# New state record Brookie



## Huge29

From DWR's FB page










> Syme cheerfully states "I have been smiling ever since I caught this beautiful trout. I have been fishing the Boulder Mountains for over 30 years in hopes of catching one of the big brook trout that can be found at the many lakes on the Boulder Mountain Range."





> Syme caught the brook trout on July 15 by using a marabou jig. Like many of the Boulder Mountain anglers that have had success catching large brook trout, Syme was hesitant to disclose the particular lake on the mountain where the trophy was caught.


----------



## LOAH

Another Trent, another record broken.

Pretty cool to break that old one!


----------



## tye dye twins

So have they determined whether or not that was a splake?


----------



## Brookie

not yet


----------



## josh12ga

Great job!!!! I bet it was an Awsome feeling...


----------



## hockey

I didn't see it in the picture but I'm pretty sure that fish has one of my jigs in its lip :lol:


----------



## torowy

sure looks like a splake to me


----------



## Chaser

torowy said:


> sure looks like a splake to me


While the colors are a bit washed out, it seems there is too much red on the belly of that fish to be a splake. I would imagine that the DWR would have to be highly confident of the species of fish before posting on their FB wall the news of a record-breaking brookie too.

Too bad the angler doesn't have a picture of that bad boy right after it was caught. Or maybe he does, and doesn't want it posted all over the internet because it shows telling details. Regardless of the species, its a nice fish!


----------



## Fishrmn

torowy said:


> sure looks like a splake to me


Did you look at the tail? It ain't a splake.


----------



## HighmtnFish

I was with him when he caught it and I can tell you that splake have never been planted any where near this lake. I have fished that lake 40 or 50 times in the last 25 years and I have never caught a splake out of that lake. (I have never caught a fish that big out of there either). If it is a splake it is a freak of nature or it was planted illegally or by mistake. The head biologist is going to look at it either today or tomorrow and determine if it is a brook trout. He said he will have to reweigh the fish if he confirms that it is a Brookie. The fish already was weighed at 7 pounds 9 ounces on an official scale in the Springville DWR office so reweighing it seems ridiculous to me, but what do I know?


----------



## Fishrmn

Maybe he knows the guy who holds the old record, and doesn't want to see it broken. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## brookieguy1

HighmtnFish said:


> I was with him when he caught it and I can tell you that splake have never been planted any where near this lake. I have fished that lake 40 or 50 times in the last 25 years and I have never caught a splake out of that lake. (I have never caught a fish that big out of there either). If it is a splake it is a freak of nature or it was planted illegally or by mistake. The head biologist is going to look at it either today or tomorrow and determine if it is a brook trout. He said he will have to reweigh the fish if he confirms that it is a Brookie. The fish already was weighed at 7 pounds 9 ounces on an official scale in the Springville DWR office so reweighing it seems ridiculous to me, but what do I know?


You're right that's rediculous to reweigh it. All that needs to be found out is whether or not it is a brook trout. If it is indeed a brook trout, then it is a new state record, if it is a splake, then nice fish but not rare.
If they do need to reweigh it, the chances are high that the fish has lost several ounces, cheating the catcher of his record. It weighed 7lbs. 9 ounces on official DWR scales no matter what species it was!
Is Milty tipping these guys at the DWR? Kidding of coarse!


----------



## PBH

How come the southern region biologists haven't been asked to verify the fish?

If it was caught from Daugherty, it quite possibly could be a tiger trout. The pics make it hard to tell.

I'm curious why an Outreach guy from the Central Region put this on FB without running it past the biologists first??

any counts on the pyloric caeca? That would tell us what the fish is...


----------



## Brookie

Richard has been contacted or he contacted springville and the decision will be made tomorrow. It is down to Tiger or Brook. It is not a Splake for sure


----------



## gdog

From the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources

Update on the pending brook trout record: After further review and inspection by the regional aquatic program manager and other biologists, it is our determination that Mr. Syme's great catch is actually a tiger trout. With many of these trout, it can be difficult to distinguish the differences between hybrid fish, such as tiger trout or splake, from brook trout. 

Mr. Syme wants to look at every possible option to determine the species. He is going to have the fish weighed on a certified scale, and if the weight is over the standing record, he will take the fish to a taxidermist and have the entrails extracted. At that point, DWR will examine the fish's insides to determine whether or not it's a brook trout.

In short, the record is still pending further investigation. We’ll keep you posted on the outcome!


----------



## wyoming2utah

If you look closely at the pictures, you will notice a couple of things about the spotting pattern of this fish that scream--"not brook trout". 1) The spots are irregularly shaped and not uniform in pattern--brook trout spots are very regularly shaped and very circular. 2) The irregularly shaped spots of this fish also lack the blue halos that brook trout possess. These two things alone tell me that there is a good chance that fish is NOT a brook trout.

