Jump to content

Lead ban counfounds industry - Bass Fan Article


Recommended Posts

can anyone confirm this?

 

 

Lead ban counfounds industry 3/16/2009

 

A recent action by the Obama administration has left anglers and the fishing industry scratching their heads. Last week, the National Park Service (NPS) suddenly announced it would ban lead fishing tackle in national parks by 2010.

 

The American Sportfishing Association (ASA) weighed on in the controversy with a widely distributed statement. "The sportfishing industry is surprised and dismayed by the March 10 announcement made by the National Park Service," said ASA VP Gordon Robertson. "Their intention to eliminate the use of lead in fishing tackle in national parks was made without prior consultation of the sportfishing industry or the millions of recreational anglers who fish within the national park system."

 

Robertson added: "In his Jan. 21, 2009 Executive Memo to federal agency and department heads, President Obama made it very clear that he expects the federal government to be transparent, participatory and collaborative and that 'executive departments and agencies should offer Americans increased opportunities to participate in policymaking and to provide their government with the benefits of their collective expertise and information.' We expect the National Park Service to follow the President's order."

 

In the normal course of events, the sportfishing and shooting-sports industries (lead component ammunition is also included in the ban) would have been notified by the NPS about this change in policy and would have been invited to discuss this decision with NPS staff, the ASA noted.

 

Robertson also said: "The NPS policy announcement, issued by a press release, does not explain how this decision was reached, why it may be necessary or how this rule will be implemented. To our knowledge, there has been no proposed rule, nor any opportunity for public comment. We request that the NPS withdraw this proposal and discuss the rationale for it with the appropriate stakeholders before taking further action."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking at this from the subject line alone, I would have said that there are likely more fly fishing enthusiasts among trout streams and the like in National Parks.

The FF crowd gave up lead as a general rule light years before it was popular to eschew it as a standard in fishing tackle.

 

After reading Gordon's statements, I'm pretty much in agreement with his position.

You can't just throw policy at those affected most by it without consulting with the majority.

Senator Steans learned this the hard way recently, right here in Illinois.

 

"In the normal course of events, the sportfishing and shooting-sports industries (lead component ammunition is also included in the ban) would have been notified by the NPS about this change in policy and would have been invited to discuss this decision with NPS staff, the ASA noted."

 

In the absence of this, if it in fact went down like that, you can throw all semblance of trust out the window when it comes to the players involved.

Not sure who is responsible for this, but their credibility raises serious questions from here on out.

 

Whether we agree with the premise of the proposal or not isn't the issue.

You consult with the people you are trying to govern, period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The FF crowd gave up lead as a general rule light years before it was popular to eschew it as a standard in fishing tackle.

 

Don't overgeneralize, Mike. That would make it hard to explain this article that ran on Fly Anglers on Line February 9, 2009. They are reputable spokesmen for the Fly Fishing community.

 

http://www.flyanglersonline.com/features/bobboese/020909.php

 

Everyone should read the whole article. But I can give you the gist of it. Well intentioned folks are confusing hunting with fishing. When a hunter fires a shotgun the whole charge goes into the environment and cannot be retrieved. This is not the case with lead used by fishermen. Since it is attached to a line, we retrieve it. At the end of the day we go home with it. Also the size and shape of a lead sinker is frequently different from the tiny bird shot that waterfowl ingest. As a result there are no conclusive studies about the effects of fishing lead. Actually there are darn few studies. Well intentioned folks are piggybacking their argument against fishing lead on the studies about lead shot used for hunting. It is a poor fit as you can see. We might as well object to floridated toothpaste because Flourine is a toxic substance. Fact is that in toothpaste it is very beneficial. Then too, other folks used to say, "The only good indian is a dead indian." So while one may object to the lack of democratic decision making displayed in the proposed sinker ban, I object to the faulty logic displayed therein.

 

But, just read the article.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been politically active for about 20 years now, the last eight as an elected official. This proposed ban on not only lead fishing tackle, but on lead ammunition as well should come as no surprise to sportsmen who are second amendment supporters. Back in 1994-95, the original intent of the lead tackle ban was a back door attempt at gun control. The intent was to ban lead on piecemeal basis leading to a complete ban if that is even possible Ban lead and no bullets, no bullets no need for a gun period. That is how these people think. I was waiting for this to get resurrected because it's no secret that the current administration is vehemently anti-gun. What they cannot get through Congress they will try to regulate out of existence with laws like this.

