Saltwater Boat Angling — December 2017

Saltwater Boat Angling 61

adopted the LxGxG/800 formula for

assessing blue shark ‘weights’ but for

some reason have adopted the

National Oceanographic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

scale for other species.

This scale is very inaccurate as it takes

no account of girth measurements,

which is surprising for a scale originating

from a top research organization.

I believe the SACGB are currently

reviewing this policy. The weight of

a shark is, in fact, determined more

by girth or, to be precise, by stomach

contents, than length. Joyce Yallop’s

500lb record mako was 8 feet 9 ins

long, but three makos recorded o

Looe and Falmouth between 320lb

and 372lb were all at least 9 feet long.

STOMACH FULL OF BASS

Joyce Yallop’s shark had a 50lb-plus

conger in its stomach, Phil Taylor’s

370lb, 80lb line class record mako,

that I assisted in boating, regurgitated

a 50lb monksh (angler sh) at the

side of the boat and still had about

40lb of bass in its stomach.

The 355lb sh I caught the following

year, was 9 feet 3 inches long, but its

stomach was empty. The NOAA

calculator would have made it 572lb,

more than 200lb heavier than it

actually was. All these examples are

graphic illustrations of just how

inaccurate these formulae are.

I have no idea how the LxGxG/800

formula was devised, but it does give

a common method of measurement

and a gure by which all sh can be

compared whether or not we refer to

that gure as ‘lbs’. Whichever way a

sh is compared, it basically relies on

the honesty of those involved in the

capture but, as I outlined above, this

was just as relevant in the days when

sh were weighed.

PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE

Comparing photographs gives only

a summary guide to the size of a sh

as there are several variables in the

process. Most photographs of sharks

these days are taken on mobile phone

cameras which, almost without

exception, are tted with wide-angle

or even very wide-angle lenses. These

have a tendency to exaggerate the

size of foreground subjects. In other

words, if you hold a sh nearer the

camera it will look bigger and the wider

the angle of the lens, the bigger it will

look! If the sh is held with the head and

tail slightly nearer the camera, the girth

will look smaller and vice versa.

The only way to achieve an accurate

assessment from a photograph is to

take it at right angles to the sh with

a standard lens (55mm focal length

equivalent on a 35mm camera). All

the afore-mentioned anomalies exist

in photographs taken straight from

the camera, the amount of tweaking

and dodging that can then be done

in Photoshop or a myriad of other

editing packages is nigh on limitless,

so photographs can only be seen as

a visual record and not an accurate

reference for comparing the size of

dierent sh.

BRITISH RECORD DISPUTES

A photograph of a large blue shark,

caught o Penzance, recently

appeared on social media and most

observers, myself included, agreed

that it appeared to be at least 300lb,

a massive sh. In fact, it turned out to

be 256lb by the LxGxG/800 formula.

Another shark caught in the Celtic

Deeps, a few weeks later, looked

smaller but turned out to be 271lb

by the same formula although, this

sh did appear to have a large girth

from the photographs. The resultant

accusations and slanging match that

ensued did no-one any favours.

I know, though not well, one of the

skippers involved and I know of the

other and I believe them both to be

men of integrity, with the best interests

of sharking in their hearts, so unless

one, or both of them, were telling

‘porkies’, which I very much doubt,

you can’t argue with the maths and

gures of two sh measured by the

same formula. A graphic illustration of

the whole purpose and reason for

having a standard method of

measurement in the rst place.

In this enlightened day and age I

think we must forget the absolute

literal meaning of the word ‘lb’ as

being sixteen ounces, and just accept

it as a numerical gure of reference

and comparison unless we are going

to go back to hanging sharks up on

the quay again, on scales certied for

accuracy by the department of

weights and measures, and sh being

weighed by an independent

designated ‘weighmaster’.

David's book

This shark was estimated at 300lb.

It turned out to be 256lb by the LxGxG/800 formula

EDITORS NOTE: David’s book The

Shark Fisherman has just come out in

paperback and you can get a copy

here. http://www.amazon.co.uk/SHARK-

FISHERMAN-Turner-David

Issue 019 48-92.indd 61 10/11/2017 18:57:53