A Campian to get a Size and Daily Limit on Northern Pike on the PO River

[eustace]

I think someone should start a campain to get a state min size and daily limit on pike. At least on the Pend orielle River. Why do I say that, I was talking to my nieghbor and he constantly fishes the P R for pike and keeps every pike he catches and he claims he came back last spring on one trip with his brother and kept over thirty pike. I think pike are excellent table fair and as more people discover that the more we will see people fishing for and keeping pike.

Personally I like the slot size idea and maybe keep one over a certain size. The reason I like that Idea is if to many are in there they will over populate and that will stunt there growth. They are ferociuos eaters and often in systems they are introduced they at first get extrodenarelly large untill they over populate and reduce the popuation of there pray.

If we want to keep this fishery a trophy pike fishery we need to act! Any body from the WDFW reading this please input on this topic. This could turn in to a slight economic boom for PO county another consideration that should be on the table.

[kevinb]

Welcome back Stacy,been wondering where you've been.

I support this idea 100% but I think its a tough sell,Washington State doesn't have a warm reception
for the northerns. But if they were to manage it properly,they could make some serious money and
turn the Pend into a trophy fishery.

[muskyhunter28]

I agree 110 percent, save our pike!
Daily limit of two 45" or bigger!
We need our little pike friends to keep eating and breeding, and swiming west!!!!!


If you can get the state to sign off on it!
I think they should stock pike in Merwin, Musky can't live in there, let's see if pike can

[Don Wittenberger]

This is a little slippery (intentional pun) because WDFW hasn't decided how they want to manage this fishery. They don't have good data, they don't know what they want to do, they want 3 years to study it, and meanwhile they won't support a regulation. If you go to the Commission now, you might have WDFW opposing your proposed rule, which probably would result the Commission rejecting it. I'll see what I can do with WDFW. To make it happen, here's what you need to do:

1. Those of you familiar with this fishery must decide exactly what regulation you want.
2. You also have to create a sense of urgency; i.e., make a strong case to the Commission that this can't wait for WDFW action because the fishery is already being damaged.
3. It will help a ton if you can get support from local resorts and businesses. What I'm saying is contact those folks, discuss the pike fishery with them, get them on board for protecting it, and get letters or written statements from them saying it's important to their business and they want the Fish & Game Commission to establish regulations to protect it from overharvest.

You have two big things in your favor: One, WDFW isn't worried about pike spreading into the Columbia system from POR because they've concluded pike can't breed in the Columbia River, and two, they're interested in managing it as a sport fishery. That gives you a foot in the door -- the ONLY problem you face is they're not ready to decide precisely how they want to manage it, that's all. And they may ultimately be unwilling to manage it as a trophy fishery. This is a "major cycle" rulemaking year, which means the public can submit rule proposals, and I'm willing to do that in this case if I think there's a reasonable chance to get Commission approval. But I always run this sort of thing by WDFW first, because if they're against what you want to do, you're bashing your head against a brick wall. Whatever we propose has to be something they're willing to live with, or better yet, something they like.

[Ski]

Hey guys,

I have to admit, pike fishing is a lot of fun! It would only be another great benefit to generate support for another successful fishery. I recommend in addition to what Don suggested, cite examples of other areas where pike management contributed to the local community and state by either (or both) supporting the economy as a sport fishery drawing fishermen to a particular community thus generating revenue or controlling rough fish/pikeminnows, etc. thus improving existing fish species.

I think examples and referrences along with documentation from the local community will go a long way. I would show the positive and negatives of both slot limits and minimum size and creel limits finalized with a recommendation for course of action based on the outcome of the pos/negatives.

[eustace]

[quote="Don Wittenberger"]This is a little slippery (intentional pun) because WDFW hasn't decided how they want to manage this fishery. They don't have good data, they don't know what they want to do, they want 3 years to study it, and meanwhile they won't support a regulation. If you go to the Commission now, you might have WDFW opposing your proposed rule, which probably would result the Commission rejecting it. I'll see what I can do with WDFW. To make it happen, here's what you need to do:

1. Those of you familiar with this fishery must decide exactly what regulation you want.
2. You also have to create a sense of urgency]

Thanks Don I appreciate your knowledge on the correct steps to take to get the best possible result from the WDFW.

[Lucius]

I recently spoke with Bruce Bolding about this issue at Chapter 57's Muskie Seminar at 3 Rivers Marina. He told me that he was waiting to hear back on if there was going to be budgeting this year to perform the study on pike in the POR. I told him to contact me when they plan on performing the study, because I would gladly help out in any way I can.

