|
|
Posts: 305
Location: Illinois | I am seeing all these posts about the weight of fish. I wonder if our zest to question estimates of fish is going to backfire on us as musky fisherman. It used to be that you caught a nice fish, put the stick on the fish, and let it go. Now some are measuring fish, girthing fish, and weighing fish. I wonder how that is good for the fishery or the fisherman. I would say that unless a fish is close to a record, why girth the fish at all or weigh the fish? How about putting a quick stick on the fish, taking a picture, and letting her go. Are we overdocumenting or am I just old school? When it comes to nice , but not record size muskies, isn't "49 inches and fat" enough? |
|
| |
|
| taking an accurate measurement on a bumpboard takes mere seconds, it doesn't hurt the fish or fishery...girthing a fish in the water if you wanna know how fat it is takes seconds..again, doesn't hurt the fish or fishery....some guys like to be accurate...some guys don't care whether it was 47 or 47.75....to each their own but saying guys that want to measure a fishes length or girth is harming the fish....that is ridiculous...imo |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | I completely agree with Husky. I would even go so far as to say that the proliferation of 50" muskies on some bodies of water have ruined the experience for some anglers that don't "measure up". I even know of one person that took out a local guide and was completely disappointed that he didn't get a 50"er and stiffed him on the tip. I guess the 49"er he caught wasn't good enough.
Let's face it, nobody needs to girth a fish unless you're going to make a replica. Who honestly cares how fat a fish is down to the inch? When people come to me with a L x G it actually makes me think less of the angler, especially when it's either not a big fish or one with a common build. It all boils down to ego.
Edited by Muskie Treats 9/26/2007 11:10 AM
|
|
| |
|
| need and want to know are two different things Treats..I got a fat 49.5 a month ago...did I "need" to girth it...no, but the guy with me wanted to, so he did and now I know..it wasn't to "measure up" with anyone else...
just to know... you don't care to girth fish, fine, but don't jump on guys who like to know for the simple reason of just wanting to know....
I have girthed maybe 5 of my fish in the last 2 yrs...now guys that are girthing 38 inchers as I've seen posted...that seems a little funny to me..  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | anybody who feels they need to "measure-up" to someone else is flawed to begin with ... but, if you're out there hanging your photos and "measurements" up all over the place ... then at least you should be accurate or bear the brunt of comic relief from the ones you are trying to impress.
tournaments, league and big fish (lol) get measured ... or not (lol) accurately and as bn says, anyone saying it's harmful is sending the wrong signal it can be done right (lol) ... bump boards are quick, easy for some (lol) and reduce time if done properly ... LMAO |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1243
Location: Musky Tackle Online, MN | I measure all of my fish "just to know". Some are just quick in water measurements with close estimates. I keep a detailed log and I like having the most accurate information that I can have in there, all for personal use. I definitely don't need the measurements for other people to know. I actually prefer to keep that information to myself. Like bn said, it takes a matter of seconds to get a measurement. If I measure the girth, it's always an in the water estimate. I weighed one musky 17 years ago and I don't intend on weighing one again. At that time, I plugged the measurements of that fish into the formula and compared it to the actual weight and it was within 2 ounces. Even within a few pounds is a close enough estimate for me if I even care to know.
I do think some people go a little over board. But compare it to where we were 35+ years ago when most of these fish had to be brought to shore and hung on a scale to show off. We've come a long way from there....
Aaron |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | bn, that's what I'm talking about. I hear all the time "I got a 42 x 20"er" and such. That's not needed. I can see it on a special fish, but it's getting ridicules. For that matter I get a kick out of many of these same people beating their chest as if they were the 1st ones to catch that fish. Most 50's have been caught and released dozens of times throughout their lives.
Maybe I'm just turning into a jaded grump (aka Captain Bitterman), but I just chuckle at 1/2 the stuff I read and hear now days. |
|
| |
|
| 100% agreement with you Treats, I don't understand it, other that the fact that 50+ % of Muskie Anglers feel the need to build a reputation as a "Muskie Angler" statistically, as a whole we need to focus more energy on building the resource and educating average anglers and the occasional Muskie fishermen about the facts of what we could have if we let our ego's stay in the bedroom where they belong |
|
| |
|
Posts: 305
Location: Illinois | BN
That is exactly what I was talking about. I read posts with a girth measurement for 38-42 inch fish. I once read a post that said the musky weighed 8 pounds. Why are we weighing fish that weigh 8 pounds? By the way, that was a pretty girthy fish you brought in Sunday. Congrats.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | i always relate it to the waste size of a hottie ... now, a 26" - 29" girth is the size of a real-life human ... for a cute little hottie that is ... so, when you're girthing a fish, remember that when the numbers get big, the fish has to get big too!
