Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
johnplumb

Weighing Fish

Recommended Posts

Just thought i would share this with you . I had gone for a walk around the lake we were fishing to see if i could spot any fish, it was early morning and quiet so hearing an alarm go off i wandered round to see the fish.

Now i know i have seen pictures of fish on here that do not appear to be as big as claimed and this is possibly why, as i got to the swim they were weighing the sling on digital scales on a tripod it weighed 3lb1oz zero was pressed and the sling removed the scales went to read - 3lb1oz at this point zero was pressed again and the scales went back to reading zero .

the fish was added to the sling and weighed ,29lb 13oz was the reading .

Now me being me i questioned this and was told no that's how it's done after a bit the guy who had caught the fish, slightly annoyed said i'll prove it and weighed the fish on his zeroed dial scales sling and fish goes round to 30lb they look at each other and admit that every fish weighed since owning the scales had been declared 3lb over

These guys were not idiots they were clearly experienced anglers ,they just didn't understand how their scales worked .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That must of being a gutting feeling for them to realise their mistakes. But bet they are glad you pointed them in the right direction.

 

On the bright side I bet you was glad to see a good sized fish come from your lake.

 

Ross :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just thought i would share this with you . I had gone for a walk around the lake we were fishing to see if i could spot any fish, it was early morning and quiet so hearing an alarm go off i wandered round to see the fish.

Now i know i have seen pictures of fish on here that do not appear to be as big as claimed and this is possibly why, as i got to the swim they were weighing the sling on digital scales on a tripod it weighed 3lb1oz zero was pressed and the sling removed the scales went to read - 3lb1oz at this point zero was pressed again and the scales went back to reading zero .

the fish was added to the sling and weighed ,29lb 13oz was the reading .

Now me being me i questioned this and was told no that's how it's done after a bit the guy who had caught the fish, slightly annoyed said i'll prove it and weighed the fish on his zeroed dial scales sling and fish goes round to 30lb they look at each other and admit that every fish weighed since owning the scales had been declared 3lb over

These guys were not idiots they were clearly experienced anglers ,they just didn't understand how their scales worked .

 

Very good point, well made.

 

I don't like "second" revolution dial scales, as they also make for misweighing, either up or down. I've seen somebody read their Avons or Weighmasters, and add on or deduct a whole 10lbs on a fish, simply by not reading the scale properly, and in the case of Avons, not checking the colour revolution.

 

Mind you I have also seen people misread scales naturally, thinking a weight in mind in the excitement of the situation.

 

A couple of weeks a go, a chap in the next swim had a run in the middle of the night. His headlight was quivering dangerously with the excitement, thinking he had just beaten his largest fish due to how it felt to him in the net. He thought he read 28lb, but the light on the dial scales was giving a misreading, it was only when we had 2 headlights on the scales that he was able to get to 24lb, still a lovely fish, but if we hadn't checked he would have made 28lbs.

 

Only a small gain, and not in the slightest bit intentionally, but is easily done. That does NOT in any way (sic) justify rigging weights, as even a few well known anglers have been known to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just thought i would share this with you . I had gone for a walk around the lake we were fishing to see if i could spot any fish, it was early morning and quiet so hearing an alarm go off i wandered round to see the fish.

Now i know i have seen pictures of fish on here that do not appear to be as big as claimed and this is possibly why, as i got to the swim they were weighing the sling on digital scales on a tripod it weighed 3lb1oz zero was pressed and the sling removed the scales went to read - 3lb1oz at this point zero was pressed again and the scales went back to reading zero .

the fish was added to the sling and weighed ,29lb 13oz was the reading .

Now me being me i questioned this and was told no that's how it's done after a bit the guy who had caught the fish, slightly annoyed said i'll prove it and weighed the fish on his zeroed dial scales sling and fish goes round to 30lb they look at each other and admit that every fish weighed since owning the scales had been declared 3lb over

These guys were not idiots they were clearly experienced anglers ,they just didn't understand how their scales worked .

 

 

If he's done all his zeroing then took the sling off and zeroed them back to normal and got 29lb 13oz, then got 30lb on the other scale's with the sling zeroed? Or weren't the other scale's zeroed so still had to take the 3lb 1oz off the 30lb?

