|
|
Posts: 3469
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | Question in regards to the validity of the formulas...
Is there much evidence out there of legitimately weighed and measured fish above 50 inches to support the formulas actually do a good job of predicting a reasonable weight estimate? Do we have enough valid evidence of mid-upper 50" to over 60" fish to support the formulas?
Steve |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | That fish in the YouTube video Jerry just linked to has to be one of the best on-film catches I've ever seen--certainly in the top five. Maybe Justin's 57" fish (shown on Keye's Outdoors a couple years ago) was more impressive, because of the circumstances. But what a pig! And the documentation is superb.
One final note regarding the fish that is the subject of this thread...
People have to understand, I guess, where I'm coming from when I am critical of the sorts of claims regarding the 60.75" fish. I have personally spent YEARS of my life trying to get the 54" size limit implemented on Green Bay. I spent well over a thousand hours (if not two thousand) reading all the musky literature, talking to hundreds of anglers, talking to biologists at length, and answering countless forum posts, phone calls and emails. And getting threats. Much of the argument against the 54" size limit on Green Bay was predicated on things like the "fast growers, short livers" argument. I spent HUNDREDS of hours researching that particular ideology. More time than I can count. In the end, we were able to get the 54" size limit implemented--thanks to the efforts of many people besides myself. But now that a few years have passed (well 10 actually...how time flies) and we're starting to see larger fish being caught, and sampled in the DNR's Fyke nets in the spring, we're starting to realize just what we thought--that the size potential of the fish was probably better than they were showing a decade ago. Knock on wood!
So when someone posts about a 60+ inch musky, out of Green Bay, you'll have to forgive me but I take it pretty seriously because to me it's a big deal. A BIG deal.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 5/26/2017 9:10 AM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | VMS - 5/26/2017 8:44 AM
Question in regards to the validity of the formulas...
Is there much evidence out there of legitimately weighed and measured fish above 50 inches to support the formulas actually do a good job of predicting a reasonable weight estimate? Do we have enough valid evidence of mid-upper 50" to over 60" fish to support the formulas?
Steve
Good question!
About ten years ago I researched all the known formulae used to estimate fish weight given length and girth. Larry Ramsell and I did it. Then I created a Windows-based application that will give you the results using the four main equations, and one extra
anecdotal equation. It's in the archives here on MF, if you just search for it. But there is a blurb about each equation included in the application. It should still run on Windows, so give it a try if you can find it. I'll try to find it as well, and add a link here.
TB
Attachments
----------------
 Muskellunge Weight Estimator.zip (15KB - 403 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Here is the output of my calculator, for a 60.75 x 28.25" fish. If you click the "More Info" button next to the various formulae in the calculator, a dialog window will open and you'll see some historical information regarding that formula.
TB
Attachments
----------------
GRB Fish.png (44KB - 408 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 151
Location: Chippewa Falls, WI | took a minute to watch the Facebook video...that guy is gotta be laughing at all the social media comments (if he bothers reading any). They did the best they could be with what they had. Either way it's a great fish!
Attachments
----------------
IMG_2359.JPG (28KB - 369 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 3469
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | I remember that thread... I don't run window based programs (apple user as I teach) so I would doubt that it would run, but worth a try...
What I am wondering, though...is how much actual data is out there that exists? Reason I ask is the formulas for the most part are based on volume, then converting that to a weight...These will for the most part primarily base on a uniform girth of the fish. From my own observations of the true giants out there, many are not uniform in girth, thus taking the largest measurement would influence the weight and potentially influence the formula's calculations. Many look like they are anomalies as compared to a more normally proportioned fish.
I would not be surprised if a girth is large and weight is down... as the fish in question here is described as being. if the fish is spawned out, I would say there is a lot of excess room inside the body cavity due to expansion of the body that is not returned to normal state (similar to all pregnancies-post birth)...So weight can drop significantly below that of a full body carrying eggs. Some shrinkage in girth I am sure would happen right away...but not all the way... Catch this same fish a month earlier....how much more might it weigh with what...almost a million eggs being carried in it's body?
Steve |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | I should probably re-code this in C++ using something like Qt Creator, so that it could be then built for any platform including iOS and Android. I'm not sure there's enough interest to do that though, to be honest. It would probably take 40-50 hours to get all builds (platforms) working, as an estimate. But if people think it would be worthwhile, I'll consider it. It would be nice to have a mobile app version though--although it would take a fair bit to get it into the Apple store. I don't even want to think about that: You need a developer's account, and then (as I recall) you need to give them the source code and have them evaluate it for security...which (I've been told) can take a few months. Ugh.
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 323
Location: Elk River, MN | tcbetka - 5/26/2017 10:22 AM
I should probably re-code this in C++ using something like Qt Creator, so that it could be then built for any platform including iOS and Android. I'm not sure there's enough interest to do that though, to be honest. It would probably take 40-50 hours to get all builds (platforms) working, as an estimate. But if people think it would be worthwhile, I'll consider it. It would be nice to have a mobile app version though--although it would take a fair bit to get it into the Apple store. I don't even want to think about that: You need a developer's account, and then (as I recall) you need to give them the source code and have them evaluate it for security...which (I've been told) can take a few months. Ugh.
TB
There's already a calculator in the app stores and it uses 4 of the equations and also provides an average of them.
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Is there? Cool...I hadn't seen that. I'll look in the Android store today. Thanks for the tip.
TB
EDIT: The only one I could find in the Google Play store was the "Mad Musky App" application. Is that the one you're talking about? It doesn't say anything about using four calculators though, so I'm not sure it's the same one you're referring to.
Edited by tcbetka 5/26/2017 11:18 AM
|
|
| |
|
Location: MN | That is a true giant. The measurements seem a little suspicious, especially the girth but it doesn't really matter to me.
