fruity
Active Member
Posts: 425
|
Post by fruity on Oct 15, 2007 12:38:05 GMT
I believe an accurate educated calculation based upon length and girth should be accepted within the record figures, not only to reflect our modern angling ethics but for the actual records themselves to retain credibility. If the recent 56inch long salmon is calculated and then widely accepted as a record, but dismissed along with many other fish over the years, then the relevance of the records committee may well be cast into doubt.
|
|
|
Post by charlieH on Oct 15, 2007 13:34:45 GMT
Difficult one, Fruity. According to Shedhed's figures here: salmo.proboards74.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1192297109&page=3 the weight could be anywhere between 48lbs and 212lbs! The problem is that all the scales and formulae for calculating weight are based on average-sized fish, and the variance thrown up by the above indicates to me that there simply isn't a reliable formula when it comes to these huge fish. I think any such formula can only be arrived at by measuring a number of fish, and while it might be possible to collate sufficient data (weight, length and girth) for fish of up to 50lbs, i think that beyond that we are really shooting in the dark. The issue isn't so much whether it beat Miss Ballantyne's fish - which, on the evidence, it probably did - but how big anyone else's fish has to be in order to beat this one. I think that you need to have a really accurate assessment of its weight before accepting it as a record and setting a benchmark for the future, and on current evidence really wonder if this could be achieved even to within, say 10lbs.
|
|
fruity
Active Member
Posts: 425
|
Post by fruity on Oct 15, 2007 13:51:28 GMT
I understand and agree with many of your points. The practical problem as I see it, and I've done this just as others have, in general anglers conversations as soon as someone mentions Miss Ballantyne's fish there is someone else who mentions one of a number of fish that should have been records and many of them believe another fish is the record. I personally believe a certain Tweed fish should hold the existing record. There is a wealth of data on big Atlantic Salmon available in order to calculate an accurate weight.
I've seen various reported figures for length, girth and weights so won't comment on another estimated weight.
|
|
salmo
Advisory Board
Posts: 1,814
|
Post by salmo on Oct 15, 2007 14:15:31 GMT
I vote yes - set the record based on data and witnesses. Let the scientists agree on which scale is the most accurate based on the dimensions and photos that indicate time in freshwater. They should take into account characteristics of fish in different river systems. Surely the experts could agree on a scale or range of scales. I have never before seen the wide variation on the estimates that have been posted, but that may be because all my atlantics have been in the low end of the scale at 6 - 16lb range.
Going forward it would be a step change improvement for conservation in general, and of the gene pool of larger fish in particular, if any new records can be assessed and confirmed without killing the fish.
salmo
|
|
hoppy
Active Member
Posts: 5
|
Post by hoppy on Oct 15, 2007 16:16:38 GMT
I would like the to see how the exact measurement of Miss Ballentine's fish fit into the system of calculating weights - perhaps this should be the standard?
Hoppy
|
|
|
Post by charlieH on Oct 15, 2007 16:55:07 GMT
I would like the to see how the exact measurement of Miss Ballentine's fish fit into the system of calculating weights - perhaps this should be the standard? For reference, Malloch records a 71lb salmon taken by the Tay nets as being 52" long, with a girth of 32". He also mentions a 57.5lb fish that was 53.5" long and 28.5" girth.
|
|
|
Post by Silver Stoat on Oct 15, 2007 17:14:53 GMT
I say no but purely for practical reasons.
As Charlie pointed out, there is little data available for these very large fish and even fish of lesser weights vary depending upon a number factors up to and including the time of year they are caught - in other words attempting to base an accurate formula around 'average' fish is not really possible as no such beasties exist.
Dave.
|
|
conwyrod
Advisory Board
Autumn on the Conwy
Posts: 4,659
|
Post by conwyrod on Oct 15, 2007 17:57:48 GMT
I voted yes, primarily to discourage people from chapping these magnificent big fish.
Just a thought, if there are 50 photographs of the fish, then I would imagine that these could be used to form a 3D computer model of the fish.
Having done this, the volume of the fish could be accurately calculated.
Weight = volume x density. All we need is a reasonably accurate figure for the average density of a live salmon - chap a few 'farmers' and work it out!
|
|
robbie
Active Member
Posts: 882
|
Post by robbie on Oct 15, 2007 18:15:07 GMT
I have voted yes. This is clearly going to be a huge fish and well witnessed. I would guess that by the time another of this size is witnessed we will have the technology to assess weights accutately by some whizzy computer generated system ;D
|
|
conwyrod
Advisory Board
Autumn on the Conwy
Posts: 4,659
|
Post by conwyrod on Oct 15, 2007 18:19:56 GMT
I would guess that by the time another of this size is witnessed we will have the technology to assess weights accutately by some whizzy computer generated system ;D Why couldn't I have put it so succinctly? ;D
|
|
|
Post by tweed ghillie on Oct 15, 2007 18:33:59 GMT
As an aside to the big fish debate, in 2002 an angler from tyneside caught and released a cock fish on the association water owned by Lothian Estate. the fish was offered against his rod and marked both length and depth (it was in early november and late in the day hence he did not have any other means to estimate its size) it measured 54ins long and 19ins deep the powers that be estimated its weight at between 35-40 lbs.what price for this new claim..
|
|
severnfisher
Active Member
The Severn Valley in spring
Posts: 226
|
Post by severnfisher on Oct 15, 2007 19:17:20 GMT
A reluctant 'no' vote from me. Charlie's argument is unanswerable:
You don't have to kill a fish to weigh it accurately, but you do need a big net, a retention system of some sort, a weigh sling and a couple of sets of scales. Trouble is carrying that lot about on the off chance you might break the salmon record rather spoils the fun of travelling light.
