Just sort of curious what more experienced anglers than I think about this...

When I fish in the BW I'm usually in the only canoe I can see. And it's not like I'm frequenting PMA's or lakes way off the beaten path.

Even popular lakes with many campsites...think Brule, Ensign, Seagull, etc...are these considered to be "pressured" when it comes to fishing? Does a handful of canoes on the lake affect the numbers or the activity of the fish that reside in that lake?

I understand that lakes like that are fished by multiple parties nearly every day of the summer, but given the limits of how many people can actually be on any given BW lake at any time, does that really affect anything?

I contrast this with lakes I've visited/fished in MN/WI/MI "cabin country" where there are dozens of motorboats with kids, granddads, fishing guides, dock fishermen and all other types of anglers constantly fishing those lakes, and that's what I think of as "pressure." I often wonder how those lakes hold any fish at all, but they obviously do as people pull fish out of them all year long.

So I guess what I'm wondering, is that if our activity as BW canoe campers & anglers really affects the fish population or habits of the fish in these lakes? I know we've all seen (or been featured in) the pictures of fellas with stringers of 9 awesome looking walleyes pulled from a BW lake, but even considering that, I then think of the 45 boats that will all have that same stringer pulled out of Mille Lacs or Vermillion every single day of the summer.

Please do not take this as any sort of argument to increase possession limits or anything like that...not my intention at all...just sort of musing here on a Thursday morning...

I think it depends on the time of year for the BWCA lakes. From the opener until the 4th of July I see a lot more people fishing. After the 4th of July I see more canoes but less people fishing. So pressured early but not so much later in the summer.

Generally speaking, I don't consider the BWCA lakes to be heavily pressured, at least relative to other areas I have fished. Certainly not to the extent that so-called fishing destination lakes experience, as treehorn points out in the initial post.

From a habitat perspective I'd say most of the BWCA lakes should be able to support an abundance of fish. These are ideal waters for the many species of fish that inhabit them.

A majority of visitors probably eat some of the fish they have caught, but likely not every day. I'm guessing that many fish are released safely and good fishing and LNT practices are being followed (daily limits, careful release, not fouling the water with soap, etc).

And personally, I haven't come across anyone canoeing that is harvesting fish to take out of the BWCA. Maybe thats happening on some of the lakes with resorts and motorboats being allowed on them but I can't imagine much, if any, of that going on in the backcountry.

Pressured as compared to the lakes you are using as a reference? No, not at any time of the season. The 100 acre lake in Northern WI that I fished for 25+ years while my grandparents had a cabin on it has about 30 cabins and a public boat landing, gets hit all summer long and all ice season long, and still produces quality fish every visit. I would consider it an "average" lake for that area for the amount of pressure it receives. Most lakes in the BW probably receive less than 10% of the fishing pressure this lake receives in the summer, and less than 1% of the pressure this lake receives in the winter.

That being said, the lakes in the BW tend to have slower growth rates and lower reproductive success than the type of lake I am referencing, which makes up for some of that difference in fishing pressure.

Like you said, the developed lakes w/ boats are pressured. The ones in the twin cities metro? Those fish are pressured.

So I suppose you could say fish in Ensign are more pressured than those in a PMA, but in reality anything in the BW is far less pressured than most I'd say.

i can honestly say the fish feel no pressure when i'm on the lake.

Mocha: "i can honestly say the fish feel no pressure when i'm on the lake."

You are so funny!

Yes, compared to Q, BWCA is fished hard and pressured. But I don't think the fishery is in danger of overfishing.

I know fishermen are eager to return to Q thinking the fishing will be so much better with a couple year's recovery. But the lastest Quetico Foundation study found "Walleye populations in Quetico lakes appear very healthy and dominated by older, larger fish suggesting low harvest stress with mortality estimates being similar to natural (unfished) estimates."

I think some entry lakes receive considerable pressure in the ice fishing season. Other than that, nope.

