South Dakota vs Minnesota for Walleyes

[leechlake]

I made a statement that South Dakota was a better walleye fishing state in a different thread and wanted to move it here. First off I'm a Minnesota guy 100%, born here, lived here my whole life, have a cabin in Minnesota. I've also experienced 44 years of fishing in MN and about 15 in South Dakota.

Here's my point. South Dakota has better fishing. If you take the top five walleye waters in our state and put them up against the top five in South Dakota (yes you'd probably have to take sections of the Missouri river as separate "spots") and put the average fisherman on those waters I'd bet on So Dak as producing a better fishing experience. Also, I'd say all five waters in South Dakota are within easy driving distance for a day of fishing for the majority of SD residents rather than humping it 7 hours to Lake of the Woods for us.

Also. Let's say a mythical dad and his 12 year old kid wanted to go catch some walleyes. In Minnesota I'd be also willing to wager that their success rate on catching and keeping some fish to take home to mom is way less than South Dakota. I'm not talking about the "experience" between father and son of being together, being on the lake, sharing time together. I'm talking about the bonus of walleye fishing success.

I've personally done this myself. Two of my best friends live in South Dakota. We have spent multiple trips in Minnesota fishing Leech, Winni, lakes nearby and Lake of the Woods. We've had our share of success with many trips will poor results. Finally, they talked me into coming out there to fish. While it's not a 100% lock of great fishing, it is better fishing by a long shot than in Minnesota.

I believe in the water they have they just have more walleyes per acre than we have here and I'm talking about comparing our good walleye lakes to their good walleye waters, I'm not comparing some MN lake that is a panfish lake. Part of me thinks it's our DNR vs their Fish Game and Parks, part of me thinks it's a habitat thing, and part is probably good old mother nature.

We may have a lot of lakes and a lot of pride attached to our lakes but South Dakota is, unfortunately, just better.

[broken_line]

agreed.. the government can actually conserve its resources over there.. better waterfowling by a extreme long shot, upland hunting, abundant deer of many species, fishing is top notch, the varmnint hunting is non stop compared to driving 5 hours of gravel roads to see a yote and the public land is also some pretty good stuff.. here the men in green simply dont care about anything that dont make 'em money..

[goose89]

Some good points for sure. I think you have to take into account number of fisherman (pressure) into account as well. I think our DNR, even with some of the screwy things forced on them by legislators, does a pretty good job. The fact that Mille Lacs is what it is today as a testament to that. Growing up in the 80 and fishing on ML compared to today. Night and day.

If South Dakota had the metropolitan area(s) and fishing pressure that MN does, I think the SD is better than MN sentiment might be a little different. They are both great, IMO. If we keep gaining momentum on Selective Harvest and respecting each other, they will stay that way, God willing.

[goose89]

. here the men in green simply dont care about anything that dont make 'em money..

It aint the men in green....it's the men in suits on the hill. Funny how we all point and blame the DNR guys in the field.

[RiverFish]

Here's my point. South Dakota has better fishing. If you take the top five walleye waters in our state and put them up against the top five in South Dakota (yes you'd probably have to take sections of the Missouri river as separate "spots") and put the average fisherman on those waters I'd bet on So Dak as producing a better fishing experience. Also, I'd say all five waters in South Dakota are within easy driving distance for a day of fishing for the majority of SD residents rather than humping it 7 hours to Lake of the Woods for us.

Also. Let's say a mythical dad and his 12 year old kid wanted to go catch some walleyes. In Minnesota I'd be also willing to wager that their success rate on catching and keeping some fish to take home to mom is way less than South Dakota. I'm not talking about the "experience" between father and son of being together, being on the lake, sharing time together. I'm talking about the bonus of walleye fishing success.

Are you just comparing the top 5 Walleye lakes? If you know how to fish and know the water, MN has a thousand lakes to catch walleyes. I can name several MN lakes in the Detroit Lakes area alone that I would have fairly high success rates of catching walleyes. Why go to the Big waters to catch walleyes, unless you are looking for a trophy. But every lake does hold trophy fish.

I think MN has better overall walleye fishing. Especially for those lucky fisherman who live close to lakes, outside the Metro area.

[SkitterPopper]

Quote:

If South Dakota had the metropolitan area(s) and fishing pressure that MN does, I think the SD is better than MN sentiment might be a little different.

BINGO!

South Dakota Population = 824,082

Minnesota Population = 5,344,861

I see people comparing the Dakotas to Minnesota. This is not an apple to apples comparison. There are many factors involved but the population is the biggest factor.

