# New Fish Advisors



## redexpress (Apr 5, 2010)

AUSITN,* December 18, 2015* â€" The Texas Department of State Health Services today issued a fish consumption advisory for Lake Livingston and portions of the Trinity River after laboratory testing of fish samples found elevated levels of dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls or PCBs.​The Lake Livingston advisory is for seven types of fish â€" blue catfish, flathead catfish, freshwater drum, gar, smallmouth buffalo, striped bass and white bass. The advisory is in effect for the Trinity River Basin which includes Lake Livingston and the Trinity River from U.S. 287 downstream to U.S. 90.
Regular or long-term consumption of fish from these waters may increase the likelihood of long-term health risks. People can still fish in the area, though they should not consume or should limit their consumption of fish from this area and are advised to follow the specific age and species recommendations in this chart: 
Species Women of childbearing age & children under 12 Women past childbearing age and males 12 and older Blue catfish DO NOT EAT 1 meal per month Flathead catfish DO NOT EAT 1 meal per month Freshwater drum DO NOT EAT 2 meals per month Gar (all species) DO NOT EAT DO NOT EAT Smallmouth buffalo DO NOT EAT 1 meal per month Striped bass 1 meal per month 3 meals per month White Bass 1 meal per month 3 meals per month Fish Consumption Recommendations​The department today also issued revised fish consumption advisories for three bodies of water due to updated evidence of the levels of contaminants in fish. The three affected bodies of water are


The Arroyo Colorado upstream of the Port of Harlingen, including Llano Grande Lake and the Main Floodway.
The Houston Ship Channel north of the Fred Hartman Bridge, including the San Jacinto River below the Lake Houston Dam.
Echo Lake in Fort Worth.
Sampling shows that concentrations of pesticides in fish in the *Arroyo Colorado* (Cameron and Hidalgo counties) are no longer a health concern. However, concentrations of mercury and PCBs in some fish still exceed safe levels. For that reason, DSHS now advises no one eat longnose gar from the Arroyo Colorado. Health officials also continue to advise women of childbearing age and children under 12 not eat smallmouth buffalo and everyone else limit consumption of smallmouth buffalo to no more than two 8-ounce meals per month.
Pesticide levels have also dropped in the *Houston Ship Channel*, but concentrations of dioxins and PCBs still pose a threat to human health. Women of childbearing age and children under 12 should not eat any fish or blue crab from the Houston Ship Channel, and others should limit their consumption to one 8-ounce meal per month.
A new advisory for *Echo Lake* (Tarrant County) is based on concentrations of pesticides, dioxins and PCBs in common carp and largemouth bass that are high enough to pose a risk to human health. DSHS recommends no one eat common carp caught in Echo Lake and that women of childbearing age and children under 12 not eat largemouth bass. Everyone else should limit their consumption of largemouth bass to one 8-ounce meal per month. The consumption advisory replaces a possession ban that previously made it illegal to harvest or possess fish from Echo Lake.
Environmental pollutants like PCBs, mercury and dioxins can build up in the bodies of fish over time and lead to a variety of health consequences in people who eat contaminated fish. DSHSâ€™s Seafood and Aquatic Life Group tests fish in public bodies of water where there are concerns that pollutants may have made fish unsafe to eat. Laboratory analysis shows the concentration of contaminants and allows health experts to make recommendations on whether people should avoid or limit consumption of certain species 
A summary of the three updated recommendations follows.
Body of water Contaminants of Concern Species Women of childbearing age & children under 12 Women past childbearing age and males 12 and older Arroyo Colorado Mercury & PCBs Longnose gar DO NOT EAT DO NOT EAT Smallmouth buffalo DO NOT EAT 2 meals per month Houston Ship Channel Dioxins & PCBs All fish and blue crab DO NOT EAT 1 meal per month Echo Lake Dieldrin, dioxins and PCBs Common carp DO NOT EAT DO NOT EAT Largemouth bass DO NOT EAT 1 meal per month Updated Recommendations


----------



## GaryI (Mar 18, 2015)

Wow. This is a big deal for all of us. At least those of us who eat fish, and particularly the fine folks here who earn money guiding on the lake and river. I will be very interested in seeing more details and specifically the reason why these levels are now elevated when they haven't been in the past.


----------



## whistech (Jul 25, 2005)

I guess all of the PCBs from area are washing into Lake Livingston with all of the rain we've had this year.


----------



## redexpress (Apr 5, 2010)

GaryI said:


> Wow. This is a big deal for all of us. At least those of us who eat fish, and particularly the fine folks here who earn money guiding on the lake and river. I will be very interested in seeing more details and specifically the reason why these levels are now elevated when they haven't been in the past.


Yeah, I hated to post it. But felt I should.


----------



## GaryI (Mar 18, 2015)

I would think that the toxic levels in the fish would be a function of age, assuming that the toxins are accumulating in the tissue. It is hard for me to understand how a 2 yr old white bass would be a problem, but I could see how a 10 yr old catfish could be an issue. 

If white bass are a risk, then what about the drinking water being supplied to the whole city of Houston out of the Trinity?


----------



## Whitebassfisher (May 4, 2007)

GaryI said:


> I would think that the toxic levels in the fish would be a function of age, assuming that the toxins are accumulating in the tissue. It is hard for me to understand how a 2 yr old white bass would be a problem, but I could see how a 10 yr old catfish could be an issue.
> 
> If white bass are a risk, then what about the drinking water being supplied to the whole city of Houston out of the Trinity?