Look at Basswood. 80 day-use motor permits per week for the eastern side, plus the overnight motor permits via Moose Lake. You have 10-20 fishing boats a day on Basswood. Compare that to pool 4 of the Mississippi River, or to Mille Lacs, or Minnetonka. In my opinion that's no pressure at all, which is why fishing is still relatively easy on Basswood.

Out of the lakes you mentioned I can catch as many walleye as I want. Usually many limits of fish a day. One trip I had two days that I caught over a hundred smallmouth bass. Pike are plentiful too up there. We only keep one or two a day to eat. Are the lakes pressured? Yes because the size of the Walleye, the size of the Pike are sometimes half the size of fish in Ontario. An average fish in those lakes you mentioned is a 16-18” walleye. In Ontario only 100 miles north they are 24-29”. That’s a huge difference in only a 100 miles and basically the same lake structure, same weather, but way less people and less keepers per day.

Good topic.
I think pressure is relative, like the other responses do. A lake like Ensign, for example, is pressured compared to a remote Canadian lake but not compared to a drive-to lake with a public access. Another aspect of pressure that I think about sometimes is "sophisticated" pressure. Some lakes are heavily fished by folks in canoes with no electronics, little experience, etc. That's not the same pressure as the sparkly -boat -side- imaging -GPS-in-the-know crowd applies.
Even a little pressure makes a difference, in my opinion. I believe that heavily pressured lakes, over time, produce fish that are genetically predispositioned to be careful and wary while feeding. The biting, aggressive tendencies have been removed form the gene pool, if that makes sense.

Some lakes are definitely pressured. Sawbill for example, you have to get to the northern half of the lake to have any real chance at catching fish. Too many campers from the campground pressure that lake. Alton is the same way. There are many campsites and people day tripping in so the fish population remains under pressure.

If you get away from the entry point lakes, you get away from that. As long as you go far enough in that a day trip is unlikely, fishing picks up quite a bit. Personally I like going 2 days in, or at least a day and a half. That is when most of the pressure and crowds drop off.

From a South Dakota Perspective: In SD, lakes (as you know) are in limited # compared to MN. When a lake gets hot, everyone (hundreds of people including the seagulls and pelicans) find out about it. The lake gets pressured hard for a month and slowly the fish become hard to get. I'm used to seeing massive pressure on lakes where I live.

In the Boundary waters, I see a vast chain of lakes containing billions of gallons of fresh water contain a multitude of fish and a great annual spawning rate. Even on the busiest lakes, I see a few bodies fishing them on a daily bases for primarily a 4-5 month period out of the year. So in my humble opinion, I don't consider any of the lakes within the BWCA to be heavily pressured. However, you will maybe see a few more people fishing some lakes (IE Sawbill and Alton) vs. others like a couple of the previous posts suggested. For the record. I've been on Alton and Sawbill twice. Got fish both times, but admit the bite was maybe a little slower than in other areas I have been.

Darin

Depends on the species. For example, Lake Trout are relatively slow growing and mature late - their populations may be impacted more by the same relative level of fishing pressure than are, say, Smallmouth Bass.

For every species other than Lake trout I would say no. Lakers are definitely pressured .

Having fished lots of lakes in the Midwest I feel like I have a very good idea of waters that are high pressure. I've made several trips into the BWCA and in my opinion they experience light pressure. Even a popular lake like Ensign. Ensign might be high pressure for the BWCA but it is nothing compared to lakes with far easier access further south. I was on Ensign the second week of June last year which is a great fishing week and we literally had the entire east end of the lake to ourselves. I saw more bears in camp (1) than other canoes that were fishing for 3 days - true story!

To put it in perspective it takes s a few trips to totally realize it but fish in the BWCA simply "act like fish should". That's way different when compared to other parts of the country that experience more pressure.

