|
|
Posts: 143
Location: La Crosse, WI | Duke - 10/18/2012 7:39 AM
7" sucker for smallmouth!? This dude do not mess around!
Big smallies love big baits in the fall. Heck of a fish and an even better story. Takes a lot of skill and patience to catch a fish that big on that light of tackle. Congratulations! |
|
| |
|
| Thanks Mack....! |
|
| |
|
| To those of you who question why I did not take a picture by myself it's simple. I could not have landed this awsome fish without the help of my brother Chuck and friends Jason and Derek. It was a team effort and I want to share the moment with everyone who made it possible. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32835
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Great answer, Joe. Beautiful fish! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 187
Location: West Metro, MN | Congrats Joe and his team. Talk about the fish of a lifetime!! Now you need to get that record smallmouth. |
|
| |
|
| Congrats Joe that is one awesome fish. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 535
| great fish! |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Congratulations to the angler (and his assistants!) for an incredible catch! A spectacular catch indeed. I would make one request in the name of science though--please ask the taxidermist to preserve the cleithra, so that they can be made available to a biologist for study. We simply do not see many of these fish of that magnitude get documented, so the data from the cleithra will be invaluable to the sport. I see Will posted in this thread, so I am sure he's already on top of this. But still, if no one has asked...please consider donating the cleithra from this fish for scientific study.
On behalf of the whole sport I'll say THANK YOU in advance, and once again offer my congratulations on this magnificent catch!
TB |
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | tcbetka - 10/22/2012 12:55 PM Congratulations to the angler (and his assistants!) for an incredible catch! A spectacular catch indeed. I would make one request in the name of science though--please ask the taxidermist to preserve the cleithra, so that they can be made available to a biologist for study. We simply do not see many of these fish of that magnitude get documented, so the data from the cleithra will be invaluable to the sport. I see Will posted in this thread, so I am sure he's already on top of this. But still, if no one has asked...please consider donating the cleithra from this fish for scientific study. On behalf of the whole sport I'll say THANK YOU in advance, and once again offer my congratulations on this magnificent catch! TB Yes, got it covered Tom. My guess is she'll be 20. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Great to hear Will. I'll bet that she's closer to 24 year old though. It will be very interesting to hear how it turns out. Have you run the metrics through the various calculators, to see how close they were? I don't have the app on this machine, so I'll have to dig it up and give it a whirl...
EDIT: I found the latest version of the calculator app, and ran the numbers using 59x29". Here is the outcome:
Wilkinson: 58.9 lbs
Standard: 62.0 lbs
Crawford: 58.4 lbs
Casselman/Crossman: 61.7 lbs
So they aren't too far off. Excellent...
TB
Edited by tcbetka 10/23/2012 1:57 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 437
| That is a truly amazing catch. While I dont wish to diminish your accomplishment, is it too much to ask for an angler who is targeting said species to catch a record fish? 
Anyway, its a true beauty and undoubtedly a story you will share for the rest of your lives. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 717
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | tcbetka - 10/23/2012 2:48 PM
Great to hear Will. I'll bet that she's closer to 24 year old though. It will be very interesting to hear how it turns out. Have you run the metrics through the various calculators, to see how close they were? I don't have the app on this machine, so I'll have to dig it up and give it a whirl...
EDIT: I found the latest version of the calculator app, and ran the numbers using 59x29". Here is the outcome:
Wilkinson: 58.9 lbs
Standard: 62.0 lbs
Crawford: 58.4 lbs
Casselman/Crossman: 61.7 lbs
So they aren't too far off. Excellent...
TB
The previous Michigan record caught 9/2009 was a 55"er and was only 15 years old... I put my bet in already, and I said 22.  |
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | Just got word on the age of this fish and using cleithra she was 21 YO. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Excellent. Thanks for the update!
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 688
Location: Northern IL | A real freak of a fish in age and in size,,, and a great catch indead! Thanks Will for the info. |
|
| |
|
| why would he have someone like that with him if he was fishing for smallies. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1285
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Great fish for that young age...great genetics!
Also a reminder to Tom & all...the formula's were fairly close because the fish was DEAD when measured...Live girth is different and larger and thus throws the formula's off and over estimates the fish weight. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32835
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | brandon - 4/22/2013 11:42 PM
why would he have someone like that with him if he was fishing for smallies.
?? |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Well, but doesn't Warren's equation try to take that into account Larry? I thought it was his that tried to account for that variable? Interesting how his and Roy's equations yielded the results that were most in agreement--and, I might add, were the two closest to the actual certified weight of the fish.
I need to call Kevin Kapuscinski. His grad student was working on a better version of equations for different populations, as I understand it. But I'm not sure where they are in the effort at this point.
TB |
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | Tom - The length was 58 not 59 recheck the formulas with the bump board length. If you use the /800 formula and subtract 1/2" as suggested for fish 55+ it comes in within 1/2 pound? |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Will Schultz - 4/23/2013 6:57 PM
Tom - The length was 58 not 59 recheck the formulas with the bump board length. If you use the /800 formula and subtract 1/2" as suggested for fish 55+ it comes in within 1/2 pound?
If I use 58x29, that makes it come out even better actually. I'll also attach a zipped folder with the calculator in it. Just unzip it and double-click on the executable.
