Wild TIGER Trout in the Hills of Connecticut (and What's the Deal with My Channel?!) 

Well, I think Mallard's general premise is sensible, but in his eagerness to lodge a blanket condemnation of hybrid trout, he's being a bit hyperbolic maybe. For instance, as far as I can tell, the idea that Sunapee trout vanished primarily due to hybridization is a rather speculative claim that's parroted in a number of places but seems very rarely to be backed up with much studied evidence. Hybridization may have played some small role in the Sunapee's decline (I'd be interested to see authoritative data), but it seems much more likely that it was _competition_ with introduced species that posed the far greater threat to the Sunapee's future. But I digress. I would push back on the notion that wild tigers, in and of themselves, enact a great cost upon native trout fisheries. For one thing, I've seen little in the way of actual studies to support that assertion. And in lieu of actual studies, what can we say about wild tigers? 1) The rate of occurrence of wild tigers in streams where both wild brookies and wild browns coexist is *exceptionally* low. 2) I don't know of any reliable evidence which would suggest that the rate of occurrence is increasing. 3) The relatively rare wild tiger that does reach a catchable size is sterile, unable to contribute to producing any further tigers. 4) Most wild tigers are born in small stream, "blue line" environments in which they most likely have a very short lifespan of maybe 2 or 3 years, so an individual tiger's long-term impact is inherently limited. In a grand scheme perspective, and with little evidence to the contrary, I think wild tigers are rare enough, short-lived enough and "sterile enough" that their cumulative impact on native brook trout populations is likely negligible. So it's okay to be excited about catching a wild tiger, even if Mallard doesn't approve lol. But look, in the sense that wild tigers are _emblematic_ of the cost of browns having become naturalized in trout habitat that was once dominated exclusively by native brookies, I can see why tigers are viewed resentfully through the NFC lens. I get it. That widespread intrusion has almost certainly come at a cost, even if that cost is difficult to quantify. But wild tigers _themselves_ likely play an insignificant role in that dynamic. It just so happens that they're highly recognizable 'symptoms'.

Well said!!

That’s one hell of a tiger!

Overall, I would say that tiger trout are indeed quite rare as a percentage among the populations of the constituent species. I've been lucky enough to catch 5 wild tigers in the last 3 or 4 years, which maybe makes them seem commonplace, but that's been among probably a couple thousand browns and brookies across maybe 100 different blue lines (I'm ballparking this stuff). Seen in that light, they're rare indeed. And even with just 5 wild tigers to the net, I'd still say some sweet "right place, right time" luck played a big role in getting even that many. While it's possible that tigers are becoming incrementally more common, I think most folks just get that impression purely because they see photos of them constantly on social media. I'm skeptical that they're really caught at significantly higher rates. Certain streams DO seem to produce them more than others, though; I can attest to that from my own experiences and those of other anglers I know.

This is my main 3wt setup consisting of TFO Signature II 7’ 6” and Lamson Liquid -3+ reel with Cortland Spring Creek 3wt line. I use Cortland leaders and nylon tippet. No special leader, really. I’ll run a leader for months, quickly clipping it back to the butt section over the ordinary course of use and then just building it back out as needed with successive sections of progressively lighter tippet.

Truth is, figuring out merch sales and stuff isn't really worth the hassle in my case; that stuff takes time. I may do it one day, but only if it can be done in a way that's fun and not too distracting from everything else I juggle. No worries, though; I didn't mean to give the impression that I'm bummed about the channel not making much money. That's not the case, at all. I have a job that I enjoy and I like this channel being something that doesn't end up getting bogged down by financial considerations.

Rainbows spawn in spring

@@rabbittroll4247generally yes, but the stocked ones in ct don’t for whatever reason. I learned that kinda recently lol

@@willsleavin477 stocked trout don't reproduce they sterile them so they don't interfere with wild or native trout reproduction

I’ve got one from late January that I’m working on. Should be out by this weekend!

