# Pike and Muskellunge Regulations in Michigan



## walranger5 (May 1, 2005)

DeanV said:


> Remember too the pike and bluegill are two species of fish that are VERY susceptible to stunting when people keep larger fish and it is a very difficult cycle to break out of. It takes time.


 In minnesota I read where in lakes that had too many Perch, they netted them out and put them in a lake that didn't have enough, I'm sure that would work here, quite simple. I like the slot limit, only one fish over say 26 inches. People tell me about catching 70 to 80 fish in Canada, didn;t mind only keeping a couple had a blast catching. The Muskie fishing in st clair, catch and release seems to be working just fine. Big Blue Lake had stunt Pike took years of no limit to get them down. why not use the Minnesota trick, net them down, put them where they need more? Cheaper than raising some. Now that VHS is no big deal, or put them where it already is. If you get too many big ones have a big catch weekend, double or whatever limit, the DNR would have better control over the situation, could take whatever samples they want, know exactly how many came out etc.... If people know you can catch lots, they will come with a little help from the media. Catch and release wont kill anyone, we need to use it more.


----------



## fishinthed (Nov 7, 2007)

That's one nice, chunky gator, Bob!


----------



## DeanV (Jan 9, 2001)

The problem with stunting is that removing large sexually mature individuals results in the smaller fish becoming sexually mature earlier since it is now easier to compete for spawning partners. Once the mature, their growth slows. So, moving them or getting rid of small like through harvest will not solve the problem.


----------



## walranger5 (May 1, 2005)

DeanV said:


> The problem with stunting is that removing large sexually mature individuals results in the smaller fish becoming sexually mature earlier since it is now easier to compete for spawning partners. Once the mature, their growth slows. So, moving them or getting rid of small like through harvest will not solve the problem.


 I read when stunted fish were put where plenty of food was, they start growing, can't quote chap an verse, but it makes sense. Maintaining predators thru slot limits addresses stunting of smaller prey.


----------



## DeanV (Jan 9, 2001)

Probably depends on reason for why they are stunted. I am sure it could work in some situations and not in others. It is just that bluegills and pike have a unique problem that arises from harvest on large individuals.

I used to fish a 600 acre lake that gave up a lot of catch and keep master angler bluegill to the same guys year after year right around the spawn. The population of big bluegills crashed from what all the fisherman I talked to could tell and even now, more than 15 years later, is only starting to come back. As a kid I would see them haul out 5 gallon buckets of huge bluegills in early June and be impressed and see the list of fish in e awards list. Not so impressed anymore. Was it legal? Maybe (not sure if total possession including freezer was over the limit or if they ate a lot). Was it good for the fishery or sustainable? Absolutely not.


----------



## walranger5 (May 1, 2005)

DeanV said:


> Probably depends on reason for why they are stunted. I am sure it could work in some situations and not in others. It is just that bluegills and pike have a unique problem that arises from harvest on large individuals.
> 
> I used to fish a 600 acre lake that gave up a lot of catch and keep master angler bluegill to the same guys year after year right around the spawn. The population of big bluegills crashed from what all the fisherman I talked to could tell and even now, more than 15 years later, is only starting to come back. As a kid I would see them haul out 5 gallon buckets of huge bluegills in early June and be impressed and see the list of fish in e awards list. Not so impressed anymore. Was it legal? Maybe (not sure if total possession including freezer was over the limit or if they ate a lot). Was it good for the fishery or sustainable? Absolutely not.


 catch and release fishing in Canada, provides some of the best fishing/catching in the world. If we created that here, not only would you get your license sales/interest back, you would have tourism unmatched in history. Canadian quality fishing without the cost or hassle of going to canada? No brainer. I hear ya, what the usta catch. But too many people can't count, or make several trips, when the bite is hot. Catch and release is growing, in Wisconsin, the only ones who'll complain are the cheaters and fish hogs, we don't care what they say anyway. We'll always have them, but we need sustainable limits. Is it nice to have a bucket full of fish to take home? Yep! Is it necessary to have a good time? Nope! Lower the limits, close during spawn' if you feel you need more bring a kid, win win!


----------



## thedude (Jul 20, 2004)

so with all this attention being given to pike, when do we get a bass season survey?


