Pond Boss Forums INTRO Questions & Observations fish scale recommendations

I would like to purchase a fish scale for use at my pond. Some time ago I think someone mentioned a grip-n-weigh by x-tools. Is this tool any good? Any other recomendations? Also are there any other "tools" I should consider to keep track of what the pond is doing like water test kits?

The search feature is probably the worst aspect of this great site (unless it is having to bypass the homepage any more), but I'm pretty sure there was a pretty decent discussion about scales not that long ago. It may have been under the fish management section.

It really depends on what size fish you want to weigh and the accuracy you expect. Digitals might suit you more since they aren't dependent on reading from a spring.

On water test kits, you may or may not need one. If you are in East Texas or pine tree country, you will have to monitor possibly scarce alkilinity to know whether to lime and fertilize. West Texas generally has enough alkilinity. For a start, I would send my water sample to A & M. They will tell you more than you can understand.

I have had good luck with a digital grip and weigh scale made by Berkley. It is accurate and is very useful when landing a bass with a mouthful of treble hooks. It is also about half the cost of the X-Tools scale. I'm sure the X-Tools scale is excellent. If you're tired of getting stuck by treble hooks when landing and unhooking fish, get a gripping tool either with or without the scale.
Bill

I've posted on this before. All versions of the digitial scales will work for awhile and are accurate with fresh batteries. However I have killed them all but weigh literallyt 1,000's of fish spring-fall. I still use a digitial but only on fish bigger than 5 lbs. I have for the past year used a kitchen scale from Walmart. It is accurate to 1/8 ounce so great on small fish up to 5 lbs. At $35 I can afford to replace them often compared to soem of the hihger end flat scaels offered in aquatic catalogs.

Rangersedge wrote"...(unless it is having to bypass the homepage any more),......"

Jeff, in this, do you mean that when you come to the forum, you go to the home page first, and then you click on the forum tab?

The home page does take a while to load.

If that's what you mean, just try making the Forum Home Page one of your favorite places. They you just click on that and you go right to the forum without ever opening the PB home page.

If that's not what you meant, my fault. Please clarify then.

Greg

How do you hold the fish in place on the digital scales?

Frank

knock them over the head with a hammer. just kidding. No real method but found it easier on the fish than flopping around on a digitial hanging scale or falling off the hook on the ground. I just hold them down until they seem to relax then quickly get the weight. Good luck, how big are they getting?

Greg

Thanks

The average is 14-15 inches - I was thinking I should have better than that from the June 2003 stocking. I need to do serious culling this season.

Frank

Frank :

How are the RW's. If they are good for the length then age may come in to play. If all are ok then it might be time to take out a bunch and replace some genes ( ie some new 10in. fish in the fall) from different brood fish. Tigers , F-1s , northerns, think of all the options.

Eric

First, what scale do you use?

My RW's range from 85 to 110 percent.

I have added two RW charts to my website. The data is stored in a MySQL database and the charts are drawn using a free PHP utility called JPGRAPH. I have color coded the graph for different years. Storing the data in a database means I just have to add new data and the charts will update automatically.

Last week I caught 6 fish - all had RW over 100%

See the charts at

http://www.frankpinkston.com/weather/graph/std_wt_bass2.php

http://www.frankpinkston.com/weather/graph/std_wt_bass3.php

Each dot on both graphs represents one fish caught, weighed, and measured.
Frank

Frank :

Wow what neat charts !!!

Mine are made up of simple notes of lengths and weights -- then a rolling average for all fish for the year. I use a hand held lip grip digital scale.

I may be wrong but here is what I see and it looks very good.

On chart one notice the groupings by color. Yellow a bunch at 10-14 with a couple fast growers at 15. Then look at blue grouping -- the group has moved up (though fewer as expected) to 13-15 with still a couple fast growers at 17-18. Now to 06 early results - the points at 16 I bet are the first ones in the main group which has now moved to 16-18 , the one at 10 is a next generation fish (18mth offspring) and the one at 12 is also in that group and is the top of a group that ranges from 10 -12. A good question is how big and long are the fast growers (blue points 17-18) out of the first group now -- I bet in the 21in. range.

Second chart. The range of statistical differences are narrowing. Each year less highs and lows from the norm. But note 2 things. One the entire range of blue dots have moved over 100% RW while the band narrows. Two no red dots under RW. Again it appears the entire curve is narrowing and moving higher above RW norms. One thing to watch is for the right size food for the bigger fish. I note that one of the two blue dot fast growers is 20% under weight and no info for this year. Do you have enough 4-7in. BG or other large forage for them.

This is a great example of the need to age fish that Dave Willis needs to review. Not that you have a problem but to get the entire info base you need to do seine surveys (fishing misses data at the low/young end) . Also RW don't give the entire story on age and age classes but are still very good. Look for more on the subject in an upcoming PB issue.