The original post of this thread caught me off guard! And Gary's post above seems very logical. I wonder if this is somewhat temporary due to high rains this year, or if this will continue?


----------



## shadslinger (Aug 21, 2005)

The article seemed to imply the testing was recent, so maybe it is a result of flooding and perhaps the relocation of fish from the DFW area to further south down the watershed. There have been fish consumption advisories for Trinity river fish there for some time.


----------



## pYr8 (Apr 17, 2012)

Here's the link to the document
http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=8590003926


----------



## shadslinger (Aug 21, 2005)

Looking over the fish in the ban, what they could nit catch a crappie to test? Or are they that different from other predators?
Thanks pyr8


----------



## Bankin' On It (Feb 14, 2013)

Man that sucks. Is this Dallas' fault? I like to think so. How long will this last? 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I547 using Tapatalk


----------



## whsalum (Mar 4, 2013)

No way in the world to tell but I would love to know if these were resident fish or some that came with the flood waters. There could be lots of variables before a statement like this is issued. If this holds thru the summer our fish populations will explode.


----------



## nikki (Apr 14, 2011)

No joke but back in late 50's early 60's the Corp had planned to navigate the Trinity with barges from coast to Dallas. The concern was having enough water flow to do so. One elected official (state or fed?) made the statement that there were enough commodes being flushed in Dallas to keep any barge floating. So they went on to build Livingston??


----------



## fishinganimal (Mar 30, 2006)

Flood after flood from the north and not only Dallas I am not surprised. Trinity bay will be next and possibly all the way to the jetty of Galveston. Similar to the offshore areas around the mouth of the Mississippi which has dead zones. We need a break from the rains but with this El Nino not looking good.


----------



## Jimmy Blue (Nov 20, 2013)

I saw this on TV but wanted to read the post first before commenting.

I noticed that the ban did not include channel cats... odd isn't it because channel cats are prolific in almost all bodies of water in texas meaning that they were just as likely to be 'homies' as previous residents of a dallas watershed.

Gary, I would imagine the water is treated (or at least tested) before being delivered to residents to drink.

Do I read the message right that they re advising not to eat more than meal per month of the affected fish?


----------



## Kickapoo Duke (May 15, 2010)

This link might make the chart easier to read:
http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/news/releases/20151218.aspx


----------



## GaryI (Mar 18, 2015)

JimmyBlue, it varies from 1/month for catfish to 3/month for white bass and striper.

Sad to see the paranoia beginning. Already KPRC has the story accompanied by a disgusting looking picture of a fish and the statement that "Officials are asking people not to eat the fish". Oh well - on the bright side, should be much less fishing pressure now.

This is an interesting link from 2010 regarding unacceptable PCB levels in the upper Trinity, including how it impacts drinking water:
http://www.star-telegram.com/living/family/moms/article3824812.html

Here is some of the pertinent text from that article:

Fish in the Trinity River likely won't be safe to eat for many more years because of the continued presence of a toxic compound in the water, officials said Wednesday. And some of the highest poisonous readings of polychlorinated biphenyls -- or PCBs -- were found at sample sites in Tarrant County.

"I think we've done irreparable damage," Brian Smith, who owns about 700 acres of preserved ranchland along the river in Navarro County south of Dallas, said during a Texas Commission on Environmental Quality meeting Wednesday in Arlington.

The meeting was held to update the public on the state's effort to clean up the water in a 150-mile stretch of the river in Fort Worth, Arlington, Dallas and south toward Corsicana. A fish consumption advisory was issued in 2002 by Texas Department of Parks and Wildlife, and a ban on the possession and consumption of fish on some portions of the Trinity was also issued.

In Tarrant County, the effort includes restoring the water quality to 22 miles of the West Fork below Lake Worth, and one mile of the Clear Fork below Lake Benbrook. Among the highest PCB readings were results at testing sites in Fort Worth -- one near North Beach Street, the other near Handley Road -- and another near Farm Road 157 near the Fort Worth/Arlington border, a consultant explained during the Arlington meeting.

PCBs were commonly used in caulk, cooling and insulating fluids for transformers and capacitors, flame retardant, floor finish and paint from the 1930s through 1977. The compound was banned after being linked to severe skin problems and possibly liver damage. Some studies have also linked PCBs to an increased risk of cancer.

One characteristic that made PCBs so desirable in 20th-century manufacturing also makes it a modern-day environmental nightmare -- the stuff is extremely durable and refuses to break down, often remaining in the environment for decades.

As a result, PCBs continue to leak into the Trinity River from mostly unknown sources, although scientists believe more than 60 percent of the PCBs being found in the fish are coming from creek and river sediment.

In other words, the dangerous material is clinging to the river bottom and only gets into the water -- and, as a result, into the fish -- when it's stirred up. Other likely sources of contamination include pretreated wastewater from industrial sites that feed into the Trinity River and stormwater from surrounding cities.

It's still a major mystery where specifically the PCBs are coming from, said Kirk Dean, a principal scientist with Parsons, a firm hired to produce a technical report on PCBs in the river. "Coming into this, I think we were hoping to find a hot spot that nobody had found out about, and maybe that one spot could be addressed and take care of the problem," Dean said. "But we didn't find any hot spots to speak of. Yeah, there are some areas that are hotter than others, but it didn't look like a smaller area that we might be able to do something about."

