Calculating Bass Weight

[caddobass]

When without a scale, try this ( length x length x girth divide by 1,200 = weight ). I've always found this to be within a few hundreds of being correct.

[MotherNature]

I have made this topic sticky as I think it is a great reference. It will probably need to be moved later on when we find an appropriate place for it but for now I don't want it to get lost.

[BenFishing]

Mmmm, I've always taken the actual weight, then added 2 or 3 pounds, but then again, I am an awesome story teller.

[MotherNature]

Mmmm, I've always taken the actual weight, then added 2 or 3 pounds, but then again, I am an awesome story teller.

Aren't all fishermen... and women

[150 ProXS]

I like calculating the weight of ones that get off beside the boat... By the scales on their side of course...lol...  "set the hook" 

[mike remick H H]

im not sure on how to weigh a bass without actually weighing it but my biggest fish to date its not a bass but it was a 3 1/2ft 16lb shortnose gar...that was a fight...broke my 10bearing reel...still had fun though...

[Kkbass77]

Pretty neat. Within 3 ounces of a bass I just measured for a replica mount.

[kickerhunter33]

Is this really that accurate!?! I just caught a fish 2 weeks ago my scales are broke so I measure length 24.25 and girth 20 on the dot the formula says 9.82 I was thinking about a pound less but hey I like 9.82 better than 8.5 any day of the week.

[Pferox]

That calculation is a generalization and won't work consistently with all species or even particular specimens within a certain species all the time.  But it is the closest thing they have at the present time.

Just like humans, the many variables play into account, body shape, biomass, where you measure the girth, and other variables I don't even know about.

With saying all of that, it is the best we have right now, and if you use it consistently, it is a good reference point, although I do suggest using the scale over everything else.

[analfisherman]

Question anglers.

Has anyone used the calculation method (length x length x girth divide by 1,200 = weight)
and then actually checked on a scale to see how accurate the quess or calculation was?

If so, how close was it?

[Pferox]

Question anglers.

Has anyone used the calculation method (length x length x girth divide by 1,200 = weight)
and then actually checked on a scale to see how accurate the quess or calculation was?

If so, how close was it?

Yes, on my PB redfish it calculated out to 20lbs straight and actually weighed about 22 and change we called it 22.
We did a black drum also a week or two later and it was calculated at like 24 lbs and weighed a little over 27.  Or it was the other way around, can't remember now.

My buddy Robert got the formula from somebody at Texas A&M in Galveston, the marine biology dept.  He had some discussion about the discrepancy, but I don't know what transpired from that.

I can't find it in a search, but the guy from Totally Awesome Fishing show, that You Tube site did an episode where he made a big deal about how inaccurate the calculation was, and then came up to the conclusion that the calculations were more accurate as the fish approaches a certain shape.  I don't remember exactly, but want to say as it gets more streamlined, like a mackerel.  (Wish I could find that dang episode).  He didn't mention it in the title, so it is hard to find.

[analfisherman]

Bassmaster Mag., March Issue had Shoal Bass Record, Fl. at 4lb 2oz.
Length 20", Girth 13 and 1/2"

So 20X20X13.5 divided by 1200= 4.5
Pretty darn close.

But I'm guessing I maybe doing the math wrong. 
Maybe it should be 13.6?

[Jw7054]

Question anglers.

Has anyone used the calculation method (length x length x girth divide by 1,200 = weight)
and then actually checked on a scale to see how accurate the quess or calculation was?

If so, how close was it?

It is different for all fish. There are different formulas. Im also guessing there is an exponential change and it slowly gets farther off.

[coldfront]

overestimates the weight of a recent fish by a couple pounds. 
guess what I need to check first is the scale calibration....  perhaps it read light?

fingers crossed...here's hoping...   

[BassNat]

Bill Dance on one of his shows said, length x length x length /1600 as an estimate.

[big g]

I don't see how that would work.  We have all caught long, very skinny bass, at some time in our fishing history.  You have to have a girth measurement somewhere in the equation. 

[flowerjohn]

I don't see how that would work.  We have all caught long, very skinny bass, at some time in our fishing history.  You have to have a girth measurement somewhere in the equation. 

I use girthxgirthxlength/800 =weight and it
Is pretty accurate.


This message sent via the FC network.

[coldfront]

rethinking this... estimate it, then take a photo... we all know photos add 10 pounds...

win-win!