Main Menu
Advertisement
Affiliates
Advertisement
Newest Members
Littledog, chatterbait10, DeekBrazo, Cooperguy, GT411TX
106371 Registered Users
Top Posters
TexDawg 86928
hopalong 78792
Pilothawk 75579
JDavis7873® 67385
John175 ® 65735
FattyMcButterpants 60793
Derek 🐝 58864
Tritonman 57721
LoneStarSon® 53710
SkeeterRonnie 53103
facebook
Forum Stats
106371 Members
61 Forums
812029 Topics
10251972 Posts

Max Online: 36273 @ 01/23/13 02:34 PM
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Topic Options
#11292590 - 12/19/15 07:36 PM Lake Livingston Fish Ban??.
Olhipi Offline
Outdoorsman

Registered: 07/14/14
Posts: 208
Loc: Dayton,Tx
I heard something about a Ban on most all species on Lake Livingston Today . Any truth to that..??
_________________________
Lake Dunlap, State Record Holder "Warmouth Perch". If you Ain't Fishing You Ain't Living....
Some Say I Have a "Crappie Attitude" !!!!
They'd Be Right...... 2014 TC 18 Crestliner 90 Merc 4-stroke

Top
#11292610 - 12/19/15 07:52 PM Re: Lake Livingston Fish Ban??. [Re: Olhipi]
Olhipi Offline
Outdoorsman

Registered: 07/14/14
Posts: 208
Loc: Dayton,Tx
Just read it on KPRC Houston news There is a. Ban on several Species ,some Catfish, White Bass, Stripped Bass and several others . Google click 2 Houston News .
_________________________
Lake Dunlap, State Record Holder "Warmouth Perch". If you Ain't Fishing You Ain't Living....
Some Say I Have a "Crappie Attitude" !!!!
They'd Be Right...... 2014 TC 18 Crestliner 90 Merc 4-stroke

Top
#11293043 - 12/19/15 11:07 PM Re: Lake Livingston Fish Ban??. [Re: Olhipi]
Fritz423 Offline
Pro Angler

Registered: 04/25/12
Posts: 525
I've been eating Lake Huron trout and salmon for years despite a fish consumption advisory.

And there's noathing wrang woth muuuuasdufuuasdf
_________________________
Wishin' I was fishin', and dreaming of beer

Top
#11293190 - 12/20/15 07:37 AM Re: Lake Livingston Fish Ban??. [Re: Olhipi]
Olhipi Offline
Outdoorsman

Registered: 07/14/14
Posts: 208
Loc: Dayton,Tx
This not your normal consumption Ban a new release of chemicals caused this , as I understand
_________________________
Lake Dunlap, State Record Holder "Warmouth Perch". If you Ain't Fishing You Ain't Living....
Some Say I Have a "Crappie Attitude" !!!!
They'd Be Right...... 2014 TC 18 Crestliner 90 Merc 4-stroke

Top
#11293217 - 12/20/15 08:01 AM Re: Lake Livingston Fish Ban??. [Re: Olhipi]
Bob Landry Online   content
Extreme Angler

Registered: 08/10/11
Posts: 2659
Loc: Austin, Tx
Found it on a couple of TV station's websites. It was issued by the Health Dept. I couldn't find anything about it on TPWD website

The Lake Livingston advisory is for seven types of fish – blue catfish, flathead catfish, freshwater drum, gar, smallmouth buffalo, striped bass and white bass. The advisory is in effect for the Trinity River Basin which includes Lake Livingston and the Trinity River from U.S. 287, near Anderson County, downstream to U.S. 90, near Liberty.


Edited by Bob Landry (12/20/15 08:03 AM)
_________________________
2015 Seaark 1872 MV CC Etec-90
Two Helix 12 CHIRP SI's, , MinnKota Riptide ST80/i-pilot Link, Bob's Hydraulic
2018 Robalo R180 CC, Yamaha 115

Bitter Gun Owner
Bitter Clinger
Armed Infidel

Top
#11293338 - 12/20/15 09:34 AM Re: Lake Livingston Fish Ban??. [Re: Olhipi]
DaleR Offline
Outdoorsman

Registered: 08/13/14
Posts: 39
I have seen data on the samples taken. 29 of 32 white bass tested acceptable. Of the three that tested not acceptable one was barely over the line. All samples from all fish tested were from 2012 to 2013.I don't remember the results break down of the other species sampled.

