Conference wahoo::fishing-v2

                              DES Update

A number of things have happened since the Divers' Environmental 
Survey (DES) began making itself known last January. Many more things 
will happen in the coming year.

Right now, as the local season ends for most New England divers, this 
is where we stand:

We are in the process of incorporating as a non-profit corporation. 
The Executive Committee includes myself, Fred Genoese-Zerbi, Thomas 
Gloria, and David Tassinari.

The Ghost Gear Project is now underway. We hope to remove several 
hundred lost-but-still-fishing lobster pots from Massachusetts waters 
before the end of 1991. They will all be returned to the lobsterfolk 
to whom they belong. As of January 1, 1992, all lobster traps will be 
required to have an escape panel that will allow trapped animals to 
escape if the trap has been left in the water a certain amount of 
time. We anticipate that all of the retrieved ghost gear that gets put 
back in use will have the escape panel installed before it goes back 
into the water. If you're interested in participating in Ghost Gear 
Cleanup dives, contact David Tassinari (508-588-0524) for south-shore 
cleanup dives and Tom Gloria (617-864-9572) for north-shore cleanup 
dives. This project has been undertaken in cooperation with the 
Massachusetts Lobsterman's Association (MLA) and the MA Division of 
Marine Fisheries (DMF).

The Boston Harbor Monitoring Project is now underway. We will be 
visiting selected sites off middle-harbor islands on a periodic basis 
all year round, cataloging what we see. We anticipate that 
participating divers will become as familiar with these sites as they 
are with their own living rooms. This kind of familiarity is what 
makes detailed observations worthwhile. If you're interested in 
participating in this project, contact Fred Genoese-Zerbi 
(508-250-0515). This project has been undertaken in cooperation with 
the Save the Harbor/Save the Bay (SHSB) Foundation.

The Shawsheen River Restoration Project continues in cooperation with 
the Shawsheen Watershed Environmental Action Team (SWEAT). This 
10-year-effort to restore a former salmon and trout habitat has been 
gaining momentum all year. The final formal cleanup of 1991 will take 
place in Lawrence, MA on October 19. This is an example of a diver 
adopting a local body of water and contributing to its restoration. 
Divers bring a new, much-needed element to restoration efforts. You 
can make a difference.

The Concord River Excavation Project, which involves removing all of 
the trash from a designated area, has been put on temporary hold until 
November. This is due to the local custom of depositing large pieces 
of trash in the river (especially the stuff we pull out of the river). 
In November the water will be clearer, and there will be fewer people 
visiting the river on a lark to see how big a splash a car seat makes 
when it hits the water. This project will continue through April of 
1992.


If you have an idea for a project, please don't hesitate to ask for 
help in setting it up. Almost any project you want to undertake will 
require legal and political approval before you can even begin. We can 
help you.


Above and beyond all of these projects, however, is the original 
purpose of the DES: to make non-divers aware of what is happening to 
aquatic environments. 

When a diver reports something wrong underwater, we spread the word to 
research institutions, official agencies, private associations, and 
when appropriate, to newspapers. Thus far this year, we have produced 
reports on Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, and Massachusetts waters. We 
aren't ignoring Rhode Island or Connecticut; we just haven't heard 
from any RI or CT divers yet.

Next year, the DES will start publishing a newsletter. 

Next year, the DES will expand to the Midwest and Middle Atlantic 
states.

Next year, the DES will continue making a difference.



We hope to hear from you.


John H-C



    Project ReefKeeper has put out a call for assistance from the diving 
    community [and I am now passing this same call to the fishing
    community---JH-C] to prevent oil and gas development on coral reefs in the 
    Gulf of Mexico. In July the Minerals Management Service proposed the 
    1992 - 1997 five-year draft program for offshore oil and gas 
    development in the Gulf of Mexico. This draft program contains an 
    exclusion alternative which, if adopted, can protect coral banks from 
    offshore oil operational impacts.

    Alternative VI of the Environmental Impact Statement calls for 
    exclusion of coral banks from leasing for five years. This 
    alternative would exclude from lease-sale major blocks of coral 
    habitat off the shores of Texas, Louisiana and Florida in the northern 
    sector of the Gulf of Mexico.

    Included in some of the blocks that would be protected are sections of 
    the Flower Garden Banks. These are full-fledged coral reefs 
    scheduled to become a National Marine Sanctuary. The other Gulf coral 
    banks are also rich coral habitats supporting thriving marine life.

    Project ReefKeeper is seeking at least 100 groups nationwide to advise 
    the Minerals Management Service of their support of Alternative 6. 
    Since the deadline for comment is October 29, they need our help in 
    this matter NOW.

    In message 2 of this thread is a draft letter to be sent to the 
    Minerals Management Service from the CIS Scuba Forum in support of 
    Alternative VI. We will count the responses from you, if the majority 
    support this draft letter, it will be sent in early October.


Proposed letter 

From: CIS Scuba Forum 

To: Debra Purvis
 Environmental Projects Coordination Branch, Mail Stop 4320
 Minerals Management Service
 381 Elden Street
 Herndon, VA 22070

Dear Ms. Purvis

The national CompuServe Information System Scuba Forum, with 
membership in all 50 States of our nation, wishes to advise you that 
we overwhelmingly support adoption of Alternative VI, "Exclude Certain 
Seafloor Features", Environmental Impact Statement, Proposed 
Comprehensive Outer Continental Shelf Gas and Oil Resource Management 
Program, 1992 - 1997.

It is our understanding that your organization has concluded that 
there would be no practical way to prevent catastrophic damage to the 
coral habitat should there be a well blowout or an underwater pipeline 
break in an area of coral banks.

Further, when working on the coral banks, there is reason to believe 
that the coral banks may be damaged by discharges from the drilling 
process itself. We believe that anchoring and the building of 
structures on the coral banks will result in gouges in the coral and 
broken and overturned coral heads.

Several generations of human life span are required to regenerate 
major sections of coral growth once the coral is severely damaged. In 
our lifetime and the lifetime of our children, for all practical 
purposes, the coral banks are a non-renewable national asset.

The membership of the CompuServe Information System Scuba Forum 
requests the Minerals Management Service adopt Alternative VI to the 
Environmental Impact Statement to exclude coral habitats from the 
disturbances and risks associated with gas and oil drilling 
operations.

 Yours truly,



 F. W. Howard
 Coordinator
 CIS Scuba Forum

  

	  GET INVOLVED!    MAKE A DIFFERENCE!


	       NASHUA RIVER CLEANUP

	     SATURDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1991

	     8:45 A.M. to 12:00 NOON

     Food will be provided (whatever that means....)

	       Directions below:


Take 3 North to Exit 6 in Nashua, NH.

Right onto Broad Street

Go through three sets of lights

     (Third set of lights is the Broad/Main intersection. Church on
      left, brick building on right.)

Left onto Canal Street at next (fourth) set of lights.

Right into the parking lot of "Butcher Boy" just before next
     intersection.

                            Shawsheen River Cleanup
                            Lawrence, Massachusetts
                                October 19, 1991

      The Shawsheen Watershed Environmental Action Team (SWEAT) and the Divers'
      Environmental Survery (DES) will hold the final Shawsheen River Cleanup
      of 1991 in Lawrence, MA, on October 19.

      This will be the sixth SWEAT/DES collaboration on the Shawsheen River
      this year. Lawrence will be the sixth town in which a cleanup has taken
      place in 1991.

      The Lawrence cleanup will mark the end of the first year of the pro-
      jected 10-year Shawsheen Restoration Project, a long-term grassroots
      effort to restore that beautiful river to the salmonid habitat it was
      before 1945.

      Rising in Lexington, the Shawsheen River meanders through Bedford, Bil-
      lerica, Wilmington, Tewksbury, Andover, North Andover, and Lawrence
      before emptying into the Merrimack River. The last run of Atlantic Salmon
      in the Shawsheen River occurred in 1945. Since that time, development
      on its banks, ignorance of its beauty, and disregard for its value have
      brought it to the brink of death.

      SWEAT and DES opted to begin the struggle to restore the river by clean-
      ing out the channel. In six cleanups, an estimated 7 tons (14,000 pounds)
      of man-made materials have been pulled out of the river bottom. In-
      cluded in this tonnage have been a home heating-oil tank, an asphalt
      smoother, a bedframe, a rifle, dozens of rounds of live ammunition,
      dozens of shopping carts, enough car parts to construct several com-
      plete but rusty automobiles, and uncounted tires, bottles, cans, and
      unidentifiable metal and plastic objects.

      These foreign objects raise the bottom of the river, making it wider
      and shallower, which:

          Kills the fish            Lowers the water's oxygen content
          Exacerbates erosion       Increases suspended particulates
          Promotes flooding         Enhances algal and aquatic weed growth
          Warms the water           Expands mosquito spawning habitat

      We are cleaning out the channel to put a stop to these problems.


                                  Join Us!

Where: Rte. 114 bridge over the Shawsheen River in Lawrence/North Andover
When: 8:00 A.M. to 12:00 Noon, Saturday, October 19, 1991
Directions: I-495 (north or south) to Exit 42A, right off ramp .25 mile


           For more information, contact:


       Bob Rauseo (508) 851-9505  or  John Hicks-Courant (508) 663-0289
       President                      President
       SWEAT                          DES
                                      GEMVAX::JOHNHC
                                      [email protected]

    The town of North Andover has come through with a 30-yard dumpster for
    the Shawsheen River Cleanup on October 19.
    
    I hope I'll get a chance to meet some of the FISHING folks there that
    morning.....
    
    John H-C

    About the final Shawsheen River Cleanup of 1991: 
    
    We need your help!
    
    
    You don't have to dive. We need people on shore as well as wading in
    the shallows. (Your waders are useful for this.)
    
    The way it works is this:
    
    Divers and waders load trash into a waiting canoe. When the canoe is
    full, it is paddled back to the unloading point, and another canoe
    takes its place near the divers or waders. People onshore unload the
    canoes while people behind them carry the unloaded stuff over to the
    waiting dumpster. 
    
    Occasionally it will be necessary for the diver to tie a rope to a
    piece of heavy trash. A team of 6-8 people on shore then pull on the
    rope and drag the trash to shore.
    
    It's all that simple. We need help!
    
    It's only 4 hours of a Saturday morning, and it will make a BIG
    difference. This one is taking place in a section of the river that has
    been ignored since the 1940s, mainly because of its proximity to the
    Merrimack. We hope to turn that around. Nothing gets action like
    action.
    
    The town of North Andover has donated a 30-yard dumpster to the effort,
    and *we need to fill it* in that 4-hour period to make our point.
    
    Please. Help save a river.
    
    
    John H-C                          

    Thought it might interest some of you folks that an aquatic moth that
    eats variable milfoil has been discovered in Lake Winnipesaukee. This
    is great follow-on news to the discovery two years ago of three
    different aquatic insects (two moths and one weevil) that consume
    eurasion milfoil.
    The only problem is that the moth that consumes variable milfoil also
    consumes every other form of aquatic vegetation it finds, though it has
    so far shown a preference for milfoil. This is a fairly recent
    discovery (less than a month old), and whether there are native fish
    that will consume this moth is still unknown.
    
    
    John H-C

I've just gotten a postscript version of the first Divers'
Environmental Survey newsletter, "Through the Looking Glass."

It's 10 pages long. If you'd like a copy, send me e-mail.

John H-C

    The Divers' Environmental Survey is planning an ice-out survey of
    Quinsigamond on April 18. Would any of you be at all interested in
    helping out by hauling teams of divers around to different parts of the
    lake?
    
    We're also going to be going back to White Pond in Concord for the
    second annual White Pond Cleanup Dive on April 11. Your participation
    in that would also be much appreciated.
    
    These events take about 4 hours.
    
    I hope I'll meet a few of you FISHING noters at one or both of these.
    
    Thanks.
    
    John H-C

I'd like to Help out and provide transportation via the "FishTeaser"
Our 19' SeaNymph 70hp Center Console.  Have small diver's platform/ladder.

Never been on Lake Quinsigamond so will need diver/guide aboard if available.

Before we commit can you help me with a few details.

Is a team 2 divers? or ? divers
Does survey mean information collection or "trash collection"?
How much is the avg weight/diver with all equipment?
What time will the 4hr survey begin?
Where is the launch from?  (Lauch Ramp by I-290  or ?)

Why the questions....
I'd like to take my wife & two daughters (12yrs&8yrs)along.
My wife to assist in piloting and the girls to learn about the Enviroment.
Therefore 2 divers would be max if they would like to join us.
I'd prefer no trash collection on board but will tow anything. 

Equipment aboard the "FishTeaser" include:
	VHF Ship/Shore Radio
	Fish/Depth finder
	Two handheld portable CB's (don't have CB marine antennae. "yet")
	Diver's Down Flag (Red/White)

-< Tuna Tail >-

    Thanks for the offer. I don't know where the ramp(s) on Quinsigamond
    are yet, but I don't anticipate a problem finding out where they are by
    April 18. A diver who weighs 170 pounds without gear weighs about 240
    pounds with gear or 280 pounds if s/he has two tanks.
    
    We're just collecting information. Basically, we'll ask the divers to 
    say what kinds of trash they saw, how much of it they saw, and where
    they saw it. We also ask the surface support people (who have dry
    hands) to write down what the divers say they saw as soon as they exit
    the water. (Gee, does that last sentence make sense?)
    
    John H-C

re:70.11

The lbs/diver w gear will be no problem assuming 2 divers/team.
If my crew doesn't go I can take more divers out.
No problem doing the information/mapping for divers.

Keep the "FishTeaser" and crew posted.
Let us know when you finalize launch time/site.

As you know I have never been on Lake Quinsigamond but I do know the launch 
ramp that's on Nothern part of the Lake where I-290 crosses over.
The Ramp is on the East side of the Lake South of I-290 and you can see
this Lauch site as you travel Eastbound on I-290.

I will be taking the FishTeaser there early April on a Tuesday night to
get the 92' USCG Saftey Sticker.

-< Tuna Tail >-

    The latest edition of the newsletter of the Divers' Environmental
    Survey, "Through the Looking Glass," is now available in postscript.
    
    Send mail if you would like a copy.
    
    John H-C

    Just today I got a report from a diver who used to dive Quinsigamond.
    He strongly advised that we *stay out of it* because it used to be the
    Worcester/Shrewsbury dump. That's right, he said that both towns used
    to routinely dump their municipal garbage there.
    (He cautioned us to stay away despite his knowing that we (DES) will
    dive almost anywhere under almost any conditions as long as PCBs aren't
    present in the water column.)
    
    Now I am asking for verification from any of you Central Massachusetts
    residents. Can you help us out?
    
    The Quinsigamond survey was going to be a trash survey, just to see how
    much is deposited in a lake surrounded by development. Seems the
    results of the survey would be pretty severely skewed if it turns out
    that Worcester and Shrewsbury really used the lake as a landfill.
    
    Can any of you verify or point to a person who would know for sure?
    
    Thanks.
    
    John H-C

    
    	My grandparents, my parents, and myself have lived along lake 
    	bony fish, and have never mentioned such a thing to me.  I will 
    	give them a ask the next time I see them...... I will say one thing 
    	though the way the shore line looked when I was out in the boat 
    	Sunday it could of passed for one !!!  My father dived in the Lake 
    	about thirty years ago ( you can still see the old diving club,
    	that is the cement building on the Worc. side about 1/2 mile South 
    	of the Rt.9 bridge. {Worc. Frogmans Club}) and said you could not 
    	see to much the water has always been on the cloudy side... 
    	I'll get back to ya about the landfill issue
    

    	This would be news to me also.  I grew up in Northboro and fished
    in Quinsig since about 1953.  The only place I can think of that might
    have been a landfill is under the industrial park beside the north end
    of the lake.  Guess it's time to call Mom who grew up living ON the
    lake and ask some questions.
    					B.C.

    I just got off the phone with Walter Giard, Divemaster of the Worcester
    Fire Department Dive Rescue Team. Seems they dive in Quinsigamond *a
    lot,* and not because they enjoy it. 
    
    I'm going to meet with Walter and a couple other divers next Wednesday
    to go over the bathymetric (sp?) charts of the lake and what they have
    seen in the various parts.
    
    LOTS of stuff goes into that lake on a daily basis, it seems, including
    raw sewage. These guys dive there to remain current, and they
    frequently surface with toilet paper stuck to parts of their gear.
    
    Cars dominate one end of the lake. 55-gallon drums dominate another end
    of the lake. These are not "flotation" drums, apparently. "There's all
    KINDS of stuff in there," Walter said. The notion that it was once used
    as a municipal dump did not seem to surprise him in the least.
    
    I'll keep posting what I find out, if there's interest.
    
    FWIW
    
    John H-C 
    
    
    John H-C

    
    John Please keep on putting in any info you get. Did Walter happen
    to mention what was in those 55 gallon drums?
    
    Thanks
    Walt
    

       Most cities/towns have a local 'historian', you might want to try
    the respective libraries, they would probably know who that person
    would be.
                                    Denny

    Worcester has a historical society, I am not sure if they would have
    records on this, but I am sure they could point to some local figuire
    who might know.  I also recall a couple of times when heavy rain caused
    sewerage problems that caused raw sewage to enter the lake.
    
    Brian

    re: .18
    No, he didn't know what was in the barrels. He and his team(s) have the
    good sense to, as he put it, "Get the hell away from`em!" He sounded a
    little surprised at the notion when I told him our corporate policy is
    to mark the barrel(s) and call the EPA National Response Center as soon
    as possible. We mark the barrels either by buoy, if we have one along,
    or by compass triangulation after surfacing over the barrel.
    
    re: 19
    I have been pointed in the direction of the Worcester Sanitation
    Department. I will call them, but -- to be perfectly honest -- I don't
    expect they will have records of things that happened 60 years ago or
    at any rate that they will be willing to go looking into records 60
    years old just to satisfy my curiosity.
    
    re: 20
    Unlike a river or the ocean, the sewage that goes into a lake does not
    flush out. It stays and becomes part of the ecoweb. Walter Giard
    mentioned that the water was as murky at 90 feet as at 5 feet. This is
    truly unusual except in severly damaged aquatic ecosystems. The two
    culprits for that phenomenon that I have witnessed are chemical dumping
    (where the chemicals mix with but are not diluted by the water) and raw
    sewage. Such places scare me no little bit. Having seen my share, I now
    marvel that I am seem healthy after subjecting myself and my equipment
    to those environments, and I won't suggest that other divers in less
    than full isolation suits dive there. When Walter Giard told me that
    the vis was the same at 90 as at 5, I said, "Do you guys dive in
    vulcanized rubber suits?" He said, "No, but we are from now on." From
    that I gathered that the information on conditions at depth was fairly
    recent.
    
    John H-C

    If you see a barrel or any other possibly hazardous waste in or near
    the water (I recall in the last version of this file that someone came
    across a barrel partially submerged in the water that was clearly
    marked "Hazardous Waste."), call the EPA's National Response Center.
    
    The number is 
    
    
    (800) 424-8802
    
    
    
    The reason to call these people rather than your local Conservation
    Commission or the state Department of Environmental Protection is that
    these and other local environmental agencies tend to have normal
    business hours and so are probably unavailable when you are most likely
    to encounter such a thing (the weekend). Even during the week, you are
    often only likely to encounter a receptionist.
    
    The role of the National Response Center is to make sure local state
    and federal environmental agencies are made aware of the hazard.
    
    It helps to be as specific about the location of the material as
    possible. Also, if the stuff is in an out-of-the-way place, which is
    where most illegal dumping occurs (for obvious reasons), it will be
    appreciated if you can give directions on how to get to the site.
    
    John H-C

    A couple years ago a sewage pipe near Quinsigamond broke, sending
    raw sewage gushing several feet into the air.  As I recall, millions
    of gallons of sewage flowed into the lake before they could get it
    stopped.
    
    John, if you guys will only dive there with vulcanized suits, you
    may want to let the folks in the boating conference know about
    this hazard. There are people there who swim, ski, and barefoot
    at Quinsigamond.  Yech!
    
    Rick

                       <<< USDCDP::ENVIRONMENTAL_ISSUES>>>
================================================================================
Note 299.116                  Clean Water Habitats                    116 of 116
TLE::SAVAGE                                          43 lines   1-APR-1992 12:30
                         -< Rumor control - of a sort >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Well, it's been _years_ since I had anything to do with Lake
    Quinsigamond, but (at the time I was involved) the CSO (combined sewer
    overflow) situation was well known to the state authorities and there
    was not one hint of any lake _anywhere_ been used as a dump.  I suspect
    that the bait shop owner's reaction reflected genuine shock at the
    propect of such a rumor's impact on his business.
    
    What happened in the case of the Charles River was that ill-informed
    landfill operators were letting the bulldozers work too close to the
    banks.  Either the garbage would fall down the slope into the water, or
    heavy rains would cause the whole mess to slump into to river. 
    Massachusetts and other states closed all such riverside facilities
    once they realized what was going on.  Of course these closed dumps
    still continue to leach.
    
    I knew of no such bankside landfill operation affecting any _lake_ in
    Massachusetts, just 'industrialized' rivers, such as the Merrimack,
    Mystic, and Charles.  
    
    [For those not familiar with the term CSO: back in the environmental
    dark ages, an abominable engineering practice was to combine sewerage
    and storm drainage systems. During dry weather, the concept was cheap
    and efficient.  The concept also worked OK in wet weather for a time.
    Then, more and more industries and homes hooked into the sewer system
    until there was about as much sewage flow during dry weather as the 
    combined system was designed to handle during a heavy rain storm. Well,
    you can imagine what happens when it rains or in spring when  there's a
    lot of snowmelt!  Relief (from dirtied toilet paper floating in the
    streets) was only an _overflow_ conduit away.  You can guess  where the
    system drained into when in was overtaxed (which was up to 90% of the
    time!) - yep, yer local waterway courtesy of mother nature - its all
    biodegradable (hah, hah!).]
    
    John's 'outa-site-outa-mind' comment in .115 is very meaningful here.
    Over and over again, the politicians have shown that they are incapable
    of dealing with the accumulating debt of ignoring environmental
    problems such as CSOs.  After all, how would you like to face the
    delemma of spending scarce monetary resources on a problem that you
    didn't start (started back in the 19th century, it's not my doing) or
    risk an environmental castatrophe, such as an overturn?  You bet you'd
    'duck for cover' and just wish it would hold off until the next guy's
    in office.  'Been doing politics in the state of MA like that for over
    a hundred years, not going to change now, no sirree! 

    KUDOS! to Jack Hutchinson and his daughter Eliza for the amazing job
    they did at White Pond in Concord, MA on April 11. They were all over
    that pond helping divers and non-divers alike for the entire 4-hour
    stretch of the job.
    
    It was colder in the air than it was underwater, and they stuck it out
    in a way that inspired everybody else there. They suffered the rain,
    the hail, the sleet, and the snow (all in one morning) on the open
    water, and they didn't stop until the last diver was out of the water.
    (In fact, they hauled one member of the last dive team all the way
    across the pond in their canoe.)
    
    Jack, thank you. And please thank Eliza for us, too.
    
    You two were amazing.
    
    John H-C

	R U diver's doin the Lake Quinsig survey this Saturday?

	The "FishTeaser" is ready for taking a diving crew out.

	Lemme know if so and time/place for rendevous.

	Naturally with the weekend rain is comin.

	-< Tuna Tail >-

    Sorry I didn't get back to you on this sooner!
    
    We're going to cancel the formal cover-the-lake survey for the 18th.
    
    I spend last Wednesday morning with some members of the Worcester Fire
    Department Dive Rescue team (4 - 6 minutes from street clothes to full
    gear in a speeding truck. WOW!)��
    
    We went over the most recent charts of Lake Quinsigamond (7 E size
    pages) and talked about what they had seen and not seen where.
    
    The lake and its woes make a lot more sense to me now. What we decided
    was that a few hardcore DES divers would dive with a few of the Dive
    Rescue team members on a mid-week morning some time in May. We'll be
    looking at some specific places that look pretty suspicious (based on
    depth readings on the charts). They have the boats we'll need for that
    sort of thing.
    
    All in all, it's pretty d**ned dirty, and I don't want to expose any
    inexperienced volunteer DES divers to those conditions.
    
    Might you be interested in helping out some other time?
    
    Thanks.
    
    John H-C

    re .25
    
    Thanks for the kind words, John - but please don't be messing with
    my reputation here.  'liz' & me were just trying to keep ourselves
    warm there, puttering around that pond.  I continue an unrepentant 
    apathetic fisherman & 'liz', due to the unfortunate circumstances
    of her birth, is quite steadily falling under that influence.
    
    The morning of gopher work was new & interesting - so thanks for
    the opportunity & we'd be happy to gopher again, though you might
    find us less active when it's warmer.

        
    Jack

    Hey - that's a skilled & personable group of divers you recruited - it 
    was a pleasure to gopher for a few of them.
    

John H-C,

	Sorry it's a NAY for this Saturday on Lake Q for the Divers.
	But it's a YAY for requesting future help from the "FishTeaser"
	Just keep me posted.

	Looks like you had an interesting time with the Worcester Fire	
	Department Dive Rescue team.  I wonder if they could tell me where
	I could find a place to get set of those charts?  Most Marina's
	I've been too only have the ocean stuff?

	Any ideas
	-< Tuna Tail >-

    The charts they had were from the Conservation Commission. Be warned:
    they are *very* detailed. Seven E-size pages to cover the lake,
    including both Flint Ponds. As far as I know, there is no
    satellite-photo chart for Lake Quinsigamond as there is for Lake
    Winnipesaukee. (For those off you with the annual satellite-photo chart
    of Lake Winnipesaukee, be advised that much of the bottom topology
    described by the chart was somebody's late-night guesswork.)
    
    Anyway, back to Lake Quinsigamond and the charts. They are blue lines
    on blue paper, so I doubt they would copy very well (assuming you could
    find a copier to accommodate pages that large).
    
    I was told they had seven (7) copies made, and they still had a couple
    left. (On second thought, maybe it was the Worcester DPW rather than
    the Conservation Commission.) Anyway, a call to Worcester town hall and
    a lot of patience as you get shunted through the fiberoptic bureaucracy
    would probably get you a cheap chart.
    
    Hope that helps.
    
    John H-C

John H-C,

	Thanks for the lead on Lake Quinsig Chart hunting in Wooh-sta

-< TunaTail >-

John, Take your charts to ACME Blue print on grove street.  Yhey will copy 
them for you.  Also If you want lots of copies like if people want to pay
the cost, the make Milars of the originals and you get great copies.

Milars were about $2.00 a page!

Bob

    
    A couple weeks ago a friend of mine was up at the A-1 fishing
    from shore on the side where the railroad tracks are. Anyway he said 
    there were "Lots" of dead kivers there, no other type fish. Anyone
    ever hear/see of this before? 
    
                Walt

    Walt
    
    I am not sure about the A1, but a couple of other small ponds I fish
    have lots of dead fish around the shores too.  I thought it was just
    winter kill but am not sure what it is.
    
    Brian

    
    
             I was fishing A1 yesterday, 5/31, and saw mostly Kivers. But I
    did see one very small dead Bass and 1 calico, and 1 hornpout. I also
    saw 1 dead 5 1/2 - 6 pounder, but I'm guessing that old age or a angler
    got to him and not the same problem as the other dead fish.
    
            This is 5 weeks in a row that I've seen many dead kivers in
    this pond and only 1 week of other non-kiver dead fish.
    
    Bill.

    
    I was out there saturday and saw lots of dead kivers, especially
    on the right side of the pond where the stumps begin. I counted 12 in
    one spot. I figure if something was being dumped there we'd be seeing
    lots of different kinds of dead fish. Still makes you wonder tho....
    
    
    Walt

    It takes a *LOT* of abuse to kill a "kiver." (Thanks, Kiv.) They
    tolerate low oxygen content almost as well as bullheads (aka hornpout
    round these parts) and carp.
    
    Does A1 have another name? Has anybody called the MA DEP about this
    yet?
    
    

    
    
    John I *think* another name for it is Mill Pond.

    I was there at the A1 and saw a lot of small kivers dead too, I just
    assumed someone was killing them after catching them.
    
    However in a spot not to be disclosed one of them had the tail chewed
    off and another had huge chunks taken out.  I assume that must be a bad
    boy eating them.  I'll let you know after I catch him this weekend.
    
    Brian

    
    I don't know Brian, I saw some grown ones dead also. And dont forget
    there are some big snappers in there that would gladly eat some of the
    dead kivers. So it might not be a fish eating them. Maybe you should
    tell me where this spot is so I can take a closer look at the
    situation? 8')
    
    Walt

    It sounds more like a mink or a raccoon that didn't like the taste.
    

    Walt
    
    Sure the spot was over by the stump to the left of the forked one near
    the big tree.
    
    Brian
    

    
    
    
            With the hot weather we just had and the kibbies
            on the beds at that time do ya think rapid temperature
            change coulda done them in? I remember (imagine that)
            seein the same thing two years ago when it got hot
            whilst they were beddin.
    
    
                                          Slam away.
    
    
                                             The Keg

    That's a slight possibility of all the dead fish were male and all of
    the approximate "adult" size, but heavy-duty temperature changes
    usually make their nesting instincts go away, so they leave the nest.
    
