Spider Lake

How big is Spider Lake?

How deep is Spider Lake?

What kind of fish can you catch in Spider Lake?

Are there topographical lake maps available Spider Lake?

We have an topograpical map for online viewing near the top of this page. Lake-Link Pro users can download an print a topograpical map of Spider Lake (.pdf format) along with 2,700 more lake maps. For more information on all the benefits of Lake-Link Pro click here.

Spider Lake

Are there boat launches on Spider Lake?

Are there places to eat and drink near Spider Lake?

What are the fishing regulations for Spider Lake?

There are specific fishing regulations Spider Lake that you need to know. For complete fishing regulations visit the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. To report a violation call (800) 652-9093. Need a Minnesota fishing license?

What aquatic invasive species are found in Spider Lake?

Spider Lake is a class 25 lake located about eight miles southeast of Marcell, Minnesota. The lake is located in the Chippewa National Forest and has limited shoreline development. The 2006 lake management plan indicates walleye, northern pike and muskellunge as the primary species of management with black crappie, largemouth bass and smallmouth bass as secondary species. In 2006, a 24 to 36 inch protected slot length limit with only one fish over 36 inches in possession was implemented for northern pike. The 2010 assessment also included additional sampling of near shore fish species in order to calculate an Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) score.

Although black crappie are often targeted by anglers on Spider Lake, our standardized summer assessments in early August have not sampled them well in most years. The trap net catch rates have been below 1.0 fish/net in four of the seven assessments. In 2010, the catch was 0.9 fish/net but was within the normal range for the lake class. The sampled fish ranged from 3.5 to 11.2 inches and averaged 8.2 inches. Age and growth information was not collected in this assessment.

Bluegill catch rates have been fairly stable in all assessments; ranging from 18.2 fish/trap net in 1976 to 39.1 fish/trap net in 1982. In 2010, the trap net catch was 23.3 fish/net. The sampled fish ranged from 3.0 to 8.2 inches and averaged 5.1 inches. Size structure was similar for bluegill sampled by gill nets. Age and growth information was not collected in this assessment.

Largemouth bass have been sampled with spring night electrofishing three times. The catch rates were 12.2/hr in 1994, 104.2/hr in 2005, and 49.1/hr in 2010. In 2010, the sampled fish ranged from 5.5 to 16.2 inches and averaged 11.4 inches. Most of the fish were from 11 to 14 inches. Fish from age 2 to 9 were identified with age 4 & 5 representing 59% of the sample. Growth was somewhat slow compared to statewide averages.

Muskellunge are rarely sampled in our standardized summer assessments. Special spring assessments targeting muskellunge around the time they spawn is used to evaluate their population. The last muskellunge assessment was in the spring of 2007.

Northern pike gill net catch rates have ranged from a low of 0 in 1949 to a high of 9.2 fish/net in 2010. The 2006 management plan indicates the goal for northern pike is to maintain a gill net catch of 4.0 fish/net while increasing the proportion of fish over 28 inches to 25% and over 34 inches to 10%. The sampled fish ranged from 15.5 to 36.6 inches and averaged 22.8 inches. The proportion of fish over 28 inches was 21% while 3% of the fish were over 34 inches. Although size structure appears to be improving, recruitment has remained high. Interestingly, regardless of length or age, all the northern pike sampled in the gill nets were sexually mature. In addition to abundant spawning habitat and good conditions, early sexual maturity is probably responsible for the high recruitment. Eleven year-classes from age 1 to 14 were identified from scales and cliethra, with age 2 to 4 the most common. However, there were a fair number of fish age 6 and older likely in response to the protection the slot length limit is providing. Growth was similar to the statewide averages.

Smallmouth bass have been sampled in Spider Lake since 1976. The catch has been above average in each assessment except 1976. The 2010 catch was 1.5 fish/gill net. The electrofishing catch rate of 15.6/hr in 2010 was similar to the catch in 2005 ( 17.0/hr). These fish ranged from 5.0 to 16.2 inches and averaged 11.3 inches. Seven year-classes were identified from scales and opercles with fish from age 2 to 8 present. Growth was slow compared to the statewide averages.

The 2006 management plan indicates the goal for walleye is to maintain a gill net catch of 3.5 fish/net. The walleye gill-net catch rate was 1.7 fish/net in 2010; the lowest since 1976. It is likely the increase in bass and northern pike in the last couple assessments is at least partially responsible for the poor walleye numbers. The sampled fish ranged from 12.4 to 26.6 inches and averaged 17.7 inches.

Walleye fry have been stocked roughly every three years since 1992. Although natural reproduction has been documented in previous assessments, the walleye aged in the 2010 assessment strongly corresponded to stocked years. Six year-classes were identified by scale, opercle and otolith analysis with fish from age 2 to 14 present. Walleye growth was good with three year old fish averaging 14.0 inches.

The yellow perch population has fluctuated considerably over the years yet has never been below the lake class average. In the previous three assessments, gill net catch rates were 11.5 in 1999, 29.1 in 2005 and 10.6 in 2010. The 2010 gill net catch was lowest ever recorded for the lake. Yellow perch lengths ranged from 5.6 to 8.7 inches and averaged 6.5 inches. Due to the yellow perch size structure, they are probably more important within the fish community as a competitor and prey source than as a species desired by anglers.

Other species observed in the assessment include brown bullhead, hybrid sunfish, pumpkinseed sunfish, rock bass, and white sucker. Additional species documented while conducting IBI sampling include banded killifish, bluntnose minnow, brook stickleback, central mudminnow, log perch, spottail shiner, and tadpole madtom.

In order to maintain or improve fish and wildlife populations, water quality and habitat must be protected. People often associate water quality problems with large-scale agricultural, forestry, urban development or industrial practices in the watershed. In reality, the impact of land use decisions on one lake lot may be relatively small, yet the cumulative impact of those decisions on many lake lots can result in a significant decline in water quality and habitat. For example, removing shoreline and aquatic vegetation, fertilizing lawns, mowing to the waters edge, installing beach sand blankets, failing septic systems and uncontrolled run-off, all contribute excess nutrients and sediment which degrade water quality and habitat. Understanding these cumulative impacts and taking steps to avoid or minimize them will help to insure our quality fisheries can be enjoyed by future generations.

What is the average air temp for Spider Lake?

Are there any state parks near Spider Lake?