I'm curious about fishing and catch and release only policies in New York city.
I am wondering if catching and releasing the fish is actually a bad thing. Would catching and collecting the fish over time eventually reduce the pollution in the lake providing the removed fish be collected and disposed in some way that would collect the toxins and pollutiantss.

Catch and release may not be a bad thing in a body of water that gets intense pressure. On the other hand it may be a one of those warm and fuzzy things in NYC that seems like the right thing to do and not the best management of the BOW. Complete catch and release can be just as bad as no management whatsoever.

One thing many of us pond owners have found is that fish learn and get harder and harder to catch with Catch and Release.

I'm aware that fish do collect heavy metals and other toxins over time, but seriously doubt they would be effective in removing said metals and toxins. This is especially true if the metals and toxins keep entering the ecosystem.

Interesting idea to remove toxins and heavy metals by keeping the fish you catch. If it worked, the Atlantic Ocean would be very clean! As Cecil said,



The problem is, there are far more toxins than you could ever remove fish and more toxins get dumped in the water every day...

Personally I think that attitude along withj the continued dumping is the problem. It's too big to do, takes more than we got.
I'd think if they were to get the dumpers to stop...(yeah thats the hardest part) and then they could work on the removal part which would actually be able to show results over time.
Yes it is theory but hey I'm a miner and while the mining I am doing removes the gold and I am working on filling in the holes left by other miners. I do find 1/2 to 1 grain of gold a day. Yes at todays that5 is about 1-2 bucks a day. It does add up and the aera I am working will taake me 1-2 hundred years to fill.

Repectfully Ebonbetta we're just responding to your question and don't think we are part of the problem. Trying to remove toxins via fish just doesn't make much sense biologically.Conversely You do know the history of mining and it's effect on the environment don't you? I believe cyanide has been used to separate gold from impurities? There is more than one river in the west that is permanently lifeless due to mining.

Ebonbetta, I certainly don't have the "it's too big to do, take more than we got..." attitude. I just don't think catching fish and removing them from polluted waters is the way to do it. Usually, bottom dredging is the fastest and most efficient way to remove pollutants such as that. However, that in it of itself can cause problems.

I do agree with you that continued dumping is a major problem but has greatly improved since the clean water act. However, I still see dumping of all kinds from septic systems in disrepair to public sewage treatment centers dumping nasty water into our waterways, to people dumping used motor oil down the drain, or tossing old batteries into the trash all the way up to industrial companies illegally dumping highly toxic chemicals.

I volunteer a lot of time in doing clean ups each year and am a member of numerous conservation organizations. I think you will find many other Pond Boss Forum members are also very active in conservation.

Please do not think I am mad or bitter at you all. It's proablly true that dredging the pond bottom will be the fasttest but even if you were to remove all the pollutants on the bottom of the lake wouldn't there still be an amount of pollutants that are in the fish and plants that have absorbed some of those pollutants ? My point is that the conntinueous removal of the pollutants would remove some amount of them and even at a slow rate it would be removal non-the less.

Fish, even in polluted waters have extremely low amounts of pollutants in them when compared to what is in the sediment. Removing fish with the purpose of removing pollutants is not a feasible method.