But the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality is making progress on its plan to eventually clean up a 150-mile stretch of the river from Benbrook and Lake Worth to Cedar Creek Reservoir south of Corsicana. The idea is to prevent more PCBs from getting into the river, and allowing the PCBs already in the sediment to break down over time, until PCB levels fall below harmful levels.

"It's not expected this is something that could happen overnight, or even over the next few years," said Dania Grundmann, project manager. "This is a long-term effort. It's been there 25 years. It might be there another 25."

About 50 people attended the meeting, which was held at the North Central Texas Council of Governments office in Arlington. One woman in the audience asked if drinking water was at risk. State officials and their consultant explained that their report focused on fish tissue and didn't go into detail about drinking water, but that generally PCB does not mix with water and tends to either stick to fish or sink to the bottom.

As a result, the levels of PCB weren't expected to immediately threaten drinking water.


----------



## shadslinger (Aug 21, 2005)

The river has certainly been scoured deeply, perhaps down to the 1970 level of muck. when contamination in the creeks/river was high and now has it stirred up in the basin.
Thanks for informative links 2coolers.
This has incredible impact for many of us, and some impact for many more folks.


----------



## Whitebassfisher (May 4, 2007)

I am not the norm, but this wouldn't have great impact on me or my willingness to pay guide fees. I fish for the fun. Many do like to eat fish though, and it seems this would be hardest on the commercial fishermen.


----------



## Ken.Huynh (May 30, 2014)

Well that seem suck for the guide on this forums that make a living on guide service. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Mattsfishin (Aug 23, 2009)

The water pumped out for drinking is treated but not filtered for items as these. I would not drink the water pumped out of Lake Conroe either. People flush all kinds of drugs down the toilet and they end up in the lake. Ask someone about hormones in the water. I will cook , clean, and bath in this water from Conroe but not drink it. I believe reverse osmosis will remove most of these but it would cost a fortune. Buy a reverse osmosis system for your house.
Guess I will eat whites 4 times a month. I usually on keep the small ones if I am eatting them. I know they said 3 times but the younger fish will not have as much toxins in them.
Wonder what this will do to the people in Riverside that pump water out of the river?


----------



## Whitebassfisher (May 4, 2007)

There is a water treatment being built on FM3126 across from the Tigerville TRA ramp. There are in the process of running their suction line out into the lake now.


----------



## Kickapoo Duke (May 15, 2010)

I figure us old guys don't have to worry; something else will finish us off before we eat enough fish to affect us!!!


----------



## shadslinger (Aug 21, 2005)

Catch and release will be the thing, cleaning fish has never been my favorite part of guiding


----------



## trihullranger (Dec 19, 2015)

I found some additional information here:http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/seafood/advisories-bans.aspx

For Livingston at this link you will find some PDF documents. The one on the right hand side listed as Livingston 2015 was a long read for me but did answer some questions and also raised some bigger ones. Unless I missed something this advisory is based upon testing that was done in 2012-2013.

Am I to believe that it took over (2) years to get the results from those test? There is no specific date on that document other than 2015 that I could find.


----------



## Whitebassfisher (May 4, 2007)

shadslinger said:


> Catch and release will be the thing, cleaning fish has never been my favorite part of guiding


My point exactly from post # 18.


----------



## Ducktracker (Aug 1, 2011)

Well they got to find a reason for me to pass. Might as well be eating fish. I will continue doing what is fun to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## markbrumbaugh (Jul 13, 2010)

*This is the 2015 document*

http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/seafood/PDF2/Active/ADV-53-Lake-Livingston-Trinity-River-2015.doc
These samples were taken quite some time ago, before this years floods. 2012 and 2013.
No better catching than I've been doing, I suspect I'll live.


----------



## GaryI (Mar 18, 2015)

Trihullranger - thanks so much for posting that link. That is EXACTLY the type of information I was looking for. I was very impressed with the overall quality of the report.

A few observations:

- The data is based from 2012-2013. So this has nothing to do with the recent heavy rains, which probably has made the situation worse.

- Seems wise to not eat any gar or buffalo in the Trinity system. Shouldn't be a big deal for us to conform to that!

- For some reason, crappie don't seem to accumulate bad stuff in their system, despite being a similar age range to other fish. So no problem eating lots of crappie, if we could only catch them!

- The results on white bass were very close to being acceptable. The issue for this advisory is PCBs and dioxins. For PCBs, 29/30 white bass tested were acceptable and one was just over the minimum standard. For dioxins, it appears that 23/25 fish were acceptable with 2 just over the minimum standard. These "standards" are for the noncarcinogenic levels, not the carcinogenic levels. All of the white bass results were less than the carcinogenic levels.

- The length data collected from the samples is interesting. For white bass, the results were 1 year-11.5 inches, 2 years-13 to 14 inches, 3 years-14 to 16 inches, and 5 years- 15 to 17 inches. For stripers, the results were 3 years- 22 to 24 inches, 5 years - 23 to 25 inches.

The bottom line for me is that I feel better after understanding the data. 

Nothing really changes for me - I am not going to eat gar or buffalo, I will eat as much crappie as I can catch, and I will eat white bass once a week.


----------



## Mattsfishin (Aug 23, 2009)

I don't eat a lot of whites and I prefer the small ones so I will keep on as usual except do more catch and release. I have told several people the 10 to 11 1/2 inch whites taste better. Heck I will die from a rabid ex wife sooner than pcb's and dang sure can't suffer any more than from the rabid ex wife.