Think i'm reading it wrong :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

having new digital scales i have had a nightmare with them, all i do now is weigh the fish with the sling and knowing the sling is 2lb 8 soaking wet i then deduct that off. for some reason i just dont trust the digitals when weighing and zeroing :?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
having new digital scales i have had a nightmare with them, all i do now is weigh the fish with the sling and knowing the sling is 2lb 8 soaking wet i then deduct that off. for some reason i just dont trust the digitals when weighing and zeroing :?

 

:lol: not just me then my sling soaking wet is 2lb 1oz so i just deduct that for the total weight :roll:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I much prefer digital scales and if used correctly there is no way you can kid yourself like you can with a dial scale bouncing around or reading it from a slight angle. I have had both of my digi's checked a few times and they are always absolutely spot on.

It's so simple; leave the fish in the net, wet the sling, zero the scales to the sling, lift the fish into the sling and hang it on the scales. How can you get it wrong? And if it reads 39lb 15oz it ain't a forty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Personally I much prefer digital scales and if used correctly there is no way you can kid yourself like you can with a dial scale bouncing around or reading it from a slight angle. I have had both of my digi's checked a few times and they are always absolutely spot on.

It's so simple; leave the fish in the net, wet the sling, zero the scales to the sling, lift the fish into the sling and hang it on the scales. How can you get it wrong? And if it reads 39lb 15oz it ain't a forty.

:lol: to a lot it is though :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Personally I much prefer digital scales and if used correctly there is no way you can kid yourself like you can with a dial scale bouncing around or reading it from a slight angle. I have had both of my digi's checked a few times and they are always absolutely spot on.

It's so simple; leave the fish in the net, wet the sling, zero the scales to the sling, lift the fish into the sling and hang it on the scales. How can you get it wrong? And if it reads 39lb 15oz it ain't a forty.

 

I very rarely bother with ounces, if the scale bounces from say 22lb to 22.8, then its 22, and with a PB 33lb fish I weighed just before Christmas I was happy to say 33 even though it registered a few ounces over. That way I'm (hopefully) not kidding anyone, even if I do get some strange comments about every fish weighing exactly on the pound. Mind you with such a big fish as 39.15, I probably would be happy to remember the ounces involved :wink:8)

 

Gaz,

I know of a certain WKA (well known angler is my abbreviation :wink: ) who has managed to add a pound or so onto a fish he weighed :?:roll:

 

By the way, why do we have abbreviations of pounds as lbs, and ounces as oz, yet metric is pretty simple with kilogrammes being kg or kilo's,

I can understand (ish) the ounces being abbreviated to oz, but where did lbs come from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, why do we have abbreviations of pounds as lbs, and ounces as oz, yet metric is pretty simple with kilogrammes being kg or kilo's,

I can understand (ish) the ounces being abbreviated to oz, but where did lbs come from?

 

I suspect it may have something to do with pounds being libros or the equivalent in Spanish/French.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

iv under read loads of fish with my scales, they are marked only with even numbers and i have this habit of not looking past the needle so 21lb 8oz i read as 20lb 12oz :lol:

 

i know im not the only one,as i seen a few lads do the same, theyve all seemed happy when i pointed it out to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Personally I much prefer digital scales and if used correctly there is no way you can kid yourself like you can with a dial scale bouncing around or reading it from a slight angle. I have had both of my digi's checked a few times and they are always absolutely spot on.

It's so simple; leave the fish in the net, wet the sling, zero the scales to the sling, lift the fish into the sling and hang it on the scales. How can you get it wrong? And if it reads 39lb 15oz it ain't a forty.

:lol: to a lot it is though :lol:

 

Ur only cheating yourself. No one else gives two shinys.....never did understand why people add onto weights. Hear it now and again tho. Have seen some horrendous weighing procedures on some dreadful scales. Wouldn't use anything other than my fox digitals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strange this came up again with John's original point.

 

I tested against each other 2 sets of dial scales and a set of digital scales with known items.

 

 

For a 1kilo bag of sugar the digital scales actually weighed slightly over 1kilo, but the dial scales were spot on.

 

I then used set weights as per 10kilo, 20 kilo as 'pinched' from weights and measures (an employer had to have specific scales tested so the weights were borrowed).

 

In all occasions for some reason the digital scales would not get a specific reading as per the set weight. I think that although the scales reduce the bounce, they stop and read as the weight; yet the dial scales although they can bounce (and even more so with a wriggly fish), seem to be more accurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, why do we have abbreviations of pounds as lbs, and ounces as oz, yet metric is pretty simple with kilogrammes being kg or kilo's,

I can understand (ish) the ounces being abbreviated to oz, but where did lbs come from?

