Which Weigh Did He Go?

Or...How to turn a nickel into $32,000

September 18, 2006

For four years now I have watched with interest how the weights and measures program on the various redfish tours works. It wasn't long at all before I realized that there was a very large potential for inaccuracy and discrepancy with the methods currently in use.

For those of you who are not aware of my background, I have spent many years in laboratories and hold four degrees in the sciences. When it comes to obtaining an accurate quantitative measurement of anything there are certain standards that must be met to ensure accuracy and reproducibility. These are standards that are universally observed in the scientific world.

Now this question of weighing fish has weighed heavily on my mind. I have spent untold hours working out the problem in my head and on paper. Interestingly, the best solution I could come up with is that the fish should be weighed in water. This would provide a means for an absolute weight of the fish because the exact weight of water as a consistent tare would not be a variable. No basket, no plastic bag…just fish.

This would also eliminate the variables of movement from an unsecured platform (stage), movement by the fish on the scale, movement from wind, inequity of scale platform size, position of the basket on the smaller scale head, position of the fish in the basket, fast finger pokes, and etc. There are so many variables coming into play with the current method of weighing fish that the very best anyone can hope for is a fairly consistent accuracy of within one ounce.

With the current methods used by the Cup and the IFA, there is simply no conceivable way to weigh fish to within an accuracy of better than one ounce. Tenths are out of the question and hundredths are an absolute farce!

No way! Not gonna happen! Uhuh! No! Not! Never! Don't even go there!

To pretend that it is possible and to publish weights as being accurate to within a hundredth of a pound is nothing more than a travesty and an insult to the intelligence of the anglers whose future and career lies on those scales.

Let's have a short math class.

What is this value reputed to be the most accurate measure of two redfish?

What is this hundredth of a pound?

One pound is 16 ounces.

One hundredth of one pound is 0.16 ounces.

One ounce is equivalent to 28.3495231 grams.

And 0.16 ounce is 4.536 grams.

Even if we take a coarse measurement and round the number to 4.5 grams we still have a weight that is less than the weight of one nickel!!

A nickel!

Reach in your pocket and take out a nickel.

Now hold it in your hand and ask yourself if any two redfish placed in a plastic bag, in a large basket, on a small scale, in a random manner, in the outdoors, with blowing wind and fish movement and people movement and stage movement and fast fingers could possibly, by any stretch of the imagination, be accurate to the weight of that nickel!

It does not take a genius to figure it out. And you don't need four graduate degrees either. The answer is, of course, no! It cannot be done under those circumstances and conditions.

It is literally impossible! And, it is preposterous to claim otherwise.

So why are the controlling parties so resistant to change?

Why don't they seek appropriate accuracy as diligently as we do?

Because they don't have to. They have no motivation to do so. The dollar, as usual, has the loudest voice and there is absolutely zero financial impact on those that are doing the weighing. If their method is not accurate……so what? It doesn't affect their check, or their sponsors, or their career. The show goes on.

But we have seen, very dramatically, how this obtuse thought process and ineffective, inaccurate weigh-in procedure can indeed affect the check, promotional impact, and careers of the anglers.

Nickel anyone?

Mike?

Artie?

Who's next?

Contact Gritter

Return Home Return to Blog