With that in mind, a couple other things about this fish scream tiger trout--1) the length and lack of girth of this fish is simply out of characteristic of Utah brook trout. In over 30 years of not only fishing for brook trout on the Boulder Mountains and southern Utah but also gill netting and shocking trips with my father on very good lakes including the lake with the current state record fish, I have NEVER seen a brook trout over 22 inches long. A 27-inch long brook trout is more than an anomaly...it is just not out there. And, any brook trout over 17 inches really starts to get humpy and stumpy in appearance; they are exceptionally round and fat. 2) Many have noted that the tail is simply not forked enough to be a splake...I would concur. But, in my eyes, that tail has a slight fork. Brook trout do not. The parent species of tiger trout are brown trout and brook trout...the brown does have a slight fork, however. 3) I know the lake where this fish was caught. I have seen both large brook trout and large tiger trout from this lake. Just two years ago another tiger trout was turned in as the new state record brookie and later identified. Tiger trout in this lake have been known to look very much more like the parent brook trout and less like the tiger trout you might see in other places. Brook trout in this lake are very much like other brook trout in other lakes on the Boulder Mountain....my father caught a very large brookie from this lake several years ago that exceeded twenty inches. This fish--now mounted and on display in the Southern Region DWR office--looks nothing like the fish in question. It is shorter, fatter, much more colorful, and displays much more circular spots with distinct blue halos. If I can find that picture, I will post it.

In the end, although the fish in question is unquestionably a trophy, it is not a state record brookie and I am glad it wasn't ultimately misidentified as such. I also hope that this slight mess leads the DWR into some stricter guidelines in how fish are identified and considered to be record catches before press releases go out. I congratulate the fisherman on his fine catch and although I really wish we did have a new state record caught, I highly doubt that a state record brook trout is currently alive in Utah or that one will be caught in the near future...


----------



## HighmtnFish

You bring up some good points about the characteristics of the fish Wyoming2Utah and I agree with them. I saw the fish when it first came out of the water and I was also puzzled by the lack of red spots with blue halos, and also by the tiger trout like markings on the gill plates. But the red brook trout belly, and the red brook trout fins, and the lack of classic tiger trout vermiculations (squiggles) on the sides made us wonder if it was indeed a Brookie. So why not get it tested, why not get it looked at by the State Biologists and have them determine for sure what species it is. This fish fooled a lot of people to the point that we were 1 step away from calling it the state record. So I would not too critical of the guy who caught it or me for not identifying the fish correctly.


----------



## PBH

HighmtnFish said:


> This fish fooled a lot of people to the point that we were 1 step away from calling it the state record. So I would not too critical of the guy who caught it or me for not identifying the fish correctly.


I don't think anyone was critical with the guy who caught it, or you. Like you said, there are numerous things with this fish that have confused a lot of people.

The criticism comes from the way the DWR "jumped the gun" and started posting notices on FB without having a fish biologist look at it.

It's a great fish. Nothing can take that away from anyone.


----------



## bigshooter

My first responce is to PHB- Why does the southern region biologists need to verify this fish? Are the central region biologists or division staff not qualified? If not then maybe some investigating needs to be done into their education and knowledge of the species they are supossed to be managing. That said to our wildlife division staff-there is a publication put out by the Utah Division of Wildlife its called the Utah Division Of Wildlife Resources 2012 Utah Fishing Guide Book. It has wonderful pictures of the fish available in Utah with a description of what they look like. If you read the desription for a Tiger Trout it states- has a unique, dark maze like patten all over its brownish gray body... Brook trout description states- colors can vary greatly depending on whether the fish lives in a stream or lake. Characteristic light wavy marks on the back are a distinguishing feature. The obvious white-black striping pattern along the front edge of the lower fins makes it easier to distinguish brook trout from other species. The record in question falls under these Brook trout facts..Maybe all division staff should carry one of these guide books with them at all times so they can learn how to identify our wonderful states fish. I know there are all sorts of color variations- but the guide book should state this fact.. maybe the division should quit playing science trying to create a newer better fish. We already have Rainbow's and Cutthroats in every puddle isnt that enough? J/k.. They should start managing all of the states wildlife better. The final decision should not be made by one or two individuals. To many politics can come into play. Maybe its the biologists neighbors dad who has to current record? Wyoming2utah you made some interesting facts. I too have fished this lake where the record came out of for many years. You mentioned that there are Tiger Trout in this lake. My question is how did they get there? Tiger trout are not natural fish. So they had to have been planted by the Utah Divsion of Wildlife. The only problem is I cant find any stocking record of this ever taking place. Maybe its a cover-up by the division? and they don't want the general public to find this out... Or maybe they screwed up and planted these Tiger Trout in the wrong lake and covered it up so the general public didn't find out. If thats the case, what does that say about our wildlife division? I guess they must have been illegally stocked by bucket biologists and have been reproducing for years.


