How we score Minnesota lakes

The score answers one question: for this species, is this a good lake to fish? It is built only from Minnesota DNR lake survey data (opens in a new tab) — the same netting and electrofishing surveys the state uses to manage its fisheries — not opinions, reviews, or guesses.

Each species is scored on two separate things: how many fish the lake holds, and how big they get. We keep them apart on purpose, because a lake can be full of small fish, or hold a few giants — and anglers care about the difference.

Abundance: compared to lakes like this one

Raw catch rates do not mean much on their own — a “good” walleye count on a shallow prairie lake is different from a deep, cold one. So instead of grading against a single statewide average, we compare each lake to the DNR’s own normal range for similar lakes (its lake class).

A lake whose catch rate sits inside that normal range scores in the middle. Below the range scores lower; clearly above it scores higher. That way the number means “more fish than a typical lake of this type,” not just “more fish than some statewide line that lumps unlike lakes together.”

The right gear for the fish

A catch rate is only comparable when it comes from the gear that actually targets that species. The DNR uses gill nets for walleye, pike, and perch; trap nets for sunfish and crappie; and electrofishing for bass. We read each species’ abundance from its proper gear, so a bass count from a walleye net never muddies the score. When the DNR publishes no normal range for a species’ gear (bass, for example), we fall back to the statewide median for that gear instead.

Size: the share of fish worth keeping

For size, we use the length measurements from the survey and ask: what share of catchable fish reach a size anglers actually want? The target is tuned per species to real Minnesota expectations — an eater walleye at 15″, a bull bluegill at 8″, a slab crappie at 10″. A lake where most fish clear that bar scores high on size; one full of stunted small fish does not.

Blending the two — per species

The two scores are combined differently depending on what matters for each fish. Walleye lean toward numbers (most anglers want a bucket of eaters). Northern pike and muskie lean heavily toward size — a lake full of small “hammerhandle” pike should not score well just because there are a lot of them, and a muskie lake is never penalized for a naturally low catch rate. Panfish land in between.

Recency is shown separately

Survey age never lowers the score. An old survey does not mean the fishing got worse — it means we are less certain it still reflects the lake. So recency is shown alongside the score as the survey date, and surveys older than seven years carry a “treat with caution” flag. Fishing quality and survey freshness are two different things, and we keep them that way.

What the score is not

It is not a guarantee of a good day on the water — weather, season, and skill still decide that. It is a fast, honest read on what the most recent state survey found, in plain numbers, with the gaps shown rather than hidden. Where a lake has too little data to score a species, we say so instead of inventing a number.

Ready to use it? Browse lakes by county →