    Just last weekend I came across several abandoned smallmouth bass nests
    in Winnipesaukee. In those cases, it was a drop in temperature rather
    than a rise that threw them off.

    Learning something new every day....
    
    I just spoke to Richard Hartley at MA F&W in Westboro. There have been 
    many "natural fish kills" this year. The common thread throughout is 
    that the kills are species-specific and affect fish of all ages and 
    sizes within the species.
    
    The basic scenario is that the fish are already heavily stressed after 
    a winter without food, this stress is compounded by the urge to spawn. 
    Sudden rises in water temperature cause the omnipresent bacteria and 
    fungi to overwhelm the fish's immune system, killing it.
    
    The reason I haven't seen this before is that I seldom spend time in 
    or near ponds that are shallow enough for this to happen.
    
    I was told that the majority of the fish kill in A1 occurred near the 
    heavily wooded area where the water is never more than a few inches 
    deep. Being an impoundment, there is almost no water movement in A1 
    anyway, so the water could be thoroughly heated in a day or two of 
    intense heat, causing the bacterial and fungal growth to explode.
    
    Flint Pond is also going through a fish kill consisting 
    entirely of blue gills.
    
    The scenario for one of these kinds "natural fish kills" is shallow 
    water and intermittent hot weather in the spring.
    
    
    FWIW
    
    
    John H-C
    

    One more thing I'll add:
    
    When the water temperature goes through drastic rises, I sometimes see
    shallow water fish such as largemouth bass and redbreast sunfish below
    the thermocline, which I *used* to regard as a real anomaly.
    
    John H-C

	FWIW I've noticed the same phenomenon here in Mill Pond at the Mill
today. I must've counted 7 or 8 dead panfish floating on the surface this 
morning. These were sighted from 5-4 and they were in the area between building
five and building one. 

Barry

re: Mill Pond

yeah, there was someone picking up the dead fish in the pond this morning.

...I understand the Tobin's is supposed to have an all-you-can-eat
fish fry tomorrow.

    Hey, if a mink or a raccoon won't touch it, I certainly wouldn't.
    Remember these fish died diseased.
    
    I know .48 was written in jest, but I also know that people tend to
    come out in droves to pick up the fish after a roetenone kill. (And
    that's actually safe, since roetenone kills anything with gills by
    suffocation.)
    
    

    Red breast sunfish kill in progress in Lake Winthrop in Holliston, for
    those who might be interested. It just started this week, I guess,
    since I didn't see anything out of the ordinary when I was there last
    Thursday.
    
    FWIW

    This looks like a good a place as any to put this.
    
    I found what looks like a pearl inside the meat of a lobster that I
    caught in my traps.  It is hard, white, sort of oval shaped about 3/16"
    by 5/16".  Of all the lobsters I have eated I have never seen this. 
    Has anyone else ever run into anything like this before?
    
    Gordon

    Well, I checked with one of my "saltwater experts," and he had no clue.
    
    From that I gather that it's a pretty rare thing. 
    
    

    I just got off the phone with a guy at the Lobster Hatchery.
    
    Where was the "pearl" exactly? Do you still have it? They're
    interested. If it was in the tail, and it was near the layer of flesh
    that produces the new shell after a molt, then it is possible that a
    bit of shell broke off and was embedded in the flesh at an earlier
    time. The shell-creating process would then put successive layers over
    that bit of shell.
    
    If "inside the meat of a lobster" means actually *inside* the lobster,
    it is likely that the pearl is a "cache" of calcium. Just prior to
    molting, the lobsters tend to store as much excessive calcium as they
    can. This excess calcium is stored in the gut in "granules" or
    "globules" and is used to help fuel shell regeneration after the molt.
    
    A professional lobsterman I spoke to had never heard of such a thing.
    
    
    FWIW
    
    John H-C

    Howdy,
    
    Here's another strange thing that I noticed this past weekend
    on the Merrimack river on the Lawrence stretch.  While out
    smallie fishing, I noticed lots of dead fish in the water.  I
    believe most of them were shad, which isn't too surprising, since
    I believe they die after spawning ala Atlantic Salmon.  
    
    What I found kind of strange was that there were many (8-10) good size
    carp that were seen floating/sunk as well.  Now I know the carp
    have also recently spawned, so maybe it was the stress from that,
    but I don't recall seeing so many before.  
    
    Finally,  there were LOTS of dead Lamprey eels.  We saw dozens of 
    them all over the river.  Now I thought nothing short of a nuclear
    attack would kill these suckers (no pun intended), but obvious some-
    thing got to them. 
    
    With all the dead fish around, I figured it was a industry-related
    fish-kill or something, but we didn't see one Smallie, Largemouth,
    or sunfish dead anywhere.  We caught lots and lots of smallies all
    in apparently good health (don't ask me about the 3+ smallie that
    'got away' :^(   ).
    
    So what gives ???  any thoughts?
    
    G-man
      

    How big were the lampreys?
    
    Were they on any of the dead fish or were they all intact and alone?
    
    You were below the Essex dam, right?
    
    FWIW, Atlantic Salmon don't necessarily die after spawning. It's the
    Pacific salmon species that die after spawning. Atlantic Salmon, if
    left in a damless environment, return to the sea and then back upstream
    to breed several times in a lifetime.
    
    
    John H-C

    Hi John,
    
    The Lampreys were quite large at 1.5 to 2.5 feet long, with a 
    decent girth.  All of the ones we saw were intact and NOT attached
    to any of the other dead fish.  They looked like they had died 
    fairly recently.
    
    We were fishing from just above the Essex dam all the way up to 
    the Dracut/Lowell area and saw the eels along the whole stretch.
    
    I spend a lot of time on that part of the river, and it's the first
    time I've seen this happen....
    
    G-man
    

    Two things:
    
    I spoke with the MA Division of Environmental Law Enforcement and
    
    
    1) Told them about the report of the Lamprey/Carp/Shad kill on the
    Merrimack (They didn't seem to be aware of it.)
    
    and
    
    2) Was informed in no uncertain terms that tagging a White Perch or any
    other fish with a balloon and line is patently illegal (at least in
    MA). The practice is known as "Float & Toggle Fishing."
    
    
    FWIW
    
    John H-C

    re: .53  Lobster pearl
    
    John,
    
    Yes, I still have it.  I don't know where in the lobster it was, except
    that it was in the meat.  I had removed the meat from the body and was
    eating it in a sandwich yesterday for lunch.
    
    I could be a calcium deposit, but it would have been there for at least
    one season because the lobsters haven't molted yet.
    
    Hmmm, rare lobster pearl necklace for sale, will trade for 26-28' sport
    fisherman.
    
    Gordon

    Ah, well, if the Lobster Hatchery guy was right about the "pearl" being
    a pre-molt calcium store, that would explain why it was there before
    the lobster molted.
    
    Might you have included the "tamale" with the meat?
    

    
    	I do believe lamphrey die after they spawn, where's Ed Bell when
    you need him....??

    
    
    	gee Rob, does this mean I might have valuable information 
    	or are you getting back to having everyone call me a parasite ;-)
    
    	Lamprey spawn in the spring, and the adults die after spawning.
    	After a period of several days (water temp and species differ)
    	the young hatch ... float downstream to calm water, burrow 
    	in the bottom and spend several years feeding on bottom ooze.
    
    	After growing a couple of inches, the ammocetes transform into 
    	adult-like lamprey (late summer or fall).  If they are
    	non-parasitic (northern brook and American brook lamprey)
    	they stop growing (digestive tract degenerates) and wait for
    	next spawning season to spawn and die.
    
    				- Ed

    GEE -- Lamprey really grow to 2.5 feet? You sure we are talking lamprey
    and not eels? I know the Merrimack further north has eels. I have 
    never seen a fish with a Lamprey mark on it there.
    Dont have my book with me, but I'll be shocked if those buggers get
    to be that big. The ones in the great lakes must be a different species
    if thats true.
    Boomer

    	I saw the Lampry eels also. They definetly weren't your garden variety 
    eels. The ones I saw were about 1 1/2' long and not attached to anything.
    This was down in Haverhill.
    
    	I also saw something I haven't seen before. There was a boat in the
    Merrimack marked "Environmental Police". The guy running it checked us for 
    life preservers. He was wearing a green uniform. Is this something under
    fish + game or seperate ???
    
    	RAYJ

    The Environmental Police are separate from Fisheries & Wildlife. They
    work under the auspices of the Department of Environmental Protection
    (DEP), and they have full police "power" (e.g., arrest, shoot if
    necessary, undercover operations).
    
    Next time you see that guy in the green uniform in the
    Haverhill/Newburyport area, say "Hi, Bobby! You know I've been
    *meaning* to get out there on one of those Shawsheen River Restoration
    cleanups. When's the next one?" <g>
    
    John H-C
    

    
    	RE: .62 the Lamprey in the great lakes had their origins in the
    sea.  I wouldn't doubt that they are the same species.  adult sea 
    lamprey in Lake Champlain will grow 2 1/2 to 3 feet....

    How would you all feel about a sanctuary areas in lakes and ponds?
    
    I've been trying to figure out a workable solution for certain
    scenarios where it is impossible (physically or politically) to keep
    people away from a body of water for fishing or swimming. In the case
    I'm thinking about these days, the deep coldwater pond shows the damage
    of too many swimmers and too many anglers. This is an extremely popular
    public recreation area.
    
    The idea occurred to me that certain sections of the pond, which has
    several quasi-independent habitats due to the bottom topology, might
    serve as candidates for a "sanctuary area." That is, one of these
    microhabitats would be fenced off and policed. Nobody could swim there
    or fish from shore. The open water segment would be enclosed with a
    rope (much like a "swimming area" in many lakes and pond) held up by
    buoys.
    
    The purpose of this would be to see just how nature would behave if
    left undisturbed for a long while. Seems to me the sanctuary area could
    end up serving as a self-sustaining fish hatchery.
    
    What do you all think? How would you react if one of your favorite
    fishing holes suddenly inaccessible in one area? Would it make a
    difference if it were a question of the lake's or pond's health rather
    than of private property?
    
    Thanks.
    
    John H-C

Article: 194
From: [email protected] (UPI)
Newsgroups: clari.local.massachusetts,clari.local.new_england
Subject: Concerns raised about mercury levels in freshwater fish in Mass.
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 92 5:38:54 PDT
 
	BOSTON (UPI) -- An environmental group warns a ``human health
threat'' is posed because of freshwater fish contaminated by toxic
mercury emissions from incinerators and power plants in Massachusetts.

	Clean Water Action said Tuesday a study shows that most of the
emissions come from incineration of materials that contain mercury,
and blames coal and oil burning power plants and incinerators for most
of the problem. 

	Rain returns the airbourne mercury to waterways where it is
absorbed by fish that could be consumed by humans, the group said. 

	Clean Water Action said more than a dozen lakes and streams in
Massachusetts have contaminated fish. 

	``This is a phenomenon similar to acid rain. Only this time
it's a human health threat,'' said Henry Cole, who wrote the report. 

	``The most severe damage is showing up downwind of areas where
there has been major growth in coal burning and garbage
incineration,'' he said. 

	Cole claimed Massachusetts and the federal government are not
doing enough to protect the public. 

	``The White House is turning a deaf ear on behalf of the
utilities and the incinerator companies,'' said Cole. 

	A group that represents 23 communities that burn wastes in a
North Andover incinerator disagreed. Francis Hopcroft of the North
East Solid Waste Committee said that Clean Water Action's estimate of
emissions from that incinerator is exaggerated. 

	``To suggest that anything going up that stack is poisoning
sport fisheries in the commonwealth is ludicrous,'' Hopcroft said. 

	Cole said that Massachusetts stopped routine mercury testing
of fish in 1990 because of budget cuts, and urged women of
childbearing age and young children to avoid eating fish from
mercury-contaminated waterways. 

	``The main problem is they're not testing the fish caught in
local waters,'' said Lee Ketelsen, the state director of Clean Water
Actgion. She said people therefore ``don't know if they're eating
contaminated fish.'' 

	She noted that children, infants and developing fetuses face
the greatest risks of mercury poisoning. 

	``We're advocating that pregnant women refrain from eating
freshwater fish until there's a comprehensive testing program,''
Ketelsen said. 

	Agreeing that more attention must be given to the problem, the
state commissioner of environmental protection said, however, that
casual sports fishermen have little to fear. 

	Daniel Greenbaum said that he did not believe that it was a
problem ``where everyone should be worried about the trout that
they're catching.'' 

	Greenbaum said the state is enforcing strict standards on
incinerators and power plants, and ``are looking at how to improve
pollution-control performance of incinerators and ways to control
mercury.'' 

	The highest mercury level in the state was in the Copicut
Reservoir in Fall River, Clean Water Action said. 

	Other waterways the group said contained fish with high levels
of the heavy metal were:  The Concord and Sudbury rivers, Walden Pond
in Concord, the Deerfield River, North and South Watuppa Pond in Fall
River, the Mill River in Milford and Upton, the Peskamanset River in
New Bedford, Echo Lake in Princeton, the Quabbin and Wachusett
reservoirs, Lake Denison and Millers River in Winchendon, and the
Cedar Swamp Pond in Uxbridge. 

    	I know that at least Quabbin and Wachusett have had warnings posted
    for a few years now.  My details may not be accurate but it's something
    like this:
    		Largemouth and Smallmouth Bass - Don't eat any
    
    		Lake Trout under 24" - Pregnant, don't eat any
    				       Otherwise, 4 oz. a week
    
    		Lake Trout over 24" - Don't eat any
    
    		White Perch - Eat all you want
    
    As I said, don't count on my accuracy.  READ THE SIGNS if you plan to
    keep fish from these waters.  Myself?  Haven't kept a freshwater fish
    for about 10-12 years now.
    					B.C.

Note that Copicut and North Watuppa ponds (as mentioned in -.1) form the 
drinking water supply for Fall River, Mass. The reservoir is located
downwind from the city incinerator (which is immediately beside
Interstate 195). The city has been cited *thousands* of times for EPA
violations, mostly by the incerator (sometimes for the discharge of raw
sewage into Mount Hope Bay. I've seen it boiling up out of the
discharge). As I recall, there were over 300 violations in the first year
of operation (ten-fifteen years ago). Houses downwind are permanently
stained.

There is no public access to North Watuppa pond. South Watuppa, which is
separated from the North end by I-195 and controlled gates, was once
listed as the best smallmouth lake in Massachusetts (by Field & Stream
magazine).

Problems with Fall River's drinking supply span a long history. The
Medical Examiner once condemned it. The Interstate Commerce Commission
has banned any interstate conveyances (buses, trains, etc) from using the
water. The usual reason has been fecal coliform bacteria count. Mercury
and heavy metals is a new one.

Art
(who grew up nearby)

    ******* DES/MRWC/CoastSweep Cleanup on the Merrimack River *******
    
    
    Date: Saturday, October 10, 1992
    Place: Carthagena Island, Merrimack River, Manchester, NH
    Time: 1:00 - 4:00 (meet at 12:00 a the island)
    
    Directions:
    
    From 93 or Everett Turnpike, get on 101/I-293 in Manchester
    
    Get off at the Brown Avenue exit.
    
    Go south on Brown Avenue (whether this is a right or a left depends 
    on which direction you are coming from)
    
    Take the first right
    
    At the Boston & Maine railroad tracks, take a right onto the 
    railroad right-of-way. This is a road that parallels the railroad 
    tracks. This will take you to the island, which is practically 
    right under 101/293.
    
    
    See you there!
    
    John H-C
    

    C'mon John, what's with all this environment stuff?  You telling me
    this is more important that posting the October Tide chart???
    
    
    
    
    :-)
    

    Today I visited the confluence of the Assabet and Sudbury Rivers for
    the second time, swimming from Egg Rock to the Lowell Street Bridge in
    the Concord River.
    
    Well, it's a sad sight. We saw a sum total of 3 living mussels, all of
    them between 11 and 13 years old. We saw about hundred dead mussels,
    all of the same dimensions as those three living ones.
    
    Since the area has a fairly large number of bryozoan colonies --
    bryozoans tend to flourish only in relatively "clean" water -- and
    since the water is clearly rich in the kinds of things mussels consume,
    I reached the conclusion that the mussels there are failing to
    reproduce, whether by poison or by the absence of small fish is
    unknown.
    
    Last March, between the Lowell St. Bridge to just below Minuteman
    National Park, we had six divers in the water looking for barrels of
    toxic waste. The divers reported seeing entire beds of dead mussels
    (and no live ones) in addition to barrels that had cracked open. These
    were the barrels we were looking for, but we had found them too late.
    
    If any of you folks live in Billerica, as I do, I advise you not to
    drink the town water. They do not test for trace elements at the water
    treatment plant.
    
    If any of you fish the Concord River, I advise you not to eat the fish.
    (I know, it's been said in here before, but after what we saw and
    didn't see today, I feel compelled to say it again.)
    
    John H-C

    This spring, local Massachusetts chapters of Trout Unlimited, 
    Ducks Unlimited, American Mountain Club, American Canoe Association, 
    and anybody else who can be drawn to their favorite stream will get 
    together and clean a specific section of a local river.
    
    This is the brainchild of a couple avid flyfishermen in southern
    Massachusetts. I got involved because my name popped into somebody's
    head when the words "river cleanup" were uttered.
    
    Anyway, this whole event will be a grass-roots "non-event." That is,
    there won't be a whole lot of press coverage. We do hope to get the
    various parties who care about the local river working together side by
    side. Who knows? Maybe they'll get to the point of recognizing one
    another on the street? Maybe they'll come to the realization that
    envisioning a clean, healthy river or stream is *not* a quixotic
    fantasy.
    
    
    This non-event event doesn't have a date yet. I'll keep you posted.
    
    Anybody interested?
    
    John H-C

re:-1
	Depending on the non-event non-scheduled date I'd like to join.

	-< Tuna Tail >-

      		    Divers' Environmental Survey, Inc.
    
		Spring 1993 Event Schedule (Massachusetts)

	We invite you to take part in any or all of these. 
	Please let us know if you're going to be able to make it. 
	Call us at (508) 667-3808 if you have any questions.

March 20 -- Third Annual DES Concord River Survey
Where: Lowell St. Bridge, Concord, MA (upstream from Minuteman National Park)
When: 9:30
    
March 27 -- 1993 Shawsheen River Cleanup Season Startup
Where: Old trestle near intersection of Shawsheen Rd. & Lowe St., Tewksbury, MA
When: 8:00 - 12:00
    
April 10 -- Third Annual White Pond Cleanup
Where: White Pond, Concord, MA
When: 9:30
    
April 17 -- Shawsheen River Cleanup
Where: Andover, MA
When: 8:00 - 12:00
    
April 24 -- Smelt Spawning Area Survey, Merrimack River
Where: TBD
When: 9:00 - 3:00
    
May 8 -- Concord River Restoration Project Opener
Where: Old Middlesex Turnpike Bridge Abutments, Billerica, MA
When: 8:00 - 12:00
    
May 22 -- Shawsheen River Cleanup
Where: Lawrence, MA (exact location TBD)
When: 8:00 - 12:00


Founded in 1991, the DES is a non-profit corporation dedicated to the 
preservation and restoration of fresh- and saltwater habitats. Our activities  
are supported by the individual participants as well as by donations and  grants.

    
    Anyone have any news or opinions on the mercury level of the fish
    at the Quabbin/Wachusett Res? Specifically do you think they are
    safe to eat? Thanks.
    
    Walt

    
     Walt
     
       I have always thought, once there is a mercury problem with
     fish there alway is. Mercury stays with the fish till death.
    
       I'm not sure,,,just assuming.  H-C my man can you help us
     out with this issue??
                                           Kiv

    
     Not that I do, but you can eat 5oz a month. This only pertains
     to Qabbin & Wachusett Res salmon and lake trout. H-C not to
     contradict you but 5oz was ok the last I heard, things may
     have changed.
    
                                                  kiv

    
    Okay now for the hard question. Why is the mercury level so high
    in these two bodies of water but not any others? At least I don't
    know of any other bodies of water that have the warning signs posted.
    
    Walt

    For what it is worth the theory I heard behind the high mercury content
    in the Quab and Wach. is due to an old tanning shop. What they told me
    was that there used to be a tanning shop in one of the towns they
    flooded at Quabbin. They believe that there were barrels of tanning
    solvents that got buried and our now releasing all that crap into the
    aquatic ecosystem. From the Quabbin it flowed into the Wachusett Res.
    as the two are connected.
    
    I'm not sure if I believe this but it is feasible.
    
    Bob M

    Well, the stqate folks I've talked to are *still* half-heartedly trying
    to figure out how the mercury levels got so high. They just don't know,
    and they seem to have nearly exhausted themselves in the search for an
    answer, so I don't think they're really trying anymore.
    
    About the safety of eating mercury-contaminated fish:
    It's your life, of course, and if you decide to accept the state's
    suggested limits on fish intake, then please enjoy the fish. I
    personally think there is a flaw in the formula. If the fish they
    tested showed a consistent level of mercury contamination, to me that
    means that the fish they tested showed a consistent level of mercury
    contamination. It doesn't tell me anything about the fish I just caught
    and am considering eating. TEHO
    
    On the subject of signs:
    I don't think anybody really understands why the state puts signs up in
    some places and not in others, least of all the people who work for the
    state. In some places where mercury content is known to be dangerously
    high, they don't post because the fish are dumped into the water and
    caught before they have enough time to consume enough
    macroinvertebrates to contaminate them. Walden Pond is a prime example
    of this situation. (Which reminds me of the time I was in a meeting in
    Concord. I was talking about the characteristics of White and Walden
    Pond, how they are similar and how they are different. When I mentioned
    the large smallmouth bass population in Walden, the F&W
    representative's lower jaw dropped. Seems they didn't consider the
    bass, a fish they haven't stocked for several years, when they decided
    not to post Walden. I don't think you'll see any signs at Walden, but I
    would caution you not to eat any large smallmouth bass you pull out of
    there.)
    
    John H-C

    I just happened to be reading a radical, left-wing, ecoterroristic,
    revolutionary rag this morning over coffee. It's the newsletter of the
    Environmental Defense Fund. (Omigod! Watch out! Lawyers! -- sort of
    strikes a nightmarish chord, doesn't it?)
    
    Anyway, seems the folks at the EDF have been doing a little research on
    inland water and fish, and they have decided the EPA has underestimated
    the degree to which inland waters have been systemically polluted by
    something approaching a couple orders of magnitude. They also aver that
    the EPA's safe-level for consumption of fish with contaminated flesh is
    twice as high as it ought to be.
    
    Lawyers and doctors. Oooooph! Things is gonna get spooky with them
    making friends with the envirocrazies.

    The April 93 Shawsheen River Cleanup takes place in Andover, MA this
    Saturday, starting at 8:30 and ending when you need to leave for other
    obligations.
    
    We'll be cleaning up the Stevens Street millpond. The base site for the
    cleanup is behind the Andover Post Office. 
    
    To get there, take I 93 north or south.
    
    From either direction, get off 93 at exit 42, Dascomb Road.
    
    Coming from the south, take a right at the end of the ramp.
    Coming from the north, take a left at the end of the ramp and then a
    left at the light.
    
    Go straight and then bear left after stopping at the stop sign. Go
    straight. You will pass two bridges on your left, one of which is
    closed. At the second bridge, the road sort of forms a Y. You want to
    take the left arm of the Y.
    
    Up the road about a quarter of a mile, you want to take a *hard* right
    where you see another road coming into the one you're on. That's
    Stevens Street. When you cross the bridge, you will see a some people
    on the shore to the right of the bridge. That'll be us.
    
    We need people in canoes. We'll need ropes and grappling hooks.
    
        
    Declare yourself a DEChead when you get there. I'd like to meet
    you.
    
    John H-C

    Uh, those bridges mentioned in the previous reply will be on your right
    rather than your left.
    
    Sorry about that.
    
    John H-C

On Saturday, May 8, people from all over Middlesex County will come 
together to begin the cleaning the Concord River. 

The focal point of this first cleanup is the Old Middlesex Turnpike 
Bridge abutments in Billerica. That is where the dumpsters donated by 
BFI will be. That is where the divers will be in the water extracting 
trash from the bottom. That is where the shoreline cleanup will take 
place. We'll start at 8:00. We'll be done by 1:00.

We're asking everybody in the Concord River Basin who owns or has 
access to a canoe to get out on the water and paddle downstream to 
Billerica. On the way, we'd like you to pick up every tire, can, 
bottle, plastic bag, and shred of styrofoam that you come across.

Think of how many times you have paddled the Concord River and been 
saddened, angered, frustrated, or otherwise disenchanted by the trash 
in the water. Think of how much more beautiful and serene the Concord 
River would be without that debris. 

How many times have you wanted to get that stuff out of the water but 
couldn't because you didn't know what you would do with it when you 
took your boat out? 

With the generous help of BFI, we now have a solution to that problem.

When you get to Billerica, you will find plenty of people just below 
the Route 3 bridge waiting to help you unload your boat. There we will 
have two dumpsters, one for regular trash and one for recyclables. We 
will have two separate piles, one for major appliances and one for 
tires. BFI will pick up everything we pull from the river on Monday, 
May 10.

This cleanup will be the first of six such efforts held on the Concord 
River this year. It has been organized by the Divers' Environmental 
Survey, Inc., a non-profit corporation dedicated to the restoration 
and preservation of aquatic habitats. The organized monthly cleanups 
on the Concord River are part of what is known as "the Concord River 
Project" within the Divers' Environmental Survey. Water-quality 
monitoring and river basin mapping are two other aspects of the 
Concord River Project. If you would like to participate in the Concord 
River Project, or if you would like more information about the May 8 
cleanup, please call the Divers' Environmental Survey at 
(800) 645-1470.




John H-C

    I don't know that territory specifically, but if
    
    A:  you help pick up trash along the riverbanks and
    B:  you are allergic to poison ivy
    
    then remember that it's not so readily identified before the leaves
    emerge, but if it is there, it is readily contracted from the bare vines.
    
    I didn't give poison ivy a thought last Saturday on the Shawsheen in 
    Andover.
    
    I regret that.
    
    
    Jack

    What? Did you get caught by the PI last Saturday, Jack?
    
    The area we're talking about is fairly clear. It's a town boat ramp,
    though people seldom launch boats there. More often it's used for
    fishing and dumping. <grimace>
    
    But, just in case you decide to work on shore rather than on the water,
    you should wear long sleeves and long pants as well as shoes or boots
    that can get wet without regrettable damage. Don't forget gloves.
    
    Sorry to hear that you got caught by PI, Jack. It must have been while
    you and Steve were so heroically wrestling that shopping cart out of
    the water.
    
    BTW, you appeared in the Andover paper the next day. Send me your
    snail-mail address, and I'll make sure Bob Rauseo gets a copy of the
    picture to you. Ok?
    
    John H-C

    The following note was just posted in GOOGOF::SCUBA. Jack Hutchinson
    can't join us this year, so I thought I'd troll for another angler.
    <grins>
    
    We'll be done by noon, and then you can fish this beautiful pond
    knowing that you've helped make it a cleaner place. Whaddyasay?
    
    John H-C
    
    
The Third Annual DES White Pond Cleanup takes place this Saturday, May 1. 
We'll start at 9:00, and we'll be done by 11:30.

This year's cleanup is happening almost a month later than the previous two 
because the ice was still on the water on the originally scheduled date.

If you've never been with us on one of the White Pond cleanups, this is a 
great opportunity to try it out. We met with the Friends of White Pond and 
officials of the Town of Concord last January, and we have ironed out the 
misunderstandings that cropped up during the last two cleanups: 

	Recognized experts assured concerned neighbors that 
	our removing debris from the bottom doesn't harm the 
	pond by redistributing silt.

	A respected Fire Department Rescue and Recovery Team 
	diver explained to everyone's satisfaction why flags are a 
	hindrance in operations like this.

	The Friends of White Pond agreed to make sure all neighbors 
	and all appropriate town authorities are notified of our 
	activity. (Last year a neighbor saw some exhaust bubbles and 
	called the Fire Department to report a drowning. The ensuing 
	hullabullou was a hassle and embarrassment to all concerned.)

	The Friends of White Pond is putting a lot more effort into 
	getting the pond's neighbors out on the water to hover over
	divers and ferry trash back to shore.

Folks are really looking forward to this year's cleanup. If you've never 
joined us on one of these, I'll tell you that it's a wonderful opportunity to 
undergo the experience of being WELCOMED and ENCOURAGED to explore the water 
by local non-divers.

That's this coming Saturday at White Pond in Concord, MA, at 9:00. Send mail 
or call 800-645-1470 if you need directions or more information.

I hope to see you there.


John H-C


    I'm looking for some environmentally concerned person to pilot my
    12-foot flat-bottom boat up and down the Concord River on Saturday, May
    8, picking up trash and hauling it back to the drop-off site in
    Billerica.
    
    Anybody want to play around with a very light boat with a 9.5 hp motor
    on the back for the morning?
    
    This boat was purchased for river cleanups, and I'd hate to see it not
    used on this cleanup. I'm going to be underwater, otherwise I would do
    it.
    
    Thanks.
    
