Click here to order with free shipping.Team Iceshanty Patches! Most iceshanty boards are represented
Browns and Rainbows are not native to the Ct watershed either so how is it OK to continue stocking those fish but not walleye? I believe that trout and walleye can and have coexisted. The Waterbury Rez had both big Browns, Brookies and Rainbows as well as a healthy walleye population prior to the 1986 drain down for dam repairs. Just saying.
30 years ago our fisheries were much different. There used to be a healthy population of eyes in Shelburne until the die off, and ever since then they have never been able to re-establish the population. I don't care at all about stocked fish, I am making a point that there are already well-established populations of WILD, naturally reproducing trout. Why spend all of that time and money to stock eyes when they arent certain they will even reproduce and not impact the wild population of fish? This is a classic case of "us anglers know better than biologists that do this fer' a livin'" The safest thing they can do for the trout population in that area is to not stock walleye, nuff' said.
Best thing to do it get rid of the pike and bass!!
Good luck with that! They are more tenacious than a pack rabid of Honey Badgers! Maybe there's an opportunity here for a start-up that genetically engineers viruses that only work on certain species of fish... Let's start with the Asian Carp before it gets here...
Obviously there are several posters here that have NEVER fished Moore dam area and maybe don't know where it is . Talks about tribs and walleye escaping up those tribs is total nonsense. Walleyes exist in the Conn river down stream about ten miles(in the same area as your wild trout) ,they just need a helping hand over a few dams and they will be in the reservoir . I'm not advocating illegal bucket stocking but state sponsored stocking.
Matt and weatherman After three year study both Vt. and NH biologist determined that Moore Reservoir had ideal habitat and forage for walleye. The didn't feel that migrating walleye would adversely effect the tail race fishery. They had to go all the way to upper Macindoes reservoir to find some brown trout that they felt might be naturally spawning? Moore and Comerford have been stocked with trout for many decades. Those trout often pass through turbines to downriver waters. When I sponsored the tail race trout regulation I was told by the head biologist that it might be a bad move that would attract many more fishermen and reduce the average size of trout and require regular stocking to retaining fishable numbers. I had thought about the same regulation for the Comerford tail race but he convinced me not to do it? Now! Because of TU concerns for possible naturally spawning trout, Both states are thinking about discontinuing and stocking. I do find it interesting that you find it so easy to determine that your Moore trout were "wild fish"? I'm angry with those who brought Champlain pike to Moore but I feel that we are now dealing with an entirely different fishery that might require different management?Sorry we disagree on this issue.Dick
I'm with you, Dick. I've fished for, and caught, both walleye and naturally reproducing trout in the Connecticut River. I think Moore Reservoir would be a fantastic place to establish a walleye fishery. Frankly, I think that the anti-walleye sentiment is the expression of a pervasive pro-trout snobbery. I am sure that if fly fishing for walleye was to become a "thing", the perspective would change. Just look at what has happened with the status of carp and pike in the fly fishing world. We all know that naturally reproducing trout in Moore Reservoir are the progeny of stocked fish. The same for the salmonids in Champlain. Are these fish entitled to more status as "wild" fish if they naturally reproduce? No one reveres bass or perch (white or yellow) for their natural reproduction or elevates them on the fish hierarchy for being wild. For some reason, trout are different. They're considered special and more worthy of attention and admiration. Perhaps if A River Runs Through It had been filmed on Mille Lacs in Minnesota, things would be different. In any case, I personally think walleye are an interesting fish. They can be caught with a variety of techniques but are never (for me anyway) easy to catch. I've enjoyed trying some of the midwest techniques to catch walleye in the Connecticut River. I also enjoy fishing for trout and salmon with a variety of techniques. And my fly tying vise is right here at my computer desk. I think that Vermont has some very good trout fisheries and does an admirable job managing them, but I'd like to have more opportunity to catch some walleye. From what I understand, Moore Reservoir could sustain a good population of them. I say go for it.