 

I suspect it may have something to do with pounds being libros or the equivalent in Spanish/French.

 

It's an abbreviation of the Latin word libro from "Libro Pondo" which means "pound weight"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, why do we have abbreviations of pounds as lbs, and ounces as oz, yet metric is pretty simple with kilogrammes being kg or kilo's,

I can understand (ish) the ounces being abbreviated to oz, but where did lbs come from?

 

I suspect it may have something to do with pounds being libros or the equivalent in Spanish/French.

 

It's an abbreviation of the Latin word libro from "Libro Pondo" which means "pound weight"

 

lbs isn’t an abbreviation of “pounds”. It’s shorthand for “pounds weight” but isn’t an abbreviation of the word pounds.

The form lb is actually an abbreviation of the Latin word libra, which could mean a pound, itself a shortened form of the full expression, libra pondo, “pound weight”. The second word of this phrase, by the way, is the origin of the English pound.

 

You will also know Libra as the astrological sign, the seventh sign of the zodiac. In classical times that name was given to rather an uninspiring constellation, with no particularly bright stars in it. It was thought to represent scales or a balance, the main sense of libra in Latin, which is why it is often accompanied by the image of a pair of scales.

Libra for a pound is first found in English in the late fourteenth century, almost at the same time as lb started to be used. Strictly speaking again, this was the Roman pound of 12 ounces, not the more modern one of 16. Modern metrologists, scientists who study units of measurements, would prefer that we don’t use lbs at all; in scientific work, all units are singular.

Incidentally, another abbreviation for libra became the standard symbol for the British pound in the monetary sense. In modern times it is usually written £, an ornate form of L in which a pair of cross-strokes (often just one these days) were the way that a medieval scribe marked an abbreviation. The link between the two senses of pound, weight and money, is that in England a thousand years ago a pound in money was equivalent to the value of a pound of silver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol...some good stuff on this thread!!

 

Only just bought my first set of Digi scales after nearly 30 years of dial scales ....and have to say although they are good and appear to work correctly..its hard to trust them completely!! I still weigh the bigger fish on my dial scales (just to be safe!!) as I am always worried about an incorrect reading!! lol

 

As for anglers not weighing fish correctly....that's been going on as long as I can remember!! lol...on a doubles water I fished as a boy the biggest fish in this lake were all 19lb something except the biggest in the lake which was a 21lb scraper twenty. We all caught them over time...19lb 4oz, 19lb 6oz etc etc lol except one bloke on the syndicate who always caught them at 20lb 4oz and 20lb 6oz and of course the big one was 23 +...lol ...needless to say we named him Cow muck Pete (or similar) ;-0.. or whatever his name was!! I realised years later that although it was mightly annoying at the time, he was only kidding himself...and at the end of the day...who really cares anyway!! :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lol...some good stuff on this thread!!

 

Only just bought my first set of Digi scales after nearly 30 years of dial scales ....and have to say although they are good and appear to work correctly..its hard to trust them completely!! I still weigh the bigger fish on my dial scales (just to be safe!!) as I am always worried about an incorrect reading!! lol

 

As for anglers not weighing fish correctly....that's been going on as long as I can remember!! lol...on a doubles water I fished as a boy the biggest fish in this lake were all 19lb something except the biggest in the lake which was a 21lb scraper twenty. We all caught them over time...19lb 4oz, 19lb 6oz etc etc lol except one bloke on the syndicate who always caught them at 20lb 4oz and 20lb 6oz and of course the big one was 23 +...lol ...needless to say we named him Cow muck Pete (or similar) ;-0.. or whatever his name was!! I realised years later that although it was mightly annoying at the time, he was only kidding himself...and at the end of the day...who really cares anyway!! :wink:

 

Whats the difference between a fish that weighs 19lbs 12oz and one that weighs 20lb 4oz?

 

maybe a bed of boilies!

 

Everyone aims for that 20lb fish as a marker, yet fish will likely go over and under that weight as they eat or not...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

?? I think you misunderstood my point.... Which was there was only one 20 in the lake ..... All the 'bigger' fish were just over 19 lb for everyone except when the guy in question caught them they were always 20plus .... Hence my point that some people weigh their fish incorrectly, some because of incompetence some because they are economical with the truth!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too have both dial and digital scales and trust the dials far more than the others, simply because I dont change the batteries on the digitals every trip out. Do you?

 

BOF :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...