Posts: 5,856
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2003
Reputation:
0
Looks like the DWR found that the carp in utah lake have [url "http://wildlife.utah.gov/news/06-05/utah_lake_carp.php"]elevated levels of PCB's.[/url]
Don't eat any more than the recommended amount if you are so inclined. Me, I just shoot them and use them for bait! Sure makes you wonder if other fish have the same problem though. Sounds like they'll be doing further studies to see if the meat is "bad" for you.
[signature]
Posts: 3,536
Threads: 1
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
0
At first it seems almost like a joke - like anyone eats carp from there anyway! [cool]
This is actually very disturbing news. This means that the commercial carp harvesters on Utah Lake (the Loy family) may have to cease harvesting the carp, at least temporarily if not permanently. That means the only largescale carp eradication program on the lake would cease (besides tubedude's carp shooting of course lol).
It will also reduce the number of ways the DWR will have to get rid of the carp too. This affects anyone who fishes Utah Lake. It also means that the predators may have even higher concentrations of PCBs in them. Perhaps this is why several of you have seen the DWR gilnetting white bass recently. The article says this summer they will be checking all the other gamefish to test them as well.
[signature]
Posts: 36,168
Threads: 307
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
62
[cool][#0000ff]There is also a [url "http://www.sltrib.com/ci_3831236"]SALT LAKE TRIBUNE ARTICLE[/url] this morning. It is scary. Says they only found the PCB in carp by accident, while looking for ways to market the 7.5 million carp they intend to remove from the lake. The PCB level turns out to be over twice the "safe" level.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]Even worse, they do not have a clue about any of the other species in the lake. But, they are immediately starting a study that will probably take a couple of months. [/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]My guess is that all the fish will prove to have elevated levels of PCB. I wonder if this is the lingering legacy of Geneva Steel, oozing back up out of the generations of toxic mud created by that now defunct polluter.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]I don't eat the carp, but I use it for bait. I do eat lots of kitties, and they are oily fleshed. The PCBs tend to store in the fatty tissues. I wondered why my clothes glow in the dark after I wear them. And about that third eye I have been keeping covered with my BFT hat...[/#0000ff]
[signature]
Posts: 246
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2006
Reputation:
0
That really sucks. Seems like someone should have discoverd this a long time ago given the lakes toxic history. Arent the fish supposed to be monitored and checked on a more regular basis, they got BYU and CEU right there.
[signature]
Posts: 474
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation:
0
This is very bad news,How can they get rid of the pcb?? and will they have to kill the whole lake and start over with major enviormental cleanup in the lake??
[signature]
Posts: 36,168
Threads: 307
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
62
[cool][#0000ff]I have had just enough biochemistry and lab courses in my life to know that "testing" can be a complicated and costly process and is subject to a lot of variables. I can understand HOW they have not found the PCB problem until now...but not WHY. [/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]Most testing conducted on various water sources is to determine safe levels of common contaminants...like sewage, phosphorus, agricultural herbicides and pesticides, etc. Those usually use simple and inexpensive processes that are budgeted and scheduled to protect the public.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]To find the more toxic and dangerous elements potentially present in our water (and wildlife) generally requires more sophisticated processes and involves extensive sampling and analysis over time and covering a larger area. That means a greater allocation of people, time and money. Who pays for it?[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]I also find it "interesting" that the PCB situation only comes to light after somebody gets involved in finding ways to make a buck out of eradicating carp. It is always about money. Unless a budding biologist at BYU was able to get a hefty grant, for research on the subject, the in depth survey would likely never get done. It will be done now that the cats (and carp) are out of the bag and a concerned public wants to know what the heck is going on.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]Short of killing off all the current fish in the lake, draining it and dredging all of the mud sediments down to bedrock, it is unlikely that the problem can be permanently corrected.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]Poor fishies. Poor fishermen.[/#0000ff]
[signature]
Posts: 6,353
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation:
0
This is terrible news. It is just like the elevated levels of mercury in the ducks last year. Even though i didn't eat those 2 species, it still affects the bigger picture. I guess i will not be returning to UL until some studies are complete. Bummer![unsure][unsure][unsure][unsure][unsure][unsure][unsure]
[signature]
Posts: 246
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2006
Reputation:
0
That is bad news. What were they planning to do with the carp before they found high levels of PCB's, sell them to oriental markets or can em?
[signature]
Posts: 2,514
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation:
1
Well said, I hope the Loys are not put out of business with this development. The DWR and the June sucker program also have lined up other commercial fishing companies to catch carp starting next year (in the eradication effort). I am sure that is buzzkilled as well. As Tube Dude said, the channel cats with oily meat probably will be affected too. Also, mature, long lived walleyes will likely be over the limit too through a mechanism called bioaccumulation.
The chemical will be difficult to clean up and persists in the mud for thousands of years. Here are some links on it if if you want to learn more.
[url "http://en.wikipedia.org/...chlorinated_biphenyl"]http://en.wikipedia.org/...chlorinated_biphenyl[/url]
[url "http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/pcb/"]http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/pcb/[/url]
[url "http://dep.state.ct.us/wst/pcb/pcbindex.htm"]http://dep.state.ct.us/wst/pcb/pcbindex.htm[/url]
Lets just hope that other species are less affected.
