain fisheries and species which leads me to believe it is not just a matter of tradition as mentioned earlier. 

It is regulated to a further extent and pike and muskie are not the only species you can spear.

I see where you arecoming from if someone is spearing on a smaller body of water where you may not get a lot of Pike/Muskie reproduction but the size limits should address that unless there is an extremely over pressured lake.


----------



## Duke (Oct 6, 2000)

Of all the lakes in Michigan, these are the only ones where muskie and/or pike spearing is prohibited (see notes at bottom). 

COUNTY LAKE
Allegan Osterhout
Alpena Fletcher Floodwaters
Barry *Fish
Barry **Thornapple 
Cheboygan	Cornwall Impoundment
Cheboygan Tower Pond
Chippewa Caribou
Clare Budd
Clinton Ovid
Delta +Dana
Iron +Brule
Iron *Cable
Iron +Chicagon
Iron +Chief Edwards
Iron Emily
Iron +Paint
Iron +Paint Pond
Iron *Porter
Iron Stanley
Iron +Violet
Keweenaw	*Gratiot
Kent Campau
Kent Murray
Lapeer Nepessing
Lenawee **Lake Hudson
Livingston	Whitmore
Livingston	Woodland
Mackinac Brevoort
Marquette	*Fish
Montmorency	Fletcher Floodwaters
Montmorency	West Twin
Muskegon	Mona
Oakland Heron
Oakland Tipsico
Otsego Big Bear
Otsego Otsego
Ottawa Macatawa
St. Joseph	Long (Fabius Twp. T6S, R12W, sec 7)
Schoolcraft	*Big Bass
Schoolcraft	*Grassy
Schoolcraft	*McKeever
Van Buren	**Bankson
Van Buren	**Brownwood
Van Buren	**Round (Keeler Twp. T4S, R16W,sec 31)
Washtenaw	Whitmore

plus Great Lakes waters of Lake St. Clair, St. Clair River, Detroit River, Lake Erie

+ Northern pike may be speared.
* 30" size limit on northern pike.
** Northern pike and muskellunge season is the last Saturday in April through November 30.


----------



## naterade (Nov 30, 2008)

what is concern here. spearing muskie/pike or not being able to spear bass or both?

are there lakes you fish where the pike and/or holy muskie are being depleted from spearing?


----------



## wartfroggy (Jan 25, 2007)

Pike can handle the added pressure better than some other species. For the most part, they are quite successful in spawning and natural reproduction. Plenty of lakes that have spearing are still over run with pike, while other lakes get intensive walleye plants and still have a limited walleye population. 
That being said, most of why we can still spear pike and not other fish is, as has been mentioned, tradition.


----------



## Firefighter (Feb 14, 2007)

I've often wondered the same thing, not only for winter, but summer spearfishing as well.

I wonder why one cannot shoot legal fish such as pike and musky during the summer with a speargun but you can spear them in the winter.

Another contradiction to the regulations.


----------



## JJ Mac (Dec 29, 2003)

All we are is dust in the wind and so will be this thread inside of 24 hours.


----------



## Scott Williams (Jul 15, 2008)

Sounds like tradition is the leader in the reasoning for this management decision. Unfortunately, tradition doesn't insure our kids will have fish remaining for them. Basing reguations on SCIENCE is the only way management decisions should be made.

If these decisions were based on science, bass and walleye would make much more sense to spear since their numbers are much higher than the pike and muskie numbers.

In five years when asian carp are everywhere, maybe a smart management decision will be made to where they'll be the only species available to spearing... of course they'll be about the only fish around anyhow.


----------



## Scott Williams (Jul 15, 2008)

wartfroggy said:


> Pike can handle the added pressure better than some other species. For the most part, they are quite successful in spawning and natural reproduction. Plenty of lakes that have spearing are still over run with pike,


Not sure if I agree with you here. Some of those lakes with spearing that are still over run with pike, are usually over run with small pike. This is usually because the larger fish have been removed from the lake, by hook/line, or spearing. Thus increase harvest of the larger fish, can actually contribute to the lake being over run with hammer handles. I'm not saying that fish can't or shouldn't be harvested, however selective harvest is a must if the fishery is to be sustained.


----------



## Mister ED (Apr 3, 2006)

Scott Williams said:


> If these decisions were based on science, bass and walleye would make much more sense to spear since their numbers are much higher than the pike and muskie numbers.