[rundrave]

there are lots of variables to consider. Mn has its open and closed seasons, and line limits. SD has no closed seasons on species and you can fish 2 lines on open water, and 4 on ice.

I have had the benefit of living and fishing in both states for extended parts of my life. They each have their own pros and cons.I have to say this quote pretty much sums it up for me as well:

They are both great, IMO. If we keep gaining momentum on Selective Harvest and respecting each other, they will stay that way, God willing.

[leechlake]

I used the top 5 walleye lakes as a comparison. Our cabin is on a medium sized lake near Leech and we do pretty well there especially in July/August and most fish are too big too keep. I just wanted a frame of reference for comparison sake and picked the top 5 thing for illustrative purposes only.

[SkitterPopper]

I will start by saying I have only been to ND and never been to SD. One of the things I noticed about ND compared to Minnesota is the lack of resorts in ND. Without having been to SD I am not sure if they are the same as ND. Of course there are a few resorts on lakes in ND but nothing like Minnesota. You can't drive a half mile around Mille Lacs without passing a resort. So in other words our lakes have a greater carrying capacity as far as accommodations are concerned. I may be way of base but I thought I would throw it out there. Please correct me if I am wrong.

[leechlake]

I think that's an accurate thing, probably equates to more people fishing. Although in South Dakota in the Fall they have a lot of Outfitters for wild pheasants and they bring a ton of hunters in from the entire US and still have excellent pheasant hunting for all. From my perspective a pretty comparable situation to our resorts.

[SkitterPopper]

Just to be fair, there may be a couple reasons for that. The habitat in SD is the best in the country. Also, many of the outfitters "stock" thousands of birds every year. You do have a point though.

I still think the amount of people has the biggest affect. If you take ND & SD and add up their populations you still won't get to 20% of Minnesota's population. Then you throw in the hundreds of resorts throughout the state and there is where the difference resides.

[creepworm]

Lived in MN for my whole life until I moved out here for school 2 years ago. Without a doubt, South Dakota has the better quality fisheries, Minnesota has the quantity of fisheries.

I dont know that SD has taken over MN as the walleye state, but it certainly is on par with MN. I think the reason for this is that most of the lakes in SD are in their infancy as far as lakes are concerned. Lakes that were 700 acres and 5 ft deep in the 80's are now 14,000 acres and 30 ft deep. These recently flooded areas are fertile and provide great habitat. If there is a prolonged drought in the upper midwest, I believe MN will clearly be the better state for walleye fishing again.

[SJUICE]

I have fished many of the big name lakes in Minnesota, and the Mississippi river, and I have fished the Missouri river in South Dakota. I think it comes down to a time of year thing sometimes but I have to say the Missouri river takes the cake. Don't know anywhere else you can go where through out a good chunk of the year you can have shots at 50 to 100 fish days (and not just all dinks). Lack of pressure for sure helps as a huge majority of the river is not fished in South Dakota, but it is my favorite spot to walleye fish. I have told buddies about it that haven't fished it before, and have fished lots of Minnesota Lakes, and they just don't seem to believe me! Honestly if I had to choose one body of water to fish, it would be the Missouri River, absolutley love it!!!

[CaptainMusky]

Don't know anywhere else you can go where through out a good chunk of the year you can have shots at 50 to 100 fish days (and not just all dinks).

I have had days like this on Mille Lacs several times. Usually I just go to bring home some fish, so when I reach the amount I want to bring home I stop, but there has been plenty of times in the last few years that I have caught 30 fish in only a couple hours of fishing, by myself. If I would have stuck around the whole day and not run out of bait no doubt could have reached 100 fish.

Heck, I took two of my boys out (10 and 5) and they were hammering the walleyes on a different outing too.

I will admit, my experience with SD was limited to one experience nearly 30 years ago, so I cannot comment on which is better.

Even on small lakes within an hour of my house I have caught 20 to 30 walleyes in a day's work.

[JohnMickish]

I have fished lake Oahe the last two years and right now it is an awsome fishery with a ton of 14.25" walleyes. I mean a ton of them but it's just one fishery. I would venture to say that Oahe can produce a numbers game that would be hard to match in MN, but that is right now (In two years that statement won't be able to be said) and taken as a whole, SD can't compare to MN in walleye production.

