324 
BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES 
Per cent 
Live bait only 11.7 
Smelt bait 8.5 
Worms only 1-5 
Live bait and worms... ..' 1 . 11.5 
Live bait, smelt bait, and worms. 12.9 
Live bait and smelt bait.... 53.0 
Cut bait (not smelt) _______ • 9 
100.0 
The inference to be drawn from the foregoing figures is that live bait and smelt 
bait together are the best baits, and that live bait is somewhat better than smelt 
bait. It is quite possible, however, that in some instances where the two baits 
(live and smelt) were used, if only one or the other had been employed alone about 
as many smelts would have been caught. Besides, it has been mentioned already 
that at times they bite almost anything; yet the figures show that with a supply of 
live bait, which may be supplemented by smelt bait after one smelt is caught, the 
chances of making a good catch are better than with any other baits. 
ICEFISH OR SMELT OF LAKE CHAMPLAIN 
For many years the smelt of Lake Champlain has been caught through the ice, 
principally in February and March, which fact probably gives the fish its local name — 
“icefish.” For a long time, however, it appears that the icefish was not generally 
recognized as a smelt. Nearly 50 years ago the question concerning the icefish of 
Lake Champlain arose, and from time to time for nearly 30 years discussions per- 
taining to its identity and origin appeared in sportsmen’s papers and magazines. 
Notwithstanding the fact that each time the icefish was authoritatively identified 
as a smelt, the question would not down. Under date of February 22, 1876, Cheney 
wrote to Forest and Stream (vol. 6, No. 4, March 2, 1876) : 
In your last issue you mention the range of smelt, and I do not think it is generally known 
that they are caught in Lake Champlain. About a year ago, while at Port Henry, I was told by 
the landlord of the hotel where I was staying that it was about time for “icefish” to make their 
appearance. As the name was new to me, I asked for a description of the fish, judging that ice- 
fish was a local name. Being informed that they were only taken through the ice during February 
and March, and that they were unknown until within a few years previous, I sent the description, 
as given to me to Seth Green, but from my meagre statement he was unable to give the fish its 
proper name. I published my inquiries, and found that they were veritable smelts. And here 
again comes in the question of range. They are caught little, if any, south of Port Henry; are 
more numerous about West Port; are taken at or near Burlington, Vt., and are unknown in Platts- 
burg, or thereabouts, at least by fisherman I questioned while there this winter, and I could not 
learn that they were caught at other than the places I have named. Of course, these come in from 
the St. Lawrence, but are they caught to any extent in that river? 
In a later issue of Forest and Stream, iinder date of March 21, 1876, C. H. 
Morse, of Boston, stated that he had taken many dozens of that “delicious fish” 
near Burlington, Vt., when he was a youngster, and could say that they were taken 
in several localities in that part of the lake, one of the favorite places being near 
either end of the Burlington Breakwater. 
