eating local fish

Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by Dan Page, Apr 3, 2013.

  1. A sad state of affairs. There's reason to hope that Inslee will be better informed and more pro-active on environmental issues than previous governors, but this is going to be an uphill battle.
    D
     
  2. Maybe we should change the name of the state to BOEING. Wow, do they run things!

    I would just like to see CARP included in the fish advisory standards. As a retiree the hand writing is on the wall......figure I could probably catch enough carp to feed the family.....on dough balls, not flies!
     
  3. Shucks...this must be wrong, everyone knows it is the Republicans that wreck the environment, not the Democrats. That's why we keep putting them back into office so they can appoint folks to look out for our interests in the WDFW.
     
    freestoneangler likes this.
  4. Right, and the Liberals on the west side of the state do what again??? Putz
     
  5. So, what the hell do democrats and republicans have to do with eating fish?
    Seems to me C&R is a better way to go and that includes democrats and republicans.
     
    Jim Wallace likes this.
  6. Seems more like they should wave the limits on the politicos!
     
    Jim Wallace likes this.
  7. I've really only been keeping tabs on this issue around Spokane. The Spokane tribe is pushing for a much lower level of PCBs than the current standards. Their reason being that the tribe is and was historically a fish eating group. Their higher levels of consumption mean that they are consuming more PCBs than the average. Locally, PCBs are entering the river from rain runoff and Inland Paper's paper recycling process. Apparently there are PCBs in some Asian (Chinese?) inks. I think everybody can agree that PCB consumption is really bad. From there you get to who is going to pay to clean up etc. If we're talking about rain sewers that dump directly into the river, then it's the municipality that owns the pipe. Which in turn means we the taxpayers... In the case of an industrial discharger, it's the company. Sure there will be some of the usual political BS, but it's a health vs money issue.
     
  8. The world's sewers, rivers, and oceans are a receptacle for all the toxic waste we can push into them. PCB's are only the tip of the iceberg...there are hundreds of 'Emerging Pollutants of Concern' that were created, marketed, and discharged before we even attempted to understand their fate and effect on ecosystems....and many more created every year.

    Most toxics (like PCB's) are bioaccumulative, which means they are taken up and concentrated by each level in the food chain...at the top are predatory fish...and mankind. Voila! The nasty stuff you (and the powerful industries that fight regulation of toxics) flushed down the drain, are right back on your plate...where they belong. Enjoy your fish, citizen!
     
  9. This isn't a political issue unless you make it one. And the second you do, the politicians have already won.
     
    Chris Johnson likes this.
  10. It is a defacto political issue; candidates from both parties receive funding from lobbyists....with the implicit intent of killing toxics regulation. Scientists get short shrift in these discussions...it's about the money, not the long term effects.
     
  11. Which is why I don't view it as a political issue, at least from the perspective of our intentionally divisive two party system. The instant words like "liberal" and "conservative" come into play, people lose focus on the real issue. Exactly what our politicians count on happening. The only thing of note to me from a political standpoint is that some people are still apparently surprised by corporate sponsored democracy.

    This is about Americans and the country we claim to love so much. As long as we allow it to be a political issue, nothing will change. We'll point fingers at the other side, and continue to ignore the politicians and corporations exchanging smiles behind their hands. Who cares about the long term affects of water toxicity when we have such serious issues like homosexual marriage completely riveting the nations attention.

    If I sound bitter it's because I am. We've handed the reigns of our nation to corporate overlords, but still refuse to look outside the political dichotomy that made it happen. Fake moral issues and crises continue to divide us while we allow far worse issues to continue with nary a peep.

    As long as we play at politics, we allow politicians to direct the conversation. I say fuck democrats, fuck republicans, fuck liberals and fuck conservatives. Fuck them with the giant spiked dildo of political nepotism and corporate cronyism. Fuck them in the ass with the fist of the TARP act. Put down the bullshit politics, stand up, and be American's.
     