    John H-C 

    On my way in today I heard on the radio about a product called Barnacle
    Ban.  It is supposed to be an epoxy based paint that incorporates
    Cayane Pepper oils in it.  According to the inventor this extremely
    potent form of oil is so strong that 200 gallons of water per drop will
    still cause a violent burning reaction.  The paint supposedly keeps
    barancles (zebra Mussels too) off because its to hot to attach to.  In
    fact I heard them say it kills marine life that comes in contact with
    it.  The navy is now testing it to see if this can replace their copper
    based paints.  I was just thinking about this, if this really works and
    lots of folks start using it on all sorts of water craft, could this
    harm the water eco system?
    
    Does anyone have any more info on this product?
    
    Brian

    re: .last
    
    Brian,
    	I heard the report too. I think what they said is that unlike the
    	copper based paint, this stuff *doesn't* kill marine life on
    contact - just keeps barancles from attaching. They also claimed that
    one application would last up to a decade.
    
    				Robert.

	My guess is that the cayenne pepper oil base would be a 
	lot less harmful to the environment than copper, if copper
	is anything close structurally/chemically to lead and mercury,
	which I think it is.

	Anyone else wonder what kind of buffalo wings the cayenne
	pepper oil would make ?  ;-*

	Ken

    We (SWEAT, DES, Lawrence's City Corps, and three volunteers culled from
    Digital notes conferences) performed the third Shawsheen River Cleanup
    of 1993 last Saturday morning. Due to time constraints imposed by the
    organizers' jobs, we were not able to arrange for a dumpster for the
    garbage. The DES did manage to arrange for a free pickup and recycling
    of any tires we pulled out, so it was tires we concentrated on pulling
    out of and away from the river.
    
    We collected 80 tires in three hours. I, personally, pulled 30 out of
    the bottom in a 100-yard stretch of the river. Rick Barry hovered over
    me in his canoe while I wrestled tires out of the sand, let the current
    wash the muck from inside the tires, and then handed the tires up
    to him.
    
    The most gratifying thing about the cleanup for me was that I was
    moving upstream toward the site of the last two Shawseen River Cleanups
    in Lawrence. As I pulled myself along the bottom, I encountered tires
    every few feet. Then suddenly there were none. I pulled myself along
    the bottom for another ten yards not encountering any tires before I
    surfaced and looked around. I had reached the area where, last fall,
    Tom Gloria had been maniacally pulling tires out of the bottom.
    Despite our telling him that the cleanup was done (12:00 noon), he kept
    going until his tank was empty. (We were a little concerned for him
    because he had been up all the night working and had come to the
    cleanup from the office, obviously thoroughly exhausted.) 
    
    I had swum all the way upstream past the area where Tom had run 
    out of air, and I wasn't finding any tires.
    
    Wow! There's really something to these cleanups! The trash *doesn't*
    really regenerate!
    
    I was about out of air, so I surfaced and let the current float me
    downstream to the take out.
    
    This cleanup was a success for another reason. We had finally gotten
    some of Lawrence's youth to participate. They seemed very pleased with
    what they had accomplished, and the managers of the City Corps program
    were very happy about their participation. (At one point, just after I
    and five City Corps folks had wrestled a needlessly cut tree out of the
    current into a position parallel with the bank, one of the managers
    turned around and looked at the now-flowing river. "Listen!" he yelled.
    "The river's saying `Thank you!'")
    
    I love doing this stuff. 
    
    <grins>
    
    John H-C

    John H-C: There's some of us out here that thank you, too! Keep up your
    good work...
    
    /dave

    RE .95

    Dave, What part are you thanking him for, cleaning up the river or
    attempting to get ramps used by fishermen closed? 

    Rich

    re: Rich
    
    Well, as I didn't see a smiley face on that question, I guess I'd
    better answer it before *my* few words get misinterpreted: having lived
    within a long-cast of the Shawsheen about 30-odd years ago, I'm
    thanking John and his group for adopting this stream and ministering to
    it's health...
    
    FWIW: I read thru 1052.* in the BOAT conference and the spill-over in
    this one, and I have yet to read anything that would indicate that
    John's group has associated the Concord River trash problem with
    boaters. I think a ramp-ant (pun intended) case of paranoia has swept
    thru the thread. Perhaps a cooling-off period for all parties - along
    with a clear statement by John - would get everyone back on the 
    peaceful cooexistence track...
    
    /dave 
    
    PS: I'm not currently a boater - but I wish I could afford to be. No
        axe to grind either way...

From the _EDF Letter_*, September 1993:

EPA to Ban Lead Fishing Sinkers

In response to EDF legal action, the Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA) has decided to ban the manufacture and distribution of lead 
fishing sinkers that can kill waterfowl. The decision led EDF to 
suspend a lawsuit filed in March to compel EPA's action.

In October 1992, EDF, the Federation of Flyfishers, the North American 
Loon Fund, and the Trumpeter Swan Society had petitioned EPA to 
regulate lead sinkers. The petition documented lead poisoning of 
common loons, and trumpeter swans that accidentally ingest lost lead 
sinkers during feeding. Other waterfowl, including cranes, ducks, 
grebes, herons, cormorants, egrets, and osprey may also be poisoned, 
as well as raptors such as eagles that prey on poisoned birds.

EPA initially "granted" the petition but announced that, rather than 
immediately proposing a regulation on lead sinkers, it would undertake 
a "regulatory investigation" to determine whether action was 
necessary. This prompted the EDF's lawsuit. Subsequent discussions 
between EDF and EPA resulted in EPA's decision to propose a ban on 
certain sinkers no later than mid-January.

[quotes and commentary elided]

Britain banned lead sinkers in 1987 based on evidence that they killed 
mute swans. Since then, the loss of swans from lead poisoning has 
dropped dramatically while fishing has continued unaffected.



*  The newsletter of the Environmental Defense Fund

	How about a ban on non-bidegradable scuba gear.  When a diver 
	pops up out of nowhere and gets chewed up by a prop, all that
	mess is going to sink to the bottom and cause environmental 
	havoc.

	There has got to be a stop to this.
	
	

    Ya know you're right, Donmac.
    
    I can't count the number of times I gotten snagged on
    all that "Ghost" scuba gear.  And also, those divers
    weights are all made of lead.
    
    Gusman
    
    

    So lets see some quantitative data on how bad this problem really is.
    How many swans are being killed because they ingested lead sinkers?
    
    
    Jeff

    	Why weren't sinkers mentioned as a problem when they were banning
    lead shot?  Are you going to tell me that the birds liked the taste of
    the lead so much that they started eating sinkers after they ate all of
    the shot???
    	I always found it a -little- strange that the birds feed almost
    exclusively in shallow water but they're managing to eat all these
    sinkers that we only use to reach bottom in deep water.
    	Let me guess...  These people who want to help the birds are the
    same ones we see feeding the geese bags full of potato chips and
    popcorn around the resevoirs because they just -love- the birds!
    
    					B.C.
    				

    Ok BC you caught me I'll fess up, I been hollowing out the fat part of
    popcorn with a xacto drill for years then filling them up with lead 
    I was melting from sinkers and then feeding them to swans.
    
    Sigh I feel much better now.
    
    Brian who thinks this law while given good intentions is focusing on
    fishermen instead of factories and landfills where the real problems
    lie.

    Once again another example of broad brush protectionist
    environmentalism, that is if this is true.  
    
    I'ld also like to see a) the fish that would swallow the 1-2lb lead
    weight we use, or b) the swan or goose or eagle that could carry and
    eat this fish!  
    
    This crap is unbeleiveable.  Groups like the EDF are what give
    true environmentalists a bad name.

    
    John HC,
    if lead sinkers are banned we can use other substitutes but if
    monofiliment line is banned what would you suggest we use?
    I guess we just couldn't fish anymore, right? No more fish lips
    being pulled off, no more hooks in their mouths, less trash left
    around by fishermen. Less boat traffic so the divers wouldn't get run
    over. Fits right into your agenda doesn't it.
    
    For those that don't hunt or own guns and didn't care what kind
    of stupid regulations were forced on us, welcome to the list of
    "Things to be banned". It was a matter of time before they showed that
    fishing is on it's way out too.
    
    Walt

Wouldn't it be much simpler to make a law the makes it illegal for wildlife 
to ingest lead sinkers?? 

Or better yet, let's obliterate all wildlife species that are ingesting this 
stuff and then we wouldn't have this problem!  8-)

    Geeze, you guys are really a piece o' work...
    
    Nobody is proposing that you sell your boat, throw away your gear, and
    let your B.A.S.S. membership expire. All that's being proposed is that
    we all use that large protrusion mounted somewhere above our
    shirtcollars to avoid the *unnecessary* poisoning of wildlife.

    There is overwhelming, boilerplate evidence that lead sinkers are
    responsible for a large percentage of mortality in ducks, geese, and 
    loons. The mortality rate due to lead ingestion in loons is particularly 
    eggregious now that other forms of pollution are abating as man cleans
    up his act. 

    You can talk about other forms of lead pollution as contributing to 
    wildlife mortality, but those are measured in PPM, take longterm 
    exposure to show effects, and in many cases are naturally occuring, and
    so will be difficult if not impossible to be corrected. When a loon 
    chows down on a couple of 1/4oz sinkers, on the other hand, you don't 
    need "PPM" to measure the toxicity, the effects are comparatively 
    immediate, yet it's one form of pollution that's easy to correct.

    Why wasn't this brought out when lead shot was banned? Because the
    amount of lead expended while shooting clay or birds was about 2 orders
    of magnitude higher than the amount of lead lost when fishing. Its in
    our nature to correct the most obvious problems first, and lead shot
    was particularly obvious and relatively easy to correct.

    Just as there are alternatives to lead for bird shot, there are
    alternatives to lead in fishing sinkers. And as long as there are
    alternatives, why not "encourage" people to use them, instead of
    continuing to use a material that is toxic to all of us, and
    particularly deadly to wildlife that feed on the bottom of rivers,
    ponds, and lakes.
    
    Lead paint was proven to maim children, so it was banned, and
    alternatives were developed. *Your* kids might well have been damaged 
    had this not been done. Should we bring back lead paint? I hope we can 
    all agree on the answer to that question. This is the exact same type
    of issue. Hopefully, reasonable, thinking people will arrive at the
    same type of conclusion...
    
    Think about it for a couple of seconds...
    
    /dave

    
    A few  points to consider
    
    1. the study on lead shot was highly questionable at best. In fact
    it was flawed, and it was proven but nobody wanted to hear it. All the
    info is in ::FIREARMS if you care to look for it.
    
    2. Fish, birds, animals are being poisoned a hell of alot more by
    pollution than by lead sinkers. We won't be able to use lead sinkers
    in the Quabbin cause we dont want to poison anything but the fish in
    there are unedible thus poisoning the eagles, hawks, etc. Why don't 
    they try fixing the problem of they mercury poisoning there? I'd much 
    rather see some lead sinkers in the water than mercury.
    
    3. Being a gun owner I've seen how sneaky the anti's are. In every
    proposed assualt gun ban I've seen they've added at the end, "And any gun
    of similair design or function". Every semi-auto works the same so
    they plan on banning all semis then all guns and I'm telling you right
    now be careful cause they'll do the same thing to fishing.
    
    
    Walt                                

    
    
    		We need a law banning birds from drinking leaded 
    gasoline......

    I'm sure we have some individuals in here that are well versed as
    to why lead must be banned. I only have one question: How many dead
    Loons have been found with lead in there gut? Please supply source of
    information. 
    
    

    Thanks
    Rich

 Actually, I read that of (I think) 11 dead loons found in NH last year,
9 of them had lead sinkers in them. The numbers may not be exact, but the
proportion is right there. I'll try to remember to look it up when I get
home. The loons were all apparently healthy prior to ingesting the sinkers;
they were found to be in good outward condition. But the ingestion of the
sinkers proved to send their lead levels well above the threhold of lethal 
toxicity.

 I remember reading about the dead loons and figuring that eventually we'd 
have to give up lead sinkers. The correlation was obvious, to my eyes. I
didn't realize it would happen this quickly.

 I would expect that large sinkers of the type typically used for bottom
fishing (ocean) that are perhaps 8-16 ozs might be spared. I don't think
any birds will be ingesting them. :-)

    	I personally feel that there would be -far- more healthy Loons if
    they would ban all lakeshore development and remove all present homes,
    marinas, beaches etc. so the birds could have the proper access to the
    habitat they need to re-develop a healthy population.  Let's outlaw
    boating of all kinds within 200 ft. of shore...  Oh!  Let's not forget
    the fact that someone walking on the shore or wading in the water can
    cause Loons to desert their nests....
    	Habitat destruction is the number one reason our wildlife is in the
    shape it is today.  Period.
    					B.C.

    re: .99
    
    	John,
    		What are they using in England as an alternative to lead?
    
    		I wonder how this will effect things like leadhead jigs...
    
    			Robert.

    re .108
    
    Personally, I'm willing to believe that there is some truth to the
    statement that lead is harmful to wildlife.  And if actually did become
    a law, I could except it.  I already use brass bullet weights.  I
    would hate to give-up leadhead jigs though. 
    
    My sarcastic comment that started this was not directed at the 'lead'
    issue.  It was more or less directed at the EDF.  Correct me if I'm
    wrong but their charter, as suggested by JHC's comment 'now onto
    fishing line' is to systematically do away with all hunting and
    fishing. 
    
    -donmac
    
    PS: I let my BASS membership expire years ago 8^)

    Mark, I thought I had seen something on the boob tube about that, I just
    couldn't remember the numbers.

    I think B.C. has the best point. If water front property was
    eliminated. The increase in breeding area's would more than make the 
    9 dead loons seem insignificant. I also saw something about man made
    floating islands that have been made and put out for loon breeding.

    Think about how long people have been using lead sinkers. Only 9 dead 
    loons? Not bad. Now if everyone was a flyfisherman you wouldn't have 
    any problem, right?
    
    I guess I have to put a order in with bass pro for all my lead needs for
    the next ten years. Good point about the leadheads. I go through them 
    like chewing gum. 
    
    Rich

    Forgive my ignorance, but I'm confused on how the loons are ingesting
    lead sinkers.   My understand for the lead shot concerns is that
    puddle ducks (not diving ducks) are likely to ingest the lead shot
    because of their feeding habits - where they sift through sand and mud
    in shallow waters searching for seeds, etc.
    
    Now, I'm no expert on Loons but I thought they primarily ate fish.   I
    certainly see them swimming/diving in open (and deep) parts of lake
    Winny, where it would be extremely difficult for them to find a lost
    sinker.
    
    Mark,
    

    
    It's not just sinkers or jigs that may be in trouble. If they word
    the law a certain way such as.."Ban the use of all lead weights for
    fishing less than 1.25oz...." There go the spinner baits and buzzbaits 
    as well. stretching it? maybe but then again maybe not.
    
    I'll also agree with the loss of habitat being more harmful and
    add onto that pollution in lakes such as the Quabbin and Wachsett 
    Res.
    
    Walt
    

    Does this mean lead core fishing line is going to be  banned ?

    As far as the mercury in the fish at Quabbin and Wachusett Reservoir, I 
    was watching a program on a PBS station  which was dealing with the 
    proposed mega reservoir up in Quebec. It seems that man made lakes 
    produce mercury on their own. Something to do with decaying plant life
    which has an effect on the bottom soil. This is from memory so I'm not sure
    on the facts, but the mercury was coming from sources other than man
    made pollution. 

    BTW, the reservoir in Quebec  if allowed to continue to be built, stands 
    to be the biggest environmental blunder in the history of the North 
    America. Already the first part of the reservoir that has been built has 
    killed large numbers of caribou, deer and other animals, not to mention what
    its doing to the Indians that live off the land up there. 

     
     Jim

    RE: .116
    
    Rich, there are plenty of flies being cast also that have lead wire
    wrapped around the hook.
    
    RE: .117
    
    I'd have to look it up, but, if Loons have a crop then they would
    ingest small rocks.  FYI, a crop is part of a birds esophagus that
    helps with digestion.
    
    RE:. 118
    
    Walt, the "cure" for the lead problem according to most lure mfrs. is
    to make the heads out of tin...  Anyone want to take a shot at which
    one is the bigger health hazard?
    						B.C.

    
     Your barking up the wrong tree!! The LEAD issue shouldn't even
     be an issue! LETS FACE THE FACTS !!!!
    **************************************************************************
    
      "OUR"  wetlands are among the most biologically productive
      areas on earth!!! Thay provide critical habitat for many
      fish and birds and maintain the flow of clean and abundant 
      water!
    
                                       Lets protect them. 
                                         
                                                     K'

    
    	Yeah, and for those of you that STILL DON'T GET IT !!!!!
    
    
    						 +
    	 /\					/ \
    	/  \				       /   \
       /    \				      /     \
      /Wrong \                               / Right \
     /  Tree  \  			    /   Tree  \
     ----------				    -----------
        |  |   Ruff !!! O---'		       |   |
    		Ruff !!! / \
    
    	Insert BIG smiley face here. Come on guys, it's Friday before a
    holiday weekend and this is the Fishing notes file.
    
    	RAYJ

    RE: .122
    
    	You realize (I hope!) that I was only kidding about banning
    everything!  Just trying to put things in perspective...
    
    	On the issue of habitat destruction being the #1 cause of wildlife
    problems I was dead serious.
    					B.C.

    The big stuff comprises *lots* of smaller stuff, and the only way to
    dismantle a huge problem is to dissect it one piece at a time. At
    least, that has been my experience.
    
    Lead is one issue. PCBs are another issue. Mercury is yet another.
    Sewage, trash, physical disruption, and exotic fauna are also serious
    issues. These all threaten the integrity of aquatic habitats where that
    integrity hasn't already been destroyed in the name of human recreation
    or human comfort.
    
    You can look at it as one BIG issue known as "habitat destruction," and
    you would not be wrong. You can also address each problem as you arrive
    at solutions, and you would not be wrong.
    
    It was the EDF that brought about the ban on DDT. It is the EDF that
    pushes state agencies to act on knowledge that bodies of water are
    polluted with mercury, PCBs, etc.... If these guys give
    environmentalism a bad name, well, environmentalism will always have a
    bad name among those who take and take and take and assume it to be
    their deity-given right. 
    
    John H-C

    These are the operative words, guys, from .124:
    
    "You can also address each problem as you arrive at solutions, and you
    would not be wrong."
    
    *So* many of you seem to understand the problems. (This is an observation
    based on email.) Would you mind telling the rest of angling community what 
    you are doing or thinking about doing to address the problems you
    perceive?
    
    John H-C
    

      I'll let you know what I've been doing.  For the past 10 years I've
    been involved with Ducks Unlimited.  DU raises money which is used to
    buy up wetlands so that they can be preserved.  Myself and a friend helped 
    to establish the Metro-West chapter.  We raised over $30K which is
    used to preserve wetlands.  We hold annual dinners, raffles, shoots
    etc. to raise money.  

    One of the simple things I have been doing is voluntarily recyling
    trash.  I found that most waterways are close to dumps god knows why we
    do that, but we do.  I have cut the amount of trash we put out by at
    least 50%.  Landfills have to be adding to the problem, I voted yes on
    the tougher recycling requirements in the last election.
    
    Recycling is something that you can do that will have a direct impact
    on cleaning up the water.
    
    Brian

re: Would you mind telling the rest of angling community what 
    you are doing or thinking about doing to address the problems you
    perceive?
    
    As I mentioned before I've already switched to brass bullet weights,
besides not being lead, when with glass beads they add an attracting
sound quality.  I've freed birds entangled in fishing line. When I 
come across fishing line in the water I remove it and take it with me.
I've done water quality testing with the Merrimack River Watershed Committee,
peformed DO (disolved oxygen) testing for the US Dept of Fish and Wildlife
and our club, the New Hampshire Bassmasters, has cleaned up many boat launch 
sites.

And I support organizations that I feel will protect the environment WITHOUT 
jeapordizing my privileges to hunt and fish. 
    
    -donmac
    
    ps: I recycle too 8^)

    	As far has helping support wildlife habitat, anyone that buys a
    hunting and/or fishing license provides money for some sort of support.
    As trivial as this may be, it is much more support than many so-called
    friends-of-nature do.
    
    	There are many other things I could add, but I don't really want to
    contribute anymore to what appears to have become a pissing contest
    (can I say that here ;-)
    
    	RAYJ

    Individually some of us don't do alot, collectively however we
    do a tremendous amount. Since the Pittman_Robertson act Sportsmen
    have raised something like 6 billion dollars to help preserve wildlife
    and their habitat. This affects both game and non-game animals.
    And here is MA for some unexplained reason the money used to study
    acid rain is being taken from the F&W dept funds. And let's not forget
    the work that the NRA, DU, TU, QU, TU, etc etc are doing to help
    wildlife. All with sportsmens money. 
    
    So how much have the anti's raised? How much land have they bought?
    How many species of fish did they stock? What animals were restocked
    with their money? Where does the money they raise go?
    
    Walt

OK, I've decided (all by myself, without the government telling me to) I'll 
stop putting things made of lead in my tackle box. But wait a minute! What do
I use?

Does anyone know of anybody who makes environmentally safe(er) tackle? What do
I ask for when I go to the local tackle shop? I'm willing change my fishing
habits, but I need to know what to change them to..

    Jim,
    	If your using slip sinkers fishing for Bass, brass is a great
    alternative.  Don Mac highlighted all the benefits in a previous
    message.  Brass and Glass is all I use now.
    
        John HC your amazing !!!!!!!!!   Your the reason I don't use this
    file often anymore.  I still see your up to your old tricks !!!  Aren't
    you a Temp. 8^) !!!
    							MM 

    It just so happens that this months' issue of Outdoor Life has an
    article on the banning of lead within the fishing industry. It's an
    o.k. article. Could use a little more information. Here is a section
    copied without permission regarding Unleaded Alternatives.......
    
    Tin: Virtually everyone's choice becuase it is relatively soft and
    nontoxic, it's about two thirds as heavy as lead. Raw material cost
    10 times as much as lead, which translates to a retail cost of about
    3 times as much. Tin melts at a low temperature and can be molded
    easily, drawn out into strips fro twist-ons or made into wire for use
    in fly tying.
    
    Bismuth: It's heavy and malleable, but will cost about ten times more
    at the counter. World Bismuth supplies are limited.
    
    Zinc:The properties and price are comparable to tin but the mineral is 
    more toxic than lead.
    
    Stainless Steel: It's dense enough, but a nightmare for melting,
    molding and pinching onto a fishing line. Processing make it very
    expensive.
    
    Tungsten: A very heavy metal material which can be used in a moldable
    putty, but with a cost of $9.00 a pound compared with .25 cents a pound
    for lead, forget it.
    
    Putty Products: combining resins with metals, these currently are in
    use, but the problems are the expense and the difficulty in keeping
    them on the line during active casting............
    
    Looks expensive to me.......
    Bob M� � �

According to today's paper, lead costs $.32/lb, tin costs $3.11, and zinc costs
$.46.  What's this about zinc being more toxic than lead?  Nobody makes a fuss
over galvanized pipes.

    3.11 divided by .32 ='s 9.71875 Rounded off "10" 
    
    Therefore tin is 10 times more expensive than lead........
    
    As far as zinc being more hazardous than lead goes I'll leave that up
    to the guy who started this.......
    
    Well John, how is your "metallurgy 101 memory"
    
    Bob M.
    
    p.s. zinc is used in producing todays pennies also

.133 says zinc's price is comparable to tin's.  Maybe you typed it in wrong?

    Ahhhhh, now I got ya...... Sorry though, that's what the article
    says.....
    
    Still waiting for the hazardous breakdown of Zinc
    
    Bob M �

	Copied from "New England Out of Doors" By Kurt Ebersbach

	"LEAD SINKER BAN PROPOSED"

	A lawsuit filed by the Environmental Defense Fund (E.D.F.) has 
	prompted the EPA to commit to proposing by January 14th a ban on
	the sale and manufacture of some lead fishing sinkers because of the 
	harm they pose to wildlife.

	E.P.A. may also ban the use of zinc, copper and brass as substitutes
	for lead in sinkers if current investigations onto the materials
	reveal that they also resent toxicity problems. Larger lead sinkers
	may not be included in the ban since they are deemed unlikely to be 
	ingested by waterfowl.

	After the ban is proposed, E.P.A. will conduct hearings on the rule
	during which anglers, fishingtackle manufactures and other members
	of the public will be able to voice their concerns and present 
	evidence of their own.

	E.P.A. would not say at this time how soon the ban could take effect
	after being proposed or whether it would be imposed all at once or
	phased in.

	Last spring the National Wildlife federation passed a resolution
	appealing to anglers to voluntarily stop using lead fishing sinkers
	and to the fishing tackle industry to make widely available less toxic
	alternatives. Introduced by the New Hampshire Wildlife Federation, the
	resolution passed unanimously.

	At least six studies have shown that certain waterfowl, including 
	common loons, trumpeter swans and herons, are dying from lead poisoning
	after ingesting lead fishing sinkers. An on-going study by researchers
	at the Wildlife Clinic at Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston
	shows that to date, nearly 50 percent of the adult loons examined had 
	died this way. 

	Given the mounting scientific evidence on the effects of lead sinkers 
	on waterfowl, EDF along with the Federation of Flyfishers, North 
	American Loon fund and the Trumpeter Swan Society last October 
	petitioned E.P.A. to take action. The groups asked the agency to require
	that the sale of lead fishing sinkers be accompanied by a warning label
	on the product's toxic effects on wildlife.

	E.P.A. granted the petition in January, but then failed to promptly 
	publish a proposed rule on the matter., which it is required to do
	under the Toxic Substance Control Act. In response to the E.P.A. 's
	delay, E.D.F. filed suit last March.

	An out of court agreement was reached, however, in which E.P.A. 
	committed itself to proposing a lead sinker ban and investigating
	the potential toxicity of alternatives.

	Many Manufacturers and tackle dealers already sell non-lead sinkers.
	At the same time, the three largest sinker makers are developing
	alternatives to the five to six million pounds of lead sinkers sold
	in the US each year. Among the substitutes being considered are tin
	bismuth and a resin iron powder mixture.

	Kurt Ebersbach is a writer and reporter with the National Wildlife
	Federation's Washington, D.C. office.

    I honestly believe Kurt has an ax to grind, I am disappointed that
    New England out of Doors would print that opinion with out further
    facts instead of generalities. No where did they say how many birds
    died. If it was 10 birds, who cares? If it was hundreds, hey we have a 
    problem. They would be all over this with numbers if there were any
    numbers. Typical environmental extremist B.S...
    
    Rich

    	When duck hunting with lead, you are scattering an area with lead
    that you never intend to retrieve. When fishing with lead weights, I
    can't think of any time that you would not want to retrieve the lead
    (your sinker or lure.) 
    
    	Since these cost money, the idea is not to have to keep buying
    them. If you're not going to retrieve them, it's likely due to snapping
    your line on a snag. In this case, it will very likely be connected to
    the snagged fishing line which would most likely pull it out of the
    ducks mouth as they surface.
    
    	I know lead is highly toxic, but is it so toxic that the bird will
    die before passing the actual sinker ? I just can't imagine that a lead 
    weight would not be excreted. I know lead will stay in your system, but 
    a sinker is a solid that I would think would pass through the digestive 
    system and be excreted. I thought the problem was the lead that leached 
    out from the digestive process and got into the blood stream that was 
    the problem. 
    
    	If this is the case, how can one distinguish lead poisoning from
    fishing weights vs. poisoning from old lead shot ? Something sounds
    pretty fishy here.
    
    	RAYJ

>No where did they say how many birds
>    died. If it was 10 birds, who cares? If it was hundreds, hey we have a 
>    problem.

 Seems to me it depends on how many birds you have. If you have 12 birds and 
10 die, it's more of a problem than if you have 10,000 birds and 100 die.
At least, it is to my way of thinking.

    Yes, that's true, but not in this case. Otherwise you would be seeing
    facts like "20% of loons are dying because of fisherman's lead sinkers".
    Wouldn't you like to see some real facts? I know I would before I agree
    there is a need to pay 10 times what I pay for lead sinkers, jig heads
    ect. today. 
  

    2 cents 
    Its nothing more than a feel good I did something cause. At least that's 
    my perception until I see some real facts, but I doubt I ever will.
    This is all based on emotion. If these jokers spent as much time
    building habitat as they do trying to ban things the wildlife would 
    much better off. As said before, fishing line is next. They will parade
    around a dead bird wrapped in fishing line and that will be the next feel 
    good cause for the environmental extremists that will effect fisherman.
     

    re: .142
    
    The EDF spends a lot of time, energy, and money saving/building
    wildlife habitats as well as taking legal action to further those
    efforts.
    
    There is in fact at least one loon wrapped up in monofilament in a
    portable display that is present at every meeting of the Pemiquid
    Watershed Association in Damariscotta, ME. It was found on shore, near
    the water, strangled. It is an excruciating sight, but also a real
    tribute to one expert's taxidermy skills. The loon I saw strangled on
    monofilament on the bottom of Schoodic Lake last summer was decomposed
    beyond what any such expert could work with.
    