My final college statistics project was on Walleye populations. I took the time and grabbed /dumped the data from 100 DNR lake surveys for a variety of walleye lakes in the arrowhead region, including the BW. Data points that went into the regression analysis were;

1. Population within 1 hour radius of the lake.
2. Lake Size
3. Littoral Area
4. Bottom Substrate
5. Public Access (available? and type)
6. Maximum Depth
7. Water Clarity
8. Northern Population (size and qty) as netted in the survey
9. Bass Population
10. Sucker / Perch (all other species, I entered size and qty)
11. Shoreline Length
12. Inlets noted
13. Outlets noted
14. Month of survey completion
15. Gill nets, trap nets
16. Stocking (type, qty and lbs)

It was a big project, but I didn't mind doing it as I had an interest in the results. I literally entered all the data available on the DNR surveys and did a regression analysis to find correlation to walleye qty and size. I found nothing. Not a damn thing or combination of all of the above could predict the population of walleye with any degree of accuracy. I turned it in thinking I wouldn't do well, as the whole point was to find correlation. I got an A and remember my professers note, He wrote next to my grade, "High degree of correlation with my real life fishing experience."

walleyejunky: "Having fished lots of lakes in the Midwest I feel like I have a very good idea of waters that are high pressure. I've made several trips into the BWCA and in my opinion they experience light pressure. Even a popular lake like Ensign. Ensign might be high pressure for the BWCA but it is nothing compared to lakes with far easier access further south. I was on Ensign the second week of June last year which is a great fishing week and we literally had the entire east end of the lake to ourselves. I saw more bears in camp (1) than other canoes that were fishing for 3 days - true story!


To put it in perspective it takes s a few trips to totally realize it but fish in the BWCA simply "act like fish should". That's way different when compared to other parts of the country that experience more pressure."

This seems spot on to me. Having lived in Albuquerque for half a year, I pass by a small body of water often (might be a pond? not sure and haven't bothered to find out). This body of water might be a couple acres at most and there are always a dozen or more fisherman there at any given time. It's a joke. I love fishing but I'll never fish there.

Speckled: "My final college statistics project was on Walleye populations. I took the time and grabbed /dumped the data from 100 DNR lake surveys for a variety of walleye lakes in the arrowhead region, including the BW. Data points that went into the regression analysis were;


1. Population within 1 hour radius of the lake.
2. Lake Size
3. Littoral Area
4. Bottom Substrate
5. Public Access (available? and type)
6. Maximum Depth
7. Water Clarity
8. Northern Population (size and qty) as netted in the survey
9. Bass Population
10. Sucker / Perch (all other species, I entered size and qty)
11. Shoreline Length
12. Inlets noted
13. Outlets noted
14. Month of survey completion
15. Gill nets, trap nets
16. Stocking (type, qty and lbs)


It was a big project, but I didn't mind doing it as I had an interest in the results. I literally entered all the data available on the DNR surveys and did a regression analysis to find correlation to walleye qty and size. I found nothing. Not a damn thing or combination of all of the above could predict the population of walleye with any degree of accuracy. I turned it in thinking I wouldn't do well, as the whole point was to find correlation. I got an A and remember my professers note, He wrote next to my grade, "High degree of correlation with my real life fishing experience."



"

This is cool. Thanks for sharing Speckled. I'm very interested in statistics, research, fishing, fish habits and habitats, etc. I don't know much but it's a pleasure to be exposed to things like this.

Like others have said lake trout are the most vulnerable and grow the slowest. A 25 inch lake trout could easily be almost 25 years old. Lakes just in the BWCA or partially in have really taken a hit. Lakes like Duncan, and Daniels are overfished extremely.
Also I could show you photos of Clearwater lake of one persone catching 3 lake trout in one day in the winter and they weighed 15-25 pounds. They are almost non existant anymore.
Back in the 1960's and early 70's before snowmobiles were banned there could be like a hundred sleds on Knife fishing lake trout. Toward the end of snowmobiles in there lake trout fishing population took a huge dive. It took like 20 years and now Knife has very good population of trout again.

Walleyes like in the Kawishiwi river are also over fished.

This all said eat a northern pike or even a smallmouth under will just say 15 inches and save some of those lake trout and walleye.