Bass maybe ... but walleye, give me a break, higher populations only because they were stocked.

I think the only reason that Muskie are included is I'm betting there a ferw folks that spear them each year thinking they are pike.


----------



## ShootSkybusters (Jan 7, 2005)

Scott Williams said:


> Not sure if I agree with you here. Some of those lakes with spearing that are still over run with pike, are usually over run with small pike. This is usually because the larger fish have been removed from the lake, by hook/line, or spearing. Thus increase harvest of the larger fish, can actually contribute to the lake being over run with hammer handles. I'm not saying that fish can't or shouldn't be harvested, however selective harvest is a must if the fishery is to be sustained.


 
true enough for certain lakes, but that can be adjusted for by adopting a slot limit, max size limit or no size limit on those particular waters. Certainly not the case for any musky water, anywhere. 

I really like the idea...spearing tasty, abundant fish like walleye and perch would really appeal to me! Let's get this ball rolling and write our legislature and local DNR folks...


----------



## naterade (Nov 30, 2008)

ShootSkybusters said:


> ...
> I really like the idea...spearing tasty, abundant fish like walleye and perch would really appeal to me! Let's get this ball rolling and write our legislature and local DNR folks...


:lol: Spearing walters. Let me know how that works. wait 'til dusk and then sit real quiet for one; or knock out the 25 foot spear and hit 'em hard in the day

If you want to spear perch, take a tripto LSC.


----------



## U.P.Nate (Dec 11, 2009)

I think It makes sence to spear "Predator fish" and leave hook and line fishing for the "sport fish" There are stunted pike every where up here, and think of what would happen if you let a million hillbillies line our streams and spear trout and salmon. I dont know just my 2 cents that the rules make perfect sence to me.


----------



## jasonvkop (Apr 8, 2009)

Mister ED said:


> Bass maybe ... but walleye, give me a break, higher populations only because they were stocked.
> 
> I think the only reason that Muskie are included is I'm betting there a ferw folks that spear them each year thinking they are pike.


Trust me, there are far more than a few folks spearing muskies and they are targeting them specifically. Also, I'm not sure what your argument is about walleyes. Muskies are stocked in far less numbers than walleyes and have little or no natural reproduction in those stocked lakes. It doesn't make sense that a fish with a far smaller population and no natural reproduction can be speared. I know that muskies are the highest on the food chain and therefore there are less of them than other fish but they are already stocked at a much lower rate and spearing is just reducing the already low number of muskies in the lakes.




U.P.Nate said:


> I think It makes sence to spear "Predator fish" and leave hook and line fishing for the "sport fish" There are stunted pike every where up here, and think of what would happen if you let a million hillbillies line our streams and spear trout and salmon. I dont know just my 2 cents that the rules make perfect sence to me.


Since when are pike/musky not sport fish?? Last time I checked Bass, Walleye, Trout, and Salmon were predators too.


----------



## U.P.Nate (Dec 11, 2009)

Although generally known as a "sporting" quarry, some fishermen release pike they have caught because the flesh is considered bony, especially due to the substantial "Y-bones". The northern pike is a largely solitary predator. It follows its prey fish into their deeper winter quarters. Sometimes groups of similar sized pike might have some coorporation and it is known to anglers pike tend to start hunting at the same time, commonly know as a "wolfpack".

However walleyes are popular with anglers, and fishing for walleyes is regulated by most natural resource agencies. Management includes the use of quotas and length limits to ensure that populations are not over exploited. As one example, the state of Michigan, walleye shorter than 15 in may not be legally kept, except in LSC and the St. Clair River where fish as short as 13 in may be taken.

So I don't know but thats all I have to say, Im not trying go get up on a soap box and preach or start anything, I am mearly posting my thoughts on this topic, wich is what was asked.


----------



## Will Schultz (Aug 4, 2004)

U.P.Nate said:


> I think It makes sence to spear "Predator fish" and leave hook and line fishing for the "sport fish" There are stunted pike every where up here, and think of what would happen if you let a million hillbillies line our streams and spear trout and salmon. I dont know just my 2 cents that the rules make perfect sence to me.


I'm no biologist but I'm certain all fish mentioned so far in this thread are "predator fish" (aka. piscivores).