----------



## LOAH

After repeatedly looking at the higher resolution pics on BFT, I'm in complete agreement that it is a tiger. The gill plates hit me first, then the rest of the vermiculation, being long and irregular. In fact, it's quite hard to find any real "spots" anywhere on the fish.

It's a really nice tiger though and definitely worth getting mounted. Congrats on an awesome catch.

Considering this year's record tiger, this tiger would have gotten much less publicity, had it possessed a more "classic" tiger look.

Man, I've got to get to that lake someday. That is, if the rest of the state hasn't already whipped it to a froth by then *ahem*.


----------



## Brookie

Highmtnfish didn't identify it wrong, We just thought what the heck lets see what the DWR thinks because we knew it could go either way based on the proclamation. I thought about posting pics here first to get votes on tiger or brook but I decide to let the DWR decide. So far most have said brook at first impression. I also know that everyone else would be way excited to have signatures and the weight of a new state record on paper like I have. This fish has now been frozen and thawed 3 times to be looked at. It might have to be recreated because it might be ruined


----------



## LOAH

That's a shame. It certainly won't taste very good by now.


----------



## brookieguy1

Brookie said:


> Highmtnfish didn't identify it wrong, We just thought what the heck lets see what the DWR thinks because we knew it could go either way based on the proclamation. I thought about posting pics here first to get votes on tiger or brook but I decide to let the DWR decide. So far most have said brook at first impression. I also know that everyone else would be way excited to have signatures and the weight of a new state record on paper like I have. This fish has now been frozen and thawed 3 times to be looked at. It might have to be recreated because it might be ruined


Heck no Highmtnfish did nothing wrong. I've been after that elusive record for almost 30 years and if I had caught that fish it would have been a brookie before I had it in the net in my eyes. I empathize with Trent immensely. To find out that big fish was a tiger trout after thinking it was a brook would be the letdown of letdowns. It would give me even more backing to my hatred of those worthless gene-stained tiger trout.


----------



## PBH

Bigshooter -- yikes.

The first time a biologist looked at the fish was today. He called it a tiger trout.

The other DWR personnel who "identified" the fish were not fisheries biologists. They work in other capacities in which their expertise is NOT fish identification. They were both mistaken by a very beautiful fish. Easily done. Their biggest mistakes were jumping the gun (posting on FB) without having an "expert" look at the fish. If you think of this scenario in a medical setting, you could say that the secretary and the office manager diagnosed a patient with leukemia. When the doctor finally took a look, the patient really only had a lung infection. Should the secretary and office manager have more training in order to better diagnose medical ailments? Or, should they refer those types of decisions to the doctor?

Finally -- on the conspiracy stuff....I'll get you the records that show tiger trout were stocked in the lake in question. They are also regularly stocked in the lake directly downstream from this lake -- while it would be a stretch for them to migrate up, it wouldn't be impossible. And, as you brought up, mistaken stockings do happen -- but a "cover up" is really stretching things. I'll get the info for you on stocking -- how would you like for me to deliver it to you?


----------



## bigshooter

PBH- you skated around the question. Why do the southern biologists need to verify the fish instead of the central region? That was a question i asked you...Do you have special interest when it comes to the southern biologists? And as far as the other division employees that work at the central region office not having expertise in fish identification they better since the central region fish hatchery is in the same parking lot. But you see thats part of the problem division employees not knowing their jobs or what they are looking at I guess. That must have been what happened down there-Said lake where this trophy fish came out of had Mis-identified fish planted in it. Or someone did a planting by air and planted the wrong lake and Maybe a employee got demoted for it-and maybe the division has covered it up since. I challenge you to find documented proof where the division has planted tiger trout in this lake!!! The only proof you will find is that they should never have been in there... I want you to post it here for everyone to see. I know I am coming off harsh but I also know there is no proof of them being planted in the lake on purpose....


----------



## wildflower

It's a very nice fish. Too bad the division and the state biologist have taken so long to decide...and re-decide. It's ridiculous to put somebody thru the ups and downs! Hopefully the you can get a great mount!


----------



## PBH

Bigshooter -- Slater showed up and identified the fish. That's good enough for me. Prior to Slater showing up, the other people that attempted to identify the fish were NOT fish biologists! I don't care if they work in a hatchery or not! That is NOT following protocol. Further -- the fish was NEVER weighed on a CERTIFIED scale, which is also protocol.

