I recently moved back to Northern MN. I have started researching some local waters in preperation for ice season.
I don’t like wasting my time with “dinks”. What should I look for in these lakes to rule out the lakes that have trophy quality fish vs. dinks. I am referring to all species (walleye/pike/crappie/bluegill/perch).
How much priority should I put into the MN DNR lake finder net results?
Dnr result are a good indicator if they are fairly recent. Look for bigger water, although some smaller bodies will hold good fish.
Lakefinder is a great resource. With the real old surveys, I think you probably best stay away. I find that it means the DNR has given up managing them, many times because of winterkill or the lake just aging to the point it can’t be a quality fishery. I have found in the metro area I will ignore any lake with a pre 2000 survey. The lower limit may vary up north with the amount of lakes and resources.
Personally, I am just as interested in seeing a good balance in a lake as I am seeing fish in the bigger slots.
For example, you could find lake with a survey from a few years ago with a few bluegills 9-11″ in the survey, but then you look deeper and see 0-5″ slot having huge numbers over the 6-8″ers.
I also like surveys with low counts of panfish.
The tables give a nice overview, but the meat is in the “Status of the Fishery” section where they actually note the average size of all fish for a species. I’ve taken the time on some lakes to put in the spreadsheet not only the numbers in the survey, but also the average size in the status write up. Sometimes when you compare the average to the numbers in the table you get a completely different story.
Not preaching, I am sure you and everyone has there own way of interpreting and researching the surveys. Just throwing that out there.
MPLSPug, could you try to walk me through that with this data.
The total catch of fish in the trapnets in 2006 of 21.9 fish/net (20.5 lb/net) was higher than the median trapnet catch in all investigations on Lake of 17.2 fish/net (10.0 lb/net) The trapnet catch in 2006 was dominated by white sucker and bluegill sunfish. Some large (up to 11.8 inches) black crappie were also present in the trapnet catch.
Walleye numbers in 2006 (4.9/gillnet) were somewhat higher than normal (in the third quartile) for this lake class and were similar to the median walleye catch of 5.0/gillnet in all investigations on this lake. Walleye sizes in 2006 averaged 12.5 inches (0.8 lb), which was smaller than normal (in the first quartile) for this lake class, but was larger than the average walleye size of 10.6 inches in all investigations on this lake. The largest walleye in 2006 was 22.2 inches. Walleye reproduction was fairly even from year-to-year. Growth of walleye captured in 2006 was slower than normal (in the first quartile) by area standards.
Northern pike numbers in 2006 (2.9/gillnet) were normal (near the median) for this lake class and were at the median value of 2.9/gillnet in all investigations on this lake. Pike sizes in 2006 averaged 18.6 inches (1.5 lb), which was smaller than normal (in the first quartile) for this lake class, but was similar to the average pike size of 18.4 inches in all investigations on this lake. Many of the pike captured in 2006 were age four. Pike growth was slower than normal (in the first quartile) by area standards.
Yellow perch numbers in 2006 (10.2/gillnet) were somewhat higher than normal (in the third quartile) for this lake class and were similar to the median perch catch of 10.0/gillnet in all investigations on this lake. Perch sizes in 2006 averaged 6.8 inches (0.17 lb), which was somewhat larger than normal (in the third quartile) for this lake class and was similar to the average perch size of 7.0 inches in all investigations on this lake. Perch growth was normal (in the second or third quartile, depending on the age) by area standards.
Bluegill numbers in 2006 (7.2/trapnet) were somewhat higher than normal (in the third quartile) for this lake class, and were higher than the median bluegill catch of 3.5/trapnet in all investigations on this lake. Bluegill sizes in 2006 averaged 6.9 inches (0.30 lb), which was somewhat larger than normal (in the third quartile) for this lake class, but was similar to the average bluegill size of 7.1 inches in all investigations on this lake. Bluegill growth was faster than normal (in the third or fourth quartile, depending on the age) by area standards.
Many of the fish examined in 2006 were infected with neascus (black spot). Some of the fish also had yellow grub. One perch had some leeches attached to it, and one walleye had a growth under the skin. Neascus, yellow grub, and leeches are common parasites that are native to the area.
Not sure about the pressure. One of the reasons I hated fishing up here (and sharing info) was overfishing pressure once word of a bite gets out. Unfortunately that sentiment is still felt by locals up here as evidenced by a local comment to this same question on another site.
Quote:
IMHO, little to none.
You now live in the land of jack pine savages that will decimate a lake when the word gets out. There are good lakes out there, but when you find one,…..tell nobody(except me ).
SL
Hence my desire to explore lakes that have the potential. And with any luck little access and pressure.
You should see how awesome some of the other lakes look around here (on paper). Gets a guy all excited. Maybe Nicole needs to talk to me in netting survey statistics. 
I fished ~15 new lakes last winter and used lake finder for every one. From my experience the lakes with lower numbers of fish but a better size distribution were the best producers. The example you posted is exactly what I like to see, everytime I fished a lake with a similar pattern, I seemed to catch big fish consistently, I never noticed any difference as far as the year unless it was older than 2000 or so. On the other hand fishing lakes with a very high number of fish but not many bigger ones I mainly caught dinks. I like fishing lakes with lower numbers assuming that others just shrug these off when deciding where to fish (whether I’m right or not). But my goal is looking for signs of low fishing pressure like the low numbers of fish netted, unplowed roads or hard to access lakes, this factor is huge since more people today would rather take the ‘easy’ route 
.
