Big Fish

[walrus]

A fisherman catches a 12 lb. rainbow trout, and we all know it's a big fish. A another fisherman catches a 50 lb. yellowtail, we recognize it's a big fish. We judge a fish by what it is.

What, if you see a picture of a rockfish catch that includes a 13 inch tree fish. For that type of fish it's monster or maybe even a world record.

I watched Ful-rac's video of Gonzaga Bay and he showed a gold spotted bass, and a thread fin pompano. Do know which was the biggest for it's type?

fisherman refer to big fish by weight when describing size, California Fish and Wildlife and biologist refers to size as a length.

Would fishermen better informed giving length rather than weight to judge fish?

[makobob]

Originally Posted by walrus

A fisherman catches a 12 lb. rainbow trout, and we all know it's a big fish. A another fisherman catches a 50 lb. yellowtail, we recognize it's a big fish. We judge a fish by what it is.

What, if you see a picture of a rockfish catch that includes a 13 inch tree fish. For that type of fish it's monster or maybe even a world record.

I watched Ful-rac's video of Gonzaga Bay and he showed a gold spotted bass, and a thread fin pompano. Do know which was the biggest for it's type?

fisherman refer to big fish by weight when describing size, California Fish and Wildlife and biologist refers to size as a length.

Would fishermen better informed giving length rather than weight to judge fish?

I think NOT. For instance, take a 61" WSB like Sven caught. Looking at a graph that maxed out at 54" a 54" WSB should weigh 54 pounds on avearge.
But Sven's fish weighed only 49lbs 11 oz. 7 inches longer but 4 pounds LIGHTER? Of course I might have misread the graph or the scale could have been wrong. OR that was one mean, lean fish. BTW there was not much in its gut. What would that fish weighed up here if it was fat on squid?

[walrus]

I was once told by a ranger in the sierra's that there was this lake where you could catch 14-15 inch trout all day. He gave us the directions to find it and off we went. It was epic, one fish after another all about 14-15 inches. The problem as I saw it was the fact none weighted even a pound. The lake had been stocked several years before because of confused identity, the fish had enough food to exist, but not enough to thrive. I've seen barracuda fatter than those trout.

I'm not trying to suggest changing how we determine big fish, but maybe we consider including length because it can give us a feel for lesser know types of big fish.

This is just a discussion, how do others feel?

[alanw]

My opinion is that length is used by biology and science related stuff. Weight is for fishermen. Weight and length together determine how healthy a fish is. World records are by weight, fish is sold by weight, so fishermen use weight. I personally like weight and also having length info as well.

[StinkyMatt]

I dont care which way.

To demonstrate the lack of relationship between pounds and inches:

I caught two 38.5 inch halis. One weighed 18.5 and the other 27 pounds.

That is 50% more weight.



Tight lines.

[Fishin Phil]

Two weekends ago I was at Tidelands and I caught a 16 1/2 inch lizard fish. My personal best for that type. C + R

[jruiz]

As determined by the IGFA, the correct way to measure is:

(Length x Diameter) + (Weight/Girth) all divided by the angle of the tip squared.

It is species and angler normalized and independent.

[jorluivil]

I don't know about yours but mine is small and fat

OOh wait, we're talking about fish

[blitzburgh]

Originally Posted by StinkyMatt

I dont care which way.

To demonstrate the lack of relationship between pounds and inches:

I caught two 38.5 inch halis. One weighed 18.5 and the other 27 pounds.

That is 50% more weight.



Tight lines.

I look at it this way as well. For me, I know a pig when I see it