|
|
Posts: 31
| Guys,
The "Trophy" post has got me thinking of a way determine where muskies fit regionally.
If you could humor me here...I'm planning on calculating relative weight. I'll post what I find.
Please list the length and girth (estimated if necessary but actual measurement are better) for the last few muskies you caught. Also, list the state or province please.
Thanks!
Jordan
Edited by J_WEEKS 2/14/2008 4:28 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | 50.5 x 22
51x23
Both Green Bay fish. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 31
| Mike,
Wr=74.74 and 79.83
This could be interesting...
Jordan |
|
| |
|
Posts: 299
Location: Nowheresville, MN | Wr?...Jordan your a Hansonite, you should know better 
52.125 x 36lb 6 oz
The last few weren't worthy of a girth 
Edited by tfootstalker 2/14/2008 5:08 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Jordan I think I get what you are doing here you are estimating a relative weight based on some derived maximum for a specific State, correct?
If so I don’t think the Green Bay system fits the Wisconsin model. If Mike’s fish came out of inland Wi waters I could see the relative size but not for a Green Bay fish. I would use a Great Lakes max to determine relative size for Green Bay fish.
I’ll play with two of my biggest Wisconsin inland fish.
45 x 23
48.5 x 21 estimated girth
Nail A Pig!
Mike
|
|
| |
|
Location: The Yahara Chain | Wisconsin inland fish.
47.75 x23....the fish had a DNR tag in it and it weighed 31lbs when it was 46.4".
46.5 x 22
These were both Yahara Chain fish.
After rereading your post I see you asked for the last two fish caught. My last two were 39.5 and 39, both caught in southern Wisconsin. I have no idea what the girth's were, but they were both fat.
Edited by Bytor 2/15/2008 11:51 AM
|
|
| |
|
| Bytor,
DNR tag or UWSP tag??
Jordan |
|
| |
|
Posts: 31
| Mike,
Relative Weight is based on a standard formula. I believe that this formula was determined from musky lenght and weight measurements over the entire musky range. However, I'll have to go back through the literature to be sure.
I'll get back to you.
Others-I'll get the Relative Weight calculations posted on Monday.
tfootsniffer...er stalker-you are funny-can I list where you caught that monster??? Just kidding.
Jordan
Edited by J_WEEKS 2/15/2008 4:18 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Jordon, does this formula take fish from different areas and make them all relative. If so we need a base line so we know what you are talking about. So lets try this.
Take a 55 X 27 and lets see the numbers for Wi, Mn, Ill, Eastern Ontario, Western Ontario, and any other areas you may have.
How about the same for a 45 x 17
Does that make sense.
Nail A Pig!
Mike |
|
| |
|
Posts: 31
| Moke Roberts,
I am doing some research on the relative weight calculation to better answer your question...suffice it to say that Relative Weight is a universal equation that does not change with geographic location. Oh, and you should learn how to spell my name...it's J...O...R...D...AAAAAA...N. Especially since we fish together at least once a year...
All-
Here's some results (from data listed above):
Length Girth POUNDS Wr Who Where
45 23 29.76 106.832 Mroberts WI
42 20 21 94.823 J_WEEKS WI
47.5 23 31.41 94.202 J_WEEKS ONT
47.75 23 31.57 93.044 bytor WI
55 27 50.12 92.322 Mroberts(2) WI
46.5 22 28.13 90.550 bytor WI
34 15 9.56 87.155 J_WEEKS WI
44 20 22 85.103 bmaxey WI
57 27 51.94 84.961 MIKESEXTREME NA
52.125 NA 36.6 80.594 tfootstalker WI
51 23 33.72 79.839 Pointer102 WI
35.5 15 9.98 78.817 J_WEEKS WI
52 23 34.38 76.312 bmaxey MN
36 15 10.12 76.291 J_WEEKS WI
48.5 21 26.74 74.829 Mroberts WI
50.5 22 30.55 74.742 Pointer102 WI
45 17 16.26 58.370 Mroberts(2) WI
Remember-I used the weight calculator on this site to estimate weight based on given or estimated girth.
Some very interesting results...I hope we get some more data.
