By Steve Meyer, for the Redoubt Reporter
Photo courtesy of Alaska Department of Fish and Game. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has declared war on pike, which are voracious eaters and are not native to the central Kenai Peninsula.
I love pike. Fast, vicious on the strike, relentless eating machines, these glorious bastards have been a favorite game fish of mine since childhood.
My first pike came on a summer night in 1966, on Blanche Lake in Minnesota. Trips in the summertime were infrequent, as my dad was a farmer in North Dakota, and there simply wasn’t time for trips to fishing grounds. That in part explains why hunting was my first love — I could walk out the door anytime and be hunting in rural North Dakota.
I remember we made the long drive — seemed long at the time — about 150 miles on a summer afternoon. Arriving at the lake in the early evening, I was anxious to go fishing. But adults seem immune to the impatience of youth, and so I sat on the boat dock and waited, hoping we would eventually get on with it. Back then you wouldn’t dare badger adults about getting to something. You ran the risk of a quick cuff to the head and a stern warning to mind your manners.
I had already invested a fair amount of time in this trip, scouring local potholes for frogs to bring for bait. I must have had 50 frogs in a cardboard box. My dad’s fishing buddy was delighted, as he spent most of his summers on the lake fishing for pike, bass, walleye and panfish, and would make immediate use of them. Finally, the time came and we headed out in a small boat with an ancient outboard motor that chugged along, spewing blue smoke in a big cloud behind us. No matter to me; my entire being was a bundle of nerves in anticipation of this long-awaited chance at catching a pike.
Back then, and in that place, pike captured the imagination of young anglers much as king salmon probably do for youth in Alaska. Every local tavern, every small sporting-goods store or bait shop and local restaurants all had a mounted pike adorning a wall somewhere. Pike just look nasty, their streamlined bodies and duckbilled jaws full of teeth reminiscent of the barracuda, they immediately capture the attention of anglers.
Pictures often accompanied mounts and they would depict pike striking a surface lure, plug hanging from their mouth as they broke the surface. In that part of the world they were displayed in many advertisements for outdoor equipment and other things. Schmidt beer was the best of them all. They had hunting and fishing scenes on their cans and they had a great image of a huge pike clearing water, shaking its head, a red surface plug hanging from his jaw.
After a two-mile run across the lake, we began trolling along a long stretch of cattails and weed beds, using red and white daredevils — the trolling spoon of choice back then. No more than two or three minutes into the troll I had a strike, and missed it, but my chest felt like it would explode in excitement. Shortly after my dad hooked up and a 4-pound pike broke the surface, thrashing and pissed off, as they tend to be.
Then my turn came again. The rod slammed down and this time I was ready and pulled back, setting the hook. I fought that fish for what seemed like an hour, but of course was only a few minutes. My dad’s fishing buddy was ready with the net and landed my first pike in the boat. Like most kids, I was eager to do everything and quickly reached into the net to grab my fish and remove the hook. My dad believed in letting me rise to the occasion, short of killing myself, so he only watched with a slight grin as I repeatedly cut my fingers and hands on the pike’s sharp teeth.
Not only do pike have teeth all along their pronounced jaw, they even have them on their tongue, which are slanted backward to better grip their prey and will cut you like a razor. To old-school fisherman this is just another rite of passage, and I couldn’t wait to show my newly acquired battle wounds.
On the infrequent following trips to Minnesota I never caught a really big pike, 5 to 6 pounds was about it, and so when my dad announced our move to Alaska in the fall of 1970, that was just one of the things I believed would be within easy grasp. Stories I had read spoke of the fabulous pike fishing in northern Canada and Alaska, and I couldn’t wait. Little did I know that where we would live had few pike, and those that were available were intensely hated and relentlessly poisoned and netted in attempts to rid the Kenai Peninsula of their offensive presence.
Back then, the Mackey Lakes were about the only lakes that I remember as having pike. Populations of pike in Tote lakes and Stormy Lake came later. There was no real public access to fishing at the time, at least that I was aware of, and I essentially gave up thinking a big pike was in my future here. But as time has gone by, despite the netting, poisoning and allowing liberal fishing limits, pike are still amongst us. It is a testament to the character of these fish. They are prehistoric in nature, yet they hang on in the face of horrific odds. It is hard for me not to admire that kind of tenacity in any living thing.