It's not good but as usual it's not as bad as the news media makes it out to be.

Top
#11293601 - 12/20/15 12:29 PM Re: Lake Livingston Fish Ban??. [Re: Olhipi]
Bob Landry Online   content
Extreme Angler

Registered: 08/10/11
Posts: 2659
Loc: Austin, Tx
Sad as it is, that's how they pump up ratings. Accurate journalism doesn't fit in anywhere.
_________________________
2015 Seaark 1872 MV CC Etec-90
Two Helix 12 CHIRP SI's, , MinnKota Riptide ST80/i-pilot Link, Bob's Hydraulic
2018 Robalo R180 CC, Yamaha 115

Bitter Gun Owner
Bitter Clinger
Armed Infidel

Top
#11294228 - 12/20/15 06:31 PM Re: Lake Livingston Fish Ban??. [Re: Olhipi]
trihullranger Offline
Green Horn

Registered: 12/14/10
Posts: 19
This information is taken direct from the 86 page report that they used to issue the advisory. Guess if you plan on eating 30 grams or more everyday for 30 years according to the state or 70 years according to the Feds you MAY be at risk. I think witchcraft may be a more exact science. There is enough double talk in this report to choke a horse...IMO


Derivation and Application of Health‐Based Assessment Comparison Values for Application to the Carcinogenic Effects (HACca) of Consumed Chemical Contaminants

The DSHS calculates cancer‐risk comparison values (HACca) from the USEPA’s chemical‐specific cancer potency factors (CPFs), also known as cancer slope factors (CSFs), derived through mathematical modeling from carcinogenicity studies. For carcinogenic outcomes, the DSHS calculates a theoretical lifetime excess risk of cancer for specific exposure scenarios for carcinogens, using a standard 70‐kg body weight and assuming an adult consumes 30 grams of edible tissue per day. The SALG risk assessors incorporate two additional factors into determinations of theoretical lifetime excess cancer risk: (1) an acceptable lifetime risk level (ARL)34 of one excess cancer case in 10,000 persons whose average daily exposure is equivalent; and, (2) daily exposure for 30 years, a modification of the 70‐year lifetime exposure assumed by the USEPA. Comparison values used to assess the probability of cancer do not contain “uncertainty” factors. However, conclusions drawn from probability determinations infer substantial safety margins for all people by virtue of the models utilized to derive the slope factors (cancer potency factors) used in calculating the HACca.
Because the calculated comparison values (HAC values) are conservative, exceeding a HAC value does not necessarily mean adverse health effects will occur. The perceived strict demarcation between acceptable and unacceptable exposures or risks is primarily a tool used by risk managers along with other information to make decisions about the degree of risk incurred by those who consume contaminated fish or shellfish. Moreover, comparison values for adverse health effects do not represent sharp dividing lines (obvious demarcations) between safe and unsafe exposures. For example, the DSHS considers it unacceptable when consumption of four or fewer meals per month of contaminated fish or shellfish would result in exposure to contaminant(s) in excess of a HAC value or other measure of risk. The DSHS also advises people who wish to minimize exposure to contaminants in fish or shellfish to eat a variety of fish and/or shellfish and to limit consumption of those species most likely to contain toxic contaminants. The DSHS aims to protect vulnerable subpopulations with its consumption advice, assuming that advice protective of vulnerable subgroups will also protect the general population from potential adverse health effects associated with consumption of contaminated fish or shellfish.

Top
#11294918 - 12/21/15 06:25 AM Re: Lake Livingston Fish Ban??. [Re: DaleR]
Fishbreeder Offline
Extreme Angler

Registered: 02/07/10
Posts: 1385
Loc: Brazoria County, Texas
Originally Posted By: DaleR
I have seen data on the samples taken. 29 of 32 white bass tested acceptable. Of the three that tested not acceptable one was barely over the line. All samples from all fish tested were from 2012 to 2013.I don't remember the results break down of the other species sampled.

It's not good but as usual it's not as bad as the news media makes it out to be.



Just curious, "acceptable or not" for what substance or combination of substances?