----------



## GBird (Jun 12, 2010)

Just about any lake in East Texas that has been tested in the past have these type of warnings. Look up the neuches river, Steinhegan lake etc. I am under the impression that being that there is so much oil and chemicals mined from the lands of east Texas that it is just leaching from our soils.


----------



## trihullranger (Dec 19, 2015)

I went back and read the report again and to be honest some of the language is way over my head. I would like to think and hope they have taken more samples this year that are being tested now. From what I could see the bulk of the testing was complete in just under a year from the time the samples were gathered. The additional tests extended the time. 

The crappie must be wearing chem gear that's why they are so hard to catch.......


----------



## whsalum (Mar 4, 2013)

Those of us who fished the lake in the 70's have heard all this before. As many Lake Livingston catfish as I have eaten over the years I probably should be starring in the walking dead


----------



## pYr8 (Apr 17, 2012)

Obviously the government isn't "so concerned" about our health if they wait 2+ years to pass on the info about contaminated fish. Or maybe it's just "fish eaters", LOL


----------



## pYr8 (Apr 17, 2012)

shadslinger said:


> Looking over the fish in the ban, what they could nit catch a crappie to test? Or are they that different from other predators?
> Thanks pyr8


Very welcome, Loy


----------



## essayons75 (May 15, 2006)

I wonder why the PCBs don't make the fish sick? 

I'm like Mark B. I can't eat what I can't catch. hwell:


----------



## pYr8 (Apr 17, 2012)

The last fish I caught here that could talk said she felt like hell, but she said not to rule out postpartum depression...


----------



## pYr8 (Apr 17, 2012)

Oh, here's a like to a browser readable version of the PDF I linked to originally. The TX DSHS site is lame about PDFs...

http://www.anglersmedia.com/boards/Trinity/ADV-53-NR.pdf


----------



## BobBobber (Aug 29, 2015)

Through the years, no matter where I have lived or fished in the USA, fish consumption advisories are ignored most of the time.
.
For example, there are warning signs at Texas saltwater public launches about king mackerel, but I see many guys cleaning them within a few feet of the signs. In Corpus Christi, kings are a favorite on Bob Hall Pier. I've seen guys with huge coolers stacked full of kings. They had to cut the heads and tails off to fit the fish into the coolers.
.
Sharks also get eaten regularly.
.
Part of the problem is that freshwater advisories are not posted often. You have to look them up, so most anglers keep any fish. (Most, not all, but most.)
.
When salmon advisories slammed the Great Lakes fisheries more than 30 years ago, after one year it had minimal effect. Commercial salmon fishing was banned. However, Indian tribes could catch and sell all the salmon they could get. People lined up at the places where the salmon were processed.
.
Salmon were collected at weirs on many rivers and sold locally by tribes. Salmon eggs could not be sold in Michigan, for example, but the eggs could be sold to another State, processed and wholesaled back to Michigan.
.
Whitefish, favorite Lake Superior table fare, was supposed to have limited consumption. However, restaurants never slowed down on selling meals of it. And commercially caught whitefish were larger size.
.
Walleye in the Titibawasee River, downstream from Dow Chemical in Midland, Michigan, had strict fish advisories, including total bans. There also was a total ban on consuming wildlife, deer rabbit, etc., one mile inland from the river. BUT people would crowd the river in boats and from shore every Spring during the walleye spawning run. Almost all of those fish were eaten. We used to C&R walleye during the run, because it was fast action. In several places, my anchor would come up covered with a bright yellow mucky substance. Believe me it was not the color of sand.
.
Most guys, informed or not, keep what they catch . . . and feed it to their loved ones.
.
Not good situation at all, but I've seen it happen for all too many years.
.
Businesses with guided trips bounced back after a few years of promoting C&R sportsmanship . . . and tournaments. Some guys will pawn anything to get enough money to take part in a tournament.
.
Tournaments primarily were for the commercial benefit of guides, restaurants, bars, motels, etc. Not much benefit trickles back to enhance the fisheries for the average Joe who had a fishing license.
.
Lots of money flowed. As a result, the consumption advisories were overlooked.
.
One last thought: The kind of fish sampled for contaminants seldom is the same as what most anglers eat. I do not know how Texas does it. However, in Michigan, the entire fish was ground up and then tested. According to the State, that was a standard.
.
Well, most of us did not eat the fish scales, skin, head, guts, fins, etc. Most of us discarded the bright red meat under the skin that tasted strong.
.
But since the State did not know how individuals would process their fish, the State held to their standard of grinding up the entire fish.
.
*Does any 2cool member know how Texas processes their fish tested? Maybe, just maybe, we could eat more fish processed after discarding the bloody red flesh, mud lines, fatty tissue along back and belly, etc.*
.
BTW, I never saw a Great Lakes charter captain or mate toss away the parts of salmon that were known to have the most contaminants. I asked a few, who replied it took more time, and their customers got upset when any part of their catch was tossed in the garbage can. I was a fishing columnist for a daily newspaper and several magazines, so I was a guest on many, many charters.
.
Only once, did I observe a charter captain ask his clients if they wanted their salmon cleaned with parts cut away. Those clients told him to keep the skin on and just remove the skeleton and head. They wanted to grill it on the halfshell. Plus, since the charter cost them a bundle, they wanted to keep all the fish.


