So we have been fishing for Lake Trout for about 10 years and have done so-so. Sometimes we have caught lots, sometimes just a few, but all about the same size 18-24 inches with most being 18-22. Is this due to our methods? We mainly troll with assorted Rapelas and spoons with walking sinkers. At least half the 24" trout came from fishing ciscos at the same site. This leads me to believe that the bigger trout may be deaper. We are ussually up in early June. Should I try slower and/or deeper methods? Im thinking of trying to jig with a erie deerie and dead bait around likly looking deep structure like drop offs or humps. Or the 'bombing for trout' I just read about, using a heavy sinker to sink a Rap and then reeling it strait up. Any other ideas? Any deep structure or depth suggestions. Is there a depth that is too deep that isnt even worth trying?

You got it. I have caught lakers up to about 14 or 15 pds suspended. The large trout, 16 pds and larger do not appear to suspend in canoe country lakes like they do in Superior and Nipigon and such. My findings are very consistent with other laker takers I have talked with about this. If you are looking for big fish, fish slow and deep. August probably gives you the best shot at a real big fish.

It should be noted I am still seeking my first 20 pd Boundary Waters laker so I am by no means an expert.

Lakers school by size. One of my favorite spots, they all seem to be 24" to 27". Bigger lakes = bigger fish also. And vise-versa. I don't think bait selection will cause a larger fish to strike... they will attack anything when ready. With walking sinkers, I think you are trolling below a lot of fish. I would try a keel sinker fished deep, but not on the bottom as fish will easily come up 10' or more for a lure. I usually target 50' of water, troll 30' deep, and slow.

I would disagree with the idea that August is the time for big lakers. August is the time when lake trout die the most due to warm surface waters--especially after a long struggle.

Stick to June.

I've caught my biggest BWCA/Quetico lakers then, all of which swam away fine.

I do agree that the biggest trout don't spend much time suspended, from my experience. Suspended fish seem to top out in the 10 to 12 pound range, although these are very nice inland lake trout, by all means.

Catching big lakers has a LOT to do with WHERE you fish. Many/most trout lakes have few, if any, true trophy-sized lake trout. Luck and time on the water is also a BIG part of the equation.

Most lakes can't make big lakers. Look for big, deep water.

In the spring, mid-may is when I have caught most of my 30-40" trout suspended in deep water. They tend to school up so if you find them, you can catch one after another that size, but they move around a lot so hard to pattern. Smaller trout (12# or under) tend to be on the shallower structure in spring.

That's just my limited experience.

T

"It should be noted I am still seeking my first 20 pd Boundary Waters laker so I am by no means an expert."

I here ya walleye_hunter. I'm real happy getting a fish close to 30in. in the bwca to be honest. I think it may be where your fishing as many lakes in the bwca produce fish that size.

Try fishing large, deep running cranks, with lots of flash. Run a snap sinker, 2-4 oz, 5-6' ahead of the lure. The snap weight is easy to remove when you are fighting the fish. I use 10 lb mono, and have caught many 20-30 lb lakers using this method. But, you have to be on lakes that support a population of these behemoths.

quote old_salt: "Try fishing large, deep running cranks, with lots of flash. Run a snap sinker, 2-4 oz, 5-6' ahead of the lure. The snap weight is easy to remove when you are fighting the fish. I use 10 lb mono, and have caught many 20-30 lb lakers using this method. But, you have to be on lakes that support a population of these behemoths."

One question,were these in the BWCA or Quetico? A simple yes or no is enough. Lakers being vulnerable, I myself would never say where I caught them by specific lake.

I was thinking about starting a topic similar to this one as our group has had similar experiences as BearBrown. Good info. I am also interested to hear Old_Salts response as he seems to be a knowledgeable resource. Our group went to a lake south of Crooked based on one of his posts and had one of the best fishing days our group has seen (although it was for pike not trout).

Quetico lakes.

