The ice fishing VT boards are sponsored by:

Author Topic: Waterbury  (Read 7043 times)

Offline MadflyfishingVT

  • IceShanty Rookie
  • **
  • Posts: 88
Re: Waterbury
« Reply #30 on: Jan 29, 2016, 09:13 AM »
I haven't caught any browns in there, but it's worth a shot, especially in the fall.

Definitely! By the way love your channel ;D!

Offline thefishingweatherman

  • Team IceShanty Addict
  • *
  • Posts: 569
Re: Waterbury
« Reply #31 on: Jan 29, 2016, 09:45 AM »
Definitely! By the way love your channel ;D!

Thanks!  ;D

Offline peteinvermont

  • Team IceShanty Regular
  • ***
  • Posts: 325
Re: Waterbury
« Reply #32 on: Jan 29, 2016, 09:51 AM »
Definitely! By the way love your channel ;D!

Did I miss a link?  Post it up, my boys and I love to watch local youtube hunting/fishing channels.

Offline thefishingweatherman

  • Team IceShanty Addict
  • *
  • Posts: 569
Re: Waterbury
« Reply #33 on: Jan 29, 2016, 09:55 AM »
Did I miss a link?  Post it up, my boys and I love to watch local youtube hunting/fishing channels.

He was referencing my youtube channel. Check it out: https://www.youtube.com/user/tomatoplot

Offline peteinvermont

  • Team IceShanty Regular
  • ***
  • Posts: 325
Re: Waterbury
« Reply #34 on: Jan 29, 2016, 11:19 AM »
He was referencing my youtube channel. Check it out: https://www.youtube.com/user/tomatoplot

Ok, I know your channel.  We've checked out your videos many times.  Nice work. 

Offline Honest_John

  • Team IceShanty Regular
  • ***
  • Posts: 142
Re: Waterbury
« Reply #35 on: Jan 29, 2016, 11:26 AM »
X2 nice videos! Your pal Erik works upstairs from where I live... I think I met you briefly down by the canoe access. You were taking pictures of that beautiful laker you got on the river. Hope to see you guys out on the ice some day!

Offline thefishingweatherman

  • Team IceShanty Addict
  • *
  • Posts: 569
Re: Waterbury
« Reply #36 on: Jan 29, 2016, 12:09 PM »
X2 nice videos! Your pal Erik works upstairs from where I live... I think I met you briefly down by the canoe access. You were taking pictures of that beautiful laker you got on the river. Hope to see you guys out on the ice some day!

Oh nice! Yeah I remember seeing you out there that day! Kind of a fluke thing with that laker! Haven't caught one in there since. Still the biggest one I have caugh to date as well! I'll see you out there on the ice someday hopefully!

Offline Troutmagnet

  • Team IceShanty Addict
  • *
  • Posts: 796
Re: Waterbury
« Reply #37 on: Jan 29, 2016, 08:53 PM »
X3 Just watched several of your videos. Very nicely done. Question, were you using wax worms on your jigs for the white perch???

Offline keithm87

  • Team IceShanty Addict
  • *
  • Posts: 720
Re: Waterbury
« Reply #38 on: Jan 29, 2016, 10:43 PM »
It's unfortunate that the state is so authoritarian in its FW stocking programs. They should allow to regulated publicly funded stocking programs to bring species back in lakes that once had them, or would be well suited to have them. There are tons of none natural ponds and lakes in Vermont that don't have true native fish, and could be helped with sport fish being stocked. just in central VT where we have no walleye waters, I think that Marshfield, Waterbury, berlin, and elmore would be helped by walleye populations both for bringing in anglers, and in the case of marshfield and elmore, in controlling perch overpopulation. Other states allow citizens to fund stocking projects as long as they receive a permit and purchase from an acceptable source.

Offline vermont mike

  • Team IceShanty Regular
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
Re: Waterbury
« Reply #39 on: Jan 29, 2016, 10:54 PM »
Try getting lake Champlain walleye association to shed some light on what it would take.

Offline TRT

  • Team IceShanty Maniac
  • **
  • Posts: 1,283
  • Trout/Salmon
Re: Waterbury
« Reply #40 on: Jan 30, 2016, 01:27 PM »
Keith agree Waterbury (which had walleyes) and Marshfield would be neat if walleyes were stocked but Berlin? That pond had not been touched for 60+ years till recently why mess it up? 

Offline spot

  • Team IceShanty Addict
  • *
  • Posts: 756
Re: Waterbury
« Reply #41 on: Jan 30, 2016, 05:59 PM »
Can't see Marshfield Pond or Berlin Pond being particularly good walleye water. I haven't fished Joe's Pond enough to know whether that'd be a good one. Lake Groton/Groton Pond is large enough, but might be too shallow.

