|
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | I am starting this new thread to answer a question from another thread and discuss something that has been discussed in the past but apparently needs to be discussed again. I didn't wish to detract further from the wonderful accomplishment by Dean and Dominic on Mille Lacs recently and their released 55 x 30 inch GIANT.
First, let me state, again, that weight formula's generate merely an "estimate" of fish weight, based on differing criteria used by those who developed them. Currently there are five formula's for muskies that are out there.
In the other thread I was asked how the Casselman (and Crossman) formula did for that fish (55 X 30). This formula is a complex derived scientific formula (0.0000418 {L/cm X G/cm} divided by 1444). It calculates this fish (converted from metric) to weigh 58.56 pounds.
The Wilkinson formula (G -.75 inch X G -.75 inch X L/800) is a modification of the standard formula being based on actual fish kept and weighed from Georgian Bay. This formula calculates this fish to be 58.82 pounds.
The Doug Hannon formula (L X 3/2800) calculates this fish to be 59.42 pounds. Interestingly, this formula does not use the girth measurement. While it may come close for this fish, knowing the many different shapes and sizes caught out there, there is no way it could be accurate on a range of muskies with differing girths and the same length.
The Crawford formula (L X G/25 minus 10) is a simplified formula developed from hundreds of measured length and girths and weighed by a single taxidermist; Ron Lax. It calculates this fish to be 56 pounds even.
The "Standard Formula" (L X G X G/800) is the oldest. It is also the one that produces the highest "estimated" weight and has consistently been shown to overstate the "actual weight" of a muskie when scale weighed. For the Mille Lacs fish, the estimated weight was 61.88 pounds.
Naturally too, the "way" that a muskie is measured can have a great bearing on the calculated outcome. With our subject fish, there is no question of how it was done; length on a proper bumpboard and girth around the thickest part of the body with a soft tape measure and good clear photographs taken.
Believe it or not, some folks think the proper way to measure length is to place a top tape overtop of the fish and read the outcome, which adds considerably to a bump board measurement!
While I in no way condone weighing every muskie caught, if one is serious about knowing just what they caught, and weigh only the questionable giants, there will no wondering later. And, if the scale weight is huge, then one can make that life altering decision of whether or not to keep it. At any rate, further use of weight formula's will be unnecessary...you will simply KNOW...if that is what you truly want. |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | good topic Larry, so many guys I see on the internet will call a fat 52 or 53 a 40 lber..heck I saw a guy call a fat 53.5 a 50 lber this fall on Facebook. I have only weighed about 5 in my life...but one was a 54 x 22..now I would bet most would call a 54 incher with a pretty good belly to it a 40 lber right? well it was about 36 on the scale... one thing that can't be understated is unless you weigh a fish you are only "in the ball park" as to it's weight with a girth and length as you stated... they are an estimate and fish carry their weight so differently...one fish can be fat just in the belly and lose all it's weight/mass the 2nd half of the fish...anther fish can have the same girth and carry it's weight all the way to the tail... I cringe when I see guys on the internet call a fish a certain weight without one, ever weighing one in their life, and two, not weighing it... get a scale and weigh some, you might be surprised how much it takes to hit even 40 lbs..
was that ML fish a state record..I'd bet it was for sure.. 
Edited by BNelson 11/30/2015 2:22 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 3147
| Looks like we should now have a discussion/seminar about HOW to properly and safely weigh a fish in the boat.
In the net?
Carry a cradle in the fall ?
What scale would be accepted has accurate and hold up and be ready in wet cold conditions.
Edited by happy hooker 11/30/2015 2:05 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2097
| Wouldn't a certified scale cost a lot of $$$ to keep certified? |
|
| |
|
| 58.94 lbs
averaging Larry's 5 weight formulas stated.
Edited by mnmusky 11/30/2015 2:04 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | happy hooker - 11/30/2015 2:58 PM Looks like we should now have a discussion/seminar about HOW to properly and safely weigh a fish in the boat. In the net? Carry a cradle in the fall ? What scale would be accepted has accurate and hold up and be ready in wet cold conditions. Safest for the fish, just step on it while holding them: http://www.sears.com/jarden-health-o-meter-bfm143dq-05-body-analyzer/p-SPM7536363226?prdNo=11&blockNo=11&blockType=G11
Edited by Will Schultz 11/30/2015 2:07 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1828
| I use the "Rule of Two-Thirds" formula.
Take two-thirds of the claimed weight for an un-weighed fish, and there you have the real weight. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8782
|
I'd bet that if you average the outcomes on all 5 formulas and compared the results on a number of fish with known weights you'd get pretty close. The only way to do it accurately would be with a large database of fish, with different formulas applied to each length, so effectively a 52x22 fish would have it's own formula based on actual weights for fish with that length and girth measurement, and a 54x26 fish would have it's own formula based on actual weights for that measurement. Either way, a scale is the only way to know. |
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | Thanks for starting a new thread Larry.
When I use to weigh muskies, I experienced some issues weighing them on a bathroom scale in rough water, and since I’ve been almost only fishing big water the last 5 plus years, and it's typically rough, I've been leaving the bathroom scale at home. It's pretty easy to use a scale that you can hook onto the net, and then just subtract the weight of the net. I would just zero a cheap 60 lb scale with a gym weight, and didn’t worry about a certified scale because I was doing it for myself/boat partner anyway.
Regarding different formulas; my preference is to use the standard 800 formula with a typical 1” reduction in girth, this is necessary because the 800 formula was derived using dead fish... how much of girth reduction is the million-dollar question. I found that 1” for a mid-20” girth fish is the most accurate as evidenced with the heaviest fish ever in my boat. It was a 54.5 x 26.5 that was also weighed on a scale in the boat at 45 before release. Using the 800 formula with a 1” reduction in girth yields a weight of 44.29 lbs.
Getting back to The Queen, using a one-inch reduction in girth with the 800 formula equals a weight of 57.81, easily a new Minnesota state record IMHO. |
|
| |
|
| The days of killing trophy fish to get your name in a recod book are over IMHO. I personally see no purpose to weigh a fish that is going to be released. I think its unnecessary and a waste of time. All of us should know what a monster fish is and that one fits. A pound or 2 one way or another on a certified scale does nothing for me. The formulas are good enough.
Congrats on a great fish and release.
Edited by 4amuskie 11/30/2015 5:28 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: SE Wisconsin | Don't fish lose weight after being caught and kept typically? It would make sense then why the taxidermists formula is the lowest. |
|
| |
|
Location: varies | I predict future bump boards will have built in pressure sensitive scales and 3d scanners. |
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | There is a discussion that's happened hundreds of times in my boat surrounding why we're so hung up on weight and girth. Does it really matter? I understand why we're all this way, it's because all the records are kept by weight. But seriously, is it really any more of an accomplishment to catch a 55" fish with a 27" girth as opposed to a 57" fish with a 22" girth? If they're on the same body of water we can assume the 57" fish is older, has seen more angling pressure and is therefore a more significant catch. To take it a step further shouldn't it be considered more of an accomplishment to catch a 19 year old male that's 40" than a 13 year old female that's 50"? |
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | Or a fish that is near the potential maximum size for the water body being fished. All waters are not created equal. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8782
| Will Schultz - 12/1/2015 9:05 AM
There is a discussion that's happened hundreds of times in my boat surrounding why we're so hung up on weight and girth. Does it really matter? I understand why we're all this way, it's because all the records are kept by weight. But seriously, is it really any more of an accomplishment to catch a 55" fish with a 27" girth as opposed to a 57" fish with a 22" girth? If they're on the same body of water we can assume the 57" fish is older, has seen more angling pressure and is therefore a more significant catch. To take it a step further shouldn't it be considered more of an accomplishment to catch a 19 year old male that's 40" than a 13 year old female that's 50"?
Short answer:
It depends on where you are. A lot of guys get caught up in the pictures and sizes of fish coming out of the St Lawrence, Georgian Bay, St Clair, etc. and then have that as a goal when there's not a fish of that caliber within 200 miles of where they are fishing. Every area is different. Every LAKE is different.
"accomplishment" is subjective. If you don't have different expectations based on where you are fishing, you're apt to go home disappointed more often than not. If you're looking to measure yourself against some other angler, you'd best be fishing on the same lake on the same day. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Rotag: Good thought on your post. It all depends on how a fish is handled before it is frozen. The freezing itself shouldn't cause any weight loss (our current record of 58 pounds didn't lose any in 5 months in the freezer), but there is the possibility of some loss in handling; i.e., slime removal (can be significant on a big muskie); the fish can barf up stomach contents; the fish can empty its bowels (usually all over the boat and/or anglers) and they can be left to dehydrate before being put in the freezer. So, to answer your question, it is quite possible that the taxidermist used data could/would understate slightly actual fish weight...but again, any formula is merely an "estimate"!
As for the potential of different waters, nothing could be truer. As I have said for years in my seminars, if the lake record where you are fishing is 33 pounds, guess what? You are not going to catch a world record there. It's not rocket science! |
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | In the previous comments I wasn't questioning the obvious but more of a question on the muskie community. |
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | 4amuskie - 11/30/2015 5:16 PM The days of killing trophy fish to get your name in a recod book are over IMHO. I personally see no purpose to weigh a fish that is going to be released. I think its unnecessary and a waste of time. All of us should know what a monster fish is and that one fits. A pound or 2 one way or another on a certified scale does nothing for me. The formulas are good enough. Congrats on a great fish and release. Measuring the length and girth is a waste of time to some people I fish with too, and most of us old timers can guess the length and girth close too. What about; net the fish, weigh it in the net over the water, quick pictures (no measure), and then release. I'm considered doing this because I’m honestly more interested how much the big ones really weigh vs what I think they weigh.
You know I respect you Jim…. but to each their own provided the well fair of the fish is front and center. |
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | Will Schultz - 12/1/2015 9:05 AM There is a discussion that's happened hundreds of times in my boat surrounding why we're so hung up on weight and girth. Does it really matter? I understand why we're all this way, it's because all the records are kept by weight. But seriously, is it really any more of an accomplishment to catch a 55" fish with a 27" girth as opposed to a 57" fish with a 22" girth? If they're on the same body of water we can assume the 57" fish is older, has seen more angling pressure and is therefore a more significant catch. To take it a step further shouldn't it be considered more of an accomplishment to catch a 19 year old male that's 40" than a 13 year old female that's 50"? I'd take the 50" female every time Will!
|
|
| |
|
| Right on Jerry! If there was only a way, it would be great but not as of yet. For now, I will be happy with the formulas. What a fish and documentation. Just a perfect job by those guys. A big salute to them for their perfect handling of a beast!!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 656
Location: Forest Lake, Mn. | With regards to a possible scale to be used to weigh a fish before releasing it, the Chatillon scale can be certified by the I.G.F.A. Weigh the fish in the net and then subtract the net weight. Granted, unless there was scrupulous documentation by a State Dept of Weights & Measures, I don't think anyone would accept it as a official record of any sort.
I've had one in my boat for years but haven't really used it.
Link to the scale.
http://www.chatillon-scales.com/products/handheld-scales/in-series.... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 656
Location: Forest Lake, Mn. | Here is a video showing the MN. D.N.R. doing test netting of muskies for population assessment. Notice how they weigh the fish! If it's good enough for the D.N.R. I think it should be a good method for us common folk to weigh fish.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3_r-KK20AY |
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | Any scale in the boat would only tell me if the fish was worthy of going ashore to be weighed in the presence of John Cassleman, Bruce Tufts, The mayor and police chief of Gananoque , as well as the Pope. Seems like a lot of trouble maybe I'll just let it go and say nothing.
Edited by horsehunter 12/2/2015 4:26 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Just don't estimate a weight ever and then you won't have to worry about all the BS.
Get a certified scale, learn how to weigh a fish properly in a net or cradle and you can avoid all the "estimate calculators".
If you weigh it on a certified scale(and don't screw it up) you'll have a good idea of how heavy the fish actually is within a pound or two. On the water given you're not in 3 footers....
Unless it's a mid to high 60lber.... It's just another big musky.
Edited by NGE 12/2/2015 8:29 PM
|
|
| |
|
| fishpoop - 12/2/2015 5:03 PM
With regards to a possible scale to be used to weigh a fish before releasing it, the Chatillon scale can be certified by the I.G.F.A. Weigh the fish in the net and then subtract the net weight. Granted, unless there was scrupulous documentation by a State Dept of Weights & Measures, I don't think anyone would accept it as a official record of any sort.
I've had one in my boat for years but haven't really used it.
Link to the scale.
http://www.chatillon-scales.com/products/handheld-scales/in-series....
Any scale can be certified by the IGFA.
Chatillon scales are well built and good quality and generally would be the best for musky fisherman.
BUT!!!!!!!!!!!