----------



## Scott Williams (Jul 15, 2008)

Mister ED said:


> Bass maybe ... but walleye, give me a break, higher populations only because they were stocked.


Walleyes have a much better natural reproduction rate than muskies. Also they are stocked much higher. According to the DNR database over 1,700,000 walleyes were stocked by the state last year, not to mention thousands of private, and tribal stockings. Conversely, only 3830 muskies were stocked by the entire state. If every muskie stocked were to survive to adulthood, and only .22 walleyes out of 1000 were to survive to adulthood we would have the same populations of stocked fish surviving.

Comparing muskies to walleyes is comparing apples to oranges. However, if you are using population densities to decide which should be speared... I would say walleyes would be a better fit.


----------



## Benzie Rover (Mar 17, 2008)

Not a biologist, I just play one online...

Will - yep, the central stoneroller is the only vegetarian fish in Michigan (so far, knock on wood) that does not eat other fish, all others are 'predators' of something

UP Nate - from what I know, pike are primarily lie and wait predators and do not move around to stalk fish to the degree that walleye or perch do... but I agree they do seem to bite in waves for whatever reason.... 

Naterade - actually, several guys have been busted spearing walters on Lake Leelanau in past winters, so it happens a lot more than you think unfortunatley. 

Biggest difference with spearing as a harvest method is that once the decision is made to spear, then assuming you hit the fish, it is a done deal...obviously C & R and spearing don't mix... so when an angler makes a mistake on ID, or size or whatever, the option to let it go is not there... on the other hand, the harvest rate (C.P.U.E. in fish geek language) is typically much, much lower for spearing than hook and line... so basically that all tells me that spearing would be appropriate for high density species, but there is NO biological reason for spearing musky, and really no tradition either since they are so rare... the fact Ski's can be speared at all is total inconsistent with how the Fisheries folk supposedly manage the rest of our sportfish populations. As was said above, pike and muskies have totally different population dynamics... pike typically handle spearing just fine... whereas low density 'ski' populations can be severly impacted by just a couple large females being permanently removed from a lake system... 

fish on,

Matt


----------



## D-Fresh (Feb 8, 2005)

Benzie Rover said:


> Biggest difference with spearing as a harvest method is that once the decision is made to spear, then assuming you hit the fish, it is a done deal...obviously C & R and spearing don't mix...\


Nope, you can't C&R, but you sure can "watch and release." Any angler can take 2 pike, regardless of method and I think that spearing accounts for a very small number of the total harvest. I have passed a TON of fish in the darkhouse and just enjoy watching them hammer the deke! Darkhouse anglers have the option of selectively harvesting the fish they want, based on size and the specific lake they are fishing. If it is a small inland lake, let that big 38" fat female go!! What happens when that big fat female buries a rapala in her stomach or when that tipup treble hook buries in her gills? She is done, no chance of release. I am not against tipups or soft water fishing either, as I do both myself, my only point is that just because you can't catch and release, doesn't mean you can't be a good sportsman and manage the resource while spearing. I myself prefer to take the 28-32" "eater" fish.


----------



## PahtridgeHunter (Sep 1, 2004)

My only question is, who would spear a bass? :16suspect Then you'd have to eat it!:lol:


----------



## D-Fresh (Feb 8, 2005)

PahtridgeHunter said:


> My only question is, who would spear a bass? :16suspect Then you'd have to eat it!:lol:


Great point, Jay!:lol:

And who would need to spear a walleye anyways?? They are so stupid and easy to catch, a caveman could do it!:lol:


----------



## Scott Williams (Jul 15, 2008)

PahtridgeHunter said:


> My only question is, who would spear a bass? :16suspect Then you'd have to eat it!:lol:


Using this logic, who would want to harvest a legal muskie, or a large northern (36"+) for food??? When they get big not only do they taste bad, but they are also unhealthy for consumption?


----------



## Will Schultz (Aug 4, 2004)

D-Fresh said:


> Great point, Jay!:lol:
> 
> And who would need to spear a walleye anyways?? They are so stupid and easy to catch, a caveman could do it!:lol:


Muskies have a brain about the size of a pea. If intelligence were measured the walleye would surely come out on top. So using your caveman logic even a sub-human can catch a muskie so why spear one - right?

Seriously though, the original question makes sense. Why is there such liberal bag limits and harvest limits on a species that is so low density (I'm talking muskies not pike though in some instances the same could be said for pike).

