age of pike?

[duckman#1]

I have a small 55 acre lake that seems to be over populated with little pike. On a average day you can troll for an hour and catch 15-30 pike 15"-20".
The lake has a good bass and gill population but the perch are very small when you can find them.
Can a lake have stunted pike like some get with bluegills? I realize the pike wouldn't get as "heavy/fat" with so much competition for food, but what about their length? and life span with higher numbers of them in a lake??
Rarely you hear of a 40+ incher being caught, but thats it otherwise its just 15"-24" is what you catch 95% of the time. and I'm talking over hundreds of pike being caught by me personally. Wheres the big ones in this little lake?

[baydog2]

I know a small lake where you used to catch a few small pike but the perch fishing was great. Perch 9" to 14" was the norm for this lake. Now it is nothing to go out and catch a dozen undersize hammerhandles. I think the pike are running out of food and as bluegill do to population is get stunted and too numerous for the lower food chain. This lake has been like this for years.

[QuickStrike]

I've heard it said that an average age for a 24" northern pike throughout most of Michigan is approximately 10 years old. I'm not sure about this, but if it is true it sure emphasizes the need for catch and release on northerns. They don't grow very fast, and different bodies of water will have fatter fish than others for a variety of reasons. I know of some small bodies of water, however, that produce 40+ inch northerns, mostly because they are connected by rivers to much larger systems.

[Will Schultz]

Pike grow fast for their first couple years of life by the end of thier first year they are normally over 15" and by the ned of their second year over 20". Males grow slower than females after their 3rd year. Most males will not get bigger than 25-28" while females grow much larger.

My guess is that you don't have a harvest problem, it sounds like a stunted population in my opinion.

[QuickStrike]

In Will Ryan's book, Northern Pike (2000), he states that "Pike grow quickly, but . . . it takes 10 years to grow a 20-inch pike in lakes to the Far North." In Fishes of the Central United States (1990), Eberle states that " . . . in the southern portion of its range, (a northern) might reach a length of 20 inches within its first three years of life." According to the Bible of fish biology, Fishes of Wisconsin, Lake Mendota (in southern Wisconsin) pike grew to an average of 11.4 inches in year one, to 21.2 inches in year two, and to 26.8 inches in year three. Mendota is a highly productive body of water that produces impressive northerns given it's proximity to a large metropolitan area. Dark water and varied forage. It's probably not a good representation of most of our clear bluegill waters in southern Michigan.

Quite a varied group of information. You decide for yourself.

[QuickStrike]

I think I found the information from my initial suggestion about pike taking ten years to reach 24 inches, but now I'm not so sure. In Fishing Michigan, by Eric Sharp of the Detroit Free Press, the author states that ". . . while northern pike are among the biggest of freshwater fish, they are also among the slowest growing, at least in their native waters." He goes on to state: "Pike that have reached the legal minimum size of 24 inches are nearly all older than 10--but most pike don't live 10 years." This is initially a fairly vague statement, and after reading it a couple dozen times, remains vague. Later, he states that "Northern pike grow fairly slowly in Michigan, taking four to five years to reach 12 inches." This may be true, but it sure seems to fly in the face of most other literature.

There are no sources cited for this section, or at any point in the book for that matter, so I'm not sure where he got his information. It is definitely on the far end of the scale when you compare it to other biological references.

Confused yet?

[msujberry]

I have fished a smaller lake in Fairview for over 20 yrs now and experienced the same thing. For years you could catch 30 pike a day but all were hammerhandles. 6 yrs ago the lake was stocked with walleye and within 2 yrs of the stocking we noticed a difference. The pike became fewer yet the ones we did catch were longer and fatter. The walleye that we cleaned we cut open their stomachs and found that they were feeding on small pike. Our bluegill populations also rebounded but as expected our perch became non-existant.

[Icecreep]

Other factors come into play when discussing growth rates of Northern Pike, such as forage, water quality, habitat...
On average a 24" pike is 3 years old. Lakes overrun with hammerhandles are products of poor forage usually, populations are short lived in their struggle to compete for food.

[waterfoul]

Iv'e fished several lakes in the U.P. with this same issue. In a single day we would catch 100 pike... not one over 22" or so. Fun, but after a while... boring.

