Looking to improve my bass weighing process ~

[A-Jay]

For the past several seasons, I have used the same fish weighing procedure.  It included a digital scale and a fish gripper which was clamped down, pretty firmly, onto the bass’s lower jaw. Worked OK, the fish often flopped a bit but never came off the fish gripper.

However looking back at some of my more memorable (insert Bigger) catches this winter, hanging a 5 or 6 lb plus smallie by its face might have not been the best plan.  Could possibly jack up the fishes jaw.  And while I never really saw any evidence personally that it did, I was thinking I could do better for the fish.

In every other case, I always fully support the fish’s frames for photos and wanted to simulate that while weighing them.

This is what I came up with.

I’m still ironing out the finer details but right off the bat this Arsenal Fishing Pro-Performance Rubber Mesh Bag already seems better for this bass in the long run.

 

https://www.tacklewarehouse.com/Arsenal_Fishing_Pro-Performance_Rubber_Mesh_Bag/descpage-AFPPRMB.html

 

Btw - In the attached video I said the fish was 4.42 lbs in the bag, but it was actually 4.44 lbs so I jacked that up a little.

My scale is in Tenths not ounces.

 

A-Jay

[gim]

Seems reasonable. I’ve watched your videos and you seem to handle each fish with plenty of care.

 

In the new system, I watched the timer and initially, the fish was out of water for about 35 seconds. I don’t know how that compares to your previous route of weighing them.

 

I try to keep the fish I intend to release out of water for 30 seconds or less. Obviously the number of hooks and how it’s hooked can play a role. I measure most of mine. I only weigh them when they are clearly a plus sized fish.

 

The only other issue is maybe the bag is removing the slime coat? I don’t know, I’m only speculating.

[A-Jay]

16 minutes ago, gimruis said:

Seems reasonable. I’ve watched your videos and you seem to handle each fish with plenty of care.

 

In the new system, I watched the timer and initially, the fish was out of water for about 35 seconds. I don’t know how that compares to your previous route of weighing them.

 

I try to keep the fish I intend to release out of water for 30 seconds or less. Obviously the number of hooks and how it’s hooked can play a role. I measure most of mine. I only weigh them when they are clearly a plus sized fish.

 

The only other issue is maybe the bag is removing the slime coat? I don’t know, I’m only speculating.

Thanks for the feed back.

As I get a little more comfortable with this deal,

I'm pretty sure I can shave a bit off that time.

Either way, I'm WAY better than I used to be.

I sort of kept them out for pics * videos unnecessarily long in the past. 

Also I'm always netting the fish, especially with treble hooks,

so slime coat removal would start there if that's a thing.

I'm expecting that by wetting the net and the rubber coated bag in advance,

I'll be keeping that to a minimum.

We'll see how it goes. 

A-Jay

[WRB]

I have contemplated this issue for years.

The very old landing net with a hoop and handle is the problem regardless of what the net is made of . 
The musky anglers use a different designer to the length of the fish and seems to work good.

my thought is a bass size cradle is attached to the side of the boat with a closed end. The bass is lead into the cradle with a handle to lift the cradle to close it. The bass can’t flop around in the fine mesh cradle when lifted against the boat side and the lift handle could have a built in scale calibrated to the cradle weight. Easy to take a photo without lifting the bass.

Tom 

[Team9nine]

Think you're on the right track. I've run a similar system for at least 10 years or more. I use a true rubber net (if needed), then the bag for weighing (again, if needed), which based on studies are the best possible options in regards to fish care short of pure catch and immediate release (no nets, weighing, measuring, etc.). Studies also suggest the slime coat concern might be a bit overblown with bass in these type instances, but the jaw holds are a valid one, so I'd say "carry on" with your new system. You'll figure out the little tweaks and efficiencies with more time and experience doing it 

 

[IcatchDinks]

I really like this idea. Seemed like a pretty great system that really limited the stress the fish would under. 

[Tackleholic]

This is very interesting.  I hope that you and others will post further opinions based on forthcoming experiences.  

