More than 40% of our lakes are unsuitable . . .

paull -- Your ignorance and lack of responsibility is a threat to everyone. Can beliefs kill? Of course they can. How immature!

0 Replies

plainoldme wrote:

Anyone who lives in an area where there are lakes has probably noticed that no one lives on them anymore or swims in them or fishes.

Mebbe like that in your neighborhood, but my neighborhood is known for pristine lakes and streams, and the lakes and streams with public access (which amounts to most of 'em) are very closely monitored by the State Department of Natural Resources. There are strictly enforced regulations limiting lakefront/watercourse development, and, as I said earlier, while some waters adjacent to or surrounded by municipalities face threats (which at fairly considerable expense are being dealt with), the rural surface waters hereabouts pretty much are splendid - even when swarming with folks bathing and fishing. Many lakes, public and private, prohibit or severely restrict motorized (other than battery/electric) watercraft, in fact. As for the subsurface waters, my well is typical for the area, is absolutely untreated, discharges water year round at 45° to 47°, and by analysis checks out undetectable for contaminants apart from a very little bit of iron and just a trace of hardness; the pH averages 7.4-7.6. Our Bunn brand coffee maker is years old, never has had to be de-limed, the water heater is ancient by contemporary standards (dates to somewhere in the '70s) and has no rust, sedimentation, or deposit buildup, the animal-watering bowls and troughs (some are stainless steel, some galvanized, and some are poly) never evidence sedimentation or deposit buildup, and the year-round pond in my front yard is an ecosystem of its own, filtered via its pumping system but otherwise untreated, and home to all sortsa fish, water plants, amphibians, and aquatic insects; nothing, no nutrients, algaecides, or other chemicals, of any sort, not even fish food, ever are added to it. I don't make a habit of drinking my pondwater, but I have drunk some from time to time,the critters drink from the pond all the time, and none of us seem to have suffered any ill effect. The pond water tastes fine, but water straight from the well is cooler in the summer. We live with nature here in The Northwoods, not against it.

0 Replies

Timber finished his tirade (BTW -- You use a Bunn coffee maker?!) with this line:

We live with nature here in The Northwoods, not against it.

Is that meant as an accusation? If so, against whom? Despite your cries here, you don't seem an environmentalist. The fact that you proclaim the safety of your own waters -- while far too much water is unsafe -- seems like just another dodge of responsibility.

0 Replies

The answer is obvious. John Kerry poops in your water supply.

0 Replies

Comon folks, I don't care who y'are, that right there was funny. Laughing

0 Replies

plainoldme wrote:

BTW -- You use a Bunn coffee maker?!

Yup - and have for decades (a succession of appliances over the years - the current one has a thermal carafe; no warming plate). Roast and grind my own beans (mostly Columbian, dark-roasted, but arrabica once in a while, and sometimes Aa), too, with Krupp and Braun hardware.

I wrote:

We live with nature here in The Northwoods, not against it.

In response to which POM wrote:

Is that meant as an accusation? If so, against whom?

An observation, not an accusation. Apply it as you find fitting.

Quote:

Despite your cries here, you don't seem an environmentalist.

A matter of perception, I suppose. In fact I frequently take issue with the absurdities forwarded by many who style themselves "Environmentalists". I think of myself more as a responsible, enthusiastic outdoors type, really more of a woodsman than anything else, I guess. I hunt and fish and hike and climb (though the old joints and muscles are beginning to curb that a bit) and cross-country ski and camp and horseback ride and 4-wheel and boat and snowmobile and alltogether appreciate, enjoy, and celebrate wilderness. That has a wole bunch to do with why I live where I do; wilderness, mile upon unspoiled mile of it, and all its critters and other delights, is literally at my door. I happen also to participate actively in local wildlife, wildland, and wetland preservation and restoration activies.

Quote:

The fact that you proclaim the safety of your own waters -- while far too much water is unsafe -- seems like just another dodge of responsibility.

I accept and excercize responsibility for those things I may, and I recognize, acknowledge, and lament that others are not so inclined. The area here is a wilderness wonderland because of efforts undertaken by the sort of folks with whom I choose to associate and alongside whom I work - financially and physically - to keep it that way.

0 Replies

Re: More than 40% of our lakes are unsuitable . . .

plainoldme wrote:

What do you intend to do about this?

I dont intend to swim or fish in 40% of lakes.

0 Replies

Lake Michigan, and even Lake Superior, are contaminated with heavy metals and chemicals from hundreds of years of mining and manufacturing, amongst other things. The stuff works its way up the food chain to the point they tell pregnant women not to eat the fish, and suggest others limit their intake.

I don't see anyone proposing any ideas of how to clean the mess up, and they never will, because it would be so costly, and in the end, less effective than just letting it take care of itself.

In the meantime, there's nothing better than taking a dip in the shark-free wind driven breakers on the big lakes on a hot summers day, playing in the squeaky clean sand, and eating freshly caught perch, salmon and whitefish from their waters.

I hope John Kerry doesn't know about my secret north coast.

