It's been years since I've kept any fish and so years since I've actually weighed what I've caught.
Oddly enough I'm told by others I always underestimate my fish and do them an injustice, likely as I don't want to be embarrassed by overestimating and showing someone a photo who then says it's only half the weight I claimed and thinks I'm a chancing buffoon. Not that I'm all that fussed as it's the catching I enjoy big or small (and most tend to be small!).
This applies to wild brownies and on my visits to the one fishery I still visit for rainbows sometimes.
For brownies I tend to figure out the length based on the fish against the next or rod and then use the Durham Fly Fishing length/condition/weight PDF chart thing (as good as any method), rainbows I just guestimate.
Anyway, given you guys are the font of all knowledge?! I'm looking for a reality check and help future guesstimates.
What's your estimate on this one I caught yesterday - based on net it's pushing 17.5-18"
I guessed 1-1.5lb on the bank but then on looking at the Durham chart it seems to say 2lb
[attachimg=1]
Cheers
Anthony.
And this is the chart
Realistic or not ??
[attachimg=1]
like you i tend to underestimate. the last fish we actually weighed was Ali's 2 3/4lb-er from Scourie a couple of years back. we'd kinda' looked at it and said "definitely a pound & a half, possibly 2", so it was interesting to see the actual weight. the previous year she'd caught one significantly bigger that we hadn't weighed. they gave her 3 1/4 from the photos.
the Durham chart seems to be pretty good, but i think you need to be brutally honest as far as condition goes. i've had quite a few 20"+ fish this season (honest!), but certainly up until a week or so ago (when they'd fattened up considerably) it would have been a bit of a stretch to claim they were over 2lb
Cheers Dave, so... what would your take on the pictured troot be in terms of condition?
POOR / SLIM / NORM / GOOD / FAT ?
Presented with this range I'd take it as NORM as its not GOOD or FAT, but I'd not say slim in the context of this 5 option chart, but I may be wrong and you and others would say slim? - which is why I'm posting to try and reset/correct my 'internal calibrator' of size size/condition/weight :lol:
PS: Finally got the knack of the bloody pac net folding!
slim to norm? but to be honest i'd have to be looking at it in vivo. if it's nice and firm throughout i'd certainly give it norm.
i'll borrow Ali's scales (i never carry them) and try and do some calibration myself over the next couple of days. i'll pop up some photos so we can all have a guess
Thanks, this will be interesting.
Just remembered I have a photo of the one and only brownie I ever weighed - Loch Leven and was recorded on 'Willie the Ghillie's Blog' in 2013
[attachimg=1]
Guesstimates?
chunky. 3+?
Quote from: corsican dave on August 29, 2017, 09:04:40 PM
chunky. 3+?
:lol: You're right, you're as bad as me for underestimating :lol:
This weighed in at the hut as 5 1/2 pounds with the proof for the doubters in Willie's blog here
https://lochlevenfisheries.wordpress.com/2013/07/15/loch-leven-fishing-report-week-ending-14th-july/ (https://lochlevenfisheries.wordpress.com/2013/07/15/loch-leven-fishing-report-week-ending-14th-july/)
It's also the one in my profile pic
i didn't realise that was your #10wt rig next to it! :lol:
That is interesting as I had a fish on South Uist the season before last and we were then guessing then from the photos at maybe 4.5 lbs but when I looked at the weight/size tables for a brown trout in "good condition" it was giving 5.5lbs.
Yesterday I had a heavy salmon from the Tweed and didn't know what to estimate it at since I was a bit stressed at getting it back in and revived and I just took some photos . When the gillie for the beat later had a glance at the small pocket camera screen he said "that is a good 12lbs or more" but I think he would have in mind a normal full double hander rod handle. Now I know the actual length of handle and hence fish length it is coming out nearer to 20lbs!!! Other photos are showing the same proportions.
Jon Beer when writing about Irish boatmen and their enthusiasm for all the "good three quarter pounders" they congratulate you on finished the story by concluding a "good three quarter pounder" weighs exactly 8 ounces.
If you are really interested in what your fish weighs buy yourself a catch and release weight net. If you can't do that just take photo, put the fish back and say it was a nice one. I have yet to meet an angler who underestimates the weight of fish. :lol:
These length to weight tables are nonsense with too many subjective variables to be of any use.
I always try to understimate a fish till its in the net or in the tank. It hurts less if it gets off. :lol:
I'm not bad at estimating fish but if I've not had a decent fish in the boat for a while a 6pounder can easily look like a 8.
