• You need to be a registered member of Barbel Fishing World to post on these forums. Some of the forums are hidden from non-members. Please refer to the instructions on the ‘Register’ page for details of how to join the new incarnation of BFW...

How to weigh fish properly.

J

Jeff Collins

No Longer a Member
Just my tuppence worth on weighing specimen fish that are going to threaten your pb or if you are lucky a river or even species record.
There have been a lot of pictures on here and in the various publications that are extremely sceptical.

Here's how I weigh my fish.

1. Get it in the net....rest the fish.
2. Prep your weigh sling by wetting it and THEN zero your scales.
3. Transfer your fish to the sling and let your scales come to a rest. If you have digi scales and it's flicking from one ounce to another then you take the lower of these.
4. Once the weight is verified place the fish back to the water.
5. If you need to take a picture then prepare your camera etc so you keep the fish out for the shortest time.
6. When taking the pictures DO NOT EXTEND YOUR ARMS the nasal test is a very good gauge of fish size.

After all pictures are taken. Rest the fish with it's head upstream until it kicks away, then release.

So how do you weigh yours?
 
I know my point of view may well be contentious but I've always weighed my fish before they have "recovered".

As far as I'm concerned letting a fish recover to the point that you have to physically restrain it in your arms is far more potentially damaging to a fish than taking a picture when the fish has had a chance to "get its breath back" but is still reacting to the lactic acid build up in its muscles.

I have seen so many barbel which have needed to be "recovered" twice as a result of modern handling thoughts and that can't be seen as a good thing surely?
 
Nigel Gray said:
I know my point of view may well be contentious but I've always weighed my fish before they have "recovered".

As far as I'm concerned letting a fish recover to the point that you have to physically restrain it in your arms is far more potentially damaging to a fish than taking a picture when the fish has had a chance to "get its breath back" but is still reacting to the lactic acid build up in its muscles.

I have seen so many barbel which have needed to be "recovered" twice as a result of modern handling thoughts and that can't be seen as a good thing surely?
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply nigel.

Here's a thought. Sprint 100m then jump in the water please.

Can I time your response?
 
I mostly let the fish rest in the net after landing it and leave it until it's clearly recovered. During that time I prepare the sling/scales. Then bring up the fish, unhook, weigh, and back in the water releasing it either straight away or when it's ready. If I do take a photo it will be of the fish on the mat, immediately after removing the hook. It's possible to do all that in under a minute. I am anxious to avoid any faff whatsoever and return the fish as quickly as I can.

Also, I generally only weigh a fish if I think it might be a double.
 
Howard Cooke said:
I mostly let the fish rest in the net after landing it and leave it until it's clearly recovered. During that time I prepare the sling/scales. Then bring up the fish, unhook, weigh, and back in the water releasing it either straight away or when it's ready. If I do take a photo it will be of the fish on the mat, immediately after removing the hook. It's possible to do all that in under a minute. I am anxious to avoid any faff whatsoever and return the fish as quickly as I can.

Also, I generally only weigh a fish if I think it might be a double.
Click to expand...

That's what I do Howard, not gonna win any Anglers Mail cheque I know, but the priority is getting the fish back asap.
 
Jeff Collins said:
Errrr thats exactly what I just said.
Click to expand...

Flippin heck Jeff, that's a bit spiky isn't it? And as a matter of fact you didn't exactly say what Neil said. You kindly provided instructions on how a photo should be taken and in your description you clearly refer to photos where the fish is held by the captor. I'm assuming those same principles won't apply in situations where the photo is of the fish on the mat. The extension or otherwise of ones arms being a redundant point.

I'm sure the majority of people actually know how to weigh something, including a fish. The problem that we are perhaps seeing on social media in particular, is that when they come to report the weight, their fingers go all floppy and weird especially when it comes to typing numbers.
 
Howard, when push comes to shove people will know what should be done, but how many adhere to this? There numerous anglers who weigh a fish in a sling and then deduct 'so much' for the weight of the sling. The weight of a dripping wet sling and a dry sling are completely different and this can lead to errors. Obviously this doesn't amount to pounds difference but for smaller species such as perch/roach etc. it can be significant.

As for falsifying reported weights, unless there are reliable witnesses (there's room here for another thread) these people are only fooling themselves and there's very little we can do. With prizes available in the angling press for the fish of the week etc. it's always going to be open to abuse.

Here's an idea. Why don't the manufacturer's of unhooking mats print a centimetre scale on the material, the length of the mat? Not a perfect solution perhaps, but a step in the right direction nonetheless.
 
Howard Cooke said:
Flippin heck Jeff, that's a bit spiky isn't it? And as a matter of fact you didn't exactly say what Neil said. You kindly provided instructions on how a photo should be taken and in your description you clearly refer to photos where the fish is held by the captor. I'm assuming those same principles won't apply in situations where the photo is of the fish on the mat. The extension or otherwise of ones arms being a redundant point.

I'm sure the majority of people actually know how to weigh something, including a fish. The problem that we are perhaps seeing on social media in particular, is that when they come to report the weight, their fingers go all floppy and weird especially when it comes to typing numbers.
Click to expand...
Having a word with people in the know Howard. You seem to be an expert but with very little knowledge. The wye must be good to you.
 
Jeff Collins said:
Having a word with people in the know Howard. You seem to be an expert but with very little knowledge. The wye must be good to you.
Click to expand...

I'm most definitely not an expert in unlocking coded messages. I've now realised.

But at least I can deal with your final point. I fish it perhaps 2 or 3 times a season and yes it is thanks.
 
Jeez, we are all grown ups aren't we ? How about letting common sense prevail according to the situation instead of dogmatically insisting our own way is always best ? I've photographed six pounders when I've fancied it and it's been safe to do so. I've also returned 14s without a picture when I've felt that's the right course of action on the day.
 
Meant to add also that I tend to weigh my fish in the landing net, which I find quick and easy and avoids moving the fish from net to sling. I know exactly what the maximum weight of the net is soaking wet so making the weighing adjustment to deduct the weight of the wet net is easy enough. If the net happens to not be quite fully wet through on certain occasions then I might cost myself an ounce or two but I can live with that for the sake of speed and convenience.
 
I have seen fish weighed in the net with the handle and nothing deducted.
 
Ha ha - excellent Stephen!

I recall sometime back in the 80s a huge controversy surrounding the weighing of a claimed British record barbel from the Wey (I think). The record at the time was 14-6 and the fish I'm talking about was claimed at 15-something (I think). All the necessary witnesses etc. were provided, but from the photos it was identified as a known fish that had previously been captured at 12-something. The angling papers called in the experts to attempt to recapture the fish, so that the weight could be double-checked!

The experts included Martin Hooper and Ray Walton (I think). In the end the fish was not accepted as a record, and the captor was accused of incredible deviousness in the weighing procedure in front of the witnesses...all very amusing.

Can Ray remind us of the details?

Tim
 
Jeff Collins said:
Having a word with people in the know Howard. You seem to be an expert but with very little knowledge. The wye must be good to you.
Click to expand...

Hardly factual Jeff, 'H; has been pulling out some Kennet crackers of late, it's only fishing you know, perspective please.
 
I just throw mine in a dry plastic bag, toddle along to the nearest Morrison,s/Asda etc, and get them to weigh it at the fish counter. Unless its a world record, i get them to fillet it for my tea :D.

In all serious though, unless its a possible p.b. or from a new river, i won,t bother weighing it. :) If i do, the weigh sling and scales are already hanging from a tree/extended bankstick etc, bait tub of water ready to wet the sling, scales zeroed, fish placed in sling, if it is a new p.b., quick photo then fish returned to river, head upstream until it kicks away. :)
 
Having told you all about my PB caught this week, I must confess even after 40 years fishing for big fish, I still panic:eek:

But, and it's a big but! The Gardner landing net is an ideal place to rest a big fish. I simply put the fish in the slack margin, and composed myself. Then did the business.

I always have a soft mat with me at the back of the swim, this time on grass. I'd guess the whole thing took two/three minutes, and the fish was back in the water.

I managed to release the fish from hand and got a wet wellington for my trouble. Makes sense to me to rest the fish first, like I would any big fish before weighing. But as long as your getting them back safe:rolleyes:
 
Tim Lennon said:
Ha ha - excellent Stephen!

I recall sometime back in the 80s a huge controversy surrounding the weighing of a claimed British record barbel from the Wey (I think). The record at the time was 14-6 and the fish I'm talking about was claimed at 15-something (I think). All the necessary witnesses etc. were provided, but from the photos it was identified as a known fish that had previously been captured at 12-something. The angling papers called in the experts to attempt to recapture the fish, so that the weight could be double-checked!

The experts included Martin Hooper and Ray Walton (I think). In the end the fish was not accepted as a record, and the captor was accused of incredible deviousness in the weighing procedure in front of the witnesses...all very amusing.

Can Ray remind us of the details?

Tim
Click to expand...

Blimey Tim, you're going back in time,...I would have thought you would have been to young to remember all that palaver !;):D
Yes it was the Wey, and it was the lockeepers son whose name excapes me, who was the proud captor...Jason something perhaps ?
He was able to fish in front of the lockeeper's cottage, so had exclusive use of one bank of the wierpool.
My club had/has fishing rights above and below the wier and a couple of days after the fish was caught Jason walked past me and could'nt resist giving me the full sp on his new 'British record,'..to which I did'nt believe a word!
The following weekend I was cynically relating the tale in my local tackle shop and the owner produced a copy of the times or mail with a pic. and asked if this was the fish in question,...I must admit to being surprised at the size of the fish on first impressions,..but it was'nt a 15 .
The press had a field day on that little escapade,...we however had a nightmare with poachers!! Happy days.:rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top