|
|
Location: Contrarian Island | For those that measure the girth of a fish, do you measure in the water? Out of the water on the bump board? For years I have thought the right/correct, most accurate way was in the water, which is what I have done with the limited number I have wanted to girth. Now just recently I have heard from some guys that the "norm" on Mille Lacs these days is to measure on the bump board because doing it this way gives a more accurate weight estimate using the standard formula....i.e. if a fish is 52 x 25 in the water but 52 x 27 on the bump board the fish's weight with the formulas comes out to be more accurate if the fish was actually weighed with the 27" measurement...
Another example, My biggest girthed at 24.25, comes out to 38.6 on the formula on this site, now if add say 1.75 inches if I had girthed it out of the water it hits 44.3.. so which was right...not that I really care too much honestly..it was big.
I'm thinking of buying a $200 Chatillon just by the outside chance I get one up there close enough to 55 lbs...!!!
Edited by MSKY HNR 11/14/2007 8:40 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1764
Location: Ogden, Ut | If I do it, which really isn't all that often, I do it in the water w/ a sewing tape.
s. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1996
Location: Pelican Lake/Three Lakes Chain | Exactly as Sorno stated. I have girthed fewer than 10 fish in my life, always int he water. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2427
Location: Ft. Wayne Indiana | I have never girthed a fish...they are either skinny, nice or fat...
I don't care if a fish weights 28 pounds, 38 pounds or 48 pounds...
If I was to ever girth a fish, it would be on the bump board, as no type of water measurement is accurate.
People have definately gotten overboard with their girth measurements... |
|
| |
|
| Mike, you take the time to accurately measure the length within a 1/4" inch but think girthing one which might take another 10 seconds is overboard? doesn't harm the fish and if someone wants to know how long x fat it was why is that a big deal?
I agree though that girthing fish has gotten a bit nutty when I see stuff like 42 x 19 posted....ok girthing a 42"er and then posting it...seems silly...now a 52 x 27 that is not silly to me! my 2 cents |
|
| |
|
Posts: 814
| I never knew that the girth changed over an inch from being girthed on a bump board to being girthed in under a foot of water???? I don't think water pressure is that great in 12 inches of water that it woul;d compress the fish enough to effect anything.
not being a smart@#%$ either
Edited by mskyhntr 11/14/2007 9:02 AM
|
|
| |
|
Location: The Yahara Chain | The formula's are based on the girth of dead fish, which is smaller than when it is alive, maybe Mr. Ramsell will explain. I would think that the in water measurement would be more accurate. To know what a fish weighs you need to weigh it. A fish that maintains it's girth all of the way through it will weigh more than one with a potbelly. The formula's are only intended as an estimate. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1243
Location: Musky Tackle Online, MN | When I measure the girth it's always in the water. Less time out of the water, better for the fish.
Aaron |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2427
Location: Ft. Wayne Indiana | I just don't care about girthing a fish. That's why I don't do it.
Like I said, it is either fat, skinny or normal. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2037
Location: lansing, il | i only girth my pike thats how i decide which ones im gonna eat. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Take it for what it's worth, but I favor leaving the fish in the water for any and all measurements. The exact size isn't nearly as important to me as the health of the fish is... That being said, I worked with Larry Ramsell to create a computer application that calculates the estimated weight based upon several equations. (I apologize in advance for the lengthy post.)
The only formula that *directly* uses a modified girth value is Warren Wilkinson's equation. Here the girth value is decreased by 0.75" and then used in the same fashion as the Standard LGG/800 equation. So the Wilkinson equation is:
(L * (G - 0.75) * (G - 0.75)) / 800
I spoke to Warren Wilkinson at length about the derivation of his version of the Standard IGFA equation, and as I recall this was merely an attempt to re-create the accurate live girth of the fish. I don't recall him telling me how or why he arrived at a value of -0.75 inches--maybe Larry Ramsell will remember.
I will also add that Roy Crawford's equation:
(LG/25) - 10
...also attempts to control for girth variations, by reducing the importance of the girth factor in the entire process. I spoke to Roy about his equation as well, and can tell you that he put a SIGNIFICANT amount of thought into the derivation of that equation. He's an engineer and (like any good engineer) has oodles & oodles of data and calculations to support his derivation.
The Casselman/Crossman equation doesn't favor girth as much either, but I could never reach Dr. Casselman to discuss how it was derived.