Edited by J_WEEKS 2/18/2008 3:19 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | J_WEEKS - 2/14/2008 2:50 PM
Biologically, a trophy could be measured much like P & Y or B & C. In fisheries we use a metric called condition (Length vs. weight correlation) to measure the relative fitness of an individual fish compared to others in the same lake, region, state, etc...This is a quantifiable number (100 is considered good-over 100 is considered robust (fat) and under 100 is considered poor). What if we measured a trophy based on relative weight of the upper 95th percentile of all fish caught. This type of "scoring" system puts empahsis on more than one variable (not just on one like length)-creating a level playing field for all. SO, a fish that is 46 and FAT may actually have a better "score" than a 52 that looks like a hose.
Jordan
Ok, Jordin (hehehe, sorry couldn't help my self!) I think I am starting to get what you are doing. I went back and reread the posts you put on the other thread and pulled the above quote over here.
What you are showing us with this calculation is "relative fitness" based on some number research has shown to be a fit fish. I.E. 100. I thought you where computing some relative weight, the number is just a constant for comparative research.
I.E. fish from the Wisconsin river have a tendency to be robust as indicated by the score of my 45 x 23. Curious what did the big fish score that you guys captured from the River doing research, if I remember right that was also an extreme fatty, but I don’t remember the dimensions.
Thanks
Nail A Pig!
Mike
|
|
| |
|
Location: The Yahara Chain | Guest - 2/15/2008 4:11 PM
Bytor,
DNR tag or UWSP tag??
Jordan
WDNR tag, Lake Monona |
|
| |
|
Posts: 31
| Mike,
You are right, but the actual calculation is called Relative "Weight" not "fitness". It really measures how robust a fish is, but is based not just on girth but a cubic relationship between length and weight; much like measuring the amount of antler on a whitetail (lenght and girth of antlers are measured). Therfore fish can be measured using more than one variable. Ideally, if we could measure length, weight, and girth on fish caught we could come up with regional (watershed) formulas that describe musky "score" throughout its range.
Good point about the WI River fish I'll add that to the database and re-post (it's 4th).
Length Girth POUNDS Wr Who Where
52.5 28.5 53.3 114.6034061 Silver Scale NA
45 23 29.76 106.8319901 Mroberts WI
44 22 26.62 102.9740756 AFCheif NA
50 NA 40 101.154388 J_WEEKS(DNR) WI
53 26.5 46.52 96.92201615 MIKESEXTREME NA
42 20 21 94.82337397 J_WEEKS WI
47.5 23 31.41 94.2023386 J_WEEKS ONT
47.75 23 31.57 93.04394308 bytor WI
55 27 50.12 92.32198206 Mroberts(2) WI
46.5 22 28.13 90.55004361 bytor WI
34 15 9.56 87.15463594 J_WEEKS WI
44 20 22 85.10254179 bmaxey WI
57 27 51.94 84.96069379 MIKESEXTREME NA
54 NA 42 82.23184586 Trollergreg NA
52.125 NA 36.6 80.59403681 tfootstalker WI
51 23 33.72 79.83930181 Pointer102 WI
35.5 15 9.98 78.81724809 J_WEEKS WI
52 23 34.38 76.3123372 bmaxey MN
36 15 10.12 76.29124416 J_WEEKS WI
48.5 21 26.74 74.82903112 Mroberts WI
50.5 22 30.55 74.74245908 Pointer102 WI
45 17 16.26 58.36989781 Mroberts(2) WI
Jordan
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1275
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Jordan:
Was that Wisconsin River fish pre-spawn? If so, that would have an "in season" bearing on its score. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 198
| I have a friend who doesn't post of these boards but who has done some work with measurements and weights. What he did is take about 40 fish from Lake Vermilion, ( Leech Lk Strain) that he personally weighed, girthed and lengthed and compared that against the Wilkinson, Standard, Crawford and Casselman formulas. Using all of this information he came up with his own chart showing length girth and estimated weight. It seems to fit pretty well but as you all know there are many exceptional fish that don't fit any charts. Last fall we carried a State of Minnesota certified digital scale with and did weigh one large fish. It was within two ounces of his chart for whatever that is worth.
Jim Roerig |
|
| |
|
Posts: 31
| Larry,
I assume you mean the 40 lb fish. We caught it in August. In this analysis I assume all the fish were captured during the regular fishing season, and therefore, wouldn't have additional mass or girth related to gonadal growth.
Jim, which formulas are you referring to ( the guy's you mentioned are associated with many)? Growth or relative weight or something else?
All,
I also must clarify one point...previous I mentioned that 100 was a benchmark commonly used, and that fish under 100 were considered in "poor" condition. After looking at the literature further, that is not necessarily true. From the literature: "fisheries scientists have adopted a relative weight target range of 95-105 to describe a fish in good or "above average" condition". (Neumann and Willis 1996)
Jordan
Edited by J_WEEKS 2/20/2008 8:30 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 198
| Jordan
Referring to relative weight based on length and girth only.