The effort that seems to go toward eliminating pike on the Kenai is somewhat fascinating to me. Posters bashing the horrible pike can be found everywhere, ads on TV, radio and in newspapers all pleading with the public to kill these horrible predators because they are going to destroy the peninsula trout and salmon fisheries.
Most would not remember and probably are not aware that there used to be a bounty on Arctic char for the same reasons pike are so relentlessly hated. Char are vicious predators, and their lake trout cousins even more so. Seems a main difference with char is they don’t eat fish one-third the size of themselves. Lake trout do, but they are confined to large bodies of deep, clear water. There are lake trout in Kenai Lake, Skilak Lake and Tustumena Lake, but the glacier water doesn’t seem to be conducive to large growth, like Hidden Lake is.
Pike are native to the lion’s share of Alaska, ranging from Bristol Bay all across the Alaska Range and into the Arctic. They reside in large bodies of water that support many small baitfish species and, therefore, do not have an impact like they do in small lakes containing primarily trout and salmon smolt.
In any event, the pike war has been going on for a very long time. It also seems like perhaps the biologists working on pike eradication might have the slightest soft spot for these magnificent fish. Stormy Lake is a prime target for pike, and ice fishing for them is encouraged, but at the same time, the road to Stormy Lake is not plowed. Seems like having the lake accessible to ice fishermen would be the minimum Fish and Game would want if total annihilation is the objective. (Yes, you can walk in but there isn’t anywhere to park.)
In any event, I understand the pike issue, but after watching this battle for 30 years, I have to confess, I am in the pike’s corner and hope these magnificent predators continue to confound the efforts toward their eradication.
Steve Meyer has been a central peninsula resident since 1971 and is an avid hunter, fisherman and trapper. He can be reached at oldduckhunter@gci.net.
I appreciate fishing for northern pike as much as anyone else. I grew up in Wisconsin and spent many youthful summers casting red and white daredevils for pike.
However fond I am of pike, though, I am not in their corner as an invasive species on the Kenai Peninsula, where they can have devastating impacts on the salmon and trout fisheries here. I understand the impulse to cheer for the underdog, but that effort is misplaced in this article.
ADFG’s invasive species program for pike removal on lake systems on the Kenai Peninsula needs all our support.
It is important to remember that pike didn’t somehow magically swim across the Alaska Range from the Bristol Bay region or other regions of the state where native, they were transported here by people who, just like the author, were in “the pike’s corner” and thought it would be cool if pike became established on the peninsula.
I don’t accept that this is an ethical stance that any educated, responsible angler can support.
And finally, although it is easy enough to confuse the duties and responsibilities of a myriad government agencies, last time I checked snow removal was not one of ADFG’s core responsibilities.
But keeping invasive species such as northern pike out of our lake systems on the peninsula, where they are not indigenous and shouldn’t be, is one of ADFG’s core responsibilities and it is one we all can and should support.
After all, it is not impossible to travel to other places in Alaska where pike are indigenous to the habitat, or to return to a favorite spot of one’s youth where pike fishing was the norm.
Pike don’t need to become the norm here.
Why is it that comments to the contrary always start out with, “I too am a ______(fisherman/hunter)” It makes one wonder if there is a trend within a group that feels they are the holders of the only authorized opinion on a subject and no other discussion is allowed, because they, too, are pike fisherman, but they are educated, responsible pike fisherman held to a higher standard than regular joe fisherman.
I did not read Old Duckhunter as saying he was in the corner of pike as an invasive species. His columns don’t strike this reader as encouraging a devastating impact on salmon and trout fisheries. An impulse to cheer for the underdog is not only a right to free speech, it is an impulse that has given rise to some of the most important arguments of our time, arguments that would not have happened if someone didn’t question the prevailing opinion. Although, Old Duckhunter doesn’t cheer for Pike on the Peninsula, quite the opposite, he’s saying, if we’re going to try to eradicate them, it’s going to be a challenge, might as well have some fun and maybe Fish & Game might want to help see about plowing the roads so they can be eradicated.