I recent responded to a gentleman's question regarding this issue, I don't know if you all were able to read it, but hear it is if you missed it:

You bring up a good point, but the reason we would like to encourage the release of larger fish and keeping of smaller ones is to preserve the trophy fish so that they can pass along their genes to the next generation. The big ones have lived for quite a while and have proven that they have very desirable genes that many fishermen would like to see in the upcoming generation of pike. Not only that, but if everyone were to keep the big fish, eventually there would be only small fish (this happened in Minnesota and they are currently on the rebound in some lakes) and I don't think any angler wants that. Everyone likes to catch big fish and we don't want to see the precious trophy fish become a thing of the past.

Encouraging anglers to keep the smaller ones is to help keep the fishery in a sort of checks and balances. When pike are younger and still experiencing their high grow rates (6+ inches a year) their metabolism is extremely high and therefore they have ferocious appetites. Add that with very successful spawn and you have a bunch of little pike with the same appetites competing against each other for food. If the numbers get too high, they can be detrimental to other fish species (pike tend to have a bad but sometimes true image of this exact scenario). In turn by releasing the larger pike, they too will help keep the smaller ones in check, because pike are an opportunistic feeder and will normally feed on whatever is easy and most prevalent.

I think depending on the results of the study that is performed by the WDFW to see how fast the pike grow would probably determine how I would like to see the fishery managed. If it turns out that pike are reaching record sizes in short periods of time based on their life span, then I say lets swing for the fences and have a protected slot between 30"-50". Only 1 fish over 50" maybe kept per angular per day. Each angler may keep 4 pike under 30" per day. The current North American record for northern pike is 46 pounds 2 oz caught back in 1940 in upstate New York. I would like to see that record broken. The closest anyone has come to that record was back in 2006 by a gentleman in Colorado (http://www.denverpost.com/outdoors/ci_7390058). Some Canada Pike probably have come close in recent years, but we will never know because all trophy fish are required to be released. I would like to see a similar restriction enacted on the CDA Lake pike because their growth rate is the fastest in the country if not the world, but Idaho's Division of wildlife doesn't exactly see eye to eye with me (based on responses to my emails). Maybe if Washington enacts this slot limit or something similar, maybe Idaho will follow suit.

Sorry for the long post, but when I see great potential in something, I want everyone to see the potential and benefit. Once I hear back from Bruce, I will let you all know.

Long Live the Pike

Lucius

[Don Wittenberger]

Okay, we have a proposal on the table:

Bag limit of 4 pike under 30" per day
Bag limit of 1 pike over 50" per day
Pike between 30" and 50" must be released

How do the rest of you feel about this? I suggest submitting it as an "interim rule" to be in effect during the time it takes WDFW to complete their study and decide how they want to manage the fishery on a long-term basis. The explanatory statement submitted with the proposed rule would say this. That will increase our chances of getting WDFW and the Commission to go along with it. I'm willing to submit something in this cycle. Feedback? Comments? Suggestions? Ideas?

[Ski]

Don,

I like the idea. I think the "interim" approach is something the WDFW will be more open to.

[Lucius]

Don,
Thank God you're on our side. I thank you for all your hard work and dedication to the warm water fisheries in this great state. I am for the "interim rule" and I would most definitely like to see it submitted this cycle because the sooner we can get the "interim rule" in effect (if accepted) the better for the pike fishery.

Thanks Again Don,

Lucius

[Don Wittenberger]

If we can get an interim rule in place, we'll have inertia on our side when WDFW drafts a permanent policy and rule. Chances are they'll decide to leave it like it is.

[Riverman]

Don,

I'm curious why you think pike won't spawn in the Columbia River. Are they spawning in the PO River? If they can spawn in the PO I would think the Columbia would be suitable for them also.

Also, how did pike get into the PO? Were they introduced illegally? If so, you may be fighting an uphill battle trying to get any regulation to protect an aggressive non-native predator that is very likely feeding on native fish species. We do have regulations on bass throughout the state but you are probably aware of the movement to remove daily bag limits on bass in the Columbia.

Here is a blip about the pike life-cycle that I found online, sounds like the Columbia would fit well into their habitat needs.

HABITAT REQUIREMENTS

Northern pike location within a water has been suggested to be influenced by prey availability. In Alaska, northern pike were reported to live in the side sloughs and channels of moderate river systems (D. Rutz, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, transcripts of Lake Davis Steering Committee meeting, August 19, 1999). In Minnesota, northern pike were reported to prefer lake areas that have sedges, grasses, and wild rice (R. Pierce, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, transcripts of Lake Davis Steering Committee meeting, August 25, 1999).

Pike have been reported to coexist perfectly in Alaskan rainbow trout lakes that have deep areas (mean depth 40-50 ft) and moderate to little amount of littoral area (D. Rutz, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, transcripts of Lake Davis Steering Committee meeting, August 19, 1999).

In Alaskan streams, northern pike were reported to fare poorly in clear, fast waters - but where the water is darker and slower, as in the Deshka or Alexander rivers, or in the side sloughs of the Sustina River itself, the species proliferates (Medred 1998).

