Guests - If You want access to member only forums on FM. You will gain access only when you Sign-in or Sign-Up on Fishing Minnesota.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

  • Announcements

    • Rick

      Members Only Fluid Forum View   08/08/2017

      Fluid forum view allows members only to get right to the meat of this community; the topics. You can toggle between your preferred forum view just below to the left on the main forum entrance. You will see three icons. Try them out and see what you prefer.   Fluid view allows you, if you are a signed up member, to see the newest topic posts in either all forums (select none or all) or in just your favorite forums (select the ones you want to see when you come to Fishing Minnesota). It keeps and in real time with respect to Topic posts and lets YOU SELECT YOUR FAVORITE FORUMS. It can make things fun and easy. This is especially true for less experienced visitors raised on social media. If you, as a members want more specific topics, you can even select a single forum to view. Let us take a look at fluid view in action. We will then break it down and explain how it works in more detail.   The video shows the topic list and the forum filter box. As you can see, it is easy to change the topic list by changing the selected forums. This view replaces the traditional list of categories and forums.   Of course, members only can change the view to better suit your way of browsing.   You will notice a “grid” option. We have moved the grid forum theme setting into the main forum settings. This makes it an option for members only to choose. This screenshot also shows the removal of the forum breadcrumb in fluid view mode. Fluid view remembers your last forum selection so you don’t lose your place when you go back to the listing. The benefit of this feature is easy to see. It removes a potential barrier of entry for members only. It puts the spotlight on topics themselves, and not the hierarchical forum structure. You as a member will enjoy viewing many forums at once and switching between them without leaving the page. We hope that fluid view, the new functionality is an asset that you enjoy .
Sign in to follow this  
stumpy_dave

Buffalo Walleyes...

Recommended Posts

stumpy_dave

How long will it take those 10 inch walleyes to grow beyond 15 inches?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jimbo80

never happen....as soon as a walleye on buffalo is remotely close to cleanable, they are kept. Buffalo would be an awesome lake to have a 15" min length.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
slabberknocker

The bad thing is working at Conoco this weekend talking to some anglers, some people were saying the they cant believe how many walleyes they caught, it was awesome. I then asked what was the size and they would say nice size. They would use there hands and it would be the size of a keeper crappie. It would blow a lot of peoples minds if we knew how many of those eyes ended up in the well or on a stringer. I talked to over a hundred fisherman and fishergals this past weekend and I heard of probably 15 walleyes over 15 inches. I am sure there were a lot more that were caught, but from info i gathered, they are few and far between. One guy was with 2 boats and about 8 people and they had 7 keepers up to 24".

On a side note, the park access is terrible. I had put the truck half way in the lake to get the boat off and on. It needs to be dredged or something. What do other people think. How is the north access?

Lastly I know shiners were a the ticket this weekend. We should have them in stock again by the weekend. The supplier ran out on Sat. already.

There are a lot of other lakes that are doing really well. Hopefully people start leaving Buffalo alone. But I doubt it.

Have a good one

Slab

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stumpy_dave

That's too bad...I was out last night caught a few but no keepers...all were under 10-11 inches...

What does it take to get a size minimum put on a lake?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
federline

I was having this exact conversation with a buddy just today about all the 10-12 inch walleyes. We, too, hope dearly that this year-class makes it to trophy sizes in upcoming years - and we just cringe at the thought of how many meat-fishermen are going to pocket these little guys just because they are walleyes (I think perch are much tastier, myself). But, on the flip side, fewer fish means less competition for baitfish (grow grow grow) and makes them harder to catch.

If you want to ask the DNR about the possibility of a minimum size or a slot on Buffalo, email the Montrose Fisheries office http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/areas/fisheries/montrose/index.html . The asst manager there is an FM regular, and extremely knowledgeable and helpful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eyebjim

I was thinking that all of these walleyes being caught so young would be good for them as they would learn not to bite a hook. I guess I didn't think that that many people would consider keeping a 10 inch walleye. I hope they make it to a decent size. I would like to see a 14 or 15 inch minimum in Buffalo as I think it would turn into a very good lake in time. Actually a state wide minimum size would be good and would help to ensure that the investment in stocking is not wasted on people keeping little dinks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stumpy_dave

I fired off a few emails...I will update the board if I get a response...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
smallie_hawgin

Quote:

Quote:

. The asst manager there is an FM regular, and extremely knowledgeable and helpful.


I don't know that either of those statements are true grin.gif ....


confused.gif

Gee thanks pal.... tongue.gif

Ok here goes guys. I have a tendency to agree with length limits in general. They can increase the harvestable size of fish available to the angler. There can be consequences though. One being limited growth or slowing growth due to "stacking" of fish below the length selected.

The other aspect to think about is that in most cases in the literature, length limits are applied to populations with natural reproduction.... of which Buffalo has none to very slightly limited influence from the Crow River.