----------



## maddiedog (Nov 21, 2008)

Everyone mentions Canada. Huge bodies of water with very little pressure and the locals HATE them. I fish a lot for pike. I don't see any difference in the lakes I fish and Canada. There are big fish if you know what to look for. I wouldn't bother with it at the suggested slots. Canada is 27.5". Leave some meat on the bone. We usually throw them back over 33" because they don't taste as good. Trying to turn potholes into pike fisheries is a waste. There is one lake I fish that is loaded with dinks...I don't fish it much but there are some decent ones. If it were up to me I wouldn't change a thing.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## maddiedog (Nov 21, 2008)

walranger5 said:


> catch and release fishing in Canada, provides some of the best fishing/catching in the world. If we created that here, not only would you get your license sales/interest back, you would have tourism unmatched in history. Canadian quality fishing without the cost or hassle of going to canada? No brainer. I hear ya, what the usta catch. But too many people can't count, or make several trips, when the bite is hot. Catch and release is growing, in Wisconsin, the only ones who'll complain are the cheaters and fish hogs, we don't care what they say anyway. We'll always have them, but we need sustainable limits. Is it nice to have a bucket full of fish to take home? Yep! Is it necessary to have a good time? Nope! Lower the limits, close during spawn' if you feel you need more bring a kid, win win!


Lower the limit from 2??? 

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## walranger5 (May 1, 2005)

maddiedog said:


> Lower the limit from 2???
> 
> Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


 2's fine only one over 28 inches, protects spawner females lets you keep a wallhanger if your so inclined. simple easy for all to understand. Big pike help control dinks, spawners keep the fishery going.


----------



## walranger5 (May 1, 2005)

maddiedog said:


> Everyone mentions Canada. Huge bodies of water with very little pressure and the locals HATE them. I fish a lot for pike. I don't see any difference in the lakes I fish and Canada. There are big fish if you know what to look for. I wouldn't bother with it at the suggested slots. Canada is 27.5". Leave some meat on the bone. We usually throw them back over 33" because they don't taste as good. Trying to turn potholes into pike fisheries is a waste. There is one lake I fish that is loaded with dinks...I don't fish it much but there are some decent ones. If it were up to me I wouldn't change a thing.
> 
> Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


 Net the dinks out to "balance" put the dinks in a lake full of gobies, they wont be "Dinks" long!


----------



## maddiedog (Nov 21, 2008)

walranger5 said:


> 2's fine only one over 28 inches, protects spawner females lets you keep a wallhanger if your so inclined. simple easy for all to understand. Big pike help control dinks, spawners keep the fishery going.


I understand the thinking here but I fish pike really hard. I have my whole life. I can only think of a few times where I got two fish over 28 inches in a day. How is a change in the regs really going to change this? There are days where I get my two 26 inchers and go home happy but it is usually one keeper and a few 20-23 inchers. That wouldn't change if they changed the regs because it isn't worth cleaning a 21 inch pike. I remember when it was 20 inches and a size limit increase to 24 was going to fix it...If you want a couple of lakes to manage for catch and release only for big pike then have at it but I don't hear anyone that I fish with complaining. If you are catching dinks then move to a different area.


----------



## fishinthed (Nov 7, 2007)

walranger5 said:


> 2's fine only one over 28 inches, protects spawner females lets you keep a wallhanger if your so inclined. simple easy for all to understand. Big pike help control dinks, spawners keep the fishery going.


That would help most in lakes like Lake St. Clair where there _*are*_ big ones, as mentioned above. 

The DNR report noted that increasing the size limit mainly increased the abundance of fish just _under_ the size limit. :lol:

Probably lowering the bag limit had more effect. Perhaps make the bag limit 2, with only one over 28 inches and no size limit for the smaller fish, with exceptions where the pike population is low?

I still think the best compromise is to manage *some* of the best-suited waters with good public access scattered throughout the state for trophy fisheries (especially those with good walleye fisheries for eating), and leave things as they are for the dink holes that make up a vast majority of pike waters where folks keep whatever legal pike they can get for the table. That reflects the sort of percentages of the responses the DNR has been getting, too.


----------



## walranger5 (May 1, 2005)

maddiedog said:


> I understand the thinking here but I fish pike really hard. I have my whole life. I can only think of a few times where I got two fish over 28 inches in a day. How is a change in the regs really going to change this? There are days where I get my two 26 inchers and go home happy but it is usually one keeper and a few 20-23 inchers. That wouldn't change if they changed the regs because it isn't worth cleaning a 21 inch pike. I remember when it was 20 inches and a size limit increase to 24 was going to fix it...If you want a couple of lakes to manage for catch and release only for big pike then have at it but I don't hear anyone that I fish with complaining. If you are catching dinks then move to a different area.


