|
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Jordan’s thread got me thinking about this:
What would be the best way to score a fish for “The Book”?
As I was working out today I started thinking about just using a simple calculation Length + Girth. I think this could actually work. I know there are some tourneys that use this method to score fish when the object is the largest fish and it’s a C&R tourney. I know of one carp tourney on the Fox in the spring, that runs this way, I think the guys that run it got the idea from a salt water tourney.
I think socially length is the most important element of measuring a fishes “Worth” followed closely by weight. There is no doubt that when observing a fish people also pay attention to how thick the fish is. The problem is nobody weighs fish anymore. So it’s hard to use weight as a scale. But if you take and just add the Length to the Girth, you get a good constant that places the fish on a pretty interesting scale. If girth isn’t known, but you have a weight, you can back calc girth using the same formulas used to calc weight based on girth.
I took Jordan’s sample from the other thread and rearranged it based on L + G, I personally like the way the numbers look, based on how “I” judge a trophy fish.
If doing “The Book” a starting point would have to be picked. I chose 65, just based on how the other threads broke out. I think at 65 total inches from all over the musky range would have a good chance at making “Book” and monster fish would be placed at the top where they should be.
Check out how the sample breaks down and lets hear what you think. I have no idea where Steve W. is with his idea, but this is what I have been thinking about. I am sure many have very differing opinions.
Length Rounded to nearest ½ inch + Girth Rounded to nearest ¼ inch.
L+G, Length, POUNDS, Girth, Who, Where, Wr,
93, 63.5, 69.32527, 29.50* L_Spray WI, 79.2 Didn’t remember Girth.
84, 57, 51.94, 27, MIKESEXTREME, NA, 85.0
82, 55, 50.12, 27, NA, NA, 92.3 (Sample 55” 50lb class fish)
81, 52.5, 53.3, 28.5, Silver Scale, NA, 114.6
79.5, 53, 46.52, 26.5, MIKESEXTREME, NA, 96.9
79, 54, 42, 25*, Trollergreg, NA, 82.2
75.75, 52, 36.6, 23.75*, tfootstalker, WI, 80.6
75.25, 50, 40, 25.25*, J_WEEKS (WDNR), WI, 101.2
75, 52, 34.38, 23, bmaxey, MN, 76.3
74.5, 48.5, 40.98, 26, IAJustin**, IA, 114.7
74, 51, 33.72, 23, Pointer102, WI, 79.8
72.5, 50.5, 30.55, 22, Pointer102, WI, 74.7
71, 47.75, 31.57, 23, bytor WI, 93.0
70.5, 47.5, 31.41, 23, J_WEEKS ONT, 94.2
69.5, 48.5, 26.74, 21, Mroberts, WI, 74.8
69, 48, 26.46, 21, BRIANSWENSON, MN, 76.6
68.5, 46.5, 28.13, 22, bytor, WI, 90.6
68, 45, 29.76, 23, Mroberts WI, 106.8
67, 44.5, 28, 22.5*, Manitowish Chain** WI, 102.8
67, 44, 29.23656, 23*, WDNR, Manitowish Chain** WI, 113.1
66, 44, 26.62, 22, AFCheif, NA, 103.0
65, 45, 22.5, 20, NA, NA (Sample Fish 45” fish that would make “Book”)
**PreSpawn
*Calculated girth based on Weight, Standard Formula.
I don’t know about you guys but I think this is a pretty simple way to get a good comparison of “Trophy” fish. For example my two fish in the sample; I consider my 48.5 a better fish than my 45, even though the 45 was probably heaver.
Don’t need to carry a calculator to see where you stand. 70 total inches is awesome, 80 total inches is a Monster, and 90 total inches is a record class fish.
Just an idea.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
Edited by MRoberts 2/21/2008 10:38 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | 27 people looked at this and NOBODY want to tell me I am full of it?
Nail A Pig?
Mike |
|
| |
|
Posts: 31
| You're full of it.
Are you happy now?
Not a bad idea-throw science out the window all together...
I need a beer.
Jordan |
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | J_WEEKS - 2/22/2008 5:48 PM
Not a bad idea-throw science out the window all together...
Jordan
Jordan the cool thing about Engineering is, it’s applying science in the REAL world.
I broke out our two list and made the top ten easier to read, using just length and weight as the two most important items. I have to tell you I like my “unscientific” top ten better. I think it does a better job of blending science and social.
