I’ll likely raise the hackles on some board members for this ... but here goes any way.

It’s not rocket science (pun intended) for any fisherman worth his salt to look at a fish and tell if it is healthy or skinny. :rolleyes:

IMHO all this RW stuff, extreme documentation, and endless technical references is not necessary, except for those who make their living doing this stuff.

If the average pond guy enjoys it – so be it – others it seems it’s for ego and self gratification, or wasting their time on their employers nickel... :p

Boy, am I in trouble....

george, I agree with you for the most part (or to a point, depending on whether the empathy glass is half full or half empty).

I have been looking at my fish as I catch them for a few years and judging them as "thin", "medium", "fat", or some point in between. And I'm pretty sure my subjective judgement on these classes is consistent enough for the records to be useful over the years. I record lengths and this relative condition regularly (the fishing trip ain't over until it's in the spreadsheet). But I also record weight where practical (fish removed for eating and big enough to register accuately on the optimistically-sized digital scale I have). Smaller fish, run-of-the-mill BG, I record the height of the fish much of the time (which can of course vary a lot in BG depending on how well they are eating/growing).

Anyway, what weight measurements I take, and the RW values I calculate with them, will let me do 2 things: 1) compare my impressions on fish condition with an objective standard (like this Summer when I learned LMB I consider "medium" are actually a little thin), and 2) make sure my subjective opinions stay honest (or a least consistent) over the years.

P.S. That which raises out hackles should make us think.

Ha! George, you made me chuckle. The reason is my students. When I'm teaching them about relative weight, I say it's "not rocket science," and I also say it's "not some detailed assessment that is only useful mathematically. A fish with low Wr is visibly skinny and a fish with high Wr is visibly plump." However, I still make them learn all the math.

George I make my living doing it and 100% agree it ain't rocket sceinece. Dave in the South we still use the word ain't ( I guess as professor it might get you in trouble),

BUT you knew that was coming. A few point on why to run the Wr index.

Lot of our clients are not nearly as eductaed on pond mgmt as the folks here. So to them their bass are ok but really skinny, etc. From a sceintist standpoint difficult to write down that bass are simnply skinny I need to quatify how skinny or fat. We can then track this over time so if it goes from 74% to 80% still kinda skinny but know we are heading in the right direction.

Also we use this to adjust harvest rec. (more on this at the PB convention in TX) In other words you could say ok harvest less b/c bass are not as skinny but how many less, etc. As the Wr goes up, down or remains the same it is much easier to understand harvest by tracking the Wr.

I agree though if you understnad things are not into putting numbers in a spreadsheet you can simply look and tell what to do. However most people are not good at that and think it wsie to do Wr or hire someone to do them for you.

George I understand your point but think there is more to the question than that. A few ramblings.

While I do not keep extensive records on RW/RK I do keep a few. Where you have a great pond set up and see it often, like yours, you know what is taking place with your fish (at least the ones you catch)and then as much info is not needed. However where the pond is a reclamation project (LMB heavy or BG stunted) or a new pond and a few other situations (more species present) you need more info. You need it on not only the fish you catch but those you don't (seine surveys) to judge if you have a problem in the making. You need an objective standard to measure against. I know that as many LMB or BG as I have looked at, I still often find out I am wrong when I put it on the scale/tape. If I don't weigh and measure some then my data is just wrong.

Another reason I need data is memory. With several ponds with different things going on at the same time I can't recall enough details from one year to the next with any accuracy to measure progress or know if certain things have occurred in the past. I have to write some of it down with dates.

Another reason to keep good records is our knowledge levels are different and an owner may need to have the data to give a pro for management advice or if a problem comes up that calls for their input.

RW/RK are a reflection of the health of the pond and an indicator of things in addition to is this fish fat/normal or skinny. I know of several wrong decisions that I avoided because I had data from several years earlier to verify there was no problem.

Maybe I am to old to remember or have bad vision wrt fish size , but I need some data written down to do an adequate job.

Time of year is also important -- a female LMB may look fat in March and skinny in May and then fat again in Oct. but her RW was good all 3 times.

George I know you will understand this -- once my dad commented , when trying to decide whether to drill a well, - " I have a few old logs , but I sure wish I had the mud logs and the cores or at least an analysis " . Info helps me make better decisions. No hackles raised here. It is good to reflect on what we do, how we do it, and if its needed.

Greg -- if I say "ain't" during class, someone will repeat that in a not very pleasant manner on my student evaluations at the end of the semester. Amazing how good their memories are if an "ain't" or a swear word slips out once in the semester, but they can't remember the formula for relative weight.

Eric, thanks for your comments - points well taken.

I would have appreciated working with your dad, being closer to his generation than yours, before the age of scientific overkill and political correctness.

Early in my career with a Fortune 500 major oil company, I was lucky enough to have a couple of significant O&G discoveries.

So having reached a certain level of incompetence, I was assigned manager of Tech Service and later, New Technology, to expedite transfer of research to field operations.