0 Replies

In an attempt to answer cjhsa -- You wrote about heavy metal contamination in the Great Lakes and of warnings to pregnant women not to eat fish. I have written on my parents' decision not to retire to a river in the northern part of Michigan's lower peninsula because of water pollution and limitations on the amount of fish considered safe for consumption.

We have to remember that lake water is just a small portion of this planet's water.

Two or three years ago, in a documentary about the Hudson River, the notion of whether scrapping the surface off the bottom of the river would do more harm than good was brought up, but no conclusions could be reached because of conflicting evidence.

Those who watched Jean-Michel Cousteau's Ocean Adventures learned that the real danger posed by sharks to humans comes in eating sharks -- and not in being eaten. Shark bodies are full of mercury.

Some time ago, I wrote in some thread here that I have given up eating fish . . . I eat fish three or four times each year. I do this in part because the oceans are over-fished. Someone told me that all I had to do about over fishing was to allow the market to take over, pushing the price of fish beyond the reach of most people, and thereby protecting the fish stock. What the writer overlooked was human nature: people would begin eating this luxury food, even if they previously hated fish, just because it was scarce and expensive.

Of course, maybe those same people would succumb to mercury poisoning, solving the problem.

0 Replies

plainoldme wrote:

In an attempt to answer cjhsa -- You wrote about heavy metal contamination in the Great Lakes and of warnings to pregnant women not to eat fish. I have written on my parents' decision not to retire to a river in the northern part of Michigan's lower peninsula because of water pollution and limitations on the amount of fish considered safe for consumption.

Hmm. Well, we don't need more out of staters or downstaters to move here and put up "No Hunting/Trespassing" signs anyway. It's an ugly trend. At the same time, the fast running waters in the upper portions of Michigan's trout streams are pristine and clean. It's not until you get close to the mouths and downstream from cities and towns that there's a problem.

I have a property on a trout stream/river in the northern lower. It's on a peninsula so instead of owning 100' of riverfront, I have 1/2 mile.

I might consider selling it. Bids start at $500K.

0 Replies

cj etc -- My parents were both born and bred in Michigan. Why would you jump to the conclusion that they would move there from some other place?

0 Replies

I agree with Timber about the condition of the water in his area. I live two blocks from Lake Michigan but do most of my fishing in his neck of the woods. I recently got back from a trip from around there and every one of the fish we caught was eaten.

And sorry cjhsa, you have another city boy boy trying to get a place in MI, but I promise not to post any signs.

0 Replies

sublime1 wrote:

I agree with Timber about the condition of the water in his area. I live two blocks from Lake Michigan but do most of my fishing in his neck of the woods. I recently got back from a trip from around there and every one of the fish we caught was eaten.

quote]

Okay, but . . .

This is not a case of agreeing or disagreeing with Timber. The thread runs that more than 40% of all lakes are unsuitable for fishing and swimming. I could not remember whether the original number was 46 or 47. That means that about 53% of the lakes are marginal to suitable. 53% is still a low number, n'est-ce pas?

0 Replies

plainoldme wrote:

I can not believe that the lakes in Wisconsin are as safe as Timber thinks they are . . . but, as my father might say, "consider the source (the source here being Timberlandko)."

Considering that T is in a farming region and considering how poisonous to the environment contemporary farming practices are, I would assume his lakes are far from pristine. Talk about willing blindness. Beliefs like his are dangerous to the rest of us.

I don't question the validity that many lakes are unsuitable for fishing and swimming but there remains many that are unspoiled and Timber just happens to live in an area where the latter is more commonplace.

53% is a low number and what I do personally to keep it from getting any lower is practicing a "leave no trace" attitude when visiting any lake.

0 Replies

plainoldme wrote:

cj etc -- My parents were both born and bred in Michigan. Why would you jump to the conclusion that they would move there from some other place?

Sorry, but I am surprised at their conclusion to NOT retire there for the reasons noted.

0 Replies

sublime1 wrote:

And sorry cjhsa, you have another city boy boy trying to get a place in MI, but I promise not to post any signs.

Like I said, I have a place for sale...at the right price! Cool

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

sublime1 wrote:

And sorry cjhsa, you have another city boy boy trying to get a place in MI, but I promise not to post any signs.

Like I said, I have a place for sale...at the right price!

I have my eye on a place near Kalamazoo that is a bit cheaper than your asking price.

0 Replies

Remember, there are no trout streams in Kalamazoo. Smile

The 'Zoo is a smallmouth haven though.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

plainoldme wrote:
cj etc -- My parents were both born and bred in Michigan. Why would you jump to the conclusion that they would move there from some other place?

Sorry, but I am surprised at their conclusion to NOT retire there for the reasons noted.

WHY???!!! I will repeat what my father said, again. He said how does anyone know that five ounces of fish per week is safe and what are the cumulative effects of eating five ounces of fish per week, 52 weeks per year, for 10, 20 years or longer.

I think my father's decision was sensible. Consider, if the fish are that contaminated, then swimming in the river is out of the question.

0 Replies

sublime -- Your leave-no-trace position is a good starting point. I'm going to contact Deb Callahan among others to learn how I can become something of an environmental warrior.

0 Replies

More than 40% of our lakes are unsuitable . . .

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know