 Alright on over 24" keep 20 to 24. The pike fishin on Muskegon Lake dropped way off, ever since the gobies got up into the swamp, Pike don't gaurd thier eggs either, any fish that doesn't is feeding gobies.
A 2007 DNR study says 'More eggs are natures biological safety factor" this applies to all fish, more eggs come from more females. 
Low females blamed for low Perch spawn, (DUH) Bay De noc slot limit credited for world class walleye fishery MDNR etc.. many examples around the country, work there, work here!
What we're doing ain't working, with exceptions of course.


----------



## walranger5 (May 1, 2005)

fishinthed said:


> That would help most in lakes like Lake St. Clair where there _*are*_ big ones, as mentioned above.
> 
> The DNR report noted that increasing the size limit mainly increased the abundance of fish just _under_ the size limit. :lol:
> 
> ...


 All waters should have a slot, whatever size limit, is going to be a cutoff, Hardy pond catch 14 inch Walleyes all day, because if they hit anywhere close to 15 they're going home with some body, only one over 23 lets you protect the spawners, and have a fery good chance on catching something bigger than 14 inches. I'll play catch and release with 5 pound walleyes any day, just tell me where!


----------



## Dirty_Harry (Apr 25, 2012)

If I am correct most of you are saying throw back fish over 30"?

My dream is to have a 40" Pike on my wall, how would I accomplish this without keeping the fish?


----------



## maddiedog (Nov 21, 2008)

Fiberglass replica. If a hog comes in the spear hole it is dead but others will get really good pics and go back. 28-33" fish are the best eaters hands down!!!

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## fishinthed (Nov 7, 2007)

Replicas from a good artist don't even cost more, look more realistic, and hardly deteriorate at all over time, as well as keeping the fish in there to spread those good genes. 

The smaller the better for eating, but the smaller they are, the more difficult to clean. 

I'm so annoyed at the small number of good sized pike that my boat rule is that anything 28 inches or over goes back -- at least in any waters that aren't _totally hopeless_ (i.e., too warm for pike to grow really big).


----------



## Steve_D (Mar 8, 2011)

Dirty_Harry said:


> If I am correct most of you are saying throw back fish over 30"?
> 
> My dream is to have a 40" Pike on my wall, how would I accomplish this without keeping the fish?


Easy; slot limits. I don't know why people say there isn't enough "scientific proof" that this is effective. I am halfway through a masters degree in science (environment/fisheries), and even I know it's common sense enough. Slot 21-26 inch pike, 27-32 is closed, 33-40 inch allowed TWO, and 41-48 allowed ONE. Anything 49 and up must be thrown back. Yeah, pretty simplistic, and just throwing random numbers, but wouldn't you rather have a PHOTO, an amazing memory, of a 50 inch pike, than a mounted 40 incher on your wall? I would.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## Steve_D (Mar 8, 2011)

Also, once numbers are up, it's not that hard to change a regulation again. I want to catch a 50 in her someday...... will probably never happen if nothing is done about it. 

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## bassdisaster (Jun 21, 2007)

Just seems to me there are more pressing matters then Pike regulations to be spending our sportsmans $'s on!
Lets just make it so you dont know where to fish for what, ok Lets make it so you need a 500 page hard cover book so you know the regs whereever you may be, if every lake has different regs, every lake has slot limits of differing sizes it will be a hay day for the ticket writers when you come in with a slot fish that should had been released, but was legal on a different body of water!

BD


----------



## Bob D (Aug 23, 2006)

Steve_D said:


> Easy; slot limits. I don't know why people say there isn't enough "scientific proof" that this is effective. I am halfway through a masters degree in science (environment/fisheries), and even I know it's common sense enough. Slot 21-26 inch pike, 27-32 is closed, 33-40 inch allowed TWO, and 41-48 allowed ONE. Anything 49 and up must be thrown back. Yeah, pretty simplistic, and just throwing random numbers, but wouldn't you rather have a PHOTO, an amazing memory, of a 50 inch pike, than a mounted 40 incher on your wall? I would.
> 
> Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


Just a question. Why would you make 49 and up a throw back? How old would a fish that size be? Seems like this fish would have spread her genes for years and years and be past her prime.


