"Top Trout Award?"

Fredrick wrote:
Mo just has fish envy :lol:

Just saying.........
Click to expand...




No, I disagree, I don't think Mo would consider this one of his "pee-pee" trout.


:lol:
 
I think Fred's brown is an absolutely incredible fish - whether it's wild is impossible to verify. The hatchery was closed in late 2001 which would make this a very old fish in 2008 if it were indeed a hatchery escapee. As Mo's survey report indicates, there are still some very large browns in BS (this is consistent with what I have seen) but their numbers are diminishing. However, I have personally seen browns in the Ditch in recent months that were under about a foot in length. Whether wild or not, Fred's fish is a beauty! The dark coloration along the fish's belly is reminiscent of an Ontario trib brownie. Just an incredible fish - very heavy and great colors - certainly a good candidate for "Top Trout" in any year.


I don't think it's a good idea to have a "wild only" requirement. it's just too hard to verify if a trout is wild or not as Fred's fish proves. There are some mighty nice hatchery fish out there.

As for such a "Top Trout" award - the devil (as always) is in the details. How to submit the photo? How to vote - all members of the board or the mods? Would another photo file be required (like the photo contest)?

More to follow on this. I'm glad to see the board seems to like the idea.
 
Fishidiot wrote:
I think Fred's brown is an absolutely incredible fish - whether it's wild is impossible to verify. The hatchery was closed in late 2001 which would make this a very old fish in 2008 if it were indeed a hatchery escapee. As Mo's survey report indicates, there are still some very large browns in BS (this is consistent with what I have seen) but their numbers are diminishing. However, I have personally seen browns in the Ditch in recent months that were under about a foot in length. Whether wild or not, Fred's fish is a beauty! The dark coloration along the fish's belly is reminiscent of an Ontario trib brownie. Just an incredible fish - very heavy and great colors - certainly a good candidate for "Top Trout" in any year.


I don't think it's a good idea to have a "wild only" requirement. it's just too hard to verify if a trout is wild or not as Fred's fish proves. There are some mighty nice hatchery fish out there.

As for such a "Top Trout" award - the devil (as always) is in the details. How to submit the photo? How to vote - all members of the board or the mods? Would another photo file be required (like the photo contest)?

More to follow on this. I'm glad to see the board seems to like the idea.
Click to expand...


I agree, but there should be some "Yum" provision in the rules, at the very least, disclosure.... ;-)
 
I agree that there shouldn't be a "wild only" stipulation. If a stocked trout wins the voting, so be it. I honestly suspect that any fish that wins the voting will not be a fresh hatchery fish.
 
I agree...don't limit it...the voters will work it out in the end. If it goes well, even create categories...wild, steelhead, ww, salt, etc.
 
I do have fish envy....Fred. I can't seem to catch fish like that but really I am pleased with the fish I catch, very pleased.

As for being wild...if that fish was in the water from 2001 then as far as I am concerned its wild to me....streambred...nnneeehhh. No.

Here is another quagmire.....how about the pellet fed hogs at the lower fly area in a....public water, fish fed daily. Some very large fish there that rarely get caught. Wouldn't want to see a mass exodus of people lining up to catch the winner.

I think the whole idea of a big fish contest is a litte commercial.

They are photographs involving fish, people. What if we didn't make the fish have to be the biggest and just have it be a good photograph.
 
I agree there is a bit of discomfort in encouraging a "big fish" contest. I liked the suggestion of a picture and a short story. A good story about a 7 inch trout may be as valuable as a bad story about a 28" trout. How do you say? Just sayin', is all.
 
Jack what a true statement from a man that catches small fish and has fish envy .

Just saying........
 
I agree a Top Trout candidate doesnt have to be based solely on size. I suspect most will, but some do come with neat stories that may not have size.
I like the photo contest, but not in Top Trout. This is paflyfish, not Paphotog. Dont see why we cant have both?
From a guy that didnt place in the photo contest.
Just sayin' is all. :lol:
 
Fishidiot wrote:
Seeing Alby's football brown in today's report got me thinking...

Might a PAFF award for "Top Trout in 2010" (or something similar) be worthwile? I enjoyed the photo contest last year - maybe this year we could add a category for vote: the "top trout." Perhaps, this could be a vote by forum members on what they consider the best trout from a photo submitted to PAFF this year. To qualify, the trout would have to be caught FFing here in PA in 2010, by a registered forum member, on waters open to free public access. Of course, we'll take forum members on their word if they don't want the stream identified. I think it ought to be limited to brook, brown, rainbow, palomino, and tiger trout - no steelhead. [color=FF0000]The criteria could be whatever the voter finds appealing. It doesn't have to be the biggest fish, although this would count, but also unique coloration, story behind the catching, or whatever.
[/color]
Is this a good idea? What do you think?
Click to expand...


I agree with what Fishidiot said in his initial post. Not the biggest, but the best photo / story, etc. The whole package. I'm not into seeing a bounty hunt for a hog fish. But to me it should be open to all species of fish. Perhaps adding a fly-fishing coldwater, warmwater and saltwater entry would open up the search to more members.
 
Fredrick wrote:
Jack what a true statement from a man that catches small fish and has fish envy .

Just saying........
Click to expand...

What's wrong, can't you tell a good story about a small fish? Should we set the bar at 20" before you are able to be proud of a catch? As noted, the criterion can be left wide-open, or there can be many categories-- large fish, large wild fish, large fish on dry, streamer, nymph. How about largest nymphed fish without an add-on strike indicator? Biggest trout on a Green Drake imitation in March?

As long as size isn't the criterion, I have a chance to compete. If only size, then I'd have to re-define my entire fishing experience in order to play along with the contest. I don't mind being shut-out in this way, "just sayin'" it might exclude a lot more people than you realize, since not every angler here elevates size over other factors. This is true of contest participants and those who judge them.
 
Thanks for taking the bait Jack . Stories are good but were fisherman how much truth do you think there will be in them .
We could always make the contest the best fish pic but people are going to be bias towards trout .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Harman's North Fork Cottages


Real Time Data From
the USGS Site

Share this page

Back
Top