[QuickStrike]

Other factors come into play when discussing growth rates of Northern Pike, such as forage, water quality, habitat...
On average a 24" pike is 3 years old. Lakes overrun with hammerhandles are products of poor forage usually, populations are short lived in their struggle to compete for food.

This is interesting. I just remembered talking to someone who deals mainly with esocids.

I spoke with a researcher in Minnesota who did a study on some tigers in the Metropolitan Twin Cities area. The fish in this lake reach impressive sizes rather quickly, even though the water is considered eutrophic. Forage quality is generally considered poor, and it seems that the food of choice there is bullheads, which according to him are very high in caloric value. This very reputable researcher and the body of water is highly unusual in terms of the classic definition of a pike producer. I realize that we are talking part muskie here, but forage is forage. With our abundant bullhead populations, one would think that our northerns would make better use of them, despite a potentially painful feeding session.

I sure wouldn't try to swallow one whole, but then again, maybe those tigers know something I don't.

[Icecreep]

This is interesting. I just remembered talking to someone who deals mainly with esocids.

I spoke with a researcher in Minnesota who did a study on some tigers in the Metropolitan Twin Cities area. The fish in this lake reach impressive sizes rather quickly, even though the water is considered eutrophic. Forage quality is generally considered poor, and it seems that the food of choice there is bullheads, which according to him are very high in caloric value. This very reputable researcher and the body of water is highly unusual in terms of the classic definition of a pike producer. I realize that we are talking part muskie here, but forage is forage. With our abundant bullhead populations, one would think that our northerns would make better use of them, despite a potentially painful feeding session.

I sure wouldn't try to swallow one whole, but then again, maybe those tigers know something I don't.

That is also interesting, However you are comparing a low density population of stocked hybrids ( which are more ravenous feeders and less selective about their forage than true muskellunge and n.pike) to stunted northern pike populations(high density population).
I take it the researcher you mention performed a necropsy on more than one specimen to conclude that bullhead were the preffered/primary forage of the tigers.
While im sure brown bullheads make up a small part of a northerns diet (as they are opportunistic feeders) they are simply not a preffered food source.
My .2

[QuickStrike]

Those are good points IC. The researcher I refer to is one of the Ramsell family, a highly reputable esocid manager from Minnesota. I spoke with him three years ago regarding a project I was working on. I did not question his methods, as that would have been a slap in the face, really. But his credentials precede him.

And yes, I admit that there are dramatic differences between hybrids and northerns in many aspects. The point that I was trying to make is that predators make use of what's available. At the beginning of this thread, the contributor states that he "rarely" sees the 40+ inch fish, which tells me that it is possible for fish to get to this size. Those fish, however many there are, must have had some kind of decent forage to get that size. Not sure how they did it, but it's obvious someone is eating well.

There are many missing variables here to consider, but I think that the fact that this is a tiny lake makes as much sense as forage issues. Any pressure at all could tip the size structure to one side.

Probably better to target larger, deeper, more diverse lakes for big pike anyway. And make use of the bass/bluegill options available in the little lake.

[Icecreep]

Those are good points IC. The researcher I refer to is one of the Ramsell family, a highly reputable esocid manager from Minnesota. I spoke with him three years ago regarding a project I was working on. I did not question his methods, as that would have been a slap in the face, really. But his credentials precede him.


And yes, I admit that there are dramatic differences between hybrids and northerns in many aspects. The point that I was trying to make is that predators make use of what's available. At the beginning of this thread, the contributor states that he "rarely" sees the 40+ inch fish, which tells me that it is possible for fish to get to this size. Those fish, however many there are, must have had some kind of decent forage to get that size. Not sure how they did it, but it's obvious someone is eating well.

There are many missing variables here to consider, but I think that the fact that this is a tiny lake makes as much sense as forage issues. Any pressure at all could tip the size structure to one side.


Probably better to target larger, deeper, more diverse lakes for big pike anyway. And make use of the bass/bluegill options available in the little lake.

QuickStrike,
I am familiar with Rod Ramsell. I was not doubting his findings, just interested in how he came about them.

Yes, many variables to consider (cool water refuge, harvest..). Perhaps more studies need to be done. I also agree, if you want to go catch big pike you have to fish for them where they live. Not all, in fact most watersheds in Michigan are not capable of producing large pike.