Whitefish Chain DNR netting results

Did not realize that the chain was due for survey last year but looks like the DNR netted almost every lake in the Whitefish chain. Grew up fishing out there and one of my favorite bodies of water to attack. Appears walleye numbers were below average with large average size though. That seems consistent with my typical fishing results (not that they should be) though with quantity over quality typical on the chain.

I assume the Pine River stripping is still occurring so is the Chain just harder to survey? Or are those the type of walleye numbers you would expect? Just seemed low in my opinion for a lake that has a population large enough to strip eggs from.

As expected the pike numbers were crazy high with little ones. Pretty cool to see a 40″ come out of Clamshell though! Seems like a few big gators are weighed in at the Ideal Lions club tourney every June but I can’t say I remember a 40″ being weighed in. So into the controversy then.. does the chain not seem like an ideal lake to stock muskies into? Just with so much debate and tension on other lakes being stocked or not stocked with them it just seems that A they would thrive in there and B (more important to me) they would help balance out the pike population a bit?? I am not a bucket biologist and do not pretend to be but man it seems like with stunted pike, stunted panfish and a ton of water that would be a fishery to add them to.

I would continue to rig for walleye I’m sure and just hope the musky could keep a few less snakes off my shiners and leeches! Such a fun body of water just wondering what some other thoughts were

I’m not a biologist either but wonder if Musky really matter to solving a stunted pike population?

Pike will solve their own size imbalance if allowed too. Anglers are the cause and solution here. If we don’t change our behavior, I don’t see how a few muskies will make up for it.

My two cents and no I didn’t stay at a holiday inn last night

Stunted pike populations are tough to overcome. Small pike can consume an unbelievable amount of forage and other fish. Try keeping a 24″ fish for pickling and cut open its stomach. Often times it’s shocking to see what they can pack in.

I’m no biologist either, but loosened pike regulations on fish under 30″, and tightened restrictions on 30+” fish seems to be something that helps many bodies of water. I wish more people understood how good the fillets can be off of 3-5# pike. Aside from slightly more of a challenge getting fillets, their taste is as good or better than stock and harvest walleye.

I don’t think introducing a few muskies would impact the pike population at all in any measurable amounts. The number of muskies per acre in a healthy body of water is minuscule to that of pike.

The new pike regulations are in place to try and reverse the problems with small pike. There is a 22″ – 26″ slot that those fish need to be released. There is also a 10 fish bag limit for pike under 22 inches. I know many fishermen will not keep pike that small but once you learn to filet them it is not that bad. The plan is to get the pike under 22 inches above 26 inches. Pike above 26 inches will consume the smaller pike.
I fish the chain a lot and I think the guys that really know the lake can consistently catch walleyes. The population has never been real high. Recently the gill net catch was 6 per gill net. That was about the highest I have seen on Whitefish. It is not a lake I would go to if I was just walleye fishing. It is a much better bass and pike lake.
As far as Muskies go the DNR does not like to stock muskies in lakes with high populations of pike. I am not saying it does not happen but the criteria list low pike populations for Musky stocking. Also I am sure that there would be major opposition if there was ever a proposal for Musky stocking on the Whitefish Chain. Probably for several reasons.

That makes sense, I shouldn’t have ignored the fact that the stunted pike was angler’s fault and probably only can be reversed with angler’s changing there ways!

It would be funny to see the uproar though because I agree the protest to Muskies from against it would be strong I imagine.

I’d be all for introducing muskies on the chain. I have no scientific background to support this idea.

It will never happen on the chain however. Two reasons: people lost their minds when Gull was stocked with muskies and I’m sure the DNR doesn’t want to deal with that again. Number two: spearing would likely have to end if muskies were stocked, and that is unlikely to happen.

As far as the chain having stunted pike, I personally believe spearing takes many of the bigger pike out of the system, leaving us with a bunch of hammer handles. Again, nothing to back this up, but you never hear of people spearing 20inch pike, they seem to only target larger ones.

As far as walleyes go, I can catch one or two an outing, sometimes more, but not usually. They do tend to be of good size when caught. I’d love to see what would happen if stripping was stopped for a couple years…but that’s a pipedream.

walleyevision wrote:

It will never happen on the chain however. Two reasons: people lost their minds when Gull was stocked with muskies and I’m sure the DNR doesn’t want to deal with that again. Number two: spearing would likely have to end if muskies were stocked, and that is unlikely to happen.

As far as the chain having stunted pike, I personally believe spearing takes many of the bigger pike out of the system, leaving us with a bunch of hammer handles. Again, nothing to back this up, but you never hear of people spearing 20inch pike, they seem to only target larger ones.

Baby Lake is the only inland lake in MN that has a spearing ban.

I agree with you about spearing taking the bigger pike.

Agree on the spearing for sure for so many lakes that have hammer handles! I just wasn’t sure how much spearing the Whitefish Chain took.

You mentioned the stripping.. do you feel that negatively effects the population even though they say the put a lot of the fry they take from the Pine River back into Whitefish?? I have always blamed the slow openers on Whitefish on the wears and tears from the stripping but I always like to tell myself numbers-wise it is replenished adequately from what they take?>

I’ve seen the numbers of fry they put back in, and it really doesn’t seem like much, but again, I have no biological knowledge to base that on. It would just be interesting to see if there would be any increase in walleye year classes if stripping were temporarily halted.

I’d imagine if walleyes were stripped from for example mille lacs, the lake’s walleye numbers would most likely drop, even if fry were put back in.

walleyevision wrote:

I’d imagine if walleyes were stripped from for example mille lacs, the lake’s walleye numbers would most likely drop, even if fry were put back in.

From what I understand they put back in way more than would have been produced with no egg stripping. They are able to do this as the success rate by the hatchery is way higher than the natural rate, so it’s a win-win for everyone. The lake that was stripped gets a higher recruitment # and it provides millions more for other lakes with little to no natural reproduction.