Buffalo Walleyes...

[stumpy_dave]

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

[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.

[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

[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?

[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.

[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.

[stumpy_dave]

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

[river rat316]

Quote:

---

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/areas/fisheries/montrose/index.html

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

---

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

[smallie_hawgin]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/areas/fisheries/montrose/index.html

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

---

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

---

Gee thanks pal....

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.... I would suggest learning a lake that has that trophy potential if indeed that is what is preferred.... JMHO

Hope this helps.

[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!

[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

[fishface]

River rat,

YES!

[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!

[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?

[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 ... 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!

[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.