Jes' 'tween you'n me...I don't necessarily take everything the gov'ment says 'bout such things at face value all the time. I got an' idea that some things is not nearly so bad as the gov'ment lets on an' some of 'em is likely a lot worser.

Say f'instance...'lumenum vs methyl mercury or dioxin. Not to mention some of the stuff that might aktu'ly be swimmin' in there what you caint see....

So when I get me sumthin' as vague as "acceptable or not acceptable" it makes wanna ast some questyuns.

White bass, as a migratory top predator could move into and out of "contaminated" areas and would tend to bio-concentrate some environmental contaminants being near the top of the food web. So are some of the other species that were included, largemouth bass, I think was not one of them. Also a top predator, but less migratory and tending to have a wider variety of dietary items than the white bass that eats mostly shad and other pelagic forage species.

????? So what's so bad in three out of 32 samples (9%) as to make them "not acceptable?

Top
#11295017 - 12/21/15 07:41 AM Re: Lake Livingston Fish Ban??. [Re: Olhipi]
txmark1959 Offline
Extreme Angler

Registered: 07/19/12
Posts: 1174
Loc: Onalaska, TX
food
_________________________
Mark Cooper
Onalaska Texas

Top
#11296164 - 12/21/15 05:03 PM Re: Lake Livingston Fish Ban??. [Re: Olhipi]
361V Offline
TFF Team Angler

Registered: 11/21/08
Posts: 4573
Loc: somervell county
After flushing my toilet & spraying my yard up here in Dallas by the Trinity...I can't see why it would be a problem.....
_________________________

Top
#11297286 - 12/22/15 08:40 AM Re: Lake Livingston Fish Ban??. [Re: Fishbreeder]
Jkrez Offline
Outdoorsman

Registered: 01/19/14
Posts: 241
Loc: Kingwood, TX
Originally Posted By: Fishbreeder
Originally Posted By: DaleR
I have seen data on the samples taken. 29 of 32 white bass tested acceptable. Of the three that tested not acceptable one was barely over the line. All samples from all fish tested were from 2012 to 2013.I don't remember the results break down of the other species sampled.

It's not good but as usual it's not as bad as the news media makes it out to be.



Just curious, "acceptable or not" for what substance or combination of substances?

Jes' 'tween you'n me...I don't necessarily take everything the gov'ment says 'bout such things at face value all the time. I got an' idea that some things is not nearly so bad as the gov'ment lets on an' some of 'em is likely a lot worser.

Say f'instance...'lumenum vs methyl mercury or dioxin. Not to mention some of the stuff that might aktu'ly be swimmin' in there what you caint see....

So when I get me sumthin' as vague as "acceptable or not acceptable" it makes wanna ast some questyuns.

White bass, as a migratory top predator could move into and out of "contaminated" areas and would tend to bio-concentrate some environmental contaminants being near the top of the food web. So are some of the other species that were included, largemouth bass, I think was not one of them. Also a top predator, but less migratory and tending to have a wider variety of dietary items than the white bass that eats mostly shad and other pelagic forage species.

????? So what's so bad in three out of 32 samples (9%) as to make them "not acceptable?


Why do you talk like that? That's hard to read.

Top
#11299173 - 12/23/15 06:08 AM Re: Lake Livingston Fish Ban??. [Re: Olhipi]
trihullranger Offline
Green Horn

Registered: 12/14/10
Posts: 19
IMO it's not worth the paper it's printed on. They issued a FAQ document now. http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=8590003931

Top
#11302764 - 12/25/15 05:21 AM Re: Lake Livingston Fish Ban??. [Re: Olhipi]
lamoon78 Offline
TFF Team Angler

Registered: 05/05/10
Posts: 4407
Loc: Livingston Tx
I dont eat anything out of that nasty lake and your crazy if you do.

Top
#11308904 - 12/28/15 06:52 PM Re: Lake Livingston Fish Ban??. [Re: Olhipi]
twelvegaugetony Offline
Green Horn

Registered: 12/27/15
Posts: 9
That's right, Livingston is nasty witches pot of brewing chemicals, contamination, and foreign body.

Top
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >



© 1998-2017 OUTDOOR SITES NETWORK all rights reserved USA and Worldwide