At the end of it all they aren't even able to be certified for Trade. The IGFA "certified" certificate is simply a calibration form which you can get from any scale calibrating service. It's just a little cheaper generally from the IGFA. Hell, you can get traceable weights and learn how to calibrate any scale easily. It's actually very easy to do in most cases with a quality mechanical scale.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 46
| Who says weight is the way we should measure the size of the fish? Maybe the fish with the biggest tail should be the record? Point being, history is the only reason weight is more important to some people than length. Let's bring muskie fishing into the modern age by forgetting about weight and instead evaluate fish on measurements (ideally length) only.
Edited by John23 12/2/2015 10:55 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | Length is no indication of the size of a muskie |
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | John23 - 12/2/2015 11:54 PM Who says weight is the way we should measure the size of the fish? Maybe the fish with the biggest tail should be the record? Point being, history is the only reason weight is more important to some people than length. Let's bring muskie fishing into the modern age by forgetting about weight and instead evaluate fish on measurements (ideally length) only. John23 gets it.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 304
Location: Lino Lakes, MN | You cannot deny that the immense girth of some of these late fall fish. I have seen many pics of 55" fish and moderate girths but the girth is everything.
The MN muskie program is again showing just how special this state is within the muskie fishing realm. Milac's fish truly carry the weight at a whole different level. It is very obvious that the Leech Lake strain fish do not get fat---- I prefer to call them husky!
Congrats to all of the lucky anglers who caught giants this season in MN and thank you for releasing these fish.
Steve
Edited by Sorgy 12/3/2015 9:52 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 3147
| Why do we always have to go to the physical,,,,shouldn't it be about personality. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | I've spent the last few days further researching fish weight formulas. First I checked out the bizzaro world of the Internet...had no idea that there were so many ridiculous formulas out there! In addition to the five I've already mentioned, I found the following that you probably wouldn't want to use:
Old Farmers Almanac (been around over 100 years) and the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters (OFAH) both use a derivative of the standard formula; G X G X L/900. Note the 900 divisor lessens the weight nearly 7 pounds from the "regular" standard formula.
IGFA too, from what I could find, use a modified version of the standard formula wherein they use fork length instead of total length (at least for tuna, striped bass and marlin...could find no reference to muskies); G X G X FL/800. Perhaps that is why we find that the "regular" standard formula over states estimated muskie weights when used!
The Mepps website calculator determines the weight of the 55 X 30 muskie to be a mere 47.54 pounds.
Lac Suel Outpost was least generous with their formula (calculated on their web site) which finds our 55 X 30 weighing only 38.08 pounds!
Sports Afield magazine, when they ran a contest, used a Hannon type formula which only used length with an even higher divisor; L X L X L/3500 which puts the 55 incher at 47.54 pounds. This is obviously the same formula that Mepps is using.
Since girth is not involved, I believe we should summarily dismiss the length only formulas.
So, finding no obvious solution on the Internet, I went back to the four formulas that use both length and girth and did further research against my data base of mostly recent catches of jumbo muskies, both kept and released, and did some further work with them.
As discussed, I have found the standard formula (G X G X L/800) to consistently over state fish weight (perhaps about 3 inches of muskie tail beyond the "fork length" is where our problem is with this one...since we don't know exact fork length, I think we should dismiss this one too, especially since almost all muskie anglers want to know the total length of their fish as well as a good "estimated" weight.
The Wilkinson formula (G -.75 X G -.75 X L/800) is merely a derivative of the standard formula and was based on a small sample of Georgian Bay muskies in the 40 pound range. Therefore, we should dismiss this one too.
The Casselman/Crossman formula (0.0000418 {L/cm X G/cm} divided by 1444), unlike the previous two, uses the girth measurement only once, however as weights get higher, or should I say lengths and girths get bigger, weights grow exponentially beyond reason and outside known data. This formula was built using length, girth and weight data from 371 muskies. Therefore, for this reason and the obvious complexity of this formula, I have decided to put it aside.
The Crawford formula (L X G/25 -10) has consistently under stated fish weight when measured against known length and girth and weight of giant released or kept fish. However, it was always "close" to actual weight and therefore I thought it might be the most useable if tweaked a bit. So, I started crunching the numbers. The data base for this formula was over 700 muskies where length, girth and weight were known. The obvious thing to do here was to reduce the "minus" factor, which I finally reduced to 8. I crunched away and wonder of wonders, that seemed to do the trick!
This new formula, which I have dubbed “The Modified Crawford Formula” (L X G/25 minus 8) is simplistic in its use and extremely accurate throughout the data base range of weights used (from 53 to 61 ¼ pounds) without under stating any fish's weight. In addition, over stating of fish weight was extremely minimal with this new formula on this data base, ranging from +.16 pounds to +.68 pounds or .29% to 1.1% of actual known fish weight. None were under stated, a previous problem with the original formula, where the “minus” number was 10.
