|
|
Location: Madison, WI | jlong - 1/3/2013 2:12 PM
So... my ORIGINAL question was this, "What is the purpose of taking a GIRTH measurement?"
to estimate weight in the absence of a scale.
just don't expect me swallow your estimation skills. 
Larry Ramsell -
However, lambeau’s comment: “personally, i think it would be great if record-keeping bodies would certify live-weight scales at key access points on fisheries with the potential for record-class fish.” is unrealistic on large water bodies like the St. Lawrence River. Just won’t happen and the issue of transport of large fish would certainly get ugly!!
yes, the issue of transport is one for debate and best avoided when other options are available such as using photographs in tournaments. but if certified weight is the only measure accepted for a record (and in fact your own MDMWRKP insists on it), then i'd like to see fish accepted which are weighed alive and released. if it comes down to live transport versus dead transport of potential record muskies, i'd opt for live transport myself.
many of the recent or "modern" record-class fish have been caught on Great Lakes charter-size boats. there are people fishing these waters who have been installing large revival/transport tanks, there are even some boat brands offering it as a factory option and advertising it specifically for muskies. so i guess i'm not one to scoff at technological advances as being "unrealistic" if serious record-seekers are willing to install such tanks on their boats. encouraging the use of near-shore certified scales seems the easier part of that equation...and a little open-mindedness, of course.
Edited by lambeau 1/3/2013 3:15 PM
Attachments
----------------
 livetank.jpg (109KB - 169 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
| Holy cannoli .. a muskie toob! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1937
Location: Black Creek, WI | keplunk - 1/3/2013 2:36 PM "if you didn't weigh it, don't say it", to some degree sure, but, I would think most guys that have caught and been in the boat with big fish aren't out there saying their fish weighed 42.97 lbs based off the formula. ie, if it was a solid 55 x 25 I would think most would say it was a low 40 lber. Which it most certainly was. Just like there are guys that don't measure their fish, they've caught enough to not care per say, but when they catch a fish that was high 40 incher, isn't it fair enough to say it was an "upper 40 incher", they didn't measure it, are people going to knock that too? I would hope not. We are getting too far removed from the catch and kill era... where people had experience of seeing fish that were actually weighed. I doubt many 30 somethings and younger catching legitimate 40 pounders have actually seen a verified one. I'm guilty of holding a fish and declaring it a 40 pounder... yet never actually weighed one myself. Thus, I don't know for sure if I ever really caught one. So... in my opinion the "issue" with the girth measurement is that it is being used to bridge the gap between length and weight. I'm speculating that this is due to the fact that catches approaching "record" status are becoming more "common". In other words.... not measuring an "ordinary" fish is understandable.... but when you catch an "extra" ordinary fish... that's when measurements suddenly become of interest. And... "ordinary" will vary by angler...... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 456
Location: Kansas City BBQ Capitol of the world | On catching that 40#er, wouldn't it be good enough to do your length/girth and see where your approximate is at. If your close, weigh it with your own scale and see where it weighs on your scale. Then later take your 40# dumbbell and weigh that on your scale and then add or subtract if needed. That would be close enough to let you know it was a true 40#er. For records, to bad the old rules apply to CPR. Unless your in the right place at the right time with the right equipment your gonna have to thump it for anyone to believe you and either way, no matter what you do you will get ripped apart.
Ron |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | To answer your questions from your original post...NO to all the questions. My job requires me to measure the "girth" of paper towel and toilet paper rolls for data collection. I measure thousands of rolls a year, and have been doing it for 10+ years. I have to be careful when measuring with a 4" wide mylar tape, that has zero stretch, not to pull too tight otherwise my data is "off". However all I can do is be as consistent as possible. And this is on a medium that is most often less compressible than a fish would be, and thus should be easier in being repeatable.
If you want record keeping you need to be accurate and repeatable otherwise there will always be people trying to prove something wrong. Even with accurate and repeatable means you still have people trying to prove data wrong as we all have seen the last few years.
You want records you do it with a certified scale. You ask me you cannot rely on length nor girth as accurate means for record keeping of a fish that is not dead.
People really just need to quit worrying about trying to prove someone else wrong, or trying to prove themselves superior. I can say that as at one time I did both. 
Edited by CiscoKid 1/3/2013 6:25 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8772
| Travis, you say you have to be careful not to compress your medium when measuring girth... Just out of curiousity, when you say your measurements can be "off", what percentage are we talking here?