In all honesty, there needs to be a few lakes where some people are able to harvest some fish. The fry stocking works very well out there, this is undeniable. Yes there are some anglers that are willing to harvest smaller fish. There are also a few who wait. The average size harvested in thew 2003 creel survey was 16.7"!! So, this tells me that the current year class that we stocked a couple of years ago is fine and dandy. Think about this as well.... if that many survived as was mentioned there should probably be some level of harvest to allow the remaining fish to grow at a better rate (in theory).

Either way you look at it; Buffalo is basically a put and take fishery. The walleye do well, they survive, they grow and they can be harvested for many to enjoy.

I completely understand the desire to catch larger fish, there are other lakes ion the area that will produce plenty of large walleye...... some not so far from Buffalo even.... ooo.gif I would suggest learning a lake that has that trophy potential if indeed that is what is preferred.... JMHO

Hope this helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fishinalot

With the amount of fisherman that hit buffalo, having a minimum length of say 13" would only help the following year a great deal!! They would still get fished out with a few being able to reach trophy sizes.

So whats wrong with having the minimum at 13" ? My thoughts, "nothing"!, it would only help the lake, and keep the "always taking" fisherman in search of new lakes to Rape!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
river rat316

Hey how about this, stop stocking lakes with no natural reproduction, they shouldn't be there anyways, its a HUGE waste of money then you guys would have absolutely nothing to complain about, go fish lakes that have natural reproduction. Its never gonna be a "trophy" lake, its a turd that shouldn't hold Walleyes anyway. I say that we spend the MILLIONS of dollars WASTED on stocking eyes in lakes with no natural reproduction and hire more CO's to take care of the riff raff that can't seem to put anything back, we could also spend that money on habitat improvement and angler education. Just my 3 cents

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fishface

River rat,

YES!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big R

I disagree about it never being a trophy lake. Numerous times a year I catch 27-29" walleys winter/summer and I don't care where you fish - those are some nice 'eyes.

And, No I do not keep any of the walleyes big or small. Occasionally I may keep a 14-17" for a small meal that is all.

Also have you ever considered that way back when Buffalo may have had good natural reproduction. I am taking back before all the dang development and fertilizer/agriculture runoff destroyed the water quality. I propose we make lakeshore ownership/develpment a CRIME!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kyle Sandberg

Actually, some of the stuff people are doing is illegal. Haveing more than 50' of beach, illeagal, removing timber and weeds, illegal. Thats just to name a few.

A question to all. Was buffalo lake clear at one time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
river rat316

I highly doubt Poopaloo ever had good natural reproduction, it doesn't have the ingredients, seems like they've been stocking it forever and people have been raping it and whining about size forever. The eyes (in this population density) are not a natural occurence in this lake. The money WASTED on stocking efforts so Jimbob can go catch his 14"ers and fry em up every night could go towards Landowner/ fisherman education.... More Co's........ better funding for the DNR so I can quit hearing them whine grin.gif... I personally think its a huge waste of money, not just Buffalo but every lake that is stocked with no natural reproduction, I say quit stocking altogether and MAKE the eye fisherman learn some conservation efforts of there own (CPR or selective harvest. I know its not a popular opinion but I could give a rats (Contact Us Please) if I'm popular. Look at what CPR and selective harvest have done for other fish populations (Bass and Muskie) The only lakes in this whole entire state that are stocked with bass are kids fishing ponds or something that suffers an extreme winterkill (I disagree with this to) If it wasn't for old school eye fisherman trying to kill Muskies because they are to dam stupid to realize its not the muskie thats hurting there fishing (get over it we all KNOW this happens) they would need to be stocked less and less also. I think every body that fishes Walleyes on a regular basis needs to look at there catch and keep habits and ask themselves how much money is the state WASTING to keep me happy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
federline

I'm not sure about what the lake water quality was like 50-100 years ago. I do know that the town was named after the hordes of smallmouth buffalo in the lake. There was a significant commercial fishery industry in supplying the Minneapolis area with them. So I would guess it has been fairly eutrophic for most of recent recorded history and worse recently with human development - it is essentially a Crow river floodplain backwater basin. The question I have is whether or not it was like that before ag development 100+ years ago.

And with low water levels, the manmade Lake Pulaski pump won't provide much clean spring water anytime soon, we'll just get runoff. I'd bet on a really stinky algae bloom this year. I think there's a connection between year-over-year high water levels and healthy Buffalo crappie populations, due at least in part to the clean water being pumped from Pulaski. Also, in recent years, permits to herbicide Buffalo have been granted, and native weeds have been knocked back quite a bit - not a great thing in my book. Just in the 9 years I've been on this lake, it has changed dramatically a couple times. Stocking walleyes, when I think about it more, may be the only way they will live in Buffalo Lake - it probably is a put-n-take lake for 'eyes in the net-net.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this