    Such efforts as the EDF's may be mere "feel good" causes to those who
    simply sit in their houses and watch nature programs and to those who
    think the natural world is out there only to serve as entertainment for
    weekend hunters/gatherers. To the many people who spend a lot of time,
    energy, and money working to restore and preserve what little natural
    habitat is left, the EDF's efforts are very much appreciated because
    they reach higher levels within the regulatory agencies than most of
    the rest of us ever could.
    
    John H-C

    Kind of dangerous waters here  - I'm an unrepentant weekend
    hunter-gatherer, and a member of EDF.  
    
    I'm happy to give up lead if it will help - I understand it will, so 
    I'll find alternatives.
    
    We read some extremes in this conference.  I think there are many
    mostly read-only fisherpeople who are underrepresented in the
    "dialogue" - who regularly do their best to leave the water and the
    shore in better shape than they found them on every outing.
    
    Jack

    re: the last few
    
    5 to 6 MILLION POUNDS of lead sinkers per year...Think about it...It
    seems fairly obvious that someone out there is losing a heck of a lot
    of sinkers...
    
    Waterfowl generally pick up sinkers just like they pick up small stones
    to use in their crop to help grind up their food (eg: loons use them to
    grind up the fish that they feed on). These stones/sinkers may remain in 
    the crop for long periods of time - they do not just get "passed" with the 
    food. The sinkers will leach lead for plenty long enough to kill the
    bird.
    
    		    "If it was just 10 birds, who cares?"
    
    It amazes me to read the rationalization people use to justify a
    practice even when confronted with the fact that said practice causes 
    the poisoning of the environment. The fact is that over half of the
    loons found dead in just New Hampshire alone were proven to have died
    because of lead poisoning from the sinkers - which were still in the
    birds' systems. These are just the known fatalities where an autopsy 
    could be performed.
    
    5 to 6 MILLIONS POUNDS of lead sinkers per year...These weren't all
    lost in just New Hampshire. Loons can be found from Maine to Washington
    (just counting the states along the Canadian border). That's more than a
    dozen states, of which New Hampshire is the smallest. If each state has
    a similar mortality rate in just loons alone, without regard to land
    mass (how many New Hampshires would fit into the state of Montana?)
    there's a minimum of a few hundred dead loons with sinkers still in 
    their gullets...
    
    			Is that enough carnage for you?
    
    5 to 6 MILLION POUNDS of lead sinkers per year, and you're upset about
    the lack of "further facts"? I'd say that there's enough *fact* in that
    one phrase to justify the article, as well as the movement to ban lead
    fishing sinkers. The facts are that lead is a poison, and that there are 
    alternatives. What else do you need to know?
    
    I read the same article this weekend, right after spending Saturday
    flyfishing for Brookies on a pond in way-up New Hampshire. While we
    were canoing about the pond, we were entertained by a loon family -
    male, female, and two young'uns. The youngsters were trying to earn
    their flight ratings, and spent most of the early afternoon charging
    about the pond in a futile effort to get airborne. In a word, it was
    hilarious, and made up for the cold weather and less-than-enthusiastic
    trout.
    
    If those youngsters were two of those "10 birds", I'd care a whole bunch...
    
    /dave (who never thought of himself as a "typical" anything, nevermind 
           as an "environmental extremist")

    Carry those figuires to extremes will ya 5-6 million pounds of sinkers
    a year is ridiculus to state as a factor in fresh water fishing
    that means if the average sinker used is 1/4 once over 384 million
    sinkers were lost fishing. I doubt most fisherman use that heavy a
    weight and so it means that there are even more sinkers lost than that?
    I fish very heavy and I may have lost one or two 1/16 to 1/4 once
    weights this year and I don't think that I am an exception rather the
    norm.  So those numbers must include heavier commericail fishing
    weights, deep sea stuff and lots of other things.
    
    give me a break will you and don't go spouting off about 5-6 million
    pounds of weights and make me believe that stuff.  You yourself
    exagerrate beyond crediability.

    	Not sure what happened to the previous reply attempt but...
    
    	I'm not against a lead alternative as I very rairly use lead in
    fresh water to begin with. When I do, it's even more rare that I lose
    it. What I am against is seeing "facts" being twisted to support an 
    argument. There is probably no way to determine this, but my guess is 
    that the VAST majority of this "5 to 6 MILLION POUNDS" of lost sinkers 
    goes into salt water. 
    
    	Deep sea bait fishing for bottom fish around here usually involves 
    using 1 lb.weights. Likewise, lead cod jigs also weigh in at 1 lb. or 
    more. My guess is that the vast amount of that number you gave probably 
    is lost by North Atlantic bottom fishing anglers, but that has nothing 
    to do with loons. It certainly makes the 5 to 6 million pounds of lost 
    lead sinkers seem like a much more awsome number though.
    
    	So to coin a phrase, don't expect anyone in here to swallow that
    "fact" hook, line, and sinker ;-)
    
    	RAYJ
    	

    If you all go back and look at the article posted by NEAL, you'll see
    that the reference to tonnage is to the amount manufactured rather than
    to the amount lost in bodies of freshwater or anywhere.
    
    You can run your own line of speculation based on that raw guesstimate.
    
    I believe it when the EDF tells me that lead sinkers represent a real
    problem to birds. Yes, it does matter to me who informs me of the
    problem, and I do apply a critical eye to every bit of bad news that
    comes my way from the "environmental front." I make it a point to deal
    with problems that I can see and can do something about. The others
    simply worry me, and I hope somebody with more wherewithal is working
    to verify and/or address the problem. The lead sinker problem is one
    such problem. The hole in the ozone is another. (Pretty broad spectrum,
    huh?)
    
    Fishing, as an activity, can be -- and most often is, as nearly as I
    can tell -- harmless to the aquatic environment it requires. There are
    a lot more anglers than any other "sportsman" visiting aquatic
    habitats, though, and their number apparently inevitably includes a
    percentage of "bad guys." These bad guys do a lot more damage than most
    people understand. It is not stupidity that makes it hard for people to
    understand. It is the simple problem that they can't see what's
    happening under the surface of the water. 
    
    By the time the birds or the fish are all gone, or by the time the
    water turns an ugly, smelly green or purplish brown, it's simply too
    late to do anything. The damage is done. In a body of stillwater, the
    damage is irreparable.
    
    All I did was let you all know that lead sinkers were in the regulatory
    sights. I think I've made it clear how I feel about non-biodegradable
    monofilament, so maybe that's what set people off when I reported on
    the lead-sinker problem having surfaced.
    
    Anyway, this aquatic environmentalist asks all you anglers: please,
    find a source of negative buoyancy for your bait other than lead
    sinkers.                            
    
    That is all....
    
    John H-C
                                                   

    re: .146
    
    The weight numbers that I was "spouting off" about are not mine, they 
    are numbers which apparently were provided by the sinker manufacturers.
    Not my exagerrations at all. Sorry.
    
    While John H-C may be correct in his interpretation of annual manufactured 
    lead verses what is lost, one might wonder where all those 5-6 million 
    pounds of sinkers are going each year (is one of you guys out there
    stockpiling this stuff or what? ;^) if not to replace sinkers that are
    being lost. And I'll agree that probably most of that lead is being
    lost "at sea" (another story that we'll probably hear about some day).
    But what's a reasonable percentage lost in freshwater?
    
    You want numbers using your methodology? Let's see: if roughly 10 
    million occasional or frequent fishingpeople in the US each lost JUST ONE 
    1/4 ounce sinker per year in fresh water, that's 2.5 million ounces of 
    lead added to the ponds, rivers, and lakes in the U.S. annually. Gee, 
    that's only 150 thousand pounds of lead per year, which would be less 
    than 2.5% of the total lead sinker production. Guess that's OK, then,
    eh?
    
    Of course, if most of those 10 million people aren't as skilled as you 
    are, the total would be higher...
    
    All of this avoids the essential issue: is it right that we use - and
    lose - toxic material when fishing - when there is incontrovertible
    proof that wildlife dies as a result - and when there are alternatives? 
    You conveniently chose to avoid that issue completely...
    
    So, a point-blank question: if it could be proven that the one 1/4
    ounce sinker you lost this year was directly responsible for the death 
    of a loon, swan, or whatever, would that affect your use of lead? 
    
    /dave (You may call me an "environmental extremist" if that helps you ;^)

    Listen I had switched over to brass sinkers awhile back for most of my
    fishing and for the rest was going to switch to the zinc alloy ones on
    my next order.  What ticked me off is the fact that large numbers gets
    spewed about to sort of try and exaggerate and intimadate folks into
    feeling like they are villians for tossing 1/16 ounce lead weights. 
    Its the constant tirade that gets weary to listen too. Every single
    person I have fished with and know from this file are very
    environmentally conscious.  I don't know a single person that does not
    take out trash or release bass alive.  So what I am advocating is
    instead of launching tirades at a bunch of concerned sportsmen, why
    don't people simply talk about actions that could help and why and not
    start trying to bully folks who already care into doing more.  Like the
    old adage says if you want to make medicine go down easier give it a
    spoonful of sugar first.
    
    Brian

    re .-1
    
    > So, a point-blank question: if it could be proven that the one 1/4
    > ounce sinker you lost this year was directly responsible for the death
    > of a loon, swan, or whatever, would that affect your use of lead?
    
    No.  Not until we get the more major causes of environmental pollution
    under control, i.e. sewage, developmental damage, etc.  How many birds
    or their breeding grounds have been killed due to habitat destruction
    etc?  I'll bet many mre than by lead.  Its just harder to quantify and
    harder to prove.  So its easier to ban lead by showing a picture of a
    dead loon that has lead poisening (tug on the ole heart strings and
    open the purse) than fix the real problem.  
    
    Lets face it.  The real problem is that as we humans become more
    advanced, we destroy the environment (sometimes inadvertantly).  If you
    take one extreme, you can say the hell with the environment as long as
    its safe for people.  Or you go the other way and say the world would
    be better off without us.  But neither extreme does anybody or anything
    any good.  We need to find some middle ground beneficial to wildlife
    and humans.
    
    As some of us sit here essentially telling others that because we do
    not agree with certain findings or believe in their cause, just
    remember, unless you live in the woods and eat only nuts and berries
    that everything you use destroys the environment either through its
    usage or when it was built or when you're finished with it.  BTW, I'ld
    like to know how the environmentalists take care of things like their
    lawns? 
    
    Now I'll get off the soap box and go back to being a mostly readonly.

    re my reply.
    
     was not meant at Mr Ota's response, but directed to Dave Tatosian and hc.  

    
    I have a big problem with  motorized boats. it seems every lake,stream
    pond,river that i go to has an oil/gas slick on it from a boat. Granted
    the slicks aren't large but when I sit back and think of the thousands
    of gallons of this stuff that goes into the water every year it must
    have an adverse affect of the ecosystem. I therfore feel that gas
    motors should be banned, if it saves one loon, one swan, one fish or
    one whatever it will be worth it. No I don't own a boat.
    
    Walt                                                   

    I am in complete agreement with Joe. 
    
    This society has become such a "ban it society" that we ban things that 
    are much more insignificant than other REAL problems. I am very
    skeptical about claims made by anyone today. I do not see ANY
    information about what the extent of the alleged problem really is. Could
    that be because there isn't a problem? Here's a crazy question, what
    are the percentage's of causes of death in waterfowl for the following.
    HC you seem well versed in the subject, I'm sure you have the
    information at your fingertips. It would enlighten myself and others if we 
    could see these facts.  
        
    Predators
    habitat destruction
    disease
    lead
    run over by boats
     
    
    Brian, if you didn't notice, your brass and zinc weights are on the
    list too.
    
    Rich
              

    	.152 hit it right on the head...  Some of the environmental
    extremists call it doing what they can for the small problems...
    
    	All it boils down to is another "feel good" rule that hurts a small
    group of people instead of the -real- polluters.  If you want to really
    make a difference then why not put your efforts into stopping the
    people who dump chemicals, millions of tons of raw sewage, medical
    waste, etc. and those who are filling wetlands, developing the sea
    coast and lakeshores or the beer industries who -still- make the
    plastic 6 pack holders.
    	Oh, that's right, then you couldn't claim victory over the
    fishermen to make yourselves "feel good"....
    
    					B.C.

    A long journey starts with the first small step...
    
    It's certainly easy to sit back and come up with a list of
    environmental disorders that appear to be much larger than the lead
    sinker issue. It's easy to say "Well, until "they" stop doing "that",
    I'll continue doing "this". If everyone used that rationale, isn't it
    fair to say that nothing would ever get any better?
    
    The greater good would be: "Well, *I* can't do much to stop "them"
    from doing "that", but at least *I* can make some small positive step
    and stop doing <fill_in_the_blank>."
    
    Look at this as a personal satisfaction thing...You release fish
    unharmed, you carry out trash. You do these things not because someone
    told you to, but because (a) you know it's a good thing to do, and
    (b) it feels good to do it. Just add this goal to your list...
    
    Please don't misconstrue my ramblings as a criticism per se, either 
    personal or broad-based. I'm sure that the majority of the members of
    this conference are reasonably conscientious sportsmen and don't run
    around despoiling the wilderness. I'm just offering a counterpoint to
    the reactionary mentality that  pervades this conference that often
    seems to inspire "shoot-from-the-hip"  responses to any proposals that
    are targeted toward correcting the  environmental damage that mankind
    wreaks.
    
    (Besides, John H-C's been wearing the conference bulls-eye for so
    long he must feel like Salman Rushdie ;^)
    
    FWIW: I do support groups that are trying to both expose your -real-
    polluters and stop same, correct damage that's been done, and generally
    promote conservation. My family supports the AMC, GreenPeace, Trout 
    Unlimited, Ducks Unlimited (even though I haven't had a chance to go duck 
    hunting in years), Mass Audubon Society (interesting juxtaposition, eh?) 
    and a number of AtSal restoration groups and river protection groups in
    New England. 
    
    /dave

    	I guess if you were to stand back and look at all the environmental
    problems regardless of how big or small they are, some of them would
    have easy to implement fixes and some wouldn't.
    
    	The proposed lead ban is one of those "easy to implement" type of
    fixes. What we don't see here is a comprehensive "big picture" look at
    all the problems. So what we get from this is people that "want to do
    something" that translates into lets do what we can that's easy to do
    irregardless of how big or small the problem is. The "chip away at the 
    problem" approach.
    
    	Industrial pollution is one of the "not so easy" type of fixes.
    Sure there are laws against this and agencies responsible to check on
    these sorts of things, but they still happen. These can also get into 
    grey areas such as "acceptable levels" of pollution. They can also tend 
    to affect areas where stricter regulations equate to increased costs being 
    passed on to all consumers (i.e. higher electric rates, transportation 
    costs, food prices, etc.).
    
    	Since there is no easy fix for this, people move onto other causes 
    where they can do something, leaving the bigger problems for some
    indefinate amount of time and/or someone else to worry about. The lead 
    issue is an easier thing to get environmental extremists to rally around 
    because it doesn't increase *their* costs as fishing is not a likely 
    activity that many environmental extremists would be involved in. 
    
    	In the meantime, concerned sportsmen/women get pulled into the fray
    because "it seems like the right thing to do." They jump on the band
    wagon which serves to continue to divert time and energy away from the
    bigger difficult problems. 
    
    	RAYJ

    I guess there just isn't any scientific information available concerning
    the carnage I create when I loose a lead sinker. I had a good day
    Friday, I only lost one 1/8 oz worm weight!  

    
    I've got one other question to those who support the banning of lead
    sinkers.  Do you guys smoke?  And if you do what do you do with your
    butts when you're done?  Do you pack them out or toss them on the
    ground?  HC, has there been a study about pollution or animal deaths
    attributed to cigarette butts?  From what I've seen in the woods, on
    the water and around my home, there's a lot more butts tossed on the
    ground than lead sinkers.  
    
    One final note.  I agree with your philosophy that every journey starts
    with a small step.  And I applaud HC's environmental efforts.  But just
    because I'm not as vocal or as involved with environmental orgs as you
    are, don't assume that I don't do anything.  I think someone else in
    here said it best (forgot who and what note...).  We all are trying to
    do something in our own way.  Maybe if HC et al wouldn't start out on
    the offensive so much, then there might not be the backlash and maybe
    even more support.
    
    'nuf said.

    I'm working on a file to respond to some of the accusations and
    misunderstandings that have been cast at my feet, but two new ones in
    .160 I can respond to right away:
    
    Cigarette butts are a source of acidification in sufficient quantity.
    If you remember your 9th-grade biology class when you pith a frog and
    in the process of dissection put a couple drops of nicotine solution
    (derived from soaking a cigarette butt in a jelly jar of water
    overnight) on the frog's webbed feet, you saw the effect of acid
    rather graphically depicted. The results from the nationwide "Coast
    Sweeps" of the last two years showed that cigarette butts constituted
    the majority of the trash collected by several orders of magnitude.
    
    Cigarette butts -- the filters, specifically -- have been found in the
    stomachs of a lot of salmon taken through the ice. When told of these
    salmon, I have simultaneously been told that the salmon was light for
    its length and looked like it was starving to death. That the salmon
    was still feeding as evidenced by the angler's having hooked it
    suggests to me that the fish's stomach feels mostly full from
    indigestible cigarette filters and so doesn't consume as much real
    nutrition. Then again, it could mean what so many others seem to think
    it means: there's no food there, and the fish are starving so badly
    that they are reduced to consuming cigarette butts. I don't think fish
    are that discriminating. I think the cigarette butts just screw up
    their digestive systems.
    
    No, as far as I know, there has not been a study of animal deaths
    caused by cigarette butts as far as I know.
    
    A lot of the commentary in here seems to suggest that I am the author
    of tirades and other offensive writing tactics against the sport of
    fishing. This mystifies me. I've often mentioned to you all things that
    I have seen wrong underwater that fishermen can do something about. If
    any of you has the time to look for one, I'd be curious to see one
    these tirades I've supposedly written.
    
    I don't write about the ongoing battles with developers, shorefront
    home owners, sewage departments, gas station companies, or town DPWs in
    here because this isn't the Environmental_Activist file. Such a file
    does not exist, by the way.
    
    John H-C

    just to clarify, those weren't accusations but questions.  and from the
    sounds of your reply, it seems to be they're as great a threat if not
    more than lead sinkers.  

    I lost four 1 pound lead sinkers in 240+ feet of water this
    past Saturday..... Hope no loons get them.
    
    Gusman
     

This is a long one. I tried to respond to all the past few days'
comments that seemed directed toward me.



                 -< Fishing-V2: All About Angling >-
=============================================================================
Note 70.151                   Environmental Issues                 151 of 158
DELNI::OTA                                  16 lines  13-OCT-1993 08:09
               -< Its the tactics not numbers that inflame me. >-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    [text elided]

>   So what I am advocating is instead of launching tirades at a bunch of
>   concerned sportsmen, why don't people simply talk about actions that could
>   help and why and not start trying to bully folks who already care into
>   doing more.  Like the old adage says if you want to make medicine go down
>   easier give it a spoonful of sugar first.
    
>   Brian

I think I addressed the "tirade" issue in my last reply in this topic.
If you check the Environmental_Issues, Scuba, Flyfishing, and Riverrats 
conferences, you'll see that I do talk about action that could help and very 
often try to persuade folks who already care about the environment into doing 
more. ("Bullying" really doesn't show up in my repertoire unless I'm 
addressing a Conservation Commission, a Finance Committee, or a Board of 
Selectmen. I usually get what I want, but then I have to put up with people 
telling me I came on too strong and ran the risk of pushing everybody into 
opposition.)

All but one of the newspaper articles about my various projects have come 
out saccharine sweet. Some of the time it works. Most of the time it just 
results in people seeming to think I'm a leftist pacifist vegetarian. The one 
In-Your-Face article that appeared in the local paper -- the reporter's 
questions were so stupid I lost control of my frustration -- was the one 
that most people seem to have remembered and have acted in response to. I 
haven't quite figured that one out yet.

I'm not big into feel-good causes. What I and those who join me do is dirty, exhausting, infuriating, and absolutely necessary. As a lot of the folks in this conference have pointed out, there is a very broad spectrum of threats to aquatic ecosystems, and the whole spectrum must be addressed.


=============================================================================
Note 70.152                   Environmental Issues                 152 of 158
SOLVIT::AMATO "Joe Amato"                      31 lines  13-OCT-1993 08:39
                        -< no, it wouldn't >-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    re .-1
    
    > So, a point-blank question: if it could be proven that the one 1/4
    > ounce sinker you lost this year was directly responsible for the death
    > of a loon, swan, or whatever, would that affect your use of lead?
    
>   No.  Not until we get the more major causes of environmental pollution
>   under control, i.e. sewage, developmental damage, etc.  How many birds
>   or their breeding grounds have been killed due to habitat destruction
>   etc?  I'll bet many mre than by lead.  Its just harder to quantify and
>   harder to prove.  So its easier to ban lead by showing a picture of a
>   dead loon that has lead poisening (tug on the ole heart strings and
>   open the purse) than fix the real problem.  

You are mistaken if you think that the lead issue is the only one 
being addressed by environmentalists. As a matter of fact, I spent 
half of this morning tracking down the data and making the contacts I 
need to begin building an ad hoc political coalition to stop an 
egregious riverside sewer-mismanagement problem we discovered on Saturday. 
I spent the other half playing catchup to a shorefront development project
that I just found out about. (Don't worry folks, this is all being done on 
my own time.) Keying in a few words about lead poisoning of water fowl 
consumes no time at all in comparison.

    
>   Lets face it.  The real problem is that as we humans become more
>   advanced, we destroy the environment (sometimes inadvertantly).  If you
>   take one extreme, you can say the hell with the environment as long as
>   its safe for people.  Or you go the other way and say the world would
>   be better off without us.  But neither extreme does anybody or anything
>   any good.  We need to find some middle ground beneficial to wildlife
>   and humans.

I've only met people on one of these two "extremes." The ones at the 
other extreme have apparently committed suicide demonstrate their 
point. <grins>

"Mainstream Environmentalism," to which I adhere, considers humans part 
of nature rather than its antagonist. We believe that humans *can* live
without destroying the habitat they share with other life forms. We know 
that ingested lead is bad for humans and just about every other animal 
with fur or feathers. It has since come out that one source of ingested 
lead is small sinkers. So why not stop using them and move on?

    
>   As some of us sit here essentially telling others that because we do
>   not agree with certain findings or believe in their cause, just
>   remember, unless you live in the woods and eat only nuts and berries
>   that everything you use destroys the environment either through its
>   usage or when it was built or when you're finished with it.  BTW, I'ld
>   like to know how the environmentalists take care of things like their
>   lawns? 
    
Well, this one doesn't mow his lawn at all to hear the neighbors tell it.
I think I *did* mow the "weeds" in the yard once this past warm season, but I really don't remember. Mostly I just plant trees, hoping that the fallen leaves and pine needles will do away with the grass.<g>


=============================================================================
Note 70.154                   Environmental Issues                 154 of 158
ESKIMO::BING "Of, By, For the People? Not anymore."  10 lines  13-OCT-1993 09:19
                  -< So whose giving up their engines? >-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
>   I have a big problem with  motorized boats. it seems every lake,stream
>   pond,river that i go to has an oil/gas slick on it from a boat. Granted
>   the slicks aren't large but when I sit back and think of the thousands
>   of gallons of this stuff that goes into the water every year it must
>   have an adverse affect of the ecosystem. I therfore feel that gas
>   motors should be banned, if it saves one loon, one swan, one fish or
>   one whatever it will be worth it. No I don't own a boat.
    
>   Walt                                       

Was there supposed to be a 8^) in there somewhere, Walt? Sounds like a 
fairly extremist attitude to me! 

<g>


=============================================================================
Note 70.155                   Environmental Issues                 155 of 158
JUPITR::NEAL                                   24 lines  13-OCT-1993 09:25
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>   I am in complete agreement with Joe. 
    
>   This society has become such a "ban it society" that we ban things that 
>   are much more insignificant than other REAL problems. I am very
>   skeptical about claims made by anyone today. I do not see ANY
>   information about what the extent of the alleged problem really is. Could
>   that be because there isn't a problem? Here's a crazy question, what
>   are the percentage's of causes of death in waterfowl for the following.
>   HC you seem well versed in the subject, I'm sure you have the
>   information at your fingertips. It would enlighten myself and others if we 
>   could see these facts.  

There's a basic problem with causes of death and percentages among wildlife. 
Bodies often either sink or are consumed before they can be collected for 
analysis. The figures that have been developed depended on those corpses 
actually found. I would assume the number of dead animals to be substantially 
higher, with the causes of death unknowable. I can only tell you what I've 
seen regarding each of these listed causes of death.

        
>   Predators

Minks, raccoons, and foxes are responsible for the consumption of eggs of 
loons, swans, mergansers, and ducks. Minks are a special problem for loons 
because they can swim to the loons' remote nest. I know of one nesting pair of 
loons who lost their egg to a mink last year. I saw the mink swimming to the 
island at dusk, and the next day I was told the loons had lost their only egg. 
(I know, circumstantial evidence, but it seemed pretty compelling anyway.)

>   habitat destruction

This is something that is noted by what it doesn't do, which is allow birds 
space to reproduce. The loon population on Winnipesaukee, for example, was in 
very dire straits due to habitat destruction just a decade ago. An aggressive 
nesting-area-protection program has done a good job of stabilizing the loon 
population on the lake, but the population is *way* below what people remember 
from as recently as the early `70s.

>   disease

No clue.

>   lead

Well, Mark Levesque apparently has some information about what's happened in 
NH. I'd only be able to give you the EDF figures, which I don't think you 
would find credible.

>   run over by boats
     
This is also an unknown. I've never encountered a loon corpse mangled by a 
prop. Monofilament seems to be much more dangerous than boats, at this point. 
Last summer four different people on four different occasions told me that a 
motorboat had run down two loons in Braun Bay, which has a loon sanctuary on 
it. Before undertaking a search for the corpses, which what all of these 
people seemed to expect of me, I asked the local loon activist about the 
reports. She owns the island that is the loon sanctuary, and she can see Braun 
Bay from her dock. She assured me that it was just an ugly rumor, that the 
number of loons had not dropped in the last week or so. (Yes, the population 
on Winnipesaukee is small enough that if a loon were missing, word would 
spread throughout the network within a couple days.)
    
              
=============================================================================
Note 70.156                   Environmental Issues                 156 of 158
SUBPAC::CRONIN                                 14 lines  13-OCT-1993 09:34
            -< Leave us alone and go after the -real- problems... >-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>   	.152 hit it right on the head...  Some of the environmental
>   extremists call it doing what they can for the small problems...

And many are doing what they can for the large problems.

    
>   	All it boils down to is another "feel good" rule that hurts a small
>   group of people instead of the -real- polluters.  If you want to really
>   make a difference then why not put your efforts into stopping the
>   people who dump chemicals, millions of tons of raw sewage, medical
>   waste, etc. and those who are filling wetlands, developing the sea
>   coast and lakeshores or the beer industries who -still- make the
>   plastic 6 pack holders.

Well, I disagree. I think that, rather than "boiling down" to anything, it 
all adds up. If dumping and development are issues you'd like to read about, 
I can go on for screen after screen after screen on those subjects. I deal
with them as threats to aquatic habitats a lot more than with anything else.

>   	Oh, that's right, then you couldn't claim victory over the
>   fishermen to make yourselves "feel good"....
    

I don't claim victories, nor do I regard anglers as the "opposition."
Well, not all anglers, anyway. <g>


=============================================================================
Note 70.158                   Environmental Issues                 158 of 158
VICKI::DODIER "Cars suck, then they die"             32 lines  13-OCT-1993 11:26
                       -< Human nature ??? >-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>   	I guess if you were to stand back and look at all the environmental
>   problems regardless of how big or small they are, some of them would
>   have easy to implement fixes and some wouldn't.

D'accord.
    
>   	The proposed lead ban is one of those "easy to implement" type of
>   fixes. What we don't see here is a comprehensive "big picture" look at
>   all the problems. So what we get from this is people that "want to do
>   something" that translates into lets do what we can that's easy to do
>   irregardless of how big or small the problem is. The "chip away at the 
>   problem" approach.
    

Well, if you look at the range of work the EDF engages in, you'll see that 
the lead-sinker issue is one minor problem they are addressing. It is minor 
to them because of the scale on which they work. It is not a minor issue at 
all to the various groups working to save the swans, loons, and other water 
fowl falling victim to "careless" fishing practices.

>   	Industrial pollution is one of the "not so easy" type of fixes.
>   Sure there are laws against this and agencies responsible to check on
>   these sorts of things, but they still happen. These can also get into 
>   grey areas such as "acceptable levels" of pollution. They can also tend 
>   to affect areas where stricter regulations equate to increased costs being 
>   passed on to all consumers (i.e. higher electric rates, transportation 
>   costs, food prices, etc.).


I, for one, will be happy to pay the higher prices to ensure less 
environmental damage.
    
>   	Since there is no easy fix for this, people move onto other causes 
>   where they can do something, leaving the bigger problems for some
>   indefinate amount of time and/or someone else to worry about. The lead 
>   issue is an easier thing to get environmental extremists to rally around 
>   because it doesn't increase *their* costs as fishing is not a likely 
>   activity that many environmental extremists would be involved in. 
    