In reality, the only species in Michigan that is remotely close to a muskie is the sturgeon. Why aren't muskies managed more like sturgeon?

I'm just spitballing here but...
Wouldn't a tag system on muskies make more sense for all resource users? I'm not aware of a sinlge water in the state that should allow more than one muskellunge per season to be harvested by angler or spearer (if we're setting harvest limits based using sound biological management).


----------



## Ralph Smith (Apr 1, 2003)

PahtridgeHunter said:


> My only question is, who would spear a bass? :16suspect Then you'd have to eat it!:lol:


smallmouth caught from colder waters are excellent. If you haven't tried any, do it, you'll be suprised.



Scott Williams said:


> Using this logic, who would want to harvest a legal muskie, or a large northern (36"+) for food??? When they get big not only do they taste bad, but they are also unhealthy for consumption?


I can tell you this,I grew up eating pike, and they are as good or better than walleye. Just like any fish, you have to eliminate the lateral line on fillet, and bones. I've also had a few musky, very similar to pike. The best one I had was whole, gutted, stuffed with a seafood stuffing and baked.mmmmmm.

Also to the guy who made a statement about the Asian carp over running our great lakes.......Its all hype buddy, won't happen. They don't even eat fish, but all our fish will eat them:evilsmile Might even be helpful and take the place of the alewives.


----------



## ShootSkybusters (Jan 7, 2005)

Will Schultz said:


> ...Why is there such liberal bag limits and harvest limits on a species that is so low density (I'm talking muskies not pike though in some instances the same could be said for pike).
> 
> In reality, the only species in Michigan that is remotely close to a muskie is the sturgeon. Why aren't muskies managed more like sturgeon?


these are great questions...I would pay to hear the DNRE fisheries biologists' answers for sure...



Ralph Smith said:


> Asian carp over running our great lakes.......Its all hype buddy, won't happen. They don't even eat fish, but all our fish will eat them:evilsmile Might even be helpful and take the place of the alewives.


those are some big damn alewives!


----------



## JJ Mac (Dec 29, 2003)

Ralph Smith said:


> smallmouth caught from colder waters are excellent. If you haven't tried any, do it, you'll be suprised.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'll have to respectfully disagree with pretty much everything you've stated. 

In addition, I sure hope your opinion on the Asian Carp puts you in the extreme minority and that there are very few who agree with you. You sound like a Chicago politician.


----------



## Ralph Smith (Apr 1, 2003)

JJ Mac said:


> I'll have to respectfully disagree with pretty much everything you've stated.
> 
> In addition, I sure hope your opinion on the Asian Carp puts you in the extreme minority and that there are very few who agree with you. You sound like a Chicago politician.


Nope, just don't believe it. First the zeebs were going to ruin the great lakes, then the gobies, now the asian carp. I don't see it happening. We have alot more predatory fish that eat other small fish (which they will be after being hatched) than the Mississippi river has. Our large predators depend on the plankton, just on the small fish. So if the carp filter the plankton and reproduce, I just see the forage base in the lake becoming asian carp. True there will be large ones also, but they won't be competing with our large native fish. The smaller fish will take alot more hurting, like the smelt and herring. Its just my view and opinion on it, only time will tell. Trying to think positive. Maybe with an abundance of food, the salmon will become 40lbs. again.


----------



## JJ Mac (Dec 29, 2003)

I really hope you are correct. 

I've never been so concerned for our great lakes as I have with this invasive threat. If the Asian carp get into the great lakes, I can bet that I'll be leaving Michigan shortly thereafter.

I got a little hyped on this issue last week when a coworker mentioned to me that they had been discussing this issue with a DNR officer. The DNR officer stated to them that "...there is nothing we can do about." I disagree, there are physical things that can be done, but short termed thinking politicians won't allow it, and an attitude like that from our DNR sure doesn't help.

I whole heartedly support Attorney General Cox's initiatives!


----------



## Scott Williams (Jul 15, 2008)

Ralph Smith said:


> Maybe with an abundance of food, the salmon will become 40lbs. again.


I don't want to hijack this thread, as opening up all species to spearing is the purpose of this thread. But if asian carp start mass reproducing in the great lakes there won't be an abundance of food, there will be an abundance of large carp, of which will have no predators.

