|
|
Posts: 282
Location: north west wisconsin | Do you guys feel that even though a smaller fairly unkown lake (Under 500 acres)you still have the potential for a fifty or are your chances better on a bigger well known lake? I'm thinking with less pressure your odds might go up. but the down size is that it might be the only big fish in the water! or am i way off base? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3164
| not trying to boast but the do in Minn!!! we have 300 acre lakes that produce muliple 50's each year In fact the HARTMAN Metro tourney has been won twice with 50's from a lake thats under 300 acres including this year |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8863
| Hard to say...
How deep is that 300 acre lake?
What are the prevalent types of forage?
How many muskies are in that 300 acre lake?
Is there a lot of competition from other species of game fish?
Are there pike in the lake?
How clean is the water?
How many people fish it?
What is the size limit on that lake?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 282
Location: north west wisconsin | avg depth 15
max 29
no clue how many muskie
clear water
usally locals only
45 size limit
dont know if there are pike never caught one
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1769
Location: Algonquin, ILL | I know of a small 250 acre lake in N.Wisc that has a low Muskie population but every now and then someone gets a 50 it's usually someone fishing walleyes,
so yes there is always the possibility but the odds are low.
Only one way to find out for sure, GO GET HER 
|
|
| |
|
| YES!
As mentioned above some critical factors will drive the lakes ability.
1. is forage. Lot of stunted bluegills has less likelyhood then say a small cisco lake. However, even if it doesn't have ciscos, if it has a nice balanced system of suckers and perch...it can be money!
2. Fishing pressure. Sad but true. Luckily that lake has a 45 inch size limit so that will help. The gems are the ones that get very little muskie fishing pressure.
The one down size is the NUMBER of 50 inchers. Small lakes can be gems. But, usually they have a relatively smaller population (fish per acre) of muskies, hence able to grow them big. BUT, with such small total acres it limits the number of big fish. A 800 acre lake with a killer mid-lake hump will have a greater likely hood of having one of the 50 inchers in the lake using it then say a 200 acre lake.
Its an odds game.
Say a 300 acre lake has 0.5 muskie per acre. Thats 150 muskies in the lake. Of which say 2% are 50 inchers, thats 1 muskie.
Or a 1000 acre lake with 0.5 muskies per acre. Thats 500 muskies in the lake and 2% are 50 inchers. Thats 20 50 inchers.
BUT....got to love the little gems....because sometimes they hold a much larger porportion of larger fish....if all the stars align.
Cory
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 221
Location: ohio | I'd say yes
I fish mostly 1100 to 3000 acre lakes and their has been numerous 50's caught .
with the right foilage, baitfish and little pressure i'm sure it could happen. i read some interesting stories about big fish caught in smaller bodies of water, not only muskie but other gamefish as well. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32955
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Yep. Small lakes can and do kick out 50s pretty regular. Some small lakes, anyway. Ask Howie. |
|
| |
|
| I agree with the guy that broke it down into percentages...in other words the answer is "yes" (with the disclaimer that there will be fewer fish)
I personally like smaller lakes despite the smaller fish size (because I find them to be less crowded with more action overall) Maybe after I am doing this awhile I will be obsessed with monster size like these other guys....  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 785
| Some large lakes do not offer the correct forage, genetics, or other factors to harbor a trophy, and the genetics one is the hardest factor to research. All mentioned excellent was to determine if its possible, the fastest way to find out for sure is to check out the DNR reports on the lake, and or talk with local anglers and see what size fish they have seen on the lake. I know theres always some B.S. with anglers but most good musky guys could give you a fairly good idea.
Is it possible... absolutely with out a doubt. Does that apply to the lake in question, hard to say. I suppose go and see. Good fishing. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 742
Location: Grand Rapids MN | Percentages are a great way to put things into perspective and actually take away the 'size' factor of the lake. Sure there may be 20 larger fish but more water and 2% is, well 2%.. That was a great way to break it down and show what kind of odds you are looking at. One thing not mentioned is geological location of these lakes. Seasonal lake temperatures plays a roll with growth rates and mortality rates. Warmer water areas such as Indiana and the further south states tend to have fish that have faster growth rates than northern fish but they also have a much shorter life span because of that. So they are at a disadvantage in trying to achieve that super tanker status. Not to say there isn't any big fish but it makes it more difficult in certain locations. Canadian shield fish have a much longer life span with slower growth rates, but the life span over compensates the slower growth rate over time. So there is more of an advantage of the fish to grow larger. Add in low fishing pressure and less chance of death from mishandling and that adds up to a large fish potential. Everything mentioned are trends that have been observed over the years and it all just adds up and pushes the advantage to towards one direction or the other. I personally like to be alone on a lake and catch a few more fish with an occassional trip to big fish waters. |
|
| |
smaller lakes