Here is an awesome read on the matter. http://www.sww-lodge.com/2010/11/big-fish-dont-live-in-small-ponds/
I agree with Itch2Fish when he says he doesn’t like to see large populations of any species of fish in the surveys. Depending on the “age” of a lake and the species, I would expect more of certain types of species.
If I am looking for a walleye, smallmouth or musky lake, I am looking at perch, walleye, sucker, smallmouth, musky and whitefish populations and sizes.
A pike or crappie lake, I am looking at pike, crappie sucker, shiner, perch and creek chub numbers and sizes.
Bass or bluegill lake, I am looking at bass, bluegill,etc., mostly bluegill. The reason being that most surveys tell you nets and traps don’t work for bass, only electroshocking.
I like to see a nice distribution of year classes by looking at the # caught by length for the types of fish I am seeking. Personally I am more concerned with balance than seeing they surveyed some trophy fish.
I haven’t looked at the gill net charts much in the past, but I think I will in the future, since they list a “normal range” for similar lakes. If the average weight is above the normal range, there must be something “special” about that lake be it genes, fishing pressure, whatever.
That’s a little background of the bs I use, for what it is worth.
Looking at the charts it looks like a great lake with a lot of balance. Looks like an excellent gill lake or eater walleye lake. Its good to see more gills in the 6-8″ range than the 0-5″ range, because they grow fast the first couple years and then slow down. When you start seeing 0-5″ dominate 6-8″ you are looking at slow growth and stunting. Just look at most metro lake surveys.
And reading the status it reaffirms this saying that the growth for the fish has remained the same as previous surveys and the size and numbers are in the top 25% for similar lakes. At least that is how I understand what 3rd quartile means.
One thing this survey doesn’t have that many metro status reports include is the biggest bluegills caught and % trapped larger than 7″ and/or % larger than 8″. I wish they would do that for all surveys and all species.
If it were me I would certainly give bluegills a try and also some walleye if I was looking for eaters or some action with jigging hardbaits or plastics.
There you have it. How’d I do?
Thanks Pug. That is exactly what I was looking for.
In descriptive statistics, the quartiles of a ranked set of data values are the three points that divide the data set into four equal groups, each group comprising a quarter of the data. A quartile is a type of quantile. The first quartile (Q1) is defined as the middle number between the smallest number and the median of the data set. The second quartile (Q2) is the median of the data. The third quartile (Q3) is the middle value between the median and the highest value of the data set.
-first quartile (designated Q1) = lower quartile = 25th percentile (splits off the lowest 25% of data from the highest 75%)
-second quartile (designated Q2) = median = 50th percentile (cuts data set in half)
-third quartile (designated Q3) = upper quartile = 75th percentile (splits off the highest 25% of data from the lowest 75%)
Quote:
Quote:
IMHO, little to none.
You now live in the land of jack pine savages that will decimate a lake when the word gets out. There are good lakes out there, but when you find one,…..tell nobody(except me ).
SL
It may seem worse up north but its the same all over. I say worse by big cities. Once word gets out on a good ice bite the lake will be ravaged until it and the good fish are all but wiped out.
It kind of makes me wish the DNR would create some catch and release lakes only lakes. There may be a few already, but I am talking about creating opportunities all over the state. Then have the DNR biologists foster a good ecology in the lake.
Of course that will never happen. And even if it did, lakes would still get poached (I’d imaging they would only do this with small bodies of water < 100 acres).
I do think things are a little better than in the past. And in an ideal word the DNR could manage every lake closely and within the pressure it receives.
Quote:
It kind of makes me wish the DNR would create some catch and release lakes only lakes. There may be a few already, but I am talking about creating opportunities all over the state. Then have the DNR biologists foster a good ecology in the lake.
Of course that will never happen. And even if it did, lakes would still get poached (I’d imaging they would only do this with small bodies of water < 100 acres).
I do think things are a little better than in the past. And in an ideal word the DNR could manage every lake closely and within the pressure it receives.
. That is why it is so important for us to police each other and have the local CO’s number in our phones. Turn In Poachers!
If it were me, I’d fish the rivers instead.
I’m not sure if it’s as bad in WI, but there is definitely something to be said for finding lakes with hard accesses or out of the way type fisheries to avoid pressure. I have used the Sportsman’s Guide books for WI, as well as the DNR website. How much success I’ve had, I really can’t say. OP, the lake data that you posted actually looked pretty good for crappies as well.
I personally love the idea of catch and release fisheries, but it’s not a reality for the DNR to do because of the economic ramifications on surrounding communities – or so they say. I would still fish a lot of the top fisheries in the world regardless of if I could take home some fish. The concept of ‘taking your limit’, might need to be stopped in some sense, especially for panfish. How many people could actually eat 25 bluegills? I say, take what you need, nothing else, which is something that I am fairly sure most IDO’ers already practice. Just my two(or three) cents, though.
acafisherman19
Don’t rule out all lakes with old net data. Up here there are plenty of lakes that may not have been surveyed since the 70’s mostly due to the cost to survey a lake that doesn’t get much pressure. I’ve found some of these lakes to be absolute gems. I always look at the pike populations on a survey too. If there are high numbers of small pike it’s generally a subpar lake. My goal on a few of these lakes is to take 50 kids ice fishing and have one big pike pickling event to even out the stakes and see if it helps produce larger fish in the future and help the other species flourish better.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