----------



## GaryI (Mar 18, 2015)

BobBobber,

Here is a description of how they processed the fish. Seems pretty sound to me:

The SALG staff processed fish onsite at Lake Livingston. Staff weighed each sample to the nearest gram (g) on an electronic scale and measured total length (TL; tip of nose to tip of tail fin) to the nearest millimeter (mm). All TL measurements were converted to inches for use in this report. After weighing and measuring a fish, staff used a cutting board covered with aluminum foil and a fillet knife to prepare two skinâ€off fillets from each fish. The foil was changed and the knife cleaned with distilled water after each sample was processed. The team wrapped fillet(s) in two layers of fresh aluminum foil, placed in an unused, clean, preâ€labeled plastic freezer bag, and stored on wet ice in an insulated chest until further processing. The SALG staff transported tissue samples on wet ice to their Austin, Texas headquarters, where the samples were stored temporarily atÂ â€5ï‚° Fahrenheit (â€20ï‚° Celsius) in a locked freezer. The freezer key is accessible only to authorized SALG staff members to ensure chain of custody while samples are in the possession of agency staff. The SALG delivered the frozen fish tissue samples to the Geochemical and Environmental Research Group (GERG) Laboratory, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, for contaminant analysis.


----------



## pYr8 (Apr 17, 2012)

I can certainly agree to the process. It sounds like a sound process.
That it took 2+ years to get to us is disturbing. As a director of TBBU, I feel these "standards" are unacceptable. Accepting what is fed to us by ANY government entity isn't the status quo.

The fact that these findings are released at 12/18/15 when they knew much, much earlier is ridiculous. It seems like more of a political move than a PSA.

I have to dig deeper...


----------



## redexpress (Apr 5, 2010)

whsalum said:


> Those of us who fished the lake in the 70's have heard all this before. As many Lake Livingston catfish as I have eaten over the years I probably should be starring in the walking dead


Lake Livingston is as clean as distilled water compared to where the fish I ate during the 1950'sand 60's came from. Our regular fishing spot was the San Jacinto River below the Lake Houston dam. We fished every weekend and ate all we caught. In the 1970's when you crossed the river on Hwy90 your eyes would burn from the toxic waste dump. 
I don't see how I'm still alive.


----------



## trihullranger (Dec 19, 2015)

pYr8 said:


> I can certainly agree to the process. It sounds like a sound process.
> That it took 2+ years to get to us is disturbing. As a director of TBBU, I feel these "standards" are unacceptable. Accepting what is fed to us by ANY government entity isn't the status quo.
> 
> The fact that these findings are released at 12/18/15 when they knew much, much earlier is ridiculous. It seems like more of a political move than a PSA.
> ...


The GERG laboratory completed analyses and electronically transmitted the results of the Lake Livingston samples collected in Julyâ€"September 2012 and Marchâ€"May 2013 to the SALG in February 2014. The laboratory reported the analytical results for metals, pesticides, PCBs, PCDDs/PCDFs, SVOCs, and VOCs.


----------



## SeaOx 230C (Aug 12, 2005)

redexpress said:


> Lake Livingston is as clean as distilled water compared to where the fish I ate during the 1950'sand 60's came from. Our regular fishing spot was the San Jacinto River below the Lake Houston dam. We fished every weekend and ate all we caught. In the 1970's when you crossed the river on Hwy90 your eyes would burn from the toxic waste dump.
> I don't see how I'm still alive.


I to fished below lake houston dam as a small child. We lived in Sheldon before we moved to the lake house in Trinity (11yrs old) we would fish at lake houston dam on weekends we didn't go LivIngston. I have eaten more than a few cats whites am crappie from that polluted water. Some time we would go to a bridge on Sheldon Road south of I-10 and catch tons of crabs also over by the monument on Cedar Bayou Lynchburg.

For those that don't know there still is at least one and used to be several EPA Superfund Sites on the San Jacinto river between Lake Houston I-10. They just found the last one they were looking for a few years ago. Going west on I-10 if you look of the side of the San Jacinto bridge you will see a squarish shaped area of rocks. That is a toxic waste site waiting to be cleaned up.

I am still kicking and we will continue to eat Lake Livingston fish whenever we take a notion. I ate some white bass last week and have plenty more vacuum bagged and ready to eat.

I am not really concerned about as far as eating the fish. It does concern me as to how it will effect folks like SS and their business.


----------



## trihullranger (Dec 19, 2015)

This is where the chickens come home to roost for me.

After reading the full report which at face value looks impressive the bottom line is defined below. The State says I would have to consume 30 grams every day for 30 years. The Feds use everyday for 70 years. This is also based on an adult weighing 70-Kg = 154 pounds. Lucky for me I can eat for (2) everyday day for the next 30 to 70 years and maybe just maybe I may have an increased risk.

I can live with that!

For carcinogenic outcomes, the DSHS calculates a theoretical lifetime excess risk of cancer for specific exposure scenarios for carcinogens, using a standard 70â€kg body weight and assuming an

```
adult consumes 30 grams of edible tissue per day
```
. The SALG risk assessors incorporate two additional factors into determinations of theoretical lifetime excess cancer risk: (1) an acceptable lifetime risk level (ARL)34 of one excess cancer case in 10,000 persons whose average daily exposure is equivalent; and, (2) daily exposure for 30 years, a modification of the 70â€year lifetime exposure assumed by the USEPA.


----------



## BobBobber (Aug 29, 2015)

GaryI said:


> to prepare two skinâ€off fillets from each fish.


*Thanks for the information, GaryI.*

Certainly makes heck of a lot more sense than the Michigan method to grind up entire fish.

But, how much did they trim WB flesh in Texas? I wonder.

