PatchezMDM
Active member
Fantastic! Congratulations.
Finally caught a unicorn
- Thread starter HopBack
- Start date
wildtrout2
Well-known member
The number of likes to this thread is reflective of the popularity of the wild tiger trout. They are a true rarity.
wildtrout2
Well-known member
That's an odd way of looking at it. 🙄
Prospector
Well-known member
I caught this one in June 2018 in the northern tier of PA. At the time I thought this trout had been stocked. Now as I’ve seen more photos of wild tigers. I’m not so sure. I caught it about 50 yards below the mouth of what I consider to be one the best tribs for wild tigers in the area. Based on electro shocking.
Frank Nale has caught some real pretty wild tigers that seem to be caught in the fall.
I’m still erring on the side of it not being wild.
Frank Nale has caught some real pretty wild tigers that seem to be caught in the fall.
I’m still erring on the side of it not being wild.
Last edited:
sarce
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2013
- Messages
- 1,664
Look at the dorsal fin. Stocked.
A bent leading edge of the dorsal fin indicates a stocked trout, for all species. The other fins seem to regrow a little better with time
I agree with Sarce. Your tiger is stocked, Prospector.
To me, the interbreeding of an invasive species with a native is cause for concern rather than celebration.
dudemanspecial
Well-known member
I bet catch and release angling does FAR more damage to native fish than interbreeding does.
Agreed. C&R mortality causes more damage than interbreeding, but it pales in comparison to the harm from the continued spread of invasive species. Tigers are emblematic of that damage.
wildtrout2
Well-known member
The extremely rare occurances of wild tiger trout really make that a non-issue in the big picture. Not to mention, tiger trout don't reproduce.
Natives and wild browns share many of the same streams. That's not going to change.
sarce
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2013
- Messages
- 1,664
I kind of get what Tim is saying. A lot of the wild tigers I've heard about, and the tiny one I caught years ago, have come under two scenarios:
1. Brook trout are on their way out in a stream being taken over by browns. In the absence of finding a female brook trout, the male brookie ends up pairing with a brown instead
2. A random female brown makes an incursion into a purely brook trout stream, but can't find a male brown to pair with. Sometimes that's the start of a shift toward browns or at least a sign that browns are close enough to be a future threat.
The third scenario is there are genuinely good numbers of both species in a stream and it happens occasionally that they pair up.
2 out of those 3 scenarios point toward actively declining or future potential for decline of the brook trout populations, even if the tigers themselves are sterile.
1. Brook trout are on their way out in a stream being taken over by browns. In the absence of finding a female brook trout, the male brookie ends up pairing with a brown instead
2. A random female brown makes an incursion into a purely brook trout stream, but can't find a male brown to pair with. Sometimes that's the start of a shift toward browns or at least a sign that browns are close enough to be a future threat.
The third scenario is there are genuinely good numbers of both species in a stream and it happens occasionally that they pair up.
2 out of those 3 scenarios point toward actively declining or future potential for decline of the brook trout populations, even if the tigers themselves are sterile.
I fully understand what TimB is saying, too. We would all like brookies to hold on and to maintain their strongholds, and the presence of a tiger trout does show one less brookie that could have been a brookie and is now a brown.
In many streams, there is no turning back. It is only a matter of time, and in the stream that HopBack caught this fish in, that is certainly the case. I would say that in thirty years or so, you won't find a brook trout in that stream.
You could poison some streams and reset the clocks, but without a sizable barrier browns would most likely reestablish themselves because they would exist somewhere in the system.
In many streams, there is no turning back. It is only a matter of time, and in the stream that HopBack caught this fish in, that is certainly the case. I would say that in thirty years or so, you won't find a brook trout in that stream.
You could poison some streams and reset the clocks, but without a sizable barrier browns would most likely reestablish themselves because they would exist somewhere in the system.
Yeah, resetting the clock isn't gonna happen. But we can try to slow it down and rally to protect streams that still have a chance to maintain healthy brook trout populations. Changing attitudes is a small step in that direction.
wildtrout2
Well-known member
Mandatory harvest of browns would be the only possible solution I can think of. But, two things would get in the way. One, is the minimum legal harvest size for trout, and enforcing such a regulation being the other.
sarce
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2013
- Messages
- 1,664
And browns being good at avoiding capture.
sarce
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2013
- Messages
- 1,664
I think having a barrier to recolonization of the non-natives is usually a requirement to do any of the poisoning treatments that are common out west. I doubt there are many suitable streams like that in PA just due to less elevation change in general.
Sure, and I'm not proposing any poisoning of streams be done.
wildtrout2
Well-known member
I'd imagine there are unintended side effects to using poison, however temporary.
Nice job Hop!
I'm still waiting for my first wild tiger. . . and I have been fishing small streams for over forty years.
I'm still waiting for my first wild tiger. . . and I have been fishing small streams for over forty years.