Also smallmouth bass populations have exploded from zero to very abundant in many lakes and that has effected trout and walleye. We having a changing ecosystem up there with even black crappie getting much more abundant than the past.

I think there are areas of BWCA lakes that are pressured. For example, Agnes up through Boulder bay. Every fishing spot that we went to had canoes leaving when we got there and canoes coming in when we left. These were areas with moving water. I would also consider some smaller lakes pressured like Gull lake. Three campsites, you can fish around the entire lake in a day, and likely two sites on the lake occupied for most of the summer. Some percentage of people fish every day they are there, so some of these small lakes are pressured.

Larger lake like Crooked, not so much.

HayRiverDrifter: "I think there are areas of BWCA lakes that are pressured. For example, Agnes up through Boulder bay. Every fishing spot that we went to had canoes leaving when we got there and canoes coming in when we left. These were areas with moving water. I would also consider some smaller lakes pressured like Gull lake. Three campsites, you can fish around the entire lake in a day, and likely two sites on the lake occupied for most of the summer. Some percentage of people fish every day they are there, so some of these small lakes are pressured.


Larger lake like Crooked, not so much."

Gull gets hit hard.

Most of those BWCA lakes are half empty of fish, thanks to heavy fishing pressure!

DRob1992: "

walleyejunky: "Having fished lots of lakes in the Midwest I feel like I have a very good idea of waters that are high pressure. I've made several trips into the BWCA and in my opinion they experience light pressure. Even a popular lake like Ensign. Ensign might be high pressure for the BWCA but it is nothing compared to lakes with far easier access further south. I was on Ensign the second week of June last year which is a great fishing week and we literally had the entire east end of the lake to ourselves. I saw more bears in camp (1) than other canoes that were fishing for 3 days - true story!



To put it in perspective it takes s a few trips to totally realize it but fish in the BWCA simply "act like fish should". That's way different when compared to other parts of the country that experience more pressure."

This seems spot on to me. Having lived in Albuquerque for half a year, I pass by a small body of water often (might be a pond? not sure and haven't bothered to find out). This body of water might be a couple acres at most and there are always a dozen or more fisherman there at any given time. It's a joke. I love fishing but I'll never fish there."

Probably a designated stocked trout pond.

The BWCA has great fishing but the water is very infertile and growth rate is much slower than much of the rest of Minnesota. The food base just isn't there.

I was going to say the same thing, most of the lakes are relatively infertile. Don't bother trying a minnow trap up there, not enough to go around.

Some lakes have a significant biomass of fish removed almost daily, all summer.
Think Polly, Ensign, Disappointment, Alton, etc.

For smallmouth it's probably not a bog deal. For walleyes and lake trout it sure can be.

double post

arctic: "Some lakes have a significant biomass of fish removed almost daily, all summer.
Think Polly, Ensign, Disappointment, Alton, etc.

For smallmouth it's probably not a bog deal. For walleyes and lake trout it sure can be."

I agree on the smallmouth part and wish people would replace a few meals with northern pike.

arctic: "Some lakes have a significant biomass of fish removed almost daily, all summer.
Think Polly, Ensign, Disappointment, Alton, etc.

For smallmouth it's probably not a bog deal. For walleyes and lake trout it sure can be."

I agree on the smallmouth part and wish people would replace a few meals with northern pike.

Speckled: "My final college statistics project was on Walleye populations. I took the time and grabbed /dumped the data from 100 DNR lake surveys for a variety of walleye lakes in the arrowhead region, including the BW. Data points that went into the regression analysis were;


1. Population within 1 hour radius of the lake.
2. Lake Size
3. Littoral Area
4. Bottom Substrate
5. Public Access (available? and type)
6. Maximum Depth
7. Water Clarity
8. Northern Population (size and qty) as netted in the survey
9. Bass Population
10. Sucker / Perch (all other species, I entered size and qty)
11. Shoreline Length
12. Inlets noted
13. Outlets noted
14. Month of survey completion
15. Gill nets, trap nets
16. Stocking (type, qty and lbs)


It was a big project, but I didn't mind doing it as I had an interest in the results. I literally entered all the data available on the DNR surveys and did a regression analysis to find correlation to walleye qty and size. I found nothing. Not a damn thing or combination of all of the above could predict the population of walleye with any degree of accuracy. I turned it in thinking I wouldn't do well, as the whole point was to find correlation. I got an A and remember my professers note, He wrote next to my grade, "High degree of correlation with my real life fishing experience."