It would be interesting to find out if the scale they used was ever tested for accuracy. Even if the measurements are less than reported that looks bigger than a 40 lber to me.
If this guy uses his measurements is this going to be the longest replica ever made? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 285
Location: NE Wisconsin | Seeing Measurements were taken of both length and girth
And virtually all phones are video capable
Was there any video of either of these measurements being taken
If not......why????? |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | It sounds as though there was probably some video--at least that's the impression I got from listening to the angler's interview on Bob M's show. The link is up above. Bob hinted that he might get something more than just pictures.
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 323
Location: Elk River, MN | tcbetka - 5/26/2017 11:13 AM
Is there? Cool...I hadn't seen that. I'll look in the Android store today. Thanks for the tip.
TB
EDIT: The only one I could find in the Google Play store was the "Mad Musky App" application. Is that the one you're talking about? It doesn't say anything about using four calculators though, so I'm not sure it's the same one you're referring to.
The one I have, for Apple, is called Musky Weight Calculator |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1275
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Here is the link to the "Mille Lacs Queen" thread of 2015:
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=10...
This thread explains the "NEW" formula we use here for "Released World Record" class fish. This new formula was built on data from fish from 53 to 61 1/4 pounds from all over the North American range. I sincerely believe it to be the best formula to use in "ESTIMATING" the weight of fish in these weight ranges. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 151
Location: Chippewa Falls, WI | There is a video as he said in the interview with Bob but he said there's a lot of bad language so they haven't shared it. I'm sure they'll edit for language and then share it on some media platform. Guy seems like a good dude that really doesn't care. They might not be musky fisherman but the fact they are pre fishing a trouney makes me think they're not complete beginners to fishing either. I'm gonna give them the benefit of the doubt they did their best to accurately measure and document it. If they were musky guys that new how important the 60" mark is I'd actually be a little more suspicious! |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Hi Larry,
What is the derivation of the modified Crawford formula? How'd you come up with '8' instead of '10' in there? I went through that thread you linked to, but didn't see the derivation described. Did I miss something?
Thanks.
TB |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Espy - 5/26/2017 1:31 PM
The one I have, for Apple, is called Musky Weight Calculator
Nope...nothing like that found in the Google Play store. I'll check the App store on my iPad tonight.
Thanks.
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 88
Location: Wisconsin | Congrats to the gentlemen on a great catch. Whether it's as big as stated, I guess we'll never know for sure. If 60's are out there, GB would be among the waters that I'd like to think would have one. I fish out there a lot myself and know of lots of big fish caught that aren't posed online. Doubt I'll ever catch one that big, but one thing is for sure. Me, my fishing partner(s), and a few close friends will be the only ones who will ever know about it. Tom |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1080
Location: Aurora | Is it jest me or does it sound like he's saying, "forty-sixty and three quarters" in the video..
This whole thing might jest be a misunderstanding, eh fellas? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | Jerry, you should be 'scrubbing edges'.  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20
Location: Marshfield,WI | Maybe the best way to settle the debate on the size of this world class giant is for one of you to go over to Little Sturgeon Bay and catch this monster yourself and let us know. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1275
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Tom: Full details probably on a different thread...will have to search when I get time. What I did was use my data base for just those fish from 53 to 61 1/4 pounds and then worked with the new minus number until I got real close but never under the actual weight. Will try and get you more details. May have a Word Doc. with the info and if I do, I'll email it to you. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Sounds great, thanks!
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 410
Location: With my son on the water | What ever the size of the fish out of GB really is (I don't care) it is a True Giant.
But what amazes me is how big a Stocked fish can get, and even more important is hat's off to the SMALL partial handle full of guys back in the late 80s that even pushed to stock the bay. Granted after time the crowd grew, but the core group of guys who made it happen was very small. I still remember the push back we got at multiple meetings. Many of these guys are older now and some have passed. But they should never be forgotten, what vision they had.
To this day MOST people think all the fish in the bay are natural, (not to say there are none) but this fishery (both Walleyes & Muskie) needs to be credited to sportsman making it happen. In the case of the muskie, wow. It almost never happened, both politically and technically. The challenges were massive.
Enjoy your day and remember why we have a Holiday.
Thanks for our Freedom and Protection Guys & Gals.  |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Great point(s).
When I gave a presentation on the fishery back in 2007, the research that I did showed that there was well over $100K donated by anglers and other interested parties since the reintroduction effort was started in the late 1980s. There were a couple source who felt pretty strongly that the amount donated was actually over $200K, but I couldn't ever substantiate the full amount so I'm not sure. We're talking about efforts over a 25-year span, so memories fade I suppose. But suffice it to say that those folks really put their money where their mouths were, both in volunteer time...and in cash. As much as the WiDNR, we really do have them to thank for the population we enjoy today.
I can imagine the push-back they got though, as I saw that firsthand...more times that I could count. A search of the forum here from that time will give you a sampling of what I'm talking about.
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 458
| anyone know where I can get a16" black hair jig? congrats to the angler! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20179
Location: oswego, il | Hair jigs are light, probably 16oz. They take patience to work at a snails pace and have 0 action but for some reason smallmouth love them.
Edited by ToddM 5/28/2017 12:49 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 322
| 60 3/4".....i wouldnt even measure that minnow. Here is a 64" out of Green Bay. I hope you enjoy the read i know I did.
http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/field-notes/2013/07/wisconsin-a...
Edited by muskymandan 5/28/2017 8:41 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 20179
Location: oswego, il | |
|
| |
|
Posts: 322
| I didnt have to research the 64" they dont exist in the real world. They only exist in creative camera angles. I just thought it was comical. |
|
| |
