Are you measuring to the fork, or with the tail flattened?

 

Looking at the guide on the BASS website, your weights look about right for fork-length measurements.

 

I measure to the fork 'not' the tips.
The tape I have puts my 66cm fish at six and a half pounds, one pound 5 oz less than true weight of 7.13.

 

And going by the tape my 64cm fish should only weigh 6lb ????
It was 7.04lb

 

Doh. Just noticed this

Bit of a contradiction. ...website and normal practices (or so I thought) are measure to fork.
But the tape suggests to the tip! !!!!!
Explains the differences I guess....but a bit wooly eh?

 

I guess they saw you coming!

Dunno, mate. I always just use a cheap-o tape measure and reference it later, which usually works out right.

 

Eh???
A centimetre is a centimetre whether on your tape or mine.
The reference points are what we're discussing is it not?

 

Eh???
A centimetre is a centimetre whether on your tape or mine.
The reference points are what we're discussing is it not?

What I'm saying is that I check my measurements against the chart provided on the BASS website, and usually they are pretty accurate. Does your tape also provide the corresponding weights, or do you look them up elsewhere?

 

Out of interest I just started taking an interest in bass size....up until catching a couple of reasonable good fish on lures I had the opinion that they weigh what they weigh and measure what they measure........
Hence my new fangled bass tape......bass website or woolies it's just a tape
I will continue to measure to fork always knowing that I'll have a few centimetres spare...which is always good...she says anyway

 

So anyway, who produces this tape? Is there any information about where they get their figures from?

 

The BASS Tape was designed from thousands of length measurements taken by BASS members over many years, from around the UK and the Republic of Ireland.

Fish length measurement and conversion to typical weight isn’t an exact science. Firstly there are errors in taking the measurement (e.g. measuring along the curve of the fish and not in a straight line, errors in deciding on the nearest centimetre, and errors in using a poorly graduated measure).

Also there is a natural variation in the ratio of length to weight. Fish of the same age can have slightly different metabolisms and therefore grow at slightly different rates and have a range of lengths; and fish of the same age can have different food opportunities and their growth can vary because that. And of course fish of the same age can vary in girth which means a variation in weight for the same length.

Add this lot together and it’s no wonder the BASS tape isn’t spot-on for every bass everywhere. By taking the overall length measurement and reading off the average weight for that length, you have a fast way of recording that fish without faffing about with zeroing scales, using a weighing bag and so on, which is a right pain in some conditions. I’ve noticed on forums a trend in recent years to report fish length and not weight.

BASS used to use fork length, but with fisheries scientists, European directives, DEFRA and so on all quoting overall length, it made sense for BASS to talk the same language, so it went over to overall length. But BASS does have a formula to convert fork length to overall length – I can’t remember what it is, but it was established by the eminent bass researcher Donovan Kelley.

The BASS tape is a good item for what it’s meant to do, and that is give an average weight. It is made from Tyvek, a non-stretch material, and it is manufactured by a firm in the USA that makes other measuring equipment.
By the way, a measuring error of 1cm on a 64cm fish isn’t all that bad, being close to 1.5 percent error.

Sorry about the lecture, but as usual nowadays, nothing is straightforward!

Geoff

 

The BASS Tape was designed from thousands of length measurements taken by BASS members over many years, from around the UK and the Republic of Ireland.

Fish length measurement and conversion to typical weight isn’t an exact science. Firstly there are errors in taking the measurement (e.g. measuring along the curve of the fish and not in a straight line, errors in deciding on the nearest centimetre, and errors in using a poorly graduated measure).

Also there is a natural variation in the ratio of length to weight. Fish of the same age can have slightly different metabolisms and therefore grow at slightly different rates and have a range of lengths; and fish of the same age can have different food opportunities and their growth can vary because that. And of course fish of the same age can vary in girth which means a variation in weight for the same length.

Add this lot together and it’s no wonder the BASS tape isn’t spot-on for every bass everywhere. By taking the overall length measurement and reading off the average weight for that length, you have a fast way of recording that fish without faffing about with zeroing scales, using a weighing bag and so on, which is a right pain in some conditions. I’ve noticed on forums a trend in recent years to report fish length and not weight.

BASS used to use fork length, but with fisheries scientists, European directives, DEFRA and so on all quoting overall length, it made sense for BASS to talk the same language, so it went over to overall length. But BASS does have a formula to convert fork length to overall length – I can’t remember what it is, but it was established by the eminent bass researcher Donovan Kelley.

The BASS tape is a good item for what it’s meant to do, and that is give an average weight. It is made from Tyvek, a non-stretch material, and it is manufactured by a firm in the USA that makes other measuring equipment.
By the way, a measuring error of 1cm on a 64cm fish isn’t all that bad, being close to 1.5 percent error.

Sorry about the lecture, but as usual nowadays, nothing is straightforward!

Geoff

hi Geoff
Thanks for the clarification and rationale .
Tom

 

There's no chance that your scales are 'out' then!?

 

Indeed. But as I said....going by the fork length I've been taking everthing is accurate ish.




Thanks for the informative post Geoff.

 

Indeed. But as I said....going by the fork length I've been taking everthing is accurate ish.

Thanks for the informative post Geoff.

Just because you've compared against 3 fish doesn't really say anything, it only takes a meal of one mackerel, to put a bass a pound over the tape, in general it's a very good reference.

Also just because you've seen a difference with these three fish doesn't mean you should use the tape incorrectly, measure from nose to tip of tail.

PS Nice bass, well done

 

Goodness me......confusion cleared now.
Thanks all.

 

76 cm is where doubles start IMHO ...
Seen some chart thing that says 75 CAN be 10.2 or something ....

Wel I assure you , that would have to be a very fat well feed up bass indeed ....

Heard some bull about a 72 cm going 12 pound plus ...
This has to have just eaton a 3 pound pollock to have had any chance ....

I worked a bass boat rod line for two years ,,, and more odd weeks here and there for years ....

Measured and weighed more doubles than I'll ever see again ....
Not just mine , but all doubles caught between 5 blokes ...

Not ONE made a double under 76 cm , and not all 76 cm made double unless they were well feed and of good stamp ....

So when I see skinny 74 s and 75 s claimed as doubles it does make me smile ....been there got the t shirt , held over two hundred plus doubles
As I said not one made it under 76 cm ......

Just an opinion ....don't sweat it .....

72 cm 12 pound plus , lmfao ,,,,,, would have had to been Square .....

 

My new target is a 70cm+ or 8lb+ if I can weigh it without fuss.

Just a new boy to all this measurements malarkey

 

I thought you always measured to the fork, not the tip?

Website gives fork in inches and tip in cms

 

I thought you always measured to the fork, not the tip?

Website gives fork in inches and tip in cms

You simply measure according to the table or tape specifications. The bass tape clearly says measure from nose to tip of the tail, so that's how to use it.

 

Groovy - makes my 75cm bass I had recently a little longer and a little bigger!

 

all this discussion over a tape measure!

Whats wrong with sticking them in a bag and using a set of scales lol?

Small digi scales and a sling wont take up much room in your bag!

 

Yeah but if you don't have scales wit you your fish wont lose a lot of length even after you've gutted and cleaned it