I'm wondering how useful you all have found the info on the MN lakefinder site to be in practice. On paper it seems like a great tool, but after spending quite a big of time surfing both that site and this one in the last year, I've noticed that there often doesn't seem to be a lot of overlap between the data on the lakefinder site and what people report here. Lakes that supposedly don't have a lot of fish according to lakefinder often have great fishing reviews in the trip reports here, and vice versa.

So I'm wondering, just how worthwhile is lakefinder data for a BW newbie who enjoys fishing like me? Is it a factor one should take into account when planning a trip, or is it only good for very general information, like whether a specific lake contains a given species?

I have found it useful for identifying lakes with Lake Trout. Also, for many of the lakes there are lake depth maps in MN Lakefinder that can be useful, though I prefer the Navionics app for estimating the depth at my location when in the BWCA.

Take into account, a lot boundary water lakes go years between surveys. I’ve looked up some lakes that haven’t been surveyed since the 70’s! A lot of things can change in a lake over 50 years. DNR also has to use canoes and portages, so the number and types of surveys can be different. In lake trout lakes for example, they’ll typically only set deep nets, targeting deep cold water fish specifically. Smallmouth bass are hard fish to survey as well, they are very good at avoiding nets. So take all that into consideration. Still a very useful tool.

First thing I do when going to an area is print out the depth maps & lake surveys. The surveys might not be current, but the structure on the lake bottom isn’t gonna change, and the surveys at least give you an idea what the lake will be like, species available, natural reproduction etc. Gotta have it.

I look into it a bit if I've never been. It seems like a lot of lakes either have Lake Trout and maybe smallies or pike as minor species or they don't have lakers but do have decent walleye, pike, smallies.

So I use it to kind of gauge which type of lake it is. But yes, the size and numbers aren't a great representation especially if they're older surveys. Smallies are notorious for being hard to net so they get under counted often. I just look at it to see if a fish exists there or not.

Also, if you buy the Voyageur brand maps (sold on this site) the back has some simple fishing info for each lake in that specific area.

I find it very useful especially when looking for lake trout and stream trout. Don’t use the lake finder app, instead use the actual website. You are able to look at netting reports on some lakes over the last 50 years. For example, if you look at Big Moose, you notice that there were no walleyes in the lake originally. It was full of many large Northerns and bass. Since the introduction of walleyes, you notice the size and numbers of northerns began to decrease. Another interesting lake is Mudro. Early netting reports indicate a decent walleye population. Now it doesn’t appear to have any.

I really like the Lake Finder feature. It’s a tool, another piece of the puzzle but not complete.

As others stated many surveys are old and limited due the remote nature of the lakes. SMB don’t survey well in the methods that can be used on remote lakes. So they can often be present but not be on a survey.

The other thing to remember is SMB are not native to the area. They were stocked in a few areas…I believe in the 40’s?? And have spread into other areas of the BWCA and Quetico. They continue to spread to this day. As they have spread and invaded other lakes the dynamics of those lakes have changed. for example, Prior to SMB, Large mouth bass used to be present in higher numbers. You can still run into them in more remote lakes, but people seemed surprised when they run into them now.

T

All the comments above are spot on ! As Timatkn stated it's a tool , really no different than a wrench to help piece together more info for a more successful trip.
as others have brought up many years may have gone bye since it's last survey and when that survey was done how much time were they really able to put in on any of the given lakes/surveys. weather can be a big factor by just being able to get out on the lake with the nets.
and time of year. metro or wilderness most surveys are conducted in the months of june-july-august and many species of fish(brook trout) maybe belly on the bottom at those times of the year , thus not really getting a good indication on population or stocking survival .
the best 1 i experienced was Jasper lake , a survey was done in 1972 and 1992
1972 : 5 lake trout
1 pike
4 walleyes
1992 : 5 lake trout
2 walleyes
0 pike
doesnt sound like a very good lake at all, and for the most part after the fire it has turned into more of a 1 night camping/pass through lake then a destination to fish. but i/we did a trip into jasper 2013 and i quit counting lakers after we had caught like 40 of them (all about that same size #2 1/2-3lbs range) , one 40" pike. and a group i know went in like june ?? and didnt catch a lot of walleyes but the one's they caught were respectable size and all they did was jig around the only island on the lake.
So take the information for what it is (a tool) and sometimes it can just be bad timing like a cold front moved in a shut down all fishing. it does happen even on primo lakes.
and as far as size of lake trout in the BWCA , lakes that dont have a good forage base like knife-seagull-basswood , lakers just dont get very big , most of them are feeding off of Crustacean, and their meat can become close to brook trout red , (pic included) and very tasty

Agreed - for lakes that are surveyed more frequently it can give you a pretty good idea of fish populations. For lakes with one old survey from 1982...it's something, but probably not everything.

I can think of at least one example where we looked at the lake - two surveys were present and no pike were caught and no mention of pike in the comments. We caught two, both in the 36-40 inch range (my guess). One was only seen before it snapped the line and the other was brought alongside the canoe, but never taken out of the water or measured...just didn't seem like a great idea in a solo canoe to try and hoist up that monster of a fish.

I still enjoy looking at the survey results and do check it for nearly lake i've been to or plan to go to and sometimes it's helped me cross a few lakes off the list.

The depth maps are incredibly useful for finding productive areas.

The survey results will help for species available, although I will always cross reference by searching reports to see if anything else is in the lake. The most common fish missed (especially on surveys done in the 70s) is smallmouth bass.

Surveys done within the last decade seem to hold up fairly well in my experience.

I have found the lake bottom contour maps to be minimalistic and not particularly accurate. Many contours show a smooth evenly spaced reading from shallow to deep and you know perfectly well that lake bottoms up there simply don't look like that. They can be used as starting points, but there is a much more diverse truth under your canoe. Navionics maps of the lakes in the BWCA appear to have directly used the information from MN Lake Finder and should be used with the same suspicion. You still have to fish to catch the fish.

I have noticed that the fish species don't really add up to what is reported on here. I use it see what forage species are listed. Then I check the orange dots and search trip reports to see to see what game species people are catching.

The lake depth and clarity charts are useful. I don't take a depth finder with me so even when the depths may not line up exactly, I don't know if its me just floating in the wrong spot or the map.

They are generally good enough to find holes, reefs, and sharp drop-offs within the paddlers' margin of error. I mean, its not like I am calling in an airstrike on Bin Laden...I'm in a canoe!