 

I smelled a rat when the lead ban for Illinois was proposed, but had nothing to go on. I contacted some of my sources to find out who really authored that bill, because it was not Senator Steans, It was written before she was appointed to office and had another sponsor before her. She was simply the water boy or girl for this bill. To date I have not heard anything but will try to get an answer sometime next week.

 

It has been my experience that a good number of pols lie about the real intention of bills like this. They would never dare to express their real intentions, they would be run out of town, so they smoke screen it with a cause that you and I can accept, like saving fish and birds.

 

Mike D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are no secrets on this one to speak of, to be honest.

Alderwoman Smith and the Shedd Aquarium were the constituents behind it.

Defenders of Wildlife wrote the form for all states to us.

 

The bill has been revised for an educational approach that still carries obligations that state entities cannot meet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't overgeneralize, Mike. That would make it hard to explain this article that ran on Fly Anglers on Line February 9, 2009. They are reputable spokesmen for the Fly Fishing community.

 

http://www.flyanglersonline.com/features/bobboese/020909.php

 

Everyone should read the whole article. But I can give you the gist of it. Well intentioned folks are confusing hunting with fishing. When a hunter fires a shotgun the whole charge goes into the environment and cannot be retrieved. This is not the case with lead used by fishermen. Since it is attached to a line, we retrieve it. At the end of the day we go home with it. Also the size and shape of a lead sinker is frequently different from the tiny bird shot that waterfowl ingest. As a result there are no conclusive studies about the effects of fishing lead. Actually there are darn few studies. Well intentioned folks are piggybacking their argument against fishing lead on the studies about lead shot used for hunting. It is a poor fit as you can see. We might as well object to floridated toothpaste because Flourine is a toxic substance. Fact is that in toothpaste it is very beneficial. Then too, other folks used to say, "The only good indian is a dead indian." So while one may object to the lack of democratic decision making displayed in the proposed sinker ban, I object to the faulty logic displayed therein.

 

But, just read the article.

 

 

 

 

"Essentially, the argument goes, sinker manufacturers make that many pounds of sinkers each year so fishermen must be purchasing them to replace lost sinkers. Now if this were true it would mean that lead sinkers contribute a number not that far below what was supposedly contributed by lead shot."

 

But, he never really addresses what happens to all that lead. I never thought about it myself till I read this article. If manufacturers are selling "x" amount of lead, where does it all go? If not in the water then where?

 

I think he's got it wrong about tungsten also. To my knowledge, tungsten alloy is WAY denser than lead. So it's actually advantageous to use, fishing-wise.

Except for the expense ( a fly fisherman compalining about the cost of tackle?? Do I hear tiny violins?). There are some cool tungsten weights and jigs out there, I might add.

 

In all other walks of life, lead is regulated. It's nasty stuff- toxic, I believe the word that is thrown around. And where it's banned, everyone continues to fish. Frankly, I don't think it's a bad idea and I'm suprised it didn't happen sooner.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. But, he never really addresses what happens to all that lead. I never thought about it myself till I read this article. If manufacturers are selling "x" amount of lead, where does it all go? If not in the water then where?

 

2. In all other walks of life, lead is regulated.

 

Mark,

 

Your number 1 is a slick restatement of the argument from ignorance-a standard logical fallacy. We argue from ignorance to knowledge-normally quite impossible. We don't know where the lead goes so it must go in the water, right? Wrong! We still don't know where it goes. To clear up the mystery I looked in my tackle collection and found sinkers and jigs that I bought 40 years ago. A lot of guys like me just carry it along from season to season. Or do you dump your unused lead in the lake at the end of the fishing season.

 

Your number 2 is another gross overgeneralization. Lead is very easy to buy from Umqua, Cabelas, Fly Shops and plumbing suppliers to name a few. It is not highly regulated because, unless you eat it as children might, the dangers are very low. We keep it out of paint and toys. The computer you sit at now depends on lead solder to keep information flowing. The tires on your car are balanced with lead weights. Why are these things not hazardous to ducks? They are not the size and shape that ducks ingest.

