Statewide Lake Selection Concept: Current/Previous/Future Members please give opinion

[Grabs]

We would like some input on the lake selection concept that we have developed for next years Statewide League.

We have divided the state into 4 quadrants.
RICK can you put the original 4 quadrant map in here?

Here it is Grabs - Lucky I looked

We are currently developing a "Lake List" for each of the four quadrants. These lists will contain all the lakes we would consider fishing based upon a few criterion, most importantly size. We have limited the lake size to a minimum of 900 acres due to the number of boats in the league. Other things factoring into a lake making the list is if there is an access, lodging and presence of game fish.

Once these lists are complete we will then draw one lake from each of the 4 quadrants, perferrably at the last event of the season, and these lakes will make up next seasons schedule. Once a lake is drawn from this list it cannot be used again until all the lakes on the list have been fished. All of the lakes previously fished from 2001-2003 will be omitted until all the remaining lakes have been fished (now these list will probably be 20-40, maybe 50 lakes long, which means we may never fish all of them. But this will ensure a new set of lakes each season, and spread the lakes and travel out evenly throughout the state.

This idea is in the development stages, we feel this will add something purely unique that no other fishing league in the state does, not to mention the fact that we may be the only "formal" multi-species league already. The lists are always in development, we have basically included every lake in a quadrant that meets are limited set of requirments, however it is tough to know how good an access is or how much parking there is at a giving lake without visiting it in person, but until we can give a good valid reason for not fishing a lake it will stay on the list. Once a lake is drawn in August there will be plenty of time to check out the lake, access and line up lodging. If for some reason after drawing the lake we discover that there is a valid reason not to fish it then that lake will be removed from the list and a new lake will be drawn at random from the remaining lakes on the list.

We will try and have preliminary lists ready for discussion at Winnie, which shouldn't be a problem. We will ask people to review the lists and give input on the lakes currently on the list. After this we will finalize the list prior to W. Battle and at this point draw the 4 lakes for next season.

One criterion I would like to impose is that since we are a multi-species league, we should only fish multi-species lakes. By this I mean that at minimum the lakes to make the list should contain Pike, Bass (large and/or smallmouth), walleye and at least one type of panfish.

Now since I have been assigned the Southern Quadrant I have noticed that only a few lakes in this region have Largemouth or smallmouth bass. But the other lakes contain White Bass. Do we want to include White bass as a minimum requirement?? Thus allowing a bigger pool of lakes to be drawn from in the south.

Sorry for this being so long, but there are a lot of details and we want to get some feedback on this concept. If you are familar with lakes in a certain region of the state please let us know.

I am working on the list for Quads 1 & 3
Tom is working on a list for Quad 2
Paul is working on a list for Quad 4

Regards,...
Chris

[This message has been edited by Grabs (edited 06-27-2003).]

[This message has been edited by Rick (edited 06-27-2003).]

[Guest]

I like the idea of the quadrants and choosing a lake from each, but it seems like quadrant 1 should be moved a ways north to include some of the lakes in Wright and Meeker counties too. There are an awful lot of great lakes west of the cities that could be on the short list... Stella and Washington come to mind right off the top of my mind. If the line were moved north then all of those central Minnesota lakes could be included all the way from Alex over to Aitkin and Pine City. It just doesn't seem as though there are enough "southern" lakes that will meet the requirements, which I found to be really well thought out. It's good to start the process now though.

[Evenflow]

This looks like a great idea. I do think Quad 1 will have problems fulfulling the 900 acre requirement. A lot of the lakes appear to be in the 450-650 acre range. However I would be VERY excited about having a lake in the current Quad 1. Most of the big lakes currently in this section are COMPLETELY different than the lakes that have been in the recent leagues. They feature 14+ inch walleyes in two years, great crappie fishing, a few bigger pike and some lakes with little or no bass. I think that would make the league very interesting considering bass anglers seem to dominate the standings on many lakes.
I believe there are a few chains of lakes in the region that should also be considered. The Fairmont chain of lakes would be a good example. None of those lakes approach 900 acres, but put the four lakes together and they are over 900 and would fish like 1200+ acres.

All in all I think it's a great start.

Erik

------------------
It's all just theory till you hit the water.

[Groloe]

I think this is a great idea- but have somewhat the same reservation as the others. I would suggest keeping an open mind to altering the boundaries of the quadrants based on the results of the lists. If we find that quadrant 1 is sorely lacking in lakes that qualify, readjust the boundaries to try and get an even balance of lakes in each area- or at least as even as possible. I would think it would be ideal to start recycling lakes in each quadrant at the same time. This is an ideal, and probably not possible, but we should try to get as close to that ideal as we can. It wouldn't make sense to cycle through Q1 every 7 or 8 years while waiting 17 or 18 years to cycle Q4.

Again- I think it's a great idea, it will add another level of excitement, and introduce a lot of new waters to many of us. Thanks for all your work guys!

[Groloe]

I agree with Chris- redesigning the boundaries for the state wide league wouldn't necessarily mean having to redesign for potential regional leagues. And I haven't been a main part of lake selection before (although I followed this year's selection from the outside), but isn't it safe to assume that the lists derived solely from computer research will be diminished once we start taking a closer look? If Chris thinks the list may be dwindled down to 15 or so now, can we assume that if we were to visit all 15 of those lakes- see in person what we're dealing with, there would be some that we would decide are not good candidates for one reason or another? Maybe I'm wrong there. If it turns out that we have plenty of lakes in all quadrants, that's great, I'm just suggesting that we see what the results are before we completely rule out the possibility of redesigning the boundaries.

[Guest]

Basicly looks good to me. If additional divisions are formed in the future they can adjust as needed.
Are we concidering any river systems in the quads or lakes only?

[Grabs]

I would be open to including major river systems, Mississippi(certain pools), St. Croix, and Lake Pepin. The MN river would need some discussion. What are other opinions on including rivers? Would some people consider not fishing a season if a river was drawn?

Dennis do you have input on including the MN River?

[This message has been edited by Grabs (edited 07-01-2003).]

[Guest]

We have talked about this at length and I have made the executive decision to keep the lines where they are.

Main reason, I am not about to break up the classic "Central Lakes" region around the Kandi-Meeker area.

There are about 40 lakes in Quad 1. It will take almost 40 years to cycle through them using a 1 per year scenario and almost 10 years if a Southern LETS chapter is formed (4 lakes per year).

Remember, the metro region is part of Quad 1.

I have a more detailed map of how the quads will be divided for chapter purposes, but for now, this basic one will do.

[Grabs]

Tom, we won't have 40 lakes in the southern after we consider access, lodging and multi-species waters.

I need to check but we may be closer to 10-15 lakes.

I know you don't want to divide it up for additional chapters, but that doesn't matter from a pure Statewide lake selection stand point.

Just to avoid confusion, can we please keep this discussion limited to only LETS Statewide lake selection topic.

[This message has been edited by Grabs (edited 07-01-2003).]

[Grabs]

Somehow I had a double post.

[This message has been edited by Grabs (edited 07-01-2003).]

[Rick]

Hi guys,
please contact Paul or Dennis to gain access to the "Let's Rules and Lake Selection Forum".

It's for LETS members only, to discuss topics like this. This topic is being moved there now.

They will need your Real Name, username and e-mail address.

Click on their name in this forum and send them an e-mail.