How Big is Big?

September ranks low on the list of best months to successfully target trophy speckled trout with artificial lures in Texas. All experienced big trout hunters know this; some would say the month when summer ends and autumn begins is the worst of all. Accordingly, anglers who use high standards when setting the dimensions which define a trophy trout feel pretty satisfied when they catch a trout measuring at least 27 inches and weighing 6 pounds or more around Labor Day.

During this sweltering time-frame, approaching the end of the season of plenty, when so many life forms abundantly populate the bays and coastal waterways, catching a true 7-pound trout feels like a significant achievement. Doing so means overcoming odds which seem unfairly stacked in favor of the fish. Many trophy trout enthusiasts accept these truths and find other ways to satisfy their angling urges this time of year.

But for folks who don't, adjusting the dimensions defining "trophy" aids in the quest to keep the fun in the fishing. In essence, the adjustment requires redefining the word trophy and thinking of the term in two distinctly separate ways. We must acknowledge how different contexts alter our perception of how big a trout must be in order for us to think of it as big.

Anglers competing in tournaments do this. In an event held in the bays around Port O'Connor in September, savvy anglers would recognize the significance of bringing trout measuring at least 20 inches to the scales, while the same anglers would set the bar higher in a place like Baffin or East Matagorda Bay, especially in a month like February. Anglers fishing for their own recreational purposes also potentially benefit from altering their perception of the dimensions which define a big trout, not only when moving from one bay system to another, but also as the seasons come and go.

Certainly, catching a 30-inch trout at Cathead in February is easier than catching a trout of equal size at Garrison Ridge in September. So, anglers who want to keep things real should adjust their expectations when they're trying to satisfy their urge to catch a big trout. Doing so means recognizing how a prevailing situation, with its given time-frame, location and other relevant environmental factors in play, creates a context which can make a trout relatively, though not objectively, big.

When trying to answer the question "How Big is Big?" consideration should be given to statistics related to the number of trout we catch of various sizes. I've done this for years, even inventing terms (which I then reduced to acronyms) for stats related to the number of trout we caught meeting or exceeding various measurement standards. Analyzing these stats helps one refine the knowledge about how to place trout into realistic categories, eventually with the goal of ranking some fish as relatively big, others as objectively big.

In the early stages of my competitive fishing career, I began recording how many keeper trout I caught per day of effort, which I dubbed a Keeper Index (KI), how many trout measuring over 20 inches I caught per day (Power Index/PI) and how many trout I caught over 25 inches (Super Power Index/SPI). Eventually, after moving to Padre Island and fishing almost exclusively south of the JFK Causeway, I added another category to this list, which I dubbed the 7PI, which documents the number of 7-pound trout I caught per outing. I kept numbers for my own personal rod and for the groups in which I fished, either as a guide, or with partners and buddies.

After fishing for a couple decades in a place famous for producing big trout, I compiled a legitimately ample database related to the dimensions one should use to define a trophy trout. Over time, my data supports several interesting and relevant facts. The numbers reveal the rarity of fish meeting specific benchmarks related to both length and weight.

Many people place a priority on weight when attempting to define the dimensions of a trophy trout, including most of the people who run fishing tournaments. In some ways, though, defining a heavier fish as a "better" fish fails to acknowledge several key facts related to the relative importance of weight and length in this endeavor. The weight of a female trout rises and falls over time, as she feeds and stores eggs before releasing them.

In contrast, the length of a fish continually increases, never reversing course. Why then, do we place more of a priority on weight than length? If a person catches an 8-pound, 30-inch fish today, is the achievement less noteworthy than when another person catches the same fish tomorrow, while it's aggressively feeding, has two smaller trout in its belly, and weighs 10 pounds?

It's the SAME fish. This fact undermines the value of using weight as the ultimate way to define a trophy trout, or as the best way to determine who should win a competitive angling event. In fact, one might point to the ease of catching a fish while it's gorging as a reason to consider catching an aggressively feeding, full fish as a lesser achievement than catching an inactive, empty fish. Diving deeper into the statistics related to the relative rarity of fish meeting various standards of weight and length further emphasizes the wisdom of using length as the ultimate way to define a trophy trout.

According to my database, in order to reduce the odds of catching a 30-inch trout to an even 1:1, an angler needs to catch approximately 50 trout measuring at least 25 inches. Stated another way, catching a 30-inch trout is approximately 50 times as difficult as catching a 25-incher. As the standard increases by each inch, the difficulty level rises. My data suggests catching a 31-inch trout is about 145 times as difficult as catching a 25. More significantly, catching a trout measuring at least 32 inches proves about 650 times as tough as catching a 25.

If these statistics fail to convince, increasing the standard of the smaller fish used in this same comparison should do the trick. I and my customers and friends have caught approximately 13 trout measuring at least 27 inches for each 30-incher brought to hand. The number of 27s for each 31 stands at about 40:1 and for 32-inchers, it's nearly 200:1.

When placing these numbers into the proper context, one must consider another supremely important factor. In order to catch a trout meeting or exceeding some standard, one must make the effort in a place where at least one fish meeting the standard swims. I compiled a huge percentage of the numbers I referenced above while fishing in places known to hold decent numbers of trout measuring 32 inches or more, at least part of the time. Many of our bay systems likely have nearly (or literally) no fish meeting such a standard.

Certainly, catching trout measuring at least 30 inches proves much easier in the waters lying south of the JFK Causeway than in those lying north of it. East Matagorda Bay provides one notable exception to this rule. However, trout in bays fed by big rivers, like Galveston Bay and Sabine Lake, generally weigh a bit more per unit of length than those found in the bays of South Texas, which do not have large rivers continually sending freshwater into them. Scales at tournaments prove this repeatedly.

A 5-pound trout caught in Galveston often measures less than 25 inches, while a fish weighing the same caught in Baffin usually measures more than 25 inches. This complicates the matter at hand somewhat; at some times and in some places, even a 5-pound trout would rank as relatively big and would generate a buzz at a tournament weigh-station. When defining trophy trout, though, no one would seriously consider 5 pounds as a significant benchmark.

Analyzing the relative rarity of fish meeting or exceeding weight standards proves a bit more difficult for me than tracking the stats related to length, because I don't have records as accurate on weight as I do on length. However, a few known facts do support my preference for focusing on length rather than weight when contemplating whether a trout meets the objectively big standard.

I and my customers and friends have caught 3 times as many trout weighing at least 10 pounds as we have trout measuring 32 inches or more. The number is about the same if we change the standards to 9 pounds and 31 inches, and if we use 8 pounds and 30 inches. Significantly, many people use one of two standards when setting their sights on catching a trophy trout, either the 30-inch mark or the 10-pound mark. My records reveal the truth about these two standards―catching a 10-pounder is about 5 times more difficult than catching a 30-incher.

A 30-inch trout is a trophy, especially in some places, at least for some anglers, whether it weighs 10 pounds or 8. An 8-pounder rings a similar bell, regardless of length, especially considering the fact that CCA once used the benchmark as the minimum for qualification in the STAR tournament. A trout meeting or exceeding the 31-inch and/or 9-pound mark deserves status as a trophy, no matter when and where she's caught. And obviously, all double-digit trout and all who stretch the tape to at least 32 inches rule trout-hunters' dreams like celebrity-queens, regardless of whether they're fat or skinny.