Tournament Weighing Methodologies

[llprouse]

Hey all, I'm just posting this as a what if type of question. Last weekend I watched the FLW weigh-in at Port Clinton and saw over and over again fish splashing water out of the "fish box" which meant the fish had to be "raised" out of the weighing tank, "dripped dry", scale tared back to zero, then "reweighed". Early on, the host mentioned that some tournaments had been decided by mere ounces.

-I'm from an analytic/engineering background and this got me to thinking. Is this really the best methodology? The more and more I think about it there has to be a more accurate method for actually weighing fish that somehow standardizes water uptake/trapping by the fish. I find it hard to believe that the scale doesn't deviate by a few ounces when three identical fish are "raised" up out of the scale for a few seconds then "dunked" again/weighed.

-Perhaps what is bothering me the most is that in this type of mission-critical situation so-decided by a few ounces these weights are taken only once and not in triplicate or tested in triplicate at the start of the tournament in a public manner. Seems all scientific measurements have a degree of error (which you can never EVER estimate a priori) without phyically do multiple measurements.

I'm not trying to start an arguement, nor am I a pro-fisher so don't eat me alive, but what do you guys/gals think?

[Jimmy Jig]

I think its mostly a game of chance!!!

[Juls]

There's always room for improvement. Got a suggestion?

They can't take three weights, like you suggest, because the weigh-ins run long enough already.

You would have to come up with a system that pushed fish into a watertight box, through a water tube, and then out the other side after they were weighed. But, how do you make sure a big fat fish doesn't get stuck in the tube? lol :huh:

That's a good question....any design engineers want to take a stab at it?

There's always a better way, but it has to be cost effecient/effective for the company too. That event was only one of many that the FLW runs.

The idea behind the water scale is to help keep the fish alive while they are being weighed, and it's worked well, so getting rid of the water is not an option.

Any ideas?

Juls

[Burr]

Seems all scientific measurements have a degree of error (which you can never EVER estimate a priori) without phyically do multiple measurements.

The delay in having the readout respond when a fish is either put on the scale, or taken off it is a variable set on the scales. I would imagine many do not select the fastest setting - otherwise the readout is a constant variance of hundredths of a lb. Having it set slower just requires one to leave the fish on the scale for a few seconds to allow the readout to settle in.

It's important to weigh every fish the same - and I've gotten to the point that it is important to have a second scale available. The angler is asked to accept the weight announced by signing the weigh ticket, only after the weight ticket is signed should the fish be moved to a release tank process. If the angler does not agree with the announced weight the time to take issue is prior to signing the weigh ticket.

There really is no deviation with scientific measures. We sometimes go through the scientific measures when it comes to minimum length - example 15 inch minimum. All I have come up with for an answer is "15 inches, is 15 inches". I'm not sure how I could describe it any clearer.

[llprouse]

-I totally understand the cost-effectiveness/effectiveness comment, Juls. Same goes for any company, research setting, event, etc. And I dt agree that weigh-ins are long enough. Much longer and they will lose ALL fun factor! (And Saturday's weigh-in was the best I'd seen in awhile.) Especially in the first few days of tournament where you have 50+ anglers speed is essential. Keeping the fish alive, as well, important.

-While I agree there in something as cut-and-dried as length (to invoke your analogy), you're right, 15 inches is 15 inches. However, you could "press" that fish down and my guess is you would always be +/- a small amount of an inch. (I know it's a kinda funny way to prove it.) but I think my point is there is always a variance. In science the variance is always inherent to the technology, but in almost ALL cases, the vast majority of error is human. But I do no buy that if two different people take 1 fish out of the box and weigh it three times the fish will weight within 1 ounce of another.--Now maybe they would. But, obviously, it is vital that the fish be weighed EXACTLY the same angler to angler and theoretically there shouldn't be issues.

So, Juls, the whole fish being wet/alive thing is obvious, but I think the whole problem is transitioning between wet and dry. You're measuring something that is wet, with something wet inside of it, etc. Kinda fundamental to the whole "weighing a fish" as a standard of measurement. Length and volume seem pointless measurements, though. LOL.

I wonder if there is a weight to make sure that all fish are standardized then weighed wet. (Obviously fish pee and gulp water, but I think as long as you drip them/invert them, whatever, then weigh them in a fixed volume of water/box that they've spent more than 2 seconds in (maybe +water individually) things would probably be more consistent. Dunno if this would actually change things to truly be a game of ounces, but who knows. And I'm sure it's a method that is NOT practical for anyone but the last 10 anglers for sure. But I'd bet money that: 1. It's easy. 2. It would have much more consistent readings (when done in triplicate for example) than throwing them all in a box, dripping them dry briefly, then dunking them/weighing them.

[Juls]

I understand what you are saying now llprouse. Did you notice how some of the guys run up the stairs of the stage to get their fish in the tank as soon as possible? They do that, because they want to keep as much water in the box from the bump tank as possible. The ones that don't do that haven't figured that out yet. lol Your way would certainly eliminate that practice. ;)

Juls

[Blackmacs]

Having weighed and measured 100,000+ fish in my day, the best thing to do is to be consistent. The scale needs to be calibrated, kept zeroed and the tare needs to be consistent meaning the same or similar fish basket needs to be used. The weigh master should use the same protocol with each batch of fish also. Consistency is the key so nobody is favored.

[Guest]

How do you even know if there really is a variation problem with weighing fish? Let the data tell you before you jump to conclusions. May I suggest that you need to setup a Design of Experiments (DOE) something like this;
(1) Take 5 or 6 bags (each w/ 5 fish) of varying total-bag weight as your samples to be measured.
"I would use fish that were caught very recently -- you want splashing fish".
(2) Weigh your sample bags in a repetitive sequence, 8-10 time each. And in-between each recorded weight, the sample bags need to return to the tank so that process consistency can be maintained.
(3) Record sample bag weights & apply basic statistics to "show" that you have a variation problem
(4) Now, let the data tell you if you have a weighing variation issue.

From the data and your observations, you should be able to tell if you have variation in the scale, water splashing-out, water content in sample bags, etc.

Has this every been done in the tournament circuits before?

Good Luck,

Laid-off Engineer with too Much Time on My Hands

[wwstrailboss]

Hey minnow!

A couple of insights from lottsa experience. I ran tournaments for 12 years-all catch n release- gave out nearly a million bucks in 40 events or so. I think i could write a book, but i'll be brief.

Did you rever give any thought to the diference in THE BIG ONE, Bassmasters vs walleye tournies?

First, BASSMASTERS goes in ounces,,that's only sixteen increments of a pound (no engineering degree reqired here)right?

I believe the FLW goes to 100 increments or, an hundreth of a pound.

My thought is no one questions BASSMASTERS where the chances of ties are even greater. I've seen a .1 of a pound be the diference in 1st n 2nd and a few thousand bucks! What if we weighed in ounces? Anyway THE FUTURE is lenght weight conversions-like it or not! Fish first!

[Water Bug]

The FLW has always weighed in ounces. They have never weighed in hundreths. I have fished the FLW on the Bass side many years ago and they have always weigh in pounds and ounces.