OK back to the topic.


----------



## Will Schultz (Aug 4, 2004)

Scott Williams said:


> I don't want to hijack this thread, as opening up all species to spearing is the purpose of this thread. But if asian carp start mass reproducing in the great lakes there won't be an abundance of food, there will be an abundance of large carp, of which will have no predators.
> 
> OK back to the topic.


It's not that unrelated really... overfishing wiped out the muskie populations in the drowned rivermouth lakes which, along with really big pike, would be the only fish able to utilize carp larger than 10-12".


----------



## Ralph Smith (Apr 1, 2003)

I think the spearing shouldn't change, but as far as pike goes, they aren't as abundant as they used to be. It used to be a 5 fish limit at 20". Big change was made to try and keep them from being overfished, so why the spearing not changed?



Scott Williams said:


> I don't want to hijack this thread, as opening up all species to spearing is the purpose of this thread. But if asian carp start mass reproducing in the great lakes there won't be an abundance of food, there will be an abundance of large carp, of which will have no predators.
> 
> OK back to the topic.


I disagree, big fish eat little fish, they aren't born 50 lbs., they don't eat other fish. Ask the gobies, that weren't suppose to be ate since they had no predators. If they swim and are small enough to get ate, they will. Especially since they hang higher in the water column where are toothy predators will be looking for them.


----------



## D-Fresh (Feb 8, 2005)

Will Schultz said:


> Muskies have a brain about the size of a pea. If intelligence were measured the walleye would surely come out on top. So using your caveman logic even a sub-human can catch a muskie so why spear one - right?


I was merely making a joke with all of the hardcore walleye guys, and that post was no more than that, so don't read into it too much.:chillin:

As for everything else you responded with, my muskie knowledge is limited to say the least....never caught one, don't know much about them, so I can't comment on them.


----------



## Duke (Oct 6, 2000)

Ralph Smith said:


> Nope, just don't believe it. First the zeebs were going to ruin the great lakes, then the gobies, now the asian carp. I don't see it happening. We have alot more predatory fish that eat other small fish (which they will be after being hatched) than the Mississippi river has. Our large predators depend on the plankton, just on the small fish. So if the carp filter the plankton and reproduce, I just see the forage base in the lake becoming asian carp. True there will be large ones also, but they won't be competing with our large native fish. The smaller fish will take alot more hurting, like the smelt and herring. Its just my view and opinion on it, only time will tell. Trying to think positive. Maybe with an abundance of food, the salmon will become 40lbs. again.


Depends what you mean by "ruined". Look at Lake Huron, why has the open water fishery collapsed there in VERY short order? No food for the salmon or lakers. Where is the food? Why have alewives have all but disappeared, whitefish and herring are on a severe decline heading for a complete crash as well? All evidence points to the zebra and quagga mussels robbing those forage fish of their food supply. In my opinion they have ruined Lake Huron.


----------



## Ralph Smith (Apr 1, 2003)

Duke said:


> Depends what you mean by "ruined". Look at Lake Huron, why has the open water fishery collapsed there in VERY short order? No food for the salmon or lakers. Where is the food? Why have alewives have all but disappeared, whitefish and herring are on a severe decline heading for a complete crash as well? All evidence points to the zebra and quagga mussels robbing those forage fish of their food supply. In my opinion they have ruined Lake Huron.


If thats the case, there will be no food then for the carp ehh? There sure is a million minnows out there eating something though. I don't tend to argue on here, so I'm done with posting on this thread, good luck, and I hope all things work out the best for the lakes. Remember, "nature finds a way" Take care everyone, good fishing.


----------



## Duke (Oct 6, 2000)

Hey no "argument" here Ralph! You make some very good points and I'm glad to hear them. The mussels have shifted the energy balance- where all the biomass occurs- from the deep open water of Lake Huron (plankton-shrimp-herring-whitefish-preadtors) to the bottom (mussels-gobies) and to shallow near shore areas (shiners-perch-walleye). And you are likely dead-on that if an Asian carp infestation occurs in the Great Lakes, they will not find Huron to their liking right now. Lake Michigan? Who knows, but I suspect the real concern is them taking to tributary rivers like they have to the Illinois...