TB
Attachments
----------------
 BigFish.jpg (94KB - 245 downloads)
Calculators.zip (15KB - 243 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1285
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Yes Tom, Warren's formula adjustment takes some of it into account, but still often overstates weight. But since almost everyone uses the Standard Formula, most "estimates" are overstated. 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 |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | I would agree with your concerns regarding the standard equation Larry. As you'll recall when we were researching this, I called the IGFA and talked to their "historian." As it turns out, no one there could tell me *why* they used the equation they did--or the origins of that equation! I'm sure that it must have been explored scientifically by now, as there's a LOT of money spent in that industry to chase after billfish alone. I just haven't done a literature review on it, because most of those articles are published in journals that are not available...except to members. Or they charge $100 or more for one article! It's not like the musky world where if you have to pay for the article, it's quite reasonable. I've only had to pay for a few articles in the past several years, and it's never been more than $25.
Anyway, I can spend a bit of time researching the standard equation now. But I am going to give Kevin a call and find out where things are with their research. Maybe I can take advantage of some of his knowledge (or that of his grad student) to shed more light on the origins of the standard equation.
TB |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | OK, I spoke with Kevin. He advised that (grad student) Derek hasn't been working on that project lately--due to funding constraints. So we're going to start trying to work on that problem. However he didn't think that Derek had really researched the origins of the various equations. So the search continues...
TB |
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | Larry Ramsell - 4/23/2013 8:48 AM Live girth is different and larger and thus throws the formula's off and over estimates the fish weight. Larry - I've got some concerns about this statement... A live fish will have all muscles and connective tissue still functioning normally (still have blood flowing). The girth should therefore measure less than on a dead fish if taken at the widest point. Physiologically it's not logical (to me) that a girth taken at the widest point would be larger on a live fish than a dead fish because the dead fish will not have any cavity support and any fluid, organs, egg mass, etc. seems to settle in one (widest) location. I've always thought that it would be more accurate if common measurements were used. For instance one measurement at the pectoral fins and one at the pelvic fins instead of using the widest point squared method. A formula would have to be refined for this method but in the end it should yeild better results.
Edited by Will Schultz 4/24/2013 12:47 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Will Schultz - 4/24/2013 12:40 PM
Larry - I've got some concerns about this statement... A live fish will have all muscles and connective tissue still functioning normally (still have blood flowing). The girth should therefore measure less than on a dead fish if taken at the widest point. Physiologically it's not logical (to me) that a girth taken at the widest point would be larger on a live fish than a dead fish because the dead fish will not have any cavity support and any fluid, organs, egg mass, etc. seems to settle in one (widest) location.
While it's true that the conservation of mass dictates the fluids inside the live fish must still be present in the same fish after death, it's the distribution of those fluids that (I think) makes the difference. So the perfusion of the tissues of a living muskellunge creates a somewhat different shape for the fish, compared to the fish post-mortem. How true this in fish, I'm not sure--but it's certainly true in humans to some extent. Besides the obvious, people who die simply do not look the same as people who are alive. We're used to seeing them at funerals or at a memorial service (wake), and they look very "life-like." However that's due to the work of the mortician, to a large degree. That's their purpose...pretty much.
Contrast this with a dead fish. The muscles are no longer as toned due to the absence of flowing blood--and the resulting lack of oxygen in the muscles results in rigor, which then opposes the normal "natural" body form (at least for a number of hours anyway).
I've always thought that it would be more accurate if common measurements were used. For instance one measurement at the pectoral fins and one at the pelvic fins instead of using the widest point squared method. A formula would have to be refined for this method but in the end it should yield (edit) better results.
This is very good thought Will, and I've wondered it myself several times. I think that might be just one of the things that can be determined by a project like that which Dr. Kevin Kapuscinski (SUNY) and his graduate student want to work on. Simply put, I just don't think anything like that has been done before--at least I've never seen it mentioned in any of the literature that I've read. But research takes funding, and that's one thing that seems to be in very short supply of late.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 4/24/2013 1:30 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI |
What I meant by the above is that a live fish has a more cylindrical shape, fluids/organs distributed evenly. A dead fish takes on a convex cylinder shape with fluids/organs settling. Live fish: http://bioweb.uwlax.edu/bio203/s2009/long_alex/images/LymphosarcomainMuskie.jpg Dead fish: http://www.fish.state.pa.us/images/be/splashes/2005/se08_29tiger.jpg
Edited by Will Schultz 4/24/2013 2:13 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1285
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Will:
You are forgetting the swim bladder, which is full in a live fish. Also, we noted that in current areas you can actually see the stomach "grow" while the fish is in the net! When the fish is no longer alive, then thing relax/empty out and the girth changes. That is why the Wilkinson formula was developed using reduced girth before calculation. Estimated weight in the boat killed a lot of fish in Georgian Bay and in as short as an hour later, the angler was very disappointed to find he had killed a fish what didn't weigh what he thought/wanted.
Years ago I tried to develop a formula for various shaped muskies. There are so many different shapes of muskies (at least 6) that it is impossible for any one formula to be consistent or accurate to any degree, especially when the "key" measurement is the girth, which is squared. And in the end we are relying on a multitude of different people to apply the right formula and to take proper measurements...not very scientific or accurate.
For now I'll stick with my motto: "If you don't weigh it, you shouldn't say it."
It takes very little time to weigh a super fish on a certified scale. There is no need to weigh the rest. If you are happy with the over-"estimation" that using the formula gives, fine...no harm no foul. But if you intend to claim "record-class" weights, then weigh it.
Edited by Larry Ramsell 4/24/2013 5:41 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Pretty well sums it up Larry. Just carry a scale--preferably a certified one.
TB |
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | Yes, I wasn't even thinking about an expanded swim bladder, air doesn't weigh anything. |
|
| |
