|
|
| I thought I would try this topic on Muskie First. With the number of 53"s-54"s-55"s
being caught in recent years. How many of you question the measurements??
Most of the people I fish with us a bump board and I know when any of the guys say it 49 and 3/4 it was 49 and 3/4! I watch so many people try to hold the fish vertically and then measure it with a measuring stick or retractable tape measure.
I use to do the same thing, but its just not accurate and takes 2 people to really do it.
I normally ask the fisherman who tells me the story of the 54" and 53" and the 51 1/2" that he just caught, "how do you measure your fish"?
Now, personnally I don't care if a guy wants to say he caught a 55 that was really a 53 or the other way around. I just wonder how many of these big fish that are being caught a measured accurately.
Anyone else?? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1245
Location: Madtown, WI | This has been covered a lot.
Bump board to me is the only way to go.....
Cory
Legit 51 incher.
Edited by C.Painter 8/14/2007 11:15 AM
(Craig.Eversoll.081702.51B.jpg)
Attachments
----------------
 Craig.Eversoll.081702.51B.jpg (193KB - 169 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | I agree, bump board all the way if you are really concerned with an accurate measurement. Easier on the fish as well versus holding the fish vertically and measuring with a stick.
I know a lot of guys that aren't really too concerned on an accurate measurement, and measure the fish in the water with a floating stick. They measure simply to verify what they "guessed" the size to be. Aren't too concerned if they are +/- 1/2".
On the other hand, I don't really care how someone measures a fish if they tell me they caught a 54". Why be concerned over what the actual measurement may have been for someone else's fish? |
|
| |
|
| I'm not overly concerned about the length, so if I do it, I usually measure in the water with a soft tape or a floating stick. It gets me close enough for my purposes. Its more important for me to get them back in the water.
If a measurement is critical, I would assume a bump board would be the most accurate. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32955
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I use a bump board on fish that matter, and a soft tape to get real close on those that don't. That's matter to ME, not everyone else, I might add.
I don't really care if a fish someone else caught is 53.5 or 54.75. It's a big freaking fish, and that's enough for me. If it's to be entered as a state record or something, then a more accurate measure would be warranted.
The two largest fish I have out in the net were both bump boarded. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 5874
| You are right. It is hard to gat an accurate measurement with a verticle hold. I lost at least two inches on my boy's big fish. I measured at 49 1/2", and registered it as that in his MI log. A couple days later, I was looking at all the pics we took of that fish, and I could clearly see the lip at 49 1/2, and there was at least two inches of tail laying on the floor. I got a couple opinions on it, SWorral and Joe Fittante were two I sought out, and they said it was all of 2 inches longer. So I made his replica at 51 1/2. Nobody elses business but ours. I did take some flack for it from one person, but as I told him. What business is it of his?!
Now, when I get a big fish, I get out my spare PVC raingear, pour water on it, and lay the fish down next to the stick, to get an exact measurement. That is how I did my 50 1/2 last fall. That's also the only one I've done that way. The others get measured in the water. When I get one that looks to be at or over my PB, then I'll get out the raingear.
Bumpboards are the best, but I don't care to take up the space in the boat.
Edited by Shep 8/14/2007 1:12 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Shep, thats a great illistration of my point. Had you used a bump board you would have had an accurate measurement of your sons fish. For some reason everyone gets their undies in a bunch when you start talking about mesurements! I don't really get why certain folks freak out of the suggestion that measurements aren't always accurate.