L+G Top Ten
P L W
1 63.5 69, L_Spray
2 57 51, MIKESEXTREME
3 55 50, (Sample 55” 50lb class fish)
4 52.5 53, Silver Scale
5 53 47, MIKESEXTREME
6 54 42, Trollergreg
7 52 37, tfootstalker
8 50 40, J_WEEKS (WDNR)
9 52 34, bmaxey
10 48.5 40, IAJustin**
Wr adjusted Top Ten
P L W
1 63.5 69, L_Spray
2 52.5 53, Silver Scale
3 57 51, MIKESEXTREME
4 55 50, (Sample 55” 50lb class fish)
5 53 47, MIKESEXTREME
6 48.5 40, IAJustin**
7 54 42, Trollergreg
8 50 40, J_WEEKS (WDNR)
9 52 37, tfootstalker
10 47.5 31, J_Weeks
With this sample set, the Wr adjusted basically is just a list of top ten by weight, except IAJustin’s extremely fat 48.5” The question is what do most people think, is a 40 pound 48.5 incher a better fish than a 54 inch 42 pounder, or a 50 inch 40 pounder? My guess is the answer would be no in most cases.
On the L+G list the big question is #3 and #4. Is a 50 pound 55 inch fish truly better than a 53 pound 52.5 incher? No question both are AWESOME fish, but when talking a record book they have to be ranked in some way.
All I know is I would mind catching either.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 299
Location: Nowheresville, MN | Is a 125" 8-pointer better than a 125" 10-pointer? In the end your just going to have to make a system and go with it. Some deer can be real wide and short and others can be tall and tight yet they still score the same. I know which one I'd rather shoot. No system is perfect. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 31
| tfoot-125" is 125" so those two would be equal. Deer are not scored as 8 or 10 pointers, they are scored on inches of antler.
Mike,
the cool thing about fisheries science is that, well, it's REAL and IT'S COOL. Oh, and come on-everyone knows there nothing COOL about engineering-who you trying to kid?
How are record fish currnetly measured? By weight right? Not length. Not girth.
Having said that, your ranking works for me, but is it more accurate or just more socially acceptable? I would much rather catch IAJustins fish than a 50+incher that barely broke 30 lbs. To me, a trophy hinges equally on length and weight, which is what Wr does-especially when you adjust the lenghts to give longer fish more value...
jordan
Edited by J_WEEKS 2/25/2008 8:16 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | A 125" is a 125" but what is a more desirable deer? I don't deer hunt so I don't know, is the thicker 8 more impressive than a thin 10. Socially what do most of the deer hunters think. I guess this is the same thing we are trying to figure out with musky at least the small group of us discussing it here.
I don't know what Steve has in the works, maybe this conversation is muddying the water for him.
Jordan as far as IAJustins I totally agree, but if you look at the numbers his fish scores 74.5 on the L+G scale, a barely 30# fish (using the standard formula, 50x22) would score 72. Which is right in line with that.
But lets make the weight gap smaller. What’s more desirable a:
32 ½ +/- pound 49” x 23” scores 72
Or
30 ¼ +/- pound 50” x 22” scores 72
I think that’s where the big social importance of the 50” benchmark come in to play with many people.
How do these two very realistic fish score on your scale, I am sure the 49 will get a better Wr score but how do the extra length points affect it.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 31
| Mike,
In my opinion a 125" 8 point is larger (more impressive) than a 125" 10 point (you should research how deer are scored to better understand). However, in the "bar" a 10 point will always SOUND bigger, which really may not be the case when you actually score deer-in this case they would be the same...
Here are your hypotheticals:
Weighted Wr Wr Length POUNDS Girth Who
87.90 87.90 49 32.5 23 Mroberts Fantasy World
81.50 76.50 50 30.25 22 Mroberts Fantasy World
I'd still take the heavier fish every time.
Each year my personal goal is 30 fish or a 30 pound fish. When that becomes to easy...I'll switch to 40 fish or a 40 pounder. IN MY BOOK length has nothing to do with it.
J
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 906
Location: Warroad, Mn | Mike, I sort of like the L+G idea, but on released fish who's to know how close the measurments are. If you keep the fish why not just weight it?
Doug Johnson
Edited by dougj 2/27/2008 3:50 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | I agree Doug, the best way to look at a fish as far as “size” is Length and Weight. I think the goal would be released fish though, especially coming from the group of people that frequent the boards.
If a “Book” is developed it will be interesting to see what documentation is required for released fish. Length is hard enough to determine or prove from a picture, yet alone girth. At least with length a full picture on a measuring board could be required, but girth will always be hard to verify. Maybe a picture with the tape raped around the fish on the board. But man….that’s an awful lot of messing around and time out of water for the fish. Don’t think it would be worth it. The limited fish I have girthed were done in the water.
It is definitely not like a big buck where you take it someplace to be scored by an official scorer. That is how they do B&C and P&Y correct?
Any other thoughts on the relative importance of weight vs. length. Jordan appears to be a weight guy. I am in the middle, weight is very important, but length is equally important.
If I had to guess this is how I think it would break down with people:
Jordan is a biologist so he understands the importance of weight and weighs fish all the time for work. Thus his emphasis on weight.
Many long time musky fishermen grew up in the sport with weight benchmarks. My guess is weight will also be more important to them.
Now enter the new generation of musky fishermen, with mostly length benchmarks. My guess is length plays a bigger importance factor.
