Hotspotoutdoors

I Have no experience with sag, but lots of experience with the dnr, and what I have found is the dnr really has no clue whatsoever. It could be walleyes, wolves, or wolverines, and the dnr is just another over funded government organization that hires citiots from the U of M that have no local or really any true outdoor knowledge because they are just extreme environmentalist and not true conservationalists. In my opinion the dnr is doing little for outdoorsmen but makeing them spend more money, ask anyone elder then you how the hunting and fishing was years ago and you will be astonished that it doesn't exist today. Like any other gov organization, its all about the benjamins for the dnr. All I need to say is the new walleye stamp. If your stocked walley lake is not producing its because it wasn't ment to be a walleye lake. I am not a 100 percent sure, but i dont think the dnr stocks lake of the woods and its some of the worlds best walleye fishin and its natural. The dnr just needs to let nature be, as well as all the greedy fishermen who need to keep their limit every day, when they fish every day.

Not sure where to start with that one Chad, so I'll let it lay where it is.

Invasive smelt and spiny water flea, increasing smallmouth bass numbers, a bad cycle of poor reproduction or young fish survival that has had trickle down effects on the entire population...there are many good explanations and some that may have contributed synergistically. Don't give the guides too much credit...I don't buy that angling has whacked that many fish; it's still a pretty darn remote lake. Looking at a map of the lake, there are a lot of places to go looking for walleye, is a couple hundred feet of gillnet really going to sample that monstrous of a lake with its diversity of habitat? Lots of people want blood from the DNR office, what were they going to do? Change the regs? Limit access? Those are their only real options and a reg change is only going to have an effect if fishing is lights out and the lake doesn't need any further limits on access.

I think they are doing the right thing. 4.5 million fry have a shot if they don't get gobbled up by smelt and they won't all get eaten. Fry stocking is pretty cheap, about 45K for the walleye fry. Check the lake in 4-6 years when they are reaching a pound, hopefully the state marked the fish to compare success of naturally reproduced fish to stocked fish. Maybe give the lake a nudge in the right direction and see if it can come back around.

Im a big believer that fishing pressure did NOT cause the poor numbers of walleyes or size discrepancy in Northern Lights or Sag. They are too big of bodies of water and get fairly little fishing pressure compared to many other smaller lakes that still produce good walleye numbers and get hit harder. Especially when you compare by # of fisherman per acre of water daily.
The St. Louis River gets fished as hard as any body of water in the state and it still puts out great numbers of walleyes in all types of sizes so I doubt Northern Lights or Sag are "Overfished" or the guides are to blame.

Well, here are some ideas.
1.Bass. No,they have been there for years.

2.Smelt. They maybe making it tough catching them. But you wouldn't also get the low test net numbers.

3. Fire ash run-off. Doubtful, the lake is 17,000 acres and walleyes live in way muddier and lower oxygen areas in S.MN.

4.Fishermen-Guides. I don't know. Has the pressure inreased that much? Are there that many guides that are that good? I can't say. I only fish it for a short time of the year. Does Canada commercial fish any of it?

5. Fire Retardant. I don't know. Some of the locals up there claim all the chemical fire retardant that was dropped on the forest fire has caused some kind of problem. No sceintific eitology that would say it has done something but none saying otherwise.

6. Low water. maybe a little. I think the walleyes could spawn on wind blown shallows if the Sea gull river was too low back in the drought years.

7.THE CORRECT ANSWER- I don't know and everything I would come up with is a guess and based on my tilted view of the world.

I was probably wrong with my idea of overfishing of SAg. But how many times was it even an option after the lottery to get over night motor permit?? After May, a guy going on his own was outta luck. ALOT of big fish have come outta that lake, alot more than I can think of compared to simialr size lakes, at least that we here off. Whatever it is, the DNR needs to cut back the # of OMP. (Overnight motor permits) It certainly is not going to hurt for a couple years. Most canoes are not anchored in 35' FOW jigging in 2-3' waves over a reef in AUG.
Giving the lake a break from motors a for little while, is not going to hurt the lake.

