I was checking out the DNR's Master Angler data yesterday when I noted something curious. People were reporting fish lengths to the hundreth of an inch. For example, two reported walleyes wwere 32.13" long. If my math is correct those fish were 32 and 1/8" long.
It matters somewhate to me because until just recently I had a top 5 CPR walleye for the 09 season. There was a 32.5" and another 32" like me. I was hoping to get that extra certificate to match one I have for a musky. Now two new guys have me beat by .13 of an inch and I wonder if they knew to add that smidgen in order to knock out two 32"ers.
I'm not ranting here, and my heart won't be broken to not be in the top 5. I'm just wondering about the ability to really measure so close or is it just BS to win the award.
What do you think?
"Ranger" said:
What do you think?
If they were measured on a bump board it's pretty easy and quick to get a 1/8" measurement. I doubt they made sure to have an extra 1/8" but you never know, some people are competitive that way.
As far as how much the award matters… keep in mind that those would be the top 5 fish reported to through the MA system. I promise there were many, many CPR'd this year that were much bigger than the largest in the MA awards. My guess is the real non-MA top 5 in Michigan last year were from 34-35". Does that make the award less meaningful? I don't know and what I think really doesn't matter. In my opinion I'm more impressed with them for releasing that big female than from some award – good job dude! If I was you I would be proud to have caught such a beautiful fish and know that she's probably still there for you to catch again, don't worry about those awards.
114
12