The DNR issues an advisory state wide as they would rather error on the side of caution, not because all the fish in the state are contaminated. That is why they list the lakes they are sure having contaminated fish, all others lakes not listed are just a precaution advisory.

JimP is incorrect in his statement that carp have no advisory. The WDNR guidelines (http://dnr.wi.gov/fish/consumption/FishA...) say this: "Women of childbearing years, nursing mothers and all children under 15 may eat 1 meal per week of Bluegill, crappies, yellow perch, sunfish, bullheads and inland trout; and 1 meal per month of Walleye, pike, bass, catfish and all other species. Do not eat Muskies. Women beyond their childbearing years
and men may eat unrestricted Bluegill, crappies, yellow perch, sunfish, bullheads and inland trout; 1 meal per week of Walleye, pike, bass, catfish and all other species; and 1 meal per month of Muskies." Carp would fall under the "all other species" category, and are therefore unfortunately restricted.

Somehow that link is being changed from preview to post. After the word fish in the website address add this: %20Advisory%2007%20PCBs.pdf before clicking go or enter

The carp are being sold for human consumption throughout the US and contain no Heath Advisory.
The original link I provided is this one http://dnr.wi.gov/fish/consumption/Fish%...
and clearly shows that the Rock River & Koshkonong are not listed in the Health Advisory for Human Consumption.
Is there a change that fish may be contaminated in the future, certainly, but for now it is not.
Why has the link I posted three times before changed, clearly someone has edited it.

DNR= Did No Research

I'm confused.....is the famous Rock River Carp safe to eat or not?

Waa HOO! Our long regional nightmare is over! With any luck the District will stop raising our taxes and mismanaging our money. When are we going back to the $25 assessment they promised?

I am pleased with the judge's decision. It was fair and well written. Hopefully we can move on and tackle things we all agree on, like cleaning up the water quality. Like the other guy (or gal), I'd like to focus on making our fish safe to eat. Since my son isn't allowed to eat more than 8 ounces a month, he can't even eat most of the fish he catches. How messed up is that? And you wonder - given how science discovers new things all the time - if that is even safe. We need to own up to our responsibility to clean up the mess we made.

The Poster that told us about the lake and river channel being loaded with slit. Yes, the
the river and lake bottom have raised. If they
The DNR (DO NOTHING RIGHT)& Wet Landers IE = THE DUCKS DON'T 7.2 MORE INCH'S OF WATER SO LETS TAKE OUT 7.2' OF MUCK. WHAT'S BETTER AND CHEAPER TO DO. THREE GUESS'S AND THE FIRST TWO DON'T COUNT

The Gal that spoke at the hearing in
Jefferson really said it best. She was the next to last person that testified. Her story was so like others that came to ask for a small encrease of 7.2 " water in the dog days of summer.
She said, I qoute "I FEEL LIKE I'M BEING HELD HOSTAGE BY THE DUCK HUNTERS"
I SPOKE LAST AT THAT HEARING BUT SHE SAID IT ALL.

JimP, I am a bit confused what you are saying. Are you suggesting the fish in Lake Koshkonong and the Rock River are safe to eat? The evidence you provide to support this claim (if that is what you are doing) is a link to "Special advice for PCBs and other chemicals". It is true there is no "special advice" for our particular waterways; however, the WDNR still recommends limiting fish consumption. You may want to review the article "Choosing Wisely - A health guide for eating fish in Wisconsin" (http://dnr.wi.gov/fish/consumption/FishA...). The guide suggests that the reason for the restrictions is because "two main contaminants are responsible for fish advisories in Wisconsin. They are polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and mercury." All I am saying is that it would be nice if there were no restrictions on eating the fish of our lakes and rivers - is it really that controversial to suggest we try to do something about it? Peace...

The Clean Water Act for “Impaired Water of Koshkonong” has nothing to do with contaminated fish. This is a direct copy of the reason for it being listed.

From the Great Lake Directory of Impaired Waters: Three lakes and a creek were added to this year's list because of "non-point source" pollution with nutrients such as phosphorus.
Agricultural runoff is a leading source of non-point pollution, adding phosphorus and other substances to water bodies that can encourage algae growth, which in turn can reduce dissolved oxygen.
In other cases, waterways were added to the list because of a blend of point and non-point source pollution. A three-mile stretch of the Red Cedar River in Barron County near Highway W made the list for this reason, as did Lake Koshkonong in Jefferson, Dane and Rock counties and the Rock River from Watertown to Lake Koshkonong.
Here is the 2007 list of lakes & rivers that are listed for health advisories.
http://dnr.wi.gov/fish/consumption/Fish%...... Please note, neither the Rock River nor Koshkonong are listed.

I would love for the RKLD to focus on cleaning up the lake so that the fish are safe to eat. Lake Koshkonong is considered an "impaired body" under the Federal Clean Water Act. Women of child bearing age and children are advised to eat no muskies and no more than 8 oz a month of walleye, northern pike, smallmouth bass, largemouth bass, catfish, and other fish. Men are advised to have no more than 8 oz a week (http://www.dhfs.state.wi.us/eh/Fish/). This is due primarily to PCBs and mercury pollution. I realize that much of the problem is out of the control of the district, but there is MUCH that can be done. They should take a look at what some of the other districts are doing - there is so much opportunity and time's a wasting!