[Nelson Delaney]

How many fish are you weighing?  I might weigh 1 or 2 fish a year. I can estimate the weight of bass within a few ounces.  

[A-Jay]

8 hours ago, Nelson Delaney said:

How many fish are you weighing?  I might weigh 1 or 2 fish a year. I can estimate the weight of bass within a few ounces.  

Every seasons different ~

Sometimes it's more, sometimes it's less.

However it's a bit more than one or two a year.

Personally, once they get over a certain size I prefer to know the weight rather than guessing.

It's just how I do it.

The old saying of "it had to be at least 5 pounds",

makes me cringe.

YMMV

 

 

[Swamp Girl]

I applaud anything that protects fish. When I catch my biggest bass, I often err on the side of quick, lousy photos and no weighing to get them back into the water ASAP. I'm much smoother with smaller fish. I do think A-Jay's idea is something we should all consider. 

[gim]

11 hours ago, WRB said:

The musky anglers use a different designer to the length of the fish and seems to work good.

 

I've been musky fishing longer than I've been bass fishing and I have no doubt that one of the reasons I primarily measure my fish rather than weighing them is from musky fishing.  People don't weigh muskies, they measure them.  Same with walleyes, which I also used to fish more.  Walleye regulations are written by length.  Length is a more universal way to gauge size because 18 inches is 18 inches on everyone's ruler.  Each of us has a different scale though, and its likely that most of them aren't calibrated either.  This is also why only one scale is used at a weigh in.

 

I'm also in an annual work fishing contest and we are required to have a clear photo of the fish's length for submission.

[casts_by_fly]

Have you considered just weighing the fish in the net itself?  You've already got it there.  You use a net with a deep enough bag and a scale with plenty of capacity.  You could either tare the net on the scale or just weigh the net before fishing and subtract it from the total weight.

[osummerer23]

So you took it out of a 'container' (net) to place it in another 'container' (bag). 

I love the care and respect given to these creatures after a battle, but like @casts_by_fly said. Why not just weight it in the net? 

 

[A-Jay]

47 minutes ago, casts_by_fly said:

Have you considered just weighing the fish in the net itself?  You've already got it there.  You use a net with a deep enough bag and a scale with plenty of capacity.  You could either tare the net on the scale or just weigh the net before fishing and subtract it from the total weight.

 

6 minutes ago, osummerer23 said:

So you took it out of a 'container' (net) to place it in another 'container' (bag). 

I love the care and respect given to these creatures after a battle, but like @casts_by_fly said. Why not just weight it in the net? 

 

Thank you for the feedback.

I have considered getting the weight in the net and do agree it's a valid option.  However one of the constant challenges of this deal revolves around how quickly the scale will lock on a final number.  In less than flat calm conditions that can take far longer than I'd like.  Adding in the net handle waving all over and building momentum with every wave and wind gust, that scale doesn't stand a chance, which might not be helping the bass out. 

I'm going to continue on this route for a while and see how it goes.  If the fish gripper starts showing up again,  we'll know what that means.

A-Jay

 

[AlabamaSpothunter]

I'd like to see some scientific literature that says weighing fish in the center of the lower jaw is detrimental.    I saw a biologist use a physiological diagram to show how the Bass's jaw works, and why clamping them near the center doesn't pose a risk.     

 

What does the science say in regard to how big a fish must be in order to be at risk of being weighed traditionally?    Either way I doubt I catch big enough fish to matter 😆

 

I applaud your continual effort to improve fish care though!  

[gim]

5 minutes ago, AlabamaSpothunter said:

What does the science say in regard to how big a fish must be in order to be at risk of being weighed traditionally? 

 

I'd like to know too.  I've definitely heard of holding a bass improperly by the lower jaw, but I've never heard of one being damaged by the vertical clamp of a scale.  My issue is how long it can take.  30 seconds or less.  I'd venture to say that most bass anglers are taking longer because they insist on weighing it.

