definatly, just think of this as a nice educational thread on knowing that tigers and brooks can take on certain charecteristics that others dont, cause ive never fished the boulders and im used to uinta brookies that dont get close to that size, im sure alot of people reading this were thinking the same as us but like you it was the lack of halo spots on it.
[signature]
Great write up! I noticed the lack of halos right away and the length/girth issue. But the colors threw me off. I am ashamed I didn't call it sooner.[
]
Great educational thread though. Too bad it came at the expense of more attention to Boulder Mountain. But that Mountain can be a beast to fish and will hand out skunks or small fish for those who don't put in the time and money getting to know it, and even for those of us who do!
[signature]
I am not as convinced as you that the record won't be broken. I will leave it at that.
[signature]
never say never, theres one out there you just gotta find it[
]
[signature]
Don't blame the fisherman who caught it for the controversy. Blame the DWR guys for pulling a quick trigger on the story. This fish was one step away from being a state record. In a way I'm glad they got it right. If they let it go, I can't imagine someone having to explain that the fish was not a state record a year or 2 down the road.
BTW I have caught 100's of tiger trout and 1000's of brookies on the Boulder. This fish had me fooled.
[signature]
Highmth didn't get it wrong we just thought we might have something based on the description in the proclamation. We have also caught tiger out of this lake so we had questions but I figured I would let the DWR Decide. They are the experts. I will say that some of DWR guys don't specialize in trout.
[signature]
Brookie1999- to me it seems like you have sure been worked over by the division of wildlife resources. Regardless you were just along for the ride. It's
to see people discredit the fish when it was the division who stated what kind of fish it is. To all the naysayers hopefully you don't find yourself in a situation where others will discredit your fine catch regaurdless of species. I dont think we need "experts" from the southern region or any other region to properly identify fish we just need the ones who are already in place to do their jobs better and be dillagent in their duties as state employees. I guess the record is still out there maybe you can still catch it before I do 😉
[signature]
I'm not much of a trout fisherman so this has been a very interesting post for me. I've learned a lot by doing some research on the side reading about tigers and brookies and looking into what others have posted.
Nice catch regardless of the strange circumstances. It would icing on the cake to see a record brookie caught in the next couple years. Seeing as how Utah only cares about trout. (Decoder ring [
])
[signature]
I agree whole heartedly. All the state likes to plant is trout, and perch for bait fish. I wish the state would get their act together. They are missing the boat on alot of other species of fish. Maybe they should quit front to make all these super fish also (hybrids) just my 2 cents
[signature]
[quote Bigphilj]I agree whole heartedly. All the state likes to plant is trout, and perch for bait fish. I wish the state would get their act together. They are missing the boat on alot of other species of fish. Maybe they should quit front to make all these super fish also (hybrids) just my 2 cents[/quote][font "Times New Roman"][size 3][/size][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3]Here are the facts with regards to fish plantings in Utah. The plantings involve more than just trout and perch. The list for 2012 so far includes Rainbow, Brook, Brown, Tiger, Albino (Rainbow), Cutthroat, Splake, Bullhead Channel Cat, Tiger Muskie, Kokanee, June Sucker, Woundfin Minnow, Largemouth Bass, and Bluegill. That’s 7 trout species or hybrids and 7 non-trout species. You’ll notice that NO perch have been planted this year. Further, NO perch have been planted since 2005 when just over 350 were planted in 3 local ponds.[/size][/#800000][/font]
[signature]
my question is, if fish I.D. is pretty tough than have they done genetic testing for some of the old records? would this have been a record brookie 20 years ago without all the internet questions and available resources?
[signature]
[
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3]Here are the facts with regards to fish plantings in Utah. The plantings involve more than just trout and perch. The list for 2012 so far includes Rainbow, Brook, Brown, Tiger, Albino (Rainbow), Cutthroat, Splake, Bullhead .[/size][/#800000][/font][/quote]
[#502800]They don't actually plant Tiger Trout, they plant Tiger Trout Minnows ...... These minnows then become an afternoon snack for the the resident Rainbows in the pond.[/#502800]
[signature]
RE"would this have been a record brookie 20 years ago without all the internet questions and available resources?"
Back when the original brookie record was set, the DWR and other agencies weren't planting "frankenfish" like tiger trout and splake in our lakes. (that complicates ID sometimes) So it is a good bet that the current Utah record is a valid one.
However, you do make a valid point on some other records that are in the books. It would be fun to check them.
[signature]
[quote utahgolf]my question is, if fish I.D. is pretty tough than have they done genetic testing for some of the old records? would this have been a record brookie 20 years ago without all the internet questions and available resources?[/quote]
Probably would have.
Consider some of the record brook trout from places like Quebec, and Labrador -- areas where naturally occurring splake happen. Honestly, I do believe that some of those old "brook trout" records were misidentified hybrids. But, we really don't know, and probably never will.
[signature]
Got me wondering, was this one 100% Brook?
World Record Brook Trout Caught in Canada
![[Image: world-record-brook-trout-huge.jpg]](http://www.anglerwise.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/world-record-brook-trout-huge.jpg)
Wow! Look at the size of that brook trout (also known as: speckled trout, square tail, and coaster trout). That thing is HUGE! The average brookie length is about 12-16 inches and weight is about 1 pound. This fish FAR exceeds the average size for the species.
The brook trout was 29 inches in length and had a 21 inch girth. That’s one thick fish! Based on the brook trout weight calculation formula, this fish was about 16 pounds. That’s about 1.5 pounds more than the previous world record.
Too bad this brook trout is not officially recognized as a world record by the IGFA. The reasons are: 1) It wasn’t weighed, only measured. 2) Since it was released, the size could not be verified. I bet Tim Matheson (the angler that caught the fish) is pretty bummed out about that. Oh well, at least we can look at bright side. There is a world record brook trout still swimming around somewhere waiting to be caught. Maybe…
[signature]
More to the point of this discussion though. Look at that tail. It isn't very square is it?[cool]
[signature]
Further -- why did the angler release it, if it would have not just broken, but smashed the world record?
just saying...
[signature]
That Brookie looks like it may be a little splakish. I makes me wonder why he released it? I should have incouraged my brother to release his controversial tiger trout then we could have claimed that it was the state record Brookie but we were to gentlemenlike to kill such a beautiful creature[
].
[signature]
That look's like an Artic Char and not a Brook Trout. Char grow 20lb.
[signature]
It may look like an Arctic Char, but I'm sure we can rule that one out.
[signature]