63cm Very Interesting Magic Number

[tacklerunner]

Is it just me or have others noticed this too?

I keep a log of what I catch; date, which lake, how deep, size etc. I fish the hard water exclusively for Pike in Southern AB. My first time out was mid Dec.

I was looking at my log today and noticed that in Dec and the first 3 weeks of Jan I caught a fair number of 23" & 24" (58cm - 61cm). Since then to date I have not caught an undersize Pike. Lots in the 25" - 26" range.

It seems logical that over 6 weeks a Pike will grow that extra inch or 2. But then where are the 21" -22" fish that should have grown to the 23" - 24" range?

Is it possible that Fisheries has actually exacted this science and set a limit at 63cm as a result??? Can they actually estimate that a spring hatch fish will be close to 63cm in their second or third year? The age is irrelevant as it might be 12" at age 1, 18" at 2 and 25" at age 3 or whatever.

Why 63cm? It's an odd number. Why not 60cm or 65 or 70? Maybe the marine biologists really do have it down to an exact science if they can set a limit with 1cm.

I fish various lake and this is not just 1 lake I'm speaking of. I have caught Pike from 23" - 42" this year.

Could just be coincidence but I am curious.

[troutmountain]

I was at one of those no-name lakes hat hold pike and between 2 caught abou 20 pike one afternoon. Only 2 were 63cm + but lots close. If it was 20 we would have had our limit 6 fish pretty quick. maybe it is a magic #.

[alacringa]

I can't say for sure, but i'd suspect that it dates to when regs were printed with imperial measurements -- 25 inches is a much cleaner number.

[tacklerunner]

I can't say for sure, but i'd suspect that it dates to when regs were printed with imperial measurements -- 25 inches is a much cleaner number.

Ya I thought of that but 25" is 63.5cm and limits (I grew up in BC) were always 12", 16", 24"... imperial measurements but divisible by 12 or in 3" or 6" increments so it was a foot or foot and a half or 2 feet....

I don't know.

[Who Da Fisherman]

About 11 years ago my friend caught a 27.5lb Pike that was 44" long, a fisheries biologist came by and asked if he could have half of the jaw bone to age the fish. it came back that the pike was 12.5 years old. try using this for length and size for the age.

[rustynailz]

It all has to do with age. You'd set that number so that a certain desired percentage of fish can spawn before getting cranked on the head.

Most fish in that "legal" size limit are around 4-5 years old in my limited experience. It's a pretty awesome testament to the productivity of the lakes around here that a fish can go from say 4 pounds to the mid twenties in 6 or 8 years.

It's amazing what happens once they get big enough to get hard on the forage fish.

[tacklerunner]

About 11 years ago my friend caught a 27.5lb Pike that was 44" long, a fisheries biologist came by and asked if he could have half of the jaw bone to age the fish. it came back that the pike was 12.5 years old. try using this for length and size for the age.

It all has to do with age. You'd set that number so that a certain desired percentage of fish can spawn before getting cranked on the head.

Most fish in that "legal" size limit are around 4-5 years old in my limited experience. It's a pretty awesome testament to the productivity of the lakes around here that a fish can go from say 4 pounds to the mid twenties in 6 or 8 years.

It's amazing what happens once they get big enough to get hard on the forage fish.

4-5 years sounds about right in most of Alberta but spawning is based on growth before age. Some smaller, warmer, shallower lakes inhibit quicker growth so I know there's some 3 year old spawners too that are under the legal size. Could be anywhere from 2-6 years in AB depending male/female and surroundings and some 20 inchers will spawn for the first time. And yes a 20 pounder could be 25 years old and in a different lake with different habitat a 30 pounder could be 15 years old.

“The age at which northern pike become sexually mature depends on their growth rate. Male Northern pike are typically 34 to 42 cm (total length) and females 40 to 48 cm when they spawn for the first time (Frost and Kipling 1967; Priegel and Krohn 1975). In Great Bear Lake (Northwest Territories), this translates to age 5 or 6 for males and age 6 or 7 for females (Miller and Kennedy 1948). In Wisconsin, age 2 (males and females) is more typical (Priegel and Krohn 1975). One-year old spawners are not unusual in Kansas (Schryer et al. 1971), Missouri (Vasey 1974), and Texas (Crabtree 1969) reservoirs where pike growth is rapid.”

[rustynailz]

So it looks like based on those facts that even a quick growing pike will spawn before they're harvestable.

I think the reason you don't see a lot of those very young fish is that your bait is targeting larger/older fish, but it's hard to say. They could be inhabiting areas that make them less likely targets for their older siblings too.

[nicemustang]

My neighbour is an old school prairie fisher (and former F&W) and he says the limit is size was made up from many studies done throughout the province. They discovered that pike and walleye at the size limits set would give them at least one to two years of spawn before they could be legally harvested. The 63 and 50 cm are based on conversions to the metric system. It used to be 25" for pike and 20" for walleye, 50 and 63 were the best choices when they converted to metric system.

