Sad story out of Hamilton this morning.

Post by **Jackel** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 4:28 pm

You mean where it says between 1 and 4 per month depending on size

Ya I see it.

Steve, can you tell me one more time where it says there are very very very very toxic???

Post by **Jackel** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 4:32 pm

I can't believe I'm wasting electricity to keep this guy amused.

Post by **steve-hamilton** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 4:37 pm

this will be my final post on this subject. I feel i have said my side.

these are the toxins found in ALL sizes of Hamilton Bay Carp.

Mercury, other metals, PCBs, mirex/photomirex and pesticides.
Polycyclic aromatic hybrocarbons (PAHs)
Chlorinated phenols and chlorinated benzenes
Dioxins/Furans and Dioxin-like PCBs
PCB congeners

This is why they cannot be eaten (unless they are a baby), or even used as fertalizer. Everyone can make their own judgements. Hopefully Hamilton Harbour will continue to make significant progress towards becoming the wetlands it once was.

A summer evening on the bay.

Post by **Pints** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 5:05 pm

I can't believe that I am replying to this post. Just because a fish is tested for certain pollutents, and I am refering to the little numbers on page 2 of the guide beside the fish type, doesn't mean it contains them. You will find that explanation at the start of the quide where it tells you how to use them. And it still boils down to a recomendation about the number of meals to be eaten. No where does it state that any particuler fish is toxic.

Post by **TLunge** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 5:35 pm

From what I saw the the reg's said any carp over 20" was too toxic to eat, so seeing as most carp caught are quite a bit bigger than that then they must be very toxic
TLunge

Post by **Jackel** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 5:56 pm

Thank you Pints.

I have been asking for this from S-H for a few days now and it only took you one answer.

Many thanks, this answers my question.

Tlunge,

Over 20" they are not recomended for human consumption and like Pints has pointed out, It does not state anywere that they are toxic. That was only made up by a member on this board.

Jackel

Post by **joco** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 6:24 pm

Post by **Fluffycarpguy** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 7:04 pm

steve-hamilton wrote:this will be my final post on this subject. I feel i have said my side.

these are the toxins found in ALL sizes of Hamilton Bay Carp.

Mercury, other metals, PCBs, mirex/photomirex and pesticides.
Polycyclic aromatic hybrocarbons (PAHs)
Chlorinated phenols and chlorinated benzenes
Dioxins/Furans and Dioxin-like PCBs
PCB congeners

This is why they cannot be eaten (unless they are a baby), or even used as fertalizer. Everyone can make their own judgements. Hopefully Hamilton Harbour will continue to make significant progress towards becoming the wetlands it once was.

Dude, every fish that swims in Hamilton Harbour, or most bodies of water in Southern Ontario contain those chemicals and toxins. Try eating a 15lb Lake Trout out of Lake Ontario, probably 10 times more toxic than a Carp.

If your eating any fish out of any lake, the MNR's Guide to eating Sportfish has limits on what is safe to consume.

Its the constant release of toxic chemicals by way of dumping, sewage and run-off that have plunged Cootes Paradise and many other waters into the sad state they are currently in.

Get your facts straight! Glad to hear you won't be shooting your mouth off anymore about something you clearly have very little understanding about.

Post by **TLunge** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 7:22 pm

I have a neighbor from UK, who has lived in canada for 20 years, he had some old friends from england come to visit, one of whom was a big carp fisherman, so the neighbor got me to take the guy out on the rideau to show him some stuff. Well I have never seen somebody so excited, the carp here just blew his mind, apparently I created a monster as the guy did almost nothing but fish for carp the whole time he was here, and probably beat his personal best multiple times
I was amazed to hear that in england , when these guys land a "rare" carp, they have a special air matress they slide it up on to cushion it nicely,then they remove the hook carefully and actually put some antiseptic on the hook wound, then slide it carefully back in, wow.
I had to laugh when he told me that if someone talked about carp the way most Canadians do , in a pub in england, they might get punched in the face.
different worlds eh.
TLunge

Post by **Kpin** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 7:40 pm

Interesting point TLunge. I knew the English loved fishing carp. Didn't know we had trophies in their opinion though.

For the sake of arguement..."if" a fish were that toxic, they'd be incinerated, most likely.

The one reoccuring thing I notice about some "controversial" subjects that sometimes become heated is the ONE common characteristic they share.

This always inexplicably creates new members who aggressively and sometimes insultingly counter with their own opinion. Now we ALL know, basic logic dictates no newbie would come accross like that. So, knowing that they are obviously either current members or past members...why not just go by your usual nick?

We're all entitled to an opinion, why hide behind an alias and not air your opinion openly?

Dunno, perhaps this behavior only perplexes me.

Post by **wolfe** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 8:07 pm

I interrupt this some times disturbing thread to say:

"TLunge,

NICE TIGER!!!"

Now back to your regularly scheduled (& frequently hashed out) debate.

W.

Post by **f_b** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 8:12 pm

Kpin wrote:Interesting point TLunge. I knew the English loved fishing carp. Didn't know we had trophies in their opinion though.

For the sake of arguement..."if" a fish were that toxic, they'd be incinerated, most likely.

The one reoccuring thing I notice about some "controversial" subjects that sometimes become heated is the ONE common characteristic they share.

This always inexplicably creates new members who aggressively and sometimes insultingly counter with their own opinion. Now we ALL know, basic logic dictates no newbie would come accross like that. So, knowing that they are obviously either current members or past members...why not just go by your usual nick?

We're all entitled to an opinion, why hide behind an alias and not air your opinion openly?

Dunno, perhaps this behavior only perplexes me.

I can honestly say that fluffy carp guy was not a member of this site before this thread, as neither was I.

Post by **twinky** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 8:18 pm

Hey Buddy. I joined a few weeks ago before Stevie boy started all this Sh*T.

Post by **Kpin** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 8:53 pm

Well, I apparently stand corrected. I must have missed all your introduction posts gentlemen.

I'm still confused though...

Why not just state your points without the aggressiveness? It's like walking into a party where you know no one and loudly yell.."I'm here!" Without introducing yourself.

Guess I'm clueless in this regard as I still don't understand.

However, welcome to the site, it's a great place, with a multitude of info on all and many great people. I'm sure you'll like it here!

Post by **Jackel** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 9:05 pm