Now relate that to a muskie, that has a girth of say.... 24". I can't see being off by more than an inch. As long as the tape is flat, the only errors you could make would be pulling it too tight, or not measuring the widest part of the fish, both of which would give you a measurement that is under the actual girth.
|
|
| |
|
Location: Madison, WI | the only errors you could make would be pulling it too tight, or not measuring the widest part of the fish, both of which would give you a measurement that is under the actual girth
Lol...if the tape is not at an exact right angle to the length of the fish it increases the girth by a fair amount. With wet fish, cold hands, wind and waves moving the boat, lack of practice, and rushing to do it all quickly this is a very easy mistake to make. The formula compounds the error because the girth measurement is squared...add an inch to the girth number in the formula and see what happens. There's nothing small about it!
Girths are unreliable, but they make for good approximations. It's spitting in the wind to try and make them something they can't be.
My bet is few people are measuring girths. Rather they believe they caught a fish that weighed a certain amount so they just claim whatever girth gets them there in the formula.
Edited by lambeau 1/3/2013 8:42 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8772
| lambeau - 1/3/2013 8:34 PM
the only errors you could make would be pulling it too tight, or not measuring the widest part of the fish, both of which would give you a measurement that is under the actual girth
Lol...if the tape is not at an exact right angle to the length of the fish it increases the girth by a fair amount. With wet fish, cold hands, wind and waves moving the boat, lack of practice, and rushing to do it all quickly this is a very easy mistake to make. The formula compounds the error because the girth measurement is squared...add an inch to the girth number in the formula and see what happens. There's nothing small about it!
Girths are unreliable, but they make for good approximations. It's spitting in the wind to try and make them something they can't be.
My bet is few people are measuring girths. Rather they believe they caught a fish that weighed a certain amount so they just claim whatever girth gets them there in the formula.
Nice how you conveniently left out the first part of my post - AS LONG AS THE TAPE IS FLAT. |
|
| |
|
| That thing is so totally cool!! I want one!!  |
|
| |
|
| Well I really have no background here so pardon the ignorance, but do they only judge a record on length or length and girth, or length, girth, and weight or including volume? And who does all the measuring? Are there standard tools that are used for all possible record fish? (doubtful) Are there witnesses? (sounds like a murder…) Do people kill them to make sure there aren't any mistakes or just because they can or to get the ACTUAL fish stuffed…?
I know there has been, is still, quite a bit of controversy over records and these are a lot of questions, but I'm curious. |
|
| |
|
Location: Madison, WI | Nice how you conveniently left out the first part of my post - AS LONG AS THE TAPE IS FLAT.
yeah...something that is "flat" is not necessarily "at a right angle."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHVjs4aobqs
Edited by lambeau 1/4/2013 7:52 AM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | i've girthed maybe 15 fish total....it's not hard... and imo it's hard to mess up by over 1/2"
lay the fish on the bump board w the tape down prior, pull tape tight and find the fattest point (again w tape tight)
the value of it to me is just to know how fat it was ... it puts the weight in perspective as the ones we have girthed and weighed (w very accurate scale) came out VERY close to the weight calculator on this site...so, to me, it is nice to know a big one I caught was about 45-46 lbs as in the heat of the moment w all the excitement and adrenaline flowing we spaced and forgot we had the scale with us... d'oh!
most guys aren't girthing fish unless they are Big and FAT...ie, i'm not about to girth a summer 52 incher w an avg girth...what's the point...but a FAT 54 in the fall i sure might want to just to know approximately what it weighed if i didn't want to bother w getting the scale out...one thing it did prove to me is there are a lot less 40 lbers being caught than guys realize....
takes a lot of fish to hit 40 lbs and most would thing a fairly fat 54 hits 40...well, it doesn't...
Edited by BNelson 1/4/2013 8:16 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1937
Location: Black Creek, WI | Brad, can you share more info on the scale you use? If you feel its accurate, do you feel there would be no need to measure girth... or heck... even length? Also, what do you feel is "fairly" fat for a 54 incher... considering there are photos of a 54x30 on Musky Hunter right now boasting a weight of 58 lbs.... as verified by a scale. Also, I found SOME explanation of the weight calculator formulas here: http://www.huntfishsport.com/web.aspx?cmd=muskieWeightCalculator |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | esoxaddict - 1/3/2013 7:29 PM
Travis, you say you have to be careful not to compress your medium when measuring girth... Just out of curiousity, when you say your measurements can be "off", what percentage are we talking here?