As a property owner in Mallwood for 67 years, I would like to know where all the tree huggers were during the 40's and 50's when the lake and river were a cess pool of green scum and the area wasn't very attractive. A lot of people put in a lot of time and effort to vitalize the area to an attractive area to live and recreate and now it sounds like a handful of do-gooders want to reverse all that effort. If the duck hunters have a problem maybe vice-president, Cheney should be invited to hunt with them. As late as the late 1970's the Army Corps of Engineers had a plan to dredge the lake, what happened to that plan?

As a Blackhawk Island property owner who is an avid outdoorsman, what makes the most sense to me is for all of us (including DNR) to do what we can to restore the river and the lake to what it once was before humanity began to fill the channel and lake with runoff and pollutants. Instead of raising the summer level 7 inches, why don't we dredge the channel and lake 7 inches. The money is available, just look at the DNR budget and more importantly, what they are spending it on.

We in the lake district both thru our annual contributions plus thru our property taxes are already showing our support for making the river and lake something special for future generations. But, at the rate the river and lake are filling up with runoff, all that may be left for future generations is a mosqeto infested swamp with hundreds of half submerged, abandoned polluting structures generating zero tax dollars.

greengina8
Not trying to harass but like I said before one needs to check facts. I just looked up the fish advisory for Wisconsin and the state doesn't list Koshkonong or the Rock River, not saying there isn't some chemicals but I do know the rough fish from Koshkonong are safe and sold for human consumption throughout the country so your worries are needless.
http://dnr.wi.gov/fish/consumption/Fish%...

I think it is about time that we the people retake our land and rights back from all these do gooding tree hugging types, the majority of the people that use this body of water want it deeper; only a special little minority seem to think that this is thier lake to use for fall duck hunting or maybe we should call in the PETA people and have some talks with them.

It's the tradgedy of the commons. Everyone wants to use the resources, but few take responsibility for the actions of many. My concern is for the people who have to eat the fish from the river and drink the water there.

The laws now are not tough enough and not well enforced. State phosphate bans are inneffective, and Rock County does not have an official policy.

We are all paying for the sins of the past, here folks. Now that we know what the deal is, we can move forward. If you want to live in the past, go ahead. I would like to try and solve some of the environmental issues previous generations left for us. You can choose to drop the ball, if you wish. I choose not too.

Now please, harrass someone else. I have work to do.

greengina8 Per your comment of no more buildings on shorelines we already have laws against that. Phosphate is already being controled by the state. Then you say change is good and at the same time suggest relocation of what could amount to 10 of thousands of people who have built there dreams to live on or near the water, ask them if you think that is the answer.

LTG- yes, I know about what's above the dam, and around it, as well. It's not that I don't take those into consideration; I was only stating that I feel the dam should be removed, and I agree with the judge that upheld the DNR ruling.
By the way, economics is not my forte. I do water quality research/monitoring and conservation biology.

GreenGina - How many waste water treatment plants discharge into the watershed above Lake Koshkonong?
*
How many homes along the many miles of shoreline rely on septic systems, and of those, how many have been inspected against failures?
*
Too bad you only majored in Biology...a second degree in economics would have rounded you out.

Can we agree to disagree? I don't want to change history; it can't be done. Things can change gradually, though. Let's start by not building new buildings on the shoreline of the river. Then, relocate those immediately south of the dam (the 1st 1000'). At the same time, people can fight for phosphate bans and responsible farming practices in the region and then the land and water conservation office can enforce it. Change is good, especially when it's needed.

Scientific data is what the district used to request a more reasonable water level.

What you want to do is change history by simply removing the dam, I know you can't go back to what it was unless you want to move the towns, rooftops & roadways in the entire water shed as they are the largest polluter in any given water shed with large populations.

Dam removal is in itself is not looking at all of the consequences and rarely solves anything as the pollution source is caused somewhere else.

Removal of a dam does little if anything, the same pollution is still in the system you just pass it on to someone else.

My degree in Biology says differently. Yes, the ag runoff does cause part of the problem, but not all. The river would be cleaner, not cleanest, if the dam were removed. Developing shoreline and curtailing natural flow patterns causes more problems than you'd think. My opinion is based on facts. You seem to be only insulting; not offering a solution.

greengina8
H'mmm lets look at this, there are 2640 sq miles of farmland drainage flowing into the area you think its a 10500 acre lake causing turbid dirty looking water. It always amazes me how people with little knowledge write opinions without ever researching the subject.

Remove the dam and restore the wetland. The dam is the reason the Rock River is so turbid (dirty looking)downstream. The health of the river will improve if the dam is removed. Restore the area to it's natural state.

DNR= does nothing right.

The lake does not belong to people who own lake front property. It belongs to everyone.

I can not believe the DNR is fighting people over what the people on water front land want. If they want 7 give them 7. The so called lake is a man made swamp so what the heck is the problem? If these DNR people have this much time to spend on fighting such strange fights maybe they have to large of staff, and need state employee cuts.