  12. I can agree with each of the last two posts. I don't eat very much fish, maybe only 6 times a month at about 8 oz (pre-cooked) per serving. doing the math, 6 X 8 oz = 48 oz. At just under 28 grams per oz, that is 28 X 48 = 1344 grams per month. Divide that by 30.5 days and you get 44 grams per day.
    that works out to seven (actually 6.75, but I'm rounding!!!!!) times the figure that Boeing (er...the state of WA) wants us to believe. Yeah...right.:mad:

    So Boeing assumes we eat only one (or maybe two small) servings of fish per month? ???:confused:

    Edited to correct...my consumption is per month, not per week. I can hardly type, as this kind of corporate lying and manipulation pisses me off so much. Screw Boeing anyway...Has anyone here forgotten that the rat bastards moved their HQ to Chicago? I talked to a Boeing employee at the beach last weekend while I was waiting for a forum member to show up for yak fishing. The Boeing guy was in a brand new Mercedes RV.

    OH, and that does not include the clams and oysters that I eat...another 3 or 4 meals per month on the average. And these are filthy filter feeders!
     
    Krusty likes this.
  13. Jeez...we're gonna hafta bury you in one a them Hanford style dangerous waste vaults...no...on second thought....those things are leaking too!

    Try to stay alive until we can figure this one out, ok?
     
  14. Keep talking about political shit and they will lock this thread down.

    About the only fish I eat is canned Tuna. Can't get fresh fish here in this third world country, Montana.
     
  15. OMJ,If I had your address I would send you a steelhead in the mail. Not sure how fresh it would be when it got to Dillon.
     
  16. I don't eat fish other tan canned Tuna. Don't really care for it. Fish and other seafood I never really cared for. I don't like Clams, Crab, Oysters. Never cared for the flavor.
     
  17. I'm in Jim's corner. I only eat tuna (usually from a can) and sometimes fresh halibut at a restaurant. Virginia loves sea food and there are plenty of places around here that sell it. If we go to a sea food eatery, I order a hamburger.

    I never developed a taste for any fresh water fish. That's why I didn't like fishing as a kid because we had to keep everything we caught so the rest of the family could eat it. There was no point to fishing for me.

    It was only when I started flyfishing and releasing everything I caught that I started to enjoy fishing.

    I will kill hatchery steelhead because I have no problem finding someone to take the fish off my hands.

    Each to their own. The ability to eat the fish I catch is not one of my concerns. Perhaps there is an advantage to that. I'm not exactly sure how this thread could somehow become political... weird.
     
  18. It became political because the water quality pollutant limits for toxics (like PCB's) are set by human fish consumption rates....which was the actual thread topic...not whether we eat fish or not. If you desire to eventually make fish safe to eat for those that do wish to do so, then the water quality limit hinges on how much fish per time period a particular group wants to ingest. Tribal groups historically (and currently) eat larger quantities of fish than the general population...in some cases those quantities are actually a treaty issue. The higher ingestion rates mean very stringent and costly reductions in allowable toxic discharge concentrations and rates...which municipalties and businesses oppose.

    Some of the consumption rates proposed by business interests are ridiculously tiny....approximately the mass represented by a nickel coin each day.

    Tribal entities (which essentially have the power of a state to set limits when the contaminated water body runs though their land) and health departments want the ingestion rates higher (and toxics discharge quantities reduced).

    You have to remember that the intent of the federal Clean Water Act is to make America's waters swimmable, and fishable....which doesn't mean C&R...it means fish that can be safely eaten. The states must, under threat of federal law, set pollutant limits that accomplish that intent. This really isn't a 'to each their own' kind of issue... hell, I don't eat the damn things either.

    This is a huge issue in the Spokane River, with its numerous fish consumption warnings (because fish tissue toxics monitoring in the Spokane River has documented some of the highest levels in the U.S.) due to a variety of toxics....the fix is contentious, costly, and hence very political.
     
    Jim Wallace likes this.

Share This Page