Hey All,

Thanks for all the ideas, I will definatly be putting them to use. I will be on Fraser Lake, if anyone has any trout tips about the lake they would like to email me, that would be great. I think we will definatly be trying some dipsy diver trolling as well as some good old slow dead bait.

Bobber, that is a huge Trout, thats what I'm looking for!

I know quetico always has larger fish, as I've spent quite a few years up there. However, Ill be on a bit of a sabatical from quetico as I have a young son, so money is rather tight. But will be introducing him to the BW next year, and there will be plenty of Q trips in our future when hes a little older, probably after he can handle his own catholes.

quote old_salt: "Quetico lakes."

Thanks, that is more than enough information. I was just curious if these were far far north fish like the Great Slave lake area. Would be fun to do a trip way up north.

One year in the BWCA-Quetico area I hit it just right in a area I fished before many times with little luck. This one time I caught and released about 8 fish in a couple of days 15-25 pounds. Conditions were right. These fish were caught close to the surface( all were released) and other size trout were extremely aggressive all week.

I usually try to keep one about 2-3 pounds for a meal or 2 smaller ones for the two of us.
I am pretty much a trout nut,I like to see if there is trout in a lake and once I catch or do not catch any,I am ready to paddle on to another lake and find out what is there. I think the unknown keeps me going.

I think we have the same mind-set, Pinetree. I'm also a trout guy (including fly-fishing for stream trout). Lakers are special fish, limited in distribution, and vulnerable to exploitation and degraded water quality.

The Minnesota DNR could gradually restore the trophy trout potential on those BWCA lakes that historically supported decent populations of large trout, by putting a no-kill slot on all lake trout between 22 and 36 inches.

quote arctic: "I think we have the same mind-set, Pinetree. I'm also a trout guy (including fly-fishing for stream trout). Lakers are special fish, limited in distribution, and vulnerable to exploitation and degraded water quality.


The Minnesota DNR could gradually restore the trophy trout potential on those BWCA lakes that historically supported decent populations of large trout, by putting a no-kill slot on all lake trout between 22 and 36 inches."

i think a slot or a total catch and release on a select few lakes in the BW would be a great idea !

quote shock: "

quote arctic: "I think we have the same mind-set, Pinetree. I'm also a trout guy (including fly-fishing for stream trout). Lakers are special fish, limited in distribution, and vulnerable to exploitation and degraded water quality.



The Minnesota DNR could gradually restore the trophy trout potential on those BWCA lakes that historically supported decent populations of large trout, by putting a no-kill slot on all lake trout between 22 and 36 inches."

i think a slot or a total catch and release on a select few lakes in the BW would be a great idea !"

+2

For the record, I think we are overregulated, and see no need to change harvest laws regarding lakers. People I know never keep large fish. They are all released. I will keep smaller fish, less than 5 lbs for a meal to feed 2-3 persons. Self control trumps law in my book.

quote shock: "

quote arctic: "I think we have the same mind-set, Pinetree. I'm also a trout guy (including fly-fishing for stream trout). Lakers are special fish, limited in distribution, and vulnerable to exploitation and degraded water quality.



The Minnesota DNR could gradually restore the trophy trout potential on those BWCA' title='Click to Continue - Fast Free Converter' style='' target='_blank'>BWCA lakes that historically supported decent populations of large trout, by putting a no-kill slot on all lake trout between 22 and 36 inches."

i think a slot or a total catch and release on a select few lakes in the BW would be a great idea !"

+3

+4
I agree,like you said a few select lakes with some type of slot, it would have to be lakes that have had a past history of big fish and-or the food source to grow big fish. Some of the lake trout lakes do not have a large fish forage base which is needed. Even in fast growing lakes a 10 pound fish is probably over 20 years old.
That said even lakes that grow fish of up to 3 pounds are precious lakes we also have to respect. Each lake has its own character.
Like also mentioned above peer pressure to respect the resource is very important also. I think 20 years ago very few fish of any species was released,unless huge numbers over their limit was being caught.