"

Could be you didn't find a lot of correlation because the methods used in the DNR lake survey aren't a good way to estimate population-level parameters. But people love to see the data, so...

A lot of strong opinions on this topic I am sure... It is definitely suggestive but as a whole I do not consider the BWCA pressured. A few lakes I could maybe categorize as moderate pressure that get lots of traffic but its really nothing compared to other parts of the country with technology, population density, etc... It is interesting to think about fertility and growth rates and I am sure there is something to that like many are sharing with most lakes being quite rocky.

I fished the same lake for 42 years. I can tell you it went through cycles. Early on there were lots of bass and walleyes. We went thru a 10-15 year stretch from the early 80's to mid 90's where we caught all the 2-5 lb walleyes we wanted. We'd rarely catch a walleye under 2 lbs. We'd limit out any time we wanted. Catch and release wasn't as popular then, and we'd keep walleyes for meals almost every day. During that time, we'd rarely see another canoe, and often have the lake to ourselves. The bass population was lots of 1.5-3 lb bass, with an occasional 19-20"er. Not many pike, but those that you caught, were often 4-14#'s. We usually caught one a trip in the 8-10# range, with a personal best of 14#'s. I have 1400 fishing hours on that lake, and have never caught a walleye over 6 lbs, but the 2-5's were plentiful. So it was fun.

Then the lake started receiving more pressure. Somewhere in the mid-90's For several years in a row, we couldn't camp on the lake, as it was already taken by big groups, staying for a week to 10 days. We had to change from going in July to going in June, to try to camp on the lake.

It was during that 10-15 year stretch, that we noticed a significant decline in the walleye and pike populations. Could be complete coincidence. I think the lake does occasionally get some winter campers. I suspect it's trappers though. During that stretch from the mid 90's for the next 10-15 years, the walleyes nearly disappeared. We'd go from catching a few dozen a day, to catching maybe 6-8 between 4 of us, in 4-5 days of fishing. The big pike disappeared, and it's not like there were ever 20lbers that we were catching. I haven't been there since 2019, but I can tell you that no one in our group caught a pike over 4 lbs, from the early 2000's to 2019, and we fished the lake at least once a year, for at least 4-5 days. The big pike were gone. The small mouth seemed to take a hit too, as far as top end size.

Over that 15 year stretch, the walleyes were getting smaller. We stopped catching 5's. Then we stopped catching 4's. There were more 1's. But fewer walleyes in general. Then about 8-10 years ago, a couple of those groups seemed to stop coming to the lake. At least one of those groups were still around, but they started base camping on 3rd bay or 2nd bay instead, and fished other areas. Again, it could be coincidence, but the walleye population started to recover.

Another fascinating note, was that one year the seemed to be an explosion of pike. Most 5 day trips back in the 80's, 90's and 00's, we would maybe catch 5 or 6 pike in a trip. Suddenly, oh, about 8-10 years ago, there was a trip, that my brother caught 56 pike in 4 days. Just him. I caught about 8 myself. ALL of them, were 1 ish lb clones. Maybe 1.5. We were actually having discussions about what that might mean for the future of the little lake, and whether that might prevent the walleyes from coming back. We discussed whether we should start keeping some for meals, but they were too small for that. Or play DNR, and catch and release them on the other side of the portage, but decided that was both illegal, and unethical. So we left it alone.