I like that you gave my fish a Wr of 114. It was a perfect speciman. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 31
| A perfect specimen indeed.
So far only your fish and Mike Roberts are over the 105 mark (excellent condition or SUPERFAT!)
Relative weight is based on length and WEIGHT not girth. I only asked for girth because I assume few actually weight the fish they catch. I wish more people would give lengths and girths/weight so I'd have more data to work with.
Jordan |
|
| |
|
Posts: 201
Location: Stevens Point | here is one 48X21 Mille lacs. I never girth small fish, sorry I couldn't be more help. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1969
| 48.5 x 26" pre-spawn Iowa |
|
| |
|
Posts: 31
| Keep em coming guys!
This is pretty cool. I added fish from my graduate research project into the mix...Notice how pre-spawn fish (IAJustin and Manitowish Chain) almost always have higher Relative Weight at may different lengths. It would be very interesting to see how Wr varies by month throughout the muskies range.
Wr Length POUNDS Girth Who Where
116.6 39.1 20.35484 NA Manitowish Chain** WI
114.7 48.5 40.98 26 IAJustin** IA
114.6 52.5 53.3 28.5 Silver Scale NA
113.6 42 25.14785 NA Manitowish Chain** WI
113.1 44 29.23656 NA Manitowish Chain** WI
110.6 30 8 NA Manitowish Chain** WI
108.5 42.5 25 NA Manitowish Chain** WI
108.0 36.5 15 NA Manitowish Chain** WI
107.8 33.3 11.02957 NA Manitowish Chain** WI
107.5 29.5 7.35484 NA Manitowish Chain** WI
106.9 37.5 16.23656 NA Manitowish Chain** WI
106.8 45 29.76 23 Mroberts WI
104.7 34.5 12.05914 NA Manitowish Chain** WI
103.9 38.5 17.23656 NA Manitowish Chain** WI
103.0 44 26.62 22 AFCheif NA
102.8 44.7 28 NA Manitowish Chain** WI
102.7 35.5 13 NA Manitowish Chain** WI
101.7 35.6 13 NA Manitowish Chain** WI
101.7 32 9.11828 NA Manitowish Chain** WI
101.2 50 40 NA J_WEEKS (WDNR) WI
101.0 31 8.14785 NA Manitowish Chain** WI
100.3 35 12.11828 NA Manitowish Chain** WI
96.9 53 46.52 26.5 MIKESEXTREME NA
94.8 42 21 20 J_WEEKS WI
94.2 47.5 31.41 23 J_WEEKS ONT
93.0 47.75 31.57 23 bytor WI
92.3 55 50.12 27 Mroberts(2) WI
90.6 46.5 28.13 22 bytor WI
87.2 34 9.56 15 J_WEEKS WI
85.1 44 22 20 bmaxey WI
85.0 57 51.94 27 MIKESEXTREME NA
82.2 54 42 NA Trollergreg NA
80.6 52.125 36.6 NA tfootstalker WI
79.8 51 33.72 23 Pointer102 WI
79.2 63.5 69.32527 na L_Spray WI
78.8 35.5 9.98 15 J_WEEKS WI
76.6 48 26.46 21 BRIANSWENSON MN
76.3 52 34.38 23 bmaxey MN
76.3 36 10.12 15 J_WEEKS WI
74.8 48.5 26.74 21 Mroberts WI
74.7 50.5 30.55 22 Pointer102 WI
58.4 45 16.26 17 Mroberts(2) WI
Jordan
Edited by J_WEEKS 2/20/2008 2:08 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2323
Location: Stevens Point, WI | The last two fish in my boat were a 41 x 20 and a 50 x 22, both from the same inland Wisconsin lake. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Very interesting data J, (much safer, I don’t want to offend you)
Now let’s look at it and try and make it relevant, like the B&C or P&Y.
The big glaring problem I see if trying to use this calculation as a measurement of a “Trophy” is fish number 6 on your list above.
The 8 pound 30 inch fish from Mani., yea it’s a super healthy fish, but I don’t think any “Musky” fisherman would call it a trophy and want it to make Book.
Also and this is purely personal, but just looking at my 3 best fish.
Fish number one a 51 incher would probably score between 75 & 80 on the Wr scale.
Fish number two a 50.5 incher would probably score between 73&78.
