Register now on! Login


Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users

Tiger trouble

2006/12/29 10:00
From Harrisburg
Posts: 18
The first Tiger I ever caught was a very enjoyable experience. Fought like a mad dog and very pretty in a Tim Burton sort of way. It was probably my most appreciated day last year. I was on Fishing creek (Clinton) and caught 16 on terrestrials, all wild except the Tiger. They say they happen in the wild, but extremely rare.
Anyways, I'm all pumped up to tell Dave Wolf. I know I use his name alot, but hes my friend and he is more experienced than anyone I know. So I tell Dave about the Tiger and he tells me if that trout was over 14" it would have been the first trout in 25yrs he would have killed. He goes on to tell me an old time story of personally witnessing Tigers tearing into spawning beds and cannibalizing the eggs and harrasing trout that were spawning off of beds so bad that they were literally tearing off chunks of their fins and eating them. Being that Dave knows this and used to work for the commission it kind of makes me wonder why I'm catching Tigers in water like Clarks, Fishing, and Falling springs. They have to know how voracious they are. Sure, all trout are cannibals, but not like that.
Its a shame. When I first caught that Tiger I was wondering why the commission even bothered with those dopey Palominos.And they're mostly large to boot. Certainly large enough to eat 1 and 2 year old wild trout.

Posted on: 2007/3/24 7:46

Re: Tiger trouble
2006/9/9 17:32
From Gettysburg
Posts: 439
I too have heard the many descriptions of tiger trout as voracious fish eaters and cannibals. Do we really know how legitimate this really is? Has there been a study that can clearly quantify the notion that tigers have a greater proclivity for consuming a diet of other fishes (and trout in particular) than purebred trout species? I can remember old timers telling me they deliberately cropped large browns out of streams due to the belief tht they cut down the population of smaller trout. Although this may have been true (we have all seen big trout eat little ones) I am not convinced that this is really detrimental to populations. At least large browns can spawn - something tiger trout are generally regarded as unable to do. There does seem to be a consensus that tiger trout (like tiger muskies) possess "hybrid vigor" which makes them grow fast and behave aggressively. Yet I know of a very large tiger in one of the waters you mention that is at least five years old and difficult to catch. The last time I got this tiger was 2004. I hooked him in Jan of this year. Certainly this fish is cautious and hard to catch which leads me to believe maybe these fish aren't all dumb brutes that grow up and die quickly due to excellerated metabalism. Whatever the case, although the PFBC does stock some of them (there was a discussion on this board recently about the Yough having them) I think most of those that are out there are stocked privately and of course a few small ones are wild. I'm not a big fan of hybrid fish but they do have some novelty value. I think the verdict is still out on whether tiger trout are as devastating as some claim.

Posted on: 2007/3/24 9:30

Re: Tiger trouble

2007/1/25 5:24
From Pa
Posts: 0
I haven't caught a tiger since the early 80s. I don't know much about their voracity, but I spent many a memorable spring day plucking them out of the pools laying within the Ressica Falls Boy Scout Reservation on the Big Bushkill. Seemed like those fish were partial to a Quill Gordon wet and they were spirited fighters.

I've often wondered if they are still stocked in the Big Bushkill?

Posted on: 2007/3/24 19:33
Resized Image

Re: Tiger trouble

2007/2/25 0:19
Posts: 1
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a huge fan of the PFBC, but I think this is a myth perpuated partly by the name of the fish itself and partly by folks who just want to stick it to the commission every chance they get.

It is not easy to watch trout in the water, even with polarized glasses. Sure you can watch them feed when they are holding in a small area, but it would be very difficult to witness a fish terrorizing the fins off another, or others. Spook the next trout you are watching with polarized glasses on, you won't be able to follow the fish long.

Posted on: 2007/3/24 20:46

You can view topic.
You cannot start a new topic.
You cannot reply to posts.
You cannot edit your posts.
You cannot delete your posts.
You cannot add new polls.
You cannot vote in polls.
You cannot attach files to posts.
You cannot post without approval.

[Advanced Search]

Site Content
Stay Connected facebook instagram RSS Feed

USGS Water Levels
The New Keystone Fly Fishing Book
Where do you most want to fly fish outside the region?
Western US 39% (31)
Alaska 10% (8)
New Zealand 32% (26)
Florida Keys 3% (3)
South America 6% (5)
Elsewhere 7% (6)
The poll closed at 2018/3/17 12:44

Copyright 2018 by | Privacy Policy| Provided by Kile Media Group | Design by