[signature]
Posts: 36,168
Threads: 307
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
62
[cool][#0000ff]One of the potential markets for the "harvested" carp was the cattle feed market. Processed (cooked, dried, powdered) carp could be added to "formulated" animal feeds as a cheap source of protein and minerals. [/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]But...OOPSIE...there are chemicals in the carp that would not be acceptable for animal consumption. MAYBE it should not be eaten by humans either. Ya think?[/#0000ff]
[signature]
Posts: 3,536
Threads: 1
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
0
They test the water much more frequently, and it is much easier to test, and repeatedly the water quality in Utah Lake has been given a clean bill of health in recent years, with the exception of elevated Phosphorous (read, "fertilizer") levels which cause algae blooms.
Besides that, the toxins are all down in the sediments. But that is the base of the ecosystem -- the sediments and bugs that live in them, then the little fishies that eat the bugs (AND the carp that root around in the sediment and suck it in along with everything else), and on up the food chain.
I would bet that the other species in the lake do not have close to the level of PCBs that the carp have. I'm sure they have some, but hopefully they are not over the limit of what is considered "safe". The other species eat small carp, but not the big ones which would have accumulated the most PCBs.
Let's all hope for the best and wait and see what happens I guess. It won't stop me from fishing there that's for sure, but I think I'll hold off on eating any more fish from there until the further studies are complete.
[signature]
Posts: 2,514
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation:
1
Because cattle variant 'mad cow diesease' started by tainted and improperly processed animal feed, tougher rules on animal feed have been enacted. With this new finding, the government will never allow Utah lake carp to be used as feed for animals used for human consumption.
[signature]
Posts: 246
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2006
Reputation:
0
I wont stop fishing Utah Lake either, I havent caught anything there yet this year but I still want a big Cat fish. I hope they come out with more reports soon about the toxicity of the other fish. How long do you think that would take?
[signature]
Posts: 143
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation:
0
It is a  situation and probably a very difficult one to clean up. I will not be eating anymore fish from UL until levels of PCB's can be determined for all game species. If the carp are twice the acceptable EPA level it may be very scary what turns up in the predators up the food chain. Remember we are the top predator on the list! Tube Dude is most likey at the very top of that list!
Wasn't Geneva a great industry to have on the shores of the lake! I KNOW THEY ARE PROBABLY NOT THE ONLY SOURCE OF CONTAMINATION, but I would guess they are right up there at the top.
[signature]
Posts: 636
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation:
0
In the carp advisory article, there is a link to a two-page report on how to properly care for fish you plan to consume. The report talks about skinning and removing fatty tissues from the fish, as skin and fatty tissue serve as storage areas for the toxins.
Also, the report talks about being wary of any water where runoff from streets, farms, and yards may taint waters with oil and gas, fertilizers, and other chemical products.
I can think of many community ponds along the Wasatch Front and elsewhere where runoff from streets, farms, and yards is funneled right into the water. I can also think of several streams and lakes that sit adjacent to very heavily traveled roads and fairly large communities.
If it's taken the state of Utah all this time to realize that the carp in UL are full of unsafe material, then how safe should we feel if we happen to consume a catfish or white bass now and then out of UL or eat a trout we've caught from a stream with a major road running next to it? In UL's case, only time will tell until further studies are done. Like many of you, my UL fish-consuming days are over until the studies are published.
Similarly, I really enjoy fishing Salem Pond. That little gem has houses and community roads all around it. Naturally, I would assume, it has received less-than-pure runoff from these sources for decades. As doggonefishing has suggested, toxins are stored in the sedement in lakes and ponds, and now I question if little community fisheries such as this are as safe as I once believed.
[signature]
Posts: 474
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation:
0
My feelings are build a couple of large dikes and pump water out of them one at a time, remove the bad soil/mud deepen the lake in areas with structure let fresh water refill ,also kill all the fish and start over.Then they can replant there june suckers,white bass or wipers,catfish (channels only) walleye,perch,crappie,LM bass and all will be good.It will just SUCK for a few (10years) until the fishing will be better..But could you imagine how awsome the fishing would be if they could start over at UL??They could clean up the shore lines make parks access points to fish.Look at the revenue they could bring in for having a huge lake that stays 70+ deg in the summer especialy with all the high gas prices..who would need powel..lol[  ]
[signature]
Posts: 509
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation:
0
[#505000]Would be nice, but but due to the massive size of the lake the cost would be astronomical. The government spends tens of millions of dollars and takes years and years to clean 10 acres of polluted soil. I can't begin to imagine the cost of an area the size of Utah Lake and the decades it would take to complete the project. [/#505000]
[#505000] [/#505000]
[#505000]I'm guessing my great grandkids would see the completed project[/#505000]. [  ]
[#505000]By the way what do you have against the bullheads??? Great forage fish, and they smoke and fry up good too. If you fish for the channels the right way you'll rarely even catch one.[/#505000] [  ]
[signature]
Posts: 3,536
Threads: 1
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
0
Unfortunately that would cost billions of dollars -- $$ that noone will ever pay.
[signature]
Posts: 36,168
Threads: 307
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
62
[cool][#0000ff]Great idea, but it falls into the ANN category...Another Nice Notion. Lots of those. But, the unanswered question is always "WHO'S GONNA PAY FOR IT?"[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]With all of the unfunded but realistic and beneficial projects in Utah (schools, roads, homeless, immigration, etc.) I seriously doubt that our legislators are going to allocate a penny to Utah Lake cleanup.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]Lots of folks have great ideas that depend on "THEY" to get done. THEY should do this, or THEY could do that. I got a cynical news flash for ya. THEY never do anything.[/#0000ff]
[signature]
Posts: 143
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation:
0
Here is the link Prince Fisher mentioned in his post.
[url "http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fish/30cwafish.pdf"]http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fish/30cwafish.pdf[/url]
Damn, I hate to eat trout!
[signature]
|
