Ok, I landed my first Tiger over the weekend. I'm just curious to know what differences you guys have noticed between Tigers and Pure. Do Tigers seem to act more like Pike than Pures? A lake near me is supposed to have "a lot" of Tigers in it so I plan to spend some time there and see what I can get in the net. Thanks for any info.
Thanks Red. That fish had awesome markings on it. I was fishing solo and didn't get a very good picture since I kept it in the net or I'd post. Hopefully I'll have more in the near future. I just ordered myself a new camera that should help tremendously in terms of getting solo pics with no additional stress to the fish.
Cool link too, thanks. I'm just interested in seeing how similar these fish act in terms of feeding patterns and the like. Should be fun.
I had a rough Summer in terms of fishing time. I was basically off the water July thru the end of August. Mother Nature just tortured me. I picked up a Pure over the weekend too, so I'm trying to really get back into things for the next couple of months. Gonna hit her hard til the snow starts flying and see where I end up.
I see very very few Tigers up here cuz they do not stock them. The ones we have (I assume) are naturally occurring and not very big....maybe mid-30's in my few experiences.
They are more tolerant to higher pH and water temperature levels compared to a purebred.
Ok, so maybe you can help answer a question for me. Since getting totally consumed by this sport a couple of years back, I've noticed that it seems a lot of Musky guys kind of look down on the Tiger. Or at least don't treat it as equals to Pure Bred fish. What am I missing on that front?? That fish I landed hit as hard, fought as hard and was probably the prettiest fish of the Esox genus I've landed to date.
I realize the hybrid part of it and the fact that they cannot reproduce. I guess I just can't see why it goes any further than that. Or is it on par with us (ex) trout bums who were so much more enthused about catching a wild brown compared to a stockie. Or a native brookie over a tiger.
I am not speaking for all musky fisherman but since Tigers do not get as big as a purebred, compounded with the fact that they are usually more plentiful (per acre) and easier to catch, pretty much sums up most of the reasons for the lack of respect when compared to a purebred.
Maybe in the world of buck hunting it could be the difference in a 4pt. 8pt. and a 12pt. (pike, tiger and purebred).............all are nice to shoot/catch but the guy who pulls out the musky pictures takes your girlfriend home afterwards.
Last edited by Red Childress; 09-16-2010 at 07:53 AM.
Personaly, for me landing a tiger would be a great achievment. Even if the lake it was caught in was stocked with them. I think they are beautiful fish. To find one in the area I fish would be a needle in the haystack. Congrats
I think tigers are very pretty, but I would rather have our state stock all pures because tigers don't get as big and there is zero percent chance of natural reproduction with tigers. That being said, I understand why PA stocks tigers. They are cheaper to raise...they will eat pellets in tanks without current. They can stock them in a lake to try to control panfish numbers (not sure that works though) and not have to worry about the possibility of natural reproduction, therefore controlling the population of muskies. Finally, tigers should be easier for the average fisherman to catch than a pure and the state wants more people to have the chance to catch what they may consider a trophy size fish.
Granted, I don't fish PA waters that are stocked with tigers very often, but my dad and I have only ever caught 1 tiger in PA (Arthur). We have caught about 5 or 6 from Chautauqua years back and they are supposedly natural fish. (NY says they don't stock tigers in Chautauqua) That is very strange to me also because I have never seen or caught a pike in Chautauqua, nor do I know anyone who has, but I understand they do get a few pike in their trap nets there. Also, I am not confusing a nicely barred pure for a tiger...I know the difference.
The chapter of Muskies Inc that I belong to has registered very few tigers in our releases over the years. For some reason, there doesn't seem to be a very good return on the tiger stockings compared to pures. I think your best bet for catching tigers on this side of the state is Keystone Power Dam.
Thanks for all the info guys. I have definitely noticed these fish being on the smaller side. The one I caught was only low 30's and I spooked another one that was upper 30's and I haven't seen any bigger than that so far but I hear they're in the waters around here.
The two lakes nearest me that are stocked with them are Bald Eagle Reservoir and Curwensville Lake. I haven't spent much time on either of them yet but plan to do so in the future. Like I said, I can't wait to get a nice clear picture of one of these fish.
Here is a pic of a 41" tiger I caught on the Mon river in 2006. I caught one other smaller fish on Justus a few years ago and saw a pic of a fat 44" from the Mon this year. I think Red summed it up pretty good. If you had a shot at getting 48"-50" tigers I don't think anyone would mind but good luck... well good luck getting a pure (from Pa) that size too.
An easy way to determine if an Esox is a pike/tiger or purebred, just check the tail. If the tail is rounded, it is either a pike or tiger. If the tail is pointed, it is a purebred. Identification can get confusing if only looking at the color scheme and markings.