A couple of other points that were made that are true. The warmer the water, the faster the fish grow. It also depends on the environment when a fish spawns, not it's age or size. He says that walleye in the southern reserviors actually spawn 2 or 3 years before they are legal, which is why they are more sustainable than in norther lakes. This was because of the water temperature and they matured faster. He said that if they made the northern lakes 55 or 58 cm and over, they would have a lot more sustainable walleye lakes across AB.

Thats just his opinion...and I agree. Makes sense to me. But who know, I'm no fish biologist.

[tacklerunner]

My neighbour is an old school prairie fisher (and former F&W) and he says the limit is size was made up from many studies done throughout the province. They discovered that pike and walleye at the size limits set would give them at least one to two years of spawn before they could be legally harvested. The 63 and 50 cm are based on conversions to the metric system. It used to be 25" for pike and 20" for walleye, 50 and 63 were the best choices when they converted to metric system.

A couple of other points that were made that are true. The warmer the water, the faster the fish grow. It also depends on the environment when a fish spawns, not it's age or size. He says that walleye in the southern reserviors actually spawn 2 or 3 years before they are legal, which is why they are more sustainable than in norther lakes. This was because of the water temperature and they matured faster. He said that if they made the northern lakes 55 or 58 cm and over, they would have a lot more sustainable walleye lakes across AB.

Thats just his opinion...and I agree. Makes sense to me. But who know, I'm no fish biologist.

Good factual post. Falls in line with the stats I posted. I suspected they spawned before reaching the legal size. Nice to hear it first hand from your neighbour. Goes to show the misconception out there that keeping smaller fish and releasing the bigger ones "to spawn" isn't the end all and be all. F&W has done their homework and deserves some credit for once.

[madatter]

I talked to a southern Alberta fisheries biologist a few years ago and he said pretty much what has already been stated:
"Legal size was found to be a good average to allow the pike(or walleye) to develop and spawn at least a few times before being caught and kept.That way the reproductive cycle can continue....."
Sorta the way he worded it.....:D

[rustynailz]

Yep - these regulations makes sure that there will always be pike around.

It doesn't guarantee you trophy fishing.

Personally, I believe that we should have a few lakes around the province with a minimum 100cm size limit.

I like catching big pike. I release large females most of the time because I like catching big pike, not because I believe that it's helping the long term sustainability of the fishery. A 100cm pike is probably 8 or 10 years old depending on where you are, and has passed on their genes 5+ times by the time their monstrous head comes through your hole.

Ontario has a really cool program called the Cleithrum Project where they collect samples from anglers and taxidermists. Aging pike using the cleithrum is easy and you can do it yourself for interests sake.

The Cleithrum Project (http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/LetsFish/2ColumnSubPage/STEL02_165404.html)
How to Remove Cleithra (http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/LetsFish/2ColumnSubPage/STEL02_168800.html)
Removal of Cleithra and Aging (http://www.vtfishandwildlife.com/pike.cfm)

[madatter]

Yep - these regulations makes sure that there will always be pike around.

It doesn't guarantee you trophy fishing.

Personally, I believe that we should have a few lakes around the province with a minimum 100cm size limit.

I like catching big pike. I release large females most of the time because I like catching big pike, not because I believe that it's helping the long term sustainability of the fishery. A 100cm pike is probably 8 or 10 years old depending on where you are, and has passed on their genes 5+ times by the time their monstrous head comes through your hole.

More trophy lakes would be a great thing.....

[nicemustang]

Oh and one more thing...he stated that old fish still spawn, and they release eggs porportion to their size. However the older the fish, the more eggs it produces but the more % of eggs don't hatch to fish. They've studied that the first few years of a spawning fish has 100x the success rate of hatched eggs compared to the % from an old fish.

Example (purely example): a fish 4 years old spawn first year, releases 1,000,000 eggs, 10% survive on average. a fish 10 years old releases 10,000,000 eggs, 1% survives. This equals the same amount of fish hatched in the water.

He said they didn't have a lot of evidence with this stat by the time he retired, so he isn't sure where that research stands today.

[aulrich]

Just ran into this artical from in-fisherman about pike management they have real strong arguments for the carefull application of slot limits.

http://www.in-fisherman.com/content/pike-production-factors/1

[huntsfurfish]

aulrich

Minnesota - lots of water

Alberta - not so much.(little in comparison).

What works there could be disastrous here.

[aulrich]

I dissagree, they have way more people I would bet the fisherman/acre is not that far off, but thats not the issue. I picked up a couple of things, how on some lakes how low a harvest it takes to mess it up. And how slot limits could help get a lake with stunted pike to more larger pike.

[WayneChristie]

with the number of anglers wanting to catch trophy sized pike, why make the limit 100 cm? I think if we want more trophies we should be required to release anything that big, not kill only the big fish. Best thing I think would be to make some lakes C and R only, and we have enough pike lakes with high mercury content to make this feasible, and practical. Or is that the problem, those 2 words :D Look at Wab, spill a little oil thats been long gone for a while now, make all the fishing C and R, and watch out in the next couple of years for some new records being set. Easier to police than slot limits or size limits too. CO sees you with a fish, you are busted. simple. Just my opinion.

