For the sake of a good discussion, I'll bite.
But, Before I address your questions, I do want to explain myself a little. I firmly believe Sasa Krezic's fish should be the new state record. He caught it fair and square according to the requirements set by TWRA. I was sincere in my congratulations. That is an awesome fish and should be recognized as such. But............. I don't believe it should have been there in the first place. Some things in life shouldn't be "made easy" for the sake of the masses. Catching brook trout is something that should require some effort. Tailwaters are a very unnatural but necessary environment. The ideal fish for them is a cold water fish (trout). So, why not stock rainbows and browns. Both of these are not natural fish for the area and thrive in the environment.
Let me play devil's advocate for the southern brookie purist crowd- as I understand it, many mountain streams and watersheds have received northern strain brookies at some point in history. The use of southern strains is a relatively new development, and many of the bigger streams that can support the biggest fish can not be completely purged of northern genetics. Additionally, most of these fish in these streams are limited in size because of habitat quality/overcrowding, as opposed to "inferior" southern genetics.
This is correct I'm not sure what TWRA's stance is on restocking southern strain brook trout is, but I do know the National Park Service has said that they have just a very limited number of streams left that they can restock with the southern strain and keep the genetic pure. There needs to be some sort of barrier (waterfall) that keeps the unwanted genetics below where they would restock. The southern strain will never be a "big river" type of fish.
So who's going to tote a 12" brookie out of XYZ Branch instead of releasing it, just to find out it is pure N or N/S hybrid when the genetics come back, thus disqualifying it from certification?
There's a few in every crowd that would. I like to eat fish and regularly haul out 5 7" fish for dinner (more of a snack). The streams are overpopulated and keeping fish only improves the fish quality. If I caught a 12" fish, it would be carried out, but eaten instead of measured.
Or who wants TWRA (or NPS, USFS, etc) to artificially manipulate these streams to the degree required to produce such a fish?
No one would. If brook trout would have never been tossed in the tailwaters to begin with, the records wouldn't be artificially inflated and a 10" brook trout would still be considered a trophy.
Or disclose the name of the stream it was caught in to get their name in the record books, inviting every worm dunker in 3 counties to their honeyhole?
If I told you where I fished, I'd have to kill you. :mrgreen: In all honesty, I don't just "hand-out" my spots, but both TWRA and the National Park have maps detailing where southern strain brook trout have been genetically proven to exist. I would also take about anyone fishing if they wanted to go catch some. We'd even eat them streamside, cooked on a stick over a fire.
That said, none of the Mtn trout purists I have ever known struck me as the "record book" type, and I thinks that's a great thing!
I wouldn't know a state record, world record, or even a TARP fish if it swam up and bit me on the ass. I have no interest in it.
I'm a smallmouth creek fisherman who lives slap between Center Hill and Dale Hollow, and I have no problem with lake fish in a totally artificial environment competing in the same record book that no brown fish from a free-flowing, natural stream will ever scare.
I offered to take you fishing, when are we going to catch some smallmouth? :super:
