[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: NFC: Fw: Yes, please help me.
I wasn't following your thread but being a shipwreck diver in the great lakes (all except Ontario) there is life deep down. I've dove to almost 200 feet and have seen
fish-trout,salmon,sculpins, and crayfish. I know people who fish and routinly catchn fish on out riggers at 200 feet plus. While fish may not be in the bottom of the deep part
of lakes they do move into the deeper parts, just not the bottom of them. On the other hand I have dove in quarries at 170 feet that had high concentrations of sulphated water
with limited higher aquatic life (you can smell the sulfer through your mask). Not choosing sides on this just adding my 2 cents worth.
in muggy Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti Michigan
Andrew Dalton wrote:
> "Joshua L. Wiegert" wrote:
> > The great lakes are far from oligotrophic. . . . They're mesotrophic, coming back from eutrophication, especially the more populated, smaller two: Lakes Erie and Ontario.
> Everything that I've read (including a web search that I just did)
> describes the Great Lakes as generally oligotrophic, with the exception
> of the warmer, shallower areas--such as Lake Erie and many bays in the
> other lakes. Much of the deviation from oligotrophic conditions can
> historically be attributed to phosphate pollution from human sources.
> This has been steadily improving from the "pea soup" days of the 1960s.
> I found one web site that mentions the particular problem of anoxia in
> the hypolimnion of Lake Erie:
> Apparently, anoxia has not been a problem in the other Great Lakes.
> Andrew Dalton