Edited by jonnysled 9/26/2007 1:19 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8863
| I had a 28" girth back in high school...
ain't sayin what it is today |
|
| |
|
Posts: 305
Location: Illinois | Just remember Sled, big girls need lovin' too... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1293
Location: Stevens Point, Wi. | My girth is of world record proportions! But, I still refuse to measure. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1245
Location: Madtown, WI | I got a 34 X 15, had a left pectoral fin clip, was missing its left second from center front tooth, slight skew overbite, one less pore on its left jaw then right, 4 more bars 3 inches from its right side of the tail then the left. Largest bar was 7 inches long by 1.2 inches wide.
I had it out of the water 326 minutes...but she swam off nicely.
cory |
|
| |
|
Posts: 374
Location: Bemidji | I am starting to do tail girths. That's the girth before the tail starts to fork. It will be a new trend, wait and see. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1243
Location: Musky Tackle Online, MN | Kevin,
Good call. I've been measuring the spread from tip to tip on tails for years. The fish up your way seem to have some of the biggest spreads of any fish of comparable length. I've never understood why some people will tail pinch their fish when measuring. How do you know what kind of spread it has?
Aaron |
|
| |
|
| I've never girthed a fish. My largest is a 47 inch fish from Canada that wasn't girthed. Last week I caught a 32" fish that was measured in the water and released without a photo or anything. I usually use a homemade bump board, but I kind of liked the water measuring. It was quick and easy, and much better for the fish. I may do that from now on. A friend of mine said they girth everything in Wisconsin......even summer sausage.  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 232
Location: Sun Prairie, WI | If it is not a personal best when measuring in the water, there is no need to measure anything else or to even take it out of the water! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1939
Location: Black Creek, WI | Here is my take on the issue.
Overdocumentation? Yup... I think people are too caught up with the numbers these days. And at times, it may be putting some undue stress on the fish. Is it a problem or epidemic? I doubt it.... but there are always exceptions to the rule.
In my opinion, girth measurements became "popular" with the near record setting fish being caught in MN. With C&R the norm.... noone wanted to bonk a fish hoping it was the new state record only to find out they were a pound or two light. Thus, the greater importance of girth measurements and "the formula". Again, just my opinion.
EGO. Absolutely ego is a factor. We all know that a 50 incher can weigh as little as 25 pounds or exceed that glorious 40# mark. So... for some.... they need a way to say "My 50 is better than your 50".... and viola... the girth measurement increased in popularity. Personally, I'd rather be more descriptive and say I caught a freakishly fat 50.... or I caught a sickly skinny 50.... rather than use a stale and clinical sounding 50x20 report. And rather than take the time for a girth measurement... I'd rather click another picture or two to preserve the moment and better show off the fish than just a rubber stamped length x girth documentation. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 5874
| I've girthed exactly one fish, and that wasn't my fish, it was Eric's. I don't even register fish in the two clubs I'm in anymore. Last year I submitted several fish to the C&R club, one being my first 50. While the plaque I got for that fish was very nice, registering fish is just not that important to me anymore. It's not like I'm competing with anyone. I do take a pic or two of most fish, especially those caught by people I bring in my boat.
And unless I get that huge fish, I don't see myself girthing many in the future, either. A fat fish is a fat fish. That's a lot more accurate than saying a fish has a girth of 24 or whatever. I'd submit that a lot of these 24+ girths are over exaggerated anyway. 24+" is a pretty big fish, and some of the pics don't support the girth reported.
Edited by Shep 9/27/2007 8:07 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 697
Location: Minnetonka | Hahaha... Painter... I like it... keeping it light... not TOO serious.
I think I'll just continue to be grateful to whatever finds the Beckmann... even on POND.
1) cast
2) retrieve
3) hook set
4) battle
5) scoop
6) surgery
7) photo
8) measure
I've got 7 things to execute before I even think about how big she is!
Edited by Hammskie 9/27/2007 12:47 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | I agree with you guys that wonder why anyone would girth a 38 inch fish. In Fact I wonder why why most anglers measure a fish like that if not in a tournament. Awhile back I put on a post about anglers that a picture of every muskie they catch. I wonder why they do this. When did it stop being enough that you know you caught a nice a fish and fun doing it. As musky anglers has our egos gotten so big that we need pictures of a 34 or 38 inch fish to feed that ego. We all talk about how to handle and release fish. We get on tournaments that transport fish. Then you turn around and hold a small fish out of the water and at times in a vertical hold for a photo. Whats wrong with this?