It looks like you are in good shape -- keep doing what you have been and collecting data. You are now to the point where the management of the offspring becomes important (the 8-12 in. ones that tend to overpopulate).

Eric

Thanks for those comments. I have to digest them and will probably call you for clarification of a few items.

Frank

I don't think you'll need to bud. My experience has been that they generally grow their own. Unless you're talking catfish...

Frank sorry been very busy. I will look at charts soon. Put in 12 hours today and will login 14 or more tom. It sounds like your getting some great advice from Ewest, I would expect any less from him.

I'm still scratching my head though b/c I have several clients that I think have not managed as well as you but got the same bass in 2003 and have several over 5 lbs. I just wonder how the lack of fertilizer has heard. Strange when you have such good Wr.

Greg

Thanks. Let me know your thoughts when you have a chance to look at the charts.

I wonder about the effect of not fertilizing also...

Frank

Frank and Greg :

I can read the charts and apply the data and concepts but that does not replace the need for an eyes on assessment of the fish and lake or its history. It also can't replace the need for a full array of data for all ages and species in the pond. I am glad to help but realize the limits of its worth.

Eric

I am not sure what you mean. The blue dots are fish caught, weighted and measured in year 2005. It appears that half are over 100% and half under 100%. Can you elaborate on what you meant?

Thanks

Frank

Frank :

Glad to clear things up. The range/average of all blue dot fish have moved up from below 100% to at or above 100%. That is how the chart appears to me. I am looking at this by year class to see movements as a group. One fish tells you a little but a group tells a lot better story as an indicator of what is going on in the pond. The blue dot central group are getting closer together in length and weight and are moving as a whole to a better RW status. To me that means they all are getting enough to eat and the pond has all the qualities to meet their needs and allow them to reach their genetic potential.

In the biological sense fish condition (some times referred to as K or Kr = relative condition) is not the end in and of its self but is one measure of a pond as a biological system . Think about it this way -- the fish as assessed are a (one) reflection/indicator of pond health and ability to meet its potential. This would include not only forage/food but water quality and the absence of serious fish stressors (harmful bacteria ,pathogens, crowding etc.).

I hope this helps and keep asking and I will try to answer.

After looking back at the charts and Greg's comment I should point out that we talked about fertilizer programs in Atlanta. In that regard keep in mind that RW or Kr are made against a statistical norm. They are not a comparison of your pond/fish against those of pond X which has a much higher trophic ability. If , as Greg notes, several other people with the same age/type/genetic potential fish are doing better (as in they have a couple 5lbers)that may well be because their pond has a higher ability to produce (trophic level) which you can not achieve with your pond as is. The best manager may not be able to do better than you have with your pond conditions.

Frank -- Ewest pointed me to this thread and asked me to comment.

In general, I like both of your charts. I wish my undergrad students would show as much interest and thought as you!! Of course, the grad students do show that much thought.

Another generality, probably meant more for Ewest than you. The one thing I really like to see on relative weight information is the time of year. Big seasonal changes can occur in fish condition. Most fish hit their peak just prior to spawn, hit the year's low point just after spawn, and then gradually increase again. So, I do like to know something about time of year. Otherwise, you can make a mistake in your interpretation.

As for specific comments on Frank's condition information, I hesitate to say too much. Greg Grimes already spotted the thread, and hopefully he'll provide some input. He has the local knowledge that you need. What are reasonable and attainable condition values for your location? Greg will know. In the upper Midwest, I can say that pondowners would be darn pleased with your values.

ok, still short on time but looked it over. First I have said this before Frank, I love the chart. However we usually run lots more numbers than that when electrofishing. I think sample size is a little small since 2004. I looked at few Wr of clients ponds stokced in June 2003 with F1 bass.

You can for sure see distinct year class data that I can not pickup compeletley in your pond. In other words it seems you have bass that are growing ok while other are not doing as well. Also I should do what you are doing but do not however the overall Wr this last fall was 108% on similiar pond to yours. I think overall your pond needs more bass harvest if you want better growth. That is oversimplying but think it is solid rec. Since you check them I would pull the bass with less than 95% Wr until you reach target harvest. Also in the spring fairly easy to sex the bass, pull out all males. 25 lbs/acre? that is probably a start.

Dave we do not, I guess from climate, see a real dramaitc condition factor diff in seasons. Obviously winter is less growth but not real significant. It is hard to read otolith rings here.

Thanks, Greg.

Dave and Greg

Thanks for the comments. I have set a harvest goal for 2006 at 25 LBS/acre or 75 LBS for my 3 acre pond.

The RW Charts are fairly simple to set up. I put the data in a MySQL database. I then query the database and draw the chart. This makes it much easier to update than a chart in Excel for example.

Anyone wanting more info feel free to send me an email of private message.

Frank