But back to topic again- its very encouraging to see good agreement here that the management of our apex predators is forked up! Pike need a *slot limit* and muskies need more stringent protection, PERIOD. How many of us would like to tussle with a fish like the new state record muskie that was caught last fall!!??? You might find this hard to believe, but in Minnesota they have _created_ a fishery from scratch where fish of that caliber are almost common place! Every year they are catching and releasing multiple fish like that and COUNTLESS other trohpy sized muskies.


----------



## WALLEYE MIKE (Jan 7, 2001)

I highly doubt 1/100% of fish are taken by spearing.


----------



## MrFysch (Feb 9, 2008)

Definitely a tradition and like said above by Mike i think it has a negligible effect on the pike population. As far as the pike population in general on Sag bay it is a shadow of its former self from when i was a kid sitting off Geiger rd in the shanty with my dad back in the 70's. I remember literally dozens of pike laying on the ice from all the guys spearing. As far as Lake Huron goes I think the factors that has lead to a DRAMATIC change in that fishery are many. One that I think got overlooked was the massive drop in water levels in the 90's. That pretty much wiped out the spawning areas for the smelt for years. Along with the drop in the alewive population was in my opinion the straw that sealed the salmons fate. Salmon are a suspending fish and their diet is mainly from feeding on forage in their water column which is mainly gone in Lake Huron. Of course I'm just guessing. The species that are flourishing like the walleye..Pike (making a comeback}..whitefish and Lake Trout have not been affected as much by the change in forage base and Like Ralph said have adapted! BUT>>> Definiteley I give a BIG NO to the Aisian Carp and support all actions to stop their progression to the lakes!


----------



## Bomba (Jul 26, 2005)

MrFysch said:


> Definitely a tradition and like said above by Mike i think it has a negligible effect on the pike population. As far as the pike population in general on Sag bay it is a shadow of its former self from when i was a kid sitting off Geiger rd in the shanty with my dad back in the 70's. I remember literally dozens of pike laying on the ice from all the guys spearing.


 
HMMM, I wonder why the populatin crahsed? Same thing with inland lakes and people keeping limits of gills and crappie day after day for a couple years then they start complaining they can't catch any fish there anymore? It's not hard to figure out. Humans do way more damage to the fish population in lakes than other predator fish could ever do!!!!!


----------



## WALLEYE MIKE (Jan 7, 2001)

Bomba said:


> HMMM, I wonder why the populatin crahsed? Same thing with inland lakes and people keeping limits of gills and crappie day after day for a couple years then they start complaining they can't catch any fish there anymore? It's not hard to figure out. Humans do way more damage to the fish population in lakes than other predator fish could ever do!!!!!


All depends on the size of the lake and how many truly take fish out and how many they take. 

Also fish do have normal yearly mortality. That is from age, disease, predation, harvest (which in most cases is a small amt.).


----------



## Duke (Oct 6, 2000)

WALLEYE MIKE said:


> I highly doubt 1/100% of fish are taken by spearing.


Hey Mike,
Not sure if you mean 1 of 100 pike/muskies that are kept are done so by spear, or if you mean 0.01%, or whatever the number if you are only talking about pike? Either way, if we were talking strictly about muskies, statewide I'd say the percent of kept fish that is taken by spear is quite a bit higher than 1%, but probably still not the majority~ I'll throw out 35-40% as a guess. For pike, it is definitely a lot lower than for muskies but still significant ~ I'll guess 15% maybe.

By the way my numbers are only slightly more scientific than yours I'd say! Only because I pay attention to this stuff about as much as anyone could, and that my first name aint walleye!!! thanks


----------



## WALLEYE MIKE (Jan 7, 2001)

Duke said:


> Hey Mike,
> Not sure if you mean 1 of 100 pike/muskies that are kept are done so by spear, or if you mean 0.01%, or whatever the number if you are only talking about pike? Either way, if we were talking strictly about muskies, statewide I'd say the percent of kept fish that is taken by spear is quite a bit higher than 1%, but probably still not the majority~ I'll throw out 35-40% as a guess. For pike, it is definitely a lot lower than for muskies but still significant ~ I'll guess 15% maybe.
> 
> By the way my numbers are only slightly more scientific than yours I'd say! Only because I pay attention to this stuff about as much as anyone could, and that my first name aint walleye!!! thanks


0.01% of all fish taken that are available to harvest. Not percentage of spearers keeping fish.

