Wild tiger trout...

[NJAngler]

Caught this beauty...

From this beauty:

Mark

 

[troutbert]

Nice tigger trout! And a beautiful stream. I know you won't name the stream, but PA or NJ?

 

[Stone_Fly]

Did you know it is possible that Tiger Trout reporduce? It's a bad thing.

 

[NJAngler]

Pa over in Pike County.

Mark

 

[jpavoncello]

According to the PA Fish Commission, tiger trout are sterile and cannot reproduce.
I talked to them at the Eastern Sports and Outdoor Show about the tigers because I really would like to catch one.

John

 

[Fishidiot]

Great photos. While I've taken tigers that were stocked I have never caught one that was wild - as this one almost certainly is. I would however be surprised if they can reproduce. Hybrid fishes, to the best of my knowledge, are sterile and that is why they are sometimes preferred for stocking in areas outside the natural range of their purebred parents. For example, Colorado stocks a lot of tiger muskies as they are popular sport fish but should they become a problem, stocking can simply be stopped and the population will die off in a few years.

 

[tomgamber]

According to the PA Fish Commission, tiger trout are sterile and cannot reproduce.

This is true...but no one said this fish was the spawn of a Tiger trout.

Where do you think tiger trout come from?

I'm not saying that this is the natural reproductive product of a brown and brooke...I'm just saying that a Tiger trout's reproductive capability is irrelevant.

 

[jpavoncello]

"Did you know it is possible that Tiger Trout reporduce? It's a bad thing."

Didn't say anything about this being a spawn of Tiger trout. I was just replying to Stone Fly's post above.
If the stream has breeding stock of brown and brook trout, there is no reason why a cross breed wouldn't be possible.

 

[tomgamber]

So was I ...I meant to have both quotes in there sorry...

 

[Chaz]

jpavoncello,
I know what everyone says, but I've been researching the topic, because I got a tip about tiger trout spawning, and I'm very interested to find out more. All I've been able to find so is that they cross tiger trout back with the browns and brookies.
tomgamber,
How can you say it's irrelevent, if a brookie spawns with a brown to create this thing in the wild it is very relevent, especially in all the drainages were the 2 species occur together. Which I remind you is just about everywhere these days. It causes populations of both fish to be impacted at the very least, and if browns spawn with brookies even unintentionally it compromises the gene pool of true wild brok trout.

 

[tomgamber]

The fact that they exist is not irrelevant. Someone said the fish is wild. Tigers, supposedly, cannot reproduce. Therefore, it must be (if the former statement is true) a spawn of a browne and brook. Whether tigers can reproduce is irrelevant to the conversation that was going on.

Definition: having a bearing on or connection with the subject at issue

The subject at issue was not its impact on the stream or streams. Just how it got there. I agree that hybridization is not a good thing. The cutbow situation is evidence of that ...worse, they can reproduce...and with either pure species. Now thats impact.

 

[Stone_Fly]

It's a nice fish and it looks wild. That said if I post a comment about wild tiger trout being a bad thing it has relevence. The fact that his fish is there means there probably more of them, though they don't have a good survial rate in the egg stage or in the finderling stage. But having them in a stream is a threat to native species, not just brookies. We don't no anything about the impacts of introductions on native fishes, at least nothing that ins't heresay, but a fish that is supossed to have a voracious appetite for other fish in a wild trout stream is a bad thing. Next time I'll post a separate thread on an issue when its not related to the subject.

 

[JackM]

I am having a hard time finding the controversy here. Tiger trout are a natural phenomenon, resulting from brown and brook trout spawning together. It is an extremely rare occurence and they do not themselves reproduce to create a new species. They pose no threat to the wild/native populations whatsoever. Even when they are artificially hybridized and introduced to a stream, they pose little threat beyond being "one more mouth for the stream to feed" for their lifetime. If anyone has proof to the contrary, I invite them to post a link because nothing I have read about this accidental genetic cross is to the contrary.