Like I said earlier, If you want to say your fish was 54", great! I'm not calling you a liar! But here's what I'm seeing, suddenly a 50" fish isn't anything special when several years back it was the pinacle. Now if these fish are getting measured the way I see MOST people measuring fish, our perspective of how many fish over 52" is not accurate anymore. Look at MI for a moment, All the enteries are based on a measurement that may be inaccurate. So! Personally I really don't care. But if we are tracking the growth of fish on certain bodies of water or trying to find out which strain of muskie grows the longest or fastest, and we are using a tool that is inaccurate, I can see where its OK to ask "How did you measure that fish"? |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | my take on measuring fish is this..if you are going to measure a fish you must want to know how big it is right? so why not do it right and accurately? bump board is the best way to get an accurate measurement...if you don't care how big it is, then why measure it? just take a guess and you are probably within an inch right? if you say it was 50 and it clearly wasn't I will just think you like to embelish and will take everything you say to me or on the boards in the future with a grain of salt...now say a guy enters a fish in a repro contest he is saying is 45 and it's like 42...and he wins... that might tick me off ! since I could have won that bugger!
measuring fish accurately is about as easy as casting out a bucktail and reeling it in but some seem to have a hard time figuring out how to do it correctly...crazy
the more comical thing in the last few years are the inflated girths I see posted all over the place....
Edited by MSKY HNR 8/14/2007 1:42 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8863
| Guest, so you're saying that 50" isn't anything special anymore because everyone is mistaken about the size of fish they are catching???
I'd venture to guess that C&R along with effective management strategies (increased sized limits) is why we're seeing so many 50"+ fish caught in the last few years, and not that people are fudging their measurements. Musky fishing is the best its ever been, and its only getting better unless VHS turns out to be as bad as some fear it might be. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 688
Location: Northern IL | I agree the bb is the most accurate for length.
Today, for personal fish if we think it's a fatty I like to take a girth measurement (ITW) 1st. If it turns out to be good one then we'll get a length. Of course if there are kids or a student in the boat then getting them a length is more important.
I don't understand measuring down to the 1/8, or even the 1/2, if a fish is 44" it's 44! If it's 443/4, yep it's a 44" not 44 7/8th, who really cares....
To me when I see measurements in anything less than whole numbers it shows desperation and ego, it must be just me cause a lot of fishermen do it.
For others it really doesn't matter how long someone says there fish is, I just say "that's great!, and "how many did you catch and what lake?" ha,ha.
However exaggeration goes hand and hand with fishing, Who knows why? Sometimes intentional but most of the time the person has no idea. How may 8lbs bass have you heard about and then you see the picture and know the fish was no larger than 5lbs, but no matter they're excited about it so let em have there little moment, we have all been there.
Edited by jerryb 8/14/2007 2:30 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Latitude 41.3016 Longitude 88.6160 | I measure my fish in the water !!! it may not be the most accurate but I don't keep the fish out of the water 5 mins trying to make him another 1-2 inches longer!!! My fish is out of the water for 1 min max for a pic. CATCH PHOTO RELEASE ALL MY FISH, please release all big fish and have a fiberglass replica made. A musky over 50 " should be released!!!! my 2 cents
Edited by PIKEMASTER 8/14/2007 10:36 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | takes about 10-15 extra seconds MAX to measure a fish on a bumpboard...
5 minutes? huh?
Edited by MSKY HNR 8/14/2007 2:25 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 327
| I learned a trick from someone on this board .... Flip the fish over when measuring on the bump board and re-measure it !!! |
|
| |
|
| I had the same issue with Colton's largest fish (when he turned 12)...we measured it at 48 1/2", and after looking at the pictures, and the way the fish was being held, we'd goofed up, and I had to be off by almost 3". So, I think my youngest was jipped out of his first 50" fish, because dad had a bad shoulder, and couldn't help measure the fish correctly...I almost totally scrwed up the net job first anyway.
I agree totally, that a bumpboard is the only way to get a "true" measurement, WITHOUT hurting the fish. I think about the 100's of fish we've held up for a measurement on a stick, and realized the pressure this puts on the muskie is very detrimental! I'm still learning, and will only use a bumpboard from here forward!
Donnie  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8863
| what if 'ya just stand on your head? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 5874
| I disagree on the 50" is no longer anything to be excited about. You should hear my partner of that day, when he tells the story of how excited I was. I musta made one hell of a racket out there, he laughs really hard when he tells the story!
Any fish over 4 feet is an awesome fish to me, and most guys I know.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32955
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I bet most of the fish I measure with the soft tape are within a quarter of an inch. That said, it's no faster to measure with the tape than a board, and both are under 45 seconds out of the water most times. I get really frenzied when I sense a minute out of the water looming, and may blow off measuring all together except for the Frabill Cradle. That works well too, and is always in the rig.
