1. Bill Linder Photography By: Gary Barnard, Bemidji Area Fisheries Supervisor To: 2015 Fisheries Roundtable January 16, 2015 Northern Pike Technical Committee Review Northern Pike Management

2. Bill Linder Photography 2014 Fisheries Roundtable Issue “Minnesota - infested with small pike?”

3.  “Hammer-handle syndrome”  High density populations of small nuisance pike  Decline in quality pike fishing opportunity  Biological effects on fish community  Predation on stocked walleye  Loss of perch forage  Stunted panfish populations Pressing issues

4.  Three fish daily bag limit 22,000 creel interviews; 1.1% harvested a limit of three  One over 30 inches Encounter of one large pike is rare Encounter of two or more in a day extremely rare Statewide regulation does very little to protect Northern Pike quality Existing Statewide Pike Regulation

5. Quality Harvest

6.  Consumptive harvest is a very important aspect of Minnesota’s pike fishery.  Pike angler/spearing survey; Majority of respondents harvest some, most or all legal pike encountered. (Schroeder, 2010)  What about the size of pike harvested? Is the Statewide regulation optimizing harvest opportunity?

7.  Minimum keeper size pike = 24 inches  Preferred size Pike = 27 inches *Mean of respondents who specifically target northern pike. Northern Pike Angler and Spearing Survey Results

8. Mean of survey responses for keeper and preferred pike sizes (Schroeder, 2010) N= 23,209 Length frequency of northern pike harvest in MN lakes (Cook and Younk, 1998)

9. Expanded bag limit for small pike One over Protected slots Minimum size limits Daily bag limit adjustmentAnnual limit for large fish Maximum size limits Harvest tags Are there a better regulation options to manage northern pike?

10.  Vast differences in pike populations across the state  Unique pike fishery characteristics  Very different management objectives  Need for customized regulation options Statewide review

11. Lakes with northern pike

12.  Template exists with game management  Less complex than individual lake management  Would establish a base regulation that fits majority of lakes in a management zone Zone concept for Northern Pike management?

13. North east North central Southern Recommendation: Create three distinct Northern Pike management zones

14.  Small pike = Less than 22 inches  Medium pike = 22-30 inches  Large pike = 30-40 inches  Trophy pike = Over 40 inches General Size Groups

15. Population and Fishery Characteristics  Low densities  Moderate recruitment  Low-moderate exploitation  Good growth and survival  Still producing large pike North East Management Zone Characteristics

16.  Fishery Management Objectives  Continue to provide harvest opportunity  Maintain existing quality opportunity  Focus protection on large pike  Regulation Options  High maximum size limit (No harvest over 30 inches)  Two fish bag limit North East Management Zone

17.  Population and Fishery Characteristics  Low abundance  Low recruitment  Exceptional growth at younger ages  High fishing pressure  Low angler catch rates  High exploitation rate (relative to abundance) Southern Management Zone Characteristics

18.  Management Objectives  Increase pike abundance  Improve harvest opportunity  Management Options  Supplemental stocking to increase pike abundance  Minimum length limit  retains fish longer in population  capitalize on fast growth to increase yield  Two fish bag limit  Harvest fewer but larger pike Southern Management Zone

19.  Minimum Length Limit (22 or 24 inch)  Slight decline in total yield  Substantial increase in yield of medium size fish  Higher mean weight of harvested pike  Fewer but larger fish being harvested Modeling Results (simulated pike populations)

20. Experimental 30” Minimum Length Limit

21.  Population and Fishery Characteristics  High recruitment/High density  Slow growth (density driven)  Moderate/High fishing pressure  Selective harvest, high exploitation at medium sizes  Very few fish achieving large size North Central Management Zone

22.  Management Objectives (population based)  Reduce small pike abundance  Restore or improve size distribution  Increase recruitment to large size North Central Management Zone Objectives

23.  Experimental 22-30 inch  Tool box options  24-36 inch  High minimum (30” and 40”)  Extensive history of evaluation  Proven effective in improving population size structure  Expectation that reduced harvest opportunity is an acceptable trade off for improved population size structure Existing PSL Options

24.  Creel survey  Public meetings  Pike angler survey  Legislation Consumptive Harvest is Important!

25.  Population Objectives  Reduce small pike abundance  Restore or improve size distribution  Increase recruitment to large size  Fishery Objective  Maintain or improve harvest opportunity North Central Management Zone Fishery Objective

26.  Management Options  Expanded bag limit (small fish)  Increase harvest opportunity  Encourage angler harvest of small pike  EBLs alone have not been effective improving size structure North Central Management Zone Management Options

27.  Management Options  Expanded bag limit (small fish)  Increase harvest opportunity  Encourage angler harvest of small pike  Need some protection of medium fish  Shift population size structure  Increase recruitment to large size  Exert density suppression on small fish North Central Management Zone Protect Medium Fish

28. NC Zone NOP Size Distribution

29. Pike eating pike

30. Exp PSL NC Zone NOP Size Distribution With Protected Slot Limit

31. NC Zone NOP Size Distribution With Toolbox Protected Slot

32. Is there a narrower, less restrictive PSL that can provide some desired population effects (size structure, recruitment suppression) while providing reasonable harvest opportunity for medium (preferred) size pike???

33. 62% NC Zone NOP Size Distribution Proposed Regulation

34. Female Growth

35. Male Growth 22-26 PSL

36.  Regulation options  10 fish expanded bag limit under 22”  22-26” PSL  Two fish bag limit over 26”  Management Objectives  Reduce small pike abundance  Restore or improve size distribution  Increase recruitment to large size  Maintain or improve harvest opportunity North Central Management Zone Harvest Opportunity

37.  Regulation options  10 fish expanded bag limit under 22”  Narrow 22-26” PSL  Two fish bag limit over 26”  Management Objectives  Reduce small pike abundance (suppression)  Restore or improve size distribution  Increase recruitment to large size  Maintain or improve harvest opportunity North Central Management Zone Rationale

38.  Regulation options  10 fish expanded bag limit under 22”  22-26” PSL  Two fish bag limit over 26”  Management Objectives  Reduce small pike abundance  Restore or improve size distribution  Increase recruitment to large size  Maintain or improve harvest opportunity North Central Management Zone Improve or Maintaining Harvest

39.  NE Zone  No noticeable improvement (maintain existing quality)  Southern Zone  Almost immediate results (larger fish for harvest within a year or two)  NC Zone  Gradual moderate shift in size distribution  Considerable time to push pike through the PSL for improved harvest opportunity Expectations for Zones

40. Questions Comments Discussion