Mercury Level in Lakes

I expected Clear Lake to be high on the list.

http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-news/ci_15222701?nclick_check=1

Ewwwwww, no thanks!  I though CL would be on there as well.  Glad to see my home-waters aren't listed, thanks for sharing the info.

Brings to mind the lyrics "don't believe the Hype"...

I mean that Mercury ingestion is of-course serious, and some of those bodies of water should raise concerns, but there are some things they don't explain readily such as there is Mercury as we know it, and Methyl Mercury which is a substance that is naturally produced by living things. Also, keep in mind that as recreational anglers we are warned of consuming more than a small portion of Halibut from the bay due to toxins yet if you go to any of the higher end fish stores in the bay area, they will sell you halibut caught from those same waters and they have no such warning attached. The reason is, DFG takes it's guidance for sport caught fish from Cal OSHA while the FDA regulates commercial caught fish. I.E., Mom says no, Dad says yes.

The way I see it is that it is still very much the way it was years ago, the commercial industry hated PB's since as far as they were concerned, they were just stealing fish that could be caught and sold. Only recently did the commercial industry have to form a tenuous alliance with us recreational guys for political reasons due to restrictions.

I am sure that the general consensus of the fisheries industry is that there is a certain amount of fish consumption per capita regardless of it's origin so every sport caught fish is not only one less that will not contribute to the economic chain of the fisheries industry, but it is that much less potential demand at the fish market.

If 10,000 halibut are sport caught out of the bay in a given period of time at an average weight of 10# each, that is approx. 100,000# that was still eaten but never bought or sold. Per pound, at say $3 to the commercial angler, then $6-$8 wholesale, then $15-$20 to the consumer, you are looking at upwards of a few million dollars of revenue the industry lost out on due to sport fishing. Now say that is one month's worth of fish (conservative estimate based on the amount of boats and fishermen in the bay area) then multiply that by say 6 months for the duration of the whole season. Then add the amount of sport anglers from San Diego, Monterey, Humboldt and points between, and I could see that sport anglers take enough of a bite out of the potential earnings of the Industry where it would justify lobbying the state to take actions that protect the industry, after all, all that income generates taxes and jobs, while sport fishing is basically just a pass time or hobby.

Besides, if you read the DFG warning, they are all still based on 'as yet to be concluded' studies, and at this point are basically still assumptions.

The moral of the story is, their is no incentive for them not to be overly cautious in regards to sport caught fish because nothing is lost by people releasing their catch. But, as a bean counter, I learned one very important thing when it comes to numbers and statistics;

"Statistics are like a Bikini, what they reveal is often extremely important, but what they hide is usually crucial."

Man. None of my waters were on there. Nasty

"Statistics are like a Bikini, what they reveal is often extremely important, but what they hide is usually crucial."

Quote of the day right there...love it!

"Statistics are like a Bikini, what they reveal is often extremely important, but what they hide is usually crucial."

Quote of the day right there...love it!

  MMMMMMMMMMM BIKINIS.. What? oh sorry got distracted

Whew Mini Ducker, you wore me out with that one....  The way I look at it is, we also contribute to the commercial catch by buying their baits don't cha think? All those tray baits, chovies, herring, squid, octopus, sardines, shinners, etc. gotta come from somewhere right? Not to mention how much else we contribute to the economies all around the sportfishing. On average if you totaled all we put into our beloved sport, it would be way cheaper to go buy it at the stores, but what fun is that??????? The fun is what we really spend the $$$ for.... As for the mercury, I often wonder if it's always been there to some degree, and now we just know about it................

I lived across the street from this lake for almost 4 years.  You can actually see it in this article's pic: http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/south_bay&id=7479645  Fished there a lot for bass and carp, but would never eat anything there (though have seen a few do!)