No, people do not necessarily move onto other causes. Environmentalists 
are not "rallying around" any lead issue. It's just one among many issues
environmentalists confront every day. It probably just *seems"* like 
environmentalists are focussed on this one because it's the topic of 
discussion in this conference now and maybe in some of the angling magazines 
that arrive in your mailbox.


>   	In the meantime, concerned sportsmen/women get pulled into the fray
>   because "it seems like the right thing to do." They jump on the band
>   wagon which serves to continue to divert time and energy away from the
>   bigger difficult problems. 
    

Well, it depends on whether the "BIGGER PROBLEMS" are things like the hole 
in the ozone and global warming or development and dumping. If there are
sportsmen/women reading this conference who'd like to help address the latter 
pair of big problems, there's a lot they can do, and I'll be happy to help
them do it.


John H-C

    Now we know what the real problem is: Minks, lets ban minks.
    Hell we may even get some nice warm coats for our wive's!
    Winters coming. :-)

    Actually, I would like to see there numbers on lead poisoning mortality
    if you have it available.

    Thanks
    Rich

    The EDF is sending me a copy of their petition to the EPA.
    
    Bear in mind that the EDF filed the petition in conjunction with the
    Federation of Fly Fishers, the North American Loon Fund, and the
    Trumpeter Swan Society, so the EDF isn't the sole author.
    
    One other point that came out of my conversation with the EDF was that
    these alternatives to lead will also be banned for reasons of toxicity:
    
    o Copper
    o Zinc
    o Brass (a copper/zinc alloy)
    
    I'll post the figures some time later in the week after I get the copy
    of the petition.
    
    John H-C

    re:164
    
    > Environmentalists are not "rallying around" any lead issue.
    
    Rally - To call together for a common purpose, assemble.
    
    	All this means is that a bunch of people are getting together to
    discuss this. Hell, we're doing that here and now :-)
    
    > I tried to respond to all the past few days' comments that seemed 
    > directed toward me.
    
    	Just for the record John, if I direct anything at someone, I'll
    either use a "re:" at the beginning of the note and/or use their name
    specifically. So please, LIGHTEN UP DAMN IT !!! 8-)
    
    	We now return to our regulary scheduled program already in
    progress..........RAYJ

    	Next we'll have to get rid of those pesky metal hooks too...
    
    	And let's not forget how cruel it is to catch and release a fish!!!
    Just think of the amount of stress they're put through.
    
    	Maybe people should only be allowed to catch fish that they're
    going to kill and eat.
    
    	Of course we want to do it in a humane way, you know, land them fast
    so they don't suffer as much.
    
    	I guess we'll have to have a law that requires a minimum line
    strength of say 20 lbs.  That way we wouldn't lose as many hooks in
    fish either!
    
    	We'll have to outlaw wading too...  It's already been proven to do
    damage to fish habitat, especially in trout waters during the spawn.
    
    	If anyone thinks that any of this sounds too far out to ever happen
    then you'd better think again.  This is right where they're trying to
    take us.
    					B.C.

    John HC
    
    Again you leap to extremes.  The comment you quoted me on was not in
    reference to you at all but to the note that used the figuires of 5-6 
    million pounds of lead in fishing.
    
    Instead of taking polarizing shots look at things more relaxed will
    you?  I happen to believe in your causes, but there are times when
    statements are made that automatically causes people to go on the
    defense which leads to offense.
    
    I have a question for you based on your last note, in it you
    said that they are also planning on banning zinc and brass.  If they do
    that, what are fishermen going to use?  I have not seen any other
    material listed in catalogs yet.  Is the EPA seriously planning on
    outlawing all sinker materials on the market today?  That I find very
    surprising and believe if they tried to do that, they will get a
    backlash from the fishermen. I have to think stainless steel or other
    exotic metals will be more expensive to make and sell.  I don't know
    this for a fact, but I would think that environmentally the impact of
    having to make 5-6 million pounds of sinkers out of stainless steel
    will be much worse than lead, because the manufacturing process is 
    much more extensive.
    
    Brian                                                   

I think I've seen ads for weighted lures and lure heads made from tin.

I've probably unwittingly contributed to those alarmists' statistics.
I've bought enough jig heads to last me the rest of my life. I've lost
one in the last three years; I probably have 100 jig heads; at this rate
I'm good for 300 years. 

But, I bought them all at once, which pumped up the "annual" statistic.
Statistics like this can be very misleading, while serving the purposes
of "Save The *" zealots.

Art

    Brian --
    
    Once again, I was just passing on new (for me) information gleaned from
    a knowledgable source. This same source did say several things about
    how surprised he was at the reception the proposed ban had gotten
    within the fishing-tackle industry. He said that more than a dozen --
    "How many is `more than a dozen'?" "Oh, I'm not sure. Fifteen or
    sixteen." -- manufacturers have approached the EPA asking for
    guidelines in what materials they could use for lures and sinkers and
    that all of these manufacturers were aggressively pursuing alternatives
    to lead, copper, brass, and zinc.
    
    Sorry about any apparent tension or intensity in my replies. I write
    them as a form of relaxation after chasing elusive answers down
    bureaucratic regulatory mazes.
    
    I'm fairly content at the moment. I found out that the developers who
    want to build townhouses on 4.5 acres of wetland overlooked the need
    for a permit from the USCG and another from the EPA. It's not exactly
    a pair of aces up my sleeve, but it is a spot of brightness is an
    otherwise overcast firmament.
    
    John H-C

    
    I'm sure the manf co.'s are looking for alternatives. That way they
    can charge us more money. Anyway whose giving up their gas engines?
    There are cheaper alternatives that have less of an impact on the
    environment. You could use electric motors or sails or paddle. So
    come on you could help keep thousands of gallons of fuel from polluting
    my..er..our waterways.
    
    Wb

    
    	...have any studies ever been done on the effect of sharks eating 
    scuba divers wearing leaded-weight belts?
    	
    8^)

    They never finish eating the diver. They regurgitate the neoprene, the
    rubber, and the lead.
    

    	I'm probably going to regret jumping into this fray, but I could
    have sworn that I read something about two years ago about this very
    problem. At the time, one of the solutions being kicked around was a
    fastener that you could fasten to your line in much the same manner
    that a lead sinker was fastened only instead of having lead on it a
    rock was glued to this fastener. That way if it fell off you lost a
    rock onto the bottom. No big deal right? Did anyone else hear of this?
    Of course the glue would be some formula that would be non-toxic.
    
    Barry

    	I hope it would be non-toxic or we'd have a bunch of loony loons
    swimming around saying "Wow! look at the colors!" And calling each
    other "Man" er, "bird" 8*)

    re: .175
    
    	Yeah, I saw an add for the same thing. Seemed expensive and would
    	be a pain to use (at least that was my impression.)
    
    			Robert.

    I haven't been able to get to the DES mailbox before the PO closed all
    week, so I haven't picked up the EDF petition yet.
    
    I will, however, enter the figures as soon as I manage to get to the PO
    before it closes.
    
    John H-C

The following text comprises arbitrarily selected excerpts from the 
EDF petition to the EPA. The petition was eight pages long, and I 
really don't have the time to re-key the whole thing. I do not know 
how or why, in the last twelve months, the petition for a warning 
label escalated to a wholesale ban on certain kinds of lead sinkers. 
All typos and misspellings are mine.

EDF letterhead
October 20, 1992
 
 
William K. Reilly
Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
 
 
"Dear Mr. Reilly:
 
"Pursuant to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)..., the 
Environmental Defense Fund, North American Loon Fund, Trumpeter Swan 
Society, and Federation of Fly Fishers hereby petition you to require 
that the sale of lead fishing sinkers be accompanied by an appropriate 
label or notice warning that such products are toxic to wildlife. As 
set out in detail below...." 
 
"I. Lead Fishing Sinkers Are a Significant Source of Mortality of 
Trumpeter Swans and Common Loons, and Therefore Pose an Unreasonable 
Risk to the Environment."
 
[Here I've left out a paragraph of legal verbiage reminding the EPA of 
its own findings and its legal obligations.]
 
"Although EPA specifically identified lead fishing sinkers as a source 
of [water fowl] poisoning, it has not to date taken any action under 
TSCA to control the use or disposal of this product. Such action is 
clearly warranted in light of the significant quantity of lead sinkers 
sold in the United States each year (at least 1.6 million pounds) and 
compelling evidence that both the Trumpeter Swan and Common Loon are 
dying from lead poisoning after ingesting lead sinkers. With respect 
to the former species, scientists with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service reported in 1989 that ingestion of lead fishing weights 
contributed to the loss of swans in the states of Idaho, Montana, and 
Wyoming. They found that 4 of 18 birds had been poisoned by ingesting 
lead sinkers. Because Trumpeter Swan's typical feeding method involves 
digging up large amounts of bottom sediments of lakes and streams, it 
is extremely vulnerable to lead poisoning from ingestion of fishing 
sinkers  lost or discarded within such sediments. Moreover, because 
the authors of the study observed severe pathological changes 
associated with particularly low lead levels, the concluded that the 
Trumpeter Swan appeared to be unusually sensitive to lead toxicosis.
 
"The first report of lead poisoning of Common Loons was published in 
1981, when researchers found that three Common Loons from New 
Hampshire, Maine, and Wisconsin had died from ingesting lead sinkers. 
More recently, in an investigation of the causes of mortality among 
Common Loons in New England, the Wildlife Clinic at tufts University 
School of Medicine reported that 52% (16/31) of the adult loons it 
examined had ingested lead sinkers and died from acute to subacute 
lead toxicosis. Because of the consistency of its results over the 
last three years, the Clinic concluded that these findings were 
representative of the Common Loon population as a whole. Moreover, it 
described its findings as "alarming" because if "lead toxicosis 
appears primarily to affect breeding adults, it could potentially 
produce marked effects on population stability, particularly in areas 
where loons may already be declining from other anthropogenic 
factors." 
 
"That conclusion is particularly troubling in light of reports at an 
August 1992 conference on threats to the Common Loon, which make it 
clear that adult birds in other regions of the country are dying after 
ingesting lead weights. Specifically, the National Wildlife Health 
Research Center reported that of the 222 loon carcasses it received 
from 18 states between 1975 through (sic) 1991, 14 or 6% had died of 
lead poisoning. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency indicated that 
17% (37/221) of the adult loons it collected for necropsy in Minnesota 
between 1984 and 1990 had died of lead poisoning. Although that study 
did not specifically identify the source of such poisoning, it 
suggested that it was ingestion of lead fishing sinkers. And, in 
Michigan, the post-mortem examination of dead loons undertaken by that 
state's Rose Lake Wildlife Research Center between 1988 and 1992 found 
that 40% (15/38) had died from lead intoxication, primarily due to 
ingestion of lead fishing weights.
 
"While the route of exposure through which Trumpeter Swans are exposed 
to lead fishing weights is evident, it remains unclear how Common 
Loons ingest lead sinkers. One study found that sinkers were 
associated with lost or discarded hooks and lines, and suggested that 
loons may take bait fish lost by fishermen along with attached 
fishing gear, including lead sinkers. Loons may also ingest sinkers 
when they take pebbles from bottom sediments to aid in digestion. 
Several analyses have found that poisoned birds had fishing sinkers in 
their gizzards. This phenomenon may be even more common in waters 
contaminated with mercury. Indeed, at least in Michigan, a significant 
correlation exists between lead and mercury concentrations in dead 
loons. That has led one scientist to suggest elevated mercury levels 
may have sublethal neurotoxic effects that alter normal loon behavior 
and predispose the birds to lethal lead intoxication. In any event, no 
matter what the precise route of exposure may be, there is no doubt 
that Common Loons, like Trumpeter Swans, are dying as a result of 
ingesting lead weights."
 
 
"II. The Administrator Should Require Packaging Containing Lead 
Fishing Sinkers to Include a Label Indicating that the Use of Such 
Products May Kill Waterfowl."
 
[The rest of the petition discusses the number of manufacturing 
alternatives, the manufacturing costs associated with switching to 
other types of sinkers, and a replay of how the ban on lead sinkers 
worked in England.]

The petition is meticulously referenced. Indeed, fully half of each of 
the eight pages contained footnotes with citations and explanatory 
text. The one footnote that deserves mention is the one next to 
"...(at least 1.6 million pounds [of lead fishing sinkers])...." The 
1.6 million pounds is the annual output of the Water Gremlin Company, 
the largest manufacturer of fishing sinkers in the United States. 
Given that there are other, smaller manufacturers of lead sinkers, it 
stands to reason that more than 1.6 million pounds of lead sinkers are 
produced each year.
 
The petition also included a list of 16 fishing tackle manufacturers 
that make and sell non-lead sinkers.
 
 
John H-C  



% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: by us1rmc.bb.dec.com; id AA20302; Thu, 28 Oct 93 09:22:30 -0400
% Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA17706; Thu, 28 Oct 93 06:23:18 -0700
% Received: by world.std.com (5.65c/Spike-2.0) id AA03069; Thu, 28 Oct 1993 09:22:00 -040
% Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1993 09:20:22 -0400 (EDT)
% From: John HC <[email protected]>
% Subject: 
% To: gemvax::johnhc
% Message-Id: <[email protected]>
% Mime-Version: 1.0
% Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

    	Not to be sarcastic but I can't help but wonder if someone might be
    confusing lead shot (duck load) with lead split-shot sinkers. It would
    come as little surprise to me to find they had ingested lead shot from
    hunting. That is the primary reason that this has been banned, fairly
    recently too.
    
    	Ray

    Well, all but one of the studies referenced specified lead sinkers. The
    other one (Minnesota, if memory serves) failed to mention the specific
    source of the lead.
    
    John H-C

    So how are we going to remove all the lead thats on the bottom of
    the lakes and ponds from the past 80 years? Is there a plan for that?
    I would think if the problem was so great this would have to be 
    addressed?

    The one question that I think is important has not been answered:

    What percentage of waterfowl die from lead poisoning that is attributed
    to lead sinkers? 

    Rich

    	I'd be really interested in what killed the -rest- of these birds.
    Too many studies and reports conveniently neglect to give all the
    facts.
    					B.C.

    
    Being both a shore and boat fisherman, I personally thing that
    the lead sinker is being used as a scapegoat.
    
    Sinkers are used to bring bait down.  Most fishermen (OOPS)
    fisherpersons, while casting from a boat to a shoreline where
    it's shallow, use the weight of the lure/worm. The weight goes
    on to bring the bait down to a depth of where, again IN MY 
    OPINION, birds legs don't reach.  Seems that the birds would
    have enough sense to after food with stones already in thier
    gizzards, not wait to see if they catch anything - then put
    thier teeth in to chew it!  :^)
    
    Now then, the person on shore, aside of dropping a sinker or
    two, is sending his bait OUT THERE ------> where it's deep.
    Where it's deep, it's usually kinda muddy. If the little sinker
    gets free, more'n likely it's covered when it hits bottom.
    And if the bottom is hard enough, the percentage of small stones
    to sinkers is astonomical!  What are the chances of a bird
    heading for that one sinker, even 20 in a 50 sq. ft. area?
    
    Sorry, but nothing is going to convince me otherwise. If lead is
    outlawed, only outlaws'll use lead.  :^))   I'll use whatever
    is on the mkt.  Maybe there's some politicians cousins brother-
    inlaw who's got a setup with a laser to form sinkers out of 
    marble and granite already..   :^))))
    
    Hope this made some of you smile.
    
    Fred

    Hi All,
    
    Having just returned from my annual late October trek to the 
    Hudson River, I thought I pass along an interesting observation.
    
    I attended a bass tournament, on the Hudson that launched out
    of Catskill New York.  The river at this point is huge, and 
    serves as an industrial shipping route for barges running from
    Albany/Troy to New York City and the ocean.
    
    Traditionally, the fishing this time of the year on the river is
    fantastic.  Out of the usual 60 or so boats that fish this tourn-
    ament, many teams end up with limits of bass.  This year, the
    tournament creels were significantly down from the last several.
    
    I spoke with a lot of the local folks that attended the tournament
    and most said that the fishing has declined significantly over the
    last couple of years.  The major patterns for this time of year
    were not producing as the had in prior years.  Most attributed 
    the decline to increased water clarity  and decreased weed growth
    in the major creeks that flow into the river throughout that stretch.
    
    The consensus seems to be that the Zebra Mussel population (as it
    typically does) has exploded and has been clearing the water of
    the microscopic organisms that usually thrived in the Hudson.
    This seems to have had a negative impact on the fishery, if not
    from a population standpoint, at least from a catchability standpoint.
    
    Now, many fisherman are not well versed in biological processes (nor
    am I) but this seems to represent anecdotal data indicating an 
    potential severe problem for that fishery.  While I was out there,
    several times while fishing rockpiles on the main river, when I got
    hung up on the rocks, and managed to free the hook, the hook would 
    come back with several small mussels impaled on the hooked.  At the
    time I was wondering if these were Zebra mussels, and apparently
    there were. 
    
    The first time I ever fished the Hudson, I was amazed at the quality
    of the fishery (despite the apparent lack of water quality).  The 
    fishery is diverse, and the fish that we have caught there are some
    of the strongest fish I ever haggled with.  The fish also appear to
    be very healthy, judging from the generally good apprearance and
    lack of sores etc.
    
    I just thought I'd pass this along, for what it's worth.
    
    Gus-man
    
    P.S.  We spent a *LOT* of time checking the boat/motor/trailer and
          livewells to insure that none of these mussels had become
          hitchhikers.
    

    re: .185
    
    I spent part of last weekend in the company of divers in Ottawa,
    Ontario. Everybody I talked to told me about the incredible numbers of
    zebra mussels in the St. Lawrence and about the damage they're doing.
    Most of them expressed surprise (almost shock, as a matter of fact)
    when I told them the ZMs had already reached the Hudson as well as the
    Mississippi.
    
    Those of you who like relatively healthy waters to fish in had best
    hope the power boating community gets its act together very soon. The
    power boaters brought you eurasian and variable milfoil, and now
    they're bringing you zebra mussels.
    
    The only thing that kills a body of water more effectively than zebra 
    mussels is chlorine.
    
    John H-C

    At the other nights State B.A.S.S. federation we were given a wrap up
    of the federation tournament on the Hudson. It was stated that the 
    quality of fishing had declined since the 86 tournament. In 86 the fish
    average weight was around 2 1/2 pounds this tournament yielded an
    average of a little less than 1 1/2 pounds. This decline in the
    quality of fish is something to be concerned with. The Zebra mussel
    not only causes damage to property but the quality of the food
    chain. 

John HC  Re 70.1860

>    Those of you who like relatively healthy waters to fish in had best
>    hope the power boating community gets its act together very soon. The
>    power boaters brought you eurasian and variable milfoil, and now
>    they're bringing you zebra mussels.


   I have always stayed out of these discussions but have responded to this
because of the above statement and the seriousness of the problem.  

I have read most (well, maybe some) of what John HC writes and my impression 
of him alternates between 

balanced, well informed, seeking to educate; 

biased, narrow minded and blindly self-rightousness;

or simply 'baiting' (hey, fishing notes...bait :>) ) readers with outrageous
statements and sitting back and observing the ensuing 'riot'.

I dont know what personality generated the above statement but there is some
fact in his overall comments.  Zebra Mussels are an organism that will change 
the nature of local waters once introduced.  Howeverm, powerboats are not the 
only means by which they spread.  

Thier larva are incredibly smalll and resilient and can attatch to virtually 
any small opening, edge or fold.  They can be transported by the sailboat and 
canoe crowd, rubber boats, a divers gear, fishing lures, etc.  (incidently, 
milfoil transports on some of the same vehicles also).  This is what all of us 
who use the waters must pay attention to to avoid spreading the little beasts.  
It's not just your boat. 

The key to not spreading them is a through cleaning or long-term drying 
of ALL GEAR used in infested or suspected waters prior to using that gear in
another place. There have been lots of articles written describing the 
preventative steps that should be taken to do this. 

John, if you really care that much and are truly as well informed as you
position yourself to be,  impart that commitment and knowledge fully instead
of making a sweeping generality that contains just a small piece of the 
'problem'.  

Save statements like the above for the boats notes so us environmentally
incorrect, public resource trashing, polluting, milfoil spreading and now,
solely responsible for the zebra mussel problem ,louts can react with our
typical boorish tirades against your 'honest, well intentioned' attempt to
be helpful.  (Example to follow:)

Example:
--------
I'm sure you and all your buddies are relgious about cleaning all your dive 
gear, watercraft, carry-bags etc to aviod transfering bacteria, plankton, 
larve and plant life as you move from water to water so you wont be 
responsible for ever introducing non-native elemets inot the envionment, eh?

Somehow I know you'll answer "yes, everything, always!".

Tom Urban

    Well, concerning the penultimate paragraph:
    
    Yes, DES divers *do* take the necessary precautions to prevent the
    spread of the bad stuff. That's one reason why I own two wetsuits, one
    drysuit, and duplicates of every other piece of dive gear (not to
    mention three different low-end outboards and three different boats to
    use them on).
              
    
    I now retire to observe the ensuing riot.
    <g>  

    On a more serious note regarding zebra mussels:
    
    As I was filing away a bunch of papers last night, I came across a
    flyer about zebra mussels that I hadn't looked over before. It was from
    the NH Dept. of Env. Services. It said that, if you find zebra mussels
    of their larvae on your boat or trailer or anywhere else, scrape them
    off and bury them.
    
    Don't simply dump them on the ground. (Rain can wash them away and into
    your local waters. We're talking about the larvae here.)
    
    Don't flush them down the toilet. (They'll flourish in your septic
    system as well as in your town's sewer system, ending up costing you
    lots of money either way.)
    
    John H-C
    
    

    
    
    
     John,
    
       As I have read through the previous notes I am again reading notes
    from someone that seems to feel that they are a never done wrong know
    it all attitude person, this is not a slam against you but if you
    reread your notes it should be obvious.
    
       in your notes you keep slamming the power boaters for bringing the 
    z.m.,  Well they may be helping to spread them but they surely did not 
    BRING THEM, they arrived by a foreign tankers ballast water,(this is a 
    semi official report)! so POWER boats didnt bring them!
    
      Its great that you own 3 boats and 3 motors and all that dive gear,
    but I would be willing to bet there would be alot of single guys in
    the world if we all told our wife's that we need 3 different fishing 
    boats, and 3 sets of fishing gear, and 3 sets of tackle box's!!! 
    
      Now they have done extensive research on the ZM and what they will 
    need to do is come up with some type of a killing agent that only
    attacks the ZM, and even then there will be animal activist's lined up
    to try and stop it just like they have in the past with other attempts 
    to control problem species.
    
      We arent talking about an aquatic creature that dies within hours of 
    being removed from water, they can live a long time out of water, and I 
    can honestly say that no mater how well you clean your boat,motor,gear,
    trailer, vehicle, how can anyone say they are 100% sure they are all
    dead or gone?? 
    
       And for those that think I am not aware of what the ZM'S can do I 
    live about 60 feet from lake ontario, and I can see an huge change in
    the lake from the way it was about 6-7 years ago, and the biggest
    single contributer is the ZM!!!
    
      I think as a boating, fishing, sportsman group the finger pointing 
    needs to stop! and everyone needs to work together as a GROUP! if you
    have information fine share it but in doing so dont bash specific
    groups of people!! for one thing it only piss's people off and when you
    need group help that is the last thing you want to do! a group can do
    far more than a couple people.
    
      If you are makeing a concious effort to help control the ZM spread
    thats fine, and try to share some of your knowledge to the less
    informed people of the outdoor world, but go about it in a diplomatic 
    manor, be informative not arrogant towards them and believe me you will
    get alot farther that way.
    
                                                                 Lee
    

    Just thought I would drop this tidbit in here.  The animal lovers lost
    their injunction to prevent deer hunting on the Quabbin.  The argument
    they tried to use was the deer hunting would endanger the bald eagles
    because they might eat deer meat that has lead shot in it.  I listened
    to that argument and thought gee doesn't this sound familiar.

    Since when do deer hunters use birdshot?
    
    NB: A person raising an elsewhere valid point in a silly
    argument does not invalidate that point in a valid argument.
       
    
    John H-C

    
    > Since when do deer hunters use birdshot?
    
    Actually (in Mass.) they use slugs or buck shot. I belive the argument
    was that a shot deer, that was not recovered by the hunter, could
    become eagle food, and the lead slug and/or shot could be also be ingested 
    by the eagle. The group hoping to stop the hunt knew that this was a
    one in a million chance (they openly admit it as part of their
    argument) but argue that as long as there is that one chance, the
    deer hunt should not be allowed on the grounds that there is indeed
    that very slim chance of harming an offically endangered species.
    
     I think the point some are making is what are the odds of waterfowl dying
    due to ingesting a lost lead sinker ? Are we in the 1 in a million
    scenario like the deerslug and eagle ? Is it reasonable to impose laws,
    ban equipment, etc for the 1/1,000,000 situations ? apparently a judge
    has ruled (in the situation with the eagles and deer hunting) that it
    is not.
    
     Bob
                                

    Well, you can read the actual statistics on lead poisoning due to
    sinker ingestion in a reply keyed in by me a few back. The numbers are
    considerably more than one in a million. They're more like 1 in 20. I'm
    keying this in without looking at that reply, which I will in a second.
    
    
    

    Those of you that subscribe to Outdoor Life and live in MA should read
    an article on page 12 of the most recent edition.  Evidently three
    environmental groups will be petioning for a referendum on the Nov
    election ballot that will essentially ban hunting, fishing and trapping
    in the state.  There is a national group out of Ohio that plans on
    countering this drive.  Looks like next years election may have more
    than candidates to vote for.
    
    JPL
    
    

    Would you mind keying in the article?
    
    Something makes me suspect this isn't an "environmental group" many, if
    any, of us have heard of.
    
    I think most environmentalists agree with my perspective on fishing,
    which basically is that although there is a small percentage of anglers
    who do a lot of damage, the majority of anglers are people who
    appreciate water and what lives in it and would like to see it clean
    and healthy. These are not people environmentalists want to keep away
    from the water. 
    
    
    Usual caveats apply.
    
    John H-C

    
    
     One of the "Marts" (either "K" or "WAL"), can't remember which, has 
    brass bullet sinkers. Price didn't seem too bad from what I remember.
    
     Bob

    Bob, They "EDF" wants to ban brass too.

    Uh, wrong!
    
    The EDF and its allies asked for warning labels on fishing sinkers
    within a range of dimensions. How that got elevated to a proposed EPA
    ban is unknown.
    
    The text of the petition to the EPA, or at least the most significant
    parts of the text, is in a previous reply to this topic.
    
    .200 is a good example of how environmental groups acquire "extremists"
    labels; they're pasted on by the ill informed.
    
    John H-C

    Uh wrong!

    The initial petition was as you state, for warning labels. That's the
    past. 

    Now they are suing the EPA for the failure to act on that petition.
    There suit is calling for an all out ban!

    Its replies like .201 that misinform the public about what they are
    really after!

    Hardly. It was the threat of a suit, not a suit. The suit was over the
    EPA's negligence in fulfilling its mandate.

    	They did file suit, a out off court settlement was reached.
    	Of course if the EPA did act as they should have, there would
    	only be a little sticker with a warning on the lead sinker
   	packages. Now we are facing an all out ban. 


>	E.P.A. granted the petition in January, but then failed to promptly 
>	publish a proposed rule on the matter., which it is required to do
>	under the Toxic Substance Control Act. In response to the E.P.A. 's
>	delay, E.D.F. filed suit last March.

>	An out of court agreement was reached, however, in which E.P.A. 
>	committed itself to proposing a lead sinker ban and investigating
>	the potential toxicity of alternatives.

    I thought this new mailing list might interest a bunch of you. To sign
    up for it, send the following message:
    
    SUBSCRIBE FISH-ECOLOGY <your internet e-mail address>
    
    to 
    
    GATEWAYNODE::"[email protected]"
    
    
    Note that this is slightly different from most mailing lists in that
    you send them your e-mail address rather than your name. The server,
    BTW, has been having some problems in the last week, so if you don't
    get a positive response like the one below the first time, try again.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 1994 00:15:36 +0000 (GMT)
From:[email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Welcome to fish-ecology

--

Welcome to the fish-ecology mailing list!

If you ever want to remove yourself from this mailing list, send the
following command in email to "[email protected]":

    unsubscribe fish-ecology [email protected]

Here's the general information for the list you've subscribed to, in
case you don't already have it:

< Fish and Fisheries Ecology Mailing LIst >

FISH-ECOLOGY is an international computer conference for academic
personnel & students involved in empirical and theoretical issues
related to fish- and fisheries ecology: Evolutionary aspects,
population dynamics, modelling, management, conservation, bioeconomics,
related software & hardware, reviews, symposium announcements, etc.
Membership is open to all interested parties. Commercial announcements
are, however, not desired.

The list aims to connect senior and junior researchers and students on
an international and multidisciplinary basis, to exchange views, data
and  put forward new ideas to approach fisheries ecological issues.


