|
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | As many of you guys know, Larry Ramsell and I researched the various equations for estimating the weight of a musky, based upon its length and girth. Version 1 of the calculator was developed using VB.NET and released on Windows desktop and mobile platforms, way back in 2006. However the recent elevation of Joe Seeberger's 58x29 fish to the modern day record has prompted me to realize that it's time for an update.
So I'd like to start this thread as a place to outline a "feature request" from anglers who might want to use the tool. This will hopefully be a place where we (the developers) can find out what features anglers would want in a product. But first, a disclaimer:
This product was never intended to be a "for-pay" product. This means that our goal is to keep it free. My personal intention is that it become the motivation and/or foundation for use in prospective research in the esocid species, but we'll see where that goes down the road a bit.
Finally... Sometimes people agree on these forums, disagree on these forums, and agree-to-disagree on these forums. And while it's true that you can't always please everyone, at least we can maybe get some consensus on features that might be nice to support. So that being said, here goes nothing! |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Here are the original versions of the calculator (attached to this post). Anyone who wants to participate is welcomed to download them, and run either version on a Windows PC. Even the PocketPC version will run on a Windows desktop, so you guys can play around with either version and tell us what you like or don't like...and what you'd like to see in the next version. I can't guarantee that *every* feature will be implemented, but if there are things that guys think are important--then we'll try to incorporate them into the new version.
So here are my (starting) goals for v2.0, in no particular order:
1) Cross-platform: I would like to see this run on basically ANY operating system, and any mobile device. The more people that can use it, the more it will be used.
2) Data logging: I'd like to hear input from guys about how they might use something like this to keep a record of the fish they've caught. I don't know how extensive the data base would/could/should be, but that's something we should talk about.
3) Extensible: Whatever we do for this version, it must be capable to being expanded or extended to support future goals. So any features we decide to support should be implemented with that thought in mind.
So there it is. I would sure appreciate any input you guys are willing to provide. Therefore if you want to participate, then please download the attached zipped folder and have a go. Just unzip it on your desktop and run either of the two executable files inside. These have been in use for the past 6 years, and I am not aware of any bugs or security issues with running either. As long as you have a relatively up-to-date version of Windows, either should run without issue.
Thanks in advance!
TB
EDIT: I should add that anyone can feel free to PM or email me, if they don't want to post openly in the forum for some reason. If there are good suggestions made in that fashion, I can just add them to this thread as appropriate.
Edited by tcbetka 4/25/2013 10:57 AM
Attachments
----------------
 Calculators.zip (23KB - 374 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1901
Location: MN | Just out of curiosity Tom, where will you get the data needed to update the calculator? Have there been enough fish throughout the general size range that have been bonked, and accurate measurements taken and submitted, to supply you with the sampling qty you feel it will take in order to make it more accurate? Will there be an in-the-water and out-of-the-water girth variable or is that not enough to sway things? Looking forward to seeing what you come up with. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | We would start by using the current equations as-is for now. The idea is to expand the features of the program in other ways, and make it suitable for other platforms. There is a planned academic project (pending funding) to do the kinds of things you are talking about...among other things. So the goal with this new version would be to start to develop something that might help fit into that effort down the road, should that become an option.
I have actually been thinking about setting up an open source development project, so that other developers might also contribute. But that's down the road a ways, if it does happen. In software development, you eat the elephant "one bite at a time." So the first thing you have to do is to see how big the thing is--meaning we need to see how big of a job this project might end up being.
Thanks for your post! Keep them coming. I love the ideas...
TB
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 427
| I think we have enough people on this site that we could compile a ton of info for a length/weight scale. The only thing that you would need that you don't already have in you boat would be a cradle to weigh the fish in. You could inter the accurate length, girth, and weight and after a fairly short period of time we could put it on a chart and have an ACCURATE length/weight chart. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | That's basically what they've been talking about for data collection out in the proposed project in New York--having anglers across the range of the fish gather data, using a standardized set of parameters/protocols. I think that would be VERY cool to do, and (since hopefully most of the fish will be released) it would seem to be as relevant as any of the equations built on harvested fish.
Great idea though. In this day and age, most people have either a smart phone, tablet, laptop...or SOME sort of computerized device fairly accessible for use in providing such an estimate. And if we can implement a database system into the product, then so much the better. Not only would it be a log for tracking catches, but it would also serve as a foundation for future development efforts where those capabilities might need to be expanded significantly for a number of reasons.
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1285
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | One thing for the researchers to consider if..."having anglers across the range of the fish gather data, using a standardized set of parameters/protocols." is not requiring making public the location of catch data, otherwise, those who catch fair to large numbers of the size most desired (over 40 pounds...yes I know they would use all sizes but I'd bet that different formula's will be needed in the end to cover all sizes) would likely not participate.