For example, look at all the fisherman fishing Lk.Erie all spring and summer. The DNR biologist estimate less than 1% are taken by them.


----------



## PahtridgeHunter (Sep 1, 2004)

Ralph Smith said:


> smallmouth caught from colder waters are excellent. If you haven't tried any, do it, you'll be suprised.


I tease, but you're right...I've heard others make this claim about bronzebacks in cold water. Hell, I'll try anything once!:lol:


----------



## Duke (Oct 6, 2000)

It is worth a try! catch em out of cold water AND put them on ice immediately, its good


----------



## Benzie Rover (Mar 17, 2008)

Typical of most opion threads, this one has falling off the original question... the simple answer is no, we should not spear all species because not all species should be managed with the same harvest techniques... Let me ask, should we lift the 5 fish sturgeon limit on the black, mullet, burt spearing season and have no limit? why not? well obviously, cause when you take away 50 or so prime spawners from total population of less than 500, then you'll simply have less recruitment of juvenilles into adult fish in years to come... and when that season takes less than 48 hours to complete, imagine how many fish would be taken if you could take say, 1 per trip all winter... While this does not apply to most species in our waters, the main 2 species that can be signficantly impacted by spearing, in my opinion, are sturgeon and muskie because there are simply not many of them in any of our waterbodies... although in healthy populations, sturgeon could possibly sustain a spearing harvest, but none of our populations are anywhere close to that level... go out to the Columbia River if you want to see what real sturgeon #s are like (different species though)... 

For me, spearing muskie is like pioneers shooting bison for fun as they drove by on the train... sure seemed to be a heck of a lot of them around then!


----------



## Duke (Oct 6, 2000)

I came across some interesting info from Minnesota where they have a current controvery becasue there is a group fighting to open Cass Lake to pike spearing. Spearing is closed there because it is a muskie lake- muskie spearing is not allowed in Minnestoa (Michigan is the ONLY state or province where musky spearing is allowed by non-tribal members). Here's one of the interesting tidbits from the article that is related directly to some of the discussion here:

"Studies show that only six percent of the anlgers were spearers which, accounted for 51 percent of the total northern pike population harvest for the entire year."

WOW! anyway here's the article, I haven't found the DNR study they reference in it yet http://www.casslaketimes.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1427:muskie-inc-says-qkeep-spearing-closedq&catid=27ther-top-news


----------



## Pikekilla (Jan 9, 2008)

Wow, what a thread. So many different topics I dont know where to start. I am going to do my best to touch on them all. 

As for spearing panfish.....If you can keep a fish by hook and line why not take'em with a spear? With a spear you can harvest what you want and watch the others. No hooked, handled, or hurt fish......

As for all other fish....if you can keep them by hook and line why not take'em with a spear? With a spear you can harvest what you want and watch the others. No hooked, handled, or hurt fish....

Sorry to be repeditive, but its pretty easy to figure out.

For those of you who are going to reply "why not use a shot gun then?" Or simalr smart *** statements. Its not that hard to figure out. Both hook and line and spearfishing are practical, ethical and efficant ways to harvest dinner. 

Spear fisherman.....usually camp out on one hole

Hook and line.....as many holes as you can drill...

Who do you think catches, hooks and handles more fish?

As for the Holy Muskie
1. Tastes great smoked...I mean really great!

2. Are not native to most of the inland lakes they have been planted in. Last time time I checked a creatured introduced to a body of water in which they are not native is called an invasive species. Weither we purposely plant them or not. 

Ok class, what have we all learned about invasive species over the past 100 years? They are usually if not always bad. It may be years before you see or realize the effect, but their will be some kind of effect!

These inland lakes are getting huge muskie in them. How much does a 30lb muskie eat a day? I am asking, I don't know. If i had to guess several pounds. A lot of your "muskie pros" will tell you the lunges' favorite diet is rough fish. What happens if the rough fish in these inland lakes have a bad spawn year, or two bad spawn years? Which sport fish population will be the first to dwindle in these lakes? I'm asking, I don't know. 

Bottom line, your never going to make everyone happy. All you can do is try to satisfiy the majority and be fair. How much of the angler population in this state are avid muskie fisherman? How much of the angler population target the fish muskie eat? So why do we spend so much time, money, blood sweat and tears on a fish that is that is targeted by such a small percentage of the angling population? If i was a wallye, perch or bass guy, I sure would be standing up for the folk that want a reasonalbe harvest approch on the Holy Muskie! 