But I must point out that, the more I researched all of the equations floating around out there, the more I realized what Larry Ramsell has been saying all along--these are only estimates of the weight of a live fish. As such, each has its faults, and no two seem to agree all that closely on any one given fish. In fact that's one of the reasons I included all five known equations in my program--because they can be so different.
Which is the best? Who knows... They are generalizations, based upon retrospective analysis of fish that have been harvested over the years. And that information was totally dependent upon the (non-standardized) raw data provided by anglers, biologists & taxidermists. The purpose of our computer program was to make anglers aware of the HUGE disparity between the different formulae that are available.
Here's a link to the program, for anyone who may not have seen it. It's free.
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=35...
TB
Edited by tcbetka 11/14/2007 12:37 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2068
| in the water with sewing tape - but I have only girthed 3 fish ever.... and one was a 41" - this might be considered fat?
Attachments
----------------
 41x21.png (110KB - 143 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1767
Location: Lake Country, Wisconsin | I do not girth fish either...It seems silly to me, unless the fish is a near record or absolute hog over 50 lbs. potentially, it just doesn't matter to me. Even if I wanted to, it seems hard to get an accurate measurement. I imagine quite a few people are having problems as well judging by the some of the reported measurements versus the images I see. Just my opinion, but I think guys have taken this too far |
|
| |
|
Posts: 999
| You'd think that anybody that is getting a replica made would want and honest girth measurement so if it's bigger on the bumpboard, that's the girth measurement that i'd go with. Hulbert do you just guess or estimate your girth measurements then for your replicas?
Mr Musky |
|
| |
|
| i've girthed a handful, always did it in the net by cutting a piece of PowerPro and holding it around the center.
however, i know of a fish from this last week that measured:
length 54.75" on bumpboard
girth 25" in the water
girth 27.5" on the bumpboard
formula with 25" girth = 42.77lbs
formula with 27.5" girth = 51.76lbs
the fish was weighed in the net between 51 - 52 lbs, just as the formula predicts with the larger girth.
due to this, if the fish is worth girthing, i'll girth it on the bumpboard in the future.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 814
| Mike where does the extra 2.5 inches of girth go when the fish is in the water?
Or does the stomach stretch when the fish is laid on the ground?
I always thought that a 25 inch girthed circle is the same as a 25 inch oval....what I am saying is somethng that measures X in the water still should measure X on the bump board......maybe the stomach flattens out making the sides more deep but then it should take away from the roundness of the stomach making the measurement the same? Please enlighten me. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2378
| mskyhntr - 11/14/2007 11:56 AM
Mike where does the extra 2.5 inches of girth go when the fish is in the water?
Or does the stomach stretch when the fish is laid on the ground?
I always thought that a 25 inch girthed circle is the same as a 25 inch oval....what I am saying is somethng that measures X in the water still should measure X on the bump board......maybe the stomach flattens out making the sides more deep but then it should take away from the roundness of the stomach making the measurement the same? Please enlighten me.
Seems to me that the only way the girth could change in or out of the water would have to be skin stretch when out of the water.
if that is the case, is this measurement really more accurate? |
|
| |
|
| what i know is 3 things:
- (as Brad mentioned), there are people who believe from experience that they do girth more "true" out of the water
- a very credible and experienced (big fish) fisherman tested it this week and the fish gained 2.5" girth on the board
- this same person weighed the fish and it's actual weight was dead nuts to the formula with the out-of-water girth
to me, the 3rd point is the most relevant: actual weight and predicted weight matched out of the water, not so in water.
test it for yourself next time you're out and catch a big fish: girth both ways, weigh the fish, then compare the measurements to the formula.
i can't explain why it happens, but i do believe it when this person says it does. my "best guess" would be something related to water pressure vs air pressure and it's relationship to body tissue, which is mostly made up of water.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1938
Location: Black Creek, WI | Very interesting discussion.
I guess I'm simple minded. If I want to know how long something is I will measure it with a tape measure. If I want to know how heavy something is, I use a scale.
Two different units of measure.... requiring two different measuring devices.
So... if weight is important to you... I suggest investing in a scale.