While ADF&G’s invasive species program for pike removal on lake systems on the Kenai Peninsula may need all our support, it doesn’t do anything to merely repeat that fact. Old Duckhunter is actually supporting ADF&G’s program by actually fishing for pike.
Suggesting that Old Duckhunter is like the people who transported pike to the Peninsula unethically is offensive. I doubt he “[thought] it would be cool.” The fact is that they’re here, so why not fish for them? Why not fish for them a lot?
Why is fishing for pike that ADF&G wants eradicated an unethical stance? Why is reminiscing about childhood fishing and encouraging anglers to take this opportunity while it’s here an unethical stance? Do “educated, responsible anglers” think that radio advertisements and posters actually kill pike?
Again, I wonder why it is that the naysayers always have the superior understanding of the “myriad government agencies” duties and responsibilities? Assuming that Old Duckhunter does not understand government agencies, it’s common sense to assume that ADF&G would want the public to have access to lake’s with pike, if they are to be eradicated. It would make more sense to ask DOT to plow the road then staple a poster to a tree and hope that some ambitious angler would snowshoe into the lake.
While snowplowing may not be “one of ADF&G’s core responsibilities,” it appears that inhalation of pike on the peninsula is one of their concerns. Maybe Mr. Geese should consider that if, as he states, “keeping invasive specifies such as northern pike out of our lake systems” is something ADF&G is interested in, that a simple phone call to another myriad public agency (DOT) might be helpful.
I would like to know how Mr. Geese suggests one support ADF&G if not to fish for pike, write a column about the pike fishing opportunities while acknowledging the problem and encouraging people to go out and fish for pike (and apolgetically admiring the species, despite).
According to Mr. Geese, instead of fishing for pike on the peninsula, where one would hope they disappear “magically“, one should travel outside, spend their fishing dollars in another state and never surmise that government agencies should work together.
It’s disappointing to see that a “popular opinion” such as the need to eradicate pike for fear of losing our salmon fishery cannot handle a discussion on the subject without trumpeting the most prevalent public message. Instead of taking joy in the unique perspective our community has on pike, which is a fascinating and unique problem to outsiders, the obvious is pointed out.
It’s disappointing that a public message, ADF&G’s public message, cannot be so much as looked at without professing, first and foremost, diplomatically and politically, that it is the only intelligent opinion before putting any other word to paper. Old Duckhunter should put up his fishing rod and take a course in public policy so that, instead of telling enjoyable stories from the field, he could spout political messages verbatim because there clearly aren’t enough posters around that say exactly what everyone already knows: pike are an invasive species to the peninsula.
Pike are invasive. Let’s not do anything about it. Certainly not fish for them.
Sarah Stream: You miss the point of my response -
Old Duckhunter states at the end of his article:
“I am in the pike’s corner and hope these magnificent predators continue to confound the efforts toward their eradication.”
I am not in the pike’s corner and I hope ADFG is successful in their eradication efforts to remove pike as an invasive species on the Kenai Peninsula.
If a person understands the devastating impact pike as an invasive species can have on the peninsula’s salmon and trout populations – and Old Duckhunter claims to understand the pike issue here – then I ask how is being in the corner of an invasive species, hoping that it evades the eradication efforts by ADFG, the ethical or right response to this issue?
As background, pike are an invasive species on the peninsula waters because of bucket biology – people catching pike someplace else and transporting them here in buckets, then dumping them into that person’s favorite fishing spot, cause it was way too inconvenient for that person to keep traveling off the peninsula to where they were catching pike.
To me, bucket biology is a wrong response (unethical) by an individual angler – it is illegal and it causes huge ecological problems beyond just being able to selfishly wet a line to go fishing locally for pike.
People, through bucket biology, is what confounds ADFG’s response to pike as an invasive species and can undercut any efforts of ADFG to eradicate pike.
Bucket biology probably is continuing on today – people transporting pike with buckets and thinking it is cool to fish for pike in their local “lake” which is connected to other waters in the peninsula watersheds, whereby pike can spread and infest other peninsula waters.
