you don't need to bring it aboard if you have a decent net Tom!!!
we tend to net eels then weigh them in the net over the side before t-barring them off
getting quite a good process flow nowadays
trace to hand, lead removed (lessons learnt!), net behind fish, fish in net, line slack, scales onto net, readings noted, scales off, tbar, empty net.
downsides - conger slime on net and you loose the odd pound as it's difficult to get everything clear of the water and the net handle unsupported. few photo's
upside - safe weight established, fish little stressed, crew little stressed!
works on tope too but we tend to bar rays off if they are going back as they get caught up in the net..
Not convinced I could weigh a 50lb conger over the side of my boat.
1) Would be too near the water to lift off the water
2) Would be dangerous having myself and crew hanging over the side with 50lb of live conger weighing us down. ( and at night ! )
I have not had any trouble with eels "going beserk" since I learnt to keep them in the net all the time.
As for "Most of us are experienced anough to be a reasonably accurate judge of weight and with competition aside, I'd take your word for the weight you said it was...." - I am sure I saw this argument proven incorrect somewhere else before ?
I am sure I saw this argument proven incorrect somewhere else before ?
Paul
It was never an argument, it was a suggestion as to how I'd happilly not have a Conger, it's slime and blood and muck in my boat in exchange for a good guestimation of the weight.
If people truly want to weigh their fish then that is up to them, but personally a good guess is fine as I am not attempting to particularly impress anyone so if I over estimate then who am I fooling, but myself?
I am not fussed about winning a rod or having a trophy so it doesn't botherme if my weights don't count for anything apart from a asimpe record of the catch.
If people want to win prizes then weigh your fish... like I said, it was never an argument.
Tom
Tom,
I think Paul, quite rightly, is highlighting the absolute need for a fish to be weighed in acordance with documented procedures if it is to be registered. No if's, no buts, no estimates.
Obviously there is no requirement whatsoever for all fish to be weighed and many many entries in the catch report sections make reference to fish 'estimated at' and 'about' x weight.
I am amazed that this keeps coming up - and you did bring it up. In doing so you risk confusing people - hence the responses you keep getting.
I've not got drawn on the accuracy of estimates before because I have simply stayed out of it but recent experiences have confirmed my previous view that whilst some very experienced people can hold a fish (or other object) and relatively accurately estimate the weight you have no chance of doing this consistently with such as huss, tope and conger which wont sit still (even in a sling!) and that some estimates can be miles out - we had 2 examples this weekend where a huss that Dave estimated at a good 12 went 8lb 10oz and a conger of around 30 was 20lb 8oz. We were both amazed and weighed them over and over again! In the case of the huss the next 4 over the side all came up heavier than estimated - we only weighed them because we were confused by the first. Dave has 'some' experience in such estimating.
Paul - absolutely agree that I should have made an approprite comment re size of boat etc when highlighting the above practice. It's all to easy to forget the differences between boats and the potential safety implications. On Phaeton, and most craft with self draining decks, the big problem is just how far down the water is - not how close! Tight lines.
Duncan
In no way was i trying to confuse or argue with anyone.
In fact I thought I made it abundantly clear that if the fish was for some trophy or other then of course it needs weighing, however for just fun fishing and where I or others don't give a hoot about winning a rod for the fish of the month I am happy if someone writes a eport saying it was about 12lb or the fish were in the 30 to 40 lb bracket.
As far as I am concerened that makes great reading and is a lot more interesting that saying it was 4lb 6oz and 2drms.
Again, for those that want to fish for trophies then all dues to you, weigh your fish, I'd rather get a rough idea from fish that I don't plan to keep and then cause them as little stress as possible.
Tom
Tom,
The argument ( or rather "discussion" ) I would have is that I do not consider that most are actually capable of accurately guessing a weight of a fish ( I certainly include myself in that category as well ). Maybe I see a comp coming here 
Also as Fish Recorder I have to make it quite clear that EVERY fish recorded in the book needs to be weighed on board or on land or to be recorded as weight estimated.
I agree, that if not interested in recording then no need to weigh. ( Indeed my best Tope of est. 30lb I did exactly that ).
I wouldn't want someone causing a fuss if their non-weighed fish was not accepted for the book as its weight was estimated.
Without any wish to restart an old discussion, wind anyone up or hijack the original thread
I think that Paul and Duncan and others have as the saying goes hit the nail on the head. 
If Members wish to record a catch to keep us all informed of how the general fishing is going that is very welcome.
If the fish are to be entered for any of the Club comps including Species trophy or fish of the month or for Club Records then they need to be weighed and witnessed.
However if the Member is not interested in trophys for the fish. the weight/size can be estimated and the fish still recorded in the book as an estimated entry for interest only.
Perhaps with the constant input of new Members this needs to be noted somewhere [ on the competition list and rules?] so that they can be aware of the policy.
Charlie