I suggested to use a southern region biologist because the fish was caught in the southern region. Why shouldn't they be involved in the identification of the fish? Again, look at it from a medical perspective and ask yourself who you want diagnosis your ailment: the doctor, or the receptionist / instrument maker?

wildflower -- it might be ridiculous, and mistakes were obviously made, but the key is to GET IT RIGHT. I have to give credit to the DWR for trying to do that. Getting it wrong would have been much worse!



I'll get you the stocking information -- however, I will get in trouble by the moderators for disclosing the name of the lake the fish came from. No biggie -- I can handle the mods...


----------



## Dodger

bigshooter said:


> PBH- you skated around the question. Why do the southern biologists need to verify the fish instead of the central region? That was a question i asked you...Do you have special interest when it comes to the southern biologists? And as far as the other division employees that work at the central region office not having expertise in fish identification they better since the central region fish hatchery is in the same parking lot. But you see thats part of the problem division employees not knowing their jobs or what they are looking at I guess.


I think what happened here is terrible. It is really an unfortunate situation. But, at the same time, the fish biologists are the only ones that really should be making the call. You had every "expert" on this forum calling it differently based on the provided pictures. Just because someone wears a DWR uniform doesn't mean he can tell one fish from another.

I'm sure the angler who caught the fish is disappointed. But, there's no reason to be angry about it. The fish is what it is. No one changed it to steal something away from you. If you get the intestines out and the pyloric cacea count is between 23 and 55, you have a brookie. If the pyloric cacea count is 93-208, you have a tiger whether the fish is supposed to be in there or not.

I don't think it is right to castigate all DWR employees as "not knowing their job" when the secretaries and the office managers mis-identify a fish. Even if they are right next to the hatchery, I'm sure there are little signs they put on the fish runs or a piece of paper somewhere that says "Raceway 4 - Tiger Trout." I would assume that the DWR has a fleet mechanic. They have PR people. They have legal specialists. I think you need to consider the source and who is and who isn't really qualified to identify the fish.

It's unfair because they got the angler's hopes up only to crush them. But, the angler's hopes were up because he caught a fish that looked like a brookie, not because of what DWR told him.



bigshooter said:


> That must have been what happened down there-Said lake where this trophy fish came out of had Mis-identified fish planted in it. Or someone did a planting by air and planted the wrong lake and Maybe a employee got demoted for it-and maybe the division has covered it up since. I challenge you to find documented proof where the division has planted tiger trout in this lake!!! The only proof you will find is that they should never have been in there... I want you to post it here for everyone to see. I know I am coming off harsh but I also know there is no proof of them being planted in the lake on purpose....


Accusing the division of a cover up is really silly. Consider the unlikely scenario that someone planted the lake by air and planted the wrong lake. If the pilot didn't realize the error, no one would ever know!

Why would DWR need to cover up that tigers were stocked in a particular lake? They aren't going to hurt the ecology - they will eventually all get caught or die. Same thing with the tiger muskies in Fish Lake. Yeah, it is a mess up but it will fix itself.

Also, if there are tiger trout anywhere in the water system, it is totally conceivable that the tigers swam upstream from another lake to get where they were never stocked intentionally. It's the nature of fish, they swim.

I hate to say it but the angler's pictures posted here are the proof that there are tiger trout in the lake. They didn't occur their naturally so the DWR, or someone else, must have planted them.

The angler hasn't lost anything here but a potential opportunity. It sounds a lot like the 7 year old kid that is upset because the person next to him caught a foul ball at a baseball game and not him. You still got a ball from the bat boy. Be grateful for it.


----------



## Catherder

I guess I don't see what all the disagreement is about.

1. Nobody is criticizing the guy that caught the fish and/or his friends. They did the same thing all of us likely would have done. The person that caught it has himself a true trophy, regardless of the fishes genealogy.

2. There is agreement that certain folks at the DWR may have been premature in pronouncing it a record, but everyone also seems to agree that it is well that they "got it right" at the end of the day. If hopes were prematurely raised by someone that wasn't "in the know", that is regrettable, but that is also life. I assume the DWR will review this situation and hopefully streamline the process for the next time.

So what's all the fuss?

The only thing I'd say is about the intimation that all DWR staff should have and encyclopedic knowledge of all of the fish because it is in the guidebook. This fish caused a good bit of discussion about whether it was a brookie, splake, or tiger among not just the Joe 6 pack crowd that couldn't tell the difference between a brown and a cutthroat, but knowledgeable guys that have caught a lot of each. I learned a couple of new things myself in the discourse and I'll match my lifetime brookie count with almost anyone. If it was so easy to determine what this fish was by an appeal to the guidebook, then all of the discussion that followed wouldn't have occurred. It is justifiable to criticize the DWR folks for not following protocol, but to bash some *non-biologist *for missing the species is a bit harsh IMO.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

I agree 100%. Everybody is always so quick to jump down somebody's throat and expect perfection from others. Every person at the DWR has to be completely without fault and completely in the know on every aspect of wildlife or they hear it from the masses. It seems to me that by and large they can do no good in many peoples eyes.