It was an interesting case study. I thought with that many pike in the relatively small lake, that every thing else would be stunted, and the walleyes might not come back. I thought as the years progressed, we would be catching lots of 3's, and then 4's and then 5's etc. And it might actually be fun some day, when we could go in and catch lots of 8-10# pike. But that never materialized. I don't know if campers just started keeping them once they reached 2 lbs, but we never saw a year with a big population of 3 # ers even. The last time we were in there, we didn't catch many pike at all, and there wasn't anything bigger than 2.5#s.

In recent years, Small mouth are still decent, but seems to be less of them. We don't have those days where we catch two dozen two lbers anymore. We may catch a couple, but it's not like it was in the 70's and 80's. The walleyes are making a come back. As an individual, I might catch 10-15 in a 4-5 day trip. I fish the walleyes harder than some of our other group members, so they catch a few less. I wouldn't say it's great. And it's still a fraction of the 80's but we're seeing a few 23-24 inch fish again. The ones we catch we release. The last 15 years, we stopped eating meals of walleyes, to try to get them to recover. We eat a few 1# bass instead. Maybe we're contributing to that crash. But we limit ourselves to one meal of fish per trip. And honestly, we see no one else in the lake, and the campsite doesn't get much use, so I don't think there's that much pressure. As it's a relatively small lake, I don't think it took much to significantly impact the resource. But who knows, maybe there were just bad spawing years or something. As I had said, back in the 80's and 90's, we rarely caught walleyes under 2 lbs, so if a few big groups come in, and eat all the 2-5's, there's nothing to fill in the gap. If they can crash the walleye population on Upper Red, and Mille Lacs, I'm sure a few big groups eating a dozen walleyes a day, can hurt a small lake pretty quickly.

Sometimes food sources change, and there's no rivers off this lake, so they don't have that to spawn. Maybe there are some years they don't do well. Maybe when the bigger girls were pulled, and the smallies were eating the fry, maybe there were just not many that survived to maturity. It was very sad to see the crash. I'm glad she's recovering, at least a little.

I'm glad I learned about catch and release. When I was growing up, my dad kept everything. Even a trip he and I went on in 1988, I caught a 10# pike, and he wanted me to keep it. It was just the two of us, what were we going to do with several pounds of pike?? As a group we don't hardly keep anything any more, where ever we're fishing. We plan one fish meal for the week, that's it. Everything else goes back.

I regularly see many more fishermen on the popular lakes in the BWCA than I do the "average" lake here around home in central MN. Obviously, a guy with side-imagining and livescope is much more efficient than someone in a canoe casting the bank, but I'd bet the number of angler hours per week on the popular lakes has got to be much higher than the "average" MN lake.

We're comparing apples to oranges, too...a eutrophic lake in the central part of the state can support much, much, much more "pressure" (and harvest) than the low-nutrient lakes so typical in the BWCA.

The decline in quality fish size structure is also telling. If BWCA lakes aren't "pressured," why is it so much harder to find a decent-sized lake trout than in lakes two portages away across the border? Why are so many of the popular lakes loaded with dinky northerns? Why do the hardest lakes in the BWCA to access have better-than-average sized fish? And I know it's anecdotal, but have any of you seen the pictures on the walls of the various resorts from the old days...where did all those big fish (especially pike and trout) go? Did Dorothy Moulter eat every single big trout in Knife Lake?

Yes, I know there are still big fish in most all of these lakes. And over my 45 trips I've had my share of shore lunches, so I'm not blaming anyone or pointing fingers. It is what it is and is probably an unavoidable part of having a relatively easy-access public wilderness area.

Yes the BW lakes are as a whole pressured. Maybe some of them aren't as much as others, but the fishing on many of the more popular waters has declined
dramatically, and that is no exaggeration. The problem is how sterile these waters are, few of them are able to support really large fish populations. If you travel further south to more eutrophic lakes you will find them able to support much larger fish populations that will recover quickly from harvest. Pressure is a relative term when talking about lakes, but the lakes in the Canadian shield will never handle the same kind of pressure as more fertile, more southern lakes. If you doubt this, how do you explain the DRASTICALLY better fishing in the harder to reach or more lightly fished lakes or the fact that many of the more fertile southern lakes get much more pressure but still have world class fishing for trophy size fish. You have live wells and coolers to help you harvest even more if you so desire and waiting lines at boat ramps, plus all of the electronics, etc. Don't use raw numbers when deciding if a lake is heavily pressured, use the health of the fish population. If you are asking if the lakes are crowded, I would say no.