A 50" fish is reason to be very excited. Always will be for me; I've caught a good number of Muskies over that number and will quit if I even begin to think that's not about as exciting as things can get. But then, for me, so is a 41, or a 39, or even a 35. The only difference is a few inches and what was described earlier as 'ego'. Yep, we all have one. For me, a muskie is a muskie. |
|
| |
|
| like many others have already said, i like the bump board because i'm confident in it being very accurate. heck, if your partner takes a picture of the fish on the board (like in the MMTT tournaments) you can go back later and review the measurement in super-zoom close up!
however, i really really like the bump board because it's just plain easier!
you put the fish on the pre-wetted bump board, make sure it's nose is "bumping" and then check the length at the tail. no messing around with tapes or sticks or anything else. this is what works best for me.
there are plenty of people out there who are very good and efficient at handling fish and other ways of measuring. since i'm just fair-to-middling at it, Mr. Murphy has a tendency to show up and complicate things. 
i try to keep it as simple as possible to help myself out, and using the simplest possible tool to accomplish the job means the fish is out of the water for less time.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1245
Location: Madtown, WI | Being a scientist...I like to be accurate.
BUT, you CAN screw up a measurement on a bump board too!
If you don't have the fish square on the boar the measurement WILL be off. And I am not talking 1/4 inch either. When you have a 52 incher laying on the bump board it doesn't take much of an angle to throw your measurement off 1 inch.
I don't have a back support on my bumpboard. But after seeing this angle make a huge difference I make sure I have the fish square on the bump board. This WHOLE measurement process is VERY quick too. You get a routine down and you will be suprised how fast it goes.
Fish is in the net unhooked. Cameras ready....partner says go...you pull the fish out, bump it...square it...you both read the number, both stand up and step back, a snap or two and back in the water...Trust me, it can be a very quick turnaround.
Again I do it because its the way I am wired...I want to know...if its a 44.5 I want to know...is just me...its all part of the details of the catch...again, a scientist.
We get so caught up in thinking our way or this way is right....we forget that there are MANY ways that work....depending on what the person wants.
I love pics of my bigger fish....I know a guy that has caught something like 30 over 50. He rarely gets pics....its not for him.....but for me...I catch 30 of them...and I STILL will want to know if is 52 or 52.5 and I want a pic...
To each his own...
Cory
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2024
| We use to use a stick or cloth tape to measure our fish. Then I had time on my hands this past winter and decided to build a bumpboard. First off, it's fun to create one on your own, but more importantly it has been a dream in the boat. It makes taking measurements so much easier and no more, "Boy, I hope that measurement was accurate." Get the head at bumped up, swipe the tail across the inch mark and BAM you've got your length.
Can't really add much else here. Everyone else has made excellent points. Here's a 42" on the board.
Edited by esox50 8/18/2007 1:40 AM
Attachments
----------------
bumpexp.JPG (171KB - 128 downloads)
tail.JPG (253KB - 141 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
| I use a bump board that my Dad made out of a 1x6 and countersunk a 4 foot rule in it. Anything over 48, we stick a small knife or push pin in and add the difference. Best of all, we turned the back into a fishing log, with the date,size,lake, lure,length. Every year I spray some Envirotex over the previous years data. Now we have an heirloom, not just a bumpboard. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | I really like my Bump board(Dunnwright). I used to use a custom made piece of plastic with a sewing tape glued onto it. Before that, the floating rule. Bump board just seems quicker and more accurate in or out of the water. That said, I guesstimate on most fish 43" and under or so unless a perfect situation. I feel I am very accurate with this, though if I do use this method, I'll always under score it when someone asks the size just to be sure. A measurement isn't really all that imprtant unless a good one, though I do like to qualify the catch, and a pliars on the hook needs to happen to be legit for me if we don't net. That said, the quality bump board is so accurate and quick, I measure more fish than I used to, as it really seems to add little stress to the situation. As far as people calling a fish a 53 that isn't, I could care less. It is usually a dang big fish anyhow and I like to hear about it/see it either way!
