pounds and inches. - Page 2 - Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

big jay · 11-23-2006, 10:30 PM

I like people reporting in inches rather than pounds b/c I think it removes some of the Bull Sh*t factor. I'm kind of tired of seeing pics of fish with inflated weights and then the stupid debate that ensues. It takes a real ass to lie when they see the tape measure, a little less to make a generous estimate. Unless its a really good fish, that warrants the scale, inches is fine.

This kind of goes against my own point, but I think the scale dissappoints people too. I work charters for my dad on weekends, and I've seen more people with nice fish (40+ inches) get really dissappointed when they get the real weight. I had one guy in particular this summer, nice guy, owns a boat but doesn't catch much, take his family out. Kids all got their first keepers, and at the end of the day he hooks up with a ripper (way down into the backing on the first fun). Gaff the fish, he's estatic - 43" fish. Kids are jumping around and he even emails the pic to the guys in his office. Then the question comes, "hey Jay, do you guys have a scale?" Fish was a bit of a racer, so I know whats coming. 26lbs on the scale, and the poor guy is so dissappointed - felt like I ruined his triumphant moment. Had to explain to him just how much b.s. there is with alot of "40lb" fish you see in fishing mags. Net result, he shook it off, and it was a great day, but I wish he only knew he caught a 43" bass.

tattoobob · 11-23-2006, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gone fishin

I am from the old farts school on inches to weight, but seeing as I mostly release fish caught I do not weigh them as I feel they are harmed more by hanging them from the lip. I have been using the attached chart to estimate the weight of a fish caught. Note that it gives the min and max weights of a particular sized fish. It is a useful guide only.

NS - is this the chart you were looking for?

That's a great chart the only thing is are the talking fork length or total length, there is a huge difference, by looking the chart over I think it is fork length.

Back Beach · 11-24-2006, 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bart

Second that. I was around Flap, and 36" fish never averaged 20#'s, ever. Not even if you are talking fork length. They were always 15-18#'s, unless you were stuffing them with sand. Occasionally you might get a new moon freak at chatham light that weighed 20, but not many.No how, no "weigh". Even Daignault's records from the 70's prove this clearly if you look at any of his data collected over the years when he was weighmaster. T.C wil tell you the same thing.

shadow · 11-24-2006, 09:07 AM

once you get over 40" you need a scale I'v seen 42" fish from 22# to 30# thats a big differance theres more room for era or inflated gussaments with a tape.

bart · 11-24-2006, 10:46 AM

yup, 2 years ago i got a 41" pig that weighed 30.6 #

Swimmer · 11-24-2006, 11:37 AM

This posting reminds me of the ad that was recently on TV. Guys getting our of a Cadilac at the golf course asks one of the other guys getting out of the Cadi, "Hey how did you do yesterday?. Reply, "oh I shot about a 70! He got called on that.

In front of everyone in the area, the guy who said he shot about a 70 was asked how you shoot in golf about a 70. Either or but not about a 70.

One thing about fishing is that we are allowed to offer that conjecture and it is accepted. Most of us though when we hear someone say he caught a 43" fish yesterday automatically deduct at least five inches off that 43" answer and we tell everyone that so ad so caught a 38" fish. And some of us more cynical people here would probably ay the 43" fish was probably barely a keeper.

baldwin · 11-24-2006, 02:28 PM

I can't find a link to the study, but I think it was originally done by a couple of Australians. Just a knowledge of fish biology (I teach it), leads me to believe that their study has merit. Fish are adapted to a neutral-buoyancy habitat, and their bodys aren't designed to support a large amount of weight from their jaws. I think the study was done with snook, but the same could also apply to any larger fish.

Back Beach · 11-25-2006, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shadow

once you get over 40" you need a scale I'v seen 42" fish from 22# to 30# thats a big differance theres more room for era or inflated gussaments with a tape.

Agree with you 100%.

Back Beach · 11-25-2006, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ridler72

"Back in the day" anthem is an old war cry and often looked back on. I prefer to look ahead. I have no complaints about size of Striped Bass or a shortage. Does it make me a less of a fisherman if I talk in inches? lol
Did a miracle take place in the olden days and bass became big mac over eaters? I would hope bass eat the same now as they did back then. Theres plenty of bait to eat. I have never fished the late seventies and early 80's. Mid 80's and on is my time.

The bottom line? Bass don't change....we do...or not. lol

Another thing that has stayed true over the years is the old saying "Not all fishermen are liars, but a lot of liars fish"

The fish haven't changed size at all, probably not since the inception of time.

Saltheart · 11-25-2006, 08:38 AM

A tape measure is easiest to carry and needs no maintainence. I do carry a scale , have always but seldom feel a need to use it anymore. Maybe for a tourney fish but not for my own ego anymore as I once did.

I've seen grown men with thousands of fish in their carreers argue with teenagers who just caught their first bigger fish about whether it was as big as the teenager said. To them I say get a life.

Its your fish , weigh it , measure it or just let it go. I don't care.

Joe · 11-25-2006, 10:04 AM

What I was most struck with when republishing The Call Of The Surf was that Heilner was in his early twenties when he co-wrote it along with Stick who was only in his early thirties. Interesting that a man so young as Heilner was (at the time) is now universally cast as a "giant in the sport."

There is a tendency in our sport to equate age, experience, and the era in which we fished with sportsmanship and skill. I have not found the three to be mutually inclusive. There are great fishermen and great sportsmen walking among the living - and some of them are quite young.

MarshCappa · 11-25-2006, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gone fishin

I am from the old farts school on inches to weight, but seeing as I mostly release fish caught I do not weigh them as I feel they are harmed more by hanging them from the lip. I have been using the attached chart to estimate the weight of a fish caught. Note that it gives the min and max weights of a particular sized fish. It is a useful guide only.

NS - is this the chart you were looking for?

This is very useful. I don't have a scale and being on the younger side of this thread(37) report in inches because I only carry a tape. This is a very interesting thread with a lot of good points by all. Thanks Striprman for your conversions as well!

NIB · 11-25-2006, 04:50 PM

My girlfriend is always trying to measure me.
I think she said is was six lbs...

tattoobob · 11-25-2006, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NIB

My girlfriend is always trying to measure me.
I think she said is was six lbs...

You wish