Speyducer
Advisory Board
Release to spawn another day
Posts: 4,123
|
Post by Speyducer on Jan 5, 2009 15:01:40 GMT
As the new salmon (& seatrout) season is nearing, this old chestnut may rear its head.
On the understanding with only the very lucky & very few will be landing a 'monster' fish during the forthcoming season, should there be some guidelines and/or advice for those newer in the sport in respect of whether individual fish should be weighed or not?
In consideration that any such weighing may additionally stress the fish, may damage the protective slime, scales & fins of the fish, and a rough estimate of the fish weight can be ascertained by a simple length +/- girth measurement, as well as a photo in the water or net, then should we be weighing any/many fish.
What would be your views??
Mike
|
|
|
Post by sinkingtip on Jan 5, 2009 16:23:27 GMT
In consideration that any such weighing may additionally stress the fish, may damage the protective slime, scales & fins of the fish, and a rough estimate of the fish weight can be ascertained by a simple length +/- girth measurement, as well as a photo in the water or net, then should we be weighing any/many fish. In my opinion ...... No - not really. Why and for what purpose ? It can only be for 'bragging rights' or to establish a 'personal best'. Every fish should be regarded as a personal best. Are we 'match fishing' ? As long as you are capable and confident enough to establish an approximate weight then no additional handling other than the unhooking and release process should be required - nor desired. Lets face it, you instinctively know if a fish is below 10lbs, between 10-15lbs, in the mid to high teens or 20lb + thumper. Thereafter all you or the beat really needs is an estimate for the catch book. Underestimate - its quicker, simpler and often more realistic The following may be of help to the novice as a possible alternative to the digit hungry numerical system - 5-10lbs - "a braw wee fish" 10-15lbs - "a braw fish" 15-20lbs - "a richt braw fish" 20 + "a guid fish" Theres my 3 groats worth. ;D regards STip
|
|
|
Post by speyghillie on Jan 5, 2009 16:39:33 GMT
I haven't seen a fish on the scales for 2 years and then it was only those awful spring-loaded and pretty inaccurate things. I can see no reason to weigh a fish other than when in a fishmongers before smoking and then only to determine the price. I do have to laugh at those contributers to magazines and forums who have a canny knack of estimating to the nearest half pound, especially when they lose them at distance in play. ( Now how does it go - Are all fisherman liars or do only liars fish ) Or ( Dear God, May I catch a fish big enought that when describing it even I have no reason to lie ) Nope an educated guess is good enough for my book and if you are seeing them on a regular basis, it's not too hard to make an reasonable judgement. For those in doubt - just round up... One thing which does amaze me is how often last year large fish were caught without photos. I may be slightly cynical here but I personally don't know of any experienced anglers who don't carry cameras or mobile phones capable of taking pictures, yet there were 2 clear examples of supposedly very large fish caught last season without photographic evidence...... Hopefully a lesson learnt. For anyone lucky enough to catch a real monster, if you kill it, make sure it's over 64lbs and button down the hatches.
|
|
|
Post by allysshrimp on Jan 5, 2009 17:03:29 GMT
In consideration that any such weighing may additionally stress the fish, may damage the protective slime, scales & fins of the fish, and a rough estimate of the fish weight can be ascertained by a simple length +/- girth measurement, as well as a photo in the water or net, then should we be weighing any/many fish. In my opinion ...... No - not really. Why - for what purpose - it can only be for bragging rights or to establish a 'personal best'. Every fish should be regarded as a personal best. Are we 'match fishing' ? As long as you are capable and confident enough to establish an approximate weight then no additional handling other than the unhooking and release process should be required - nor desired. Lets face it, you instinctively know if a fish is below 10lbs, between 10-15lbs, in the mid to high teens or 20lb + thumper. Thereafter all you or the beat really needs is an estimate for the catch book. Underestimate - its quicker, simpler and often more realistic The following may be of help to the novice as a possible alternative to the digit hungry numerical system - 5-10lbs - "a braw wee fish" 10-15lbs - "a braw fish" 15-20lbs - "a richt braw fish" 20 + "a guid fish" Theres my 3 groats worth. ;D regards STip I agree with you both STip & Mike. There is know need IMHO to put the fish through any additional stress if it can be avoided,and weighing them certainly can. As you say STip we should have a reasonable idea how heavy the fish weighs,without hooking it up to a set of scales. Personaly the only fish I have weighed were the ones I chaped on the head,and that was years ago.Even now if I take one it never gets weighed.Unless required for the fishery records. I did catch one fish though at the end of the season,back in 1992.It was estimated around the 32-35lb mark. It would have been nice to have known its true weight at the time.But on reflection to have caught such a guid fish and been able to release it unharmed gave me more pleasure than knowing its weight. Bill. Bill.
|
|
|
Post by jackfish on Jan 6, 2009 18:13:37 GMT
No need to weigh them unless they are dead and you are keeping it. If i thought it was worth mentioning, i would as Jock Say's "round up" unless i had my wading staff with me at the time as it has a length to weight ratio down the side,, that would be accurate enough for me..
|
|
|
Post by baroness on Jan 6, 2009 19:17:37 GMT
In consideration that any such weighing may additionally stress the fish, may damage the protective slime, scales & fins of the fish, and a rough estimate of the fish weight can be ascertained by a simple length +/- girth measurement, as well as a photo in the water or net, then should we be weighing any/many fish. In my opinion ...... No - not really. Why and for what purpose ? It can only be for 'bragging rights' or to establish a 'personal best'. Every fish should be regarded as a personal best. Are we 'match fishing' ? As long as you are capable and confident enough to establish an approximate weight then no additional handling other than the unhooking and release process should be required - nor desired. Lets face it, you instinctively know if a fish is below 10lbs, between 10-15lbs, in the mid to high teens or 20lb + thumper. Thereafter all you or the beat really needs is an estimate for the catch book. Underestimate - its quicker, simpler and often more realistic The following may be of help to the novice as a possible alternative to the digit hungry numerical system - 5-10lbs - "a braw wee fish" 10-15lbs - "a braw fish" 15-20lbs - "a richt braw fish" 20 + "a guid fish" Theres my 3 groats worth. ;D regards STip I always thought the gradation was; up to 6lbs a grilse 6-10 lbs a fish 11-15 lbs, a nice fish 16-20lb a good fish 20-28 lbs a big fish 29+ lbs f*cking hell. In the same way one fish for the day is an ok day 2 for the day is afine day 3 for the day is a good day 4-8 for the day is a wonderful day. 8+ for the day is a f*cking wonderful day
|
|
|
Post by G Ritchie on Jan 6, 2009 22:19:56 GMT
I can usually make a reasonable estimate of the size of any fish I catch, certainly good enough for entering in the fishing book if the beat has one. That is usually good enough for me, but I do carry a waterproof plastic coated fabric measuring tape in my waistcoat pocket in case I catch a really good fish one of these days. That way you can get a quick and accurate measurement of the length and girth of the fish, which should enable you to calculate its weight with a little more certainty.
|
|
|
Post by iainjay on Jan 6, 2009 22:57:58 GMT
Just a quick aside here...Do you think different breeds of fish of roughly the same size, weigh roughly the same? The reason I ask is, although I've only caught a few salmon, I have caught plenty of cod to 25lb, pollack to 15lb and so on.I know that the huge head on a cod makes up for a large percentage of its overall weight, but seeing pics in T&S and the like of Mr Such and Such holding his salmon of 20lb,I think to myself NO WAY MATE!! Any thoughts?
Iain
|
|
hornet
Active Member
Posts: 1,120
|
Post by hornet on Jan 6, 2009 23:12:33 GMT
I get what your saying Iain as Cod do have massive heads / mouths at that size.
For me weighing the fish with hand held scales does not matter as i can roughly get it close when guessing .
A couple of quick pics is enough to capture the moment followed with a quick release.
Any unnecessary stress / handling with the fish should be best avoided.