My take on girth measurements..... especially with the "abuse" this measurment seems to be getting..... is like this. If you want to know how much air pressure is in your truck tires, do you measure the circumference of the tire and then the run a calculation? Or do you use a pressure gauge? I know which one I"m going to use. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 814
| I will check it out next time I catch a fatty. Anyone care to share what chantiliion scale is the one to purchase? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 327
| Easy explanation y'all ..... cold water = shrinkage !!!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 507
| Mr. Long has an excellent point. |
|
| |
|
| Great post/question ... because the discussion points out how ridiculous girth measurements and weight formulas are. First, it's impossible to get a truly accurate girth measurement because such a small difference in girth makes such a big difference in weight. Then, the girth may or may not be consistent through the length of the fish's body. After getting a girth measurement, you plug the numbers into a formula that isn't particularly accurate to begin with! So seriously, what's the point? I guess if a guy is measuring a fish in the water it's no big deal because there is little/no chance of harming the fish. But as far as I'm concerned, measuring a fish's girth out of the water keeps it out of the water longer, which necessarily creates a risk of additional harm to the fish ... and for what???
It all just seems pretty silly to me. |
|
| |
|
Location: The Yahara Chain | lambeau - 11/14/2007 10:48 AM
however, i know of a fish from this last week that measured:
length 54.75" on bumpboard
girth 25" in the water
girth 27.5" on the bumpboard
formula with 25" girth = 42.77lbs
formula with 27.5" girth = 51.76lbs
the fish was weighed in the net between 51 - 52 lbs, just as the formula predicts with the larger girth.
due to this, if the fish is worth girthing, i'll girth it on the bumpboard in the future.
This is a one fish example and doesn't prove anything in regards to the formula's. If you want to know what a fish weighs...WEIGH IT. If you want a cheap way to get a close weight, put a bathroom scale in your boat. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 654
Location: MPLS, MN | I'm no expert but if I were to measure for a replica I'd:
Measure lenght no tail pinch
Measure girth out of water {that's how it looks to the angler}
To me that's the most accurate way to get a replica to look the way you remember it looking.
Have no idea if it's the best way to estimate weight though.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1430
Location: Eastern Ontario | Well I guess now when we see all those exaggerated girths the guys are going to use the excuse of measuring them out of water. UNREAL Maybe I need to ad a couple of inches to all the fatties we've boated.
It is so easy to measure the girth in the water as the fish recoups before it is lifted for a quick picture.
I just can't see my clients going to the taxidermist and ordering a fat 55 or normal 52. Now is a 55 x 25 a normal or fat one? I mean they do get fatter but rarely.
I guess the best thing about this post is it explains why most reported girths are way off, it's ether guesses or laying on a board. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 999
| The problem I will end up having is do I want my replica to be 54 x 25 or 54 x 27, If I can get a quick girth on the board of 27 that's what she's getting drawn up on the receipt as!
Mr Musky |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1764
Location: Ogden, Ut | Mr Musky - 11/14/2007 3:44 PM
The problem I will end up having is do I want my replica to be 54 x 25 or 54 x 27, If I can get a quick girth on the board of 27 that's what she's getting drawn up on the receipt as!
Mr Musky
Not a bad problem to have...  |
|
| |
|
Location: WI | Mike, just curious, since you have "never girthed a fish" why is it you are qualified to make comments on peoples girth measurements? Just the other day I read a post on some board where the person didnt get a girth measurement and they posted asking people what they thought was the girth. I remember your post specifically, because you cut it down from what most people were guessing by about an inch or two. Not attacking you. But you seem to be one of the first people to chime up with his opinion. How would you know then, or even be able to guess without ever measuring?