And Fish number three a 48.5 incher scored 74.8 based on an estimated girth.
But based on the pure formula my November 45 incher is my healthiest fish. But is it my “BEST” fish. I don’t think it is.
Now back to B&C and P&Y, can someone post how antlers are scored. I think it’s just total inches, girth at base of each tine and length of each tine. I am sure there is more to it than that.
I cold see a musky book being similar where a fat 50 incher should score more than a thin 52 incher. Just like there are probably deer cases where an 8 pointer can score higher than a 10 pointer.
There is a social issue to get over, because I have heard deer hunters just talking points socially. Where upon a quick conversation a 10 pointer gets more respect than an 8. Just like a 51 inch ski gets more respect than a 49. In both cases what first appears to be a less respectable specimen could actually be a better representation of a “Trophy” of that species.
In my opinion that’s why a book that takes into account length, and weight should be developed. Even if weight is estimated based on girth.
Maybe that could be controlled by having a minimum length, but then you get placed in the book based on a formula. Similar to what Jordan is working with.
J, is it possible to take your data and eliminate, say all the fish under 47 inches in length. What’s left on the list and do they look better from a social standpoint? I could do it based on what you have posted above, but I am assuming you have these in a spread sheet and can easily manipulate the sort.
Thanks
This is a very interesting discussion in my opinion.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 299
Location: Nowheresville, MN | It is interesting stuff indeed. We must remember though most of these weights are calculated from a formula. Depending on which formula is used, Wr may change a bunch. Using data derived from a model to presumably create another model certainly increases uncertainty. Yeah, I know this was just for fun. Jordan, can you run the Wr's again with the different girth formulas? That would be interesting.
Mike, Wr is best applied to fish whose lengths are common. In other words, the formula isn't very good for say muskies <20" and >50" (or even 48). It's a sample size thing.
I just noticed Louie's fish in there. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 31
| Guys,
I only have a minute...but the Wr formula was derived from 45 muskellunge populations from 16 states (N=4,343 fish). The paper (Neumann and Willis 1994) does not list the lengths from which this formula was derived...but we can assume that tfoot is correct and there were probably few fish over 50 inches in the sample.
However, I think we could adjust (weight) the formula to have a greater empahsis on length to account for the socially acceptable trophy length of 50".
Concerning deer-the score is the score...weather the animal has 2 or 10 points. However, animals with symmetry and more points score higher (typical scoring) than those with fewer points that are irregular. Non-typical scoring is a mystery to me.
More tomorrow...
J
Edited by J_WEEKS 2/21/2008 2:13 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 31
| OK Guys,
This may be overly simplified but it actually looks pretty good...
I used a weighting factor to add points to Wr based on fish length. I started at 50 inches and gave 5 points to all fish 50-50.9", 10 points to fish 51-51.9", 15 points to fish 52-52.9" and so forth...I came to this using the thought that since most folks can agree that 50 inches is the length of a trophy (please bear with me on this) and every inch above 50 is harder to achieve, adding five points to every inch seems to yield pretty good results. I will continue to explore weighting of the Wr value based on the actual exponential equation...more later.
Weighted Wr Wr Length POUNDS Girth Who Where
149.19 79.19 63.5 69.32527 na L_Spray WI
129.60 114.60 52.5 53.3 28.5 Silver Scale NA
124.96 84.96 57 51.94 27 MIKESEXTREME NA
122.32 92.32 55 50.12 27 Mroberts(2) WI
116.92 96.92 53 46.52 26.5 MIKESEXTREME NA
114.68 114.68 48.5 40.98 26 IAJustin** IA
107.23 82.23 54 42 NA Trollergreg NA
106.15 101.15 50 40 NA J_WEEKS (WDNR) WI
95.59 80.59 52.125 36.6 NA tfootstalker WI
94.20 94.20 47.5 31.41 23 J_WEEKS ONT
93.04 93.04 47.75 31.57 23 bytor WI
91.31 76.31 52 34.38 23 bmaxey MN
89.84 79.84 51 33.72 23 Pointer102 WI
81.50 76.50 50.0 30.25 22 MERCKID WI
79.74 74.74 50.5 30.55 22 Pointer102 WI
76.64 76.64 48 26.46 21 BRIANSWENSON MN
74.83 74.83 48.5 26.74 21 Mroberts WI
tfoot-whatcha think?
J
Edited by J_WEEKS 2/22/2008 11:45 AM
|
|
| |