No it won't hurt the lake but will it really help? You'll never get the permits back once they're gone. Motors are already forbidden on a large part of the lake, is the fishing any better on that part? Canada would have to go along with the restrictions in order for them to do any good and as many times as the Minnesota legislature has put the screws to them (The Canadians) the chances of a working relationship with the Canadian regulators are slim. Almost the entire BWCAW is non-motorized adding more restricted areas would only help kill the local economy it would have no effect on the walleye fishing on Sag.

If anything I'd like to see the horse power restrictions raised. They were put into place to reduce noise and pollution. A modern 50 hp four stroke has a fraction of both compared to 1978's two stroke. In fact I'd be willing to bet that if they would wave the hp restrictions for one season you would see an improvement in the perception of walleye fishing on Sag. There are a lot of good sticks in this area that don't have a small enough motor to fish Sag. Let some of these guys fish the lake with their rigs and the catch rate would go way up. Yeah, that'll happen.

Relating to Northern Light lake, I'm not yet sold on the idea that the population of walleye is declining. 2004 - 2006 were some tough years, but those years saw excessive bait fish all around the lake.

Recently, what we find is that where both smallies and walleye share the same neighborhood, the smallies are immediately on your bait before the walleye have a chance of ever seeing it.

We still catch walleye, at times it's difficult of find the smaller "eaters" and you just have to keep throwing the bigger fish back, but that's not such a problem in my mind. We still are able to locate schools of the 16 - 18" fish and have success of cathing them in numbers when the smallies aren't around.

The last couple of years on Northern Light Lake has been some of the best quality fishing for all species. Large bass and large numbers of bass keep the fishing exciting. The quality of the walleye fishing is some of the best since I started fishing this lake some 13 years ago. Northern are of good size and quantity, as well as the trout and whitefish.

If there's a certain species that we're targeting, we just spend a little more time fishing for them.

gonorth

Gonorth, I have never fished Northern Lights but I would like to based on what I have heard about it. Your theory on the bass beating the walleye to the bait is interesting. Thinking back the last couple of years, I don't know if that is what is happening to us or not. I usually get up to Sag very early in the year when all we fish is the shallow bays. Usually we would find the eaters and hammer them without catching any bass. The last couple of years, we don't catch anything in the usual spots and I don't think we can claim catching more bass either. I know when the water warms we tend to catch the bass in the same spots as the eyes.
Having fished the same times over the years we have gotten to know several of the regulars to the lake. It has been an unanimous opinion that the fishing is off on Sag. People are still catching the bigger fish, but the eaters are far and few between.
I just hope things turn before all of the resorts and business's that depend on that lake are gone.

Flint-
I understand your point and also see that these lakes are means to a life for alot of people. I also know (being a REP) that once you give in,, you likely done and will not get it back to what you had before. Being a BW vistor for over 30 trips (winter incl) I have never witnessed a lake drop off like SAg has for the eater size eye.(Rainy-- did,, but made a huge comeback, but is tech outside the BW) Something is differnt, something has changed. My only point is that less pressure can't hurt, even a lake that remote. But when it gets to people being outta a job etc,,, I let the so called experts decide. I don't know, maybe the lake is in big cycle change,, only to get better in the next 5-10 years.
P.S not being a fishery biologist ,, I do know that lakes that hold trophy smallies, walleyes and lakers are quite rare-- maybe that has something to do with it.
MUD

I haven't had a problem catching smaller eater eyes in the winter out there. I don't fish for them but have always caught them. One thing I completely disagree with is stocking the lake. Leech walleye numbers crashed and they said the lake would never come back so they stocked it. What they don't tell u is that in the years that they stocked the natural reproduction was at an all time high for two straight years. Basically just a waste of time and money. Lakes are cyclical, not every year class is a good one. Give it time not stocking.

"Canada would have to go along with the restrictions in order for them to do any good and as many times as the Minnesota legislature has put the screws to them (The Canadians) the chances of a working relationship with the Canadian regulators are slim."

Gunflint; I'm curious as to what the state of MN has done in your opinion to warrent this statement?