The actual act of filming was very tough to get used to back when I first started the channel, but I've streamlined that process to the point that it's not too much of a hassle any longer. The real challenge is squeezing the lengthy editing process amidst the other goings-on in life. A 20-minute video usually requires poring over several hours of footage, juggling clips from two different cameras, sourcing music... not to mention meticulously building the story out clip by clip. It's gratifying when it all comes together, for sure, but time constraints mean that a great deal of the filming I've done over the years just never gets an opportunity to be produced into a video. As regards wild tigers, they are such an extreme rarity (on top of being infertile and likely having a short lifecycle as most small stream trout) that I'm skeptical of their novel, chance appearances having any significant ecological impact on the constituent species. It's been theorized that, if hybrid fertilization of eggs occurs often, the result may be a great deal of barren redds (since most hybrid tiger eggs fail to develop properly), and all those barren redds would mean fewer recruited trout of either parent species. But as far as I know, that's largely just speculative. Hybrid fertilization, in practice, may just as well occur only rarely, in which case that theoretical scenario may consequently prove to be a non-issue in the grand scheme. But I think you're probably hinting at the impact of browns encroaching on brookie territory, of which the oddball wild tiger is merely a symptom. And sure, there's undoubtedly a complicated dynamic there which almost certainly must have at least some detrimental impacts on the natives. The actual extent of that negative impact is difficult to really quantify at present, though, and my own experiences on streams that host both species suggests to me that the ways they share habitat are complex and can even differ substantially from one stream to the next. On some streams, for example, I've found that brookies and browns have a tendency to occupy entirely different sections of a stream, with interlopers of either species being uncommon outside of their respective section. Then there are other streams in which I routinely find browns and brookies in direct association, mixed almost 50/50 in the same water, yet both species seem to persist just the same. I could talk about these sorts of observations for hours honestly; there's so much to be unpacked and so much we don't really understand yet about trout in small stream ecosystems. But I'll spare you any further rambling.😂

Hewitt fly pond

They are just a cross between brown and brook trout, so that can happen in the wild. They did stock a bunch of them this fall at the trout parks.

Wild tiger trout are possible in any stream in which wild brook trout and wild brown trout coexist. That said, they're extremely rare; that can't be overstated. There's a vast array of obstacles to a wild tiger arising at all (even with the two requisite species being present), much less maturing to a catchable size. I fish many such small streams where browns and brookies live side by side and, while I've caught thousands of wild trout, I've only brought 4 wild tigers to the net in my life. It's just a "right place, right time" stroke of luck mostly and, at a total of 4, I'm thankful to have been unusually lucky. In other words, it would be entirely within statistical expectations for me to have caught precisely zero wild tigers over the same course of time. Stocked tigers are a different story, of course. There are fascinating techniques used to rear tiger trout in a hatchery setting much more easily, and at far greater quantities, than could ever occur in the wild. That's why the state is able to incorporate them into the stocking program and place them in all sorts of publicly accessible water. Last year, they released over 23,000: a small amount compared to the hundreds of thousands of rainbows, browns and brookies they stock, but still nothing to sneeze at. And they stock them in both lakes and streams. I've caught stocked tigers on four different streams that I can think of off the top of my head, so if you just fish the same sorts of places that they ordinarily stock trout, you may well come up with a tiger sooner or later.

@@ConnecticutAngler I did not know the state started stocking them in public streams? I read somewhere they only stocked private ponds in Ct. The closet state that stocked them public was Mass. I also read Tiger trout are sterile and don't breed. That was interesting. My grandson caught a tiger trout (wish I could post a picture) about a month ago on the Mill River in Hamden. It was about 14". The Hamden Rod & Gun Club is just upstream from where we were. That`s where I thought it might have come from. Thanks for the reply. Now...tell me where you were. 😁🤣

That’s right, tigers can’t reproduce. So whenever a wild tiger is born, it’s ONLY possible by a brook trout accidentally fertilizing a brown trout redd. Tigers can’t breed with tigers to make more tigers, nor can tigers breed with browns or brookies. They are genetic dead-ends.