Now relate that to a muskie, that has a girth of say.... 24". I can't see being off by more than an inch. As long as the tape is flat, the only errors you could make would be pulling it too tight, or not measuring the widest part of the fish, both of which would give you a measurement that is under the actual girth.
For record keeping, as this thread was meant to be directed towards, you would want to minimize any kind of error percentage. For me I can see upwards of 2% variance, so that *could* equate to ½” variance in this discussion. However keep in mind I am using a 4” wide tape. The wider the tape is the more accurate your measurement should be. I am also dealing with something that does not move, something I can take my time to ensure I am measuring it correctly, something that is not slippery, something that is uniform in diameter, etc…
Taking a half inch variance you could see the following:
55” x 24” fish = 39.60# per Muskyhunter formula
55” x 24.5” fish = 41.27# per Muskyhunter formula
On a 60” fish
60” x 28” = 58.80#
60” x 28.5” = 60.92#
Is a 1.67# variance acceptable when it comes down to records? I say no way considering the records are kept down to the nearest ounce. So as the questions were asked here “Can it be done with any accuracy and repeatability? Enough to be used for establishing "records"?” I say no. Should you use girth for YOUR OWN record keeping? I say sure why not.
Too many variables can affect measuring girth for an accurate and repeatable measurement for record keeping. Not much in the way of variables affecting you when you weigh a fish, and thus why it is the BEST way for record keeping.
Getting an accurate girth of a fish is not easy to do!
Edited by CiscoKid 1/4/2013 8:27 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | why not:
thermal expansion and contraction of your measuring device ...
take a piece of metal/plastic ... put standard lengths in an oven, put the same standard length in the freezer. one is shorter, the other longer yet they are the same size.
same fish measured on a 90deg. day and measured on the ice are different ... measurement is always relative. pesky standard conditions always get in the way when you want to be "exact" ... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1937
Location: Black Creek, WI | This site has 5 formulas to choose from. How do you choose which one to use? http://www.esoxhunter.com/weightform.php Is there a generally accepted formula used by the Muskiy Community? |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | I guess i will disagree w you Travis...measuring girth is easy imo.... laying big fish on a bump board, most of the time they don't move...the fish being slippery actually helps imo moving the tape up or down the fish..have you girthed many ? your post would make it seem like you haven't...?
Jason, as far as my scale it's a Salter Brecknell Electro Samson 99 lb scale...
as stated using length x girth for record keeping when the fish was not weighed and released is not realistic in the slightest...fish are proportioned so many ways that without weighing a fish you're only estimating...which for record keeping isn't the right way to do it.... for fun, the formula gets you pretty close..that's about it.
Edited by BNelson 1/4/2013 8:54 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | jlong - 1/4/2013 8:32 AM
This site has 5 formulas to choose from. How do you choose which one to use? http://www.esoxhunter.com/weightform.php Is there a generally accepted formula used by the Muskiy Community?
J those questions are good reasons on why you cannot use girth and length measurements for record keeping. First the “community” would have to universally adopt one formula. Then you would have to have a “certified” measuring tape used for Length and Girth. Then you would have to have a “certified” process in how you measure both. Then you would have to have someone verify the measurements that were taken.
Sled is there much thermal expansion of a fiberglass reinforced tape in 90° temps versus 20° temps?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | BNelson - 1/4/2013 8:51 AM
I guess i will disagree w you Travis...measuring girth is easy imo.... laying big fish on a bump board, most of the time they don't move...the fish being slippery actually helps imo moving the tape up or down the fish..have you girthed many ? your post would make it seem like you haven't...?