[aulrich]

Ironically, accoring to that artical some harvest would be required to grow trophy fish, but that would be dependent on the water.

Straight C&R not nessisarily the answer.

If anything a province wide rule is probably a bad idea seeing how different water is from the north to the south.

[Krisrf]

I would suspect that in a couple of years we could see Wab start to have stunted growth. At this point, full C&R at wab is replenishing the large lake but in the future this could very well be a bad thing. From what I've seen and read a slot size but allowing some below, some in, and some above the slot may be beneficial. For example, have a 55 cm to 75 cm slot, allowing 1 below, 1 in, and 1 above to be kept. In certain years they may move to 2 below and 1 in, etc. Obviously the costs would be high in maintaining adequate data to change or update the slot as need be on the lakes that need be. If you take a lake like Coal Lake south of Leduc, there's an argument to be made that there is a large amount of smaller fish that perhaps some ought to be harvested each year to balance out the ranges. Granted, at the end of the day they can't make these regulations too complicated... Just my two bits.

[tacklerunner]

I would suspect that in a couple of years we could see Wab start to have stunted growth. At this point, full C&R at wab is replenishing the large lake but in the future this could very well be a bad thing. From what I've seen and read a slot size but allowing some below, some in, and some above the slot may be beneficial. For example, have a 55 cm to 75 cm slot, allowing 1 below, 1 in, and 1 above to be kept. In certain years they may move to 2 below and 1 in, etc. Obviously the costs would be high in maintaining adequate data to change or update the slot as need be on the lakes that need be. If you take a lake like Coal Lake south of Leduc, there's an argument to be made that there is a large amount of smaller fish that perhaps some ought to be harvested each year to balance out the ranges. Granted, at the end of the day they can't make these regulations too complicated... Just my two bits.

I did a poll on this and even though most of us are on the same page, everybody has a different idea of what slot sizes should be. Also there were many complaints about General Regs when each lake is different. I kid you not but by the end of all the debates, the current regs work for over 90% of us as is; which was kinda my point to begin with. It's a personal preference. Many C&R voluntarily and don't have the slightest beef with those that harvest. Honestly, that's the bottom line.

[aulrich]

Yea there is something to be said for simple rules, But there are aready lakes that have special rules and work, Bullshead reservoir comes to mind as a trophy trout fishery.

Maybe thats the distinction that we need, as a rule lakes are managed for numbers, but a handful are managed for trophies.

Here is one thing I do up at my cottage in Northern Sask, though I am not sure about the validity. Nothing over 7 lbs get harvested since anything over 7 lbs is female.

[rustynailz]

Maybe thats the distinction that we need, as a rule lakes are managed for numbers, but a handful are managed for trophies.

Ding ding ding!

This is the real answer. If you follow the lead of Bullshead, Police, Beaver, etc, then you go with delayed harvest regs. I don't know if this will appease everyone, but it's a big step in the right direction. You also need to take a serious look at whether baitfishing and possibly 9 hooks per line (3 trebles) is conducive to trophy type fishing.

Either that or we can keep running everyone who wants to kill and eat big fish into the ground. Whatever floats your boat.

The fact is that we're lucky that trophy pike fishing exists in populated areas in Alberta despite the absence of regs supporting it. I don't believe that you can say the same for trout.

[aulrich]

What I find puzzling is the resistance to managment rule changes, The right scheme makes all the difference.

All I have to do is look at the lake I grew up fishing on in Manitoba . Before the early 90's you could catch lots of 12" walley/sauger. They brought in a slot limit and boy was there some complaining, the entry level was much larger than the normal size of fish and it took multiple tickets to strainghten out some the old timers. But the fish coming out of that lake now are amazing, so I am fully sold, and the slot has changed atleast once since then.

Maybe it's the change that gets folks, IDK.

The reality is it's budget is the real bad guy, monitoring take's cash and they (F&W) don't have enough boots on the ground as it is.

[huntsfurfish]

aulrich

Manitoba - lots of water(Minnesota also lots of water)

Alberta - not so much

see the similarities?

Nothing wrong with change if its the right thing to do. Comparing Alberta to them is apples/oranges

[aulrich]

Lots of water or little water, is irrelevant, biology is biology a healthy fishery can handle x lbs of harvest per year if it is split between 1 or 10,000 does not matter. Knowing what that number, is required, You can manage a lake for numbers or size, not both.

Irronically if a fishery is unhealthy like sturgeon was in the same lake at the same time you shut it down there are 50+ inchers now.

If anything the lack of water here should require more dilligent monitoring and changing harvest regulations as conditions require. Like if there was a couple of bad spawns in a row dial back or close harvest.

Personally if a lake can handle 0 harvest I would say close it completely because even C&R has a mortality rate.

And while Manitoba has lots of water only a small percentage if fishable by people limited to road access. The lake I fished regularaly had 20-40 boats in the one major fishing hole.