Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: ADF&G Pike Management Plan

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Las Vegas NV
    Posts
    121

    Default ADF&G Pike Management Plan

    I just read fish and games pike management plan http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/region2/pike/
    and I was curious if anyone else has had the time to read it in it's entirety. It has some interesting ideas on how to eradicate northern pike populations but I think they overlooked a few things that would not cost them a dime. If they want to seriously put a dent in the pike population they need to allow anglers the opportunity to fish for them with more than 2 lines through the ice. Except for a few lakes (a couple on the Kenai peninsula and Susitna Valley) here in South Central, a person can only fish with 2 lines. I think most people would agree that if an angler had the opportunity to fish with several lines through the ice they would target northern pike more frequently. Personally, I like to use 2 spinning rods to fish for trout, char and salmon when I go out. Given the opportunity, I would gladly set out several tip-ups in addition to the 2 lines I use for trout. I have drafted a proposal for the Board of Fish and Game that recommends raising the limit on how many lines an individual may use while ice fishing for pike to 12 per person. This way technically, a person could still fish with two spinning rods for trout and such and set out 10 tip-ups for pike. Am I crazy or would others be on board with this???

  2. #2
    Member Ak_Barbarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    146

    Thumbs up Right here

    Definetly!!!! The wife, and kids are there too! We've been havin plently fun out there this year with the pop-ups. Tell me where and and were there!

  3. #3
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    170

    Default

    There are many lakes in southcentral that you can use 5 lines for pike. More are added as pike are found. Anglers can catch a fairnumber of pike, but can't catch them all! Maybe its time to turn the commercial nets loose on pike, fishing the lakes every 5 yrs or so, kinda like farming them???

  4. #4

    Default

    Sign me up when the mass harvest takes place! I know how to clean them easily & efficiently (thanks to my dad) and can show anyone how to do it! They're great eating!
    Jim

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Las Vegas NV
    Posts
    121

    Default more on the subject

    I also presented this idea to the area biologist to see what they thought. I thought you might find their reply interesting. (this was cut and pasted from their email)

    "Hello Mr. XXXXXX,

    Thank you very much for taking the time to review the “Invasive Pike Management Plan”. We appreciate your comments. To answer you question, there are two primary reasons why liberalizing the number of lines was not included in the plan. 1) In some lakes where pike have been illegally introduced, other native resident fish still remain. Increasing the number of lines for pike fishing may also increase the harvest of these fish, and that could be problematic for the sustainability of those fisheries in the long run. 2) In lakes where only pike currently exist, we have found that large fish are often harvested very quickly, and the populations soon become “stunted”. Increasing the number of lines for pike beyond 5 will increase the rate that this occurs. Anglers can help us reduce pike populations by harvesting all the pike that they can catch and use. However, anglers tend to lose interest in fishing for pike in lakes where the pike are very small.

    Regarding your BOF proposal, there is a set protocol to follow. The proposal needs to be submitted on a specific form and should be submitted by April 10th. The information for submitting BOF proposals including the form can be found at the following site:"

    [end of message]

    I don't know what you think, but what is the diffrence if Fish and Game nets a lake or anglers catch them through thie ice? I think this might be something that we as ice fisherman may need to come togther on and "push the issue" if you will. If you'd like to read the proposal I drafted PM me and I'll send it to you.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,526

    Default multiple personality disorder

    My better sense is not to get into this but I could not help but chuckle at the response. We want to kill pike out of lakes but if we take the large ones people will stop fishing - so we limit the kill so people will continue to fish - for what purpose? To keep the pike population at some acceptable catch rate, to keep the populaiton at some size - I thought we are trying to get rid of them.

    To me this report is typical of in the box thinking that goes on in State agencies. First, the methods listed are from what other states are doing. However, if you read them closely they tend not to work. At this point ADF&G needs to approach this as a research project - not a management issue. They need to go outside the box -

    I will give an example that I have been working on without mentioning the technique- I just do not want to get into details until I do some more research on the exact levels I need for a 95% kill rate.

    Industry, especially the oil industry, has great ways to kill fish. We tend to keep them from using those techniques and if fact make them modify those techniques to reduce fish kills. There is one method used by the oil industry in their work that is very effective at killing pike. In fact, a whole industry has developed that has modified this technique to reduce pike mortality in flowing waters of Canada.

    ADF&G biologist are not even thinking along these lines as demostrated in the report. They reference the old stuff - nothing new or innovative. State agencies historically are not innovative - this should be contracted out this as a research project and the first thing to do is bring all the crazy ideas to the table. For out of those crazy ideas one may survive that will work.

    The idea I have will kill pike - that has already been demostrated. Right now it is a question of scale - size of equipment, portablity to lakes, - all of which are solveable if we let industry do it.

    I am thinking of preparing a proposal to do this but am waiting for the right time to submit it - when open minds at ADF&G are willing to discuss it. Right now that is not happening as demostrated by this report and the response to the extra fishing lines.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Las Vegas NV
    Posts
    121

    Default

    Folks,

    This is something that we need to seriously consider. I’m not sure how many of you actually enjoy eating pike; but, I grew up in Northern Michigan and they were a prized game fish on our table. It’s obvious what the states position on this is and that they want to rid the area waters of these critters. Fish and Game is worried that other species will be caught. I don’t know about you; but, I have never caught anything besides pike on my tip-ups when I specifically target them. I’d be willing to write a letter that anyone could insert their name into to send to their local representatives. I’d be curious as to how many people actually target pike in South Central Alaska?

    I guess what bothers me about the whole thing is that they (the state) are willing to write off the pike as a sportfish and not give the sportsmen an opportunity to take their share prior to doing so. Some of their proposals are pretty radical! Poisoning lakes is a pretty drastic measure in my book. It would take years to re-establish a fishable population of any species in any lake that they would use that method in….

    Heck if it were up to me I’d transplant walleye and some other species of forage fish into some of the landlocked lakes. Why waste funds on planting salmon that will die off in a few years? Walleye are a highly prized fish that could be introduced into several area lakes with out any repercussions to the natural salmon stocks.

    Maybe I am off going off my rocker? There must be others who think the same way. We need to come together and lobby or communicate to our elected officials if this is something we want to see happen in our waters.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,526

    Default francko response

    Francko - your opinion is held with a number of people who come from the mid-west and that is one reason we are in this problem. They have no idea what the heck they are doing when they plant pike in lakes for their own enjoyment.

    We have a multi-million dollar industry on the Kenai Peninsula that targets salmon - not a few mid-west pike fisherman. That industry is under threat because of the irresponsible actions of a few sport fisherman that like to fish for pike. Planting invasive species in a system is not a good idea - period.

    Also, you are incorrect on the recovery time for a lake. With a proper stocking program salmon can be back into a lake after pike removal. The salmon can be stocked as pre-smolt so they imprint for a week or two and then leave. This makes for a fast recovery for a treated lake.

    Resident species as catchables can also be stocked.

    What it takes is a recovery plan for each lake relative to what treatment was used.

    Not picking on you Francko but please be sensitive to the culture and economics of Alaska - which is salmon/trout - not pike in our coastal waters.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,526

    Default further comments on Frankco

    Frankco, just want to make it clear that your comments talk about land locked lakes and try to not impact native species - I understand that - however, when you promote bringing in non-native species it sends a message to those who do not have the same concern as you do.

    Relative to your proposal for more lines - the regulatory body is the Board of Fish and proposals are due by 10 April. Those proposals will be discussed all over the State and then at the meeting in Jan or Feb. 2008. If you need a proposal form you can go to the Fish and Game web site and click on Board of Fish. They have the proposal form listed. If you need help in writing the proposal you can go to any fish and game office and ask the sport fish biologist for help. They will do it without judgement - they are to help out in this situation.

    Hope this helps.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    164

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    Frankco, however, when you promote bringing in non-native species it sends a message to those who do not have the same concern as you do.

    .
    I think you read the wrong thing from Franko and made an asumption from his prior location.

    The way I read it, basically increase the lines and lets try and fish them out instead of killing everything and going through that process.

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Juneau
    Posts
    2,127

    Default Not sure the Midwest had anything to do with it.

    Simply put, the idea of putting another invasive (walleye) in where an invasive has already been removed is just adding another level of "messed up" to this already precarious situation. Created reservoirs all over the place have plenty of instances of adding something new and a supposed feeder species and invariably the invasive eats whatever native fish were present and the feeders (gizzard shad) blew up numberswise.. Not a good idea.

    Someone from Tennesse would have said stripers, Florida-largemouth bass, Texas-catfish....bucket biology isn't exactly a location specific idea. (granted, they are all wrong)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •