Posts: 1,207
Threads: 6
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation:
0
[quote Jazzperch1]cool cool i wonder how long this one will hold.
tightlines[fishin][/quote]
If there's one, there are likely more. If that's the case, then I would imagine we'll see another one pretty soon. I'm sure the local economies around the mountain will have a good year over it.
Oh and tigers can take on some strange appearances. I'm not saying I think it's one, but I've seen pics of tigers that look like brookies.
Look up Dove Creek Reservoir (private) and you'll see some crazy coloring/patterns.
[signature]
Posts: 1,430
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation:
0
wow those are some different colorations for sure man, and theres gotta be a male brookie that size that looks even better with a big ol hook jaw and stuff. never been to the boulders but ive always wanted to make a camping trip there.
tightlines
[signature]
Posts: 3,071
Threads: 19
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
11
The lake this fish was caught from has had other large tiger trout that were mis-identified as brook trout.
One thing that really stands out to me is the length of this fish. You just don't see brook trout that long and slender. (slender is relative). It will be interesting to see what the southern region biologists have to say when they get their hands on it.
I'd love to see this angler break the record. However, I'm not so sure that it is really a brook trout.
[signature]
Posts: 71
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2012
Reputation:
0
My sentiments exactly, I mentioned this earlier, the length vs girth of this fish is not "typical" for big brook trout. That being said, I caught a 5 lbs. brook trout 2 years ago that looked just like this one. Which ever way this goes, its been a good story.
[signature]
Posts: 92
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation:
0
The fish has been identified as a tiger trout and NOT the state record Brookie. We are still going to do further tests on the intrails but as of right now it is a tiger trout. I feel bad for Trent, but it's still a great catch. Don't give up hope guys, there still may be a state record out there.
[signature]
Posts: 113
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation:
0
No way thats a tiger I catch tigers on boulders and um creek and forsyth all the time I no a tiger when I see one and thats not one
[signature]
Posts: 1,430
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation:
0
thats what i say but i guess if they say so it is but it sure looks like a brookie to me, it is one strange looking tiger trout if you can call it that[:p]. i feel bad for the guy cause i would feel bad for myself if i caught it and its being said that its a tiger. no matter what its a hell of a fish, id still get it mounted.
[signature]
Posts: 113
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation:
0
O yeah looks like a brookie to me to just a toad of a brook and id still get that mounted to and gurentee if he had it mounted people would come in and say o nice brook not nice tiger haha o well nice fish
[signature]
Posts: 3,724
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation:
0
Ya i say its a tiger trout. look by the gills and its pattern how it is. Plus the fins of your fish doesnt have mostly red some black and then more white then black. Thats the most common way to identify a brookie just by the fin because they only have that color patter.
Sorry about your news. its sounds like the test was right.
At least that's one nice fish you caught ^_^ you should mount it.
[signature]
Posts: 1,430
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation:
0
brookies have that distinct white on the fins that outline em and this ones got it. but it also doesent have the halo spots on it that brookies have with the two colors so its a strange thing for sure unless its because its big and old i dno.
[signature]
Posts: 17
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation:
0
BROOKIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[signature]
Posts: 3,724
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation:
0
the browns that i caught have that same distinct white. To look for a brookie its look at the find for that nice red black and white and i dont see that in the pic at all
[signature]
Posts: 3,724
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation:
0
NO the fin doesnt have that nice red with white and black so to me it doesnt really look like brookie and look at the pattern by the gills it looks like a tiger pattern there . I have never seen this weird of brookie if it is but still being test so we dont know yet but i still stick with the tiger.
[signature]
Posts: 938
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2007
Reputation:
0
On another forum we were discussing how the head and tail look brook but the body screams NOT brook. Long, slender, no halos, awkward elongated spots, etc.
We also were discussing how the tigers in certain lakes that grub on scuds tend to look more like brooks than browns (Manti and Boulders).
There are few anglers who target and catch more tigers (and brookies) than the group of anglers I associate and fish with, and one of them even thought a big tiger he caught on the boulders was a brookie until the group convinced him otherwise. One reason I love Boulder tigers is how much more dominant the Bookie genes seem to be in them.
This one is extra brookie but definitely believe it could be a tiger. Still far bigger than my biggest tiger and I am still jealous. But not as jealous as I was.
