This is getting silly. If you have a form of selective harvest that you practice as a matter of conservation, good for you. And if you want to promote and discuss that practice with solid information to back it up and an open mind, start a new thread and do it. But if you want to come on here scolding and policing people for not following a made-up fisheries management system that exists only in your brain, and does not reflect any widely-held opinion of biologists or fisheries managers, that's a problem. You're not making any friends this way, Antman, and you're not selling anyone to your cause either. If you have a problem with the regulations, talk to the regulators, don't try to enforce rules that don't exist and threaten law-abiding anglers with "a dirty look or worse" whatever that means.
RobW in post 77 has dealt well with the biology and management side of this issue. I too was under the impression, though I'm no expert, that brook trout are relatively quick to mature and saying a lunker is "spawning class" is silly (yes it is able to spawn but so are almost all brookies we catch). I'm also of the impression that in most brookie lakes, there are more sexually mature fish than there is spawning ground to accommodate, so the number of spawnable adults is not the limiting factor on reproduction. All I've heard from you by way of backup info, Antman, is that a different FMZ has lower limits for 12"+ (adult) brookies... and even under that rule, which very specifically does not apply to Algonquin Park, vanslyke would have the option of keeping his fish, since it's just one.
It wouldn't bother me if the limits for brook trout were significantly reduced, especially in areas with larger-bodied (lake-based) populations; I'll never need to eat more than one of those in a day. But to boss people around about what that one should look like -- or scold them for their harvest at all, if it's following the rules and not even pushing the limit -- is ridiculous.