----------



## maddiedog (Nov 21, 2008)

Steve_D said:


> Also, once numbers are up, it's not that hard to change a regulation again. I want to catch a 50 in her someday...... will probably never happen if nothing is done about it.
> 
> Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


Then I would suggest flying in to Saskatchewan. Somewhere where they have never seen an artificial lure and only 10 guys chase them a year. You can keep five fish with only one over 30". I know a lot of people including myself that have stopped going to Canada because it just isn't worth it anymore.


----------



## RML (Apr 24, 2009)

I do some ice fishing on PM Lake and the 15" to 22" Pike are just about all I catch. I feel they would be tedious work to clean but heck while your cleaning perch there tedious knife work as well.. I would be good with a slot limit keeping eaters like 5 per person 15"-22" putting back all Pike 22" - 34" and keeping one over 34" as a eater or trophy Pike as one of your 5 fish.. I think this would also help our Perch come back some in the great lakes. I catch all these pike while Perch fishing so there after them Perch..I have caught one or 2 over 28" in PM Lake. Between people and the bigger Pike we would take care of some of the stunted fish in the state..

My 2 cents..


----------



## headbanger421 (Jul 1, 2005)

Bob D said:


> Just a question. Why would you make 49 and up a throw back? How old would a fish that size be? Seems like this fish would have spread her genes for years and years and be past her prime.


 
Because with today's quality fiberglass replicas, there's really no reason to take a fish from a lake/river to mount. The cost is similar and replicas will outlast you and your kids while skin mounts lose their luster very quickly. There are guys who specialize in Pike and Muskie repilcas and they make a replica of _your _fish, not a stock blank they have somewhere in the back. With pics and measurements you send them it really is your fish mounted on the wall even though it's still swimming somewhere. Besides, do you know how many contaminants a 50" pike has absorbed into their body in its lifetime? I don't want to eat that. Leave the smaller ones for eating and the big ones for memories- memories that can stay in the lake now and still be on your wall.


----------



## maddiedog (Nov 21, 2008)

RML said:


> I do some ice fishing on PM Lake and the 15" to 22" Pike are just about all I catch. I feel they would be tedious work to clean but heck while your cleaning perch there tedious knife work as well.. I would be good with a slot limit keeping eaters like 5 per person 15"-22" putting back all Pike 22" - 34" and keeping one over 34" as a eater or trophy Pike as one of your 5 fish.. I think this would also help our Perch come back some in the great lakes. I catch all these pike while Perch fishing so there after them Perch..I have caught one or 2 over 28" in PM Lake. Between people and the bigger Pike we would take care of some of the stunted fish in the state..
> 
> My 2 cents..


Not sure where or how you fish PM but that is the lake I grew up fishing and still do back to. Still great fishing. Clarity, bait, and current all effect the size you get. You get batches of dinks that come in. I don't think the pike impact the damn perch that much. They have the whole pm river packed with suckers.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## bassdisaster (Jun 21, 2007)

headbanger421 said:


> Because with today's quality fiberglass replicas, there's really no reason to take a fish from a lake/river to mount. The cost is similar and replicas will outlast you and your kids while skin mounts lose their luster very quickly. There are guys who specialize in Pike and Muskie repilcas and they make a replica of _your _fish, not a stock blank they have somewhere in the back. With pics and measurements you send them it really is your fish mounted on the wall even though it's still swimming somewhere. Besides, do you know how many contaminants a 50" pike has absorbed into their body in its lifetime? I don't want to eat that. Leave the smaller ones for eating and the big ones for memories- memories that can stay in the lake now and still be on your wall.


Say what you will, but I do not believe anyone should be "REQUIRED" to release any fish over the minimum size limit unless the population is minimal and needs replentishing, I live in Montcalm county, I fish all over this and the surrounding countys, there is definately no shortage on 22-34" pike around here, I catch 1 or 2 most every time I fish a Bass tournament.
Making new regs for the sake of making regs, justifying their jobs, makes no sence at all!

BD


----------



## Duke (Oct 6, 2000)

BD- think about it this way: in almost every body of water in Michigan, the population of pike _over_ 28" (or even less) *is minimal* and does need replenishing- they need replenishing because having bigger pike is the best way to keep a lake from having too many small pike. *Not* just to create better "trophy" fishing. That does happen to be an added benefit that many people do desire though.

