Perault Lake: Why the perception/reality?

[jsmyers]

I've only ever fished Perrault Lake from shore for a short while, but I feel like I learned to fish on Wabaskang.

I'm curious why Perrault Lake has a reputation of being a challenging lake to fish or a poor fishery.

For instance:
http://www.walleyecentral.com/forums...d.php?t=148144
http://www.walleyecentral.com/forums...d.php?t=167937

My late grandfather (who took us to Wabaskang) always judged the quality of fishing in a lake from the quantity of boats you saw from the road. (I think he was mostly joking, but either way, "Ain't no fish in that lake...you never see anybody fishing it," is a running family joke now.) I want to say I remember that being said about Perrault once or twice on our way to Gawley's.

Perrault should be a great fishery. On paper it seems like it should be better than Wabaskang (more deep water to support a cisco forage base, perhaps also because of the lack of First Nation's fishing on Perrault).

But you read a lot of disparaging comments about Perrault. Even when I read about happy customers, it still seems that they aren't catching what their peers are in Cedar (up stream) or Wabaskang (down stream). In addition, a lot of reports I read are about people heading upstream to Cedar or Ord to catch fish. I realize that the pull of an adventure is strong (search wine AND wabaskang on this forum). Perhaps also there is a need to get out of the wind as well.

I'm thinking that Perrault is actually a great fishery, but that it is more challenging to fish. Perhaps the fish move more. Perhaps a higher percentage of the fish are suspended over the basin than in other nearby lakes. Maybe most anglers are not comfortable fishing so far from an island or shore.

Then again, perhaps there is something about the lake's history that I'm not aware of. Was there intensive commercial fishing there in past decades? Did lodge operators in the early years encourage over-harvest of breeding stock? It is hard to believe that anything would be different between Perrault and Wabaskang in those respects.

It seems that perhaps it is a great opportunity for a challenge-minding angler to unlock the lakes secrets. Perhaps a few of you already have but don't let on.

I'm not trying to slander anybody's lake or their lodge, but I thought it might make an interesting and educational discussion.

Here are the links to the MNR reports/maps from a survey done in 1968:

http://www.anglersatlas.com/lakes/25293/
http://www.anglersatlas.com/lakes/25415/
http://www.anglersatlas.com/lakes/25060/

Cedar is deeper and clearer than (slightly) Wabaskang and (very much) Cedar. Trout do not show up in the Perrault survey, even though they do on Wabaskang. I find this hard to believe. Perhaps the difference is that Perrault was surveyed a week later into the summer? (Same with Burbot.)

Do people catch lakers on Perrault?

Interestingly, Musky are listed on Wabaskang but not Perrault. While there are still musky in Wabaskang (http://www.sleepydogcabins.com/tag/muskie/) few would want to target them. However, I believe that many Perrault camps market themselves as being on a musky lake.

Any thoughts?

[DMella]

Good questions
We have never fished Perrault but are headed there with the family in early August. I plan to explore and use my electronics to locate suspended fish over deep water out from humps and points. I also am interested to see if there is a night bite as in some other deep clear bodies of water I have fished over the years. We are bringing our canoe too to do some night sneaking. We shall see...

[Glenman12]

Originally Posted by jsmyers

I've only ever fished Perrault Lake from shore for a short while, but I feel like I learned to fish on Wabaskang.

I'm curious why Perrault Lake has a reputation of being a challenging lake to fish or a poor fishery.

For instance:
http://www.walleyecentral.com/forums...d.php?t=148144
http://www.walleyecentral.com/forums...d.php?t=167937

My late grandfather (who took us to Wabaskang) always judged the quality of fishing in a lake from the quantity of boats you saw from the road. (I think he was mostly joking, but either way, "Ain't no fish in that lake...you never see anybody fishing it," is a running family joke now.) I want to say I remember that being said about Perrault once or twice on our way to Gawley's.

Perrault should be a great fishery. On paper it seems like it should be better than Wabaskang (more deep water to support a cisco forage base, perhaps also because of the lack of First Nation's fishing on Perrault).

But you read a lot of disparaging comments about Perrault. Even when I read about happy customers, it still seems that they aren't catching what their peers are in Cedar (up stream) or Wabaskang (down stream). In addition, a lot of reports I read are about people heading upstream to Cedar or Ord to catch fish. I realize that the pull of an adventure is strong (search wine AND wabaskang on this forum). Perhaps also there is a need to get out of the wind as well.

I'm thinking that Perrault is actually a great fishery, but that it is more challenging to fish. Perhaps the fish move more. Perhaps a higher percentage of the fish are suspended over the basin than in other nearby lakes. Maybe most anglers are not comfortable fishing so far from an island or shore.