Invasive species are expensive and hard to deal with once they become established in an area. Actions by individual anglers going out to catch pike with hook and line have not shown to be an effective long term eradication technique for pike as an invasive species. Might be fun for the angler, but it does nothing substantial over the long term to deal with pike as an invasive species.
A comprehensive approach that targets the total population is what works best. To effectively deal with pike as an invasive species, eradiction strategies depend on whether a system is open (connected) or closed.
For closed water systems (a lake with no access to other waters in a watershed) rotenone (a pesticide) has shown to be effective or draining the lake completely is the other option. ADFG estimates that it would take about three years to drain Stormy Lake and three years for it to refill. And during that time the lake would most likely be closed to access by everyone for a substantial portion of that six year time frame.
For open water systems (interconnected) where pike can still in-migrate if you only tried a rotenone treatment (and draining is not a likely option for an open system), then long term netting programs that target pike during spawning times has shown to be most effective.
Long term netting is the option that ADFG is looking to use on Alexander Creek / Alexander Lake in the Mat-Su – targetting spawning pike in late April / May. The key here on open lake systems is that the solution is long term – as in forever, and that requires a line item of tens of thousands of dollars in every ADFG budget from here to eternity.
The peninsula has both closed and open lake systems, and currently we have pike in both. Individual anglers will never fish out pike from these systems. To eradicate pike, it will take an annual, expensive, time-consuming and comprehensive commitment from ADFG.
Unfortunately, all that effort can be undone by one bucket filled with pike, imported by the notion that being able to fish for pike is somehow cool and will not have any impact on the ecology of our peninsula fisheries. It does, and will continue for many years to come.
In the meantime, Old Duckhunter doesn’t have to give up his fishing rod for pike – he and anyone else can go out and catch as many as they want – supporters of bucket biology have made sure of that.
Mr. Gease:
Quotations don’t lie, and Old Duckhunter does state at the end of his article:
“I am in the pike’s corner and hope these magnificent predators continue to confound the efforts toward their eradication.”
However, this statement, prefaced with an understanding of the issues on the peninsula, in context has more to do with a reverence of a species, despite a local problem.
Take, for instance, the lines of a Finish Epic Poem on pike: “Struck down at the monster/slashing down beneath the vessel/but the sword crashed into fragments/yet the pike paid no attention.”
The Finish are apparently as guilty as Old Duck Hunter in admiring a species that while invasive here, were a marvel there. To live on the peninsula does not mean one must dislike pike as a species.
To answer your question of how being in the corner of an invasive species, hoping that it evades the eradication efforts by ADF&G, the ethical or right response to this issue, let me argue with the “invasive species” portion of your rendering. If you separate pike on the peninsula (invasive pike) from the pike of Old Duckhunter’s childhood, of your own childhood, you can see how they are two separate issues. The value of perspective is what Old Duckhunter is talking about, not the politics.
“Bucket biology” is a catch phrase, a short-lived, media driven expression. An eagle can also transport pike from one body of water to another. So called Bucket Biology is not advocated in the subject column. It is not mentioned as a response to anything. The connotation of “bucket biology” does not automatically associate itself with someone who enjoys fishing for pike.
If “actions by individual anglers going out to catch pike with hook and line have not shown to be an effective long term eradication technique for pike as an invasive species” then local ADF&G pamphlets encouraging fishing for pike and reiterating the liberal regulations are misleading. The cooperation of ADF&G with local pike anglers who provide fish for studies would also be a misleading encouragement. The pamphlets say, “Fish for pike, it’s fun.”
The comprehensive methods you mention ad nauseum are not born out from a soap box. They take effort, and there is no better effort an individual can make than to fish for pike. Or so says ADF&G.
Pike as a species, separate from our present issues, are prehistoric in nature. They are as invasive here as white people. If your Bucket Biology is to blame for the existence of pike in our waters, it is the same unstoppable biology that produces the mass of human waste and destruction that has done more damage to once pristine landscapes than a all the pike poisoned on the peninsula ever saved in trout. Spend a single day on the Kenai River in July and tell me that it’s pike that are killing our salmon.