I read this tidbit in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette....

State fish, State record
A new state record for brook trout has been confirmed by Fish and Boat. Stretching to 23.5 inches and 7 pounds 14 ounces, it was caught and released Dec. 30, 2011, on Yellow Creek, Bedford County. Fly fisherman Steve Cook took it on a sculpin pattern in the creek's Catch and Release Fly Fishing Only section. The previous record of 22 inches and 7 pounds was set in 1996 on Fishing Creek near Tylersville, Clinton County.

I thought that to be an official state record, the fish must be weighed on a certified scale? Great that it was released though.

who gives a s*** about a record? It was a huge fish, and he released it, hopefully after not waiting around too long to get it weighed and measured. kudos.

Hay maybe they just took his word for it. No seriously, maybe there's an app for that. You knows, weighes, measures the fish and then download the application.

In any case that is a heck of a fish

shouldn't the title be split with "Steve Cook" and Donny beaver for the fish?

Quote:

I thought so as well. It's always been my assumption that a fish had to be kept and that catch and release fish could not be considered for PA state records.

While I'm appreciative of the thread post, records for stocked fish mean nothing to me at all. If it ain't wild or native I have zero interest.

Here's the fish....

http://www.fish.state.pa.us/bigfish.htm

That is one ugly Brook Trout. I'd rather catch a 4 inch native.

He should have kept it to put that big ugly thing out of its misery. A stocked trout shouldn't count as a record. Its like raising the record sized fish in your bath tub or swimming pool, throwing it in a hole in a tiny creek, catch it and call it a record...JOKE! I would have been proud of the catch but I wouldn't think the fish was anything special.

Okay - we've seen this picture.....it's not even a brook trout but a tiger trout.

Kudos to the guy who c/r it. I know it could be a tiger trout, but I still think it looks like a laker.

Quote:

After taking a closer look at the markings I could definitely see that its a tiger. Funny how the PFBC identified it wrong lol. Unless big hatchery mutated brookies get to look like that when they get that big...

I noticed this line on the page...

"Note weights and sizes are not verified, all submissions accepted on the honor system."

Honestly, from that picture, I couldn't make a 100% accurate ID on Tiger vs. Brookie. It's tough to say if the markings on the back extend down the sides or not (in lieu of the typical Brookie spotting) since the sides of the fish are a bit washed out in the photo. The markings on/toward the tail have me leaning Tiger I guess, but not enough to say for certain. Either way...does anyone know if the PFBC lumps Tigers in w/Brookies for the purposes of record keeping? That could explain why it was possibly being considered for a Brookie record, even if it was a Tiger. Couldn't find any info on the PFBC site about a state record Tiger.

I don't know if there's a record category for tiger trout either. However, large tigers such as this one are actually pretty common. I've caught tigers in this size range and don't consider it a big deal. They grow very fast and to very large sizes.

While on the subject of "tigers" - I don't think the PFBC has a tiger muskie record category either and simply lump tiger muskies in with regular muskellunge for regulation and record keeping purposes.