I estimated that loch leven fish to be between 4.5 and 5 lbs.
Some fish can be very broad across the shoulders as we say as well as fat. This will add on a surprising amount of weight.
Probably being a bit dismissive there of the thousands of length and weight measurements that go into compiling the tables drawn up by the Tweed Commisioners and the Dee Catchment people and many others. These tables are reckoned to give a reasonably close correlation for fish in a normal condition. I had an email back this evening from the gillie who has now properly seen the fish yesterday and that I sent to him and he also reckons their tables are very good and reliable for length and weight.
(Irish boatmen are certainly there to generate more happy customers to their boats. :shock:)
Quote from: admin on August 29, 2017, 10:18:55 PM
If you are really interested in what your fish weighs buy yourself a catch and release weight net. If you can't do that just take photo, put the fish back and say it was a nice one. I have yet to meet an angler who underestimates the weight of fish. :lol:
These length to weight tables are nonsense with too many subjective variables to be of any use.
I was just looking for a bit of a reality check and also to see if others were as useless as me at guessing weight. As I said I'd like to 'reset' my visual guessometer - not essential just out of interest. So far I think I can honestly say I underestimate weight on the bank, but get a fairly accurate length if I get a photo next to net or rod... But then look it up on the chart and end up over estimating the condition and so an over estimated weight.
I only take photos of the bonnie ones or the big (for me) ones.
I had a weighing net and binned it as too much faff, mind you it wasn't a great one.
This is the one I use.
Trout & Salmon Wedgie Scale
Breakfast Trout: 4oz
Easy hauf a pun: 6oz
Nearly a pun: 3/4lb
Well over a pun: 1lb
A fat 2 pounder: 1lb 8oz
Well over 2 pun: 2lb2oz
Must be at least 3lb: 2lb 8oz
Four if it is an ounce: 3lb 12oz
Touching 5lb: 4lb
Easily 6lb: lying bestard
I think I am quite good at estimating the weight of fish. The reason is that I weigh the bigger ones. This stems from my coarse fishing background I suppose.
I like to estimate the weight before actually weighing the fish
If you weigh fish regularly you get good at estimating, but I still get surprised sometimes.
I don't tend to measure fish so I couldn't say how accurate the weght for length tables are, but there can be huge differences with trout depending on condition of the fish. Salmon vary less in condition in my opinion.
Quote from: haresear on August 30, 2017, 12:36:00 AM
there can be huge differences with trout depending on condition of the fish
Exactly. Then the next spurious variables are "estimating" the condition and well as guessing the length. In a big fish half an inch makes a big difference to the weight.
that's not much of a breakfast, Alan :lol:
Quote from: Highlander on August 29, 2017, 11:45:17 PM
This is the one I use.
Trout & Salmon Wedgie Scale
Breakfast Trout: 4oz
Easy hauf a pun: 6oz
Nearly a pun: 3/4lb
Well over a pun: 1lb
A fat 2 pounder: 1lb 8oz
Well over 2 pun: 2lb2oz
Must be at least 3lb: 2lb 8oz
Four if it is an ounce: 3lb 12oz
Touching 5lb: 4lb
Easily 6lb: lying bestard
Brilliant - this is the real word of angling! :lol:
Another of my favourites is the good old "I don't really care what my fish weigh, it's not important to me" followed by a photo of the un-weighed "8 pounder" which really looks more like 5 and you say as much but make it clear it's still a great fish!
Suddenly what the fish weighs is no longer unimportant. :lol:
As for salmon weights "estimated" by ghillies - just let's say that it's in no beat owner's interest to have their paying clients catch small fish. :8)
I recognise some of my own logic in the 'wedgie scale' :lol: is a fisher really a fisher if he doesn't add on a few ounces!?
In all seriousness if you're just catching bandies it doesn't really matter but when you get a better fish it can be frustrating not to be able to put a weight on it. It was interesting fishing with Alex with his weigh net because you estimate first and then get a fairly accurate actual weight and sometimes it was surprising either way. I'd quite like to get one but then again it would rob me of all my poetic license :lol:
Salmon tables for length and weight and tables for trout have been gradually comoiled for well over a hundred years. In 1965 I was electro-fishing Tweed tributaries for our population dynamics studies and weighing and measuring all the fish that were taken in the nets. This data collection has been going on for well over a hundred years and the same has been done with many, many animals and birds. The resulting graphs are very accurate in providing the normal relationship of length to weight. Soldier Palmer is doing this same data compilation right now. Salmon tables are reliable and the gillie I referred to was asked by me what accuracy did he atribute to the Tweed tables and he reckons them to be very good. Later he has now seen the photo, but I am going by length and he agrees the weight for that length. Some trout tables do divide into condition categories, but salmon vary less and I have not seen one with any division.
That weegie table is class 😂
I tend to under guess my catches too or at least I think I do but I haven't weighed a fish for about 6 years! So could be well off with my guesses.
There's an app called fish figure I have but haven't set it up yet. Basically measure a part of your rod say the handle and then take a photo of it. The app then uses that as a scale for when you catch a fish and take a photo of it next to your rod. Will try it out and see how it goes next time I'm out
The Americans (as usual) are way ahead on this.
They use inches. :lol:
Oddly so do we until the fish reaches 1/2 lb.
What I have done just recently is measure the rod handle and marking up a lower section makes good sense. In the float tube there is a printed scale across the edge of the front netting which is a handy indicator.
My Scott S4 actually has whippings at intervals with sizes marked on at 12" and 20 " :D
there's a joke in here; but it's a family show :8) :lol:
I still find scales the best judge of weight :)
Blimey, opened a can of worms with this one and have enjoyed reading the replies :lol:
I asked initially mainly as I've not weighed any of my fish for almost 4 years so aware my guesstimates were likely a bit out of touch. I'm happy estimating the length against my net or rod and that's fairly accurate but guessing an approx weight is where I fall down. Now I know that as some have replied "what does it matter" and I agree since a good and/or bonnie fish is just that - but I'm just keen to be a wee bit better at estimating. The biggest wild fish in the waters I frequent are lucky to reach 2lb (few and far between) and most 1/2-1lb or smaller so no big deal anyway really.
On reflection I'll maybe stick to categorising my fish as either small, average or HUGE if describing them to others :D
And on that note... caught this HUGE one yesterday :lol:
[attachimg=1]
sweet! :8) size of the tail on that :shock:
skinny, tho'... :wink: :lol: i've had quite a few like that this year
Quote from: corsican dave on August 31, 2017, 05:23:00 PM
skinny, tho'..
As A.K. Best once said to Gierach - that's why we just measure 'em. :lol:
Quote from: admin on August 31, 2017, 05:26:05 PM
As A.K. Best once said to Gierach - that's why we just measure 'em. :lol:
Aye skinny thing that would be a good fish if it put on some weight, but gave a good account of itself with that tail. And you may not be able to tell from the photo but this fish was 30" long, honest :8)
This is what makes it all so daft. That is a lovely fish even if it is a bit thin. So what if it weighed a bit more if it was a bit fatter? It's still the same fish.
Quote from: admin on August 31, 2017, 06:26:51 PM
This is what makes it all so daft. That is a lovely fish even if it is a bit thin. So what if it weighed a bit more if it was a bit fatter? It's still the same fish.
Indeed and I tend to rate a fish I've caught by it's colours these days, just as much as size, where a really small fish can outshine a bigger one for me if it has really lovely markings.
Like this wee one:
[attachimg=1]
And this in a different darker way:
[attachimg=2]
Just my own take on things and we all have our own thoughts, but if you're catching then a fish is a fish is a fish, and beats a blank.
PS: Interestingly those two fish are from the same water which I found odd - until I spoke to an old local guy who's fished it for likely 40+ years and gave me a full and interesting history on it the other day. The water is fed by two separate burns, one a peaty one and one a stoney gravely one, with the resulting stark difference in colouring depending on which they spawn in. So I'm told anyway.
a belting tail on this one from today. sorry, couldn't find a set of scales anywhere. pound & a half? two tops? 18"
[attachimg=1]
That's a lovely looking fish and a belter of a huge tail.
I'd put that one at 6lb 12oz on the Borthwick Scale. :lol:
they've been fattening up on the daddies the last two weeks. the technique isn't that sophisticated; spot a rising fish then pop out a daddy on a long leader and either get an immediate hit or let it skate around a bit. the latter isn't going to win any friends from the Halford camp but it's arguably no different to swinging flies across a river... :lol: five or six this evening makes it sound too easy, but i had to do a lot of sneaky-beaky crawling about. MUST do craig-e before season's end....
Quote from: admin on September 01, 2017, 08:29:11 PM
I'd put that one at 6lb 12oz on the Borthwick Scale. :lol:
:lol: it's a better breakfast than you'd get at Alan's.... :8)
Quote from: Roobarb on September 01, 2017, 08:38:28 PM
It is not where they spawn that matters but the environment they live in that affects the colour.
