Thread: Advisory on local fish contaminants...

Not sure if y’all saw this, they include King over 39”...

https://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/20...n_advis_1.html

Advisory on Kings has been in place for years. I'd rather eat barely legal kings anyway.

The other longstanding one is the mercury advisory on large mouth bass in most of our coastal waters. Most obvious source is air deposition from burning coal. But there is some thought that there is a natural background level of mercury in most coastal systems.
The chemistry of coastal rivers facilitates methylization by bacteria in the sediments, and then the methyl mercury works its way up the food chain, bio-concentrating as it goes. Bass seem particularly vulnerable for some reason, besides being at the top of the food chain.

That's not exactly new. The 39" advisory was in place a few years ago when I checked the consumption recommendations. That said, a lot of guys on the pier have been eating much bigger kings for years and are in good health. Its an advisory, personally I'd follow it. Am I going to worry about a meal or two from an oversized king in the past? No.

Yah the king advisory is pretty typical for the apex predator fish that people target. Out on the east coast they have the same for stripers. Still so odd to this northerner that people eat largemouths though...

I dont eat largemouth, I just dont find them that tastie. GIven the advisory and that i have growing kids, I throw them back.
That said, our bass fishery is much more productive than norther waters. Bass in our local tidally influenced waters are a local genetic strain, they grow fast and die young. If people want to eat them and arent worried about the advisory, keeping them is not an issue from a fisheries management standpoint.