I am not sure regulation is needed either. I am not against it either. Most lakes can not grow trout big enough---regulations or not. It would be tough to devise regulations for a wilderness area. Education on catch and release and NOT keeping big fish will do more to help than anything.

A mid 30's inch laker or bigger is over 20 years old. I'd be ashamed to keep a fish like that now, but 20-30 years ago that was the norm.

I'd say right now I struggle to find 2-3 pound eaters, most lakers I catch are far bigger than that and get released. So maybe catch release is already helping, but will take many years to see results.

T

+5
A slot limit would be a great idea. This would be for the other people who do keep many fish and for the quality of fishing into the future. There is a reason why the Gold Medal trout streams of the west that are catch and release grow 10 to 15 and even 20 pound trout.

My only Laker (so far) on Wine Lake. What a thrill that was!

I have observed a few similar things. Trout up to about 30" tend to school, but the big guys just roam endlessly.
Any structure is good as long as its deep enough for trout.
Make sure you're canoe mate trolls at a different depth then you. I have observed the best lake trout fishing in mid-May to early June.

I have fished and hit bottom at ~120 ft while fishing in a canoe using the tri-swivel approach.

Tri-Swivel approach:
- line to tri-swivel
- 1 ft of line on bottom ring with proper weight for depth
- 4-6 ft of line of heavy test line, lure or bait on end.
http://www.seineriverlodge.on.ca/lake.htm

Best part is you never loose a lure just your weights.

Trolling lure at depth of 25+ ft in ~50 ft of water.
May22 2011

Trolling lure at depth of 10 ft in 60 ft of water.
May21 2011

I could get behind more regulation on big fish in the BWCA. It's not like there aren't already a lot of rules up there. I could envision closing lakes down for a year or two to all fishing. Plenty of paddlers don't fish, so they could enjoy those lakes, while the lakes themselves get a chance to regenerate and the fish get dumber. Then when they open them the lottery would be all hot and heavy. Just an idea.

quote bobbernumber3: " "

Looks like the campsite alittle east of spam Island. Nice laker!!

@ dicecupmaker, bobbernumber3 ,VenisonSteaks. Nice fish guys.

quote togue: "


@ dicecupmaker, bobbernumber3 ,VenisonSteaks. Nice fish guys."

+1

quote analyzer: "

quote bobbernumber3: " "

Looks like the campsite alittle east of spam Island. Nice laker!!"

I think it is Boundary Point. Looks like a short, fat Saganagons fish.

quote lundojam: "I could get behind more regulation on big fish in the BWCA. It's not like there aren't already a lot of rules up there. I could envision closing lakes down for a year or two to all fishing. Plenty of paddlers don't fish, so they could enjoy those lakes, while the lakes themselves get a chance to regenerate and the fish get dumber. Then when they open them the lottery would be all hot and heavy. Just an idea."

I'm with you on this one buddy. I would totally back more regs for slot limits, designated barbless lakes, etc...
I ALWAYS release the big ones.

quote arctic: "I think we have the same mind-set, Pinetree. I'm also a trout guy (including fly-fishing for stream trout). Lakers are special fish, limited in distribution, and vulnerable to exploitation and degraded water quality.


The Minnesota DNR could gradually restore the trophy trout potential on those BWCA lakes that historically supported decent populations of large trout, by putting a no-kill slot on all lake trout between 22 and 36 inches."

Arctic- My laker hole in Alaska had a regulation restricting anglers to one fish at least 26". That seemed to work out very well and allowed the smaller, more vulnerable fish to grow up. I would catch a lot of nice trout out of that lake along with an occasional pig. The fish were a lot thicker than what I catch in canoe country. Maybe grayling are the fast food of laker forage. I usually kept a couple of these each winter as all of the dinks had to go back.

And I kept one big one, which serves as a great memory of my trout days in Alaska.


