TOPIC:

Has anyone's death ever been contributed to eating lakers? I'm betting that smoking, drinking alcohol,being overweight along with a lack of exercise will kill way before you will see adverse affects from eating lakers. That being said, if lakers are basically inedible due to health reasons, why does the MDNR continue to stock a dangerous fish to the tune of 2 million a year? What are they suggesting that anglers do with these fish? Also, how long is it before someone tries to sue a charter or the DNR for that matter when they find out that those bags full of laker filets they cleaned for them were harmful for them to eat? I'm surprised it hasn't happened already. Let's face it, if you can sue and win for not disclosing that coffee may hot and potentially burn you, how long is it before someone sues over being given non consumable fish to eat?

Which is why the consumption advisorys lean heavily to the safe side.

Heavy metals and PCB's do have great health risks, especially to children and pregnant women.

Interesting conversation. It seems to me most ocean fish, and farmed fish for that matter also have consumption advisories, yet less discussed due to the commercial nature. There are also consumption advisories for tons if not all inland lakes to some extent. Most of it is due to air pollution, that in turn ends up in the lakes. Well how about the soils, vegetables, beef, pork. I am guessing there are truly issues there too but nobody talks about it because that would scare the hell out of the public. Just thinking out loud here. I agree, the advisories and certainly conservative due to the reasons mentioned above.

I have to imagine that the fish are in better shape in LM than they have been in alot of years and only getting better. I base this on just perception of common sense logic with the EPA and Mussels. Would be great to see realistic data.

Farmed fish have been found to have higher levels of pollutants than wild fish. Scientists attribute this to the fish food which is made from concentrated oils from other fish.

This is contrary to the general public's opinion that farm raised must mean healthier.

SafeCracker wrote:

Which is why the consumption advisorys lean heavily to the safe side.

Heavy metals and PCB's do have great health risks, especially to children and pregnant women.

just because they post an advisory on a website does not mean that the risks are being adequately disclosed- that would likely only come in a manner where people signed an attestation that they were made aware of concerns at the time they bought a license and/or when they were provided the filets for consumption. How many people do you think go on a charter and get bags full of lakers that have no idea they shouldn't be eaten?

Big difference between saying you can consume a reasonable amount and flat out saying don't eat it.

How many people do you think go on a charter and get bags full of lakers that have no idea they shouldn't be eaten?

All of them.

Another good question to think about is the tournament fish that are taken and donated to shelters or food banks or other charitable organizations. Knowing these advisories exist should that charitable act stop? What do you do with those dead sport fish then? To dispose of them I would think be a case of wanton waste. In some states such as Colorado where the DOW takes it very seriously, it is a lifetime ban on hunting and fishing rights. Not to mention how many groups of anti fishing and hunting groups would have a field day showing the world what went on. You would think if the Health Depts. and DNR's of the bordering states were really concerned about lake trout consumption they could have the fish re-classified as a trash fish like a carp or other non-sporting fish.
I guess the other approach would be to sort of dismiss the hype of these lists and enjoy your catch and try not to worry with it so much. I am sure those lists are the means of relieving the state DNR's of any potential liability for the public consumption of these fish.

Don I'll be checking on this subject a little deeper. I think that if you were to give lakers to a needy folks home, that you have to announce that the fish your giving away are lakers so the parties that take them know ahead of time what they are getting. Then they decide if they want to keep them or not. Just like us, we can decide to eat them or not.

You would also probably need the names and fishing license number of the persons donateing the fish. As one person may have more fish then what is allowed per one persons limit. If stopped by DNR law enforcement you would have the need to prove that not all fish are yours.

Very interesting topic!!!

I know the classic donates all the fish caught to charity I believe...maybe dogsbestfriend will post and tell us what they do with all those lakers.