Excellent points Ken. See, that's the kind of information you can't get publically. You have to know, and talk to the right people to find out stuff like that. Now, as far as your conversation with Vic, how long ago did that take place? That is relevant, wouldn't you agree? As we all know, they have been working on cleaning up most of the river pollution in recent years. What may have been true about the flesh of fish 5-10 years ago, isn't necessarily true today. I tend to hope that the IDPH knows what they're talking about when it comes to the tests they are running on these fish, but who knows, right? They do some pretty heavy testing on fish flesh from all areas of the Fox, up and down the river. All you can really do is trust that what they say is safe, is actually safe to eat. We take the same gamble trusting the FDA in regards to the foods in grocery stores, right?

I've always been the type of person to form my own opinions from what someone tells me. I've never been the type of person that just says, "Oh, well so and so said this, and he is an expert, so it must be true." I prefer to do my research and homework on the subject, and then decide for myself. I like to think I'm better off because of that approach in life. It certainly helped me to get through school, when teachers would have the wrong answers up on the board, or tell you you got something wrong on a test, that was actually right.

As for the fish eating debate, well, I took the information I was given and looked at it objectively. IDPH says the fish are safe to eat, aside from the catfish and carp, which should be eaten sparingly. I compared those advisories to fish advisories for other bodies of water, such as Lake Michigan, where people are constantly eating fish, and decided they were probably right. I've yet to hear of someone getting extremely sick from eating perch or salmon out of the Big Pond, but hey, maybe you just don't hear about things like that. Some people said the fish were not safe to eat from the Fox, but they weren't even supposed experts on the subject. Tasted terrible, and filled with contaminants were the common complaints. So, I took a couple walleye home, taking special care to make sure they were properly cleaned, prepared, and cooked thoroughly, just in case. I had no side effects at all from eating those fish, and no taste that would lead me to believe there were high chemical concentrations in the flesh(you don't taste many contaminants anyway, but just saying). I don't smother the fish with seasonings either, and I had no "metallic taste" that I have heard others reference when talking about fish from the Fox. Those walleye tasted better than the perch I've caught and eaten out of Lake Michigan. I have experienced that "metallic taste" people talk about with a few perch out of Lake Michigan, and I know it well. The flesh was most certainly better on the walleye too. Maybe that has something to do with the water temperatures though. When I ate those walleye, they came out of water that was in the low 40s. Those perch came out of water that was 20+ degrees warmer. That does make a difference.

I hope noone takes offense to these kind of debates, as that's not my intention at all. I just question everything I'm told. It's in my nature.

I hope noone takes offense to these kind of debates, as that's not my intention at all. I just question everything I'm told. It's in my nature.



Thank Goodness!!! Its just you NATURE. I thought you were having a reaction to eating Those Fox River Walleyes

Or, I could just be a stubborn, opinionated asshole.

Now thats a theory I can stand behind! Plenty of solid evidence to back it up too!

I think this is a really interesting topic. Darth what do you mean when you call the fox river impaired?
Long time reader by the way from clf days. I found this site through your reference to kens site on wcf. Huge fan!

Welcome to the site Sparky.

Technically I'm not "calling" the river impaired. It has been designated as such by the ISWS.

An excerpt from their analysis states...

"Potential causes of river and stream deterioration identified by the IEPA include flow alterations, habitat changes, dissolved oxygen, excess algal growth, and fecal coliform bacteria, according to Alena Bartosova, scientist at the ISWS, who leads the research. "

Now in regards as to what that means to me...I can only offer the perspective of someone who utilizes the resource strictly as a Sport Fisherman.
In a system that has apparently been compromised I would think that every fish counts...and to take 1, 2, a limit or a bucketful moves us further away from achieving the goal of a thriving fishery.
I can respect and accept the fact that others feel differently but for me personally it would be ethically inappropriate.

Also....in effort of removing any semblance of vagueness or chance for further misinterpretation of my previous statement regarding Fecal Coliform...I did not at any point declare it as a likely source or consequence of fish consumption.
It was however brought up in potential correlation with my recollection (or "horror story" whichever you prefer) of becoming sick after being exposed to the mist at the shit plant pipe.
Do note though that some studies suggest the bacteria can be carried in the intestines of fish in areas of high concentration.

There are many things we know of and some things we don't that find their way into the river...so to break it down....if the hypothesis that "some guy ate a couple fish and pooped em out fine" is sufficient scientific testimony by anyone's standards I would highly recommend exercising caution throughout the preparation process.