|
|
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. |
|
| |