Based on this new formula, the "Mille Lacs Queen" comes in at an even 58 pounds!
Stay tuned!
Edited by Larry Ramsell 12/8/2015 7:56 AM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | "Giant" is relative to each angler, I consider giant 56" and/or over 45#, but that may not be what someone else considers giant. Can we put a number on "giant" for the sake of the formula? It seems to overstate the weight on some fish I've caught that were under 54". Example 52.5 x 25 comes in at 44.5#, there's no way that fish was over 41#. This"modified Crawford" seems much more accurate at lengths at or over 55, with 55x25 coming in at 47# and 56x27 coming in at 52.5#. It seems that it would be better to keep the subtraction at 10 for fish under 54" and 25" girth and apply 8 for fish over 54" with a girth of 25" or more. The real concern about any formula is that from water to water these fish aren't built the same. For example: the St Lawrence/Ottawa/GB/etc. fish are built differently than St Clair fish and 55x27 might be 51# from some places but will be 44# in LSC. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8782
| Not asking you to do this, Larry, but do you suppose the "modified crawford formula" is accurate on fish in the 25# - 40# range? Perhaps the original formula and "minus factor" of 10 applies much more accurately to your "average" big fish?
This is kind of what I was getting at in my earlier post - maybe the formulas can be accurate if we use a different one for the largest fish as you've worked out above.
You've done the math with a substantial number of fish with known weights. Your margin of error is pretty #*^@ small.
I think you nailed it on that formula.
|
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | imo there are so many different builds on fish all over that a formula will never be 'accurate' across the board... it may be accurate for one kind of build like a Mille Lacs fish but then way off for a LSC fish...the only way to get an accurate weight is weigh it...plain and simple.
Edited by BNelson 12/8/2015 10:28 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Will:
Basically I modified the Crawford formula just for the bigger fish. The original formula can still be used on smaller fish. The majority of the over 700 muskies used by Crawford in developing his formula we in the smaller to mid size range. I in no way meant to completely disregard the original formula. Based on work I did trying to develop a point system, it takes a fish of 59 inches long with a girth of at least 28 inches to be in the ball park of a 55 X 30. A 57 X 29 would also get the job done.
The data base I used for the modification included fish from Mille Lacs, Georgian Bay and the St. Lawrence River and girth is girth, regardless of whether they are caught from Lake St. Clair or elsewhere. Again, this is merely an "educated estimate" of what a fish "may" have weighed had it been kept. The advantage in this formula of only using the girth number once helps to level the playing field from water to water.
EA: I believe I answered your query above. If not, let me know.
BNelson: You are absolutely correct, that is why I am constantly warning that any formula is merely and "estimate" of fish weight. What I am attempting to accomplish is to develop a formula that works to be very close on these super fish wherever they come from. I am still an advocate of using a certified scale if you wish to know for sure!
Edited by Larry Ramsell 12/8/2015 11:07 AM
|
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | Will, I echoed your concern with the Crawford formula with Larry as well. However, it does work well with these upper echelon fish, so perhaps a simple disclaimer that this formula may not apply to fish under xxx. BNelson makes a good point too, but then again it would only be an estimated unofficial weight... all that would be required is something that is fair across the board. IMHO a length only release category is dated, and does not do justice to super fish like the MQ, I would guess that 99 out of 100 of us would rather catch and release a fish like this vs a thin 57” for instance (although I certainly wouldn't turn that down either). The documentation provided for MQ certainly sets the standard for entertaining this idea.
I like the idea of the release category with an estimated weight, and having the most accurate formula is the logical starting point to begin a modern-day standard for catch and release. I think it would be great if Muskie 1st would entertain the idea of sponsoring an annual release contest, provided we can hash this out. We could have registered users vote on the rules and best formula to use... pretty sure we would not have to take a vote on what the first entry would be.
Edited by Jerry Newman 12/8/2015 11:23 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8782
| Yes, Larry, and thank you. |
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | Larry Ramsell - 12/8/2015 11:57 AM The data base I used for the modification included fish from Mille Lacs, Georgian Bay and the St. Lawrence River and girth is girth, regardless of whether they are caught from Lake St. Clair or elsewhere. I can't agree with that, girth is NOT girth regardless of where they're caught. Girth as suggested to do by most is one measurement at the widest point and doesn't give a true representation of the fish. We're not measuring a cylinder that is equal from end to end, to have a formula that truly works for all fish there needs to be a way to get a better idea of the shape being evaluated.