And what would be the results of their testing if they compared flesh with red meat on it and white flesh with all red meat discarded? It'd be interesting to know. I'd bet it'd be a significant difference.

I had, still have, many friends who say WB tastes terrible. But those people did not trim the red meat away. Some never tasted any WB; they rely only on what they have heard.

We always trimmed off all the red meat. That was the only way we could eat WB, because we like an extremely mild flavor in our fish.


----------



## GaryI (Mar 18, 2015)

I agree, BobBobber.

I always trim the red off, particularly in the lateral line area (even though a number of 2Coolers insist it doesn't make any difference for fresh fish). I have never done a taste test to know for sure. It takes me only a minute to remove the red part. I am fairly sure that the State workers didn't do that, and since the results were only borderline unacceptable to the "standard" for 2 of the 25 white bass tested (the other 23 testing acceptable), this could have made a difference in passing vs failing the test.

Some of you may be interested in this report, which was the predecessor to the latest report. It describes similar testing on the upper Trinity near Dallas a few years ago. It laid the foundation for the recently released report by recommending toxin testing in Lake Livingston for 2012-2013:
http://www.nctcog.org/envir/SEEclean/wq/tmdl/TDSHSTrinityRiverNTCOGMay2014.pdf


----------



## whsalum (Mar 4, 2013)

It makes a difference


----------



## GaryI (Mar 18, 2015)

Additional interesting info in the Trinity River links on the page linked below. I didn't realize that it is recommended not to consume any fish at all from the upper Trinity system. I particularly found the link called "Advisory 43 FAQs" to be useful:
http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/seafood/advisories-bans.aspx

As an example:
Q: Will cooking or cleaning fish a certain way reduce the dioxin and PCB level?
A: Yes. These chemical contaminants readily accumulate in the fatty tissues of fish. To reduce exposure to these chemicals, the skin, dark (reddishÂ­ color) muscle tissue, and fatty portions (i.e. belly fat, side fat, and fat along the top of the back) of the fish should be removed before cooking. The DSHS recommends baking or broiling skinned, trimmed fish on a rack or grill to allow fat to drip away from the fillet. If fish are fried, the frying oil should not be reused. These cooking methods will reduce exposure to many of the most common organic chemical contaminants in fish.


----------



## trihullranger (Dec 19, 2015)

Thank you Gary1 for the research!!

What I take away from all the research and testing done is the possibility (may) of increased risk. That statement in and of itself scares most folks. The Livingston report by far was much better put together than the older ones IMO.

I believe page 13 of the Livingston report is by far the most important page in the whole document. They spell out how they came to their conclusion's. I will say at this time I am not sure I agree with the model used but I can accept it. There is some deep stuff in those 2 paragraphs and I had to read it several times for it to really soak in. 

The driving force of all this research-testing IMO and they say as much in the report is the possible increased risk to the subpopulations - subgroups. I know most folks are thin skinned these days but call it what it is, the poor or very poor. That's where the consumption of fish eaten everyday for 30 to 70 years comes into play in the model. 

I understand that and respect it because I was in that group growing up. We ate fish in the summer and deer meat during the winter. And I am thankful I was in that group because it made me a better person.

If I could make a recommendation to the State with regard to these advisories for the future is just speak in plan English. Anything in excess is a risk no matter the subject. 

What makes me sad is there are lots of folks who live around the lake that will feel the impact due to economic reasons because uninformed people are already spouting off don't eat the fish from Livingston because they are contaminated. I already saw post on other forums saying as much even using the word banned.

Compared to the food recalls I have seen in just the last year where people really died this is not even a flea on a bulls butt.....IMHO


----------



## GaryI (Mar 18, 2015)

trihullranger said:


> What makes me sad is there are lots of folks who live around the lake that will feel the impact due to economic reasons because uninformed people are already spouting off don't eat the fish from Livingston because they are contaminated. I already saw post on other forums saying as much even using the word banned.


Exactly. Even worse than the "eating fish" aspect, some people in Houston who don't know the lake (but who have seen the news) are already asking me about how polluted the lake is, and is it safe for boating and swimming? I am concerned that it will ultimately impact all of the fine people who own a business around the lake - bait shops, boat shops, hotels, restaurants, etc. The public is not exactly adept at keeping perspective or seeking understanding regarding what they read in the media, and likewise the media is not exactly adept at making the effort to research and report the whole picture.

Yea, this week, between the PCB/toxin news and the news of the long term plan for Interstate Highway 14 along the hwy 190 corridor, not exactly a great time for nature lovers around the lake.


----------



## shadslinger (Aug 21, 2005)

The effect on my business will take a while to realize. I'm hoping for a hopping news season will keep the media interested in something else besides hyping up this issue.

The current condition of the lake/river is such a mess there has not been much interest in fishing the lake lately. 
As soon as the water comes down some(????) I expect I will be fishing the river below the dam first for stripers/white bass and maybe some crappie. I will also continue to drift for the big cats until the main drifting season is over in late February. 

I really appreciate you 2coolers who are digging deep into this, as the info is putting the issue in a more realistic and understandable light. 
I am hoping my customers will be able to understand the risks and non-risks at play and continue to want to eat the fish they box on our trips at the suggested consumption rate.
In thinking about it I believe most of my customers come and take home fish at about the rate that keeps them in the guidelines for safe consumption.


----------



## SeaOx 230C (Aug 12, 2005)

It is at.the least irresponsible at the worst criminal how this is being portrayed by the media. Both my 24 and 21 year old have asked about the "ban" on eating fish from the river. 

