Striper Age/Weight/Length charts

[mwardncsu]

StriperJohn asked if we could post these up on the site..... it is important to note that most of these charts derive from salt-water data, where growth rates are better than we have at SML.

I'l see if I can compile some data from Dan Wilson from the oolith bone readings which he uses for Age/Length. Until then, here are some charts from around the Web..... Weight is pretty variable depending on time of year and other factors - so harder to focus on, but in the 1st table, the weight distribution per length looks about right to me..... the ages are likely under estimated for SML.....

[Deleted]

I think that weight/length table is spot on! For example, I remember catching a 32.5 inch fish that weighed 16 pounds and I immediately called it a Fat Pig! This assessment was from my experience with all the fish I have weighed and measured and totally agrees with that table.

I also remember catching a number of 30 inch fish at the beginning of Fall that weighed close to 10 pounds. We thought they looked skinny.

[BentRod]

It's off for SML IMO and experience - it's semi accurate for about 3months out of the year. Well, the smaller fish 30" and under are close. 34" and bigger are off. Most of our fish tend to be towards the minimum weight numbers except during March, April, and May at which they may reach the average weight numbers for those lengths. I've seen 39-41" fish on SML that weren't 20lbs (heck not even close to 20lbs), which is impossible according to the chart. The maximum weight numbers for 34" fish and above are VERY rare on SML assuming you have an accurate set of scales and can read. You can look at other lakes fish profiles and even our fattest fish often look skinny in comparison.

[striperjohn]

I don't think you will find any l/w chart that is accurate for any specific body of water unless you make it a "living document" that takes into consideration forage, water temps, weather variations air temps and is updated periodically.
The aforementioned chart was very accurate for SML when we had a thriving population of Threadfins in the late 80s to late 90s. The colder weather has decimated them and thus taken a major food source from the lake.

[BentRod]

Apr 15, 2015 7:09:32 GMT -5 striperjohn said:

I don't think you will find any l/w chart that is accurate for any specific body of water unless you make it a "living document" that takes into consideration forage, water temps, weather variations air temps and is updated periodically.
The aforementioned chart was very accurate for SML when we had a thriving population of Threadfins in the late 80s to late 90s. The colder weather has decimated them and thus taken a major food source from the lake.

Yeah I agree the sizes will vary by body of water although that's why there's an average to them. The main forage issue was the Water Authority in Roanoke cleaning up the river which reduced our forage capacity to about 1/10 of what it was in the 70s and early 80s. Before that you could pack as many stripers into the system as you wanted and they'd all have plenty to eat. Nowadays, it's a more delicate balance. The gizzard and alewives can make up for the threadfin loss, but I still wonder if threads provide a meal that the gizzards can't at a certain time of year. Certainly the alewives provide a different look, but I'm not sure if threadfins and gizzards are different enough to matter.

I think the main challenge for SML is that they push the system hard with their stocking numbers and if the bait's not perfect, the fish suffer. If we weren't pushing the system so hard, you'd see more normal fish weights and growth, but it would probably be harder to catch fish. It's a delicate balance.

[Deleted]

Apr 15, 2015 6:52:50 GMT -5 BentRod said:

It's off for SML IMO and experience - it's semi accurate for about 3months out of the year. Well, the smaller fish 30" and under are close. 34" and bigger are off. Most of our fish tend to be towards the minimum weight numbers except during March, April, and May at which they may reach the average weight numbers for those lengths. I've seen 39-41" fish on SML that weren't 20lbs (heck not even close to 20lbs), which is impossible according to the chart. The maximum weight numbers for 34" fish and above are VERY rare on SML assuming you have an accurate set of scales and can read. You can look at other lakes fish profiles and even our fattest fish often look skinny in comparison.

Caught 6 fish yesterday that were all at the Max of the table. Our guide buddy caught a 35 inch fish that weighed 20 pounds. These fish were Fat! However, I caught several 24 inchers yesterday that were below the Min. These fish were really skinny.

My point is... you are not supposed to use the numbers as perfect indicators. They simply tell you what would be considered big or small for a particular length. They were obviously created from a sample to generalize to all lakes. Thus it would be incorrect to say that this table is wrong for SML. You would say.. SML tends to be on the low side of typical.

