# Here's one for discussion...



## Drumdum (Jan 6, 2003)

This is part of an e-mail I recieved about my drum tags.. Wanting to hear ya'lls take on a fish that is out for 7yrs and only 41 in long at time of capture and has only grown 1"??   

Now, I have other news for you. Guess what..............(drum roll)............one of your tagged fish was recapped!!!!!Yeaaaaahhhhhhh!
Tag number D39878 that you used on April 25, 1998 in Ocracoke Inlet (41 inches FL) 
was recaptured.............
September 3rd in the mouth of the Neuse River @ 42 inches fork length
That fish has been with a tag for 2688 days and was captured 31 miles from the tag location.
Happy New Year
Regards, Carol


----------



## chuck(skidmark) (Jul 11, 2004)

Congratulations!

Only 1", huh?

After 7 yrs., I bet that tag had some nice funk hanging off of it.


----------



## Fishman (Apr 23, 2000)

seems like it would have grown longer. Maybe the tag was held for a while before it was reported and the date called in was used ?????

Just a thought


----------



## the rhondel (Feb 6, 2003)

Too bad ya didnt have the weights to go along with the length.Could of been even more interesting!....the R


----------



## Drumdum (Jan 6, 2003)

*Rollie*

Wieght and girth can vary in the fish,but lengths do not..

Fishman,when tags are turned in the dates of catch are asked,they like to keep close tabs on that kind of thing,cause they use the dates,locations,and sizes to use in thier studies..

I think the interesting thing about this one is that he was at a size that I thought growth rate was a little quicker,but obviously not.. I've had tagged fish out and caught tagged fish that were much bigger,say 46plus inches up to as big as 49..Those weren't out that long and some had grown less,but some had actually grown an inch or more from time of tagging to time of catch..


----------



## uncdub13 (Aug 9, 2003)

makes ya think they might be just like people, some sort of sputter out and stop growing at a certain point and others are destined to be giants.


----------



## Newsjeff (Jul 22, 2004)

That's some great reading, Kenny. Seven years?  
That tag's older than Tater, huh?

It's gotta be really freakin' rewarding when you get an email like that.  

Good work, Kenny.


----------



## master baiter (Aug 8, 2003)

Vewry interesting...drum live a long time and are a most misunderstood fish...That's why I am glad that there are a few rules and regulations out there to help protect them...a 50 incher is a treasure and should be handled with care...


----------



## sand flea (Oct 24, 1999)

That's incredible. I did read somewhere that drum grow the quickest in their first three years, at which point they reach around 30". Then, their growth slows tremendously.

Males don't get as big as females in most species--perhaps your recapture was a male that had pretty much topped out in size when you caught him?


----------



## Drumdum (Jan 6, 2003)

sand flea said:


> That's incredible. I did read somewhere that drum grow the quickest in their first three years, at which point they reach around 30". Then, their growth slows tremendously.
> 
> Males don't get as big as females in most species--perhaps your recapture was a male that had pretty much topped out in size when you caught him?


 Matt,I had always thought the same,that males grew much smaller.. Had always heard that if they "drum" they are males. Well,bein the sceptic I am,when fishing with Jeff Ross,I asked and he confermed that.. I witnessed and caught fish that were over 48" this yr that were definatly males.. 

I'm kinda going with the theory that they are sorta like humans in that some can be short and still be adults,and grow slowly..


----------



## rattler (Jul 3, 2004)

i caught a tagged flattie...just short of 15"...sent in the info, and it came back to a 16.5" fish...got a free hat...but i know how to measure fish...


----------



## Drumdum (Jan 6, 2003)

rattler said:


> i caught a tagged flattie...just short of 15"...sent in the info, and it came back to a 16.5" fish...got a free hat...but i know how to measure fish...


 That's one of the things about the taggin program on drum that worries me.. I tag fork length,which is the way it is intended.. Many on the beach will measure total length. The fish could be as much as 3" in difference when caught if they measure it that way..

Obviously this guy measured fork length because it would have been 3 to 4 inches longer than it was otherwise..


----------



## Wilber (May 20, 2003)

We are assuming the other guy measured the fish correctly?

Could be he was inaccurate.


----------



## Drumdum (Jan 6, 2003)

Wilber said:


> We are assuming the other guy measured the fish correctly?
> 
> Could be he was inaccurate.


 Wilber,he had to have measured fork length,if not the fish would have been 44" or better,if he were to have measured total length.. I think this guy measured accuratly,even though the 1" growth in 7yrs kinda sets me back a tad??


----------



## rattler (Jul 3, 2004)

and if i measured like that i'd have more flatties in the freezer...or a ticket...


----------



## fish militia (Nov 1, 2004)

uncdub13 said:


> makes ya think they might be just like people, some sort of sputter out and stop growing at a certain point and others are destined to be giants.



My sediments exactly


----------



## Drumdum (Jan 6, 2003)

rattler said:


> and if i measured like that i'd have more flatties in the freezer...or a ticket...


 Flaties don't really have much of a fork to measure by tail is kinda flat.. NC law says you are to measure total length for a slot drum.. Tags are to be measured fork length.. If you measure a flounder fork length,don't really see where you would get a ticket?? If the tail really had a fork on a flounder you would be measuring the shortest length possible..


----------



## uncdub13 (Aug 9, 2003)

what about this flounder??