Edited by Reef Hawg 8/14/2007 5:35 PM
|
|
| |
|
| MSKY HNR - 8/14/2007 2:24 PM
takes about 10-15 extra seconds MAX to measure a fish on a bumpboard...
5 minutes? huh? imho sometimes 15 sec is 2 much when the temperature is high.i measure only 50+ in the cradle please.less possible time out of the water period=better release%.i just hate to play whit life only for a pict............ |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | if water temps are that high and you are worrying about maybe 30 seconds out of the water you shouldn't be fishing for them imo!!!
i will always measure big fish...little ones? no, but if it's 48 or 49 i want know...that's just me....
Edited by MSKY HNR 8/14/2007 7:22 PM
|
|
| |
|
| it is a total personal preferance thing i think...i agree with brad on measuring....i like to know..it takes 2 seconds to get an accurate measurment on a bump board and get it back. i also have no problem with guys who dont want to measure a fish, and call it a "low 40s" or a "high 30s" or a "mid 40s" or say it was a 32-33...or 40-41...whatever within its size, weve had a few of those in the boat this year and thats fine....however guys who dont measure fish and pin a # on it i think is wrong...especially if they are entering them in contests of any nature. too many times i hear of a fish caught and the number tends to change between folks, in otherwords you hear joe blow got a 42...but then ya know what it may have been bigger cause we really didnt measure it, next thing ya know it becomes a 45....big deal?? not really i guess, i however think a 45 inch fish should only be a 45 inch fish. a 42 inch fish is a 42 inch fish...no more no less! to each their own... this is just my personal opinion which means nothing! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | muskihuntr is right. If it is for a contest(i.e Muskies Inc. or a $$ or trophy contest), it needs to be measured. Though with our local club we like to have all entries, even close guesses. I want people to send the data in, and if they don't feel like measuring a 41 and call it 39 or 42, that is fine with me. Several guys like to fish from a canoe or from shore and would rather just guesstimate(again, if experienced one can get scary close), and unhook the fish to fight another day. We won't tell them they cannot enter the fish. Nice thing is, nobody in the club has an ego big enough to either lie for bragging rights or to care that others use this method. That said, nobody has ever won our yearly awards with a 'guessed' fish, as I don't know anyone who doesn't measure the nicer ones(even the canoe or shore guys measure the 'good' ones). That also said, if someone feels the need to call a 42 a 45, they'd probably do that whether they measure it or not.
Edited by Reef Hawg 8/14/2007 8:46 PM
|
|
| |
|
| I will probably invest in a Dunnwright...Eversoll used to have a very nice metal bump board we used in his boat (until he replaced it with the Dunnwright)...we only had one place to put it, because it didn't fold up. Well, when it is 10 degrees out, and the water is crashing over the back, things get slick...but a stainless steel bumpboard is really, REALLY slick. Imagine a 250 pound turtle on it's back shell, loaded with 112 layers of clothing, then you can imagine the picture my boatmates saw a few years ago...
So, i think i'm gonna buy the Dunnwright...is this the best one you guys think?? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 785
| I've always measured fish in the water as a way of trying to protect the fish but recently while fishing with my mother she caught her personal best in Iowa. I tryed to get a measure in the water and it was bouncing between 40-41"es. There were waves so I layed it on the floor of the boat using one of those musky sticks and it ended up being a 42"er! My recent personal best I believe is also bigger but I don't like laying a 50" on the carpet and removing its slime coat, solution... Next time I'm in thorne bros I'm picking up a bunk board.
All the fish we've measured as Mr. Worrall mentioned are "close enough", for me anyways, an inch or two isn't a huge deal, but in the future I'm shooting for more accurate measurements. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1245
Location: Madtown, WI |
Ron, We are talking about a fish right????
".i just hate to play whit life only for a pict............"
I don't care for high temps myself. We were talking generalities of through out the season. You would be surprised how quick a trained person can bump a fish, get a pic and back in the water.