[BentRod]

I do apologize - I guess 10+ yrs of catching fish is not worth anything when you catch 6 fish. There's always exceptions to the norm.

[Deleted]

Apr 16, 2015 6:05:34 GMT -5 BentRod said:

I do apologize - I guess 10+ yrs of catching fish is not worth anything when you catch 6 fish. There's always exceptions to the norm.

All I am saying Bentrod is that this table simply serves as a means for understanding what is considered average, big or small. You can't state it is wrong or off... You can only state how your Lake is compared to it. If you catch fish that are below the min or above the max, then you can say that you caught really skinny or really fat fish, respectively.

I believe your point was that SML tends to be on the low side of this table.

[bearcat]

Thanks for the info very helpful. I do a lot of blue catfishing at buggs and the weight to length chart is not accurate for that lake either. It tends to have shorter fatter fish than most other lakes.

[Deleted]

Apr 16, 2015 6:16:12 GMT -5 Yam said:

Apr 16, 2015 6:05:34 GMT -5 BentRod said:

I do apologize - I guess 10+ yrs of catching fish is not worth anything when you catch 6 fish. There's always exceptions to the norm.

All I am saying Bentrod is that this table simply serves as a means for understanding what is considered average, big or small. You can't state it is wrong or off... You can only state how your Lake is compared to it. If you catch fish that are below the min or above the max, then you can say that you caught really skinny or really fat fish, respectively.

I believe your point was that SML tends to be on the low side of this table.

Yam, don't take this wrong, cause I like you, but it seems like you pride yourself on having a superior opinion over most others on this board, which I guess we are all like that to a certain extent.... but even I wouldn't call out one of the best fishermen on here.

[Deleted]

Haha.. Back at it again. Nice!

I wouldn't compete with Bentrod in a fishing tourney if you gave me 20 to 1 odds. However, I will clarify how to interpret generalized scientific data.

And all I was attempting to do was clarify.

[BentRod]

Apr 16, 2015 6:16:12 GMT -5 Yam said:

Apr 16, 2015 6:05:34 GMT -5 BentRod said:

I do apologize - I guess 10+ yrs of catching fish is not worth anything when you catch 6 fish. There's always exceptions to the norm.

All I am saying Bentrod is that this table simply serves as a means for understanding what is considered average, big or small. You can't state it is wrong or off... You can only state how your Lake is compared to it. If you catch fish that are below the min or above the max, then you can say that you caught really skinny or really fat fish, respectively.

I believe your point was that SML tends to be on the low side of this table.

All I'm saying is I stand by what I said - who needs a chart anyways - the fish weighs what it weighs.

[Brian]

I prefer to not measure or weigh, makes for better stories.

[Gator]

I just cut them in half and count the rings.......

[Deleted]

Apr 16, 2015 8:18:33 GMT -5 BentRod said:

Apr 16, 2015 6:16:12 GMT -5 Yam said:

All I am saying Bentrod is that this table simply serves as a means for understanding what is considered average, big or small. You can't state it is wrong or off... You can only state how your Lake is compared to it. If you catch fish that are below the min or above the max, then you can say that you caught really skinny or really fat fish, respectively.

I believe your point was that SML tends to be on the low side of this table.

All I'm saying is I stand by what I said - who needs a chart anyways - the fish weighs what it weighs.

Agreed, however, I think it is cool to have a reference that indicates what would be considered large and what would be considered small. It has value.

For example: Maybe my buddy catches a fish and thinks it is insanely fat. I look up the chart and say, "Well..that is really just an average fish for most lakes!" Hmmmm....

Or better yet, I am currently learning where the fat pigs are living this time of year and I can surmise from all the skinny fish I caught yesterday (according to the chart) that these are above average (weight/length) for this lake. Thus, I can then start pondering on why they get so big. Without a grounded reference, it is hard to feel good about any thought journeys related to such a path.

I think you may have misunderstood my original reply to you as one that is arguing that SML is an above average lake. And I agree with you that I don't have the experience to make any such claim.