To expect people to be without fault is not logical.


----------



## Dirthead

Its been so long since I posted on here I had to recreate my username again. But this whole situation upsets me so much I had to say something. I happen to know Brookie very well. He is a incredible individual, a true sportsman and a rolemodel to his community including myself. In my opinion if anyone deserves the state record its him. He has had many ups and downs through this whole saga. There have been some "mistakes" along the way and its very unfortunate. Its unfortunate to see indiviuals make calls from their computer also, when they dont know the whole story.(This is most forums in general and I know that). I am one of the few people who know the whole story. The division staff that first stated this fish being a record where not in the wrong. They followed protocol -PBH- you have made remarks that they were not "experts". You are the one who doesnt know what you are talking about. Line 7 on the official catch and keep application procedures of the record fish program application states: A Utah Division of Wildlife Resources employee must witness and certify in writing the species, total fish length and girth verification. That should have been good enough: because thats what was done division employees signed off on these items. They felt it was the new state record Brook Trout. Thats following the application proccedures!!! PBH you are always skeptical of every big fish that someone catchs. I think you are a forum Troll who thinks he knows everything. I am sorry you don't. (for the record from another forum and a few months back) My potential State Record Walleye is not fake just because the picture was taken in a garage. You feel the division was to quick to post that it was a new state record- you are to quick to be negative towards everyone ( I can't wait to see what you have to say because I am sure you will.. just to try to prove yourself right )


----------



## brookieguy1

Brookie is absolutely a fine individual. So is PBH. I think one record that is the ultimate to hold and also the most difficult to ever beat in Utah is the brook trout. Brookie isn't the only person that craves that elusive, and probably unattainable fish.
With that being said, I would have ran that beast into the DWR just like he did, thinking I had actually done it. Beaten my own hero, Milton Taft.
But the brook trout record cannot fall without question. I'm sure brookie himself would not want to hold a "false" record. I'm also sure in the back of his mind, he feared that his fish just may not have been a brook trout. I'm truly, truly sorry for him that it wasn't. 
I have personally let the hopes of catching the state record brook trout dwindle somewhat. It takes too much chasing and vehicle beating and being a season late here and a year early there to keep up. It's much more satisfying just to go where I know and hope for the best. I still chase the larger brookies, but that 7.6 pounder is I'm affraid, a Ghost Fish.


----------



## fixed blade XC-3

I'm not a expert or anything, but I'm pretty sure that's a Rainbow.


----------



## wildflower

PBH...I in no way disrespect the DWR. All I was saying is that its to bad it took so long. There has been unnecessary damage done to an awesome mount. I know brookie and it has been an up and down week of excitement and disappointment. Still an awesome fish.

I don't think it was an easy fish to identify...the biologist called another biologist for his opinion....and I doubt brookie is mad at anybody. Maybe disappointed but who wouldn't be. This has been said previously...there is nothing to argue about


----------



## Brookie

> Dodger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure the angler who caught the fish is disappointed. But, there's no reason to be angry about it. The fish is what it is. No one changed it to steal something away from you.
> 
> When did I say I was angry?
> 
> It's unfair because they got the angler's hopes up only to crush them. But, the angler's hopes were up because he caught a fish that looked like a brookie, not because of what DWR told him.
> I got my hopes up because of what the DWR said not the other way around.
> 
> The angler hasn't lost anything here but a potential opportunity. It sounds a lot like the 7 year old kid that is upset because the person next to him caught a foul ball at a baseball game and not him. You still got a ball from the bat boy. Be grateful for it.
Click to expand...

When did I say I wasn't Grateful?

I will say DWR has not said sorry for the mistake and confusion. But I'm a big 7 year old and can handle it


----------



## LOAH

Brookie, it's an awesome fish, any way you look at it. Congratulations to you.

I would imagine you were hoping to get a skin mount of it, right? It's a pity that you had to freeze, thaw, freeze, thaw, and so on. I wish you the best of luck in getting a great mount out of it still.

You obviously know how to find a sweet fish, so keep it up and let us know about them every once in awhile. 8)


----------



## Dodger

Brookie said:


> Dodger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure the angler who caught the fish is disappointed. But, there's no reason to be angry about it. The fish is what it is. No one changed it to steal something away from you.
> 
> When did I say I was angry?
> 
> It's unfair because they got the angler's hopes up only to crush them. But, the angler's hopes were up because he caught a fish that looked like a brookie, not because of what DWR told him.
> I got my hopes up because of what the DWR said not the other way around.
> 
> The angler hasn't lost anything here but a potential opportunity. It sounds a lot like the 7 year old kid that is upset because the person next to him caught a foul ball at a baseball game and not him. You still got a ball from the bat boy. Be grateful for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When did I say I wasn't Grateful?
> 
> I will say DWR has not said sorry for the mistake and confusion. But I'm a big 7 year old and can handle it
Click to expand...