I also want to add that other than lakers in lake trout lakes, large pike in non lake trout lakes are extremely important and when they disappear everything goes downhill. Large pike oftentimes do not survive being caught as they are very fragile fish. They are what keep smaller pike (and other species) under control as they are voracious cannibals. When small pike are too numerous few small fish survive and the small pike stunt at 1-3 pounds and this is hard to reverse, thankfully MDNR is trying, but sadly took them way too long after years of ignorant fishermen keeping big ones and releasing small ones to "grow up" which most never will. Large fish are hard to replace, even if you give them equal food and equal time only a tiny percentage have the genetic makeup to grow truly large (10 lb pike are NOT large,lol) My great uncle caught many, many pike in the 15-24 lb range around the Park Rapids area in the 40's and 50's. Try that today. I learned a lot of this from an Ontario fishery biologist that I use to know. He said that he knew of a fly in lake that had opened that was several thousand acres and had some big pike. Within 3 years and several dozen large pike killed they were no more, and to his knowledge it never recovered despite the resort owners efforts. They are very,very critical to these lakes. Another example is a 10 year old smallmouth from most shield lakes will be around 14-15 inches, but from fertile lakes further south they can average over 22" at that age. The lakes we are talking about can handle VERY little pressure.

mgraber: "I also want to add that other than lakers in lake trout lakes, large pike in non lake trout lakes are extremely important and when they disappear everything goes downhill. Large pike oftentimes do not survive being caught as they are very fragile fish. They are what keep smaller pike (and other species) under control as they are voracious cannibals. When small pike are too numerous few small fish survive and the small pike stunt at 1-3 pounds and this is hard to reverse, thankfully MDNR is trying, but sadly took them way too long after years of ignorant fishermen keeping big ones and releasing small ones to "grow up" which most never will. Large fish are hard to replace, even if you give them equal food and equal time only a tiny percentage have the genetic makeup to grow truly large (10 lb pike are NOT large,lol) My great uncle caught many, many pike in the 15-24 lb range around the Park Rapids area in the 40's and 50's. Try that today. I learned a lot of this from an Ontario fishery biologist that I use to know. He said that he knew of a fly in lake that had opened that was several thousand acres and had some big pike. Within 3 years and several dozen large pike killed they were no more, and to his knowledge it never recovered despite the resort owners efforts. They are very,very critical to these lakes. Another example is a 10 year old smallmouth from most shield lakes will be around 14-15 inches, but from fertile lakes further south they can average over 22" at that age. The lakes we are talking about can handle VERY little pressure."

Ontario also has lake trout lakes that were closed for many years. They opened it and within one year lake trout size and numbers declined substantially. Lake trout are so vulnerable. Now with many lake trout lakes in the BWCA and Quetico have the non native fish smallmouth present,some of these have seen further decline of lake trout. Its a delicate balance out there with most lakes in a constant flux.

mgraber: "I also want to add that other than lakers in lake trout lakes, large pike in non lake trout lakes are extremely important and when they disappear everything goes downhill. Large pike oftentimes do not survive being caught as they are very fragile fish. They are what keep smaller pike (and other species) under control as they are voracious cannibals. When small pike are too numerous few small fish survive and the small pike stunt at 1-3 pounds and this is hard to reverse, thankfully MDNR is trying, but sadly took them way too long after years of ignorant fishermen keeping big ones and releasing small ones to "grow up" which most never will. Large fish are hard to replace, even if you give them equal food and equal time only a tiny percentage have the genetic makeup to grow truly large (10 lb pike are NOT large,lol) My great uncle caught many, many pike in the 15-24 lb range around the Park Rapids area in the 40's and 50's. Try that today. I learned a lot of this from an Ontario fishery biologist that I use to know. He said that he knew of a fly in lake that had opened that was several thousand acres and had some big pike. Within 3 years and several dozen large pike killed they were no more, and to his knowledge it never recovered despite the resort owners efforts. They are very,very critical to these lakes. Another example is a 10 year old smallmouth from most shield lakes will be around 14-15 inches, but from fertile lakes further south they can average over 22" at that age. The lakes we are talking about can handle VERY little pressure."

