Peltier Lake North Metro

[Guest]

Noticed that there is a lot of water coming through the dam on the west side of peltier flowing into Rice Creek. Has anyone had any sucess fishing this area recently. I fish for everything and was wondering what the high water may bring up there.

[eyeballs]

Have been out there every day since Sunday, and it's been pretty hit and miss. Always manage a few northerns on the lake and when I hit I got a few walleyes on the edges of the weedlines on the South side of the island.

[Failin'onPhalen]

Hey shoreline,

Check out the MJ5 thread from 5/7/03.

I work in the area and see people fishing there quite a bit in the spring. In fact, one early spring morning I was driving down hwy 14 and saw a guy come up from under the bridge with a huge pike (I figure the 10lb range). I stopped to say "hi" and admire it. He let it go on east side of the bridge. I did a little research on the lake below the **** (George Watch, I think) and found the lake is very shallow. In fact, the area immediately to the east of the bridge is the deepest part of this body of water (Maybe it's 8 feet), so the fish that go over the spillway just to the east, have little deep water to find. I think, at least in part, this is a reason for good fishing there.

Anyways, if you are an advid shoreangler its probably worth a look. Good luck.

Phalen

[mnwild]

I was out there fishing in the dam on Sunday and didnt catch a thing. There were a few kids up on the pier part and they were catching northerns in the 2lb range and KEEPING them. I was going to say something but I let it go. I tried down by the bridge and caught nothing there also. I know there are some BIG northerns in that lake, just have to find them.

[Guest]

i used to fish peltier with my brother but he moved to texas i don't know how to get there from hwy 65 and viking blvd{cr 22}if you could give me drictions that would be great. thanks

[This message has been edited by bigfishin (edited 05-14-2003).]

[mnwild]

take 65 south to 242 and go east, probably a good 10 mile I bet. you will run right into the lake on the left hand side.

[deadeye]

I was out there 2 days ago and I got a bunch of carp and a couple little northerns, I think that maybe everything is done running up there. The carp were fun but they definitly were not walleyes!
><>deadeye

[Guest]

Isn't the rule with Minnesota fish to eat small and release big (mercury and PCB issues)? Anyways, if we release the big ones and kept the small ones (if one must have some for dinner), wouldn't we end up with trophies instead of just dinks?

[Moses2531]

I always keep 2lb northern... I feel thats about the only nice size to clean... You still get heck of fillets of these fish and I think pike bigger than that ought to be let go... I don't know, thats just how I do it...

[sandman469ss]

Not trying to start anything, was just wondering your reason. I've looked at the research that's been done, and agree with some, disagree with others.
I rarely keep a northern that is over 3 lbs.
By that time the fish is probably between 2 & 4 years old. I personally think the smaller northern taste better than the big ones. I pickle all mine, and know that the larger ones turn mushy and have a chalky texture to them.
I've caught plenty of the big ones in my day, and I'm all for CPR.

There's nothing better to watch than an 8 year old trying to land a 10lb fish, and seeing the look on their face when they get it in. & nothing sadder than the look you get when you tell them they have to put it back so some other kid has a chance to catch it.

S

[erikwells]

Small is a rather relative term. What I am trying to say is see what the lake holds via the DNR lakefinder. If the lake I am fishing has 85% of it's northern pike in the 1-2 lb range and large numbers of them then why not keep a few? I have had anglers belittle my catch upon docking my boat several times. Alright maybe I had two northerns that were 21-22 inches long. What they did not see was the 36 incher I turned back into the water. The same has happened to me with panfish as well. I remember when it was the rule to show up at the dock and show off your biggest fish (breeders). I would much rather see someone with small to average fish than big monsters. We can't have it both ways. The only other alternative we have is mandatory catch and release. I practice catch and release but enjoy having the ability to decide for myself. My vote is keep the smaller fish as long as you eat them and risk the chance that the angling fishing morality police might sneer at you. They probably wouln't sneer if they could catch a fish of their own.

[Mr. Pike1]

I am a catch a release guy myself but my dad loves to keep the 2-3 pound Pike. They are the best eating. Just like walleye I find 16-19 to be the best to keep and anything larger I always release.

[sandman469ss]

mnwild,

Just curious as to why KEEPING a 2lb. northern is a problem!

[mnwild]

Sandman469,
1st I want to say I am not going to make this into an argument. But a 2lb northern in my mind is a little small to keep.Some people wonder why some of these metro lake are starting to have a size limit on northerns and I feel that is the reason why. People are keeping these dinky northerns and there is nothing left in the lakes. I hope that answers your question.

Ask Deadeye, like he said in his post, "little Northerns" and thats what they were keeping..

[This message has been edited by mnwild (edited 05-15-2003).]

[This message has been edited by mnwild (edited 05-15-2003).]

[deadeye]

I think that the whole keeping big/small fish thing is hard to figure out. In some lakes I have been to there are nothing but little hammerhandles, when the dnr sets up regs to keep only the little ones the population of big fish goes up but the population of smaller ones goes down. Then they set up regs to keep bigger ones and the population of those go down and the population of the smaller ones goes up. I just let almost everything go. It is a viccous cycle so it is hard to tell what really helps and doesn't.
just my 2 cents
><>deadeye