These days almost all of my trout over 6 pds go back. I do agree with you that the warm surface waters on inland lakes in July & August can be deadly. However, with proper equipment and a landing net even a 13 or 14 pd fish can be played and released quickly. I do not fart around with the self-timer on my camera during the summer months. I usually keep quiet about my lake trout spots and results. I do post an occassional picture but cut the background out if I think my spot could be easily identified.

quote walleye_hunter: "

quote analyzer: "

quote bobbernumber3: " "

Looks like the campsite alittle east of spam Island. Nice laker!!"

I think it is Boundary Point. Looks like a short, fat Saganagons fish."

I can neither confirm nor deny that statement...

My buddy caught this one at the Winton Tap.

quote Springer2: "My buddy caught this one at the Winton Tap.


"

Snowbank lake use to yield fish like that when the road was first put in there and fishing started in earnest. Many years ago. Use to see pictures of Snowbanks big fish.

Best I've caught... Baker Lake, Nunavut 2007

I had to resurrect this since I'm planning my first Quetico MAY trip ! Hope runs rampant...

A little survey to get some clarification from those in the know. Which of the following are true regarding large lake trout? You may choose more than one...

1) "don't fish below the fish"
2) "the big ones run deeper"
3) "immediately after ice-out the fish are found throughout the water column"
4) "bigger lures = bigger fish"
5) "lure size doesn't matter"
6) "jigging is more productive than trolling"

# 2

#2

#3

#1 & #4 And as previously stated, many lakes do not grow big fish, period. Lakers will hit ridiculously large baits and big ones seem to be strongly attracted to very large baits. That being said, I doubt if it is presented in their face that they would reject a smaller bait.

#1 & #4 And as previously stated, many lakes do not grow big fish, period. Lakers will hit ridiculously large baits and big ones seem to be strongly attracted to very large baits. That being said, I doubt if it is presented in their face that they would reject a smaller bait.

old_salt: "Try fishing large, deep running cranks, with lots of flash. Run a snap sinker, 2-4 oz, 5-6' ahead of the lure. The snap weight is easy to remove when you are fighting the fish. I use 10 lb mono, and have caught many 20-30 lb lakers using this method. But, you have to be on lakes that support a population of these behemoths."

That's interesting OS. I've used braid to avoid the stretch that I get with mono. Having said that I've also caught my share of two-footers on mono as well.

Another thing to try is to fish faster. Big lakers are reactionary predators, so jig with erratic big jerks and sweeps of your lure. Try tipping a flashy spoon with Gulp or similar (white is good) bait. Adds bulk and scent to entice them. To catch big fish you have to fish where they live. They often relate to sides and edges of deep holes. If the wind is blowing, they will be on the downwind side. A depth finder will be helpful in locating them.

#1 and #2, at least from my experience with lakers.

Fresh off the lake.

1 and 4 are my votes.

T

1,4,6.

I vote for 1, 3 and 5.

That being said, our biggest trout were only 31" and 33". But, they both came from shore in a bay less than 20 feet deep. Interestingly, it was the same campsite, opening weekend, but several years apart.

I also don't think trout are very picky in general. I have never seen the stomach contents of a large trout, but I check every trout I fillet. Often times they have burrowing mayflies in their stomach, but they were caught on crankbaits or spoons. I figure it must be hard enough to find a meal in those low productivity lakes that they eat whatever gets within reach. It makes it hard to pattern them in the spring. They could be eating bugs on the bottom, chasing ciscos in open water, following perch into warm bays or ambushing spawning suckers at stream mouths.

6 might also be true, but we only jig if the structure is too small/ steep to troll effectively.

I've caught them burping up ciscos during the shoulder season. I haven't checked stomach contents when I fillet which would be one way to determine their forage. I usually check lake reports to determine bottom structure and potential forage to clue me in to what they fish. That's the extent of my research into what lakers are eating. I'm certainly not the most experience fisherman when it comes to this species.

I would like to catch a 30+ inches from shore!! That would be a wild ride.

MrBadExample: "I would like to catch a 30+ inches from shore!! That would be a wild ride."

It is pretty great. But I don't know if it is better than catching one in a canoe. Certainly easier to take pictures...