 

Obviously weighing a much larger fish like a catfish, muskie, or large northern pike isn't something I'd recommend.

 

At least most people seem to be using a clamp on their scale now.  The absolute worst is the metal j hook shoved into the gills.  Not to mention how easily a fish can become unbuttoned from that and then fall to the ground or floor and kill itself.

[Bird]

I'd say every fish I catch spends 15 seconds or less out of water.

Some days I simply don't feel like taking pics and others I do.

Scales and gripper on the boat but never get used.

 

@A-Jay

I've watched your videos and the current procedure " deal " will be hard to improve apon.

[Choporoz]

Funny....the tournament organization that bills itself as setting the standard in fish care has its members hold them by the jaw, AND wave them around 

[A-Jay]

28 minutes ago, AlabamaSpothunter said:

I'd like to see some scientific literature that says weighing fish in the center of the lower jaw is detrimental.    I saw a biologist use a physiological diagram to show how the Bass's jaw works, and why clamping them near the center doesn't pose a risk.     

 

What does the science say in regard to how big a fish must be in order to be at risk of being weighed traditionally?    Either way I doubt I catch big enough fish to matter 😆

 

I applaud your continual effort to improve fish care though!  

Thanks ~

Not counting the excessive bending and jaw straining we occasionally see when bass are held up (I'm guilty of this in the past) I have never seen anything that says vertically hanging a bass by it's jaw is harmful.

After all, they use that structure all the time.

But just not in a manner that supports it's full weight out of the water. 

Seems a bass being completely out of the water subjects it to a version of gravity it never experiences naturally. 

I'll equate it to our own arms.

We use those all the time too.

But go hang from something (full body weight) by one hand for a while.

If you're not acclimated to it, it doesn't feel too good,

and if done for too long can and most likely will hurt something.

A-Jay

9 minutes ago, Choporoz said:

Funny....the tournament organization that bills itself as setting the standard in fish care has its members hold them by the jaw, AND wave them around 

Yea - that's a little wacky.

A-Jay

 

[Team9nine]

 

‘Vertical’ in this study was using a lip grip holding device. No findings of permanent jaw issues in this study among holds, but other studies with other species have raised concerns with lip grip devices. I believe Texas P&W have also published concerns about the single hand traditional jaw hold with larger bass. 

[Dwight Hottle]

Leave it to @A-Jay to come up with a better idea. Like Tom mentioned the cradle idea works well but takes two people to pull it off. We always weighed trophy pike & lake trout in a cradle held horizontally up at lake Athabasca then subtracted the cradle weight. Any large fish would benefit from the support of horizontal weighing as opposed to a vertical hold. I witnessed a 30lb+ lake trout break it's neck or spinal cord while it was flopping on a vertical held spring scale. A simple plastic grocery bag with the double handle could work well especially for fish under 30" long. 

[casts_by_fly]

I think A-Jay's new trial method is basically a fancy grocery bag so you're not far off.  That's all a tournament weigh bag is- HDPE or LDPE plastic bag with drains and handles.  And I have yet to meet a grocery store bag that doesn't have a hole in the bottom somwhere...

[TLHSS]

The fish I catch are not as big as yours, and I always fish from shore … but I’ve gotten to the point where I net the fish, remove the hook (no trebles or barbs), take a photo of the fish in the net, weigh the fish with the net, and return the fish to the water while it’s in the net. 
 

No hard proof this reduces fish mortality, but I think it might. 

[WRB]

Addicted makes fish landing cradle that look good. Made domestically 42” long check if they make a 31” long cradle.

My thinking is attach one side to the boat and a handle to the opposite side. Hold the handle similar to a landing net, lead the bass into the open end and lift up the handle. The cradle has inch rule. To weigh attach a scale to the handle. No handling the fish.

Tom

[TLHSS]

@WRB I’ve seen them use those nets in their videos. They always use them for catch and release. They use circular nets when they plan to keep and eat the fish. For catch and release, one of the boat crew enter the water to land the fish. The fish don’t leave the water.