Tom
Tom
|
|
tweedsider
Active Member
Quietness is best
Posts: 993
|
Post by tweedsider on Oct 15, 2007 19:43:01 GMT
I voted yes, but not necessarily for this fish. It would be fairer all round if the criteria for weight based on a length x girth ratio is established in an acceptable form. The alternative would be to start a new record list, based on simple length and girth measurements and disregarding weight entirely.
Tweedsider
|
|
Speyducer
Advisory Board
Release to spawn another day
Posts: 4,123
|
Post by Speyducer on Oct 15, 2007 20:08:03 GMT
Using Studys formula posted on another thread by Mike Miss Ballantines fish weighs in at 54lb maybe it's not got the record after all. 10lb has gone missing 1/6th of the fish I hope they start using formulas for your wages lol! However, if you put the 52"length and 28" girth of Miss B's 1922 fish into Ally Gowan's calculator (letsflyfish.com), with appropriate conversions to cms, the weight comes out at 64.25lbs for Ally Gowans' formula itself. MIke
|
|
Speyducer
Advisory Board
Release to spawn another day
Posts: 4,123
|
Post by Speyducer on Oct 15, 2007 20:18:45 GMT
The problems with length/weight tables, as mentioned before, as well as formulae or computer-generated calculators is that you really need to know how large was the sample of fish which led to the generation of each of the methods.
Ally Gowans stated on letsflyfish.com that he used 800 fish (presumably UK) caught during 1994 to come up with his own web-based calculator, but didn't state what range of weights of fish he had in the sample (smallest, largest, distribution, average, mean, mode,) nor did he mention condition, proportion, or other factors.
The other scales are of much lesser quality, and you can test this for yourselves - the NASCO weight per length (on their own webpage) seem to exactly mirror the Salmonid Council of Newfoundland & Labrador figures, and both of these do not seem to take any or much account of the girth of the fish.
The Ally Gowans calculator produce very similar figures to the Sturdy scale and formula, except Ally's calculator results in heavier fish for the same length/weight compared to Sturdy's.
Mike
|
|
Speyducer
Advisory Board
Release to spawn another day
Posts: 4,123
|
Post by Speyducer on Oct 15, 2007 21:16:18 GMT
That's a complete nonsense from Faskally, then.
Chinook salmon are not that different in profile than Atlantics.
As previously recorded from the Kenai, a fish of 55.5" length and only 34.5" girth was verifiably weighed (the scales re-tested as per the Alaskan rules) as 82lbs.
This Alaskan fish proportions accords extremely well to the Sturdy formula - which comes out at 82.25lbs.
So, if the girth of the Ness fish is 50" with the same length as the Kenai fish, then anyone should agree that the weight must be significantly over 80lbs.
Anyhow, I can see this 'debate' running & running, and everyone appears to have an opinion;
What I am fairly certain of is, however, that the British Rod Caught Records Committee will NOT designate this fish a British record, as, however well meaning the commendable effort was in returning the fish, it just wasn't weighed.
A huge fish, as I'm sure the eventual publication of decent photos will show, and a significant landmark in the return towards Scotland being a large fish haven (heaven!).
Mike
|
|
salmondan
Active Member
There's always a chance!
Posts: 324
|
Post by salmondan on Oct 15, 2007 21:26:19 GMT
I have a small question, or is it a spanner for this particular works?, have we not got the definition of GIRTH measurement mixed up? How can a 56" long fish have a girth of 50"? unless it is almost a (side on view) perfect circle. IMO, the girth stated was actually the "circumference" of the ness fish and this has been lost in translation. If we assume that this misinterpretation has taken place, that would put the ness fish into a bracket much closer to Miss B's fish, ie the true girth would be closer to the low 20s of inches. I shall now take a defensive stance (or hide in a cloud), waiting for the germans to come and shoot me down in flames (again ).
|
|
DAZ
Active Member
Posts: 77
|
Post by DAZ on Oct 15, 2007 21:26:40 GMT
First off.....A big well done to the captor of such a beast,and a real "BIG" well done for returning it.
I have voted NO!.
I don't think the Ally Gowen's calculator,or any of the others are accurate enough to give a true estimate,and estimates are all theses calculations give.
I will be very surprised if this fish is accepted as a new record.....Unoficially yes!.....officially no!.
DAZ.
|
|
conwyrod
Advisory Board
Autumn on the Conwy
Posts: 4,659
|
Post by conwyrod on Oct 15, 2007 21:37:46 GMT
I have a small question, or is it a spanner for this particular works?, have we not got the definition of GIRTH measurement mixed up? How can a 56" long fish have a girth of 50"? unless it is almost a (side on view) perfect circle. IMO, the girth stated was actually the "circumference" of the ness fish and this has been lost in translation. If we assume that this misinterpretation has taken place, that would put the ness fish into a bracket much closer to Miss B's fish, ie the true girth would be closer to the low 20s of inches. I shall now take a defensive stance (or hide in a cloud), waiting for the germans to come and shoot me down in flames (again ). The girth of a tree is the circumference Dan, so it is presumably the same for a fish. A 50" girth equates to a circle diameter of 16". Now get a ruler and imagine what a 16" diameter fish must look like!
|
|
salmondan
Active Member
There's always a chance!
Posts: 324
|
Post by salmondan on Oct 15, 2007 22:16:04 GMT
Now get a ruler and imagine what a 16" diameter fish must look like! Torpedo?
|
|