Just to be clear Brookie, my comments were not directed at you. They were instead directed to some of the other people here that are/were angry. I would characterize them as ungrateful, not you. I think you are the one that got hosed in all of this and, honestly, you are the one who has a right to be angry.

You had to have had your hopes up to even take the fish in. Maybe my analogy wasn't the best. I'm sorry.

At the end of the day though, I don't understand certain arguments here; Dirthead's post above, for example. Even if the fish is certified, weighed, etc. according to protocol, you still never had a brook trout. How can you get the record for a brook trout without actually producing a brook trout? It is as simple as that.

I feel bad for you Brookie. I'm sure it has been a disappointment. But, I think the DWR made the mistake in good faith. If I were you, I would consider forgiving them and putting all of this to bed. You're the only one that can do that.

Congrats on a great fish.


----------



## PBH

Dirthead said:


> Its unfortunate to see indiviuals make calls from their computer also, when they dont know the whole story. The division staff that first stated this fish being a record where not in the wrong. They followed protocol -PBH- you have made remarks that they were not "experts". You are the one who doesnt know what you are talking about. Line 7 on the official catch and keep application procedures of the record fish program application states: A Utah Division of Wildlife Resources employee must witness and certify in writing the species, total fish length and girth verification. That should have been good enough:


Further, on line 6 is says: "Fish must be weighed on a certied commercial scale that is legal for trade/commerce, located at a fixed location (stationary), independently owned, and which carries a current certification sticker affixed by the Utah Department of Agriculture Food and Weights Division (most grocery store and post office scales are certified and inspected). A weighing receipt must be attached to the record fish application. The weighing must be witnessed and certified in writing by two independent witnesses who are not members of the individual's fishing party or family."

So, since you know this story, when was this fish weighed on a certified scale?? The scale at the hatchery in the springville office is NOT a certified scale, and thus could NOT be used for the record catch.

Look -- I'm not condemning the anglers. They did nothing wrong (to my knowledge). The guy caught an awesome fish! It's too bad that this was not a record!

Some of you think that I didn't want this record broken. Too the contrary, I do! Why wouldn't I? In fact, wouldn't it be the ultimate reward crediting the hard work that my father and brother have done to keep the Boulder Mountain brook trout fishery the world class fishery it is?? Wouldn't a new state record brook trout from Boulder Mountain say that every bit of sweat that guys like Stan Beckstrom, Mike Ottenbacher, Chuck Chamberlain, and Mike Hadley have put into these waters was worth it? What a reward for them!!

I wanted this fish to be a state record as bad as anyone! BUT -- and this is a big but -- I wanted it to be legitimate!!

congratulations on a great fish! I wish it were a brook trout.


----------



## PBH

Bigshooter -- I looked up only 1 year. 2003. Tall 4. Tiger Trout. What more should I look up? Honestly, it makes no difference, because the small stream connecting the two lakes makes it possible that tiger trout could be in the other lake -- name withheld to protect the panties of Nate.

I'll see what else I can find for ****. _(Moderator note: Name of lake removed.)_

Damnit. It slipped. Sorry Nate.


----------



## hedged

Here kitty kitty.

I know I'd be happy with a big fish like that even with no record. I'm sure that is his biggest tiger, congrats.


----------



## drew cushing

Hello everyone.

The Division of Wildlife Resources apologizes for mishandling this process. As you would imagine the Springville hatchery were caught up in the moment and emotions that flow when an awesome fish like this fish comes in. We have discussed this issue internally and will address it at a meeting on August 1. There is a process in place and here it is:

1. Several pictures should be taken of the fish immediately upon catch this helps because fish tend to lose color quickly. Having a measuring devise along the fish helps.

2. The person with the fish should immediately take the fish to a certified scale at a butcher shop, post office or grocery store. Fish do lose weight quickly so don't take it any further than is absolutely necessary. DWR offices don't have certified scales and I am thankful for not having one. It removes subjectivity from the process.

3. The fish should then be brought into a DWR office to be measured for length and girth and proper identification by a qualified DWR employee (fisheries biologist).

4. After the first three steps are completed the properly completed paperwork is submitted and makes its way to my desk. I, for better or worse am the final judge and jury on all record submissions.