John H-C

    An addendum to the last message for those  who don't communicate with
    internet folks via one of the Easynet gateways:
    
    When you enter the message
    
    SUBSCRIBE FISH-ECOLOGY <your internet e-mail address>
    
    <your internet e-mail address> looks like this:
    
    [email protected]
    
    In my case, my internet e-mail address is
    
    [email protected]
    
    FWIW
    
    John H-C

    	With the previous storm that caused the wide spread power outages,
    I wound up having broken pipes. Since I couldn't get a plumber there
    due to the demand, I fixed the problem myself. In the process I wound
    up having to get more solder.

    	The solder I got is supposed to be lead-free and designed for use
    with domestic hot/cold water pipes. I don't remember what I used to pay
    for the tin/lead solder, but this stuff was about $8.50 for a 1lb.
    roll.

    	The point in all this is I wonder if this is what we'll start
    seeing new sinkers made out of. I don't know what the alloy was other
    than the fact that it didn't have lead.

    	RAYJ

    BTW - This stuff was actually easier to work with. It seemed to have a
    slightly lower melting point, flowed real nice, and had good adhesion.

    re: .207
    
    It's probably tin/antimony. It actually has a somewhat higher melting 
    point than tin/lead, but with a decent torch it works just as easily.
    It is much more expensive, however.

    With commercial fishing of groundfish halted in Atlantic maritime
    Canada and the pending closure of Stellwagen Bank and parts of Jeffries
    and Georges, I'm surprised not to see more discussion in here about the
    devastation of fish populations in this file.
    
    Are any of you anglers following the progressively escalating resource
    management techniques -- what environmentalists tend to think of as
    "too little too late management practices" --
    proposed/repealed/reproposed by the National Marine Fisheries Service?
    
    John H-C

I to think it's too little too late.  They should have closed sections of the
ocean years ago.  Maybe kept them closed for a few years then opened them and
closed another section.

The striped bass is a perfect example of what conservation and elimination of
commercial pressure can do.  The striper has rebounded back to better than
before there was a problem.

I know a commercial fisherman out of Seabrook that went out for two days
in January and made only $180 after expenses.  He says there are no fish
left out there.

I believe that given a chance the fish stocks will rebound, but they have to
be given the chance.  I too the striper 8-10 years to rebound.

Gordon

    I think it's probably reached the point where shortly the problem 
    would resolve itself anyways. With the lack of fish wouldn't most
    commercial fisherman go out of business soon? In 10 or 20 years the
    population would rebound, then people would start realizing they could
    make alot of money fishing again. The number of commercial boats would
    once again increase until the fishery was all but destroyed...seems
    like a 20-30 year cycle would sort of be set up by default. The other
    option is to regulate heavily and consistently....

I'll explain:

I like to fish for summer flounder, commonly known as fluke,

last season wasn't bad, but in the several years past it was not

that good.  I compared notes with several other flukers, only to 

find out that the commercial boats chase them to the  breeding grounds,

hence the decline in population. Whether or not this is true, i don't know

but it makes some sense. The same thing happened to Haddock, somewhere

in the 70's until they put restrictions on them.

I disagree that it would have happened, and eventually the commercial

boat would go out of business, they would but not until the species

was extinct.  My family likes fluke, but the family rules are

TAKE WHAT YOU CAN EAT IN ONE MEAL, no more.


Something has to be done, or else there won't be anything left to

survive.

Off the soapbox,

JIm

	It's about time something is being done.  I like to eat
	haddock and cod, and they wouldn't be around if nothing 
	was done to ease the pressure. I also like to fish for 'em 
	off charter boats.  

	Anyone else think that party boat fishing will be better this year ?
	It's gotta be better when you get to a spot which hasn't been dragged 
	and scooped clean with a 3 mile net!

	/Ke

>    With commercial fishing of groundfish halted in Atlantic maritime
>    Canada and the pending closure of Stellwagen Bank and parts of Jeffries
>    and Georges, I'm surprised not to see more discussion in here about the
>    devastation of fish populations in this file.

Thank goodness the devestation is limited only to fish populations in this file.
We'd be in really big trouble if other populations were devestated.  Why don't
we just start a new file, pre-filled with unlimited fish?


That'd ought to teach you about misplacing you modifier ;-)


In all seriousness, I'll probably start releasing codfish this year, rather than
bringing them in to work to share with my co-workers.  What I don't understand is
why the commercial guys are all upset.  They'll be out of business a year or two
sooner, that's all.  They've all seen the writing on the wall.  Not that I don't
feel for them, because I do.  Uncle Sam's got to help them out some.  Buy out their
boats & nets.  Sink the boats for the artificial reef program.  Provided training,
etc.  The population might recover under a rod-and-reel only fishery.  Habitat
distruction certainly plays a major part.

Tim

    	In the past, if one were to have an exceptional day with the rod
    and reel, they may have caught enough to warrant the sale of some of
    the catch. This assumes that they have a commercial license to be able
    to sell the fish.
    
    	Does this now mean that you can fish for them with rod and reel but
    you can no longer (legally) sell any of the catch ? If yes, does this
    mean that you can sell the fish if you weren't fishing any of the
    restricted areas ? 
    
    	I've heard of people that fish the party boats and sell their
    catches to restaurants/markets. Will these people be affected ?
    
    	RAYJ

    	The way I understand it the party boats and recreational fishermen
    are not effected by the rulings.  I -hope- that the spawning ground
    closures -do- effect everyone!
    	I don't know very much about commercial licenses, except there may
    be other requirements for special safety equipment on your boat which
    could cost big bucks to outfit.  I would assume that there are different
    classes of commercial licenses with different rules.  Perhaps someone
    with the facts on this could give us some info.
    	Capt. Barry Gibson has been in charge of the Groundfish Commission
    for a few years.  I'm sure he'd have the info.
    							B.C.

I don't have time to type a big reply. I just received a copy of fax from
Robert Higgins, Coast Guard Boston to John Kelly NMFS on the subject of
selling fish. The CG says, if you sell a fish you are considered commercial.
The boat will need to meet all safety reg.

This is a loophole in the law having to do with 6-pack boats. They don't need to
meet the safety reg. WHEN they are carrying passengers for hire. They do need to
meet the regs. at times when they are not carrying passengers and are commercial
fishing, ie. selling the catch.

Add to this mess, the boat must have a permit from the feds, NMFS and the state,
NH, Mass to sell fish.

The selling of fish caught on a party boat hasn't come up yet. I would think that
most fish go into back door, (cash) of local restaurants. The feds will catch up
with this when the start enforcing the new seafood inspection regs.

Times up....


Steve

    	I don't have the 1994 Salt Water fishing guide, but the '93 guide has 
    the following licenses -
    
    	Commercial Saltwater:		Required to take, land transport or 
    					possess marine species with intent to
    					sell. Includes operator and 3 helpers.
    					License is not issued to a vessel.
    
    		Resident		 $26
    		Resident Helper		 $11
    		Nonresident		$201
    		Nonresident Helper	 $11
    
    	Wholesale Marine Species:	Required to buy, sell, process and
    					transport all marine species (except
    					lobster and crab - different licence)
    
    		Resident		 $26
    		Nonresident		$151
    
    	The book doesn't list any type of large vs. small commercial
    license. The definition in the guide for commercial fisherman is -
    
    	Any person who takes, possesses, lands, or transports, on the
    waters of this state, any marine species by any method for the purposes
    of sale.
    
    	This means that if the party boat is still allowed to fish the
    restricted areas, that either or both the semi-professional fisherman
    and the boat owner/operator would be breaking the law. 
    
    	The party boat owner does not have to get a commercial license unless 
    they intend to catch and *sell* fish. This would, by definition, keep them 
    from being able to fish the areas shutdown to commercial fishing if they
    catch fish to sell.
    
    BTW - Here's a little gotcha I never realized. It's the last sentance
    under the rules for groundfish, which is specifically listed as cod,
    haddock, yellowtail/summer/winter flounder, American plaice, pollock, 
    or redfish -
    
    All fillets must have skin intact while on or leaving state waters for
    positive identification.
    
    Here's another one. Cod and Haddock must have the head and tails intact
    or the fillet must be at least 12" with the skin intact.
    
    	RAYJ

	Just imagine cruising up the Lowell/Chelmsford section
of the Merrimack river without looking at all the junk currently
on the river's shores. Wouldn't it be nice to *JUST* see natural
vegetation? You bet it would! Or maybe, you don't actually boat
on this section of river, but are just interested in helping out
for a worthy cause. Here's your chance to contribute to that goal!

Come to the:

	Merrimack River Cleanup

	Lowell/Chelmsford section

	Saturday July 16, 1994

	What do we need from each of you for this cleanup? Mostly
just your able body. We could also put aluminum rowboats, powerboats
to tow them and maybe a ratty pickup truck or two to good use.

	Mark you calendars, so you don't forget!

Thanks,

Rick

ps. Please reply by mail if you plan to attend so I can send out a
reminder as July 16th approaches.

    I have noticed that many of the ponds I like fishing seem to becoming
    overun with pickeral.  I noticed Whitehall, knopps, and many others
    seem to have a ratio of 8 out of 10 fish caught is pickeral.  Are these
    fish overunning our local bass ponds.  I also want to know if its a
    good idea to kill these pain in the butt fish instead of releasing them
    alive?
    
    Brian

    The pickerel belong there, Brian. The bass do not. The only folks they
    inconvenience are fishermen looking for other species. The pickerel are
    probably thriving on sunfish stunted from excessive reproduction.
    Nature will take its course when the pickerel run out of food supply.
    
    If you decide to kill the pickerel you catch, please don't dump their
    bodies back in the water. Toss them on the land for the crows and the
    coons. Dropping the dead fish back in the water just fertilizes the
    pond.
    
    In the case of Knopps Pond, FWIW, you have a situation where
    powerboaters have created pickerel habitat by bringing in exotic
    vegetation (eurasian water milfoil, specifically) and spreading it
    around the pond. This particular plant creates pickerel heaven.
    
    Killing a fish because it annoys you when *you're* the visitor to *its*
    habitat raises some points that might be worth discussing....
    
    John H-C

    
     Oat when I catch a pickerel on to the shore it gos!! You would be
     surprised how fast it disappears. I do hate it when its a weak toss
     and it flips its way back in. I know H-C your not proud of me at
     this moment. 
    
                                              Kiv

    re: 222
    
    	Why do you do that? I'm surprised its legal.
    
    			Robert.

     
     The ONLY thing that protects a pickerel is its length. Personally I'd
     like to see the legal length at 10 inches !
    
                                             Kiv

	The Merrimack River cleanup is this Saturday and
we need your help!

	We've enlisted lots of equipment and *really* need
a solid group of volunteers to make full use of it. The City of
Lowell and BFI are supplying dump trucks and dumpsters. 
Consolidated Hydro, Inc is supplying an outboard-powered
barge. All we need now is plenty of volunteers!

	Please plan to attend this Saturday in Lowell.

		Merrimack River Cleanup
		Bellegarde Boathouse (where the sailing
				program is)
		Pawtucket Blvd.
		Lowell, Ma

		Saturday, July 16, 1994 9:00 am - 1:00 pm

Thank you,

Rick

From John H-C:

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Copied from page 80 of the July 1994 issue of _The Atlantic Monthly_.
 
I made the phone call. I hope you will, too. Please forward
this message to anybody you think might be interested.

Please accept my apologies if you already received this from another source. 

Thanks.
 
John H-C
 
==============================================================
 
Factory Trawlers Waste Up TO HALF Their Catch
   And Ruin North Pacific Fishing Grounds
 
	THEY MIGHT AS WELL USE DYNAMITE
 
 
		The End of Fishing
		   In America?
 
New England is fished out. The Gulf Coast is dying. That leaves 
Alaska, one of the last great fishing grounds in the world. Are we 
conserving it? Or killing it? The evidence is in. Waste is rampant. 
Time is running out.
 
 
		Factory Trawlers:
		Lotting the Sea
 
Fishing has become just another shortsighted, ruthless corporate game. 
Forty-eight factory trawlers now "vacuum" the North Pacific seas, 
trapping fish indiscriminately.
 
The entire ecosystem suffers. Seabirds, sea lions and other animals 
that live on fish have been devastated by fish shortages.
 
Marine biologists are certain that commercial fish stocks are 
themselves in peril. Who's responsible for this wanton waste? Factory 
trawlers that wreak havoc on the last great America fishing ground.
 
These bulldozers of the sea drag their heavy nets over the sea floor. 
They destroy marine habitat and kill everything in their path. 
Keeping only high-profit species, factory trawlers dump HUNDREDS OF 
MILLIONS of pounds of dead or dying fish overboard each year.
 
And it's all legal!
 
The Magnuson Act orders the Secretary of Commerce to balance short-
term profit with long-term conservation.
 
But Commerce and its National Marine Fisheries Service have 
continually "managed" individual fish stocks to increase industry 
profits while ignoring the destruction of fisheries and the ecosystem 
as a whole.
 
 
		Rewarding Those
		Who Waste Most
 
Factory trawlers leave less and less behind for local communities. 
They're destroying what belongs to all of us. Yet the Commerce 
Department's National Marine Fisheries Service is pushing the North 
Pacific Fishery Management Council to give even the worst abusers 
their own private quotas (called individual transferable quotas or 
ITQs) -- a license for corporate trawlers to wipe out the last 
responsible, local fishers.
 
Factory trawlers don't harvest. They slaughter. Their threat to the 
marine environment and to our coastal way of life must end.
 
To save America's last great fishery, we must:
	1) stop factory trawlers from being rewarded for waste with 
		ITQs, and
	2) keep profiteers from destroying the oceans.
 
Please call (800) 282-3444 to send urgent Western Union messages 
($8.75 will be charged to your phone) to Congressman Gerry Studds, 
Chairman of the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, Senator 
Ernest Hollings, Chairman of the Commerce, Science, Transportation 
Committee, and to Commerce Secretary Ron Brown urging them to stop the 
waste and mismanagement destroying our fisheries.  
 
 
			[Fish Forever Logo]
 
		Fish Forever is a new nonprofit 
		organization uniting commercial 
		fishers, conservationists and others 
		concerned about the mismanagement 
		of America's fragile marine 
		environments and fisheries, and the 
		communities that depend on them.
 
			CALL 800-282-3444




% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com by us1rmc.bb.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA12725; Mon, 18 Jul 94 14:36:13 -040
% Received: from ftp.std.com by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com (5.65/27May94) id AA20014; Mon, 18 Jul 94 11:28:29 -070
% Received: from world.std.com by ftp.std.com (8.6.8.1/Spike-8-1.0) id OAA28191; Mon, 18 Jul 1994 14:27:07 -040
% Received: by world.std.com (5.65c/Spike-2.0) id AA18086; Mon, 18 Jul 1994 14:27:05 -040
% Date: Mon, 18 Jul 1994 14:27:04 -0400 (EDT)
% From: John HC <[email protected]>
% Subject: Fish Forever? [y/n] (fwd)
% To: Martha Hicks-Courant <delni::hickscourant>
% Message-Id: <[email protected]>
% Mime-Version: 1.0
% Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

    I just read an article today in the globe about Canada's and many
    nations of the northwest atlantic fishing organization are enraged that
    Mass fishermen continue to fish the Georges Banks in international
    waters.  These countries have agreed to voluntary mortitorium on the
    critically overfished populations of fishes.  It stated that the Mass
    fishermen are there because we have overfished and depleted our own
    fishing grounds.  I am not writing this to debate the actions of the
    Mass fishermen or the legality of the Candaians and NAFO moritorium.  I
    have a more simple question.  
    
    If we are overfishing our cod, flounder etc populations out of
    existence, why can't we grow them in artificial environments.  Seal off
    some bay, protect the species from predators and breed them, grow them
    and then harvest them like they do Trout or Catfish.  I don't know if
    this is possible or what the magitude of this work is, but, with our
    modern technology and science can't this be done?
    
    brian

The best efforts to farm cod, flounder and haddock have failed.  They need too
much space and it is too difficult to fence off adequate surroundings.  A bay
is not cold or deep enough to support populations.  They also taste like sh*t,
as do all farm-raised fish, so there isn't much market.  There may soon be,
however.

I met a guy on the beach last night who used to work for a dragger (6 years ago).
He'd go for a month and drag the grand banks and was earning (now remember, he
was just the crew) $7,000 per trip.  He clearly stated that was not a possibility
any more.


Tim

Eliminate the nets and make all fishing rod & reel and all fish stocks will
rebound in a few years.

You can target species and release the undersized fish ALIVE not crushed in the
back of the net.

Gordon

    Interesting idea, but 
    
    a) how do you get other countries to do that
    b) you won't be able to catch enough to satisfy world demand.
    
    joe

but then the fish you DO catch will be worth lots more.  People will have to find
another source of protein.  The earth is getting pretty damned full.  Something
needs to be done.

    what about all the 3rd world countries that depend on fish for food? 
    will fish become something only the wealthy can enjoy?

that's exactly my point.

While I understand and empathize with the plight of commercial fisherman, there
appears, from my point of view, two possibilities:

1.  Serious restrictions in order to rebuild the stocks.  Some/all go out of
business

2.  No fish left in the oceans.  All go out of business.

Since at the current rate, #2 is inevitable, what other alternative is there but
#1?

I'll pay a tax on the fish I buy to help pay for retraining of displaced
fishermen.

Tim

    > I'll pay a tax on the fish I buy to help pay for retraining of
    > displaced fishermen.
    
    that's my point.  we can afford to pay the tax, but there's lots of
    people that can't.  however, like you say, if something isn't done it
    may become a moot point.
    

Right now I don't care about feeding the rest of the world our last fish.  What
we should be doing is trying to rebuild our stocks.  Then after the stock are
back manage them properly and we'll never run out.  The striper is a perfect
example.

If the rest of the world still wants to net all the fish in their section of
the ocean let them.  In the future, our fish will be worth even more $$$.

Gordon

Except that "our" fish have no concept of boundaries.  Many of them (not so much
true for groundfish) move wherever they please.

.RM70/Extracted from the May 1994 issue of _Sea Technology_ and reproduced 
without permission.
 
Fishing Moratorium: A Success Story
 
Chesapeake Biological Laboratory Scientists Confirm Striped Bass 
Moratorium was `Appropriate Management Action'
 
Striped bass "earbones" tell the story of an ecological near-disaster 
and a successful recovery.  Dr. David Secor, a researcher at the 
Center for Environmental & Estuarine Studies' (CEEES) Chesapeake  
Biological Laboratory (Cambridge, Maryland), has confirmed several 
missing generations of striped bass in the Chesapeake Bay. A sample of 
the fish taken during the 1992 trophy season failed to turn up a 
single specimen spawned during the years 1972 to 1981 --- a sign of 
heavy striped bass fishing in the early 1970s and further proof that 
the later moratorium (1984 - 90) was an appropriate management action.
 
Secor analyzed otoliths ("earbones") taken from the heads of large 
striped bass (more than 36 inches) donated by Chesapeake Bay fishermen 
during the spring 1992 trophy season.  Otolith material is deposited 
in annual rings that can be counted like tree rings, providing a very 
accurate estimate of the age of a fish.
 
"I was surprised by the persistence in my research of this 10-year 
generation gap," stated Secor. "The Maryland Department of Natural 
Resources had made similar conclusions in the early 1980s," he 
continued, "but the accuracy of the otolith age estimates (as opposed 
to the standard methods of readings taken from fish scales) left no 
room to doubt that the striped bass population was in serious trouble 
when the moratorium was put in place."
 
Overfishing or poor habitat?
 
The decline of the striped bass population in the 1970s was believed 
to be the result of either overfishing or poor habitat conditions. 
During this time the minimum size limit for striped bass caught in 
Chesapeake Bay was 12 inches. But female striped bass of this size are 
immature (ages two, three, and four) and not yet old enough to 
reproduce. Researchers believed that large catches of these immature 
female fish reduced the population's ability to replenish itself.
 
The missing generations of striped bass that were spawned during the 
1970s and subjected to this fishery support the overfishing scenario.  
The moratorium allowed the striped bass population to stabilize and 
recover by protecting females long enough for several year-classes to 
reproduce.  Legal size is now 18 inches and catch quotas have been 
adopted to better manage and preserve this important fishery.
 
Secor's research, funded by the Interior Department's U.S. Fisheries & 
Wildlife Service, also revealed that the striped bass can live more 
than 30 years --- about 10 years longer than had previously been 
believed.
 
Secor is convinced that this longevity contributed to the recovery of 
striped bass.  "Older fish that were spawned during the period 1961 to 
1971 and that avoided getting caught continued to be major 
contributors to reproduction of the bass population into the mid-
1980s," he said.
 
As for future predictions, Secor is optimistic.  "Research and 
management are working very closely to make the best decisions," he 
said.  "The combined efforts bode well for a healthy and vigorous 
resource in the years ahead."
 
CEEES is the lead institution within the University of Maryland system 
for environmental studies. Its three laboratories --- Appalachian 
Environmental Laboratory in Western Maryland, Chesapeake Biological 
Laboratory in Southern Maryland, and Horn Point Environmental 
Laboratory on Maryland's Eastern Shore --- are strategically located 
to provide access to Maryland's principal environments and their 
natural resources.

Article: 14569
From: [email protected] (John H. Kim)
Newsgroups: rec.outdoors.fishing.saltwater,rec.outdoors.fishing,alt.fishing
Subject: Poacher nailed
Date: 28 Nov 1994 22:37:36 GMT
Organization: Massachvsetts Institvte of Technology
 
Once again, this is off the NMFS web site.  I'm just posting it here.
Direct comments either to the fishing newsgroups, or to the NMFS.
 
                                 NOAA 94-59<
 
 
Contact:  Scott Smullen          FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
          (301) 713-2370           10/7/94
 
FOREIGN FISH POACHERS AGREE TO FIVE YEARS OF BEING
TRACKED BY SATELLITE AND $1 MILLION FINE IN U.S. COURT SETTLEMENT
 
     A South Korean fishing company recently caught poaching fish
from U.S. waters in the Western Pacific has settled in U.S. court
for a $1 million fine, and has agreed to have its 17-fishing-
vessel fleet tracked by satellite for five years -- the first
such condition required in a settlement on illegal fishing, the
Commerce Department's National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration announced today.
 
     According to law enforcement officials with NOAA's National
Marine Fisheries Service, while the $1 million fine is typical in
such illegal fishing cases involving foreign boats, the provision
allowing satellite tracking by U.S. authorities is
unprecedented.
 
     "We've never before had the ability to track the movement of
known poachers in foreign fleets so easily, and this satellite
tracking may act as a deterrent for other foreign fishing vessels
contemplating pillaging U.S. waters," said Rollie Schmitten,
assistant administrator for the fisheries service.  "This may
become a model for future cases concerning illegal foreign
fishing."       
 
     Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Territory of Guam,
the settlement involves the fishing vessel Haeng Bok 309 of
Seoul, South Korea's Dougah Flower Mills Co., Ltd.  The boat is
accused of entering U.S. waters to poach fish on 22 separate
occasions during the past year. 
 
     The settlement directs the company to install satellite
transponders on its 17 fishing vessels in stages, to be completed
by the fall of 1995.  A transponder, which both sends and
receives an electric signal, has now been installed on the Haeng
Bok 309.
 
     Law enforcement officers from the National Marine Fisheries
Service and the U.S. Coast Guard intercepted the Haeng Bok 309 on
Aug. 28 as it steamed with full fish holds to markets in Japan. 
The high-seas interception, using Coast Guard aircraft and ship,
took place about 1900 miles southwest of the Hawaiian Islands. 
The vessel was seized with $3.5 million worth of fish on board
and taken to the U.S. port of Apra Harbor, Guam.
 
     Enforcement agents suspected the vessel of fish poaching
earlier in August, after collecting information from dockside
boarding investigations of other foreign-flagged vessels making
port calls in the U.S. Northern Marianas Islands to change crews. 
 

	Sounds like one more big corporation getting away with something...

	Let's see...  $1M fine and 5 years of being tracked balanced against
their possible income for the year.

	The boat was caught with $3.5M worth of fish.  If we call that an
average day and multiply by the 22 days of poaching we get $77M for the one
boat.  If the company's boats are all doing the same thing then we have to
multiply the $77M by the number of boats, 17, and we get $1.309 BILLION!!!

	A $1M fine for this company is a joke!  It's more like paying a fee!

					B.C. 

    I find the hypocrosy of tracking poachers when the US complains loudly
    over the impounding of the two US boats poaching off canadian waters
    very interesting.
    
    Why is it ok for us to track and fine poachers but to call foul when
    Canda does it to us?
    
    Kindof interesting how wonderful it is for us to punish foreign
    poachers but ok for US citezens to poach somewhere else.
    
    Brian
    

    Gee, too bad you weren't around our kitchen when the report on the
    arrest of the Bedford fishing boats was reported by NPR, Brian. Even my
    kids agreed with me when I said, "Why didn't they just sink the boat and
    save everybody some money? Not to mention a few thousand fish...."
    
    John H-C

    >Why is it ok for us to track and fine poachers but to call foul when
    >Canda does it to us?
    
     There is a dispute that they actually were poaching, Brian. There was
    no such dispute with the Koreans.

    Mark I don't think there was much of a dispute.  Canada as well as
    several other major fishing countries agreed to stay off the Goerges
    banks to allow the fishery to rebuild.  I beleive even Japan agreed to
    join the North Atlantic Fishing Organizations moritorioum.
      
    However, US consistently refuses to acknowledge that moritrorium or 
    to acknowledge the NAFO.  Lets face it, we want our cake and to eat it
    too.  We want to penalize countries for fishing our shores, but when
    our own fishermen destroy US fisheries then try to poach canada we cry
    foul, we claim they don't have rights to impose offshore moritoriums.
    Sounds pretty hypocritcal to me.  I remember watching a heros welcome
    for those two fishing boat crews when they returned and I believe they
    also got their boats back. Yeah we can enforce laws conveinent for us
    and claim other laws are not legal.
    
    Brian 

RE: .243

Brian,
	I'm not going to disagree without facts.  However, it does seem to me
that you're putting all of the blame for the condition of the fisheries on
the US.  EVERYBODY has their hands in it, some more than others.  Let's try
to remember that all of these foriegn vessels are in our waters because they've
already ruined their own.
	How many of you realize that to get into Canadian waters all you have
to do is go EAST?  That's right folks, you don't even have to go off the coast
of Canada cause their water is all the way down here!
	I'd appreciate it if someone could post either an article about this
incident or at least a reference to something written about it.  Please
don't just tell me that you saw it on TV, as that has nothing to do with truth.

					B.C.

    One thing I saw was that the boats were beyond Canada's 200 mile limit.

    There were two different incidents that occurred within a month of one
    another. Both incidents involved boats from New Bedford. The first,
    which is the one I'm thinking of, involved a boat dragging off New
    Brunswick or Nova Scotia, looking for cod, which is a fishery that has
    been shut down in maritime Canada. The captain and crew were guilty
    guilty guilty.
    
    The second incident, which included the welcoming festival in New
    Bedford when the "fishermen" posted bail, involved scallopers. These
    were not on Georges Bank, either, but somewhere northeast of Maine, if
    I recall correctly.
    
    My memory may not be exactly right about these points. I cut the
    articles about the incidents out of the paper, and if I can find them
    I'll post synopses.
    
    Personally, I can understand Canada's stringent prohibition against
    fishing their waters makes a lot of sense to me, and it strikes me as
    more than somewhat chauvenistic of Unites States citizens to presume
    they can fish waters that nobody else is allowed, nor should be
    allowed, to fish.
    
    JMHO
    
    John H-C

    Brian
    
    I pulled my info from the globe when it happened, I no longer have the
    articles it was awhile ago.  I also remember listening to several NPR
    broadcasts.
    
    I do place a lot of blame on the US.  I agree many countries add to the
    overfishing problems, but it is the US's inablity to place meaningful
    laws into effect that bother me.  I know your against more laws, but
    things like that sewer tunnel they are building out of boston is one
    example of how stupid we are.  There is no way you or anyone else can
    tell me that dumping millions of gallons of treated sewarge into the
    ocean is not going to effect the fisheries.  Just the tempature
    differential of this sewerage pumping out will have to have an impact. 
    Not taking drastic fishing limits earlier also has really screwed us
    up.  I remebmber listening to interviews with fish bioloists on NPR
    saying yes its obvious now we waited too long to impose the
    restrictions and that if and if the fisheries respond it will take
    years.  
    
    Brian

 |--------------CENTER------------|
 L |                              R
  NPR


What's wrong with dumping treated sewage into the ocean from
an area populated by 1.5+ million people?  It's a WHOLE lot
better than what's being done now. Ever sail/boat in Boston
harbor near Quincy?  Ever see/smell the RAW sewage being pumped
into the harbor from those exit pipes? 24 hours a day, 365 days
a year!  Yes, treated sewage entering the habitat is not as nice
as pristine rain water, but there is a large human population in
the Boston area. There will always be environmental impacts
because of human populations. The best we can do is to minimize
these impacts. The treatment plant(s) for Boston harbor is one
of the most positive environmental things to happen to the area.
I'm sure the harbor won't ever be restored to it's pre-Pilgrim
state, but it will be a huge improvement.

I like to fish as much as anyone, and I hate to see habitat damage.
My point is, those new pipes in Boston harbor are good if you
put it in perspective of how bad it is now.