Waterbury used to have them, maybe there's even some still there, but there can't be many if there are.
May the fish be with you.

Randy

Offline keithm87

  • Team IceShanty Addict
  • *
  • Posts: 720
Re: Waterbury
« Reply #42 on: Jan 30, 2016, 11:10 PM »
Any of the man made lakes should be stocked with sport fish. I can understand an argument against stocking natural lakes with non-native species, but there is no reason why we shouldnt stock the man made ones with sport fish. Walleyes are native to vermont, they are also one of the more fun fish to target so why not toss them in a bunch of man made lakes. I just came up with some ideas. I think that Marshfield would be a great candidate, but why stop with one or two places? I am ok with tossing them in all the man made water body's and seeing what happens. It would be nice to have a few more walleye fisheries in the state to take the pressure off Carmi, IP, Chit, and Salem.

Offline MadflyfishingVT

  • IceShanty Rookie
  • **
  • Posts: 88
Re: Waterbury
« Reply #43 on: Jan 31, 2016, 07:34 AM »
I would love to see walleyes in main made lakes, also. I think Waterbury would be the place to start as it has the smelt, and walleyes were once present. Now, we can talk about this all day, but until we as the people speak up nothing will happen.

Offline MadflyfishingVT

  • IceShanty Rookie
  • **
  • Posts: 88
Re: Waterbury
« Reply #44 on: Jan 31, 2016, 10:08 AM »
Something that I don't understand is how the walleye is our state warm water fish, yet you can only find them in a handfull of locations.

Offline spot

  • Team IceShanty Addict
  • *
  • Posts: 756
Re: Waterbury
« Reply #45 on: Feb 01, 2016, 12:03 AM »
I've always thought that Sabin Pond would make a good walleye habitat
May the fish be with you.

Randy

Offline troutcrazy

  • Team IceShanty Addict
  • *
  • Posts: 528
Re: Waterbury
« Reply #46 on: Feb 01, 2016, 09:05 PM »
I think there's a justifiable reluctance to stock warm water predators in waters that are managed for trout.  In most cases they will out-compete the trout.

I know that bass can eat trout, but trout can't eat bass very well because of the spines.  It's probably similar for walleye.  I imagine that walleye can inhabit deeper water than bass, and so would overlap with the trout habitat more.  I could be wrong about the specifics, but the general idea is sound.

I also recognize the fact that there are already bass in there, and that it is an artificial environment.  Still I respect the fact that there are limited numbers of trout ponds remaining in VT.

Offline MadflyfishingVT

  • IceShanty Rookie
  • **
  • Posts: 88
Re: Waterbury
« Reply #47 on: Feb 02, 2016, 06:33 AM »
I think walleye and trout could work, but maybe your right. I do know one thing and that is Vermont has way to manny bass. I honestly would rather catch trout all day then bass. It's horrible all of vermonts old little brook trout ponds now, have bass! Bass aren't even native to Vermont! Cool fact large mouths aren't native to any part of the state, and small mouth are only native to lake Champlain! So why the hell didn't the state do anything when people started stocking them ever were!

Offline Afv

  • IceShanty Rookie
  • **
  • Posts: 19
Re: Waterbury
« Reply #48 on: Feb 02, 2016, 11:05 AM »
I call bass bank fish you take them off the hook and  throw them up on the bank. They are everywhere.

Offline Light liner

  • Team IceShanty Maniac
  • **
  • Posts: 1,857
  • Rather be judged by 12 then carried by 6.
Re: Waterbury
« Reply #49 on: Feb 02, 2016, 11:21 AM »
I call bass bank fish you take them off the hook and  throw them up on the bank. They are everywhere.

Wow, I hope your joking?
Champlain
Memphremagog

Offline spot

  • Team IceShanty Addict
  • *
  • Posts: 756
Re: Waterbury
« Reply #50 on: Feb 02, 2016, 12:28 PM »
I like bass, but agree that there are too many little ponds out in the mountains where they've been put and don't belong. The state ought to remove length rules and creel limits for a few of those and task anglers with putting pressure on the population so trout could come back or be reintroduced.

Pickerel are another fish I like, but am annoyed that they seem to have been put into every pond... everywhere.
May the fish be with you.

Randy

Offline keithm87

  • Team IceShanty Addict
  • *
  • Posts: 720
Re: Waterbury
« Reply #51 on: Feb 02, 2016, 01:47 PM »
Yeah I hear the trout argument, but we have plenty of trout lakes compared to walleye lakes, and trout cost way more money to continue to unsustainable stock them in places they don't survive the winter. Within 25 miles of my house in East Montpelier I can fish trout at at least 10 lakes, and there is not a single walleye lake in that same area.