----------



## NTKG (Aug 16, 2003)

uncdub13 said:


> makes ya think they might be just like people, some sort of sputter out and stop growing at a certain point and others are destined to be giants.



well maybe it was an asian drum? instead of a long skinny rodwatcher kinda drum?!


----------



## rattler (Jul 3, 2004)

bad example i guess...flatties got round tails...just the first fish that came to mind...got alot of short trout(where are the greys?)...i can see a fish not growing...but getting smaller?...


----------



## master baiter (Aug 8, 2003)

Many fish grow to adult size and then lose weight and length just as us humans do...There is a certain "window" where fish and humans obtain their maximum weight/length/girth...Older fish have been caught that would have been world records if they had been caught a few years earlier...


----------



## Drumdum (Jan 6, 2003)

master baiter said:


> Many fish grow to adult size and then lose weight and length just as us humans do...There is a certain "window" where fish and humans obtain their maximum weight/length/girth...Older fish have been caught that would have been world records if they had been caught a few years earlier...


 MB,I've never heard of one loosing length.. You know this for a fact? I've heard of girth going both up and down,but never length on a fish... 

Not saying you are wrong,just never have heard that.


----------



## Fishman (Apr 23, 2000)

Ditto what DD said


----------



## Orest (Jul 28, 2003)

*Osteoporosis in fish*

That would be something. I wonder who would be an authority on this subject.


----------



## master baiter (Aug 8, 2003)

I am def. not an authority but can say that I've caught the same bass in the same lake,( i'm talking freshwater), 4 times in a 5 year period... she went from 22 and1/2 (compressed) to 22 in 5 years...Hummmm...could be time to call in the experts...


----------



## Drumdum (Jan 6, 2003)

master baiter said:


> I am def. not an authority but can say that I've caught the same bass in the same lake,( i'm talking freshwater), 4 times in a 5 year period... she went from 22 and1/2 (compressed) to 22 in 5 years...Hummmm...could be time to call in the experts...


 MB,you know how bass use their tail to clear out a spot,usually in sand to bed?? Could this have been a case of the fishes tail getting eroded away? I don't doubt a fish could srink,but not the inch and a half that rattler said in his post about the tagged flounder.. That guy just flat out mismeasured,IMO..


----------



## fishbone4_14_74 (Feb 7, 2005)

Unless some of these fish are getting nose or tail jobs or swimming really fast into stuff and they have fishie craig ,, and weight washers


----------



## Smoothbore54 (Jun 8, 2003)

Without a means of verifying the accuracy of the original data, I'd have to bet on something simple, like an error in the original report, or in it's recording.

I've been designing machinery and tooling, to customers specifications, for over 30 years, and am still amazed at the sloppy, careless attitude some people exhibit, when it comes to dimensions.

I quit trusting anyone elses measurements and data, during the Nixon Administration.


----------



## Drumdum (Jan 6, 2003)

Fishbone,generally speaking fish that are measured in the tagging system will be shorter than a normal surffisherman would measure. Most folks that fish the Point or Ocock for example take total length measurements.. When you see all those 50"ers posted from Ocock in the spring I take it with a grain of salt in most cases.. Not that a 47",48, ain't a dern nice fish,but anything over 50" fl gets my attention... 

In reference to your "wieghtwashers" comment one fella ,won't say where or who, was getting world records in freshwater. He had quite a few records,but then he blew it.. He was in a tourney and one of the wieghtmasters noticed a small lump in the fishes stomach,which turned out to be a bulletwieght! Shame of it all is that the guy is a MOST EXCELLENT FEESHERMAN,and had legally caught most of those records.. Anyone that stoops to that level,is a scumsucker, IMO..:--|


----------



## fishbone4_14_74 (Feb 7, 2005)

Kenny it is a shame that people have to add weight to make a fish seem heavier than what it is ,,,, but by say that talking about fat fish that wanted to lose a few pound not add lol ,, but what if the real underwater world was like that where they have a lil city somewhere down there and we didnt know about it   

OK ill go smoke another one lmao


----------



## master baiter (Aug 8, 2003)

DD, you made a good point that I did not consider... The only other reason I could come up with is the human-like growth pattern...


----------



## Drumdum (Jan 6, 2003)

Smoothbore54 said:


> Without a means of verifying the accuracy of the original data, I'd have to bet on something simple, like an error in the original report, or in it's recording.
> 
> I've been designing machinery and tooling, to customers specifications, for over 30 years, and am still amazed at the sloppy, careless attitude some people exhibit, when it comes to dimensions.
> 
> I quit trusting anyone elses measurements and data, during the Nixon Administration.


 Smoothbore,I can GAURANTEE,the measurements were recorded correctly,at least the one when it was tagged anyway..  And the second measurement,I can imagine someone measuring too long,but too short?? 

Fishbone:


> say that talking about fat fish that wanted to lose a few pound not add lol but what if the real underwater world was like that where they have a lil city somewhere down there and we didnt know about it OK I'll go smoke another one lmao


 I feel as though taggin info is pretty interesting stuff,at least to me.. I get down right FHB serious about it at times,and forget my sense of humor.. Glad you are in "that kinda mood",although,I can inform ya from "WAY IN THE PAST EXPERIENCE",that if'n ya keep tokin dat chit,*YOU'LL* be da one want'n ta loose a few pounds though,not da feesh.....


----------

