World Sea Fishing Forums banner

1 - 3 of 3 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
250 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
This is probably posted before, but I haven't run into a similar thread so here goes.

I was wondering why it is that here in the Netherlands people talk about the fish they catch in terms of length while in the UK (and USA too) weight is the deciding factor.

In fact, getting a pair of decent scales here is not an easy thing. The funny thing is that carp are weighed again in stead of measured. Maybe that has to do with a carp growing more in the waist area then it does in length.. :)

In another thread I posted this:
'A cod can eat anything up to roughly 70 percent of its own length. Suppose two guys catch a cod at the same time, the one cod (70 centimeters) has just eaten a couple of whiting. The other (80 centimeters) has not. The smaller one is heavier in weight.

Question: which one is the record cod ?'

Just wondering what you think..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
131 Posts
I personally think you have a point - I don't understand why weight is used over length - its length that is used in deciding whether the fish can be kept or not.

And age of a fish would be more accurately measured by length than weight wouldn't it? And they say older fish are meant to be wiser.

And what about catching fishing in times when food is scarce and fish havent been feeding - you might get a long skinny fish that although a lot older wouldnt beat a fish caught during a time when the fish have been feeding a lot and putting on weight.

Paulie
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,106 Posts
how long is a bit of string , i suppose its unfair that a record is broken by a cod with a good feed in its gut but youve got to measure something ,havent you ?

if lengh was used then a bag o conger would have specimen wrasse or rays beat
im just glad such things dont apply to me
 
1 - 3 of 3 Posts
Top