Then again, perhaps there is something about the lake's history that I'm not aware of. Was there intensive commercial fishing there in past decades? Did lodge operators in the early years encourage over-harvest of breeding stock? It is hard to believe that anything would be different between Perrault and Wabaskang in those respects.

It seems that perhaps it is a great opportunity for a challenge-minding angler to unlock the lakes secrets. Perhaps a few of you already have but don't let on.

I'm not trying to slander anybody's lake or their lodge, but I thought it might make an interesting and educational discussion.

Here are the links to the MNR reports/maps from a survey done in 1968:

http://www.anglersatlas.com/lakes/25293/
http://www.anglersatlas.com/lakes/25415/
http://www.anglersatlas.com/lakes/25060/

Cedar is deeper and clearer than (slightly) Wabaskang and (very much) Cedar. Trout do not show up in the Perrault survey, even though they do on Wabaskang. I find this hard to believe. Perhaps the difference is that Perrault was surveyed a week later into the summer? (Same with Burbot.)

Do people catch lakers on Perrault?

Interestingly, Musky are listed on Wabaskang but not Perrault. While there are still musky in Wabaskang (http://www.sleepydogcabins.com/tag/muskie/) few would want to target them. However, I believe that many Perrault camps market themselves as being on a musky lake.

Any thoughts?

you ask some good questions that IMO only a marine biologist familiar with all 3 lakes can answer..Ive been to this area 31 yrs and this was my 30th trip to Cedar..one year about 20 yrs ago we went to Wabaskang just for a change of pace..and one half day this year we went up to Perrault..

I was shocked to read that Perrault is deeper than Wabaskang..why it doesnt hold lake trout but Wabaskang does, I dont know..again, a marine biologist might be able the answer that..

I do know that the narrows connecting Cedar to Perrault holds some big Muskies I dont see why they wouldnt be in Perrault too..

My memories of our trip to Wabaskang are sketchy but I do know that if we killed the fish there we would still be fishing there..my best memory is of the portage down to Wine Lake where we did kill the fish

As for our half day on Perrault this year..we intended on fishing Jackfish Bay..didnt have much luck there.. so we worked our way back to the narrows by fishing all the bays on the south shore and caught lots of walleyes, all in the 18-22" range..we plan on doing that one day again next year..

Heres my take as a fisherman and a consumer..when I see a map of Perrault compared to Cedar theres somewhat of an intimidation factor with the expanse of the lake from the north shore south til you start hitting some islands..it looks to me to be a lake that if there are strong winds, especially from the north, then you might not be going out or may be at risk it you do..to be honest, the day we went up to Perrualt this year it was close to those conditions but we hung in there

IM sure this will be an interesting thread..

[jsmyers]

Originally Posted by Glenman12

I was shocked to read that Perrault is deeper than Wabaskang..why it doesnt hold lake trout but Wabaskang does, I dont know..again, a marine biologist might be able the answer.

I thought about it some more and processed the info from the 1968 surveys more...

First of all, can anybody say for sure that there no trout in Perrault?

Remember that Wabaskang is not a good trout lake. My understanding is that you only find them in the basins around Jim and Julie's Wabaskang Camp in the summer. (Especially Aerobus Bay) In the spring, they are occasionally found in the north parts of the lake, and they stack up around the falls up there.

Aerobus and McLeod Bays are more oligotrophic (less fertile) than the rest of Wabaskang. I'm not a biologist, but I have learned a fair amount about limnology in the last few years. The most basic estimation of a lake's fertility is she ratio between its volume of water and the size of its watershed. In less fertile lakes, water sits in them for longer periods of time. Nutrients reach the water from runoff and are consumed over time. A lake that is a perfect deep bowl on top of a mountain, where all nearby runoff goes away from the lake would be very clear and infertile. A shallow lake intake middle of a huge wetland that collects all of the rainwater from the wetland and then quickly passes it downstream (or into groundwater) would be be very fertile (and probably not clear).

But fertility is good, right? It is if you want to have a lot of biomass. But all of that biomass eventually dies and when it sinks to the bottom it decomposes. When it decomposes, it consumes oxygen. In deep water, when lakes stratify, the oxygen gets consumed, but there is no photosynthesis or any other way to get oxygen back into the water. So oxygen is consumed from the bottom up. At the same time, the lake is heating up from the top down. Cold water fish like whitefish, ciscos, lake trout, and burbot end up in a sticky situation: swim up to cook and breath or swim down and suffocate.