Last week we had a huge spate on Uist which has turned the usually gin clear machair lochs black with peat stain. These lochs have sand beds and the fish are always bright golden fish but now the water is very black with peat the fish have turned dark in less than a week.
Andy
What Andy said. Trout are very polymorphic I've seen a dark peat trout turn a bright silver/golden in 20 minutes. They also change colour when being aggressive (darker) and submissive (lighter)
Cheers guys, didn't know that.
Quote from: corsican dave on September 01, 2017, 08:35:08 PM... MUST do craig-e before season's end....
Yeah, I've been a lazy bugger and not fished it yet this year, despite being 40 mins walk away at least 4 days per month. Lazy bugger I am.
I'm up Friday 22nd until the Monday afternoon so might fit it in then, or might do a day trip next weekend. I'll give you a shout whenever I decide to go.
Quote from: ant0 on September 01, 2017, 09:34:00 PM
Yeah, I've been a lazy bugger and not fished it yet this year, despite being 40 mins walk away at least 4 days per month. Lazy bugger I am.
I'm up Friday 22nd until the Monday afternoon so might fit it in then, or might do a day trip next weekend. I'll give you a shout whenever I decide to go.
yep, count me in. might have to be a quick up & down!
Right... as luck would have it I'm just back from catching the biggest brownie I've ever had (excluding the flukey no skill loch leven one) so topical for this thread. Very very happy and was glad to safely net it after a fair old fight around weeds and reeds.
I guesstimated 2lbs on the bank, then tried to figure out length based on photo and tape measure. I 'think' 20" and based on that and it being fairly girthy,... the dubious tables say average to good = 2lb 14oz - 3lb 2oz - so 3 pound. I'm a bit sceptical of it being 3lb so going to call it "over 2.5 lbs" and be happy with that.
[attachimg=1]
[attachimg=2]
What ever its weight is a lovely hen :8)
looks pretty chunky. go with "good" :8)
Quote from: Roobarb on August 31, 2017, 08:43:29 AM
I think you will find salmon (and grilse) vary as much if not more than trout in terms of condition. They can vary due to feeding at sea but also fish from different rivers/tributaries can be very different shapes.
For example in southern England (where most of my salmon experience was had) fish from chalkstreams are fat, thick, deep fish whereas fish from moorland rivers are longer and thinner for the same weight. If you took fish of the same length from two different rivers one might be 5lb where the other would go 7lb or even 8lb. This isn't just isolated fish but is the general pattern between some rivers. I used to occasionally catch chalkstream kelts that were a better shape than some fresh run fish from moorland rivers. They used to say that a Brora kelt was better than a Helmsdale springer!
As for getting the weight of the fish I really can't be bothered at all. I think Fred's point about using inches is the way to go. Add to that a quick photo (not with arms outstretched) if it is a special fish and leave it at that.
Andy
I go wrong when fishing for springers and always underestimate the weight, being used to estimating summer fish and grilse.
Last spring a guy I fish with put a length instead of a weight in the returns book. Ghillie went ballistic as MSS go by wight (accurate or otherwise).
One has come to the conclusion I seriously underestimate the weight of grilse and sea trout, based on estimated weights being quoted by punters over the last three weeks! :shock: :shock: :D
I feel confident with fish up to 5 lb but not so much with fish above that weight as I don't encounter them that often.
here's a goodie on the daddy today. looks a belter don't it? 17" of rippling muscle.... :8)
[attachimg=1]
hmm, maybe not... :lol:
[attachimg=1]
Not been mentioned here yet but two pics of the same fish can be so different depending on the angle, zoom, point of reference etc
yeah, but there's no way you could dress this one up as anything other than a skinny bugger.... :lol: shame, as it'd got a wonderful head and the colours were something else. it looked the picture of health other than being completely emaciated. gave a good account of itself, too
Quote from: corsican dave on September 05, 2017, 08:20:12 PM
yeah, but there's no way you could dress this one up as anything other than a skinny bugger.... :lol: shame, as it'd got a wonderful head and the colours were something else. it looked the picture of health other than being completely emaciated. gave a good account of itself, too
Lovely looking fish though with nice light colouring.