We do want to protect the fishery....but we also are entitled to take a quick pic too.
I cringe when an elite tone surfaces. Not saying you were trying to be an elitist, but an outsider might read it that way.
It is JUST A FISH....we try are darnest to protect it the best we can....but saying we shouldn't even fish for these creatures isn't a far fetched tone from your post.
Just food for thought.
Cory |
|
| |
|
Posts: 69
| 55esox - 8/14/2007 11:40 AM
I'm not overly concerned about the length, so if I do it, I usually measure in the water with a soft tape or a floating stick. It gets me close enough for my purposes. Its more important for me to get them back in the water.
If a measurement is critical, I would assume a bump board would be the most accurate.
Ditto here.We so undermeasure our fish,it's really a joke.We are measuring them in the water with a floating stick thru the net,with the fish sagging in the net.We lose at least 2"s doing it that way,but it seems no one in our boat is that concerned about it or I would get a bump board. |
|
| |
|
| Even though the accepting of L&G was one of the key components to the success of C&R don't you think it's run it's course.? How about going back to weight. Certified portable scales are realily available now. How about just weighing the fish in the net? Better for the fish and angler. Seems like a simple solution to me. Harry Brown - 32.6 lbs in net. John Doe - 18.2 lbs in net. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 697
Location: Minnetonka | ron f - 8/14/2007 6:07 PM
sometimes 15 sec is 2 much when the temperature is high.i measure only 50+ in the cradle please.less possible time out of the water period=better release%.i just hate to play whit life only for a pict............
Tournaments require you measure everything over 40, so it's good efficiency practice. How fast can you get the hooks out, dip the board, lay her down and snap the photo? Try it! Oh... and a friend said try holding your breath when you take her out. When you run out, she runs out. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 697
Location: Minnetonka | Donnie3737 - 8/15/2007 7:26 AM
So, i think i'm gonna buy the Dunnwright...is this the best one you guys think??
The Dunnwright is light and just as "slick" as any other when you put muskie slime on it. It works well... but I'd recommend putting some duct tape around the edges so as not to deface the beast. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 568
| to give an opinion on your original question ---Yes I think fish are commonly being stretched a few inches . very very common. MD |
|
| |
|
Posts: 381
| Bump board is the only way to go on a larger fish.
I keep a log of all my fishing ang and everyone is withing 1/4 "
Good luck!
|
|
| |
|
| We were streching them back in 1949, why should things be any different now? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2754
Location: Mauston, Wisconsin | My vote goes to the Dunnwright Bump Board. I have a custom 80" floating stick (ya never know!). Easy to measure a fish out of the water-but you need to have two numbers- the head & tail position - subtract the smaller from the larger = fish length. Got a Dunnwright from Mr. Forcier two years ago (Petenwell Muskie Challenge). Now my custom stick is just a backup or for in water measurements.
The Dunwright works great- Just saw Lambeau's Dunnwright in the photo of his 53.8" fish on Vermillion.
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/cnr_images.asp?view=detail&photoid=...
Lambeau: Is that a "Cheese Head" modification to the Dunnwright, i.e., the different colored stripes spaced out at the end? Seems like it would make measurements much faster & more accurate. Good idea!
Have fun!
Al
|
|
| |
|
|
Many fish are "overestimated", you only have to look at the MI lunge to see that.
Funny how many 48"ers and 50"er + there are, but 49"er-50"ers seem to be a real rarity!
An absolutely accurate measurement has no purpose but to compare your fish with other peoples, who may not be measuring that accurately anyway.
Now I've measured many, many fish on a bump board over the years, and now it just isn't important to me anymore.
I measure with a floating stick in the water,or not at all. I'm actually thinking about putting stickers on the sides of my boat, so I can just hold a fish up against them if I want an idea of how big she is.
I really doubt I'll ever beat my personal best, and now could care less if I know exactly whether a fish was 49" or 50" or 51", a big fish is a big fish, and is just as fun to catch and release no matter if you can tell your buddies exactly how big she was.