After I explained some.of the results posted here they both were mad about what the TV and people on the internet said. My son said "good cause I can eat fish everyday".

They have a good seed of doubt in them when it comes to what they see and hear. Hopefully most other folks will too.


----------



## Steven H (Jan 15, 2006)

Read thru this last night. I am not sure what to believe/eat anymore. I dont eat whites, but was going to try to give some to what I catch this year to the needy. Tried to 3-4 years ago and could not find anyone that would take them whole. I eat specks/reds/crappie/flounder and shrimp/oysters. But my intake will increase this coming year for all of the above. Until now been mostly 2-3x a month.


----------



## BobBobber (Aug 29, 2015)

shadslinger said:


> The effect on my business will take a while to realize.


As I mentioned in a previous post about what happened in Michigan, after a year or so, the charter captains came out OK. A few with outstanding loan payments for their 34' mega boats could not weather the storm. However, many adapted.

Some started fishing schools, fly fishing lessons, and became hunting guides. After pocketing fees and tips from deer, duck and woodcock hunters, many of the fishing guides never looked back. Hunters, especially duck hunters shovel lots of money to be able to enjoy possibly 10 days per year shooting ducks.

Most guides learned their trade through the years. Before guiding, they usually earned a living doing something else. In the off seasons, and many weekdays, many guides build houses, make fly rods, tie flies, make knives, make fancy gun stocks, etc., etc. Some became representatives for fishing and boat manufacturers and worked trade shows for salaries. Some work flea markets selling miscellaneous wares, possibly not related to fishing at all.

I seldom met a guide who didn't have a trade or occupation before guiding. Plus, most of the guides I knew survived and continued to make a living.

Guiding is a tough, rigorous and demanding business. It's also very physically demanding. Many Gulf Coast guides I know had severely injured backs and knees from the heavy pounding as they sped across the surface of the water to get their clients onto some fish.

So, SS, keep the faith. You belong to a unique fraternity that has evolved by adapting. Hopefully, you'll weather this storm. In the meantime, explore what options you have open to you for other income potential.

Heck, in the 1980's when most of the auto industry in Michigan went down the sewer, tens of thousands of us lost their jobs. Some lost their will to continue working. Many others of us adapted. In my case, I went back to graduate school by opting to take the offer for one year reduced salary and full tuition expenses. After that, I started my own magazine. Sold it after eight years at more than six times my salary at GM. Then I retired. I mention this to you to demonstrate that I was there in a situation where I had to adapt to survive. My advice to you does not come from theory; it comes from my life experience.

So, SS, be open to your possibilities, embrace and explore them. You should come out of this perhaps better than you ever imagined.


----------



## shadslinger (Aug 21, 2005)

Thanks bob bobber I will keep those words in mind!
All of my equipment is paid for as well as house and vehicle so I think it will work out fine for me.


----------



## Whitebassfisher (May 4, 2007)

Correct me if wrong, but aren't there warnings about how much canned tuna is safe to eat? Let's see, artificial sweeteners cause cancer, right? Oh, and eggs.... 

I bet that using saccharine in their coffee and eating eggs is why my parents only lived into their early 90's.


----------



## markbrumbaugh (Jul 13, 2010)

I'm gonna continue to eat all the fish I catch and keep. If you catch a limit every day and eat all of it you are still going to be ok, I suppose, but for me I eat a healthy group of fish only several times per year.
Then again, I'm an old fart after 40 years in refineries. If they didn't kill me, I doubt fish will.


----------



## trihullranger (Dec 19, 2015)

Bobbobber you are a shining example to anyone who has been hit by a sucker punch. You have two choices, lay on the ground or get back up and swing back. My hat is off to you!!

In a way this advisory and the report are a sucker punch of sorts. For those that say what do I care I don't fish Livingston anyway. Well when next advisory list your lake lets see how you feel than....

For those that have not seen it yet the link posted earlier that will take you to the 2015 report now has a FAQ document as well. I just read it and had that same taste in my mouth as when I cussed as a kid and mom stuck a bar of soap in it. http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=8590003931 Hope this is the right link and not to my bank account...

The cliff note version is as follows: You may have an increased risk and than again you may not even if you exceed the recommended daily intake we deem safe. That's like the weatherman saying expect patches of darkness toward evening. What the hell does that mean?

For most including me I like to see the facts in "prospective" to get a feel of where I stand. In fairness to the folks who designed the model that determined what levels might, may or possibly pose a increased risk I will use their math. The model uses 30 grams a day intake of tissue. So lets calculate that by day converted to pounds. Some conversation tables list it at 0.06 and others say 0.07. We will low ball it. 0.06 x 365 day is 21.9 pounds per year.

The State was very lucky in finding someone who is way smarter than the stiffs working for the USEPA and determined 30 years is more accurate than 70 years for life expectantly. With the states math you will have consumed 657 pounds of fish. If you believe the Feds you just consumed 1, 533 pounds of fish.

1,533 pounds of fish per the Feds. Do you see yourself consuming 3/4 of a TON of any fish in your lifetime. Here's the kicker, you may or may not be at increased risk per the report.

I'm just a simple *******... but that's like saying whatever killed the dinosaurs may happen again, take shelter now and check your local news stations for updates.


----------



## markbrumbaugh (Jul 13, 2010)

But can I use this to reduce my taxes?


