Great Lakes Fishing -- Can You Do It from the Shore?

[mrblue92]

It’s incredibly clean. If you have problems eating fish out of a lake so clear you can see the bottom from a boat that’s in 30’ deep water, well, that’s your problem.

While it might be safe, clarity of water is not necessarily indicative of cleanliness. But to each their own…

[bantmof]

If you hurry, there might be something left of the Great Lakes to fish in:

http://www.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/04/26/low.lake.levels/

The lower 3 lakes are down about 27 trillion gallons, they say, which is about 3.5 vertical feet. Supposedly its causing big problems for the big freighters, and the trend is supposed to continue.

–
peas on earth

[mrblue92]

Yep, that’s true. I can’t really speak for the other lakes, but Lake Huron is at the lowest level I’ve ever seen it at. They published a chart in the local paper showing that they were about the same level back in the 1960’s and peaked in the 80’s, so I’m thinking it’s a natural phenomena rather than being caused by excessive water use.

As far as I know, LA hasn’t bought the water rights yet, so we’re probably safe for a little while. All we’d need is a few years with a little more precipitation and they’d likely return to normal.

[Milossarian]

Seems to be some Mich-information in this thread.

tomndebb said:
Michigan has nearly as many “internal” lakes as the “Land of 10,000 Lakes” Minnesota, and a goodly number of rivers as well.

Actually, Michigan has way more inland lakes than the “Land of 10,000 Lakes,” Minnesota. We have 11,000 lakes.

That’s why I always wondered about that campaign. Are we supposed to be impressed?

Chronos said:
feel free to fish for sport, but don’t eat anything that comes out of the Great Lakes

Gee, Chronos, there goes your seat on the Tourism Bureau.

The Great Lakes do have some fish advisories, but the risk is extremely remote, and only involves the largest fish, such as lake trout.

Toxins get magnified as they go up the food chain (plankton eats toxin, little fish eats a lot of plankton, medium fish eats a lot of little fish, big fish eats … etc.) Lake trout store a relatively large amount of fat in their bodies, which makes them a particularly greater health risk than other fish – but you still need to realize just how remote this is. You’d have to eat fish for every meal for like a year to be putting yourself into the realm of any real risk at all.

spoke- said:
I had heard about the cleansing effect of zebra mussels, but I thought that was a good thing. (Maybe the only good thing about the mussels.) Do the fish really eat them, putting the pollutants back in the food
chain? Or are the mussels having the effect of taking pollutants out of the food chain, and thus making the fish safer to eat?

You are correct, sir.

Zebra mussels have virtually no predators on the Great Lakes (that’s why the damn things are proliferating so bad). Their filtering actions, therefore, remain pretty much self-contained within the mussels. (Obviously, this doesn’t last forever. They die and decay just like every other living thing.)

They have made all of the lakes around here dramatically clearer, but the jury is still out on how harmful that is. Many thought it would affect the habitat of big deep-water fish, as the sun shone deeper into the lakes. But after nearly being decimated, lake trout and salmon populations are making a comeback. Go figure.

---

Give me immortality, or give me death!

[DSYoungEsq]

Sledman, you quoted MY post in which I said ‘lakes.’ Got it?

[Sledman]

Originally posted by DSYoungEsq:
Sledman, you quoted MY post in which I said ‘lakes.’ Got it?

Perhaps we misunderstand one another. If so my apologies.

If not…

[Spoke]

Well, thanks for al the info, everyone. I am eagerly anticipating our trip!