That being said, everyone is at a different place in what they like to do in regards to fish handling, and measuring quickly on a bump board is the most accurate way to know what your fish's length is.
JS
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 697
Location: Minnetonka | Don't forget to dip it first!
Attachments
----------------
P8260054.jpg (155KB - 123 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2378
| ESOX Maniac - 8/18/2007 8:31 AM
My vote goes to the Dunnwright Bump Board. I have a custom 80" floating stick (ya never know! ). Easy to measure a fish out of the water-but you need to have two numbers- the head & tail position - subtract the smaller from the larger = fish length. Got a Dunnwright from Mr. Forcier two years ago (Petenwell Muskie Challenge ). Now my custom stick is just a backup or for in water measurements.
The Dunwright works great- Just saw Lambeau's Dunnwright in the photo of his 53.8" fish on Vermillion.
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/cnr_images.asp?view=detail&photoid=...
Lambeau: Is that a "Cheese Head" modification to the Dunnwright, i.e., the different colored stripes spaced out at the end? Seems like it would make measurements much faster & more accurate. Good idea!
Have fun!
Al
Al, that's a mod that Paul Hartman (and possibly others) does for his tournament. Makes it easier on them when they go to the photos to verify the length. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | i do agree with the contest thing though and case in-point. last year there was the contest here ... i caught a couple nice fish over on mille lac that would have qualified for the contest, but i didn't measure them ... the reason was that i had a big face full of cowgirl and had a tough time cutting hooks etc... and really just wanted the pictures. i was in the boat with a business partner and had a couple other biz buds with steve jonesi ... one was a real mess and jonesi came over to help me and took the pic of the fish ... i would say one was 45 and the other a 46 but that was me guessing .... they very well could have been bigger ... who knows, but they were +/- a half inch of the estimate i would say ...
now, to those of you who took accurate measurements and entered the contest. would it have been fair if i had entered two "unmeasured" fish into the contest and have won? i decided not because i truly couldn't have said with confidence it was this or that ... so i didn't enter the fish.
for me, it's not a big deal .. wasn't a personal best and in the situation it was my call to make so i just got pictures of the one and put her back quick ... the other one went in without a picture or a measurement ... make sense?
but, if i'm entered into a contest against people you can be assured it will be an accurately measured fish using a bump board. i got my dunright for free ... whenever you leave out of mille lac ... keep your eyes on the ditch ... amazing what you might find. i've got minnow buckets, life-jackets, seat cushions and now a bump board from careless boaters ...
life according to sled ... i'm out |
|
| |
|
Posts: 5874
| I certainly would have encouraged you to enter those fish, Sled. Not every fish was measured on a bump board. Mine certainly weren't. The contest merely said a fish had to be 45 or greater to enter. That was to limit the number of entries, I suspect. It wasn't like a biggest fish wins type contest, or total inches contest. As it was, there were something like 376 entries.
I won a club outing where my fish were measured on my stick, and witnessed the same. Other fish were measured on tapes, and maybe bumpboards. No real matter to me. No real big dollars involved. Mostly bragging rights. And I got to buy for everyone at Hooters afterward! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | if i won with one 45-47 without a measurement and a guy with a bonafide fish qualifying didn't win i just plain don't think it would be fair. in the case of the replica contest which was what i opted out of the gain was worth 6 or 700 bucks which is enough coin to make the decision easy enough for me ...
if i was smart enough to post a picture i would, but i think it's too big and i don't know how to donwsize ... anyway, you'd get the picture. there are some bonafide numbers on some great fish posted year after year. i stopped posting fish for 2 reasons ... 1 because why jump into the ring when so many are embellished beyond even logical numbers and 2 because i can't catch a fish to save my life LOL ... i think you'd have to actually be able to have time to fish to do that ...
and maybe since there were 376 entries, i made the odds better for the more accurately measured fish. in all contests we hope everyone is honest with their entry. i just can't imagine me being able to use the words "honest" with an estimated measurement ... that's all, and that was the point earlier in the thread that i was trying to address.
|
|
| |