Temperature


Upper lethal temperature for northern pike was reported to be 29° C (84° F), optimal growth occurs from 19-25° C (66-77° F) (Casselman 1978, Bevelhimer et al. 1985, Jacobson 1992), and upper lethal temperature based from measurements in different parts of U.S. was reported to be 30° C (86° F) (R. Pierce, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, transcripts of Lake Davis Steering Committee meeting, August 25, 1999). Northern pike were reported to be susceptible to winter kill in small shallow lakes (Margenau et al. 1998).

The habitat needs and temps are well within the range of the Columbia River. I would think pike could easily explode in the Columbia River just as bass, walleye, perch, crappie, and others have done.


RM

[Lucius]

Riverman,
I am not at all familiar with the Columbia river, but is there a lot of shallow grassy areas in the Columbia River? Shallow grassy areas are typical breeding ground for northern pike and are required to have a successful spawn. They can breed in other types of conditions, but the success rate is extremely low. So unless there is a lot of grassy sloughs and flats that have slow moving water, I think a healthy pike population will never exist.

Lucius

[Don Wittenberger]

I'm curious why you think pike won't spawn in the Columbia River.

Because a WDFW biologist told me they won't, and because they've had access to the Columbia River for decades but haven't established themselves there.

Their migration route into the POR seems clear from looking at a map. They've been in Flathead Lake in Montana for many years. From there, they migrated through the Clark Fork to Pend Oreilles Lake in Idaho, which is connected to the Pend Oreilles River.

Pike aren't native to western Montana; according to Montana's game department, "Northern pike were first illegally planted in western Montana in 1953 and have since spread to 61 waters in every drainage west of the Divide." There's no doubt pike are prolific breeders in the right conditions. But they've been in Long Lake (an impoundment of the Spokane River) for decades and while it's inevitable that some escape over the dam into the river below, there's no evidence they've been able to breed in the Spokane or Columbia rivers. All of the fish found below Long Lake have been large ones. If they were breeding, biologists and anglers should find little ones, but they're not there.

[muskyhunter]

Very informative Riverman thanks for all that. I also see that a lot of the BIG pike are also around the Baltic Sea. Go figure that one out. I think like any creature they could adapt to the enviroment they are put into. I've seen pike come out of lakes back home in Wisconsin that were considered dead because of freeze outs. And these fish survived in that situation.A small lake near Medford ,Wisconsin. And now there is a healthy population of Northerns there. Sorry Lucious I would have to disagree with your last post.
I do think that this fishery could become a valuable asset. I also think people would buy licences to fish these creatures. So it would definatley would be a win win for all of us.

[muskyhunter]

Oh yea since this is a Musky forum I would like to add that there are Muskies in the Mighty Mississippi. They survive pretty well there too.Just sayin'.

[Riverman]

That's really interesting................and to answer your question concerning vegetation, I would say yes there is a great deal of side habitat, particularly below Bonneville Dam. There are hundreds of side channel ponds below Bonny that are filled with willow, poplar, alder, and various other riparian and wetland type plant species. These areas contain a great number of bass and have temperatures well within the range needed for pike to survive.

As for protecting pike through a change in regulations, I would love to see a trophy fishery for them as much as anyone but as a person who works in the "salmon business" I can tell you that suggestions to protect aggressive non-native predators typically go over like a lead balloon with fish managers.

Jed

[Lucius]

As for protecting pike through a change in regulations, I would love to see a trophy fishery for them as much as anyone but as a person who works in the "salmon business" I can tell you that suggestions to protect aggressive non-native predators typically go over like a lead balloon with fish managers.

Well fortunately for this situation, we are trying to preserve the pike in any area that bass and pike are the main fishery. Seeing that this situation will have no effect on trout or salmon (until proven otherwise) I think we have a legitimate shot.

Muskyhunter,
You are very correct in that pike are an extremely durable fish and in some instances they can survive in just about any water. I was just implying that the ideal spawning grounds for pike are shallow weedy areas. That's not to say that if pike cant find shallow weedy areas they won't spawn in other areas.

[Riverman]

Well fortunately for this situation, we are trying to preserve the pike in any area that bass and pike are the main fishery. Seeing that this situation will have no effect on trout or salmon (until proven otherwise) I think we have a legitimate shot.

Good point so long as fish managers don't think there is a greater chance that protected pike will make their way into salmon rivers.

Jed

[muskyhunter]

Nor am I implying that I would support Pike in the Columbia. I understand the fragility of the Salmon.I will say that the state already has its hands full with those darned seals eating 10lb + Salmon.
So its always nice to have another species to fish I think realistically we as pike fisherman should concentrate on the one fishery that we do have. Regulate them in smart way and promote c,p and r the big Pike and not take more than we need of the smaller fish.If responsible fisherpersons practice good sportsmanship then the fish will survive up on the Pond!