Bass scales

Message

#1 Post by **Eoghan** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 9:14 am

Last week during one of my blanks I missed a fish which had hit the lure quite hard. All I was left with was a scale on one of the trebs which was about the size of a 5 cent piece.

What made me think about this was on Friday night when I was cooking the one Bass I was forced to keep the size of its scales were much smaller, no larger than a 1cent piece. This Bass was approx 4Ib in weight. Does anyone know any correlation between the size of the scales and the size of a bass or could anyone hazard a guess at the size of the fish I missed..?

teacher · #2 Post by **teacher** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 9:49 am

If you kept the scale you might be able to determine the age of the fish and from that the weight. I haven;t done it myself but I think it's just like counting rings on a tree. The scales will have annular rings. Cortaz has done this in the past, I think ...

#3 Post by **Eoghan** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 10:07 am

I had kept it but by the time I got back from the session it had dried up and I threw it away and never thought of counting the rings. My initial thought was that it wa s a big fish but didnt really get a good look at it.

#4 Post by **Bradan** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 10:09 am

The larger the fish the larger the scales, as a general rule.
Reading scales is done on a microfiche - if your local library has one you could use that. Gives great information on age and growth rates

#5 Post by **cortaz** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 11:35 am

eoghan, my first thought is mullet or a very big bass, think if it was a bass you would have foul-hooked it as there scales are fairly soft and it was hit hard.
it happens a lot on some of mark i fish the easest way to tell is to rub the scale between your fingers then smell it!!!

#6 Post by **Eoghan** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 11:46 am

cortaz wrote:eoghan, my first thought is mullet or a very big bass, think if it was a bass you would have foul-hooked it as there scales are fairly soft and it was hit hard.
it happens a lot on some of mark i fish the easest way to tell is to rub the scale between your fingers then smell it!!!

I had thought of a mullet alright although I hadnt seen many in the area. There were trout about alright but dont think they have scales like a bass.
This scale was hard and I had the fish on for about a second then it was free.

#7 Post by **Adam S** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 3:21 pm

if you assume that there is a correlation between scale size and fish size, which no doubt there is, then you could make a rough guess at estimating the dimensions.

but if there is a correlation between width of the scales then the difference in lenght of the overall fish based on scale width would be , what double the 4lbs bass maybe, which would make that one monster bass. an awful lot of room for error though

my guess would be mullet too.

dont forget reading scales only gives you the minimum age of the fish, scales fall out and are replaced.

i dont see that theres any way it could be a trout, have had trout to over 7lbs and the scales would have been a lot smaller than a 1 cent piece

#8 Post by **Eoghan** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 3:40 pm

We have known that there are very large bass at this mark for a long time and in one such session we saw a clonker at the surface chasing mackerel. I have also spooked large fish from time to time there.

Hate to say it but float fishing a livebait mackerel...??

I know Mike Ladle swears by it and he sent me a good e-mail detailing how he does it. Just think its a bit cruel but its perhaps the only way to come in contact with these fish at this venue as its flooded with Mackerel in the summer/Autumn.

#9 Post by **Adam S** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 3:53 pm

i dont think its cruel per se, no more cruel than catching one in the first place. hook in the mouth , hook in the flank, i dont personally see any difference. i am also not of the opinion that fish feel in the same way we do, so i dont think pain comes into it, no more than it does using rag, mussell or crab

for me now, this is just my view.