Oh yea, asian carp suck!


----------



## Bomba (Jul 26, 2005)

Pikekilla said:


> Wow, what a thread. So many different topics I dont know where to start. I am going to do my best to touch on them all.
> 
> As for spearing panfish.....If you can keep a fish by hook and line why not take'em with a spear? With a spear you can harvest what you want and watch the others. No hooked, handled, or hurt fish......
> 
> ...


HMMMMM interesting


----------



## Duke (Oct 6, 2000)

You make some good points, but are stretching out on some thin limbs to do it! I'll try to touch on a few as well-

Muskies as invasive species- yup its true most of the lakes they are stocked into they are an *introduced* species. Can't call them invasive though because they have shown almost ZERO natural reproduction in any of these lakes in which they are stocked. So your fears there don't have much merit. So how many places have they been introduced anyway? There are only about 30 lakes statewide where there are more or less an established population of stocked muskies. That's out of 11,000 lakes. There are about 3 times as many lakes where muskies are native in Michigan than there are these ~30 stocked lakes. 

And you had to know this one was coming- using the "invasive" argument in Michigan with regards to fisheries management crashes-and-burns real quick. Salmon, steelhead, rainbows, brown trout... of course. But how about walleye? Of course they are native to the Great Lakes and all the connecting suitable rivers- just like muskies- but how many inland/landlocked lakes have walleye been *introduced* to??? Too many to even count there, just as an example. 

Also, muskies have been wiped out or severely cut back from probably more lakes than they have been stocked into, so that could be seen as a wash anyway. Dams blocking migration, spawning habitat destruction, pollution, and even over fishing are all causes for the declines in different locations.

How much (or what) do they eat- I don't know how much lbs/day they eat, but here's some things to think about anyway. First, think alligator or python- huge meals, very infrequently. Eat a big thing now, don't eat again until that thing is digested. The reason you hear that muskies eat rough fish is they are the most numerous thing that fits their meal preference. This does NOT come from "the muskie pros", this comes from scientific data. Muskies (or any fish) does not choose on taste- they only choose on how easy is it to catch, and how easy it is to swallow. How easy is it to catch has to do with numbers primarily, and how easy to swallow has to do with the shape and the presence of spines. These are the reasons that suckers, carp, sheepshead, shad, perch, ciscoes/herring and whitefish are generally tops on their lists anywhere available. And the reason rough fish (the first 4 in that list) are what they are is they are very prolific and don't have too many down years. Walleyes, bass, panfish are never eaten very often because they are not the most numerous, or best things to swallow. Also keep in mind just how few muskies there are in comparison to all these other fish, and that they are not ravenous eaters- if they were they'd be a hell of a lot easier to catch!

If I were a walleye, perch, or bass guy I would look to the very best natural fisheries and learn from those. And the facts are that the best lakes for those fish are also the best lakes for muskies, or for big pike. The reason for that is simply that a good lake is a good lake- AND that muskies have never been shown to have a negative impact on any species, any time, anywhere.

You are right you can't make everyone happy, but then again I think you can come pretty close, or at least do a LOT better. Muskie anglers make up a small % in Michigan (not so small elsewhere), but I don't think muskie anglers are pushing for there to muskies everywhere, or that they should all be C&R or anything crazy! I'm not sure how much "time, money, blood, sweat & tears" you really think is being spent?? Its not being spent by the DNR, thats for sure. Are you talking about here online? Like it or not muskies are one subject that MANY people have at least a curiosity in, and there is much to constructively debate about them and their management. And this is GREAT because we can all learn from it.


----------



## Pikekilla (Jan 9, 2008)

Hey Duke, One thing we can agree on.....

"Like it or not muskies are one subject that MANY people have at least a curiosity in, and there is much to constructively debate about them and their management. And this is GREAT because we can all learn from it."


----------



## Duke (Oct 6, 2000)

Just curious, do you care to share what you don't agree on, and why??? I try to keep all the "opinion" out and just stick to the facts mam.


----------



## eboll (May 6, 2008)

Ralph Smith said:


> smallmouth caught from colder waters are excellent. If you haven't tried any, do it, you'll be suprised.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 i love bass also. we eat them in the winter out of our pond and they are delicious.


----------

