This page has been moved to http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/honest-angler
If your browser doesn’t redirect you to the new location, please visit The The Honest Angler at its new location: www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/honest-angler.
Why I Won't Be Eating Much Bass
The Clean Water Act of 1972, passed by both house of Congress and signed by President Richard M. Nixon, called on the country to restore our rivers, lakes, and streams to “fishable” and “swimmable”status. Thirty-six years later, any angler buying a D.C. fishing license also receives a the District of Columbia fishing regulations booklet, which contains the following Public Health Advisory:
PCBs and other chemical contaminants have continued to be found in certain fish species caught in the Potomac and Anacostia rivers and their tributaries, including Rock Creek, within the boundaries of the District of Columbia. Because of these findings, the Department of Health advises the general public to limit consumption of fish from all DC waters, as follows:
Do not eat: Catfish, carp, or eel.
May eat: One-half pound per month of largemouth bass, or one-half pound per week of sunfish or other fish.
Choose to eat: Younger and smaller fish of legal size.
The practice of catch and release is encouraged.
The booklet goes on to counsel that anglers should “always skin the fish, trim away fat, and cook fish to drain away fat because chemical contaminants tend to concentrate in the fat of the fish.”
Just to make sure all the bases are covered, it adds a final note: "The Department of Health also notes that other species of fish found in the District's waters not identified above did not have elevated levels of PCBs or pesticides."
D.C. is not alone, of course. Few, if any of our country’s rivers meet the “fishable/swimmable” test. Yet you hear almost nothing about this in the general media. We no longer expect our rivers to be fishable and swimmable, and that state of affairs appears to be acceptable to both the people and the people’s elected representatives. Here’s my question: How come so few of us raise our voices against the fact that our nation’s rivers have essentially become scenic toilet bowls?
Its the same reason that people are going to vote for Obama because of the "change" or "hope" slogans, but not really knowing anything about his policys. People in general just dont give a damn about politics in general, the people who are more worried about whats entertaining to them, the next hit band or show, not the fact that most have them don't know thers water near them unless theres a bridge in the middle of the city goin over top of it.
A lot of our rivers are toilets but they always have been, things that crap on land, well do so, then said crap flows into lakes, ponds and rivers. We as humans at least clean our crap as best as possible before we dump back into previously stated waters. The only problem is that we keep putting the crap of other land crappers on our lawns in concentrated amounts. So we're like tripling(made that figure up) the amount of crap input in to the waterways. And for what purpose, not for anything noble like food (an excusable reason for the uppage of crap use) but for our pretty lawns, because we all care what our neighbor thinks.
The problem starts with us Individuals, who as Individuals must act on our own accord. We must come up with sound, intelligent arguments to win over other Individuals. All the govt. will do is waste a bunch of money forming a regulatory beauracracy, that will then form three sub commitys, that'll form fifty (if at the federal level) more sub commitys for each state, that at no level would be ran by anyone elected and would have the powers to makes laws regarding everything that might fall under thier belts. They'd have thier own licences, and there would probably fines for using caught fish for bait or some dumb stuff like that. But really in the end get to nothing more than stocking trout, like most states do anyways.
Posted by: Scott | July 17, 2008 at 09:03 PM
Did anyone ever notice that the only fish that have adviseries are the ones people actually want to eat? Here in PA we are told not to eat the trout. They were raised in a controled environment, released into a mountain stream, then caught a couple of days later. Yet the contain PCB's & mercury. Same goes for others. Does anyone think that is odd?
Posted by: Kevin | July 18, 2008 at 06:35 PM
scott, kevin,
near as i can figure out, you guys and I are the oddballs here....
Posted by: bill heavey | July 19, 2008 at 04:18 PM
Bill I was about to post the same comment, this really baffles me. I hear alot of talk about Conservation on Field and Stream blogs all the time, even when it doesn't pertain to Conservation. Why then do I hear the crickets chirpping on this one? Kinda sad. About us being oddballs, I think we are just walking that thin line between Genius and Insane, we're thinkers ya know? Be careful though that line can get slippery when wet!
Posted by: Scott | July 19, 2008 at 04:56 PM
Albacore is one of the worst for mercury,so you can't even rely on the largest bodies of water either.
The smaller the fish the better,less exposed time.Which also follows the logic of most fisheries efforts to keep larger breeding size fish in the fishery. Trout are by far the safest,since they are constantly being stocked.
Posted by: Dick Mcplenty | July 20, 2008 at 12:03 AM
You have to look into how they do their testing. Many agencies test the entire fish, head and all, from what's left after being in a blender. Others test a "standard" fillet" that includes the bellyflap. If you clean your fish as recommended, it can significantly reduce lead and PCBs, if present. Of course, Mercury infects all tissue and advisories of mercury in a body of water should be taken much more seriously.
A Charles Pistis at Michigan State University Sea Grant did a study on Great Lakes salmon many years ago and by skinning and cutting the fat off fish, they were fairly clean as compared to skin-on standard fillets.
Small papers write this stuff all the time. It's the nationals and TV that don't pick up on it. Of course NPR would never run something that said fish were cleaner than the state warnings suggested.
Posted by: Brian M | July 21, 2008 at 07:16 AM
It's a pretty simple explanation, really. No one really gives a damn about anything any more other than their own short-term self-gratification.
As both a collective society and as individuals we're simply numb to anything outside the cocoon of stimulants (both external and internal) that are now required to function in modern American society.
I hate to sound trite or flippant, but it's not like there hasn't been coverage on the subject. There has. It's simply that very few people care enough about it to give the story any legs.
Such is life in Zombieland. George A. Romero was a prescient genuis, wasn't he?
Posted by: Chad Love | July 21, 2008 at 12:25 PM
Kevin, I think the state of PA is referring to Steelhead from Lake Erie and it's tributaries and hold-over trout that have managed to survive after being stocked.
I believe the desire to improve the environment is driven from the top of our government. Things had begun to improve when Al Gore was VP but "W" has not been an advocate for the environment. He's cut EPA budgets, opened wilderness designated areas to big business and not held them to "tough, scientifically-proven" standards. I bet George's bass pond in Texas doesn't have PCBs...
Posted by: Scott in Ohio | July 22, 2008 at 09:00 AM