It should also be limited to a fairly small number of anglers to minimize the variables of different folks taking "scientific measurments". It would be great if everyone could participate, but it just wouldn't work in the long haul. It could just be that less is more in this case. Large samples are great "if" they are accurate and taken in the same manner, but smaller more accurate samples taken the same way would be best.
Not a simple project, given the size of the muskie range, but somewhat simplified if the sample areas were limited to those with all sizes of samples available, including those in the upper size ranges of over 40 and 50 pounds. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | All great thoughts Larry. I haven't read the proposal yet, so I'm not sure of the protocol they are proposing. But I believe your're right though--a smaller number of (more reliable) anglers is probably better. It will take a coordinated effort to be sure.
We'll have to see where that all goes, I guess. When I talked to Kevin earlier this week he said that although they are still very interested in the project, they were working on other (funded) things. Since there isn't enough funding yet available for this length/weight project, nothing much was going on with it. So that's another hurdle to overcome...
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 117
| This has "smartphone app" written all over it. A quick search of the apple App Store did not turn up a single fish weight calculator. If there's a way that such a calculator could be used to gather data for research, that could be useful, even if the data has a bit more margin of error than a true scientific data set. I can envision something along the lines of the USFWS wing collection surveys that use state/county to locate where a given data point is from in order to keep it at least a bit more "anonymous" as to location of catch--not perfect, but better than, say, GPS coordinates. Enter length, girth, species, and state/county, indicate whether it's harvested or released, and it sends data into central location and gives you info back like estimatd weight, maybe estimated age range, size of catch in percentile of all such catches in that region, etc, etc? seems this could be used for participation surveys, all sorts of stuff that is hard to get data for.
Edited by Macintosh 4/27/2013 9:15 AM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Yes, good ideas indeed. I've thought of some of those things.
My intention is to try to use the Qt framework, and write this app in C++. I'm just getting started with Qt, but right now it seems to support using native widgets/controls on all of the major platforms, as well as the Android platform. They are talking about iOS support by the end of the year--I understand it's in beta right now. But the nice thing about doing it this way is that if this application gets built with Qt on Linux for instance, all you need to do is drop the files onto a flash drive, load them into Qt on Windows or Mac, and then compile them there. Same goes for Android/iOS (when supported), but you simply cross-compile on your native OS.
As for a data base, I am strongly considering using SQLite. It's server-less, fast, and uses standard SQL syntax. It's pretty amazing really. I need to look into what it will take for people to be able to use it on their smart phone though, because I'm not sure of that. When I took an Operating Systems class a few years ago, we wrote Android apps in Java--and I used SQLite back then to make a trip log. Very slick. But I don't quite remember what it took to load it the first time...
But I think this whole project is VERY do-able. I just want to get some ideas as to what features should be supported, and then we can start planning the build.
Great post Macintosh...thanks!
TB
Edited by tcbetka 4/27/2013 9:50 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | I like the work you guys are doing here. I would really like to see an accurate formula for live fish. It seems between this thread and the the one in general discussion that you are on the right track. Carry on !! Mike |
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | Trying to move this discussion here...
Guest - 4/27/2013 5:43 PM Will, What's complicated about changing the 800 divisor to 894? Which formula comes closest to the actual weight of these fish?
George - Complicated by having two formulas for live and dead fish when it appears that one can do the job. The problem I see to adjusting the divisor for the other formula, as you've done, is that we don't have live weights on the fish you're using. The other problem is I know the Seeberger fish was over 58# dead weight and based on fluid and slime loss live weight was likely close to or over 59#. If your assumed .9" addition to live girth is correct the Crawford is accurate.
The other thought I have is why do we need a formula for dead fish? Just weigh it. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Good points Will...we DON'T need an equation for estimating the weight of dead fish, because we can simply weigh them. (We can also weigh live fish too by the way, as Larry has pointed out several times. LOL.) So before we can come up with a possible solution and implement it into a new weight calculator application, I think we really need to discuss what we think the problem is. Once we can come to some sort of agreement in terms of a possible way to get a more accurate model, then it's somewhat trivial to implement that in a new calculator.
The problem I have with simply adjusting the value of the denominator is that we really don't understand how girth changes when the fish dies. Obviously we all agree that it changes; and we seem to all agree that it decreases. But the $64,000 question is: By how much? Warren's equation tried to account for the change, but that number is still apparently in question--although George's suggestions seems to be a good place to start. In particular though, I don't like the assumptions of live girth based upon using a new value for the denominator. One equation, one unknown. When you start changing multiple things in order to make your numbers work out, that should be a sign that you need to re-examine the basic concepts that led you to start making changes in the first place.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 4/29/2013 9:40 AM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | I would like to know how close the Crawford is on these fish that Larry has mentioned previously.
