|
|
| The topic has come on why MN produces such large fish right now.
Does MN really have more larger muskie lakes?
Name all the biggest lakes in MN and there acreage and same with Wisconson?
How big of a lake do you realy need?
Bemidji is only 8000 acres and is a big producer of large fish. Wabadoo, Little boy, Little wolf, Plantangent, Inquadonna, French lake, Independence and Rebecca are all waters the same size as many in Wisconsin.[;)] |
|
| |
|
| I Know a lake in Wisconsin that is only 90 acres and every year produces 50+ in fish. Lake size has nothing to do with it. I think fishing pressure, lake forage, and management has more to do with it.
Just my opinion
Jim |
|
| |
|
| I'll have to disagree. I think size has alot to do with it.... but it is NOT a requirement for producing big fish... just an advantage. My biggest fish came from a Wisconsin lake under 300 acres... so I know first hand that small lakes can produce big fish.
I think the BIG lakes can consistently produce MORE big fish for several reasons:
1. Forage - more surface area of water increases the total amount of biomass a system can hold. More food... more muskies.
2. Safety - more places to hide, the better chance a fish has to live long enough to grow to trophy size. The classic "needle in the haystack" concept.
3. Diffusion - a large body of water diffuses fishing pressure better. Maybe Fisherman/acre should be considered rather than fish/acre. Is there a difference between a 10,000 acre lake with 100 musky fisherman than a 100 acre lake with 1 musky fisherman? Same amount of fishing pressure, but I bet the smaller lake would "feel" the pressure more.
There are probably many more advantages to larger waters (or opposite opinions for that matter)... but those are the first three to pop into my mind. What does everyone else think?
jlong
|
|
| |
|
| fertility
water quality throughout the season
cover quality throughout the season
diversity
#1 of environment
#2 of forage
#3 of structure
sanctuary, both from interaction with man and within species(cannibalism)
genetic ability
any body of water which satisfies all these requirements is much more likely to grow large fish than a body of water that only satisfies some. I vote for big water bigger fish, as you start dropping things off this list it becomes more and more difficult to raise larger fish. Doesn't mean you can't have a lot of good fish and great fishing, it just is more difficult to grow one for the ages. |
|
| |
|
| jlong.
I do agree with you, all I was stating is that small waters can produce big fish. Now I have a question. How does lake depth affect this. For examle Lake1 is 50,000 acres and has a max depth of 15 feet. Lake2 is 3,000 acres and has a max depth of 200 feet. so how does actual amount of water in the lake fiqure in to this. Lake 1 has a mean depth of 5 feet and lake2 has a mean depth of 150 feet. So I am not a mathematician but if lake 2 is smaller in acres but lets say holds more water, Which lake is actually big water. Any ideas or answers to this would be greatly appricated.
Thanks
Jim |
|
| |
|
| IObviously for total numbers of large fish you need a larger body of water. Percentage wise you don't. Jason, you live by a lake that could produce mammoth fish and it's one of the small ones in your area.[:)] |
|
| |
|
| I can only speak from experience...if conditions are right, no matter the size, it's those conditions that count. Within a 3-wood drive of our office is a 50-acre lake with 50-inchers.
No motors, little development, fertile water, good forage and low pressure=fun getting your canoe dragged around.[:)] |
|
| |
|
| I think the main advantage of big water, is the numbers of big fish.
A small lake can only sustain so many fish....no matter how fertile
it is. [:p] |
|
| |
Lake Size VS Muskie Size