[traveler]

I can easily match days like that on Red lake, and they won't be 14.25 fish either:)

I may have been a little harsh on SD in the other thread, but MN gets my vote for walleye fishing as a whole. Many, many more diverse fisheries, many more scenic if you want to go that route, and just TONS of places to go whether you want, size, numbers, solitude, whatever. SD may be close on numbers in specific bodies of water, but overall MN is hard to beat.

[hawgchaser]

Having spent the first 40+ years of my life in South Dakota obsessively hunting and fishing, I'll add my perspective. During my growing up years south of Watertown (not during dry cycles...during periods of "normal" precipitation) I can tell you good fishing lakes for walleye were few and far between; Poinsett and Kampeska being the two most notable exceptions. Most of the plethora of "current" fishing lakes in that area, including Bitter, were larely bullhead, small northern or dink panfish factories or even sloughs due to their shallow nature and winter kill potential. I've walked across Bitter Lake hunting pheasants.

My adult years were mainly in the Brookings to Sioux Falls area. I've also walked across Lake Thompson and Lake Preston in search of pheasants and had great pheasant/duck shoots on the 81 sloughs. Most of the great fishing lakes in eastern SD are under 20' maximum depth...15' during "normal" times. I think a single year of drought will probably cause half of the prime fishing lakes to winterkill disastrously. Such was the worry in northeast SD after the dry summer 3 years ago. Heavy fall rains staved off what I see as the inevitable when the 20 yr. upper midwest "wet cycle" comes to an end.

As I tell my Minnesota born bride on our yearly trips around my old stomping grounds, There are going to be a lot of people who are going to be pretty embarrassed by their lake shore property in 20 years. The Missouri reservoirs are another story and are a phenomenal fishery. Even the lean years of the 90's (when they flushed the smelt downstream) were still pretty darn good in my opinion.

As for me, I don't want to move back and become one of hundreds of people trying to fish a half dozen area lakes. Been there...done that. Now waterfowl and pheasant hunting is a TOTALLY different scenario. Minnesota just sucks way behind on both counts.

[harvey lee]

Here in Minnesota, I have enjoyed the best fishing of my 45 years of fishing in the last 2-3 years.

I fell no need to leave Mn to catch any specie of fish.

[thatoneguy]

Quote:

Don't know anywhere else you can go where through out a good chunk of the year you can have shots at 50 to 100 fish days (and not just all dinks).

I only fish for walleye maybe a dozen times a year (yes I'm one of those weirdos who likes to chase bass), and I've had 50+ fish days on a half-dozen different MN lakes - and definitely not dinks. If a walleye numbskull like me can do it, I imagine people who know what they're doing do a lot better yet.

[gloomiseye]

Just look at it is the way...they are both a hell of a lot better than Iowa lol! Although I would rather go to Ontario than both.

[jwmiller33]

Just look at it is the way...they are both a heck of a lot better than Iowa lol! Although I would rather go to Ontario than both.

Best post of this entire thread right there

[LOTWSvirgin]

Iowa is the only nonresident license I will buy I probably fish there more then Minnesota

[itchmesir]

Here in Minnesota, I have enjoyed the best fishing of my 45 years of fishing in the last 2-3 years.

I fell no need to leave Mn to catch any specie of fish.

Someone will tell me "man i wanna go to Canada sometime to catch walleye/pike" and my same response every time is "Why waste $2000 on fish you can catch in this state?"... it boggles my mind every time.. guess some people prefer to buy their fond memories instead of making them themselves...

[LMITOUT]

Someone will tell me "man i wanna go to Canada sometime to catch walleye/pike" and my same response every time is "Why waste $2000 on fish you can catch in this state?"...

ROFL.

[SJUICE]

I can see that my 50-100 fish comment got some blood boiling. I am completley aware of the fact that there is great fishing in Minnesota, I love it. I have had phenominal days fishing all over the state. Rainy Lake is outstanding in the fall, but try those northern lakes in July and they can frustrate the heck out of you. When I was referring to dinks I mean walleyes 10in maybe up to 14 inches. Those 50 to 100 fish on the Missouri have been days where 80% of the fish where 18-22 iches, and fat. Those river fish are the most agressive fish I have ever seen. Trolling bottom bouncers with spinner rigs or slow death rigs, is the most fun you can have walleye fishing in my opinion. Now the river is changing somewhat and the size variation is very diverse now, but it is still awsome. On another note just saw that one of my buddies was fishing in South Dakota, and they got 4 walleyes around 26-28 inches and he said about 100 other eyes smaller than that, and this was not on the River, now that will make a man jealous! Another thing to remember is that the Missouri is around the same distance, as some of the larger lakes in far northern Minnesota.