Brad I have girthed a handful, and all in the water. Sure the more I would measure the more comfortable I would feel, but I would always have doubt it is accurate. However it was for my own benefit so I don’t fret it. The fact of you bringing this up is another good reason Length and Girth plugged into a formula is not a good way for record keeping. It shouldn’t matter if you are measuring your first fish or your 5,000th fish in terms of how easy it is to get an accurate measurement. |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | makes sense...in the water is definitely harder than a fish on a bump board... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | this article goes into way too much detail for measuring the coefficient of thermal expansion itself. i'll try to dig to see where it comes down to temp. vs expansion for typical materials.
http://www.vishaypg.com/docs/11063/tn5131tn.pdf
like you Travis and Jason i work in the world where circumferencial to linear measurement to precise standards is critical especially when working with various materials. printing, converting and especially extrusion (heat) in the round and application on the flat all day everyday with varying densities and modulous materials.
if trying to get to exact standards that's why i would continually argue an L times single pt. W using a density standard and the same as what's resonated in the responses including the one from BNelson.
using displacement is the only way to accurately consider a mass density given in a calculation and be remotely accurate (for true record-keeping) and why using a scale is most important for really, really big fish confirming that mine is bigger than yours arguments.
Edited by jonnysled 1/4/2013 9:30 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1290
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | And there you have it, from Sled. If you want to say it, weigh it...pretty simple and foolproof with a Certified scale. No "estimates", just fact. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8772
| CiscoKid - 1/4/2013 8:26 AM
esoxaddict - 1/3/2013 7:29 PM
Travis, you say you have to be careful not to compress your medium when measuring girth... Just out of curiousity, when you say your measurements can be "off", what percentage are we talking here?
Now relate that to a muskie, that has a girth of say.... 24". I can't see being off by more than an inch. As long as the tape is flat, the only errors you could make would be pulling it too tight, or not measuring the widest part of the fish, both of which would give you a measurement that is under the actual girth.
For record keeping, as this thread was meant to be directed towards, you would want to minimize any kind of error percentage. For me I can see upwards of 2% variance, so that *could* equate to ½” variance in this discussion. However keep in mind I am using a 4” wide tape. The wider the tape is the more accurate your measurement should be. I am also dealing with something that does not move, something I can take my time to ensure I am measuring it correctly, something that is not slippery, something that is uniform in diameter, etc…
Taking a half inch variance you could see the following:
55” x 24” fish = 39.60# per Muskyhunter formula
55” x 24.5” fish = 41.27# per Muskyhunter formula
On a 60” fish
60” x 28” = 58.80#
60” x 28.5” = 60.92#
Is a 1.67# variance acceptable when it comes down to records? I say no way considering the records are kept down to the nearest ounce. So as the questions were asked here “Can it be done with any accuracy and repeatability? Enough to be used for establishing "records"?” I say no. Should you use girth for YOUR OWN record keeping? I say sure why not.
Too many variables can affect measuring girth for an accurate and repeatable measurement for record keeping. Not much in the way of variables affecting you when you weigh a fish, and thus why it is the BEST way for record keeping.
Getting an accurate girth of a fish is not easy to do!
So you're talking about a variance of 1.67# for a 60" fish. I'd agree that girth measurements are not an accurate way to determine records, but it looks to me like the formulas will get you pretty #*^@ close to the actual weight. |
|
| |
|
Location: Madison, WI | Larry Ramsell - 1/4/2013 11:00 AM
And there you have it, from Sled. If you want to say it, weigh it...pretty simple and foolproof with a Certified scale. No "estimates", just fact.
Should a fish weighed alive on a certified scale (with appropriate witnesses etc.), and then released alive be considered for record purposes?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | No. A Live release division is not available through any of the WR Keeping organizations.
Should a Live release division be offered? Plenty of reasons why it would be quite difficult to establish and maintain, but with enough money, it may be possible for an organization to offer.
Key words:
Enough money. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 5874
| Take a check, Steve? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1290
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | And what happens lambeau, to that one pound (or more) trolling lead(s) that was/were dropped into the fishes stomach before filiming began??? Where is the MDMWRP Representative or do we just rely on their/your 10 "friends"?
And, where are all these "lakeside" certified scales? I'd certainly like to build a list so anglers would be able to find where to go. Even now it is difficult to find a certified scale for kept fish. Nice thoughts though. |
|
| |
|
| best way to stress and kill a musky is to keep one in the livewell for hours |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8772
| Guest - 1/4/2013 7:08 PM
best way to stress and kill a musky is to keep one in the livewell for hours
Almost as effective as bonking it because you think you may have a state record. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 549
Location: deephaven mn | state record? how many state records of any species are caught by anglers that are less than avid? i am a guessing that luck has a large part to do with alot of state records, and then there is the added weight possibility. let it go and smile possible state record has got to be good enough! i think? |
|
| |
