North Australian FISH FINDER TM forums

The fish are rounded down in the classic and measured on the ally boards not bragmats. Just a 10mm error in one measurement. Who knows what it was measured with the second time.

I think the error is not just 10mm, but 10mm and 12 months. Maybe the fish was measured on both occasions with the same technique..... A sly guess. Why don't we find out who measured it first and give them the chance to defend themselves?

jeezz cuddlescooper - your scores from the nats some years ago might have to be rechecked that's actually not correct about the nationals scoring and never has been. Definitely the Nats scoring and I believe the Classic as well operate on the basis of rounding down to the largest full centimetre attained. I believe both captures were attained in the comps, the first in the Classic last year and the second in the Nationals this year and both times measured on competition measure boards and consequently both would have been photographed.

too inconsistent with ppl measurements & how they measure

y

Just wack em in the esky and weigh/measure
the fish back at the comp site in
the evening.Comps are comps a very few
people will always cheat what they dont
get is that mainly they just cheat
themselves.Must be a great feeling
looking at your trophy for the next
twenty years recalling how you cheated
sombody to get it.THIS IS IN NO WAY
SAYING THAT THIS HAPPENED HERE THOUGH AS WE
DONT EVEN KNOW IF THE SECOND CAPTURE WAS
IN A COMP.PLUS THE SYSTEMS DESCRIBED
BRING A MULTITUDE OF POSSIBILITIES FOR
AN HONEST MISTAKE AS WELL SO NO SPECIFIC
REMARKS ABOUT THIS CASE FROM ME.

wasnt there a big hoo ha from this site a couple of years ago about this very thing, a barra shrinking, no acusations but it went serious and apologies were made. mistakes are made on measuring anything, I know because my buisiness is all measuring and my staff make simple mistakes. although fish measuring is more serious so I measure twice, brag once.

coastaljoy wrote:wasnt there a big hoo ha from this site a couple of years ago about this very thing, a barra shrinking, no acusations but it went serious and apologies were made. mistakes are made on measuring anything, I know because my buisiness is all measuring and my staff make simple mistakes. although fish measuring is more serious so I measure twice, brag once.

Exactly and the greater the size of the
group that are doing the measuring the
more mistakes you can expect, it
happens.

Ok Nt Pirate that's interesting. I am trying to think where I have got that from. I actually believe it is stated in the Barra series rules that the measuring was different. I know that in that comp the measurements go down and I think it says that the measurements in the nats go up. I will have to go through some early emails to see if I am correct. I have always rounded down on to be on the safe side but........Some research to be done.

Try this one. It measures backbones..

ronje wrote:Try this one. It measures backbones..

Hey mate, While you are having x-rays why don't you try for a CT scan while you are at it!?

Woops lets just rethink one that

Im going bed not my night for hitting
buttons.

It's not a perfect world in which we live. There was only ever one perfect human and he was crucified at the age of 32. We don't want to follow him do we.

There'll always be the chance of incorrect measurements when involved in fish tagging.

Shrinkages are easy to detect.

What about incorrect growth? Tagged mistakenly at 52 cm when it was really 57 and then recaptured and measured 12 months later at 61cm. Superficially it's grown 9cm in 12 months. In a good paddock perhaps? Maybe. Its real growth is actually 4cm in a year. Entirely believeable.

There is still a lot of good data collected. How long free, where has it travelled from and to, type of fish etc.

Its not a real problem though. Just discount the length.

Its not a problem compared to some others though.

A 62cm flathead tagged and recorded only to be recaptured later as a 42cm bream! That's a problem. But it happens.

Could be a genuine mistake in transcribing data or simply sabotage.

Somebody caught the flathead, kept the tag and put it in a bream caught at another time. That wouldn't happen on this forum though.

Look on the tag returns as pretty good indicators and not simply gospel.

There is a bit of chat about genuine mistakes or incorrect measurements and fair enough, but I'm actually thinking the guys who tagged/measured the fish were probably on the money and the recorded lengths were good. In this case as opposed to many others there is a great opportunity to back up that data with photographs and prove the fish actually did reduce in size. In which case it would probably change a lot of our minds and thinking on how we thought they grow.