LR: "As I have noted before on three fish this past December, the Standard Formula greatly overstated fish weighed before release on an IGFA Certified scale:
One calculated 55 pounds via formula and weighed 49
One calculated 58+ pounds via formula and weighed 51
One calculated 63.66 pounds via formula and weighed 58"
I would also like to know if these fish were hooked at depths of 20' or more.
Edited by Will Schultz 4/29/2013 11:41 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1285
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Will:
The first calc. 54.38 = +3.38#
The second calc. 52.72 = +3.72
The third calc. 56.795 or 56.80 = -1.20
First above 20'
Second unknown due to lure type, likely above 20'
Third above 20' |
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | Larry Ramsell - 4/29/2013 2:26 PM
Will:
The first calc. 54.38 = +3.38#
The second calc. 52.72 = +3.72
The third calc. 56.795 or 56.80 = -1.20
First above 20'
Second unknown due to lure type, likely above 20'
Third above 20'
Very interesting. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | So...are you thinking maybe that the girth wasn't all that impacted by ascension from less than 20 feet of depth?
Seems like although there might be *some* increase in girth in such instances, it wouldn't be that significant. And I'm not convinced that it is. Certainly there CAN be instances where the girth could increase significantly due to swim bladder inflation, the fact is that I'll bet that's not the case in most situations.
Larry, how deep are most of those big fish being caught from out in the St. Lawrence and Ottawa rivers? Here in Green Bay in the Fall, the largest fish are often being caught in 4-6 feet of water...certainly less than 10 feet. So while we haven't been given enough data on the fish that were harvested, I seriously doubt there will be any significant impact on girth due to decompression of the swim bladder.
Note that this still does not account for a circumstance where a fish could hyper-inflate its own swim bladder due to stress, and an increased respiratory rate. I'll have to try to research that a bit to see if it has been reported in other species. I'm also going to ping Sean Landsman by email and ask him to pop into this thread when he has time. He'll be a good source of information as well, having just been through his Masters program.
Good stuff in this thread here boys...good stuff indeed.
TB |
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | Not sure what to think on this especially being that they are closer with the Crawford formula but not all over or under. Still has me thinking that taking two measurements one at pectoral fins and one at pelvic fins and ignoring the maximum point of girth could be the most accurate. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Ah ha... Swimbladder Stress Syndrome! It does exist. I thought I had read something about it years ago, but I couldn't remember. Now I have something more to go on anyway--a name.
I wonder how much of the "swim bladder problems" we see in these fish are due to an abnormal physiological response to the angling event? The little bit I've found so far even indicates that there might be circumstances that even result in air outside the actual swim bladder. I need to research this more though, and will start to share some links to references here.
I also emailed Sean and asked him to join the thread when/if possible. Maybe he has more information for us...
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1285
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Tom, depths of "water" and depth of "catch" can be two vastly different things. I'd wager that most of the St. Lawrence fish are caught in the upper 20 feet of water, but the actual water depth could be 80 feet. Much shallower on on the average on the Ottawa, but that varies too and it freezes up earlier than the St. Lawrence. Different sections of the St. Lawrence too, fish differently.
Don't forget about "current" as a possible factor to swim bladder increase both during the fight and in the net. Of he examples I quoted, two were from current and the larger one was from an off-current area. Stress could also be a factor.
Will, I wouldn't put too much into these small samples and I should note that the girth measurement of the two smallest samples weren't that carefully done as the weighing was the foremost thought. I think taking two "different" girth measurments far overcomplicates things and obviously most will want to know the maximum girth anyway.
Again, if you want "accurate", just weigh the beast! |
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | Agreed, if you really want to know the weight just weigh it. Problem is most people aren't going to take the time or spend the money to carry an accurate scale. Even worse would be seeing a bunch of fish hanging from their jaw by a scale because we're saying "just weigh it". Most anglers are going to be happy with a good estimate and that's where an accurate formula would be nice. From what I can tell and from running some of my own fish the Crawford seems to do the best job.
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Larry Ramsell - 4/30/2013 9:04 AM
Tom, depths of "water" and depth of "catch" can be two vastly different things. I'd wager that most of the St. Lawrence fish are caught in the upper 20 feet of water, but the actual water depth could be 80 feet. Much shallower on on the average on the Ottawa, but that varies too and it freezes up earlier than the St. Lawrence. Different sections of the St. Lawrence too, fish differently.
Yes, right...understood. I couldn't care less what the depth of the water is under the fish. That's like the runway behind you, or the gas you left at the dock. It's irrelevant. I'm trying to form an (educated) opinion as to just how much potential girth delta is due to the swim bladder. But while it is certainly possible that it might be significant, I have my doubts. Thus the (re)search continues on that topic...
Don't forget about "current" as a possible factor to swim bladder increase both during the fight and in the net. Of he examples I quoted, two were from current and the larger one was from an off-current area. Stress could also be a factor.