Nail a Pig!
Mike |
|
| |
|
Posts: 299
Location: Nowheresville, MN | World records are based on weight... |
|
| |
|
| the technology exists to incorporate a certified scale into the rim of a net. If someone can make it $ feasible think of the time saved lengthing and girthing and might even reduce our release mortality. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I'd agree with pretty much all said here, depending on perspective.
Here's what we are thinking:
In order to 'make the book', the fish needs to measure a certain length and have a reasonably carefully measured girth accompanied by a clear photograph of the fish with good perspective. I'm looking at a database that is 100% voluntary with a heavy duty incentive to enter fish, but NO incentive for and in fact removal of the entry for obvious exaggeration, like holding the fish out as far as one can, etc.
'Rewards' would t be for largest or heaviest, but randomly selected out of all entires, encouraging anglers to register all muskies they catch over 45" to increase the odds of selection of one of their entires for a substantial reward/prize.
Much more to come, but thoughts so far form your desks?
Weighing a fish in the net isn't hard, but the scales can vary so much that proves little, and we can't require certified scales if we are expecting to gather volumes of data.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 149
| WR muskies should be based on actual certified weight of the fish, not an estimate or a combination of length and girth as your system suggests. There is simply too much variation in the shape of muskies. A seperate category for C&R currently exists that is based solely on length. Perhaps this system could be incorporated into that classification. This system for your private 'book' should work just fine.
Even in a tournament situation what you are suggesting is not currently allowed under Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 20.40. (WDNR Fish Management Handbook (10-3-01) p.44-20 HB36059.44_20).
Under "Guidelines for 'Catch and Release' Tournaments" wording of Section 'A' subsection '5' states:
"Registration of fish is restricted to the measurement of length (no weighing, fin clipping, tagging or other marking unless part of an approved DNR study). In-water measurement of the fish is recommended whenever possible."
Therefore even to apply this idea to tournaments or even include fish in the 'book' that have been caught in tournaments a change in the wording of current Muskellunge Tournament Regulations in the Wisconsin Administrative Code would likely be necessary.
Edited by esoxcpr 3/1/2008 7:56 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | So why would this rule be a problem for entering in a data base? This isn't a tournament. We are not looking for World record verification, there's already a well placed venue for that. This would not be a system for verifying record fish. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 512
| Hey Guys,
Just figure I'll throw in my two cents.
First, as for 'weight', I've never really been such a huge fan. I mean, if a fish just ate a 3 lb. carp, it tips the scales to its favor. If the fish is a spawner and you catch the fish early in the season, it tips the scales against it. If you fish stocked lakes where fish may not be breeding or breeding successfully and, thus, may be re-ingesting its own egg mass, it will, once again, tip the scales in its favor.
The length + girth thing sounded pretty cool to me. Still, the question is as many stated above, is a long, more slender fish better than a shorter, seemingly heavier, more healthy fish? I don't know. Still, let's face it, in the water, when that fish comes towards the net or follows, it is its length that we first notice.
Even as for girth, I still stand by what is mentioned above. Depending upon season and body of water, a fish may have a fatter belly. Let's talk about shoulders instead 
It would also be my guess that in nature, where size does matter, the significantly longer fish would be more dominant than the significantly fatter fish. Sorta like two guys in a bar... the fat guy's probably outta shape (ha ha ha)! I'm neither tall nor fat so you can see what category I'm in... the 'non-record book' category
Best,
Todd |
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | esoxcpr - 3/1/2008 7:54 PM
"Registration of fish is restricted to the measurement of length (no weighing, fin clipping, tagging or other marking unless part of an approved DNR study). In-water measurement of the fish is recommended whenever possible."
The first word of the above is KEY. For C&R tourneys the WDNR only want fish registered by length. I believe this is mostly to simplify the permit process, the DNR doesn’t want a bunch of different rules that may or may not be detrimental to the fish. So for official tournament registration they want only length, in a C&R tourney.
That doesn’t mean the angler can’t girth or even weigh the fish if they so choose. A girth measurement can be made in the net at the side of the boat when the anglers are waiting for a judge to arrive. Or it can be made in the live well in a transport type tourney. If extra time is spent girthing the fish on the floor or deck of the boat, a judge could decide to deduct release points, depending on the event rules and the speed and manor in which the measurements are taken. I know of some tourneys where judges have docked points for poor handling in the past. It can, does, and should happen.
Steve, many of the fish you have in the Lax’s contest already fit the above described entry info, are you going to start with those fish?
I think one thing that could make this very interesting is search ability. Are the plans to keep it in a true “data base” formate, which can be searched from many different angles. Similar to the Muskies Inc. data base. I think that would be very cool.
Nail a Pig!
Mike
Edited by MRoberts 3/3/2008 9:32 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Mike,
That's the beginning concept, except we will be gathering much more data and may link to other databases. |
|
| |