Just my opinion,
...bill

    Just want to make sure I understand your point.  Take stinking sewage
    thats bad for boston harbor ship it off shore close to the fisherys and
    dump it there and hope it doesn't kill the ocean and the fishery is
    better than what we have today?
    
    Why not spend time and money figuiring out how to clean the sewarge so
    it is pristine like rainwater and then you don't have to pump it into
    the ocean anymore.  At some point in time if we don't do this, we are
    going to kill the ocean.

    In the past the sewage dumped into the harbor from deer and nut islands
    has been untreated. The out flow of the harbor pipe will be
    at least primary treated eventually it will have secondary treatment which
    make it almost clean water. Anyone that has boated in the Mass Area
    over the last 5 years also can see the improvement in the water
    since less raw sewage has been getting out of the treatment plants.
    
    Bruce

    re: .49
    
    If you and enough other people would ask for your tax rates to be 
    increased high enough, anything is possible...

<    Why not spend time and money figuiring out how to clean the sewarge so
<    it is pristine like rainwater and then you don't have to pump it into
<    the ocean anymore.  At some point in time if we don't do this, we are
<    going to kill the ocean.

   One mechanism that seems to work well is to let the treated effluent feed
into a large saltmarsh. There is some experimentation going on which shows a
large marsh between the drainage site and the ocean cleans the water to near 
perfection.  One problem is convincing the non-believers that this won't hurt
the marsh and the other is aquisition of the land to do it. I believe the
Naples, Florida area is one place where this is being tried with some success.

Al

    re: .252
    
    Well, it's inadequately treated sewage, as well as sugar plantation
    runoff, that's killing the Everglades. My point being that, although
    biomass filtration is feasible to a point, it *is* quite easy to
    overload the filtering capacity of the system and kill it.
    
    John H-C

<    Well, it's inadequately treated sewage, as well as sugar plantation
<    runoff, that's killing the Everglades. My point being that, although

John H-C,

   I will not argue that the runoff has had a detrimental effect on the
Everglades by pushing too many nutrients into the system, however the
Everglades biggest problem over the years has been lack of adequate water to
maintain the eco-system. 

   The system of canals the Army Corps of Engineers built diverted and held
back the water to where the 'glades are irreversably changed. Many parts of it
cannot handle "normal" water levels anymore. It's a disgrace. It's the change
in habitat (supported by the 6" of water that's supposed to cover everything
but the hammocks down here) that has done the most damage.

Al

    Did anyone hear that the US Fisheries has put a moritorium on the
    Georges Fishing bank that prohibits all commercial fishing for some
    period of time that will be reviewed.  I caught the end of this piece
    coming in from a meeting.  It sounds like a tremendous act.
    
    Brian

    I heard the news, too. It was termed "An Emergency Closure" to protect
    the remaining cod, flounder, and haddock. It was also said that the
    emergency closure would be expanded and extended soon to conform to a
    long-range management plan still undergoing refinement.
    
    I, too, think it's a good idea that's long overdue.
    
    John H-C

why close Stellwagen?  There ain't no fish left there anyway, so who cares?

(said with extreme sarcasm and dismay, since I didn't not catch A FISH off
Stellwagen this year)

Tim

    re: .few last
    
    	I heard a comment on the news which basically said that all the
    	commercials who used to fish out at George's are planning on
    	fishing "inshore". I have mixed feeling about this - I think it
    	will completely destroy sportfishing in New England for a while,
    	but it may also piss off enough people that something will finally
    	be done to control commercial fishing.
    
    			Robert.
    

     Hopefully there will be a boat buyback program implemented. There has
    been talk along these lines, and I think it's clearly needed.

    Maybe they could just sink one another's boats, and let the insurance
    company pay them.
    
    <g>
    
    Really, though, I don't think a buyback is any more than a mere piece
    of the solution. I suspect that the bulk of any money derived from the
    sale of a commercial fishing vessel will go directly to the financing
    company that loaned out the money for the boat's purchase in the first
    place. I base this assumption on reports I've read and heard that most
    of the boats out fishing now are recent purchases (<20 years old) that
    were made on advantageous loans designed to increase the fish take.
    
    John H-C

    >Well, it might ease the debt, but 
    
     Well, Imagine yourself holding a $150-200k mortgage on a vessel, and
    the government tells you that you can no longer use it in the only way
    that you'll be able to pay back the note. What would you think would be
    the major thing facing you in your efforts to learn a new trade?

    I didn't mean to suggest that we shouldn't support a boat buy-back
    program, really. I meant to say that a boat buy-back program will
    plug the drain of ongoing expenses for most of the fishermen, but it
    won't resolve the problem of how they are going to go on earning a
    living.
    
    Although the government could probably figure out a "welfare" program
    that would allow the fisherman to subsist while learning a new trade,
    most of the professional fishermen I've run across would be ashamed to
    take the money, which I think would put a real damper on the program's
    success, which in turn would put a real damper on seriously accepted
    efforts to allow the fish populations to revive.
    
    John H-C 

I got the DNF news letter  yesterday .  I lot of the topics were related to the
closing of the areas and the reasons why.  There was an article about the larger
offshore draggers coming into local waters and destroying what is left of that
fishery.  The state to talking about reducing the max size of boats from 99' to
60' to fish in mass waters.  Currently about 60% of the commercial boats are
greater than 60'.

It could be that the fishery management is starting to GET IT.  They believe
that there are too many boats fishing and are trying to take steps to limit
them.  Probably too little too late but it's something.

The associated graphs indicated that under the proposed plan it will take
10+ years for the ground fish stocks to come back.

Gordon

    Last Saturday night, I was diving with couple of buddies off Rockport,
    MA. This dive had two purposes: to verify that my ear infection was
    done and to see whether the cod were still around.
    
    For the past two weeks, when I had been unable to join them underwater,
    they had been regaling me with stories of 4-foot cod hanging out under
    the rocky ledges as shallow as 50 feet. Since I had only once seen a
    living cod larger than a YoTY, I assumed they were just giving me a
    hard time.
    
    Lo and behold! Although there were no 4-footers that night, there were
    several (>five) that were between 2 and 3 feet long, and there were
    almost as many juvenile cod as there were sculpins.
    
    This late in the year, it is unusual to see *any* cod near shore. The
    juveniles that come in to feed on the lobster in the fall are usually
    gone by December.
    
    On a more someber note, at least one of the larger cod was blind, and a
    couple of the others may have been as well. Blindness in the the larger
    "ground fish" in the St. Lawrence River, attributed to chemical dumping
    by certain large manufacturing complexes, has reportedly affected 60%
    of the fish.
    
    John H-C

JohnHC & Others,

For what it's worth, we caught several decent-sized cod this fall in less that
20 feet of water while jigging bait for stripers.  Nothing close to 4 feet, 
but a couple around 2'.

Tim

	Like Tim, I've caught Cod while Striper fishing in the fall.  I've
also caught them from both Nauset Beach and the Cape Cod Canal in Jan-Feb.
Why would they be moving offshore for the winter?

							B.C.

    Deeper water means warmer, calmer water, for cod as well as for
    lobsters.
    John H-C

I have read articles about SURF cod fishing in winter off Plum island and other
beaches.  They have even been caught on surface poppers and swimmers. 
Apparently they are more agressive without the weight of the depths on them.

I have no first-hand experience (too cold for me).

Gordon

It's been my experience that the shallower you catch them, the harder they
fight.  Fish caught in 30-50' or less often put up a very good account of
themselves.  Fish caught in 200' give up after the first 50', often making
you wonder if you dropped them.  We always say "It just got smaller" when this
happens.

Tim

    If you enter the following command at the DCL prompt:
    
    copy ofoss1::hudson*.ps *
    
    You will get two postscript documents copied to your local directory.
    Just push them off to your local postscript printer.
    
    They are "Special Hudson, MA, Issue No. 1" and "Special Hudson, MA,
    Issue No. 2" of _The Concord River Tributary_.
    
    The DEP and the municipal government of Hudson are ignoring the plight
    of the Town of Billerica, so we have decided to take our cause up
    directly with the citizens of Hudson.
    
    If you live in Hudson or Stow, MA, we'd like you to copy those two
    documents (each is two pages long), and read them carefully. Special
    Hudson Issues of _The Concord River Tributary_ will be appearing weekly
    throughout Hudson through the rest of this winter.
    
    John H-C

    I don't know how many of you are from Lawrence, MA, or how many of you
    fish the Shawsheen River or have any memory of what it was once like,
    but I'll let you all know about this anyway:
    
    The City of Lawrence is looking to develop Den Rock Park, one of the
    last of the open spaces in Lawrence, and certainly the last open space
    in Lawrence that abuts the Shawsheen River. Current plans under
    consideration are 1) a shopping mall, 2) a golf course, 3)
    condominiums, or even 4) condo with golf course.
    
    I attended the City Councilors' meeting in Lawrence last evening, when
    there was supposed to be a public hearing on the subject of Den Rock.
    The Council Chambers were packed, and the Councilman who had placed Den
    Rock Park on the agenda made a motion to retract it. The motion was
    immediately seconded. Another Councilman objected, and when he said,
    "...and a lot of people in Lawrence believe that Den Rock Park should
    be left as it is, without *any* development!" the room erupted with
    applause. *Everybody* in that crowded room other than the mayor and the
    lawyer behind the development scheme was there for the Den Rock Park
    hearing, and the opposition to the development appeared to be
    unanimous.
    
    At any rate, the public hearing was postponed indefinately, and the
    City of Lawrence is proceeding with its plans behind the scenes. Den
    Rock Park will be up for discussion at the Housing Subcommittee
    hearings next Monday in Lawrence City Hall, starting at 7:00.
    
    Maybe I'll see a FISHING noter there?
    
    John H-C

    
     With the mild winter (little ice cover) here in the Northeast, can we 
    expect better fresh water fishing this spring? 
    
    My thoughts are that thick ice chokes out oxygen, depletes fish
    stocks, etc.
    
    Also, ice fishing was probably way down so those fish that would have
    been caught and possibly eaten, killed, or just injured, are still healthy
    and kicking and waiting for us this spring ???
    
    
     Is this just wishful thinking on my part, or does a mild winter which
    provides very little ice over give the fresh water fish stocks a chance
    to build up ?
    
     Bob

	Less ice cover and a lot of wind will mean more oxygen in the
	water.  Less snow on the ground means -very- little runoff in
	the spring.  Unless things change real soon we could be dealing
	with very low water levels this spring.

	I think it depends on what you're fishing for and where you're
	fishing as far as will it be better...

	Example:  With no ice and limited winter kill of small fish,
		  how are the Pike that usually search the under ice 
		  shallows for food going to fare?

	I don't know enough about Pike to answer that, just an example.

					B.C.
	

    This question is not meant to be confrontational just one caused by a
    lack of knowledge.  I am not an ice fisherman so I simply don't know
    this.  Can you catch and release in ice fishing or is it too destructive
    to the fish.  If you can't catch and release should ice fishing be
    restricted more?
    
    Again I don't know much about ice fishing, just some laymans questions
    
    Brian

    Many people catch and release while ice fishing.
    
    As far is the winter effecting the fisheries, I say it depends on the
    lake.  In a small pond that is prone to winter kill and gets hammered
    by ice fisherman, a winter like this may cause a noticable impact on
    the spring fishing (more fish).  On the other hand, on a lake like Winni, 
    would the amount of fish normally taken by ice fishermen by this point 
    make a noticable difference come spring? who knows...
    
    -donmac

    
    
    Catch and release is definitely feasible while ice
    fishing provided you take some additional precautions.
    
    Most ice fishing is done with live bait, therefore all
    of the tips regarding gut hooked fish etc. apply while
    ice fishing.
    
    Also, when fishing in cold weather, you must be very 
    careful not to expose any fish you intend to release
    to the air for very long.  The cold air temperature
    can freeze fish (particularly the eyes) an a very short
    period of time.  Keep the fish submerged as much as
    possible.
    
    Many of the ice fishing tournaments that I've be involved
    with encourage catch and release.  The tournament I'm 
    going to enter this weekend adds an additional pound to
    any fish weighed in that is release alive.  
    
    To accomplish this, I use a large coleman cooler filled
    with water to transport the fish to the weigh-in sight,
    and then the fish is immediately released into a hole
    right there.
    
    I've noticed that more and more people are practicing
    catch and release where you used to see piles of bass
    lying on the ice.
    
    Gusman
    
    

    
    What they said (.275 and .276)!!! A good thing to have is a pair of
    long needle nose with cutters. Any visibly lip hooked fish can be re-
    leased right there in the water with a quick flip of the wrist. Any
    gut hooked fish simply slide the cutters down the line and snip. The
    hook will rot out in a few days and cause the least amount of damage.
    
    Always try to leave the fish submerged. If your hands get wet a short
    jig (dance) and a lot of cussing usually brings the blood back to your
    hands... ;^)
    
    Bob M�

    I've heard this for years and do practice cutting hooks all the time.
    Does anyone have any scientific articles or information that the hooks
    do rot out in a short period of time. (Two weeks) It seems funny that
    hooks would disolve this quickly but I'm told it is some enzyme that
    the fish emits that causes the rapid corrosion. I just never seen any
    study done on it. I assume it would be easy enough to do with some tank 
    fish. Unless someone would care to get gut hooked and give us a daily
    update?
    
    Regards
    
     Don B,
    
     My partner seems to watch to many doctor shows and always trys to
    remove deep hooks or around the gills with forceps. The result is I 
    nickname him Dr Death.

    One of the mags had the results of a pretty extensive study this
    past year. I'll try and dig it out. They used different kinds of hooks
    with different amounts of line left attached to the hook. I don't
    remember the details exactly, but it did not support the "they rust
    out in a couple of weeks" theory. After a few months a good percentage
    still had the hooks in them and the mortality rate was greater then I
    expected. I believe the conclusion was to remove the hooks if at all
    possible, but if not, the fish with the line clipped so that it extended
    outside the mouth faired the best. The theory was that it held the
    hook shaft paralell to the stomach wall allowing food to pass more
    easily...            

I also recall reading that article on gut-hooked fish and the fact that the 
it takes a l-o-n-g time for the hook to rust out.  In the case of stainless
hooks, they NEVER rust out.

re: catch n' release while ice fishing

A friend at MKO told me that F&G was asking folks to leave yellow perch on
the ice and to NOT release them alive (Bow Lake, NH).  Apparently they are
getting too prolific and impacting the other species.  Yet I've also heard
that one could be levied a fine for doing the same thing for leaving "trash" 
fish on the ice on other bodies of water.  What's one to do?

The Fisherman did such a study on stripers, but they kept them in a pond so they
could determine the mortality rate.  I don't remember when the study was done,
probably the past two years, but I don't have time to leaf through 100 issues to
find it.

The hooks did not rust out as quickly as was thought.  Stainless do last
forever, however, so I don't use them when bait fishing.  I have a hook-out tool
which rotates the hook out.  I've used in on numerous gut-hooked stripers.  Now,
I don't have any mortality data, but the fish don't bleed and are not out of the
water for very long so I expect they do well.

Tim

I read a recent article, I think in a fly fishing magazine, about hooks
and dead fish.  The main point I came away with was unless you hook the
fish through its jaw, something bad will probably happen.

When the hook is buried somewhere inside the fish - in its tongue, throat,
esophagus, etc. - the point is in the midst of vital organs.  While the
fish is fighting, that hook point is slashing to and fro and lacerating
everything in its path.  For fish hooked in the tongue, I guess the vital
organ is the tongue itself, but they said the mortality rate is pretty
high in each case.

In those cases barbless hooks are no help, and could indeed make things
worse by allowing the hook to penetrate more efficiently into the vital
areas.  They had lots of statistics on mortality rates caused by these
injuries.  One other point they claimed was if the fish bleeds even a
little it's probably a goner.

So I guess if you're thinking of keeping a fish, wait till you make one
bleed, or where the hook point is facing down and is in the tongue or
further back.

Tom

    
    
    All this gut hooked fish talk reminds of another situation. If you've
    got a fish that you know is going to die. (bleeding bad, etc) does he 
    feed the food chain better if you throw him up on shore as food for
    some 4 legged creature, or would he be crab and turtle food if you
    leave him dying in the water. This would be in small lake or pond
    type areas. I obviously would try not to kill any fish that I'm not
    going to eat, but when 'bad' things happen, I'd at least like to see
    the fish be put to the best use and not just rot somewhere.
    
     Bob

<    got a fish that you know is going to die. (bleeding bad, etc) does he 
<    feed the food chain better if you throw him up on shore as food for
<    some 4 legged creature, or would he be crab and turtle food if you



   I'd leave him in the water, just as if he died of natural causes.  I'm
sure mother nature knows better how to make best advantage of the carrion, than
I do.  Perhaps the fishes will eat what they want and what washes up on shore
will feed some 4 legged creature too...


Al

    Tom, sounds like your article was referring to trout.  Bass on the
    other hand are alot more durable around the mouth.  Often bass can be
    hooked and release without any sign of trauma.  Trout are much more
    delicate.
    
    As far as where to put dead fish, how about in your stomach.  If
    they're going to die, I'd much rather see them in the freezer than on
    the bank.  
    
    -donmac 

    > As far as where to put dead fish, how about in your stomach. If
    >they're going to die, I'd much rather see them in the freezer than on
    >the bank.
    
    I agree. However I was thinking of undersized sportfish (pickerel,
    bass) where you could be in trouble for keeping them, or
    something like a yellow perch or bluegill that you may not want to
    eat.
    
     Bob

    From what I've been hearing I wouldn't eat any of the fish caught out
    of any Mass. bodies of water. They say the mercury count is very high.
    
    Fred.

	   Most of the lakes with a mercury problem are posted with rules
	and recommendations as to size, breed, and portion size per week.
	   It seems to be mostly the bass and larger trout that you're
	supposed to avoid.  The perches and other panfish should be OK.

	   It's also a problem anywhere in the NE, mostly, but restricted to,
	man made bodies of water.  No, it's not us polluting them, it's even
	showed up as raising levels in fish in newer lakes in wilderness
	areas in Canada.
						B.C.

	   I meant to say -not- restricted to man made lakes...

	Also remember that 10 - 15 years ago eating swordfish was supposed
	to kill all of us too!!!
					B.C.

    >Also remember that 10 - 15 years ago eating swordfish was supposed
    >to kill all of us too!!!
    
    Given the price of swordfish steak, there's not much risk to that 8^(

    Last year I heard Penny Berryman (I think that's her name - the Quantum
    endorser) say that largemouth bass can disgorge barbed hooks on their
    own.  If you leave them in the tank with the hooks in them, the hooks
    will all be lying on the bottom of the tank when you get to the dock.
    
    The article in .282 was about trout, but you could extrapolate it to 
    bass by looking at the picture that was in the article.  It showed a
    side view of a trout that was split lengthwise down the middle on the
    vertical plane you could see inside.  What was inside was a hook facing
    down, piercing the esophagus.  The point was in among the heart and 
    other important looking parts.  I've never cleaned a bass, so I don't
    know if you can hit such parts if the hook hasn't been swallowed 
    beyond the bottom of the "bucket", i.e. gone past the throat sphinctor
    and entered the esophagus. 
    
    Tom

    Yeap, your probably right about the bass being similar past the 
    throat.  But the outside edge of the mouth on the bass has alot less
    'fleshy stuff' - that's a technical term.
     -donmac

    >Given the price of swordfish steak, there's not much risk to that 8^(
    
     Given the biological consequences of providing a market for immature
    swordfish... Well, it doesn't really matter. Swordfish as a species
    aren't going to be a viable foodfish for all that much longer anyway,
    at the present rate of overfishing. It's too bad it tastes so good,
    otherwise I could practice what I preach more effectively. %^}

	Dave,
		I wish I had the problem of an overabundance of swordfish
	in my house! 8^)  Can you say -rarely- and in small portions....

		It's real hard to -never- have grilled swordfish!

					B.C.

    I just wanted to add a couple cents to the discussion about what to do
    with mortally wounded fish:
    
    Although I can understand the impulse to toss the fish back into the
    water so it can become part of the food chain, what I've seen tells me
    that large fish *do not* become part of the food chain for anything but
    bacteria and sludge worms, which sit pretty isolated -- that is,
    unconsumed by anything other than its own kind -- at the center of the
    aquatic ecoweb.
    
    Dead trout at the bottom of Walden and White Ponds -- two bodies of water
    with flourishing crayfish populations -- remain intact until they are
    consumed by bacteria. You can see where the fish lay until it was
    completely consumed by the precise silhouette of its body formed by
    bacteria colonies.
    
    There are no analogous scavengers such as crab, shrimp, and lobster in
    freshwater other than crayfish, and they do not consume nearly enough
    nearly fast enough to consume a dead fish before bacterial growth makes
    the fish unpalatable even to the crayfish.
    
    In my opinion, you're serving wildlife better by tossing the corpse
    ashore for the raccoons, turkey vultures, crows, and feral cats than by
    tossing it back in the water, where it becomes mere fertilizer for an
    already overburdened aquatic ecoweb. 
    
    If you catch a carp, please don't bother checking to see whether
    it has been mortally wounded. Just toss it ashore.
    
    JMHO
    
    John H-C 

	John,
		Isn't it true that the bottom of Walden is dead (as in no O2)
	whereas a lot of the other lakes in the state have not only healthy
	populations of crayfish, but also excellent turtle populations.

		Turtles will make very short work of a dead fish on the
	bottom, or even a live fish on a stringer, as plenty of fishermen
	have found out over the years.

						B.C. 

    The bottoms of Walden and White Ponds are both rich with dissolved
    oxygen (DO) to a depth of 40 feet, with a rapid depletion of DO down to
    50 feet. There is enough DO at 80 feet in Walden to support sludge
    worms and aerobic bacteria. I've come across bacterial profiles of
    consumed whole fish in water as shallow as 10 feet in both Walden and
    White Ponds.
    
    There are no turtles in either pond, however. Your point about turtles
    is a good one, if the pond or river has them. Sadly, many of them
    don't.
    
    John H-C

    I caught an earful last night from an older gentleman who has been
    fishing around NE Mass and SE NH and Maine for the better part of this
    century. His hot button, which he seemed to expect me to do something
    about right then and there, is the excessive use of chlorine at the
    release point from wastewater treatment plants. (I was the idiot who
    walked into the meeting after everybody else had already heard
    everything this guy had to say. "Hey, talk to John H-C here. He can
    probably help you!" is something for which there will be severe payback
    in the next couple weeks. <g>)
    
    Anyway, this old guy was talking about the paucity of smelt in the
    Lamprey River. He said the smelt population has progressively
    deteriorated over the course of the last six years, which is precisely
    how long the sewage treatment plant has been releasing into the
    Lamprey.
    
    Now, I *think* I've read in here that a fair number of you fish the
    Lamprey River for smelt each winter.  Is what this old guy told me
    about the disappearance of the smelt population true? Are there no
    smelt in the Lamprey River this year?
    
    Thanks.
    
    John H-C

    
     Thanks for the reply on dead fish John. That's the kind of the data I was
    looking for. I do not like to waste anything, and only take and kill
    what I will eat. That's why I was looking for advice on where to throw
    terminally injured fish. I'd prefer that they just don't rot (or even
    cause harm) wherever I toss them, and would rather see them get eaten
    up by scavengers who can put them to good use. If they just sink to
    the bottom and slowly rot, I'd rather see them be used as food for land
    based critters.
    
    Bob
    

    Actually, from the little data I have, the smelt are doing better 
    this year than they have in recent years.  
    
    True, the smelt numbers have been way down the last few years, and I
    have heard the chlorine story, don't know if it is true.  NH F&G didn't
    mention it as a reason in the article awhile back in their magazine,
    but they acknowledged the numbers.
    
    I've heard the plants have already switched to a different type of
    chlorine. 
    
    -donmac

    Unless there are plenty of land critters around so the fish gets eaten
    right away, you have to consider the land-based equivalent of the
    bacteria colonies.  Ever see the outline of a pickeral on the ground
    but consisting of a seething mass of maggots?  I have - pretty gross.

re: dead, rotting fish on shore

So *that's* what my dog rolls in every once in a while!   ;-);-)

On a more serious note, it sure is disappointing to hear that catch 
and release after cutting the line due to a gut hooked catch is more 
harmful to fish than previously thought...   I have to wonder though.
I've caught at least 1 fish (LM bass) with another hook and line in
its gut. I caught a striper like that once too if I remember right.
Dumb fish, but apparently healthy.  Maybe the exception ?

/Ken


[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]

	   A year or two ago I caught a Smallie that had about 2 ft. of
	line -and- a swivel(!) hanging out his vent!  It was about a 2-3 lb.
	fish that took a spinnerbait about 10 feet from his nest.  There
	was nothing, at least nothing obvious, wrong with the fish.  He hit
	normally and put up the typical Smallie fight with jumps etc.  The
	line/hook was still inside the fish so I cut it off close to the
	vent and released him.  He went straight back to his nest.

	Not trying to start a peeing contest, but I've personally seen
	more fish with problems from -tags- than from hooks left in them!

						B.C.

    Maybe the solution is to dispose of dead fish in shallow water. I have
    a cabin on a smallmouth lake in NH and I have seen the crayfish there
    dispose of a 2lb catfish overnight. I've also seen small fish picking
    at dead carcasses. I would prefer to stay as close to the natural state
    of affairs, and leave the fish in the water for the ecosystem to
    recycle in whatever method it chooses. Racoons are at an unnaturally
    high level due to their ability to coexist with humans and the inabilty
    of their natural predators to coexist. I'd rather feed a slug or
    freshwater mussel than a pesky rodent like a racoon, especially since
    racoons have a tendency toward rabies, eating garbage and becoming roadkill.
    
    Chris

    re: Smelt in Lamprey
    
    	Went up there with a friend on Saturday night and we caught about
    200 between us in ~4 hours. This seems to be one of the better years.
    I can't say I've really seen a steady decline, but I'm not there often
    enough to say for sure.
    
    	Ray

Well Don Mac & I Went on Friday and caught 1.  It's been three years since I've
caught a meal up there...  Pretty bad.  Good thing I still have 15 meals or so
in the freezer from Winthrop.

    re:-1
    
    	You went this past Friday and only caught 1 ? When did you go, day
    or night ? I usually only fish at night up there. Everyone that I
    talked to said they've been killing them for the past week.
    
    	It was hot and heavy when we first got there and tapered down to
    next to nothing when the tide went slack. Still managed to get 7 meals
    for a family of 5 on Saturday though.
    
    	RAYJ

It was slack when we started, but we fished till about half-tide (incoming), at
night, behind sawyer's farm.  I really only went 'cause I heard they were doing
well.  I still got a bunch o meals in the freezer...

    Heard at my sportsman club meeting the other night that Massachusetts
    is planning on raising the price of a Sporting licence (combined fish
    & hunting) from $25 to $40. Apparently they just are not collecting 
    enough money from the dwindling # of sportspeople. I don't have any
    other details yet as this was just proposed less than a week ago from
    what I heard.
    
     Bob

    Someone should ask why our out of state hunting liscences are so
    cheap.  It is about $50, all other states north and west of here
    are $40 to $50 higher.  Why?
    Lets keep our liscences the same price.  If they need more money,
    then sell stamps for trout fishing and pheasant hunting.  Please
    don't penalize the bass fishermen and partridge hunters.
    Just my .02 worth!
    
    Gone fishin
    Gaff

    
    > If they need more money then sell stamps for trout fishing and
    > pheasant hunting.
    
    
     actually, I think that's under consideration too
    
    Bob
    

I'm posting this question here rather than elsewhere because you all know a
    lot more about lead than anybody else I know.... <g>
    
    John H-C
    ===============================================================
My local dive shot claimed that their lead shot was "environmentally
friendly" because it was carbon free, in contrast to that sold
for shotgun cartriges.  Can anyone explain what difference cabon
in lead shot actually makes (the shop couldn't)??

Thanks

David Middleton

% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 17:55:30 GMT
% From: [email protected] (David Middleton)
% Message-Id: <[email protected]>
% To: [email protected]
% Subject: Carbon-free lead shot
% Reply-To: [email protected]

    Well, if I remember my Chemistry. Lead is an element, Pb, I believe on
    the periodic table. Lead is not an organic compound and does not
    contain Carbon in the first place......(<--not quite sure without
    checking). Regardless, if lead did contain carbon and he has lead
    without it. It would not be lead. Right.......
    
    Your dive shop is full of prunes....... The way lead creates its
    harmful effects is by not allowing Carbon to bond in molecular
    structures within organic (humans,animals,fish) enviroments.
    
    They kind of remind me of the guy I was with from a mariner last night
    who wanted his Marine Batteries checked out. The owner said sure I'll
    check them for you. He then proceeded to hook them up and said " Nope!
    Deader than a Fart!!!". I then leaned over and whispered in his ear
    that he could get a more accurate reading if he turned the tester ON!!!
    It just so happened he had them on sale and was trying to clear them
    out.  
    
    This is all from memory and is subject to error......
    Swallowed one to many sinkers as a kid %")
    Bob M�

    The alloy used in most cast bullets and "hardened" shot (used in shotgun 
shells) is usually a combination of lead and antimony (for the hand caster this
comes from wheel weights or linotype.) Hardcast bullets are typically used to
reduce the build up of lead in the barrel of a handgun or a rifle which reduces
accuracy. The hardened shot is used in shotshells to improve the "pattern" of 
the shot that deformation of the soft (chilled) shot would cause.

