PA record brooke trout

I came across this and thought it was a bit humurous.

A man caught a 23",8.49 lb brookie and had it notarized so he could turn it
in for a new state record. PA Fish & Boat in turn sent him a citation
because the fish was harvested from water that didn't have a late harvest
season. Nothing like telling the authorities you broke the law.

On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 23:23:44 GMT, "Benjamin Turek"
wrote:

A man caught a 23",8.49 lb brookie and had it notarized so he could turn it
in for a new state record.


A 23 inch trout that weighs 8.5 pounds would have to have a girth of
about 17.2 inches. That is one short and *fat* brookie. With
dimensions like that, I doubt it could swim.

If you do the "minus 20" rule (and lots of C&R fishermen do), a 23
inch brook trout would weigh 3 lbs, which sounds more realistic.

I caught a 28 inch brook trout in Labrador a few years ago (on a
Henryville Special, size 14, and 5x tippet) that had a measured girth
of 15 inches. The guide netted it and said it weighed 7 1/2 pounds.
If you do the math Girth squared times Length/800, you come up with
7.87 lbs, and if you do the "minus 20" rule, you come up with 8 lbs.
I'm content to say the fish weighed between 7.5 to 8 pounds.

Of course all of our mileages vary.

Dave

Dave LaCourse wrote:
On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 23:23:44 GMT, "Benjamin Turek"
wrote:

A man caught a 23",8.49 lb brookie and had it notarized so he could turn it
in for a new state record.


A 23 inch trout that weighs 8.5 pounds would have to have a girth of
about 17.2 inches. That is one short and *fat* brookie. With
dimensions like that, I doubt it could swim.

If you do the "minus 20" rule (and lots of C&R fishermen do), a 23
inch brook trout would weigh 3 lbs, which sounds more realistic.

I caught a 28 inch brook trout in Labrador a few years ago (on a
Henryville Special, size 14, and 5x tippet) that had a measured girth
of 15 inches. The guide netted it and said it weighed 7 1/2 pounds.
If you do the math Girth squared times Length/800, you come up with
7.87 lbs, and if you do the "minus 20" rule, you come up with 8 lbs.
I'm content to say the fish weighed between 7.5 to 8 pounds.

Of course all of our mileages vary.

Dave


That formula is interesting. I've played with it a bit, and found it sometimes
way off. I suspect the problem is inconsistent methods for measuring girth.
Being a pike nut, I went through the record book on all the different pike and
muskies and took the ones that had both length and girth. The right number for
pike is somewhere between 650 and 900. One of these days I'll start collecting
my own data and see what a consistent measuring technique does for the
consistency of the formula.

Chas
remove fly fish to e mail directly

On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 01:44:30 -0600, chas
wrote:

That formula is interesting. I've played with it a bit, and found it sometimes
way off. I suspect the problem is inconsistent methods for measuring girth.

From what I've read (years ago), it is supposed to be "close" for
trout and bass. I've never been obsessed with the weight of a fish,
and have come to use the "minus 20" on any big fish I take. I know
some who fish with a net that has a built-in scale to also weigh the
fish. My "wall of fame" has pictures of places I have fished, flies
tied by friends, pics of race cars, and The Frank Reid Award I won at
Penns in 2001, but no pictures or mounts of fish I have taken. d;o)




Dave

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
...

If you do the "minus 20" rule (and lots of C&R fishermen do), a 23
inch brook trout would weigh 3 lbs, which sounds more realistic.


For a 20 inch fish the minus 20 rule yeilds a weight of ... how about an 18
inch fish? I once caught a 30 inch King salmon that weighed 20 lbs on a
portable spring scale. I have read elsewhere brookies don't get much longer
once they get past 20 inches - weight is added as girth.

In hindsight the guy should have applied the minus 20 rule, released the
respectable 3lber and saved the price of the violation ticket - but everyone
wants to be a shining star.

On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 01:36:44 GMT, "Shining Path Gorilla"
wrote:

For a 20 inch fish the minus 20 rule yeilds a weight of ... how about an 18
inch fish?
Duh.... I dunno...... Ah, of course, negative numbers. The fish
would weight -2 lbs. Obviously it works ONLY with fish over 20
inches.

I once caught a 30 inch King salmon that weighed 20 lbs on a
portable spring scale.

Exceptions to the rules, of course. The "minus 20" is "good" only for
fish below 35 inches, btw, or so I'm told.


I have read elsewhere brookies don't get much longer
once they get past 20 inches - weight is added as girth.

You ain't never fished in Maine or Labrador then. Fish greater than
20 inches are taken all the time from rivers in Maine, by me and
others who post here. Labrador has turned out 12 pounders that have
measured 29 My best in Labrador was 28 inches, but the girth wasn't
as big as you would expect for a fish that size. The world record,
btw, for a brook trout is 14 lbs. The largest I've seen is about 10.

In hindsight the guy should have applied the minus 20 rule, released the
respectable 3lber and saved the price of the violation ticket - but everyone
wants to be a shining star.

Ain't it so!

Dave

Gotta ask, a "Shining Path Gorrila." Are you sure you're not a Marxist
Macaque? A Leninist Lemur?
Frank Reid

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 01:36:44 GMT, "Shining Path Gorilla"
wrote:

For a 20 inch fish the minus 20 rule yeilds a weight of ... how about an
18
inch fish?
Duh.... I dunno...... Ah, of course, negative numbers. The fish
would weight -2 lbs. Obviously it works ONLY with fish over 20
inches.


I think a 20.5 inch trout that weighed a half pound would be dead for some
time. I know of cases where trout of 16 to 18 inches weigh 2 to 3 lbs. The
point is such rules of thumb are useless.

Shinning Path (not a marxist just a big payful hairy ape)

On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 16:32:55 GMT, "Shining Path Gorilla"
wrote:

I think a 20.5 inch trout that weighed a half pound would be dead for some
time. I know of cases where trout of 16 to 18 inches weigh 2 to 3 lbs. The
point is such rules of thumb are useless.

Once again, you are going to the extreme, Shiny. I've shown where a
28 inch brook trout weighed in at *about* 8 lbs. I've taken 32 inch
silvers that weighed about 12 lbs and 34 inch silvers that were close
to 16 pounds (right, not 14). If you catch a decent size brook trout,
say 25 inches, you can count on it being *about* five pounds, or you
could measure its girth and do the math and come up with 4.8 lbs,
which just so happens to be *about* 5 lbs. Nothing is absolute, not
the "minus 20 rule", or the G*G*L/800. If you *really* must know the
weight of every fish you catch, Shiny, then carry a scale and weigh
them. Of course the mortality rate will increase with such useless
abuse of the fish, but at least you'll know.

d;o)

ps: it wastn't me that made the communist remark, btw.
I could shiv a git how you refer to yourself. d;o) But it would be
nice to know who you are. Anonymous posters are scaredy cats

Check out the Bavarian Pike thread and look at the fish. Fortynine
inches long and 28 pounds. If the fish had been measured to the v in
the tail, it woukld probably be fortyeight inches, or *about* 20
pounds. However the rule as I read it said it is not very accurate
with fish above 35 inches. But, again, exceptions to the rule.

Dave