When did we switch ?

[juju]

Interesting to note how everyone seems to refer to fish by length now........itwas always "i caught a nice 2 lb bream......." "or a 1kg bream ".........now its 30cm....wonder why it changed?......ill have $5 on those brag mats being behind it...;)

[ffejsmada]

Greg,
Yeah funny how things change. Years ago you never heard of a length!!
I reckon it might have more to do with the catch and release mentality. It's easier to measure the fish than to weigh it alive, probably less stressful for it as well especially if you use those hook in the mouth scales.
Lets face it, most fish that are weighed are more than likely dead.

The only time I weigh mine is at home. I measure on the mat in the boat alive.

Cheers, Jeff.

[imnotoriginal]

I think Jeff pretty much summed it up, it's a lot easier to release a fish that's been measured for length than weight, particularly bigger fish. I've never been one to weigh my fish even when I was keeping more of them.
Joel

[ashh]

not that hard to weigh a fish, leave it in the net and weigh it in the net then subtract the weight of the net which should give you the net weight of the fish in the net less the weight of the net.... :D


coz its so complimicated...I only weigh the biggest of my bream

[finga]

not that hard to weigh a fish, leave it in the net and weigh it in the net then subtract the weight of the net which should give you the net weight of the fish in the net less the weight of the net.... :D


coz its so complimicated...I only weigh the biggest of my bream
Exactly why I measure. ;D
Food for thought really eh??
Besides that the only size I'm really concerned with is the legal measurements and they're all in cm.
Cheers then :)

[Chris Ryan]

this fishin thing is compli...comple....cumplem....hard!

We have lb for line weight, kg's for rods, cm for fish catch legality and more......no wonder I just sit and enjoy it, catch em and chuck em back.

Puff :D

[saurian]

Juju , used to measure barra in pounds , 50 pounder was elusive but got a 46.
Then it went to kilos , 10/12 kilos was average then when maximum size limits where introduced it all seemed to change , I think this was about mid nineties when fishing became a dinkum sport as such.
Funny thing is I have caught numerous 120- 130 cm barra and non of them was heavier than 15 kg( ocean/tidal fish) , and the old mommas about 110/115 cm where the fat heavy grandmas.
I think you have to weigh fish and measure them nowadays to get a feel of their trophy potential.
Anything ander 110 cm and 18 kg is average in trophy standards in my book.
Also dam fish just are not like real barra fishing, man made crap in my books.
Go wild and enjoy a real trophy.
Ta

[B_E_N]

could also be due to visual, its alot easy to get an idea of how big the fish is if measure it, saying i caught a half pound bream really leaves it open, but saying to someone i got a 30cm bream is easier for them to visualise, makes it better for braggin rights.

saurian, if you had to geuss, seeing as it seems you know your barra weight, what would you give mine in my pic, 116cm long, 92cm around at its widest point, never got a weight on it or an estimate, was dam heavy tho, (by the way my first barra at that)

[dnej]

I recon it is because of the regulations,relating to length.You have to measure them, to make sure you dont get pinged,so that gets stuck in your head immediately.
David

[Dirtysanchez]

Agree with Dnej. It's only the last 15-20 years that they brought in minimum sizes etc. that it became an issue that I thought of, not saying before that we kept undersize fish, more to the point you looked them over, called them for a 2+lb bream and into the esky it went.
But then again, that was when you had a river almost to yourself, and it was a lot less common to catch babies, but now it's all you catch in some places :(

[Jeremy]

hasn't changed for me, I still go by weight. Don't keep anything close to minimum size, so no need to measure. As said, pretty easy to weigh in net and release.

Jeremy

[juju]

I reckon a good fish is a good fish....dont matter the weight, length,colour,number of scales....if you have to check its too small....

[bigtez]

I think its because length can be read differently and makes it easier to stretch the truth a little. You can gain a few cm on some fish however when you put them on the scales the digital display is hard to argue with.:P ;D

[saurian]

Ben , looks really dark , so dam fish.
116/92 cm I'd say 20/25 kilo. Or just under 50pound.
But as I said length to weight isn't accurate.
I used to get 110cm wild fish that went about 10/15kg.
As you noted ben girth, thickness of the shoulders can hold quite a few kilo's.
So if that fish went late 20's wouldn't surprise me at all , especially as it's from a dam.
Ta

[the gecko]

I reckon its from tv shows like AFC bream comp. They only talk length.

[Juzo]

IT's not the length that matters......it's how you use (catch) it that counts..;):-/;D

or something like that:)