You might have exceptional lakes, but over and over throughout the whole state, the loudest complaint about the pike fishing is too many hammerhandles, hard to find them of desirable size for eating, and dam near impossible to find them of memorable size- size that is anything near their max potential. 

Obviously not all lakes can grow big pike, and there are lakes that already do. THAT is why we have regs- it is NOT just for the sake of having regs!!

As a bass fishermen, would you be screaming if 95% of the fish you caught were sublegal, 4.5% were 14-16", 0.5% were anything over that and virtually no shot at catching a 5 pounder??? That is about the equivalent in pike terms.


----------



## headbanger421 (Jul 1, 2005)

Duke said:


> BD- think about it this way: in almost every body of water in Michigan, the population of pike _over_ 28" (or even less) *is minimal* and does need replenishing- they need replenishing because having bigger pike is the best way to keep a lake from having too many small pike. *Not* just to create better "trophy" fishing. That does happen to be an added benefit that many people do desire though.
> 
> You might have exceptional lakes, but over and over throughout the whole state, the loudest complaint about the pike fishing is too many hammerhandles, hard to find them of desirable size for eating, and dam near impossible to find them of memorable size- size that is anything near their max potential.
> 
> ...


Well said Duke.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

Maybe the solution is to classify bodies of water by type, like they currently do for Trout regulations. As an example....(Actually the classification method of trout regs could be expanded to other species also:idea

Type A....The hammer handle waters. No minimum size, high limits but throw back anything over 26".....Maybe allow 1 over 36" to keep it interesting.

Type B....The ones currently balanced. Leave it the same except for maybe a 1 fish limit on the larger examples

Type C....Trophy waters. There are only a few in that category and those should probably have individual regulations.

In my area we have Lk St Helen with no minimum size limit, Houghton lake that shouldnt have one.....

And Higgins Lake, Probably the premier trophy pike lake in the state. With pike in the 20-30+ pound class. Little to no natural reproduction but the rare combination of ingredients to grow them big.

I would like to see this trophy opportunity promoted and expanded. But in order to do that it would also need to be protected. Certainly a limit of 1 and maybe also a per year limit for the honest guys.... but the minimum size needs to be increased substantially. Based on what I see it should be somewhere in the 42-44" range.

I would not support it being catch and release only. If there is natural reproduction it is minimal, I believe they are mostly transient fish from the cut river/Houghton Lake. In my 40 or so years of fishing here I have never seen a sub legal pike. However when they reach that size class they are nearing the end, and at 42-44" that would be 20+pounds. I would not begrudge anyone the desire to take it home and put it on the wall......And no, I dont believe a reproduction is Your fish.

For the record I practice catch and release, Except for a couple over the years that were hooked bad. But someday I may catch "The One" that will go on the wall.

I believe a few select trophy pike lakes would offer a great opportunity for fishermen


----------



## Dirty_Harry (Apr 25, 2012)

swampbuck said:


> Maybe the solution is to classify bodies of water by type, like they currently do for Trout regulations. As an example....(Actually the classification method of trout regs could be expanded to other species also:idea
> 
> Type A....The hammer handle waters. No minimum size, high limits but throw back anything over 26".....Maybe allow 1 over 36" to keep it interesting.
> 
> ...


I like this idea a lot, but wouldnt that require a fresh DNR survey? That kills a lot of fish.


----------



## Bob D (Aug 23, 2006)

headbanger421 said:


> Because with today's quality fiberglass replicas, there's really no reason to take a fish from a lake/river to mount. The cost is similar and replicas will outlast you and your kids while skin mounts lose their luster very quickly. There are guys who specialize in Pike and Muskie repilcas and they make a replica of _your _fish, not a stock blank they have somewhere in the back. With pics and measurements you send them it really is your fish mounted on the wall even though it's still swimming somewhere. Besides, do you know how many contaminants a 50" pike has absorbed into their body in its lifetime? I don't want to eat that. Leave the smaller ones for eating and the big ones for memories- memories that can stay in the lake now and still be on your wall.


Yeah, that didn't really answer my question for Steve_D. He posted a rather complicated version of a slot limit that had me confused. My thought on what a slot limit is would allow anglers to keep smaller eaters and/or a trophy while protecting the prime breeders in between. I just think you gotta keep it as simple as possible.

If your choice is to send that trophy back to the depths, more power to ya. I don't have a problem with that and I wouldn't want to eat it either. I would probably set her free myself. I still think it would be bad policy to take the option of harvesting a trophy away from the angling public.