I would love to see fewer photos of small fish in musky hunter and on websites unless that fish has a special meaning as someones first fish or something else meaningfull. How many photos of small fish do you need to see? Keep them in the net,unhook and get a photo of yourself letting it go,that should be plenty.
Pfeiff |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32955
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I alomst never measure a fish anymore, as the video this summer should indicate. If she's a personal best candidate or a pig, yup, she gets the tape. Girth will only be measured in the water, in the net if it's important to the person who caught the fish.
As far as photos, come on, when we get to the point where us elitists think we can dictate when an image of a fish is important to SOMEONE else, we need to push the chair back a bit, I think. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8863
| Don,
I have a photo album that I keep, with pictures of various fish I've caught that goes back to my childhood. I do and will continue to photograph fish whether they are small or large, because when I look back through those pictures, I remember catching those fish. I remember the day, I remember the lure I was using, and I get to kind of "re-live" that moment. Without a picture, I may know I caught a nice fish and had a good time doing it, but as the years go by the memories fade into oblivion. They stick when you have a picture to go with them. |
|
| |
|
| I agree EA, now I'm at the point with a few hundred fish I don't care to take pics of the sub 38's or so...but can fully understand anyone who wants to take a pic of a smaller fish for whatever reason and guys should understand that a 35 to them might not be that big of a deal but to another guy it could be his fish of the year!
as long as the fish is handled properly take all the pics you want fella's...they are memories to keep for a lifetime...
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2686
Location: Hayward, WI | I have probably only read about half of these replies, so what I'm saying might have been said already. Anyway, I look at girthing a fish the same as scoring a trophy buck. It just gives you a little bigger picture to the true size of the deer or fish. Just like a 50 inch musky weighing 20 or 40 pounds, a 10 point buck can score 80 inches or 200 inches. It just give a better measure. Some people don't score deer, some people don't girth fish. I don't see a problem with it either way. I like to score big bucks. I have never girthed a fish, and don't even carry a soft tape in the boat to do it.
But, I should, because if I caught a really fat mid 40's or up, I would be interested to girth it. Am I going to girth 30 and 40 inch fish? Not a chance unless I catch a 42 that looks like it has a serious eating disorder.
As far as hurting the fish, if the guy does it with a soft tape while the fish is in the water, and doesn't spend more than a few seconds doing it I see no problem with it.
curleytail |
|
| |
|
|
I don't think expressing the opinion that photos and measuring etc. can be taken to far by some people is "dictating" anything.
Nobody is trying to pass a law saying you can't photo fish.
I see nothing wrong with people having the opinion that less handling is better, and it's really getting old to have people jump on you with the "elitist" label just for expressing an opinion that may be different than yours.
JS |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32955
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'As far as photos, come on, when we get to the point where us elitists think we can dictate when an image of a fish is important to SOMEONE else, we need to push the chair back a bit, I think.'
I said 'us elitists' including myself. If you or anyone else doesn't think that category applies, obviously I wasn't talking about you. If anyone jumps to the conclusion I meant you personally, then that old Carlee Simon song might apply....(joking, John, joking)
And I stand by the concept that I think those who do not want to shoot photos shouldn't, and that's just fine. I also think that telling anyone that taking a picture of a 35, or a 38, is 'unecessary' might just be presuming alot.
Witness this statement:
'If it is not a personal best when measuring in the water, there is no need to measure anything else or to even take it out of the water!'
I disagree with that sort of blanket statement. May be 'no need' for him, but that doesn't necessarily apply to others who are developing their Muskie angling skills as we speak. And, if my wife catches a 38, I'm taking a picture. If I get a 48ish Muskie, SOMEONE is taking a picture, even though it's far from my PB. No, I won't girth it which is totally harmless if done correctly in the net, but that's me. Someone else might value that information, and all should be aware of proper handling techniques to get that done. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | I like to take pic's of all the fish I catch, even the ones that are dinks. Why? Because I do, I enjoy the memories that come along with the picture. I can look at a picture and remember who I was with, what I was doing, how I caught it, etc. Although recently I havent gotten pics of some of the fish I caught because they took off from me before the camera was ready or I didnt have anyone to take a picture. But just knowing that I caught them is enough for me. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3242
Location: Racine, Wi | sworrall - 9/28/2007 12:26 PM
If anyone jumps to the conclusion I meant you personally, then that old Carlee Simon song might apply....(joking, John, joking)
You're a bad man Mr Worrall. I can't get that stupid song out of my head now!!! |
|
| |
