PA Trout records

[Cornholio]

i'd take a 10 inch wild brown over a 10 pound stocker any day of the week. It's not fair to count stockies if you ask me, but where do you draw the line? an example would be the fact that the majority of the big trout in kinzua are stocked, but have more or less turned wild. I wish there was a better system, but there are so many complications.

 

[troutbert]

pete41 wrote:

Chaz wrote: My beef is that all the records are for stockies. They shouldn't even count. I concur with that statement.

If you had been the lucky angler-then what?

What do you mean by "then what?"

The record trout are hatchery fish. The people that caught them probably enjoyed the experience. There is no contradiction.

 

[afishinado]

troutbert wrote:

pete41 wrote:

Chaz wrote: My beef is that all the records are for stockies. They shouldn't even count. I concur with that statement.

If you had been the lucky angler-then what?

What do you mean by "then what?"

The record trout are hatchery fish. The people that caught them probably enjoyed the experience. There is no contradiction.

This includes the second sentence of Pete's post:
"If you had been the lucky angler-then what?
99.9% of record fish are caught by luck so what does it prove anyway."

As Pete says, it proves nothing, but I agree, it also causes no harm; and many anglers have an experience and story of a lifetime.

I do shake my head at guys that actually stock humungus fish (for the kid's:roll🙂, winch them in and register them for recognition. But overall, the record thing is not really bad at all.