Quote:
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?