Where I?m coming from on this one is looking at the condition factor as a means of assessing potential growth. The problem is you need quite a lot of data from a decent range of fish, hence the reason for me to be able to include those Chub I?ve caught that I know the weight of but not the length. Scaling photos up in AutoCad is working quite well when I?ve got something in the picture that I know the size of. It?s a bit of an erroneous task back tracking though all my data, especially when I have to fit it in between writing Christmas cards and house work, not to mention actually going fishing as well. Our lass is down with flu at the moment and I need the brownie points for fishing during the Christmas break and for when she finds out I?ve nicked her dress makers tape!!!!
The whole idea is to get enough data from fish caught at approximately the same time of the year from a variety of club waters and then work out which one has the best potential for producing the largest Chub. If it works that will be the bit I keep to myself<G>. Unless of course you are a member of the Chub Study Group, this really is an excellent group with loads of information and good advice. You can also do the same by collecting scales, which is completely harmless to the Chub, and then counting the number of growth rings, however, I?ll leave that one for later.