I've definitely seen a few pics of fish that would have been very difficult to figure out going just by the markings. As far as I know, Curwensville only has tigers but I believe Bald Eagle has both, so thats good info to have.
Bald eagle does have both. The problem with that lake is a severe lack of structure and the 20 foot verticle draw down every year. Those 2 issues combined make bald eagle very difficult at best. The good news is that every couple years it coughs up a legitimate 50+ inch pig. Curwinsville had a much better population as well as some big fish. Hope this helps and good luck.
I definitely noticed that the few times I've been on Bald Eagle. One of the only interesting structural features I fished was the old railroad bed that runs along the lake. Also heard stories of a 50 incher being spotted.
I plan to spend some time on Curwensville this Fall to see if I can start putting some things together. Thanks for the info!!
I fish for tigers and they aren't easy to catch. I don't know which is harder, but there is scarce info about tigers. There are so many myths and contradictions to those myths. I would personally stick with pures if you have them in your area. I only fish for tigers because there aren't pures close by to me.
I believe what Red said about some of the places that have Tigers stocked at high density is probably true. That gives them a "tag" of being a bit "easier" to catch due to their numbers in certain waters. that would happen with any fish. At this point, both have equal value in my net!!
Pretty decent article in the recent issue of MHM regarding Tigers.....I quickly scanned it this morning. Either the male or female (cannot remember now) might not be sterile but there is not enough documentation to make it factual as of now.
Last edited by Red Childress; 09-24-2010 at 10:37 AM.
I'm not trying to start any fights, I'm just saying they don't jump in the boat. I see your point about the percentage of catching anything would be greater if the population was large. I'll be the first to admit that I do not live in an area where the lakes are loaded with fish (of any kind really). It doesn't help that majority of the people that fish there would like to get rid of the few muskies we do have. Do you know what page that article is on Red? I was under the impression that all tigers were sterile. It would be great if that wasn't the case.
Jay, I live about 45 mins from bald eagle. If you want we could meet there this winter after the draw down and I'll show you the little I've learned about the lake in the last 15 years. If I'm not mistaken Red it's the female that may not be sterile.
I don't believe that you said anything that anyone should take offense to. This is a good discussion, I believe. Its cool to have a few people offer their views and experiences. I'll take any and all info/advice and try to use it to help me get more fish in my net.
That would be fantastic. I'm about the same distance from the lake but work about 20 minutes from it. Keep me posted when you might have some time to stop by there and I'll meet you. Thanks.
Cool, I'll keep an eye on the draw down and I'll drop you a line after that to see when we might be able to meet up.
Red,
Thanks for the info. These Tigers have really piqued my curiosity. I'd have to say that if I were able to land a low-mid 40" fish with great markings that I'd have to seriously consider getting a repro. Thats saying a lot since I currently have no interest in a fish on my wall.
Just got the new Musky Hunter today. I saw the article, but I didn't read it yet. I thought everyone was talking about an article in last month's issue. I didn't think I could miss something like that.
I thought the same thing, thought for sure I missed it. And I was getting pissed cause I gave the last couple of issues to my brother to read. Next thing I know, the new MHM is in my mailbox today. Still have to read the article myself.
I posted this under the Surface Baits post, but it fits in here better.
Supposedly tigers don't bite topwaters. That is one of those myths I was talking about. Tigers are supposed to be more aggressive than pures, but they won't bite the most aggressive lure. I have caught tigers on topwaters in the past. Most were on spro frogs in Canada when they had moved into 1-3 feet of water and nothing else would work. I still think tigers would eat topwaters any time, but I don't have much confidence in it since everyone has told me of the myth. Whenever I'm at a seminar I ask if tigers eat topwaters and they always seem to say "no, but you might as well try."
The other thing is that tigers supposedly don't bite at night, and some people have told me they don't bite early in the morning and in the evening. Majority of the tigers I have caught or had bite were early in the morning. All well before 8:00. This year, my dad boated 3 or 4 in the evening. I have never tried night fishing, but I was given the same "might as well try" for that question too.
Check out Tony Grants article called tiger time if you've not read it. A quick google search will get ya there.
I had always heard they go deep like pike once it heats up but he says the bigguns go shallow, real shallow. That might help to explain why they always seem to be on the small side...not looking in the right place. Zach from larrys board did well on them up here in NY this year after reading that article...
Jay, we can go any time you want. It is easier to see what I'm trying to explain after draw down. Maybe we should do it twice. Once before so you have some info to go on this fall, and then once after so you can really see everything and put it all together. Just a thought, let me know
I've noticed the same thing, Red. Until now I just thought I was crazy. However, I have seen some vividly marked pures that could be easily mistaken for tigers. ( the jury is still out on the crazy part )
Here are some pics of supposed Tiger muskies (including an ice fishing record Tiger musky)........the tail is not rounded like a pike in some of these pics.
Senior Member
Tiger Musky
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote