# Inches verses Pounds



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

I see posts here that tell of fish weighing 5#, 8# and larger.
When I fish the Green River, I will catch some of my largest Trout of the year. [18" to 22"]
I have no idea what they weigh because I don't take a scale with me and I don't know of many fishing scales that are accurate enough to use.
Why don't more people list the size of their fish instead of the weight.
I can relate to the size of a fish and believe it to be accurate much more than guessing the weight.
So how about everyone else.
Would you rather see posts giving weight or length?


----------



## LOAH (Sep 29, 2007)

Always length...at least an honest guess, but always give an idea.

I don't care about the weight all that much, but if it's available, why not? It's another dimension to add to a fish's description. 

If someone says 24 inches, I'd like to see a photo. Not because I don't believe you, I just like looking at 24 inch fish.

If someone tells me they caught 10 bows over 2lbs, that gives me some idea, but I'd rather they said they caught 10 rainbows over 17 inches.

Either way though, giving as much description about the catch as possible is always welcome.


----------



## americanforkdude (Sep 13, 2007)

The problem you get with weight is people over exagerate 99 percent of the time. I use a scale a LOT and we've been catching a lot of 22-24" cutts out of the Berry this summer and some of them have some really nice girth to them, one of them had a 24" girth on it which is great for a Strawberry cut. My point.. Those 24" fish aren't even going a full 5 lbs... You get people on here ALL the time saying 18" 5 lb. trout. I've caught some fat old rainbows that have huge shoulders on them in my day that have been 18-20 inches and I can re-assure you they aren't quite 5 lbs. Might be 3 maybe 4... but that 5 lb. barrier is hard to break... I agree, length is a lot better description.


----------



## Greenguy88 (Sep 7, 2007)

I like having the inches too it gives me a better idea of the size of the fish. I have a hard time assessing the weight of fish I catch, and judging how big the fish really is if someone says it was 5 lbs.


----------



## chuckmiester (Sep 9, 2007)

i prefer length too. people (including me) exaggerate way to much when they give weight measurements. thats why i stick with lengths even if it is a 25" fish.


----------



## Nibble Nuts (Sep 12, 2007)

Both is the best, but people seem to be horrible with the weights they give. At least when they state the inches, you can guess an approximate weight if you are fimiliar with what weighs about x lbs at y inches. Giving inches also helps one assess whether or not the person is full of it when they say what it weighed. I always laugh to myself when someone describes the 5 lber they just caught when it is less than 20 inches on any species. Usually only the bass will be getting close to 5 lbs at 20 inches and that is pushing it.


----------



## JAT83 (Sep 9, 2007)

I'd say length as well, but it's cool to see a fat fish! I have caught fish that were long but were skinny as a rail :lol:


----------



## SlapShot (Sep 25, 2007)

I saw a quote somewhere that read "fish are measured in pounds not inches." As a bass fisherman I don't care how long they are so I usually give weight descriptions. Some bass may only be 15 or 16 inches but will have a sweet bulging belly.

I know many of you are sceptical of scales. I was too, so I calibrated my scale. It was very rudimentry but it keeps me honest. I went to a sporting good store with scale and clipboard in hand and weighed dumb bells ranging from 1 to 25 pounds. My scale, on average, is two-tenths (.2) off between 1 and 10 pounds. It seems the more the weith the more accurate it was. So, if I weigh a fish and it reads 4.7 pounds I simply subtract .2 and I know I am really close to four and a half pounds. I have not compared the fish I weigh to a certified scale but I figure I am close. Two-tenths is a little over three ounces.

HockeyMan


----------



## orvis1 (Sep 7, 2007)

LOAH said:


> Always length...at least an honest guess, but always give an idea.
> 
> I don't care about the weight all that much, but if it's available, why not? It's another dimension to add to a fish's description.
> 
> ...


Frankly if you are claiming bigger than 20" and it is a trout I need visual evidence. I can't believe how many supposed 20" trout are caught on the green river every day that are really 17"-19" fish. I guess as men we ad 2" length naturually when estimating. That fish I caught last weekend we guessed at 20' could have been 21 or 19 we didn't have a tape so will never know but he was a pig and 4lbs may have been an under estimate. I like as much description as possible so if you have both quote them. It is always better to under estimate when you post so that people don't call B.S. on you numbers.... Thats my 3 cents...


----------



## threshershark (Sep 7, 2007)

The relationship between length and weight varies by lots of factors (habitat, food sources, species, sex, etc.) Interestingly enough, most fish species have some similarities that can be used as averages however. A recent study from the Michigan DWR had the following averages for trout:

Inches Weight (lbs)
10.5........0.338
11.5........0.46
12.5........0.61
13.5........0.79
14.5........1
15.5........1.26
16.5........1.55
17.5........1.89
18.5........2.28
19.5........2.73
20.5........3.23
21.5........3.79
22.5........4.42
23.5........5.12
24.5........5.89
25.5........6.75
26.5........7.68
27.5........8.7
28.5........9.82
29.5........11.03
30.5........12.34
31.5........13.6
32.5........14.9
33.5........16.3
34.5........17.8


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

We should keep this weight/ length comparison at the top of the page.
I would agree with the accuarcy of it.
There will always be that special fish that will weigh more than the average, but your comparison looks to be very accurate to me.
Thanks for sharing it with us.


----------



## scott_rn (Sep 11, 2007)

I used to think it was all about length. Now, having lived in Oregon where I caught salmon and steelhead that went the same length but the salmon were usually double the weight of the steelhead, I do not think you do a big fish justice without a weight reference.

The chart threshershark posted is interesting - good average numbers for trout. I like to measure length and girth, then plug the numbers into a calculator like http://www.lake-link.com/anglers/fishcalc.cfm to get an estimated weight (maybe I should just buy an accurate scale).


----------



## americanforkdude (Sep 13, 2007)

I agree. That is as accurate as it will come. I'de say the cutts at strawberry are just a little under average for the length though but not far from it. The 23" cuts have been coming in at 4.9 lbs. so pretty comparable. Thanks for the list.


----------