As your dad would say, use whatever means you have to find a barrel of oil, even if you would like something more.

Any lengthy technical papers prepared by, or research presented to me by any engineer or scientist, was required to provide a discussion of the subject, his conclusions, and recommendation for action to be taken.

george

I take measurements and calculate the RW for some of my fish. I also tag some fish. Whenever I catch a tagged fish I always take its measurements.

It is helpful to look at the RW for individual tagged fish to follow its growth or lack thereof.

Frank

sumthin tells me george knew exactly which pot to stir....leading to a very informative thread.

thanks george, and I agree, for now, its all about just having fun and reclaiming that fishing hole in my front yard, only armed with a vast knowledge resource thanks to PB.

George is a wise and cunning guy with a full compliment of life long learning from below the ground up to the highest peak . I have found that guys with that training have a timeless understanding of how the natural world works and as a result what makes people tick.

DIED - Having been raised around (and worked with) that type of thinking , I knew well before my post above what George was up to and how he would respond. Like the true gentleman and champ that he is -- priceless.

Why else would a life-long scientist say you guys are gathering to much data that is not needed . Obvious - the top line scientists can look at things and tell without a lot of data while the rest of us rookie scientists are floundering around gathering info and taking it all to seriously. An effective form of teaching I would say -- make the rookies justify what they are doing and in so doing they understand the what and why better. Just look at how the other life-long scientist/teacher (Dave) responded -- with well deserved light-hearted and joking wrt to the rookie/students but with a nod to the importance of learning the principals.

Being a bean counter with an engineer for a father I’m genetically predisposed to being detail oriented. I bought a property with a 40 year old pond already in place. I’m use catch data just to get a grip on where my pond is.

With each catch I track the following info:

Date
Time
Weather conditions
Where caught (from shore or boat)
Length
Weight
Comparison to RW chart (for bass)
Lure used
Line used
Pole used
Clothing worn by angler
Ratio of bass caught to sunfish caught
Number of casts between catch
Cast efficiency percentage
Number of fish caught per lure
Lure efficiency percentage
Boat fishing versus shore fishing relative efficiency percentages plotted on a color coded bar chart.

Ok, I lied about all that.
But I am keeping track of length and weight just to see what is in the pond and if I'm moving in the right direction.

Until I got to the next-to-last line, I was going to suggest adding the moon phase and the barometric pressure.

You forgot to mention reel type:
baitcaster
canepole
fly reel
spinning reel
spincast reel
noodling (arm)
jugline
trotline

I have 3 or 4 hobbies, and all of them require data collection at times to learn the hobby in great depth. Collecting data and learning the jargon helps me learn what is important to watch. (I intentionally avoided the word "parameters"!)

I've learned that data collection is always in the early "learning" part of my hobbies. It helps me get a "feel" for things such as ratios, and how to "judge" things. Once I become fairly expert at my hobby, the data collection has done its work, and becomes unnecessary.

When the data collection starts to become a chore and detract from the enjoyment of my hobby, I quit collecting.

There's always a danger that data collection will become a hobby in itself, and we wouldn't want that!

Fatty, I am completely remiss in not including reel information. I shall up date my statistics immediately!

Theo, it's funny that you mention barometric pressure. I was watching the Bill Dance fishing show yesterday and he was talking about how barometric pressure effects fishing. After watching his show a few times I have determined that it's a miracle that I ever catch fish. I don't pay attention to water temperature, wind, barometric pressure, I don't have a fish finder, or fish camera or fish sound emulator. I don't spray my lures with Bass perfume. My formula is this, I have some spare time, I throw a lure in the water and sometimes I catch fish.

Bobad, I'm the same way. My post was poking fun at me as much as anything. Actually I think that tracking some info is a great idea for any pond meister. I usually have a tendency to go overboard.

Ain't this fish management stuff fun? When we evaluate a pond, depending on the client and his desire for detail, we will look at the "big picture" and make some common sense recommendations. Others love to see a graph of their fish length and weights compared to "average" Wr.
Fish management is an art, based on a handful of principles of science. George's description is kind of like the weather rock. If the rock is wet, it's raining. If the rock is dry, it isn't raining. If it's white, it's snowing. If a fish is thin, it's Wr is low. If the fish is fat, the Wr is....you know.
I can't tell you how many ponds we look at where we have to make a well based recommendation, often based on Wr's. So, as professional pond managers, Wr is a big deal to us. If we sample 50 bass in the 12-14" size class, and 1/3 are Wr of 85%, 1/3 are 95% and 1/3 are 105%, what does that mean? Well, using common sense biology, we tell them to harvest the "skinny" fish. If you have any doubt about a single fish, release it.
Where it gets a little tricky is when we evaluate a lake every other year, but try to stay informed by the lake owner.
If a do-it-yourselfer would weigh and measure 30 or 40 fish once a quarter and compare this quarter to last quarter, to the one before, he can make some solid decisions or see the results of decisions already made.
For our beloved anal retentive peeps, weigh and measure all you want. You won't go wrong. But, you won't necessarily be any more "right" than those who cull by common sense and a weather rock. If it's skinny, cull it.
The only time it gets a bit confusing when we don't keep Wr's is if the fish are skinny and the food chain is excellent. Then what?