I've always said to have a formula that would apply to all fish it would have to take two girth measurements at consistent locations as two locations would give a much better representation of the shape. My suggestion has always been to develop a formula that takes girth measurements directly behind the pectoral and pelvic fins. IMO this would eliminate "widest point" and would give the most accurate representation in a formula.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Will:
I respect your position. What I meant was a 30 inch girth is 30 inches regardless of where it is caught. Since one that size has never been caught from Lake St. Clair, you cannot be sure it wouldn't look like the Mille Lacs fish at 55 inches. I know what you are trying to say...I said the same thing many years ago. I determined from photographs from around the country, that there were "at least" six different body shapes and a formula would need to be developed for each one, requiring such a large number of samples of the upper echelon of weights that it is nearly impossible. I'm building as good a data base for these "giants" as I can, but you'll toss dirt on me before enough samples are gathered together and individual formula's developed. In the meantime, we'll go with what seems to be working best on today's giants from waters that are producing them.
On a side note, if any readers out there have measured length and girth of a super fish and weighed it before release, please let me know the details at [email protected]
Edited by Larry Ramsell 12/8/2015 11:51 AM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | Now I understand, we're on the same page. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 58
| I fished Lake Athabasca this fall for giant trout. They leave all the fish in cradles and weigh the fish by hooking the scale to the top of the cradle near the handles and quickly lifting them a few inches above the water line, then subtract the weight of their known wet cradle. This could easily be done with muskies if one was truly curious, even with our large musky "nets" i dont think it would stress or damage them its no more invasive than bumping them or pulling them out of the net a taking pics. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2325
Location: Chisholm, MN | Larry, do you have photos of similar length and girth fish that we could compare builds from different lakes or strains from?
I find all this interesting, but I have only caught a couple of fish that I have even been interested in the weight. In my experience getting an accurate girth measurement has been difficult because I just don't want to stress the fish out. My measurements would be just ballpark for that reason. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Kirby: naturally I have such photos, in fact dozens and dozens are in my current "Compendium". Dozens of others have been published here on this web site as well.
It doesn't necessarily take different lakes to produce the many different shapes of muskies. Not all fish in a particular water body are "cookie cutter" shapes.
I understand your not wanting to stress the fish out, but there are so few that really need a girth measurement taken, it is worth the effort. One of my suggestions is to permanently affix a soft measuring tape to a bump (measuring) board and accomplish both measurements in the same place and quickly.
Obviously, to establish a new release record (see: http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/articles/12.11.2015/9319/World.Reco...), more than just a "ballpark" measurement is required. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 28
| I was trying to estimate the weight of my GB fish this summer and found it ranging from 38-47 lbs. depending on the formula used. Didn't realize there was such a wide variation in formulas because I never caught a muskie big enough to really care. My fish this summer was 54.25" x 24.5". In your opinion Larry, what would be the best formula to use on that fish? Don't think the modified Crawford formula would be the best for this fish because it didn't have a super tanker girth. Thoughts? Thanks! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Aaron B: The original Crawford formula (L X G/25 -10) puts it at 43.17 which would likely be fairly close. Congrats on a very nice fish! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 28
| Thanks Larry, it was the biggest fish I've ever held by far. I had to hold it up against my body to even support the fish. I give credit to the guy that can extend their arms and hold the fish out a bit for the pics. I had all I could do to support the fish and just ended up with a bit of slime all over my shirt! 
I knew it had to be close to 40 if not over so the Crawford makes sense and I love how easy it is to calculate. Thanks again for the input.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 37
| When it comes to estimating the length and girth on a 50"plus muskie, I've seen the best guides miss on estimating the length! Why, because they see so few that big. They may be fairly accurate on the 40's but not the big girls! IMO you have to measure the fish correctly and use a standardized formula like Larry recommends or the data will be meaningless.
If you catch a record fish and want an accurate weight you have to kill the muskie which most prefer not to do. There are too many variables to net weighing in the boat plus human nature kicks in. I actually wish someone would catch a world record muskie, document it properly and end a lot of the controversy. Unfortunately, I suspect that fish doesn't exist so the modern day world record and modern day release is the best option available. |
|
| |
Let's discuss weight formula's