Great catch!
[signature]
Posts: 1,430
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation:
0
your right but it has all three colors on the fin and only small browns get that white so distinct and it fades with time and size. everything looks right on for a brookie except the missing halos spots with the 2 tone colors.
[signature]
Posts: 1,430
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation:
0
you know i see your point and i have been seeing some pics on the internet of tiger trout that almost looked like brookies, i guess its kinda a situation where us fisherman on this sight havnt had the chance to know that they can look different in differnt waters and brookie genes in tigers could be more prolific in certain ones cause i sure didnt, it looks like a brookie except the halos but if genetic testing was done on it and they say its a tiger then who can argue with science. if i caught it i would say brook but people are gonna disagree no matter what if its had been tested the way it has been.
all in all good fish and an interstesing thing to look at and discuss cause im sure its had everyone scratching there heads and second guessing themselves.
[signature]
Posts: 938
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2007
Reputation:
0
After looking at the pictures again, the body of that fish screams tiger, although the colors are much more brookie. The deep red and green instead of orange and lighter green really threw me off. But the lake of halos should have been the first indication that it wasn't a brookie.
Weekend Warrior, Do you have that tiger thought to be brookie picture you could post up on here?
I would definitely put that fish on the wall. Beautiful fish!
[signature]
Posts: 1,430
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation:
0
theres alot of different colorations and one in particular, the first one is that caught in the boulders aswell.
and then a couple of different colorations on the others
[signature]
Posts: 938
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2007
Reputation:
0
The head and tail is what threw me off. Usually big tigers have huge jaws/heads but the photos made it look smaller. But re-looking atit, you can see the squarer jaw of this fish.
I hope that we can see more photos of this fish.
[signature]
Posts: 1,395
Threads: 17
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation:
9
Too often fishermen misidentify fish because they get caught up in colors. Many of you are looking and worrying too much about the colors of the fish and not looking at the tell-tale signs of species identification of trout--spotting pattern to be more specific.
If you look closely at the pictures, you will notice a couple of things about the spotting pattern of this fish that scream--"not brook trout". 1) The spots are irregularly shaped and not uniform in pattern--brook trout spots are very regularly shaped and very circular. 2) The irregularly shaped spots of this fish also lack the blue halos that brook trout possess. These two things alone tell me that there is a good chance that fish is NOT a brook trout.
With that in mind, a couple other things about this fish scream tiger trout--1) the length and lack of girth of this fish is simply out of characteristic of Utah brook trout. In over 30 years of not only fishing for brook trout on the Boulder Mountains and southern Utah but also gill netting and shocking trips with my father on very good lakes including the lake with the current state record fish, I have NEVER seen a brook trout over 22 inches long. A 27-inch long brook trout is more than an anomaly...it is just not out there. And, any brook trout over 17 inches really starts to get humpy and stumpy in appearance; they are exceptionally round and fat. 2) Many have noted that the tail is simply not forked enough to be a splake...I would concur. But, in my eyes, that tail has a slight fork. Brook trout do not. The parent species of tiger trout are brown trout and brook trout...the brown does have a slight fork, however. 3) I know the lake where this fish was caught. I have seen both large brook trout and large tiger trout from this lake. Just two years ago another tiger trout was turned in as the new state record brookie and later identified. Tiger trout in this lake have been known to look very much more like the parent brook trout and less like the tiger trout you might see in other places. Brook trout in this lake are very much like other brook trout in other lakes on the Boulder Mountain....my father caught a very large brookie from this lake several years ago that exceeded twenty inches. This fish--now mounted and on display in the Southern Region DWR office--looks nothing like the fish in question. It is shorter, fatter, much more colorful, and displays much more circular spots with distinct blue halos. If I can find that picture, I will post it.
In the end, although the fish in question is unquestionably a trophy, it is not a state record brookie and I am glad it wasn't ultimately misidentified as such. I also hope that this slight mess leads the DWR into some stricter guidelines in how fish are identified and considered to be record catches before press releases go out. I congratulate the fisherman on his fine catch and although I really wish we did have a new state record caught, I highly doubt that a state record brook trout is currently alive in Utah or that one will be caught in the near future...
[signature]
|