This fish is awesome!!!! I commend the person who caught it on the fish of a life time. If it is a record great!!! If not, then it is still an awesome fish and the envy of many anglers including myself. 

It is my job to make sure that when the day ends that the DWR gets the job done correctly and when records are broken that they are legit. I assure you that we will get this one correct.


Drew Cushing
Sportfish Coordinator
Utah Division of Wildlife Resources


----------



## wildflower

Drew- That was really nice of you to apologize. I can only image how crazy that day must have been. I know that Brookie is in no way upset at the division. He was just as excited as you when he thought he may have a state record. The entire situation should be a learning experience for all involve. There is no need to fight or blame anybody. Thanks for all your effort in doing your job and doing it right!


----------



## drew cushing

You are welcome. I am sure that everyone there was very excited......I know how I am when I catch a big fish.

I wanted to say that I am not making excuses for not adhering to the process. We will get this record submission correct and we will address what happened to ensure it doesn't happen again.

Drew


----------



## gpskid

Howdy UWN
Congrates Trent nice Tiger
This post finally got my curiosity up and figured a needed to post a history lesson, 
In 1999 I ventured out into the Boulders trying to GPS every lake, this took me several years and several summers, no I'm not a great fisherman, or fanatic about that, just like to explore. I had heard of DWR plans to implement Boulder as more of a (Sport Fisheries)
not sure I agree after fishing this mountain for 35-40 years, course I was always dreaming of that "Record Brookie" like most of you on this net, but have seen the ups and downs but that all changed in July 2005, my son caught the new Tiger trout record in Utah, 7Lbs 9 oz, the same as Trents, yes this fish could have been more, but we had to hike out 3 1/2 miles, drive the wheeler to camp, get in the truck and, drive to Torrey, find a certified scale, get a forest service personal there and a DWR employee there, which we did, what a thrill, great fish. I had been to this lake in 2000, knew the DWR had treated the lake, 2001 restocked with Cutts, no mention of Tigers no record of this only in later reports that there plan was to place a few Tiger in these treated lakes, Like Trent's lake, no record of acually planting Tigers, DWR felt no need because so few were placed. This fish only took 4 years to reach this size in four years, this means Trent's fish would have been in the lake during the summer of 2008 at just 3 inches. I do know the guy that planted my sons fish, that works out of Bicknell, one of those guys that don't give up alot on the boulders, well enough BS. PHB, WYO2(i think) and their family, great guys that done tons to get the boulders to the fisherery it is.
Enough said here's pics








2005 Record








Caught from the same Lake by my grandson, won pic of the week on Doug Miller








On the Wall








Another Lake








Young Tiger








Cool Pic








My biggest brookies for breaktfest








So this is the controvesy, this Brookie was caught at the same lake the Cutt and record Tiger the next day....??????????????
Sorry so long and I quess I cut off most...crapp
Do need to figure that out sorry
Thanks guys & gals


----------



## sawsman

Alright, the original gpskid! Welcome back Shane! Hope you stick around. 8)


----------



## Huge29

Welcome back Shane! Thanks for sharing the awesome pics!


----------



## LOAH

I was wondering if you were on here, just under a different name. Welcome back.


----------



## wyogoob

Thanks for sharing the great story and pics.


----------



## NHS

PBH said:


> Bigshooter -- I looked up only 1 year. 2003. Tall 4. Tiger Trout. What more should I look up? Honestly, it makes no difference, because the small stream connecting the two lakes makes it possible that tiger trout could be in the other lake -- name withheld to protect the panties of Nate.
> 
> I'll see what else I can find for ****. _(Moderator note: Name of lake removed.)_
> 
> Damnit. It slipped. Sorry Nate.


I don't know if I should be worried or flattered that you are so into my panties.


----------



## bigshooter

NHS said:


> PBH said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bigshooter -- I looked up only 1 year. 2003. Tall 4. Tiger Trout. What more should I look up? Honestly, it makes no difference, because the small stream connecting the two lakes makes it possible that tiger trout could be in the other lake -- name withheld to protect the panties of Nate.
> 
> I'll see what else I can find for ****. _(Moderator note: Name of lake removed.)_
> 
> Damnit. It slipped. Sorry Nate.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if I should be worried or flattered that you are so into my panties.
Click to expand...

You should probably feel flattered. Because I am sure I am the only one getting into your "panties"!! You might want to relish the moment because I am sure it's been awhile...