Well, I just went outside and checked the rock – sure enough it was WET…! :p

Halleluiah – come on rain...

Great. Now I need to start keeping detailed records of info on the rock.

Suggested ROCK spreadsheet information:
Goal for ROCK: weather forecasting and pond building.

Lithology/stratigraphy: Limestone
Name of formation: Austin Chalk

http://home.houston.rr.com/lundquist/Field_Trip/Information/Extra.html

E. Texas basin depositional eco system
Geologic age: Cretaceous /Mesozoic

Fossil record: http://www.cretaceousfossils.com/stratigraphy/stratigraphic_correlation_fj.htm

Outcrop location: creek behind residence.

Record in detail, metric weight – length – wet – moist – dry – hot – cold.

Carefully observe results and record data.
Records will result in more accurate weather forecasting than local TV meteorologists.

Results of detail ROCK observations for RW data may be used for pond construction evaluation:

Moisture absorbed by rock indicates excellent porosity, which would not be advisable for pond construction.
Moisture not absorbed indicates minimum porosity and permeability properties, indicating excellent pond construction material

Alternate use: Oil and Gas production in Austin Chalk play.

:p


Mr. Moderator Gallus – please moderate this foolishness when read….

You guys are TOO much.
That's a big reason this website works.

You guys kill me. I havent read this much since college!!!!

George, that's too good! :p

You guys didn't know George built his first pond " Glazener's Pond" with his geologists' pick while looking for crinoids stem fossils while on a field trip looking for limestone outcroppings. He even has Crinoids called sea lilies, which are not plants, but echinoderms , that are 50,000,000 million years old growing on the limestone rocks that he added to his pond.

A new "Jurassic pond" in the works , just wait till you see his stockers. George put in 20 Coelacanths , 10,000 Knightia , 500 Priscacara and 50 Phareodus .

He ask me to see if you would comment on his stocking plan. I have included some descriptions below from Fossil Fish Base so you could address his request They came from the Green River hatchery up near Ed's in Wyoming and are from the Early Tertiary (Eocene), period.

GREEN RIVER FORMATION

The Green River Formation is, quite simply, the richest deposit of fish fossils in the world. It is so named because the fossils were first discovered on the banks of the Green River in Wyoming. The Green River Formation stretches for hundreds of miles across Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah, and is over a mile thick! The abundance of fossil fish and the wide diversity of species makes this area very important in the ongoing study of ancient fish , only surpassed by the living specimens in George Glazener's pond in Texas. Some of the types of fossil fish found in the Green River Formation are as follows while only a few are in Glazener's Pond:

Knightia - a fossil herring, generally small (3 to 8 inches), and possibly the most abundant fish found.

Diplomystus - a predatory fish, could grow large (over 20 inches long), a common, but beautiful, Green River fish.

Mioplosus - a predatory fish with a double dorsal fin, medium to very large (well over 20 inches long), not extremely uncommon.

Priscacara - a perch-like fish, medium-sized (under 15 inches), relatively rare and very displayable.

Phareodus - a voracious predator with present-day relatives, grew to be very large (over 30 inches!), one of the most beautiful of the Green River fishes.

Amphiplaga - a small, bony fish (trout perch), rare in most layers, it is an unusual little fish.

:p

I understand that the Priscacara love YOY ammonites (help keep population down), and adult ammonites which can reach several feet in diameter filter the water so well they help keep the water quality up........George, this you might also consider as part of yer alternative forage base and stocking plan

George even strained the waters of the warm, shallow inland sea to be able to stock rosy red trilobites for forage. The Diplomystus love them!

Hmmm....Never thought about the coelacanth/fathead option........

Since you guys have learned all the big words, and how to spell them - and can color between the lines, have I’ve got a deal for you...

All I need are investors for third for a quarter deal, retaining a quarter carried interest.
No big words – just money...

We’ll stock the pond with suckers.

I hear they breed daily!!

Hmmm ( said while rubbing your hands together in anticipation of easy pickings) , "there's a sucker born every minute." and "every crowd has a silver lining," and "the public is wiser than many imagine." as old Phineas Taylor Barnum would say.

George's Redneck Weather Station

If the rock is:
wet........its raining
moving.....its windy
hot........sunny
cool.......its overcast
white......its snowing
blue.......its cold
gone.......tornado

Every now and again the pirate's spirits emerge from the pond depths and bring larceny to the hearts of even the best pond owner.

Now Larry, Who in their right mind would check a rock in a tornado?

Which reminds me... Sept. 19th is "International Talk Like a Pirate Day".

I'm getting ready and practicing "The 3 A's"

In California we have to add one category to the Weather station...

If the rock is:
bouncing... EARTHQUAKE!!!!