Interesting. How do you think that would affect it? If the fish's esophagus is closed in the current, it shouldn't be filling up with water--so it must be air. Also, I suspect that water with current would be colder than that without current, and therefore would likely have more dissolved oxygen than water without current. In the papers I've found mentioning SBSS, it appears as though stress can indeed induce this phenomenon in fish. So if anything, and keep in mind that this is only an initial impression after an hour or two of research, it seems as though fish caught in a non-current area might have more stress--and as such, these fish might be expected to have more problems with their swim bladder regulation.
Will, I wouldn't put too much into these small samples and I should note that the girth measurement of the two smallest samples weren't that carefully done as the weighing was the foremost thought. I think taking two "different" girth measurements far overcomplicates things and obviously most will want to know the maximum girth anyway.
Again, if you want "accurate", just weigh the beast!
I wouldn't put too much stock in it either honestly, given the 'n' of only about 3-4 fish. That's why I am very hesitant to make any sort of change to the numbers involved in any of those equations (other than Mr. Hannon's, which we've already established needs to go). I certainly agree that it would be simpler to weigh any fish one intended to keep. However let's not kid ourselves here: How many people are going to carry a reasonably accurate scale in the boat? If we start advocating "weigh it or don't say it" on a wide-scale basis, the next thing you know...everyone will be hanging muskies from a Boga Grip scale to get a weight. Be careful what you ask for!
So I definitely think that revisiting this whole weight estimation topic is a prudent idea. For one thing, it gets people thinking about the topic as the season approaches. However it should also increase awareness and overall interest in the matter--and (hopefully) make it more likely to get some funding for the formal study down the road, as proposed by Dr. K.
Thanks for the posts guys--I think this is awesome stuff! Someone should certainly be thinking about this stuff, and I'm not convinced that many are...besides what's going on in this forum.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 4/30/2013 4:17 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1285
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Acutally Tom, the current area was two degrees warmer than the non-current area, but it was much closer to Lake Ontario, so hard to make anything out of that. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Interesting...
I suppose that, depending on the depth and substrate that the water is moving over, it could be warmer indeed--maybe even from the friction of water moving across the rough bottom, if the depth is shallow enough. Of course if the current is carrying water from an area of warmer relative temperature, then the water in current could in fact be warmer. That makes complete sense.
TB |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | An update: While I had intended to re-write this project in C++, we have just started working on another project that uses Java. Since Java is VERY cross-platform, and since this application wouldn't need "real-time" performance, I think we've decided to indeed re-write the calculator in Java. There seems to be existing support for both Android and iOS devices using Java, it would seem that this would be as good a choice as anything for a development language. I have already written a couple Android apps using Java back in school, and now that we're 2-3 years down the road...I would expect even better support. And although I haven't tried using Java for iOS development yet, there seems to be enough support out there for that as well. Of course Java is very database friendly, so there won't be much problem integrating that sort of support either.
So if anyone has experience writing Java code (especially for iOS or Android) and thinks they might like to work on this project, then I'd love to hear from you. It's been a couple years since I've written code in Java, so I've spent the past week or so reviewing. But my goal is to be re-writing the old calculator in Java starting sometime this week, and after that is finished and ported to Android and iOS, then we can start implementing new features.
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | Have you guys thought about contacting the M.O.M.C ? I was talking with Cooper Smith and he tells me they have a lot of data from weighed live fish. Some of them pretty heavy. It seems one of things you guys need is a larger data base of live fish weighed to write a new or verify the Crawford formula. Mike |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | No I haven't done that, but it's probably a good idea. Can you PM or email me with some contact information for him? I'd love to talk to them about that.
Thanks!
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | http://www.lscmomc.com/home.htm
I'm not member over there. I'm a member of Chapter 47 of Muskies Inc. I am sure Will knows how to get the data from the M.O.M.C. Those guys have been weighing live fish for about a decade now. They have several certified scales on the lake . Cooper tells me there are several hundred fish entered. It would give you a good average on fish up to and in some cases exceeding 40 pounds. Mike |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Cool, I see the site there. There seems to be an email address contact as well--so I'll drop them an email to see if I can get a number. It would be great to see if I can get some of that data for them.
Thanks man!
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | I think what you guys are doing is a great Idea. I have never been a fan of formulas as they just cant account for things like stomach contents, bloating and human error. However building one from large data base based on weighed live fish makes more sense to me then doing one on dead fish samples. This could prevent a bunch of big fish being killed by world record seekers. I still think weighing them is the only way to know for certain.
http://www.lscmomc.com/ResultStanding.htm
Look at the first and second place fish from 2012. The fish with the smaller girth and shorter length is heavier by less then 1/16th of a pound. No Formula is going to catch that but one derived from live fish could get us all closer to true weights.
Mike
Edited by Kingfisher 5/11/2013 1:20 PM
|
|
| |
