| Author |
Message Text |
|
Basspro69
|
quote shock: "this bass came in right at the chart for a 21" #5-7 most people would call it over #6 all day ,,,  " Nice fish. That lake looks very familiar :-)
|
|
mgraber
|
quote missmolly: "What was their range, mgraber? "
I think most were 3.75-4.75. As Mike stated, if they are full of eggs they can be close to 5#, and I have no doubt that it is possible for a 20" to go 5#, just haven't seen one. Largemouths will weigh quite a bit more per length. I think a 20" smalley probably averages 4-4.5. I always test my scales with certified weights and find that they often have some error somewhere in the range even if they are accurate at a given point. Some of the worst scales I have tested have been digital and everyone seems to trust them the most. The most accurate by far are Chatillon . If you have an adjustable zero, set the scale to be dead on in the CENTER of its range. This minimizes the error if there is one, as the error in spring rate grows the farther you get from dead on. Sorry, I'm a little anal about scales:). I always weigh in a net or weigh sack.
|
|
SoMpls
|
The Walleye chart looks accurate but the Pike can't be right. I'd eat my hat if a 40" Northern is only 13 lbs.
|
|
shock
|
quote SoMpls: "The Walleye chart looks accurate but the Pike can't be right. I'd eat my hat if a 40" Northern is only 13 lbs. " +1 a 40" pike is usually about #18
|
|
missmolly
|
Man, have I ever overestimated the weights of the fish I've caught! I figured pike above 40" were in the twenty-pound range. Ha! As if! And I figured I'd caught five-pound bass. Nah.
Read it and weep.
|
|
yogi59weedr
|
Always thought a 20 in small was around 5lbs.
|
|
missmolly
|
So I'm not a big, fat phony? It is hard to believe that a 40" pike only weighs 13 pounds. Here's a 39" pike a friend caught. According to the chart, it's a 12 pound fish.
|
|
shock
|
quote missmolly: "So I'm not a big, fat phony? It is hard to believe that a 40" pike only weighs 13 pounds. Here's a 39" pike a friend caught. According to the chart, it's a 12 pound fish.
" pike pics can be deceiving , this one was just over 39" and came up #16.6 on a digital scale. and the 2nd pic is #14 and to me it looks bigger  
|
|
missmolly
|
That second one does look bigger!
|
|
SoMpls
|
quote missmolly: "So I'm not a big, fat phony? It is hard to believe that a 40" pike only weighs 13 pounds. Here's a 39" pike a friend caught. According to the chart, it's a 12 pound fish.
"
Looks a bit skinny but it's probably still 15 lbs or so.
|
|
missmolly
|
One cool thing about the chart is that it alleges a musky gains three pounds for every inch over 50 inches.
|
|
Pinetree
|
Here is some very good length weight charts if you scroll down.
weights
|
|
Pinetree
|
Also you get like 36inches up northern pike weight varies so much some have so much depth and belly. Usually fast growing fish,including pike,the faster they grow,the smaller head they will have to their weight. Seen many of pike around 45 inches in the 25 pound range and a 48 inch pike at 30 pounds.
|
|
shock
|
absolutely PT , and forage base(pike in trout ponds get girthy) , a personal example : i caught a muskie that was 44" weighed #23, a few years later my buddy caught this musky that was 40" and before i put it on the scale , i said you have a #30 fish , i put it on the scale #29.9 the girth was insane the bad thing was no camera that day :) but i relive it,,it my head. very early ice , its eyeballs apart were as wide as the 8" hole it came out of. think of a fish 4" shorter but #7 more pounds then this pic.
|
|
Pinetree
|
quote shock: "absolutely PT , and forage base(pike in trout ponds get girthy) , a personal example : i caught a muskie that was 44" weighed #23, a few years later my buddy caught this musky that was 40" and before i put it on the scale , i said you have a #30 fish , i put it on the scale #29.9 the girth was insane the bad thing was no camera that day :) but i relive it,,it my head. very early ice , its eyeballs apart were as wide as the 8" hole it came out of. think of a fish 4" shorter but #7 more pounds then this pic.
"
get northern pike in a stocked trout lake and the northern pike get very fat for all they got to do is sit their and the trout swim bye,not knowing what a predator is after coming from a hatchery,those pike can eliminate trout in small stream trout lakes very fast.
|
|
missmolly
|
Beautiful markings, shock!
|
|
bobbernumber3
|
Ha... thought this was a political post!
|
|
HighnDry
|
There are formulas for each species (circumference and length dimensions) that I've found to be accurate. Here.
|
|
Basspro69
|
Molly it says approximate weight, you have to figure girth in the equation because some lakes produce a much heavier fish due to forage factors. Length times girth is far more accurate. For example if you catch a pike from the mine pits in central minnesota, a fish will be much heavier due to the significant girth of these fish.
|
|
egknuti
|
quote missmolly: "Man, have I ever overestimated the weights of the fish I've caught! I figured pike above 40" were in the twenty-pound range. Ha! As if! And I figured I'd caught five-pound bass. Nah.
Read it and weep. " I've caught some skinny pike that were over 35 inches and probably weighed no more than 10lbs but I've also caught some fat pike that were 40 inches and weighed at least 20lbs.
|
|
Basspro69
|
|
|
Basspro69
|
|
|
walleye_hunter
|
The author of that chart must have a bias against pike. The length and weight of lakers and walleyes seems very close based on my experience. In the BW or Quetico a 40" pike is going to be right around 16 pds. A 42-43" pike is going to be pushing that magic 20 lb mark.
|
|
Savage Voyageur
|
Wow cool, this chart just added a few pounds to my musky I caught.
|
|
Alan Gage
|
quote yogi59weedr: "Always thought a 20 in small was around 5lbs."
Every chart I've ever seen says a 20" Largemouth is around 5lbs and that's always been very close when I've had a chance to weigh them. Smallies would obviously be less.
Alan
|
|
QueticoMike
|
I caught a 20 inch smallmouth once and the picture itself weighed over five pounds :)
|
|
missmolly
|
quote walleye_hunter: "quote Basspro69: " "
That must be from Europe somewhere. European pike are a different animal."
I thought the same thing. Those Euro-pike have bellies!
|
|
walleye_hunter
|
quote Basspro69: " "
That must be from Europe somewhere. European pike are a different animal.
|
|
Basspro69
|
quote missmolly: "quote walleye_hunter: "quote Basspro69: " "
That must be from Europe somewhere. European pike are a different animal."
I thought the same thing. Those Euro-pike have bellies! " Any pike that lives in an environment with trout and actively feeds on them will look like this. The high fat content of trout really puts the weight on Pike.
|
|
Basspro69
|
quote QueticoMike: "I caught a 20 inch smallmouth once and the picture itself weighed over five pounds :)" LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
|
|
missmolly
|
quote Alan Gage: "quote yogi59weedr: "Always thought a 20 in small was around 5lbs."
Every chart I've ever seen says a 20" Largemouth is around 5lbs and that's always been very close when I've had a chance to weigh them. Smallies would obviously be less.
Alan"
Alan, how do you weigh them? I'm not asking for the brand of scale, but the mechanics of the weighing. For example, do you punch a hole in their mouths or do you attach the scale's hook to a hook of the lure in a still hooked fish?
Even then, I don't know how one would safely weigh a pike. When I fished for muskies, it was a big no-no to pose with a vertical musky because it squished their organs. Hanging a big pike off a scale would seem to be punishing to the fish. I have the same issue with pics. I will have a quick pic snapped, but In-Fisherman said that you should hold your breath when you remove a fish from the water and when it gets uncomfy for you, that's when you should release your catch. Given that some pike clamp on my lures, it can take significant time to just unhook them. Then if you add time to measure them, weigh them, and photograph them, it seems to me you're rolling the dice on their lives. This is one of the reasons I don't have pics of my big pike, but I'm going to try to procure a few measurements this summer if I catch some big ones. I'm taking a monster net, which will allow me to unhook them while they're still in the water. I'll clear a space for the fish before bringing it into the boat and have a measuring tape bonded to the canoe right at my feet.
However, even if the situation is perfect, measuring or photographing while keeping big fish safe can still be problematic. The biggest musky I ever measured was 46", which I caught in a big boat equipped with a big net. However, I caught a bigger casting from a shoreline. It was so big I walked it over to slightly ramped rocks, but even then it was too big to pull onto the rocks. So, I got its head out of the water, unhooked it, and set it free. I considered running for a camera, but knew it would flop back into the water before I returned. That was one of those times I wish I hadn't been alone. Luckily, my brain has a fine, fine camera!
|
|
Pinetree
|
quote Basspro69: "quote missmolly: "quote walleye_hunter: "quote Basspro69: " "
That must be from Europe somewhere. European pike are a different animal."
I thought the same thing. Those Euro-pike have bellies! " Any pike that lives in an environment with trout and actively feeds on them will look like this. The high fat content of trout really puts the weight on Pike."
I have seen many fat little-big butterball looking northern pike from like thatfrom mine pits that trout have been stocked. They also can have a good meal of trout and go sit in the cooler water at desired depths.
A few years back about two days after they stocked 1000's of trout I seen in one northern pike stomach had 16 rainbow trout, each trout was about 8 inches long. That pike stomach was just bulging. it is common just after stocking the pike will go on a feeding frenzy and average like 10 rainbows in their stomach.
Yes as Bass pro mentions they grow very fast and fat. They are the fatest pike I have ever seen. Some reach 20 pounds plus. It does not take many pike to be present to wipe out most of the trout,
This is also one case because of the cost of trout and trying to manage some of the pits as trout lakes the DNR recommends keeping northern pike that are caught. One of the rare cases, usually it is a good policy to release the bigger pike.
Some of these pits most of the trout are consumed by pike in one month or caught by anglers. It is whom gets to them first. Not much for trout left in those pits.
Thankfully some pits lack pike(not many).
|
|
mgraber
|
quote yogi59weedr: "Always thought a 20 in small was around 5lbs."
I've weighed quite a few 20"smallmouth but none were 5 pounds.
|
|
missmolly
|
What was their range, mgraber?
|
|
Pinetree
|
I think a few places you might see a 20 inch 5 pound smallmouth would be like Mille lacs or maybe the Mississippi river. They are like butterballs.
Otherwise I also seen a lot of 20 inch smallmouth that are not 5 pounds. It is all about forage food.
|
|
QueticoMike
|
Catch a 20 incher full of eggs and they will weigh around 5 pounds.
|
|
sunnybear09
|
My biggest Rainbow kept (a Skamania Steelie out of Lk. Ontario), measured on a good digital scale, was 32" and went 12.5 pounds--just about as charted. It's the only fish I have ever mounted. (Before anyone banishes me to swimming in the copper pits in Butte, the survival rate in that stream is probably zero due to the angler density, snagging, and the fact the river has no actual spawning water--dam at 1/2 mile). Nice fish on a Mickey Finn streamer. I've caught bigger fish on Michigan rivers but always released them--they had a chance!
|
|
Savage Voyageur
|
It would also depend on when you caught the 40 inch Pike or Musky. If caught in spring it would be thin, if caught in later fall it's a fat pig. You also need to calculate the girth.
|
|
Grouseguy1
|
quote SoMpls: "The Walleye chart looks accurate but the Pike can't be right. I'd eat my hat if a 40" Northern is only 13 lbs. "
Tht's my experience. We weighed a 40" before releasing because I estimated 15lbs and a guy told me I was nuts, and that it was over 20lbs. It weighed in a 13lbs.
|
|
mastertangler
|
Most anglers don't mean to play fast and loose with fish weights but quite a few do. Mostly because they have heard others say XY or Z and apply what they have heard accordingly. I used to be guilty as a kid of underestimating private strip mine bass and those fat 20" bass were 4lbs.( Oh, and I was also guilty of slipping in without permission but that's another story)
Then I overestimated to make up for it.
Now I have a certified scale and have since learned that fish are often not quite as heavy as you might think. Exceptions are Tuna and Grouper which are very dense heavy bodied fish.
|
|
shock
|
this bass came in right at the chart for a 21" #5-7 most people would call it over #6 all day ,,,
|
|
missmolly
|
Thank you, Mr. Graber.
|
|
Basspro69
|
quote mgraber: "quote missmolly: "What was their range, mgraber? "
I think most were 3.75-4.75. As Mike stated, if they are full of eggs they can be close to 5#, and I have no doubt that it is possible for a 20" to go 5#, just haven't seen one. Largemouths will weigh quite a bit more per length. I think a 20" smalley probably averages 4-4.5. I always test my scales with certified weights and find that they often have some error somewhere in the range even if they are accurate at a given point. Some of the worst scales I have tested have been digital and everyone seems to trust them the most. The most accurate by far are Chatillon . If you have an adjustable zero, set the scale to be dead on in the CENTER of its range. This minimizes the error if there is one, as the error in spring rate grows the farther you get from dead on. Sorry, I'm a little anal about scales:). I always weigh in a net or weigh sack."  Heres a 20 incher that went well over 5 lbs on a digital scale
|
|
QueticoMike
|
BassPro - your size makes your fish look smaller :)
|
|
Basspro69
|
quote QueticoMike: "BassPro - your size makes your fish look smaller :)" Your right I should let my son hold it, the fish would look huge. When I take a picture next to my big melon it always makes the fish look smaller :-) 
|
|
arctic
|
quote missmolly: "Man, have I ever overestimated the weights of the fish I've caught! I figured pike above 40" were in the twenty-pound range. Ha! As if! And I figured I'd caught five-pound bass. Nah.
Read it and weep. "
Those are New York fish. Skinny, genetically inferior, and living in a degraded environment...
|
|
GeoFisher
|
quote mgraber: "quote yogi59weedr: "Always thought a 20 in small was around 5lbs."
I've weighed quite a few 20"smallmouth but none were 5 pounds.
Yep.
I've not caught a 5lb smallie in the BWCA or Quetico. I've caught hundreds and hundreds that were close.....4.7 , 4.9, but nothing 5.0 or greater.
Not saying they don't exist, because I've seen them caught, but they are rare.
There have been less than 20 total in my group of 8-12 folks that regularly go. Out of that group we average over 50-60 fish a day, so if you figure 50 day * 6 guys, that is 300 / day, and then 300 day * 8 days...........that is 2400 /trip.
Now, 25 trips. Wow that is 60 thousand smallies, and less than 100 total caught over 5lbs.
"
|
|
shock
|
^^^^ +1
|
|
GeoFisher
|
quote Basspro69: "quote mgraber: "quote missmolly: "What was their range, mgraber? "
I think most were 3.75-4.75. As Mike stated, if they are full of eggs they can be close to 5#, and I have no doubt that it is possible for a 20" to go 5#, just haven't seen one. Largemouths will weigh quite a bit more per length. I think a 20" smalley probably averages 4-4.5. I always test my scales with certified weights and find that they often have some error somewhere in the range even if they are accurate at a given point. Some of the worst scales I have tested have been digital and everyone seems to trust them the most. The most accurate by far are Chatillon . If you have an adjustable zero, set the scale to be dead on in the CENTER of its range. This minimizes the error if there is one, as the error in spring rate grows the farther you get from dead on. Sorry, I'm a little anal about scales:). I always weigh in a net or weigh sack." Heres a 20 incher that went well over 5 lbs on a digital scale"
That is a FAT smallie.
|
|
mgraber
|
I don't know why everything is showing up in quotes on my last post? Anyway, I had a chance to look over some notes on big fish we've caught and the graphs are not far off in my experience. Fish can certainly weigh more, especially if full of spawn, but its darn close. Many graphs are ridiculously optimistic. As are many scales, especially if they are "tired".
|
|
mgraber
|
quote GeoFisher: "quote mgraber: "quote yogi59weedr: "Always thought a 20 in small was around 5lbs."
I've weighed quite a few 20"smallmouth but none were 5 pounds.
Yep.
I've not caught a 5lb smallie in the BWCA or Quetico. I've caught hundreds and hundreds that were close.....4.7 , 4.9, but nothing 5.0 or greater.
Not saying they don't exist, because I've seen them caught, but they are rare.
There have been less than 20 total in my group of 8-12 folks that regularly go. Out of that group we average over 50-60 fish a day, so if you figure 50 day * 6 guys, that is 300 / day, and then 300 day * 8 days...........that is 2400 /trip.
Now, 25 trips. Wow that is 60 thousand smallies, and less than 100 total caught over 5lbs.
Honest 5's are definitely rarer than people think. The key is more where you fish rather than just numbers. I have only caught 2 that made 5 in the BW (around 21") out of around 600 fish. But have caught 4 or 5 in Quetico out of only 250-300 fish (largest 21.75 and 5#6oz. All but one from a single lake and we've fished over a dozen . But sadly, Quetico no longer has catchable numbers of smallmouth :) Seriously, If you want big fish, fish big water. There are monsters in some small waters but they are much more common in the bigger lakes. Same with all species.
" "
|
|
shock
|
i've owned 3 different digital scales through the years, and have checked them against certified scales and all were within 1oz.
|
|
mgraber
|
quote shock: "i've owned 3 different digital scales through the years, and have checked them against certified scales and all were within 1oz."
Digital scales can be very accurate, it's just that many aren't or they don't remain accurate when heavily used. I personally like digital. Spring scales can be very inaccurate also. It just seems that many people think digital is always accurate. If accuracy is important to you, you should test them occasionally at several points in their range. I have several older digital name brand scales that have inaccuracies of from several ounces on the bottom end up to 3.5 pounds of error at 50 pounds. A friend had a "favorite" spring scale that we checked that weighed a pound heavy at 5 and 11 pounds heavy at 50. I could see why he liked them so much:)
|