----------



## trihullranger (Dec 19, 2015)

Whitebassfisher said:


> Correct me if wrong, but aren't there warnings about how much canned tuna is safe to eat? Let's see, artificial sweeteners cause cancer, right? Oh, and eggs....
> 
> I bet that using saccharine in their coffee and eating eggs is why my parents only lived into their early 90's.


I buy the larger cans and they list it at 12oz. Will assume a standard can is 6oz.

From Consumer Reports:

Results from our tuna tests, conducted at an outside lab, underscore the longheld concern for those people. We found:
Every sample contained measurable levels of mercury, ranging from 0.018 to 0.774 parts per million. The Food and Drug Administration can take legal action to pull products containing 1 ppm or more from the market. (It never has, according to an FDA spokesman.) The EPA compiles fish advisories when state and local governments have found high contaminant levels in certain locally caught fish.

Samples of white tuna had 0.217 to 0.774 ppm of mercury and averaged 0.427 ppm. By eating 2.5 ounces of any of the tested samples, a woman of childbearing age would exceed the daily mercury intake that the EPA considers safe.

Samples of light tuna had 0.018 to 0.176 ppm and averaged 0.071 ppm. At that average, a woman of childbearing age eating 2.5 ounces would get less than the EPAâ€™s limit, but for about half the tested samples, eating 5 ounces would exceed the limit.


----------



## BobBobber (Aug 29, 2015)

*Tuna*

Trihullranger, here's more scary stuff on tuna:

Seen on the following link: http://thepaleodiet.com/canned-tuna-may-increase-oxidized-cholesterol/#.VnjJCZZIj4Y

From Paleo Diet book by Dr. Louis Cordain: â€œCanning also increases the level of oxidized cholesterol in fish, specifically increasing a molecule called 25 hydroxycholesterol that is extremely destructive to the linings of arterial blood vessels. This is so destructive, in fact, that oxidized cholesterol is routinely fed to laboratory animals to accelerate the artery-clogging atherosclerotic process in order to test theories of heart disease. In animal models of atherosclerosis and heart disease, only 0.3 % of the total ingested cholesterol needs to be in the form of oxidized cholesterol to cause premature damage to arterial linings.â€

Cordain includes footnotes to back up many if not all of the statements in his books, so he's not speaking off the cuff like Dr. Oz would for example.

I remember reading in Cordain's book that he was OK with tuna canned in water, because he found that some nutrient value was kept. Wish I could find that tonight to include herein for sure, but I have the latest edition and the page numbers are different from the quote above.

Years ago, I also remember studies showing that Albacore tuna had higher levels of mercury. But canned albacore still sells at a premium in most stores. Plus, most restaurants, list Albacore on their menus. Is it to impress customers of the price or that they can consume higher levels of mercury in the tuna patties? Probably the price, I'd guess.

Regardless, the adverse publicity about albacore did not linger for long. Albacore survived.

LOTS of what we eat has contaminants. Some are natural; some are additives; some are environmental consequences.

Most of us elect to keep on eating. So what's a guy to do? Starve?

Armed with the knowledge provided about the dangers in certain foods, we can choose to shy away from eating foods that have warnings . . . or at least limit our consumption.

Isn't that the main message we can all glean from the Fish Advisories?


----------



## duhunter (Nov 17, 2009)

Well, it appears that Trinity River is not our only problem in East Tx. On Fox news last night the lower San Jacinto river has its own issues too. I fear that theses are a little more sever that Trinity River's.

http://www.fox26houston.com/virtual/health/healthworks/59684289-story


----------



## GaryI (Mar 18, 2015)

Good point. Helps keep our issue in perspective (and off the news page). Really a shame and I hope it can be addressed and resolved properly.


----------



## Whitebassfisher (May 4, 2007)

duhunter said:


> Well, it appears that Trinity River is not our only problem in East Tx. On Fox news last night the lower San Jacinto river has its own issues too. I fear that theses are a little more sever that Trinity River's.
> 
> http://www.fox26houston.com/virtual/health/healthworks/59684289-story


I have heard for years that the lower San Jacinto is a serious mess compared to the Trinity. There are proven dump sites on the San Jacinto; it is in a different category.


----------



## duhunter (Nov 17, 2009)

I just don't understand why in the world EPA would let anyone put a waste pit in a flood prone area that is flowing right into our bay eco system.:headknock


----------



## SeaOx 230C (Aug 12, 2005)

The issues on the San Jacinto go back a long time. Their have been several law suites and settlements. Last I heard they have found what is believed to be the last dump site needing cleaned up. There were persistent bad tests even after they thought all should be better. They kept searching and testing till they found it. 

Driving west bound on I-10 San Jacinto River bridge look down on the North side about where all the barges are. You will see a squarish shaped area of built up rocks with some pockets of water. That is it, that is an old abandoned toxic waste dump. It has been capped off and is waiting for clean up some day.


No comparison between the Trinity and the San Jacinto, expect maybe some areas in the immediate Dallas area. And that is now, there has been a ton of money thru EPA super fund and others spent cleaning up the lower San Jacinto. It once was very very bad multiple EPA Super Fund sites.

In today's world I don't think the Trinity or any other river system would be allowed to get that bad again.


----------



## trihullranger (Dec 19, 2015)

Wow that is bad! Have to wonder if containment is the best approach verse removal for the long term. Trying to contain it may just be a Band-Aid on a bullet hole. Sure hope they get it fixed. Not knowing all the facts this may be a tough nut to crack.


----------

