Minipi Camps Web Log

Is this the biggest brookie ever caught?

The other day I was reading the January 2007 issue of Fur-Fish-Game, a venerable old magazine that’s been published since 1925. It calls itself “The Magazine for Practical Outdoorsmen,” but is primarily a trappers’ magazine. In fact it contains a Fur Market Report, which lists the current skin prices (wild minks, for example, fetch $15 to $20). The News & Notes section of this issue contains pictures of a brook trout caught by Tim Matheson in Manitoba’s Barbe Lake. Rob Cann of the provincial Water Stewardship Fisheries Branch says, ”Based on the measurements of the fish and the pictures I’ve seen, I’d estimate Matheson’s trout to be between 15 and 17 pounds.”

Since the all-tackle world record brook trout, caught in July,1916 in the Nipigon River, Ontario, Canada, by W.J. Cook weighed 14 lbs. 8 oz.; Mr. Matheson is holding the new world record. Holding, not keeping. He released it. Personally I think this denies the world of a singular event, and prevents the historical record from containing data on this fish. (His pictures and measurements were good enough to win him a $1,000 prize in a contest sponsored by Fish ‘n Line magazine and Angling Masters International.)

The day of the catch, Matheson and his pal were using trolling rigs with three-way swivels, lead weights and floating crankbaits – “floating.” That’s interesting. And on those rigs they had each caught and I assume released, 27 and 29 inch rainbows. Then Matheson, for some reason, switched to a chartreuse No. 13 jointed Rapala. And that’s when he caught the giant brookie.

What do you think? Should he have kept this fish? Where else might brookies of this size swim? Do you think 10 lbs. is just about the largest in the Minipi watershed?

1. I think there is definitely a fish that is bigger than 10lbs in Minipi, but to catch him you would need dynamite!

   Posted by  on  01/08  at  10:20 AM

2. The “weight” of this fish was estimated using the length/girth formula. This formula in my opinion is inaccurate for estimating the weight of Brook Trout. Especially trout with pronounced “humps” on their backs. For instance lets examine Salvatore Borrelli’s fish caught on June 29th 1987 (readers who have been to my office have seen the reproduction on my desk). Sal’s Brookie weighted 10 lbs, its length was 28” long and its girth was 21.5”. The website that features Tim’s Manitoba Brookie has a link to the length/girth calculator that they used. If you punch in these measurements you get a calculated weight of 16.17875 lbs, far from the actual weight of 10 lbs. No doubt that Tim Matheson’s fish is huge, but in my opinion it is far from the calculated 15.9 lbs. Tim’s fish was 29”long and had a 21” girth. Check out the photo gallery for photos of Sal’s fish and the reproduction by Dave Footer.

   Posted by RobinCooper  on  01/19  at  10:56 AM

3. Hey Robin, This website is really something!!  Just was notified via e-mail of the comments you posted.  Look forward to seeing your Dad at the New Jersey Fly Fishing Show.

   Posted by  on  01/19  at  11:01 AM

4. Here’s a followup from the March 2007 issue of Fur, fish & Game (the following appeared in the Letters from Readers section): [headlinhe]Not a Record Brook Trout.

   My friend Ray Bailey and I noticed a few tell-tale identification marks that cast doubt on the potential world-record brook trout pictured on page 4 of the Jan. issue.

   A large male brook trout would have a curved lower lip and a square tail. We fish northern Ontario lakes that hold an abundance of large splake, a hybrid cross between speckled trout and lake trout. We’ve caught a few weighing close to 20 pounds. Without any doubt, Tim Matheson caught a very nice splake, but not a world-record brookie. John Fortin, Chapleau, Ontario, Canada.

   The editor comments:

   The fish also may be a cross between a brook trout and a laker, also known in some circles as a splake. Regardless, it is not a world-record brookie. Rebecca Reynolds, world-record coordinator for the International Game Fish association, said that in order for a catch to be recognized, the scales on which the fish is weighed must be verified and a biologist must confirm the species. If there is any doubt, a tissue sample may be tested. Since Matheson did not weigh nor keep the fish, it is not a record and the species remains unknown.

   Posted by  on  02/25  at  10:10 PM

5. Here we go again. Mr. Matheson and his “Brook trout” are on p. 63 of the April 2007 Field & Stream. Again we’re told his “Brookie” was “29 inches in length and 21 inches in girth.” Estimated weight “15 to 17 pounds.”

   The article says, “The IGFA agreed it probably was world-record size, but it wasn’t weighed on a certified scale.” What IGFA said was(a)you need a certified scale and (b) a biologist to verify the species. Matheson had neither. But he is now holding a WORLD-RECORD Brook trout certification from NFWFHF proclaiming that this fish is “a Fresh Water Fishing Hall of Fame all-tackle world record,catch-and-release division.” Catch-and-release division!

   With other informed anglers claiming that this fish may have been or probably was a “splake,” I think we should be careful when handing out records for photos. Ever hear of PhotoShop? Anyway in logic class I learned that similarity is not identity. Milk ain’t cream and a transvestite ain’t a real chick and a splake....

   Posted by  on  03/20  at  11:01 AM

6. And again…

   That picture of Mr. Matheson and his wannabe record “Brook trout” has turned up again in the April, 2007, issue of Outdoor Life (page 10). Here’s the text below the picture:

   “TWO RECORDS RELEASED
   Last fall, two humongous brook trout were caught North of the Border, and both would have toppled IGFA records...if they hadn’t been released.

   “In September, Texan Jeff Turner caught a 28.8-inch brookie (an estimated 11.71 pounds) in Ungava, Quebec, that could have beaten all IGFA fly-rod class records.

   “Tim Matheson (above) caught his 29-inch fish (an estimated 16 pounds) on Barbe Lake in Manitoba in December. It would have been the new all-tackle record.”

   Yeah, yeah...woulda, coulda.

   Frankly, it is comforting to note that IGFA requires proof positive, including DNA to determine species, instead of wishful thinking and speculation.

   Notice that the 28.8-inch fish had an estimated weight of 11.71 pounds while the 29-inch fish (Matheson’s) had an estimated weight of 16 pounds. Check me on this but does that mean Matheson’s fish packed 4.29 pounds into 0.19 of an inch. Another mystery to me: Why don’t these guys buy scales, or live-wells?—they’ve got cameras,right?

   Posted by  on  03/23  at  12:03 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages

<< Back to main