Many years ago, I was sitting in the dentist or doctor lobby waiting for my appointment. I picked up a magazine that had an article about the 100 largest pike ever caught in the world. Bear with me a bit, it's been a long time, and I'm a little fuzzy on some of the details. I'm paraphrasing a bit, but in general, somethings like 60 of the top 100 pike ever caught, were from the same lake in Europe, during one particular small interval, like 2 weeks or something, where they opened a season on the big pike. Apparently this lake was a trout lake, with some very big pike. Many were concerned that these Giant 50 lb plus pike, were stunting the trout growth. So they opened a short season, where people could harvest the giant pike.

Something like 60 of the top 100 pike ever caught, were caught during that window. What they discovered later, was yeah, maybe those big pike were stunting the trout growth, but they were also keeping the pike population down. Apparently those big pike, cannibalize their own, and after the big girls were gone, there was an explosion of little pike, and that explosion, crashed the trout population.

So between what Mgraber shared, and the article I read in that magazine, I had to think back to what I experienced going to the same lake in the boundary waters over 42 years. In the 70's and 80's, there weren't many pike in that small lake, but those we caught were relatively large (at least from my perspective). When we did catch pike, there were some in that 10-14 lb range, and it wasn't uncommon to have something huge on the line, that would just snap us off. But now in the past 20 years or so, we haven't caught a single pike over 4 lbs. Not one. One 4-5 day fishing trip every year to that lake, with typically 4 to 6 of us, and not one of us has caught a pike over 4 lbs from early 2000's to 2019. And it was somewhere during that stretch, that there was an explosion of little 16"-18" pike. And there was also a steep decline in the walleye population. Now the little pike have slowly gone away again, and the walleye population seems to be recovering. So it all kinda follows what Mgraber was saying.

thistlekicker: "

Speckled: "My final college statistics project was on Walleye populations. I took the time and grabbed /dumped the data from 100 DNR lake surveys for a variety of walleye lakes in the arrowhead region, including the BW. Data points that went into the regression analysis were;



1. Population within 1 hour radius of the lake.
2. Lake Size
3. Littoral Area
4. Bottom Substrate
5. Public Access (available? and type)
6. Maximum Depth
7. Water Clarity
8. Northern Population (size and qty) as netted in the survey
9. Bass Population
10. Sucker / Perch (all other species, I entered size and qty)
11. Shoreline Length
12. Inlets noted
13. Outlets noted
14. Month of survey completion
15. Gill nets, trap nets
16. Stocking (type, qty and lbs)



It was a big project, but I didn't mind doing it as I had an interest in the results. I literally entered all the data available on the DNR surveys and did a regression analysis to find correlation to walleye qty and size. I found nothing. Not a damn thing or combination of all of the above could predict the population of walleye with any degree of accuracy. I turned it in thinking I wouldn't do well, as the whole point was to find correlation. I got an A and remember my professers note, He wrote next to my grade, "High degree of correlation with my real life fishing experience."



"

Could be you didn't find a lot of correlation because the methods used in the DNR lake survey aren't a good way to estimate population-level parameters. But people love to see the data, so..."

+1 with bw reports , one never knows how much time they were actually able to spend on said given lake weather and wind are huge factors. lakes closer to entry points definitely see more pressure , just look at the beat up ground on pine lake's camp sites.
Alpine lake was much better in the 90's than today has word got out about the falls and and the easy slayer of walleye at opener(loose lips sinks ships) same with Sag and the seagull river which is now shut down until late May ?