Think of the skinny buggers as powerful lean machines worthy of catching (track and field athletes compared to darts players).
this one had a bit more beef to it
[attachimg=1]
Any idea why they are so skinny at this time of year Dave. ❓
yeah, it's a bit worrying, isn't it? these fish are from a lochan which was stocked quite a few years ago then left to get on with it. are they just getting old? maybe not enough food to support the numbers of fish as they got bigger? pity, as they were obviously nice looking fish. maybe i should overcome my principles and take the odd one for the pot once in a while?
Quote from: corsican dave on September 07, 2017, 10:14:35 PM
maybe not enough food to support the numbers of fish as they got bigger?
Parasite infestation? This is not uncommon and some lochs are known for it. I've even seen it in Don trout.
I know of a few lochs with skinny trout one is stocked and has resident wild trout it's a case of not enough food to go round.
And another where there is a problem with worm infestation in the older larger population strangely the smaller fish seem in great condition.
i'll chap one of the skinny ones & have a look-see
one in better condition today. i'd have said this was over a pound, but the tale of the tape tells it like it is. 14" at norm to good makes it roughly a pound.
[attachimg=1]
[attachimg=2]
I'd have called that 15" looking at the tape.
So nearer 2 lb :8)
i hadn't realised the tape doesn't start at 0..... doh! :roll: and there was me thinking i was pushing my luck on 14". thanks for pointing that out :lol:
hopefully i'll get to see the other end of the tape on Gran Canaria next month
just on 17" this one. got some body about it too; although i would still give it norm, borderline good?
[attachimg=1]
Just an observation they all seem to be hen fish have you ever had a cock out of there Dave?
I'd say pun n half.
Quote from: SoldierPmr on September 25, 2017, 08:28:57 PM
Just an observation they all seem to be hen fish have you ever had a cock out of there Dave?
I'd say pun n half.
yes, but not this year. which is also a bit worrying. the condition of this fish from last year is superb...
[attachimg=1]
He is a handsome chap nice kype on him too.
Nice predetory looking trout there Dave. :D
Quote from: corsican dave on September 25, 2017, 08:17:35 PM
just on 17" this one. got some body about it too; although i would still give it norm, borderline good?
[attachimg=1]
Nice fish.
I didn't get to CraigE this weekend due to the 'elevated' winds on higher ground saturday and rain on sunday, wife had other plans which I was happy to go along with. Don't think I'll get to it now this year, so a target for next.
PS: We've finally decided our date for upping sticks and moving to Aviemore - a lot earlier than originally planned - Spring 2019. So will look forward to much more exploring of waters in a couple of seasons.
wow! exciting news! be great to see you up here :D :8)
it was a tail of two fishes this evening. i forgot the tape doesn't start at 0, so this poor wee soul was actually 18". imagine..... :shock:
[attachimg=2]
the second one was significantly shorter, but arguably heavier
[attachimg=1]
Quote from: corsican dave on September 28, 2017, 07:35:56 PM
it was a tail of two fishes this evening. i forgot the tape doesn't start at 0, so this poor wee soul was actually 18". imagine..... :shock:
[attachimg=2]
the second one was significantly shorter, but arguably heavier
[attachimg=1]
Blimey, that is a long skinny fish right enough :shock:
You better go and tip a couple of tons of phosphate into that loch.
Quote from: Laxdale on September 28, 2017, 07:50:35 PM
You better go and tip a couple of tons of phosphate into that loch.
that's do-able Gordon as i know the land-owner well & he'd be up for anything that'd improve the fishing :D i'm no expert on fisheries management so would you care to explain? i'm guessing that adding phosphate would encourage plant growth?
Indeed. A wee bit of enrichment would do the world of good. Could it be that the loch had an injection of nutrients in the recent past? It would explain the big, skinny fish.
Could it be ex stocked fish now suffering from a parasite?
Quote from: Laxdale on September 28, 2017, 08:32:26 PM
Indeed. A wee bit of enrichment would do the world of good. Could it be that the loch had an injection of nutrients in the recent past? It would explain the big, skinny fish.
possible, but that would only be from run-off somewhere. it's fed by a moorland stream and nothing's been added deliberately. close to a road, though. what about winter gritting or chemicals?
Quote from: SoldierPmr on September 28, 2017, 08:35:39 PM
Could it be ex stocked fish now suffering from a parasite?
highly likely. all the fish were originally stocked although they're definitely breeding. i'll maybe have to chap one & have a look-see. parasites ARE one of my subjects...
cheers for the advice so far guys. much appreciated! :8)
Heres a trout with a infestation of worms from one of Ron's netting surveys
[attachimg=1]
Cestode parasite to be precise.