Dear Reader: Since I am working at a fishing camp in a remote part of Labrador during the month of July, I will be unable to file a regular weekly column. When I return in early August my regular columns will return with me. I might even have a fish story or two to share with you. Meantime, I have for July dusted off a few columns that might be worth your time. Tight lines!

Not all anglers are disciples of the catch and release ethic. Some of us still like to hook and cook. These two schools of thought are not necessarily mutually exclusive, either. There can be a happy medium: eat some, release some. However, frying up a pan full of Maine freshwater fish, if you read the news, is not the simple, straightforward proposition it used to be.

According to Maine health experts, some of our freshwater fish contain unhealthy levels of mercury contamination. There is a dispute between state environmental organizations and the Bureau of Health over just how dire the situation is, and what to tell the public.

The Natural Resources Council has faulted state toxicologist Dr. Andrew Smith for preparing fish consumption advisories that underestimate the potential dangers.

This is interesting.

A few years ago, when I worked as information officer for the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIF&W), Dr. Smith and his Bureau directors were on my case for not adequately promoting fish consumption advisories. Many meetings were held. Much talk took place. Many agreements were struck.

Listening to all of the discussion of fish contamination (much of which was scientific references to parts per million) I came away with my own unscientific conclusions: a) the danger is vastly overblown b) conveying this data to the public in a comprehensible fashion will be next to impossible c) scaring the public is not an effective way to promote the joys and benefits of recreational fishing.

Still, I had a job to do. We prepared a grid chart which depicted the relative dangers of eating different species of freshwater fish. This was published in informational flyers, the state magazine and the fishing law book. After all the worry and handwringing, our informal surveys indicated that most folks were not reading the fish advisories, or simply ignoring them..

This year, to the Department’s credit, it attempted to simplify the fish consumption advisories. No more complex grid chart. Instead, you are advised to eat freshwater fish meals no more than 12 times a year if you’re pregnant, no more than 52 fish meals a year for everyone else, and no more than 24 fish meals a year if you catch your fish in the lower portions of our so-called “industrial rivers” such as the Androscoggin, Kennebec or Penobscot.

Not only is this a simpler advisory, it is less alarmist than our advisory that actually recommended no consumption of some species of freshwater fish. The unspoken danger, of course, is that all parties involved in this dispute over fish consumption information have an ax to grind.The environmental spokesmen and bureau of health folks must justify their existence. MDIF&W wants to sell more fishing licenses, not less.

What is the average fish-eating angler to think? Where does the truth lie?

As with so many other dilemmas fostered by our information-laden society, it is up to each of us to scrutinize media reports, seek to separate fact from self-serving bias, and try to weigh the personal risks presented from the daily media deluge of scary things.

As a participant in those meetings with toxicologist Dr. Smith ( a nice guy) and the Bureau of Health, as well as a fish-eating angler, here’s my take. The capacity of modern science to measure infinitesimal units of anything has become a mixed blessing. We sometimes spook ourselves unwittingly.

Let’s face it. For the average adult angler who enjoys a fish fry, 52 fish meals a year (once a week) is hardly restrictive. Another way to look at this issue is to weigh the relative risk against the widely acclaimed health benefits of consuming large quantities of low-fat fish (even those with substantial parts per million of mercury).

As a matter of fact, I asked Dr. Smith this question: “If you were condemned the rest of your life to survive solely on a daily diet of either mercury- contaminated bass from the Androscoggin River or a Big Mac with fries, which would you choose?”

Can you guess his reply? It wasn’t the burger and fries!

V. Paul Reynolds is editor of the Northwoods Sporting Journal.He is also a Maine Guide, co-host of a weekly radio program “Maine Outdoors” heard Sundays at 6 p.m. on 103.9, and former information officer for the Maine Dept. of Fish and Wildlife.