Still boils down to, "I don't want to drive that far to catch walleye, so the state needs to start stocking them in more places" Walleye on flies? I fly fish for the thrill. Nothing says thrill like fishing for something that fights like a wet rag, right? Why dont we just cut to the chase and have the state fund a walleye farm that will hatch, raise and then fillet them on site (after they reach 20" which takes 8~ years) and sell the fillets to anglers? Because let's be honest, they're only good for the meat. I say add a walleye tax to our license fees and get the ball rolling! Get me some walleye meat by 2030!!!I've said all I need to say in this thread. The decision to not stock walleye speaks for itself.
Matt,Everyone has their own reasons for why they fish and what they fish for. Discounting someone's opinions because they are just 'lowly meat fisherman' (as I often am myself, love those walleye fillets) only reinforces the snobbish and arrogant attitude that is a common stereotype often associated with the hardcore fly fishermen. (I know many fly fisherman that absolutely don't fit that common stereotype) It is doubly reinforced when some of the other reasons for the opposition could equally be applied to some of the species and locations that you do find acceptable.I don't have enough knowledge or experience with this area to really have a relevant opinion. Just based on this thread I think the pro walleye contributions are making a better case than the anti walleye. for what that is worth.I do feel comfortable taking an opinion that 'they grow to slowly', 'they don't fight hard enough' or how far one has to or doesn't have to drive as being valid points in this debate. That does seem to be what it boils down to for you.
Matt -- although the walleye may not be considered the number one best fighting game fish, it is considered one of the best eating freshwater game fish in North America and an extremely important game fish economically for many regions of the country -- it is actually on the menu in some of most well respected restaurants in the Midwest (Minnesota, Wisconsin, etc...)!! Walleye is the official state fish for Minnesota (South Dakota also) and is the most sought after fish in the state (twice as much as an other species...) -- by the way, Minnesota's DNR stocks over a 1,000 of its lakes annually with walleye and has a very successful walleye stocking program (over 3.0mm fish are harvested by fisherman annually)...!! Some schools actually close for the day, for the walleye opener in Minnesota ('Land of 10,000 Lakes')...! So, anyway, I'd go easy on berating the walleye as some lowly game fish...!!
What's next? A thread about stocking chinook in Champlain?
We stocked those all around Vermont in the '30's....didn't take....neither did the swordfish.
So I guess the discussion was 100% in favor of stocking walleyes in Moore!
Its not an opinion that walleye fight like wet rags, its a statement. I have never hooked into a walleye that had much fight, and I would like to think I have caught many of the larger fish VT has to offer. Comparitively, they are lazy fish. I cant think of any fish in Champlain that, at 28-30" offers less of a fight than a walleye. As for the progeny of stocked fish, that can be said about pretty much every single wild trout fishery in the Northeast - besides an actual native brook trout. The populations that are naturally reproducing successfully are the ones that are more rare. I dont know the numbers of fish stocked in that specific area, but I have been told supplemental stocking of trout do little to the wild trout populations. Dog River for example. Browns are stocked in the Winooski but have access to the lower part of the Dog river, but the biomass in the Dog during electro surveys showed all wild fish. As for the dumb stocked trout comment, I have caught 15" pellet head rainbows that fought harder than 24" eyes. Plus, never once have I advocated trout stocking.
Matt,Everyone has their own reasons for why they fish and what they fish for. Discounting someone's opinions because they are just 'lowly meat fisherman' (as I often am myself, love those walleye fillets) only reinforces the snobbish and arrogant attitude that is a common stereotype often associated with the hardcore fly fishermen. (I know many fly fisherman that absolutely don't fit that common stereotype) It is doubly reinforced when some of the other reasons for the opposition could equally be applied to some of the species and locations that you do find acceptable.I don't have enough knowledge or experience with this area to really have a relevant opinion. Just based on this thread I think the pro walleye contributions are making a better case than the anti walleye. for what that is worth.I do feel comfortable taking an opinion that: 'they grow to slowly', 'they don't fight hard enough' or how far one has to or doesn't have to drive are not valid points in this debate. That does seem to be what it boils down to for you.