I do agree with your statement that alot of girths are way overestimated. I say this because I have girthed a few fish in my day. In the water mostly, but did it for a client a few months ago on the bumpboard because I knew he would want a reproduction that best represented the fish he caught, his first over 50" from an inland Wisconsin Lake. Had the tape on the board before the fish was brought into the boat. Took maybe 3 extra seconds. Without taking a girth measurement how do you tell a client who wants a reproduction what the girth was? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | I was wondering the same thing Shane.......Never measured a girth, but questions every single one posted...... |
|
| |
|
| No need to girth most fish except for your very biggest trophies. Just use a sewing tape to get an accurate girth measurement in the water, and I have probably only girthed five big muskies in my lifetime. Weigh the fish if you want to know its real size, and accurate girth and length measurements are essesntial if you want to have a replica created. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2089
| I measure the freaks. I've only "girthed" a few of the special ones. Jody Dahms fish measured 30" twice in the net. I used a cut piece of Masterbraid(had to cut twice, 1st one was too short). Weighed 53# on an old spring scale and by formula the girth of a 53# fish would be 28"(52.92#). Could that fish have weighed 60#?????? I guess we'll never know, but in my mind, She was closer to 60 than 50. I've looked at a LOT of photos and have been witness to many XXL's the past few years, and NONE were in the same class.There have been lots of long , fat fish, but I've seen none with that body structure.I'm not trying to downplay or discount any of the huge fish recently(or not so recently) from anywhere. I've kept pretty quiet about some of the details around that fish. Seeing what transpires on the boards regarding fish size etc. on a daily basis is sad, but not surprising. I live and fish in another world. I think it may be hard for some to fathom what is really happening and that these Super Fish really do exist. I wonder what the fallout would have been had he whacked that fish? I know one thing for sure, his name would be in a book with some numbers after it. And She still swims. "Hello Clarise"........... Steve |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2427
Location: Ft. Wayne Indiana | why do I question them? Because they are wrong.
All you have to do is look at them and it is VERY easy to see that alot of people get their girths wrong.
Guessing the girth of a fish is about as easy as guessing/making an educated guess on the length of a fish.
I have never been bass fishing or caught a 5 pound bass either, but when I see photos of what people call 5 pounders, it is easy to see they are like 2-3 pound bass...
It's not rocket science, yet it is funny to me that most people are way over and just an educated guess is way more closer to the real thing than most people's "accurate" measurements.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1185
Location: Wishin I Was Fishin' | I agree with JLong
Who cares about the girth....it is obviously not accurate, the measurements and the formulas...buy a scale...weigh them in the net....subtract the net weight...why raise a bunch a crap about girths?
For a replica a taxidermist will know the weight of a molded fish because it was molded from a dead one.
I haven't girthed or weighed a fish yet.
I would like to get a scale.
Where can you get one? 75# would be best....the handle to lift it would probably have to be a 2 hander for the fatties.
Edited by Jomusky 11/15/2007 10:39 AM
|
|
| |
|
| 60 lb Chatillon here:
http://www.scalesgalore.com/chmechng.htm |
|
| |
|
Posts: 999
| So Joe, your saying if you were to want a replica the Taxidermist should just guess by your picture what the girth should be or just pick you out a mold and hope your happy with it? That's kinda the only reason a girth measurement would be extremely important in my book. As far as the weight yes weigh them in your net if you must need to know the weight of the fish, I agree with that.
Mr Musky |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | ...
Edited by Reef Hawg 1/26/2008 3:52 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2024
| Nice job, Jason!
I've girthed three fish: one really didn't need a girth measurement was just curious, one was my first 48", the other was a super fat 40". Since then I've caught quite a few others that, after releasing, I would have been curious to see a girth measurement. Usually, I don't even think about it until after the fact.
If money were not a concern, this guy would have a Chatillion scale "just in case." Too bad that green stuff doesn't grow on trees... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 999
| Reef Hawg, you should post a pic of that fish! I'd love to see it.
Mr Musky |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | Mr. Musky, drop me an email so I can send it to you.
Edited by Reef Hawg 11/16/2007 1:06 PM
|
|
| |
|
| When I measure the girth it's always in the water. Less time out of the water, better for the fish.
hey Aaron (AWH)...what'd this one girth out at?
WOW is that a tub!
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/cnr_images.asp?view=detail&photoid=...
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1243
Location: Musky Tackle Online, MN | Easily the heaviest and fattest fish I've ever had in the boat. 24.75" on the girth. My fishing partner tried to top that one two hours later with one just two inches shorter but with a matching girth. Unreal!
Aaron |
|
| |
|
| Anyone ever consider that different muskies of the same dimensions might weigh different amounts? The density of the fish might be different based on diet, genetics, age, etc. Formulas give you a rough estimate at best.
Also, Steve Jonesi, didn't you weigh that fish at 53# or something before releasing it? Are you saying you think that weight was inaccurate?
Thanks. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 272
| Shane and Pointerpride: wondered the same thing, took the words out of my mouth.
Edited by muskie-addict 11/25/2007 9:59 PM
|
|
| |