----------



## Dirthead

I think some valuable lessons have been taught here. The Utah DWR has got some kinks to get worked out. Hopefully this will help individuals in the futere and hopefully the division will get everything handled properly next time. All though the fishing guide book states- "any division employee"- can sign off on a state record fish this is not true. A regional biologist is the only division employee to FIRST identify your fish, not "ANY EMPLOYEE" and MR. Drew Cushing is the ONLY employee who actually has the true and final say. The scales that are used by the Utah DWR are not actually certified by the state of Utah Weights and Measures for whatever reasons. I would think their scales should be acurate for report type purposes. The fishing guide book needs to be more descriptive for fish identification. There is to many variations with all these hybrid/super fish and the fish guide book should state this. There needs to be acurate stocking records for all the lakes in Utah. The location where this Brook Trout or Tiger trout was caught at, actually had Tigers planted into it by accident by the Division and the Division has never made this information public for some reason!! (This is a fact- not my opinion, this was told to me from a knowlegable divison employee). Further more there is still room for error when it comes to the weighing of fish. Anyone who catches a "Record type fish" could just have some friends sign off on the weight. That is not what happened here. The state should realize that all you need to know is someone who works where there is a certified scale and lie about the weight. I personally don't see why our DWR should not invest in cetified scales and be the ones to verify everything when it comes to a State Record. We can trust our division right?


----------



## PBH

Dirthead said:


> The location where this Brook Trout or Tiger trout was caught at, actually had Tigers planted into it by accident by the Division and the Division has never made this information public for some reason!! (This is a fact- not my opinion, this was told to me from a knowlegable divison employee).


Fact? Or theory.

The problem with "accidental" stockings is that they are done by accident, which means that they usually are done without knowledge that it is being done. In that sense, how can it ever be "fact"?

In 2003 Tall 4 was "stocked" with tiger trout. The lake in question is less than 1/4 mile from Tall 4. There is theory that the scheduled stocking of tiger trout in Tall 4 ended up in the other lake. But, how does anyone know for sure? It is possible that the fish migrated up the stream connecting the two lakes.

Look at the post by gpskid -- his post mentions another lake known for nice cutthroat and tigers, which then ended up with brook trout. How did the brook trout end up in that lake? Was it a case of mistaken stocking by airplane? Did fishermen move brook trout from one of the nearby streams into this lake? Did they migrate on their own during a period of extreme high water (which we did have when they showed up...)? The only fact is that we don't know for sure.

The DWR should make some modifications to their practice of accepting fish as state record fish -- especially with what Dirthead brought up concerning hybrids. We've already seen problems with identification and records. When will we see our first "striper" from Powell being submitted as a supposed state record "wiper" from Willard or Newcastle? We already have a catch-and-release record "brook trout" that is most likely a splake. We've had two instances of tiger trout being submitted as brook trout. Hybrids are changing things, and the DWR needs to change their methods. Identification by committee. 30 day waiting period. Pictures of the fish at the location with identifiable background. Specific name of the water the fish was caught from. 
I think good change will come.


----------



## GaryFish

I'm not really sure why we keep such records anyway. But that's just me. 

Really - what does it matter?


----------



## Dodger

GaryFish said:


> I'm not really sure why we keep such records anyway. But that's just me.
> 
> Really - what does it matter?


Because it is fun and it recognizes a significant achievement.


----------



## GaryFish

I can see that Dodger. But if it results in the to create advanced protocols, procedures, complex processes, certifications, waiting periods, picture requirements (Holy Photoshop Batman!), all for someone to have bragging rights on something that is as much luck as achievement - seems to be quite a waste of tax payer dollar. But that's just me.


----------



## brookieguy1

GaryFish said:


> I can see that Dodger. But if it results in the to create advanced protocols, procedures, complex processes, certifications, waiting periods, picture requirements (Holy Photoshop Batman!), all for someone to have bragging rights on something that is as much luck as achievement - seems to be quite a waste of tax payer dollar. But that's just me.


Only the brook trout record really matters. It's nastalgic and will probably never be beaten. If it does get beaten, it needs to be with the utmost scrutinization.
And it's got to be me!


----------



## Bar8spread

So where are we at on this. what was the office decision? And where does this leave brookie?


----------



## PBH

http://wildlife.utah.gov/dwr/record-fish.html said:


> TROUT, Brook 1971 7 lb 8 oz Milton Taft Boulder Mountain


it was a tiger trout.


----------



## gpskid

Glad Spring City finally got internet service

As for the record, it will stand till I break it


----------



## sawsman

gpskid said:


> Glad Spring City finally got internet service
> 
> As for the record, it will stand till I break it


Internet? I didn't know there was electricity in Spring City yet. What the heck? :?

I hope to break that record in another couple of weeks.


----------



## Moostickles

GaryFish said:


> I can see that Dodger. But if it results in the to create advanced protocols, procedures, complex processes, certifications, waiting periods, picture requirements (Holy Photoshop Batman!), all for someone to have bragging rights on something that is as much luck as achievement - seems to be quite a waste of tax payer dollar. But that's just me.


+1


----------