Offline troutcrazy

  • Team IceShanty Addict
  • *
  • Posts: 528
Re: Waterbury
« Reply #52 on: Feb 02, 2016, 02:28 PM »
I think walleye and trout could work, but maybe your right. I do know one thing and that is Vermont has way to manny bass. I honestly would rather catch trout all day then bass. It's horrible all of vermonts old little brook trout ponds now, have bass! Bass aren't even native to Vermont! Cool fact large mouths aren't native to any part of the state, and small mouth are only native to lake Champlain! So why the hell didn't the state do anything when people started stocking them ever were!
Yeah man it's pretty sad.  A few years ago I hiked to a remote pond that I knew to hold brookies.  Someone had put bass in there-- and that was recently.  No more brookies, as far as I could tell.

Offline MadflyfishingVT

  • IceShanty Rookie
  • **
  • Posts: 88
Re: Waterbury
« Reply #53 on: Feb 02, 2016, 02:48 PM »
I understand that Fish & Wildlife has used electro fishing or chemicals to remove invasive species and stock new native fish. Is that true? If so why don't they do it to more.

Offline TroutWhisperer

  • Team IceShanty Regular
  • ***
  • Posts: 405
Re: Waterbury
« Reply #54 on: Feb 02, 2016, 02:57 PM »
It's unfortunate that the state is so authoritarian in its FW stocking programs. They should allow to regulated publicly funded stocking programs to bring species back in lakes that once had them, or would be well suited to have them. There are tons of none natural ponds and lakes in Vermont that don't have true native fish, and could be helped with sport fish being stocked. just in central VT where we have no walleye waters, I think that Marshfield, Waterbury, berlin, and elmore would be helped by walleye populations both for bringing in anglers, and in the case of marshfield and elmore, in controlling perch overpopulation. Other states allow citizens to fund stocking projects as long as they receive a permit and purchase from an acceptable source.

Berlin Pond was stocked with walleye back in the the early 1900's......as well as brook trout and Smelt.  Not all at the same time, but all around 1909 and a few years after that.  I don't know the history of what happened to the walleye  or smelt, but apparently they never took hold. 
2GUYZ FISHING

Offline thefishingweatherman

  • Team IceShanty Addict
  • *
  • Posts: 569
Re: Waterbury
« Reply #55 on: Feb 02, 2016, 03:51 PM »
Berlin Pond was stocked with walleye back in the the early 1900's......as well as brook trout and Smelt.  Not all at the same time, but all around 1909 and a few years after that.  I don't know the history of what happened to the walleye  or smelt, but apparently they never took hold.

Yes, they can "reclaim" small bodies of water by dumping chemicals that kill fish. The state has done this to some smaller brook trout waters. A biologist once told me they don't do this very much because it is expensive, and sometimes because of local opposition. The chemicals also drift downstream and further affect those waters.

Offline troutcrazy

  • Team IceShanty Addict
  • *
  • Posts: 528
Re: Waterbury
« Reply #56 on: Feb 02, 2016, 03:56 PM »
I understand that Fish & Wildlife has used electro fishing or chemicals to remove invasive species and stock new native fish. Is that true? If so why don't they do it to more.

I believe it's been a long time-- maybe it was in the 1960's-- but I could be wrong.  As I understand it, it's problematical.  Rotenone is the chemical that was generally used for reclaiming trout waters, and it's toxic to humans as well.  There aren't many ponds in VT that don't have people living on the pond or on the outflow of the pond.  Rotenone breaks down pretty quickly, but it's not used when people might be exposed-- as is the case on most water bodies in VT


Offline fishingidjit

  • Team IceShanty Maniac
  • **
  • Posts: 2,536
Re: Waterbury
« Reply #57 on: Feb 02, 2016, 04:49 PM »
Wow, I hope your joking?

 Ditto !!!!

Offline spot

  • Team IceShanty Addict
  • *
  • Posts: 756
Re: Waterbury
« Reply #58 on: Feb 02, 2016, 06:25 PM »
Reclaimation is kind of a nuclear option. Once done, a pond will be years or even decades in recovery, and it might never be what it was before the process.

May the fish be with you.

Randy

Offline Troutmagnet

  • Team IceShanty Addict
  • *
  • Posts: 796
Re: Waterbury
« Reply #59 on: Feb 02, 2016, 06:25 PM »
Yeah I hear the trout argument, but we have plenty of trout lakes compared to walleye lakes, and trout cost way more money to continue to unsustainable stock them in places they don't survive the winter. Within 25 miles of my house in East Montpelier I can fish trout at at least 10 lakes, and there is not a single walleye lake in that same area.
I agree. It sure would be nice to have a couple walleye lakes within 25 miles of Barre/Montpelier.

 



Iceshanty | MyFishFinder | MyHuntingForum
Contact | Disclaimer | Privacypolicy | Sponsor
© 1996- Iceshanty.com
All Rights Reserved.