If you look at the MNR topo map of the area, those bays in Wabaskang are in a smaller watershed. They are also the deepest parts of the lake. That implies that water sits in them for a longer period of time without more nutrients coming in. More oxygen can exist later into the summer in cooler water there. I also believe that the constant influx of water from Aerobus Creek is highly oxygenated because of the rapids on the creek, further helping the oxygen situation in Aerobus Bay.

The temperature and oxygen profiles of the two lakes are similar in the 1968 surveys. But we don't know what part of Wabaskang was surveyed. It is possible that more oxygen exist in deeper, cooler water in some of the other basins, like Aerobus Bay, while the survey was done in that deep areas of the Big Lake (3rd Lake).

While Wabaskang is a very fertile lake on a whole, it does have a good sanctuary place for cold water fish such as trout. In addition, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that trout are able to come down from Aerobus and up from Wine/Anishinabi. These are all good or great lake trout waters. Many people don't realize how small the falls out of Wabaskang is. Fish can easily make it up or down if they want to. Last spring we watched large suckers do it without difficulty. If over the years, lakers (or other cold water fish) get killed off in Wabaskang, they could be pretty easily be naturally reintroduced from up or downstream. I'm not sure how the same thing could happen in Perrault. None of the nearby lakes are trout lakes. Cliff Lake is, but it is further removed. (I don't know anything about the falls between Cliff and Cedar.)

So while Perrault would seem to be better for trout (because it is deeper) it may not have good places for trout to survive in the summer. The surprising thing to me is that there are whitefish and ciscos. Perhaps they are less sensitive to low oxygen and/or heat?

At the same time, Perrault may be slightly less fertile on a whole that Wabaskang because it is deeper on average with a similarly sized watershed.

I still suspect that walleye, pike, and musky in Perrault are out in the big water, just waiting for skilled trollers to find them.

[bigdaddyguns]

Originally Posted by jsmyers

First of all, can anybody say for sure that there no trout in Perrault?

According to this report/picture there was at least 1 lake trout there last summer.
http://www.rainbowpoint.blogspot.com...er-report.html

[jsmyers]

Originally Posted by bigdaddyguns

According to this report/picture there was at least 1 lake trout there last summer.
http://www.rainbowpoint.blogspot.com...er-report.html

Interesting....Sounds like they are really rare in Perrault.

If you read reports from Wabaskang in the spring and fall, trout show up pretty frequently. Sometimes by people who go looking for them, but also as incidental catches.

I wonder how often people target whitefish in Perrault. Seems like catching an incidental trout while targeting whitefish would be common if the trout were.

More central to the discussion: How many Perrault regulars do a lot of fishing in open water, whether for fish that are on deep structure or suspended?

According to the rough MNR map, there are a few humps that top out above 40' in the middle. I'd imagine that there is a lot of structure that doesn't show up on the map.

[jsmyers]

I'm surprised that more people haven't commented on this so far.

I was afraid of getting starting a flame war with Perrault Lake fans.

Maybe they'd prefer less discussion about the Lake?

[go dart]

I've fished Perrault 6 times. Not an expert but not a rookie either. I really love that lake. The walleye fishing has gotten progressively better each year and the last couple years its been very good. Usually go in early June so you have to determine if they've left the river for the most part and how far up the lake they have dispersed. Fishing the wind where it blows against islands reallly makes walleye fishing easy. We can always catch good numbers of smaller pike but really good fish are few and most sucessful Pike hunters use suckers. Fishing the Patio at Rocky Shore Lodge with suckers produces really big Pike on a regular basis so I know they're in there but dammed if I find them in the lake. Smallmouth fishing is good, especially the rock piles down by Ord. There is Muskie fishing on the southern end but the closer you get to Cedar the better it gets. Perch fishing is excellent towards the back of the coves. I do spend 1/3 of my time on Cedar, partly because the boat ride is awesome. Interesting is catch a dock hand in the evening and offer him beer and $30.00 to put you on walleyes and you'll be catching fish in 25 minutes.

[Sidge61]

" Interesting is catch a dock hand in the evening and offer him beer and $30.00 to put you on walleyes and you'll be catching fish in 25 minutes."

I would think that if you are staying at a resort that they would be more happy to to put you on fish without having to give a dock hand a beer and $30. They want repeat business and I would think they want all guests on fish. At the end of your stay if they put you on fish and did their job a tip would be in order. Just my 2 cents.

[jsmyers]

It sounds like Perrault and Cedar are really one "lake" in some ways.

Fish migrate between them depending on the time of year, etc.

Definitely makes sense that Walleyes are going upstream to find current to spawn.

If you think about it, the distance from Perrault Falls to the southern portions of Cedar is about the same as the distance from Williams Falls to the south parts of Keynote in Wabaskang.

I wonder how many Cedar-based anglers head down into Perrault during the dog days of summer and into fall?