    The only place your diveshop friend may have a point is that molten shot is
cooled in an oil, for the hand caster this would probably be kerosene. It's
used as a coating to prevent oxidation and during the manufacture process to
ensure the molten lead droplets harden round instead of deformed when they hit
the bottom. The oil deccelerates the lead drops and cools them at the same
time.  I believe dive weights are allowed to air cool and therefore would not
have the oil coating.  You can tell new shot from old shot by how shiny the
BB's are. The shine comes from the oil. The oil is not used on handgun or rifle
bullets, only on the shot and again its the mechanism used to ensure the
pellets are round.

Al

>From the Marine Fish Conservation Network ([email protected]).
 Please forward to your friends.  Apologies for crosspostings!


                  *  *  *
               * *         *         ######
             *    *          *      ##    ##
            *      *______    *     ##    ##
           *   |\  /*     \    *         ##
           *   | \/  *  o  \   *        ##
           *   | /\   *   _/   *       ##
            *  |/  \___*__/   *        ##
             *          *    *
               *         * *           ##
                  *  *  *


             N  O    M  O  R  E    F  I  S  H  ?


....that may become the case if the federal government continues to regulate
marine fisheries in an environmentally unsound manner. Right now, marine
ecosystems from sea to shining sea are being decimated by a commercial
fishing industry that has never received the benefit of effective government
regulation.  Large in number and modern in technology, commercial fishing
fleets are efficiently and systematically destroying the very ecosystems upon
which they depend.  Here are some snapshots of the our ocean's current
demise:

  * Overfishing of cod, flounder, haddock and other groundfish costs the New
England economy approximately $350 million annually and the loss of 14,000
jobs.

  * For every 1 pound of shrimp caught by trawlers in the Gulf of Mexico,
four pounds of fish are discarded and killed.  Total discard of this deadly
"bycatch" is estimated at 175,000 tons of juvenile fish per year.

  * Only 12% of 353 coastal Pacific salmon stocks are known *not* to be
threatened by habitat loss and degradation.

  * Numbers of factory trawlers (300-400 feet long) operating off Alaska have
increased by 540% between in 1986 and 1993.

  * Last year, a staggering 750 million pounds of fish were discarded off
Alaska's shore alone.

        |\
        ||\
        |||\
        ||||\     This action alert will tell you what's
|||||||||||||\    wrong with fishing in the United
||||||||||||||}   States, how the destruction can
|||||||||||||/    be stopped, and how you can help!
        ||||/
        |||/
        ||/
        |/


____________________________________________
OVERFISHING-- WHAT IT'S DOING TO OUR COUNTRY

The overexploitation of America's fisheries is an issue in which all
Americans should take a stand.

   - As populations of commercially lucrative fish have decreased, the United
States has increased the number of fish it imports-- swelling our nation's
trade deficit by more than two billion dollars every year.

   - The fishing crises off New England and the Pacific Northwest have
already required hundreds of millions of dollars in federal assistance
through such programs as job retraining and boat buy-backs.  More spending is
likely to be needed.

   - Thousands of commercial fishers have already gone out of business,
devastating the coastal communities that depend on healthy fish populations.
 Fishing families are suffering through the same hardship that plagues
farming families.

   - Fishing crises affect not only the commercial industry, but also
thousands of recreational sport fishers-- many of whom have enjoyed fishing
the oceans their entire lives.

   - An important part of our national heritage, our nation's fisheries
should be conserved for everyone to enjoy.  The current situation can be
likened to a savings account for our children's future: current practices
take not only the interest on the principal, but also the principal itself.
 We are rapidly squandering our children's inheritance.

   - The rampant destruction of marine ecosystems-- and the life that
inhabits them-- is not only environmentally unsustainable, it's morally
unconscionable.  We must put a stop to this.

____________________________________________
PROTECTING OUR OCEANS FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS

Saving our oceans means reversing a twenty-year-old government policy of
favoring short-term economic gain over long-term sustainability and
prosperity.  This year, Congress has the opportunity to turn the tide in
favor of commercially, recreationally, and ecologically valuable fisheries
during its 1995 reauthorization of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and
Management Act.  Enacted in 1976, "Magnuson" serves as the principal
regulatory vehicle for the entire US fishing industry within 200 miles of
shore.

Now due for reauthorization, the Magnuson Act could be made more
environmentally sensible if Congress were to focus upon:

 <> Eliminating overfishing
 <> Reducing bycatch
 <> Reforming the Regional Fishery Management Council system to insure
against conflicts of interest
 <> Protecting fish habitats
 <> Conserving pelagic species such as tuna and swordfish
 <> Improving research and enforcement


                      /.
                 _   /  .
          ______[_]_/_    .
          \          /      .
---------- \_______ /--------- .---------
                                  .
                                     .

________________________________________________________
LEGISLATIVE UPDATE 06/22/95. Having already been reported out of the House
Resources Committee, the 1995 Reauthorization of the Magnuson Act will be
considered in the full House in July.  A complimentary bill is expected to be
taken up by the Senate Resources Committee in late July, and the full Senate
in August.  Citizen input will play a critical role at every step of the
process....make your voice heard!!

*** This week's action *** When the bill goes before the full house,
environmentally-minded Congresspeople will introduce amendments which address
two of MFCN's main concerns.  Here's what those amendments will look like:

A REDEFINITION OF OPTIMUM YIELD.  Right now, the optimum yield (or target
harvest) of a fishery is determined largely by the short-term economic
interests of the industry, and not the strength of the ecosystem itself.  We
are urging Congress to adopt an understanding of optimum yield that reflects
the fishery's maximum *sustainable* harvest based on the ocean's biological
limitations.  This change would ensure that long-term economic and ecological
health is not compromised by short-term profit.

REDUCTIONS IN HARMFUL BYCATCH.  Right now,  the indiscriminate destruction of
non-target species results in millions of pounds of wasted, dead fish.
 Newer, more sophisticated types of gear have been designed to target only
the species for which the fisher is searching, allowing other species to
escape.  Requiring more selective capturing of fish will greatly reduce
needless destruction and waste.

These two changes to the Magnuson Act will help turn our fisheries around and
halt the senseless destruction of marine ecosystems.  Moreover, these
amendments will also help the long-term prosperity of the fishing industry.
 For example, the Department of Commerce estimates that if our fisheries were
managed sustainably, the nation as whole could directly generate an extra $3
billion in revenue and create 300,000 new jobs.  However, we face an uphill
battle in getting Congress to adopt these basic, common-sense measures.  To
find out how YOU can help, read the next section.


                              **
                           **
                         **
                       **
                     **
                   ***
                  ***         E V E R Y
                ***
  **           ***            V O I C E
  ***        ****
   ***     ****               C O U N T S !
    ***   ****
     ********
      ******
       ****
        **

___________________________________________
WHAT YOU CAN DO TO HELP PROTECT MARINE FISH

Congress will determine the fate of the oceans THIS SUMMER when it
reauthorizes the Magnuson Act.  Your input is critical!  Tell Congress that
you support changes to the Act that provide for strong conservation measures
ensuring the survival of fish populations into the future.  Remember, healthy
numbers of fish will mean healthy oceans and a healthy economy.  Here's how
to help:

(1) CONTACT YOUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS

Phone calls, short letters, and even emails are great ways to make your voice
heard.

          /////////////////////////////////////////
          //                                     //
          //    Capitol Hill Switchboard:        //
          //    202-224-3121                     //
          //                                     //
          //    House mailing address format:    //
          //    (Congressperson's name)          //
          //    US House of Representatives      //
          //    Washington, DC 20515             //
          //                                     //
          //    Senate mailing address format:   //
          //    (Senator's name)                 //
          //    United States Senate             //
          //    Washington, DC 20510             //
          //                                     //
          /////////////////////////////////////////

In your communication, let your elected officials know that (*) you are a
constituent in their district, (*) that you support reforming the Magnuson
Act to eliminate all overfishing, and (*) that you support a reduction in
bycatch in **all** waters.  Your communication need not be more complicated
than that.  Feel free to contact us for more information.

(2) IF YOU LIVE IN ONE OF THE FOLLOWING STATES, CONTACT US AS WELL

Alaska         Montana          *********
Arizona        Nebraska         Phone numbers and
Hawaii         Nevada           email addresses for
Kentucky       North Dakota     these Senators are
Louisiana      Oregon           included at the end of
Maine          South Carolina   this document.
Massachusetts  South Dakota     *********
Mississippi    Texas
Missouri       Washington State

These states are represented by Senators who sit on the Senate Commerce
Committee, which will have a key role in marking up (or editing) the text of
the bill.  If you live in one of these states, please contact us to share
your ideas and input.  Send us your ***email address***, and we can even
include you on our twice monthly electronic legislative update.

(3) WRITE A LETTER TO THE EDITOR OF YOUR LOCAL PAPER.

By writing a letter to the editor and getting it published, you voice reaches
thousands of other constituents who will in turn voice their concerns.
 Letters should be short and packed with both solid information tangible
imagery.  Contact us, and we'd be glad to send you some talking points or
even take a glance at your first draft.

____________________________________________________
BACKGROUND ON THE MARINE FISH CONSERVATION NETWORK (MFCN)

The MFCN is  a coalition of national and local fishing and conservation
organizations working to protect, restore, and conserve fish.  From coast to
coast, we are informing, educating, and activating people on fish issues.

For more information, contact:           _____________
THE MARINE FISH CONSERVATION NETWORK    |\           /|
408 C St., N.E., Washington, DC 20002   | \         / |
Voice 202-546-0707  Fax 202-546-0732    |  \       /  |
[email protected]               |   \     /   |
                                        |   /\___/\   |
Ask about our free resource materials,  |  /       \  |
including our talking points for        | /         \ |
writing letters to the editor,          |/___________\|
and our four page newsletter.
In addition, we also offer a 25-minute  informational VHS cassette, at cost,
for $10....and stay tuned for a new WWW site!

________________________________________________________
BACKGROUND ON THE MAGNUSON FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT ("Magnuson
Act")

The Magnuson Act is the basis of fisheries management in US jurisdictional
waters.  In 1976, in an effort to halt overfishing by foreign fleets and aid
the development of the domestic fishing industry, Congress passed the
Magnuson Act to give the United States sole management authority over living
resources within 200 miles of our shores.

While the Act has been effective in bringing American fisheries under
American control, it has done little to reduce the level of exploitation
applied to our marine resources.  The cause for this failure can be traced
all the way back to the original language of the Act itself, which
paradoxically attempts to conserve limited resources while permitting
unlimited exploitation of those resources.  Nowhere is this juxtaposition of
contradictory goals more evident than in Sec 301(a)(1) of the Act, where
Fishery Management Councils created by the Act are instructed to prevent
"overfishing" -- an undefined term-- while achieving "optimum yield", which
is defined as the maximum sustainable yield "modified by any relevant
economic, social, or ecological factor."  Whatever the true strength of a
particular fishery, this clause in effect states that catch limits should be
determined not by environmental science, but by social and market forces.

This makes no sense.  Twenty years later, this policy's effects can be felt.
 Many of our nation's most economically important fisheries are seriously
depleted or overfished, with consequent disruption of ocean biological
systems.  More than 40% of those assessed species in the US are known to be
overfished, while the status of a third more is unknown.  In New England
alone, the cost of overfishing is estimated at $350 million annually from
lost potential catches and 14,000 lost jobs.

While part of the problem with the Magnuson Act lies in its paltry commitment
to conservation, another lies in a poorly conceived loophole in the Act's
establishment of a regulatory decision-making structure. When Congress
adopted the Magnuson Act, it created a unique form of participatory
government by establishing eight Regional Fishery Management Councils.
 Designed to include fishers as well as scientists and government officials,
these Councils are dominated by representatives of the industry from fishers
who have great financial interest in the outcome of their decisions.

Often, these conflicts of interest impede Council efforts to conserve fish:
too often, the short-term economic interest of some Council members has
overridden the long-term interest of the resource.  It's like throwing the
fox straight into the middle of the hen-house.  Therefore, we must urge
Congress to put in place not only reforms that conserve fish, but also
reforms that preserve democratic policy-making without conflicts of interest.

Please feel free to contact MFCN for more information, even the text of
proposed legislation.

________________________________________________________
CONTACT INFORMATION FOR SENATORS ON THE COMMERCE COMMITTEE


AK    Sen. Ted Stevens
      202-224-3004
      (no email 06/21/95)

AZ    Sen. John McCain
      202-224-2235
      ([email protected])

HI    Sen. Daniel Inouye
      202-224-3934
      (no email 06/21/95)

KY    Sen. Wendell Ford
      202-224-4343
      ([email protected])

LA    Sen. John Breaux
      202-224-4623
      ([email protected])

MA    Sen. John Kerry
      202-224-2742
      ([email protected])

ME    Sen. Olympia Snowe
      202-224-5344
      (no email 06/21/95)

MO    Sen. John Ashcroft
      202-224-6154
      ([email protected])

MS    Sen. Trent Lott
      202-224-6253
      (no email 06/21/95)

MT    Sen. Conrad Burns
      202-224-2644
      ([email protected])

ND    Sen. Byron Dorgan
      202-224-2551
      (no email 06/21/95)

NE    Sen. James Exon
      202-224-4224
      (no email 06/21/95)

NV    Sen. Richard Bryan
      202-224-6244
      (no email 06/21/95)

OR    Sen. Bob Packwood
      202-224-5244

SC    Sen. Ernest Hollings
      202-224-6121
      ([email protected])

SD    Sen. Larry Pressler
      202-224-8172
      ([email protected])

TX    Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison
      202-224-5922
      ([email protected])

WA    Sen. Slade Gorton
      202-224-3441
      ([email protected])

WV    Sen. John Rockefeller
      202-224-6472
      ([email protected])


   ///////////////////////////////////////////////
   //                                           //
   //   The Marine Fish Conservation Network    //
   //   408 C St., N.E.                         //
   //   Washington, DC 20002                    //
   //   Voice 202-546-0707 / Fax 202-546-0732   //
   //   [email protected]               //
   //                                           //
   ///////////////////////////////////////////////

                      #  #  #

% Sender: [email protected]

    My brother just got back from Lake Powell and its a huge fishery that
    had introduced hybrid Stripers a few years ago.  Well he told me that
    when they launched the rangers told them the Stripers are killing
    everything in the lake and are taking it over.  If they catch stripers
    not to return them to the water but bring them in and destroy them.
    
    I found that very interesting.
    
    Brian

    
    Brian where is this lake?
    
    Thanks
    Walt

    Walt
    
    It was either colorado or arizona
    
    Brian

	   Lake Powell was formed when the Glen Canyon Dam was built on
	the Colorado River in Page Arizona.  It is a -huge- fantastically
	beautiful lake in the middle of the desert.  If you've ever seen
	pictures of the area around the Rainbow Bridge National Monument
	then you know what the area looks like.  Huge cliffs of orange and
	yellow rock, winding canyon arms, etc. 

	   The hybrid Stripers have been in there for ~20 years now, they're
	nothing new...  Are you sure the Ranger wasn't one of those militant
	fly fisher types who wanted everything but trout killed ???... ;^)

	   I can't imagine the Hybrids eating -everything- else in the lake,
	cause it's got standard Striped Bass too, -big- ones!

	   Beautiful area, still on my must see list!

						B.C.

    B.C.
    
    No my brother said that the rangers at the ramp were telling everyone
    to keep them.  I found that interesting.
    
    My brother and his family did a house boat vacation.  They loved it.
    
    Brian

    After my comment in the Deep Sea Fishing topic about the paucity of
    cunners on the north shore, I feel I should report that during
    yesterday's dive in Rockport, I *did* see a fair number of cunners in
    shallow water. The numbers were not what I have seen at this point in
    the season other years, but the vast majority of the cunners were YOTY,
    so it looks like the population will likely rebound.
    
    Pollack were seen in one fairly large school. (Swimming in a certain
    way tends to bring the pollack to the diver, where they swirl around
    like a funnel cloud until the diver makes a sudden move.)
    
    John H-C

	   You got my interest up cause I've -never- seen a shortage of
	Cunners.  Dug out the McClane's and took a quick look.  They don't
	have an extensive amount of info on them.  They actually range much
	further south than I thought, down to the Chesapeake!  The book says
	that they spawn in offshore waters from late spring to August.  It's
	just a guess, but your dive may have coincided with the fish in that
	area being out to sea with other things on their minds!  It didn't
	say how long they're out there.  Used to be a very popular commercial
	fish but fell out of favor long ago.  Didn't say anything about being
	overutilized.

	   I've recently seen people of varying ethnic groups fishing for
	them specifically in the rocks of the Scusset Jetty.  Doesn't take
	long for them to fill a bucket with the little critters.

						B.C.

    Do ponds go through changes on a regular basis?  There are 2 small
    pondsthat I loved to fish.  They really produce a bunch of nice bass. 
    However, both of them are rapidly becoming so overgrown with different
    aquatic plants that they are all but unfishable.  One actually has such
    a thick layer of green scum over the top that stinks you really can't
    launch a boat in it, the other has so dense a millfoil cover that it
    fouls my weedless prop in 10 feet.    I also noticed that the pond with
    scum has almost floating islands of what looks like bog in it now that
    make it shallow in places that used to be 3-4 feet deep.  I say bog
    because the floating muck is almost peat like in texture is semi solid
    and floats.  
    
    My question is will these problems continue to increase and then stop
    and the pond revert to its original state?  Or are these two ponds gone
    now?
    
    Thanks
    
    Brian
    

    > Do ponds go through changes on a regular basis?
    
    Yes, but not the kinds of changes you describe. The changes you
    describe are symptomatic of a short-term terminal prognosis.
    
    I'd go into detail -- you wouldn't believe how often I see this sort of
    thing -- but it's late.
    
    Mind telling me which two ponds these are?
    
    John H-C

    John
    
    Does your response mean that the ponds are dying and will die before
    they can come back.  What happens next to these ponds?
    
    One pond is Mill Pond in littleton, you can see it from 495 right after
    the rt 2a exit heading to worcester.  That is completely covered over
    with scum and so dense with plants you can't see open water anymore. 
    The other is eagle pond in Rutland.  That has so much underwater
    millfoil and duckweed you can't run a trolling motor.
    
    The sad thing about mill pond is the heavy weed growth started only 2
    years ago, but has accelerated beyond belief.
    
    Brian

    Yes, they are on their way out. If they weren't eutrophic before, the
    recycling of nutrients from the bottom into the water column will helpo
    the pond fill in at an extremely rapid pace. The "fix" most often
    applied in the case of milfoil is herbicide, and the result is that the
    plants (all plants) disappear for a year. The extremely rich fertilizer
    left on the bottom as a result of all that vegetation rotting away
    leaves the defoliated bottom open to whichever invasive exotic plant
    comes back first. Typically, in Massachusetts, this is Curly Leaf
    Pondweed, followed shortly by more milfoil, and this second infestation
    will make the first look like a mild case.
    
    And so herbicide gets applied again after two years, and the cycle
    continues until the pond simply fills in.
    
    
    In the case of the other pond, there is clearly a bad case of over
    fertilization occurring. The source of the nutrients could be found and
    shut off, but the fertilizer already introduced will be recycled
    seasonally, which recycling will be accelerated by the introduction of
    exotic invasive vegetation.
    
    The cure? Drain the pond and dry dredge it. The cost? Somewhere way
    beyond the means of most towns. For a preview, you can check out Hardy
    Pond in Waltham.
    
    John H-C

    
    re -.1
    
     John,
    
      Does the pond always have to be drained to be dredged ? One would
    think that the value of the dredged muck as a loam would encourage
    someone to develop a cost effective way of doing this for profit.
    
    Bob

    Actually, in more places than not these days, the material extracted
    from the bottom has to be disposed of as hazardous waste. An extensive
    Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has to be performed before anything like
    "dry dredging" can be performed.
    
    The standard "dredging" can be accomplished using a so-called
    hydrorake. The initial cost for getting the hydrorake onto the water is
    about $5K - $7K. From the price just goes up as work proceeds. The
    disadvantage of a hydrorake is that the process of extracting silt from
    the bottom while there is water over it distributes silt throughout the
    water column, causing in most cases a nearly irrecoverable algae bloom.
    
    Please understand that the issues surrounding pond restoration are a
    lot more complex, time consuming, and expensive than I'm portraying them 
    here in shorthand.
    
    John H-C

<    The other is eagle pond in Rutland.  That has so much underwater
<    millfoil and duckweed you can't run a trolling motor.
    
   Where is Eagle Pond in Rutland? Perhaps I know it by some other name?

Al

	Related to this thread, there was a good article in the Sunday Globe
	last week about how water chestnut plants are devastating the 
	Charles River, making it almost impassible in some places.
	Probably only will get worse too.

	re: hydrorakes

	They used one of these at Bartlett Pond in Marlboro a couple of	
	years ago, and that pond is still clogged up with vegetation.
	I rarely see a boat on that water, though I've heard it has/had?
	some big fish in there.

	/Ken
	

    I haven't asked for help in here in a long time, so I thought I'd try
    it again just for old time's sake:
    
    Tomorrow, 8/12/95, we're holding the fifth Shawsheen River Cleanup of
    1995 in Billerica, MA, in the Pinehurst section of the river.
    
    John H-C

John - give us some lead time.  Day is committed now, sorry.

Jack Hutchinson

    I read an article in the Globe last week about the salmon farms off the
    coast of Maine.  They want to lift the ban to shoot seals because the
    little water rats break through the barriers, chew into the salmon pen
    then dine on salmon to their hearts content.  By the time they are done
    the bulk of the fish are dead or eaten.  This goes back to an earlier
    question I had about fish farming.  If Salmon is becoming the fastest
    growning farming on the maine coast whats stopping us from doing
    similar things with cod, halibut, etc.  Are there any good resource
    books or articles to read on how salmon farming is done.  Its clear
    from this article that they somehow pen off part of the coast and that
    is the key to success.
    
    Brian

    From the environmental perspective, the "jury" is still out on salmon
    farming. The benefits are basically these:
    
    1. Satisfying a demanding market with minimized impact on the severely
    weakened natural Atlantic Salmon population
    
    2. Providing employment to people who would otherwise be out on the
    water destroying what remains of decimated fish populations.
    
    The drawbacks of salmon farming are more numerous:
    
    1. Pollution, sometimes quite severe, of near shore waters from
    overfertilization in the forms of excessive food, excessive fish waste, 
    and dead fish
    
    2. The dilution of native fish strains from escaped "domesticated"
    salmon
    
    3. The introduction of exotic diseases to the native species who
    approach salmon pens where the domesticated salmon have developed a
    resilience to a disease that the native populations have not seen
    before.
    
    IMHO, if the salmon farmers won't spend the money to build cages the
    seals can't chew through, they ought to get into another line of
    business. Their inability to sustain the barriers between their fish
    crops and the creatures that live in the wild will do more harm to the
    natural animal populations than their loss does to the fish farmer.
    
    John H-C

The Shawsheen Watershed Environmental Action Team (SWEAT) met last evening,
April 11, and among other things, determined where and when this year's 
formal cleanups will take place on the Shawsheen River. (Formal cleanups are
distinguished from "informal" cleanups by the prearranged presence of a 
dumpster into which the debris from previous informal cleanups as well as 
from that formal cleanup is deposited.)

Here are the dates, times, and locations of the 1996 Shawsheen River Cleanups:

April 27	Ballardvale Dam, Andover				8:30 AM

May 11		Sun Valley Sub Shop, Lexington/Bedford			9:00 AM

June 1		Page Rd/Shawsheen Rd, Bedford				9:00 AM

June 22		Rte. 114 Bridge, Lawrence/North Andover			9:00 AM

July 13		Railroad Trestle, Tewskbury				9:00 AM

September 14	Garside Island, Pinehurst, Billerica			9:00 AM

October 5	Whipple Rd Bridge, Billerica/Tewskbury/Wilmington	9:00 AM

We work 4 to 5 hours on each of these cleanups. These are *in river* cleanups,
so wear clothes that can get wet and deeply filthy. It's advisable to bring
some dry clothes to don after you're done. 

Also recommended are solid-soled shoes -- in the summer months, most of us
wear neoprene diver's boots with cheap "river shoes" over them for an 
additional layer -- as well as some work gloves that can sustain some wear
and tear when wet.

If you have any questions about these cleanups, you can post a reply here or
call me at DTN 238-4252, which is 617-676-4252 from the outside.

John H-C

    I have found many articles on the WWW about using sterile triploid
    grass carp to provide bilogical control of aquatic weeds. Some of the
    articles seem to indicate that if stocked at the right numbers this 
    could be a good way to remove Milfoild, while others seem to indicate
    that it has to be a controled as the grass carp do not have definite
    taste for Eurasian Milfold.  They seem to indicate that you need about
    50 to 80 per vefgetated acre to control weeds and the typical cost is
    from $5 to $8 per fish.  It will cost us about $30,000 to use chemical
    treatment our lake this year and it should be good for maybe 3 years.
    The Grass Carp live for 10 years.  So it would cost about the same
    but the Grass Carp could be a long term solution.  However other 
    studies indicate that only 10 per acre is needed!
    
    NEGATIVE SIDE EFFECTS:
    
      It takes several years to get control
      If it is overstocked all aqatic plants will be eradicated
      Removal of Grass Carp is hard and expensive
      It may lead to alge blooms
      You need to screen all inlets/outlet to prevent them from
         escaping... This could be a serious problem as duing a
         large rain storm, Northwood lake loss almost all the 
         alwives that were just stocked into the lake because
         on bad/slow dam managment.
    
    
    Has anyone heard of using Grass Carp in the NE area to contorl Milfoil?
    
    The articles seem to show success in 2 to 3 years, in states such
    as Florida, Ca, Wa, Alabama, Alberta, Texas(Lake Conroe) etc.
    
               john
    
    
    
    PS  You can find the articles on the WWW:
    
    http://accis.agr.ca/icar/docs/88000151.html
    http://www.acenet.auburn.edu/department/ipm/carp.htm
    http://twri.tamu.edu/twripubs/NewWaves/v2n2/report-4.html
    http://www.gov.ab.ca/~sra/success/story02.html
    http://hammock.ifas.ufl.edu/txt/fairs/2162
    http://www.wa.gov/ecology/wq/plants/aqua024.html
    
    

    If you really hate your lake, you can introduce grass carp. I think
    you'll find that grass carp are illegal in NH. (Grass carp are illegal
    in about a third of the US, with the majority of those who have not
    outlawed having no experience with the beast yet.) 
    
    John, I think you live in NH. If you do, you should call Ken Warren at
    the Limnology Lab at the NH Dept. of Environemntal Services at (603)
    271-2964. He's the DES guy who focusses on exotic vegetation
    management. A couple years ago, when I asked him why NH didn't consider
    introducing grass carp, he said, " Up here in New Hampshire we have a
    different idea of what a healthy looks like. Down there where they use
    grass carp, they don't think a lake looks good if it isn't the color of
    hot chocolate."
    
    If you live in MA, your best bet is to call Rick McVoy, Senior
    Limnologist with the Dept. of Environmental Protection, at (617)
    574-6807.
    
    John H-C

    Ok John,                       
    
    Thanks for the info, I will take you up on that and post what I find. 
    
    The articles on the www seem to indicate this is a new type of carp
    that eats plants from top down, thus they dont make a mud pond.  
    However, the results did not seem that great, the weeds were gone,
    the lake was green, the visibility was down by 40%. The carps
    however did  not stir up the bottom mud.
    
    If you did not stock enought fish then less favored plants 
    (such a the Eurasian Milfoild) took over the lake, just the
    opposite results that you wanted.
    
    Amounts of Nitrates, ammonia nitrogen, sulfates and phosphtes
    initially incressed as the plants eaten relesed  them from their 
    roots but latter the levels went back to normal. 
    
    So there are alot of bad side effects.
    
    Then they go on to say that once the weeds are under control then you
    need to remove about 1/2 of the grass carp.  If they are left in the
    ponds there will not be enought food to suport the remainding fish.
    They say the best way to remove them is with a gill net (Opps I think
    this is no longer legal in Ma), using a 5 pecent soliton of rotenone, 
    or by shooting them with a rifle or bow an arrow. SO they are hard to
    remove, and you might have to wait for 10 years for the carp to die.
    
    I will give DES a call.  I had heard that they were going to test on a
    weed eating bacteria a few years ago but I have not heard any reulsts.
    
    I live in both NH & MA, but in the Summer I live on Nortwood Lake.
    They now lower Northwood Lake 4 ft lower then normal.  I do not like 
    this idea.  Last year they did this and I saw that frost killed only 
    some of the shallow milfoild.  I am affraid of the stress on the fish
    as this shallow lake is not worth the small gain in this technique.
    
    thanks john
    

    John --
    
    If you can still get to a VMS prompt, you can copy a White Paper about
    exotic vegetation to your local directory by issuing this command:
    
    $ copy LEXS01::DUDLEY3.TXT *
    
    You'll note that grass carp is not one of the option discussed in any
    detail. This is because it is not an option in New England.
    
    John H-C