Cheers
Hornet
|
|
|
Post by sinkingtip on Jan 6, 2009 23:35:36 GMT
I get what your saying Iain as Cod do have massive heads / mouths at that size. Aye - just like some people we ken ;D
|
|
|
Post by Roobarb on Jan 9, 2009 9:37:23 GMT
Just a quick aside here...Do you think different breeds of fish of roughly the same size, weigh roughly the same? The reason I ask is, although I've only caught a few salmon, I have caught plenty of cod to 25lb, pollack to 15lb and so on.I know that the huge head on a cod makes up for a large percentage of its overall weight, but seeing pics in T&S and the like of Mr Such and Such holding his salmon of 20lb,I think to myself NO WAY MATE!! Any thoughts? Iain I think salmon are probably one of the heaviest fish fish for thier length. There's an awful lot of muscle packed into them, some sea fish like tuna might be much the same. I've had several pike well over 40 inches long that were only around the low twenties, a salmon that length would be much heavier. Getting back to the original question I have never weighed a fish that I have returned, I always feel bad enough about catching them in the first place without putting them through more stress Andy
|
|
|
Post by neptune on Jan 29, 2009 16:41:16 GMT
if someones desperate enough to need the weight of the fish why dont they buy a net with scales built in, personally i dont weigh mine because the scales dont go low enough
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2009 17:02:35 GMT
This is by no means conclusive but as a general rule of thumb if an angler removes a fish out of the water for 30 seconds then the majority even when encouraged to revive before being allowed to swim away will die very soon after. Swim bladders are very finely balanced and take very little to cause irreparable harm. The bigger the fish then I suspect that this time dramatically reduces. I have no problem whatsoever with people who take occasional fish for the table. personally I prefer to see them swim away and rarely if ever kill for the table. Killing them with a set of scales to prove what a big man I am is all a bit stupid and ignorant. I am sorry if this purely anecdotal opinion goes against anybodies sense of sport but the fish are deserving of every chance to spawn.
|
|
|
Post by Willie Gunn on Jan 29, 2009 17:30:43 GMT
This is by no means conclusive but as a general rule of thumb if an angler removes a fish out of the water for 30 seconds then the majority even when encouraged to revive before being allowed to swim away will die very soon after. Have you the evidence for this statement?
|
|
tweedsider
Active Member
Quietness is best
Posts: 993
|
Post by tweedsider on Jan 29, 2009 17:49:02 GMT
I have never weighed a fish which was to be returned, nor have I seen a fish returned lying dead in the pool later. I believe if fish were to die after being returned there would be evidence of this when fishing a small river.
Tweedsider
|
|
conwyrod
Advisory Board
Autumn on the Conwy
Posts: 4,659
|
Post by conwyrod on Jan 29, 2009 18:45:42 GMT
This is by no means conclusive but as a general rule of thumb if an angler removes a fish out of the water for 30 seconds then the majority even when encouraged to revive before being allowed to swim away will die very soon after. I read that the gill filaments will start to get damaged, due to lack of oxygen, if a fish is out of water for more than 40 seconds. Best to keep the fish in the water if possible.
|
|
|
Post by sinkingtip on Jan 29, 2009 20:29:29 GMT
I believe if fish were to die after being returned there would be evidence of this when fishing a small river. Tweedsider I would concur with this TS.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2009 20:34:04 GMT
This is by no means conclusive but as a general rule of thumb if an angler removes a fish out of the water for 30 seconds then the majority even when encouraged to revive before being allowed to swim away will die very soon after. Have you the evidence for this statement? There is much written about fish physiology. There is a link here that I hope you will find interesting. The paragraph titled respiration is quite eye opening. If you Google fish respiration you will find loads and loads more. The 30 second thing however I have no written evidence to present to you. Could you perhaps explain why you ask for it?
|
|
|
Post by Willie Gunn on Jan 29, 2009 22:34:08 GMT
Could you perhaps explain why you ask for it? Certainly, I question anything new, that I have never come across before, I have watched plenty of fish being held out of the water and still make it back, I’m not saying I approve just stating what happens. I will read your paper on rainbows tomorrow.
|
|
tenet
Active Member
Posts: 431
|
Post by tenet on Jan 30, 2009 14:57:06 GMT
Could you perhaps explain why you ask for it? Certainly, I question anything new, that I have never come across before, I have watched plenty of fish being held out of the water and still make it back,I'm not saying I approve just stating what happens. I will read your paper on rainbows tommorrow. Christ Willie - another spelling mistake. I suspect you are going stir crazy waiting for the season to start. Tenet
|
|