Thread started: Apr 15 2009, 11:53 AM EDT
Watch
IN 1957 A SALMON WAS TAKEN AT HEREFORD OF 40LBS +80ZS THE LENGTH WAS 47 INS AND THE GIRTH WAS
26 INS ALL DETAILS VERIFIED BY THE WEIGHTS AND MEASURES DEPARTMENT. THE CRAWFORD LITTLE SCALE USED ON MANY BEATS INDICATES IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN 44LBS+ 8OZS. A GENEROUS SCALE PERHAPS ?.ON THE LOWER WYE A HUT CHART INDICATES A 36INS SALMON IS ONLY 16LBS A MISERLY SCALE PERHAPS ? THE C. L. SCALE INDICATES 20LBS. DOES ANY ONE OUT THERE HAVE ANY RELIABLE RECORDS ? I HAVE SEEN SOME SUPERB CASTS BY G.FRANKS PERHAPS HE CAN SHARE SOME OF HIS MEASUREMENTS. ARE WYE SPRINGERS ANY DIFFERENT TO OTHER SALMON.? WE ALL FEEL WYE SPRINGERS ARE THE BEST,SHOULD WE THINK ABOUT HAVING A WYE SCALE OF OUR OWN. LOOK FORWARD TO ANY HELP
out of
found this valuable.
Do you find this valuable?
Show Last Reply
|
|
Last Reply:
RE: SALMON WEIGHT BY LENGTH
By: ,
Apr 18 2009, 6:18 AM EDT
Have to agree that the various weight/length scales are suspect and so much relates to the fishes condition. Salmon from different rivers show different characteristics regarding body shape. I have always found that Wye and Severn fish are generally longer in length than say Scottish fish . In the past when a particularly chunky Wye fish was caught it was often said 'that's a Rhine fish", harking back to the stocking of these in the past.
So although weight/length scales can be a guide its only just that. Obviously a fish caught in peak condition in the spring will be the same length in October but lose perhaps a third of its body weight though that's an extreme example of course.
We as humnans vary hugely and so do fish though not to the same degree
out of
found this valuable.
Do you find this valuable?
|
