NYS consumtion guide for Erie

Well, this is new so don't shoot the messenger

This was sent to me a couple of weeks ago from a charter operator in the US

Its all the info I have right now so if anyone has more please post it for everyone

FAKE NEWS

The Canadian advisories are much more detailed. The Ohio and New York state advisories are terrible as they don't base much of the advisory on size of fish! eg. They say it's Ok to eat one meal per month of channel cat, yet there is no mention that any channel cat above 12" is unsafe and should be zero consumption.

https://www.michigan.gov/mdhhs/-/media/Proj...FB018C2642139CB

Go by the Michigan State guidelines and you won't be eating any fish at all. Erie, Lake St. Clair, St. Clair River - zero consumption for kids and women, men can have 6 meals PER YEAR. - one meal every two months. Look at their Lake Huron restrictions! Forget about eating any Georgian Bay lake trout, chinooks, rainbows, coho. Makes you wonder how there can be so much discrepency between US and Canadian guidelines.

Those Georgian Bay lakers? Michigan says for fish 24" or greater - zero consumption for women and kids, and "limited" for men, meaning 1-2 meals PER YEAR.

This is 2024 “news”.
In my opinion, Guide to Eating Ontario Fish is misleading in many aspects/locations. NY State advisory is just stupid.
I think this topic has been discussed previously quite heavily. I don’t want to repeat everything I said two years ago.
I’ll just repeat it with regards to Lake Erie specifically.
I contacted the Environmental Monitoring and Reporting Branch (responsible for the Guide). My main concern at that time was PFAS while NY Statewide Advice has been more concerned regarding mercury.
Their reply:

The Province of Ontario monitor PFAS and other contaminants in fish from the Great Lakes to develop fish consumption advisories. Levels of PFAS in Great Lakes fish observed to date are generally below the current fish consumption advisory benchmarks. Existing advisories are mainly due to two contaminants-PCBs and mercury. Although average PFAS exposure from eating fish can be higher than exposure from drinking water, that does not automatically translate into high health risks because the exposure still could be below harmful levels. However, it is acknowledged that fishers who eat in excess of advisories could be at higher risk. Additionally, eating fish low in contaminants provides many health benefits, which may in part offset the health effects of exposure to contaminants, including PFAS.

I did not find this answer satisfactory at all. In addition I also contacted them regarding specific location and problematic logic in the Guide and got quite formal, almost meaningless replies. But we have what we have.
My understanding (to avoid lengthy detailed explanations) is that NY State advisory just does not make any sense, while Ontario Guide (regarding Great Lakes mostly) is often misleading but could be on both tougher or lenient sides. Generally I think the Ontario Guide is a good point to stick with, since we don't have anything better anyway.
Once again I’d like to mention that it is way less concerning regarding the older population (like most of the users of this forum) but crucial for children and women of childbearing age especially.

Here's a question to ask..

What contaminant standard is actually applied to commercially harvested Ontario Great Lakes walleye and perch, how frequently are they tested, and how does that standard compare with Ontario's recreational fish-consumption advisory?

My understanding - from quite thorough research in 2024 - is that no other testing on Great lakes fish is performed aside from the Ontario Guide. And it really does make sense since the Guide is considered a very comprehensive program and anything extra would be just wasting resources.
In the States there was data - about two decades old from now - regarding consumption of commercial ocean fish (such as mackerel etc). They mostly focus on Mercury. I don't remember the numbers (since I don’t buy fish from stores) but my impression was that the ocean fish is not any better than fish from the lakes I fish (GB mostly).
I have not dived into the topic since 2024 but it is very unlikely that there is something new that I missed.
So, for us, who fish, there is no much choices for fish consumption other than the fish we get from fishing. Fish from stores is very unlikely to be better in terms of contamination.
I’m a bit paranoid about it and have a strict habit of following the Guide recommendation on conservative side.
Even though I see a lot of discrepancies and not logical data in the Guide, we really don’t have anything better than this. This topic - fish contamination and testing - is really complicated and practically I don’t see that we could get any better data soon.

I agree it’s a very complicated issue. However, I think there’s still a gap that deserves attention.

If a 24-inch Lake Erie walleye caught by an angler comes with a recommendation to limit consumption, what happens if an almost identical fish is caught by a commercial fisherman and ends up in a grocery store?

Essentially, the same fish carries a consumption advisory for the recreational angler, yet it can be sold to anyone, including young children or pregnant women, without any similar warning.

I’m not suggesting the fish shouldn’t be sold, but I do think there’s room for improvement in how the risks are communicated to consumers.

A little food for thought there for sure….. turns out I’d guess no one really knows what goes on with their food unless self harvested

Of course there is a huge gap but testing commercially harvested fish is impossible for a number of reasons. For instance, fish is caught in many different places and testing every single batch of it is impossible and will take time. Plus there will be a huge resistance from the fishery industries.
This is why I’m saying that eating your own catch is wiser than buying fish from stores because at least you have some estimate of how much crap you have in it.
General recommendation is to eat 227 grams (8 ounces) of seafood per week. So you can easily compare it with the amount given in the Guide (‘meal’ in the Guide is equal to 227 grams (8 ounces) and given as ‘numbers of meal per month).

Even the Guide is way far from being perfect and precise. There are a lot of illogical or precarious things in it.
Just one example. In GB you can eat 14’’ Crappie every other day. But Crappie caught in Matchedash bay cannot have the same amount of contaminants as the Crappie caught somewhere in Northern parts of GB, where waters are much cleaner. And note that for the Severn Sound portion of GB Crappie is not listed at all. Apparently, it is assumed that you have to rely on the info in the main portion of GB, which is wrong.
And there are numerous other examples.
Unfortunately, the raw data used for this guide is not available for the public. There are some legitimate reasons for that but still I believe that it should not be hidden from public.
The bottom line is that the Guide is the only available resource for us to refer to. And I don't expect anything better to emerge in the near future, unless some high profile cases arise.

Another example which I just found even worse and very alarming.
Lake trout form the main portion of GB is given 4 meals per month for 24-26’’ size. But Lake Trout in the Severn Sound portion is listed as a huge 16 meals per month for the same size.
It is just impossible that Lake trout from Sever Sound would be less contaminated than lake trout from the main portion.