----------



## Duke (Oct 6, 2000)

Dirty_Harry said:


> I like this idea a lot, but wouldnt that require a fresh DNR survey? That kills a lot of fish.


DNR surveys are done with trap or fyke nets, or electroshocking and have very very low mortality, especially when done in cold water as they are. The DNR is also committing to relying more on angler input as a source of data when they can't afford to do surveys. 

This idea regs/management IS happening... if the anglers support it! Let the DNR know through their online survey!!!!


----------



## ericzerka24 (Aug 12, 2010)

The major problem I have with a slot limit for northern pike concerns spearing. Although the majority of my ice fishing for pike is done with tip-ups, I do like to get out and spear the last month or so of season when they really start getting active. 

Judging fish underwater can be pretty difficult at times especially when they sneak in on you. Often you are given very limited time to make a decision which leaves room for a lot of errors when trying to stay within a slot limit.

I understand that having no size limit for northern pike would reduce number of larger pike being kept. The only problem is that this means there are fewer numbers of pike that could potentially grow to trophy size. I personally would never keep anything under 24" because after removing the "Y" bone you aren't left with a whole lot of meat. If I want pike for dinner, I like them to be eater size which I consider 25-32". 

That's just my two cents on this issue


----------



## fishinthed (Nov 7, 2007)

Duke said:


> .... As a bass fishermen, would you be screaming if 95% of the fish you caught were sublegal, 4.5% were 14-16", 0.5% were anything over that and virtually no shot at catching a 5 pounder??? That is about the equivalent in pike terms.


Very well stated, Duke. 

Thing about 25-32 inch fish being the best eaters is that we're tied up in a classic Gordian knot: in a vast majority of lower Michigan waters the only way to _have_ them is not to _take_ very many of them. 

Some waters are hopeless. Others have great untapped potential. I'd at least like to have at least _a few_ waters with really healthy pike populations with trophy potential nearby.


----------



## bassdisaster (Jun 21, 2007)

Duke said:


> BD- think about it this way: in almost every body of water in Michigan, the population of pike _over_ 28" (or even less) *is minimal* and does need replenishing- they need replenishing because having bigger pike is the best way to keep a lake from having too many small pike. *Not* just to create better "trophy" fishing. That does happen to be an added benefit that many people do desire though.
> 
> You might have exceptional lakes, but over and over throughout the whole state, the loudest complaint about the pike fishing is too many hammerhandles, hard to find them of desirable size for eating, and dam near impossible to find them of memorable size- size that is anything near their max potential.
> 
> ...


Im guessing you did not get the jist of what im sayin here, Im not even fishing for pike OK and I catch em every trip out, not 22's but 28-36"er's
If the Pike fishing population cant get bit except for hammer handles then they are doing something wrong, Im sayin there are plenty of Pike in my local lakes, and I know for a fact most ppl around here eat em so keeping them aint hurting the population much if at all!
And yes our lakes have ton's of sub legal bass, sometimes catching a keeper is a real challenge, but its no different for pike or is it?
The bass are not eating the pike, its the pike eating the bass, and yet there are bass in the lake huh go figure?
Im still of the mind set that making new reg's for the sake of justifying your jobs is not what we need!
Maybe some of the heavier pressure waters need special regs, but lets keep it to where it needs to be, not state wide, that just puts limitations on people that has absolutly no use whatsoever, restrict the masses so the few can have? This kind of thinking is just not acceptable!

BD


----------



## ericzerka24 (Aug 12, 2010)

bassdisaster said:


> Im guessing you did not get the jist of what im sayin here, Im not even fishing for pike OK and I catch em every trip out, not 22's but 28-36"er's
> If the Pike fishing population cant get bit except for hammer handles then they are doing something wrong, Im sayin there are plenty of Pike in my local lakes, and I know for a fact most ppl around here eat em so keeping them aint hurting the population much if at all!
> 
> 
> BD


I agree. Summer or winter, I have no problem catching 20-30" pike. I consider anything over 30" a pretty nice catch on public lakes. Anything 35"+ on a public lake with a lot of fishing pressure is a trophy in my book. 

You gotta remember it takes a lot of years for a pike to grow to that size and it also takes a good sportsman to let them grow to that size as well. Northerns are heavy feeders so just imagine how many times a 35"+ fish has been caught and released in its lifetime.




Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## fishinthed (Nov 7, 2007)

bassdisaster said:


> ...., Im not even fishing for pike OK and I catch em every trip out, not 22's but 28-36"er's BD


In central Michigan. Not so easy further south,except on the bigger waters and ones with good habitat and low fishing pressure. And bear in mind that the growth potential of pike in suitable waters is about 85% of that of muskies, in terms of length. 

Even in the best SE Michigan pike locations, such as the N. Channel outflows of Lake St. Clair, the size of the pike ain't nearly 85% that of the typical muskies that are caught. More like about 70%, at best, despite the _much, much_ greater pike population.



bassdisaster said:


> If the Pike fishing population cant get bit except for hammer handles then they are doing something wrong, Im sayin there are plenty of Pike in my local lakes, and I know for a fact most ppl around here eat em so keeping them aint hurting the population much if at all! BD


Wouldn't say it ain't hurting the size distribution. Those 28 to 36 inch fish could be 32 to 45 inch fish if they had a better chance to grow. Of course, it depends on fishing pressure per acre (or even volume) of water. 

I fished a pike tournament in Devil's Lake in south central Michigan in which about 20 teams of pike fishers, including some very good anglers caught dozens and dozens of sub-legal fish, but only something like 3 or 4 legal sized fish, the largest being a whopping 25.5 inches. And that was at the beginning of the season, before there was much opportunity to take them out. 

And the lake has plenty of forage, spawning habitat, and cool, deep water, so there's trophy potential, for certain. And does cough up the rare monster. The shoreline's also lined with homes and cottages, so there's major fishing pressure. That's stunting at work.



bassdisaster said:


> Im still of the mind set that making new reg's for the sake of justifying your jobs is not what we need! BD


Agreed.



bassdisaster said:


> Maybe some of the heavier pressure waters need special regs, but lets keep it to where it needs to be, not state wide, that just puts limitations on people that has absolutly no use whatsoever, restrict the masses so the few can have? This kind of thinking is just not acceptable!
> BD


Or the waters with the _best_ trophy potential and public access (for boat _and_ shore fishers, preferably) that can provide the _best_ opportunity for the _most_ anglers to catch trophy pike, with minimal effect on the options for those who fish to eat? 

That's what I suggested in the survey, while expressing my _personal_ preference for a slot limit, or even maximum size limit or C+R on _some_ waters. It appears the DNR's plans are along those lines, targeting certain waters throughout the state for trophy pike management. May as well optimize it for maximum benefit for anglers of all persuasions.


----------



## Duke (Oct 6, 2000)

bassdisaster said:


> Im guessing you did not get the jist of what im sayin here, Im not even fishing for pike OK and I catch em every trip out, not 22's but 28-36"er's
> BD


trust me I get what you are saying. But you do understand there are 11,000 lakes in Michigan, and most do not kick out pike like your local lakes? With fish like that, you are absolutely right that your lakes do not need a change in regulations. 

The only exception being to get pike that are actually maxed out in size you need more protective regs to get to 40"+. Not all lakes can grow pike that big, yours probably could. But I completely agree that it doesn't mean it should be forced to change regs though. Just do what's best for the fishery which includes the fishermen. 

But obviously, your lakes are not the usual story around the state or the DNR would not be hearing the complaints, and would not be seeing the data in their fish survey results, and would not be contemplating changes. 

You really should get to know some DNR personnel, I think you might find they are are not changing regs for the sake of justifying jobs. And not it's not *my* job your talking about, I don't work for DNR. I promise you they love to hear from knowledgeable and avid anglers.

Oh and pike are no different than bass- they eat whatever is readily available that fits in their mouth basically. So yes of course bass do eat young pike and vice versa, but neither are real high on the menu of the other.


----------



## Steve_D (Mar 8, 2011)

Bob D said:


> Just a question. Why would you make 49 and up a throw back? How old would a fish that size be? Seems like this fish would have spread her genes for years and years and be past her prime.


.

Of course. Fisheries biologists would be more adequate in determining these lengths, and the proper lengths. However, fishing isn't about making money, it's supposed to be about conservation. I feel as if Michigan doesn't respect their fish populations. I spent 7 months near Kansas, and they have a LOT of MONSTER fish out there. In fact, the places I fished had 10 inch crappie restrictions. Why can't michigan do stuff like that? My 3 best, and largest, fish have came out of creeks and spillways in Missouri and Kansas. Why? Because they set their goals high....... and it works. Table Rock, for example?

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------