What they dont say in the article though is that the entire south bay watershed is loaded with mercury from the old gold rush days and the Almaden Quicsilver mines.  Take a look at the information here on the Guadalupe river system: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guadalupe_River_%28California%29

"Mercury Contamination

The Guadalupe Watershed was an area of intense activity during the California Gold Rush, with the quicksilver mines within Santa Clara County supporting the gold refinement process.[15] Thus, mercury toxicity and its effects on surrounding humans and wildlife is a major concern for the area. Because mercury is an effective magnet for gold, miners during the Gold Rush would regularly line their sluices with Mercury to amalgamate the gold. An estimated 6,500 tons of mercury was lost in the system of creeks and rivers along the coast between 1850 and 1920, and is currently being detected today in the local streams, animal life, and riverbeds of these affected tributaries.[16][17][18]"

Brings to mind the lyrics "don't believe the Hype"...

"Statistics are like a Bikini, what they reveal is often extremely important, but what they hide is usually crucial."

I've looked at allot of the data on the health effects of mercury on everything from fetus to adults.  And I've seen some of the actual data on mercury (and other toxins) in the flesh of bay area fish. 

If any of you personally want to disregard the DFG guidelines go ahead, but please do believe the sections for children and pregnant women, it's not worth the risk.

Ya, I'm not saying all bodies of water are pristine, I am just seeing that list the state issues grow longer and longer with each year, as well as warnings on Saltwater fish. Does anyone here know if there are any studies that confirm how many people have actually gotten sick or died due to consumption of sport caught fish from any body of water in California?  I have friends who are pure animals and keep and eat everything with many healthy and happy kids, yet I have a vegan friend who just had a baby with Downs Syndrome despite their Kalifornia diet.

I truly do believe there is an unspoken understanding not only within DFG, but in the political powers that control them of "spook 'em off or they'll fish 'em out, and lets herd them towards the Pay to Plays were we have control over put and the take" when it comes to fish. As is, in this economy, we see alot more catch and keep, because people just can't afford to buy as much protein as they used to so I expect to see even more waters added to the list, and even more species become of questionable concern regarding "health".

Brings to mind the lyrics "don't believe the Hype"...

"Statistics are like a Bikini, what they reveal is often extremely important, but what they hide is usually crucial."

Dont' get me wrong I believe that on many if not most issues in the news these 2 statments are pretty accurate,

I used to believe that mercury warnings were more hype than anything else until I did some digging.  And agreed, as far as I know there is no concrete data on people being harmed by eating sport caught fish,

My point was especially in the case of pregnancy and young children, that mercury tends to build up in the brain and interfere with brain function and development.  The levels at which that happens are currently and always will be argued, but for now I believe it's just not worth the risk. 

For me as an old guy I don't much worry about mercury in most fish, but even I won't eat a leopard out of Tomales Bay,

 

If 10,000 halibut are sport caught out of the bay in a given period of time at an average weight of 10# each, that is approx. 100,000# that was still eaten but never bought or sold. Per pound, at say $3 to the commercial angler, then $6-$8 wholesale, then $15-$20 to the consumer, you are looking at upwards of a few million dollars of revenue the industry lost out on due to sport fishing. Now say that is one month's worth of fish (conservative estimate based on the amount of boats and fishermen in the bay area) then multiply that by say 6 months for the duration of the whole season. Then add the amount of sport anglers from San Diego, Monterey, Humboldt and points between, and I could see that sport anglers take enough of a bite out of the potential earnings of the Industry where it would justify lobbying the state to take actions that protect the industry, after all, all that income generates taxes and jobs, while sport fishing is basically just a pass time or hobby.

Yeah but what kind of Market does Sport Fishing Create ? I have turned a lot of people on to my sport caught fish and the one's that don't fish have to buy it, when I eat out I order fish most of the time. If nobody sport fished do you think their market would go up?

The reason is, DFG takes it's guidance for sport caught fish from Cal OSHA while the FDA regulates commercial caught fish. I.E., Mom says no, Dad says yes.

Minor correction... Cal OSHA has no involvement in this.   It's the EPA, or more accurately, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) that provides guidance to DFG regarding mercury levels and other environmental toxins. 

This is one of those issues on which every angler should do some basic research and decide for themselves how much risk they are willing to accept.  There are a lot of nuances for sure.

EK