 

Remember it is tiny bird shot that is the problem. Our fishing weights and jigs are not that size and freuently not that shape. That may be why there is no definitive study linking lead fishing gear to waterfowl deaths. This too is the key point of the article. Where is the evidence-habeas corpus?

 

PS I have no problem if you want to take a no-lead pledge. Give all your clousers and Jigs a decent burial.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Essentially, the argument goes, sinker manufacturers make that many pounds of sinkers each year so fishermen must be purchasing them to replace lost sinkers. Now if this were true it would mean that lead sinkers contribute a number not that far below what was supposedly contributed by lead shot."

 

But, he never really addresses what happens to all that lead. I never thought about it myself till I read this article. If manufacturers are selling "x" amount of lead, where does it all go? If not in the water then where?

 

I think he's got it wrong about tungsten also. To my knowledge, tungsten alloy is WAY denser than lead. So it's actually advantageous to use, fishing-wise.

Except for the expense ( a fly fisherman compalining about the cost of tackle?? Do I hear tiny violins?). There are some cool tungsten weights and jigs out there, I might add.

 

In all other walks of life, lead is regulated. It's nasty stuff- toxic, I believe the word that is thrown around. And where it's banned, everyone continues to fish. Frankly, I don't think it's a bad idea and I'm suprised it didn't happen sooner.

im not a fly fisherman but i do exclusively use lead. but if i can get lead weights for 1/10 of the price of tungsten then it's a no brainer. If you can bring the price of tungsten (and any of the other alternatives to lead) down or match the price of lead im all for it. I just went to cabelas and checked out a how much a pack of 100 lead bullet weights cost in 1/4 oz. $9.99. went to a website at random which sells 10 tungsten weights for the same price. now at tru-tungsten, for a 3 pack of plain colored bullet weights is $6.35. now a ban on lead in illinois would drive the cost of these "alternatives" up considerably. so yes, it would be a huge expense for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are arguments to be made for education, and that is going to take place eventually.

It may take place in 2009, or it may not.

 

That is currently where the bill is in IL.

 

The draft copy of the revision sent to me recently by Senator Steans is heavily worded in such a way as to to promote the use of lead alternatives. It contains elements that the IDNR would be required to follow as well.

That isn't to say the ability to conform by state departments will be viable, but that also remains to be seen.

 

We can argue points about legislating the use of lead by anglers in IL all we want, but that isn't happening anytime soon.

The attempt was made, our input was requested and the bill was revised.

The argument I drafted and handed to the Senator was not in any way intended nor submitted as anything "official" as the ISA is concerned, just so that is perfectly clear.

It was a "talking points" package that we sat down and discussed intelligently.

 

Our participation in this year's Military Kids Fishing Day event will be as mentors in the fishing portion of the event.

In good faith, I presented to my fellow board members at Sgt. Tommy's Kids that we should use lead-free tackle and barbless hooks.

It was agreed upon unanimously.

That is where the education starts, in my opinion.

It doesn't start by telling anglers that they are killing fish or wildlife with lead split-shot or jigs when it clearly isn't happening here.

Count the dead "shorebirds" next time you visit a lake or river in this state, and keep a journal.

You will be the only one doing this.

We have no data here on bird mortality due to anglers using lead.

 

Somewhere down the line, the alternatives will become economically feasible, and the education we provide today will pave the way for that to happen.

Until that day comes, tackle manufacturers and outdoor promoters deserve better from us.

That statement, I will stand by until somebody produces a study to show me otherwise.

 

There are some cool alternatives out there, Mark.

You saw many of them displayed at the Bronzeback Blowout.

I'm going to make a major purchase from one of them for the kids event.

Stewardship begins with education before a problem begins, and we are still in that time-frame.

Before a problem begins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The National Park Service has released a "clarification statement" explaining that its press release of March 10 was meant to reflect a ban of lead ammunition and fishing tackle for park employees and agents only. It states there was "confusion" over the initial release.

 

What's unclear about this statement? “Our goal is to eliminate the use of lead ammunition and lead fishing tackle in parks by the end of 2010.”

http://home.nps.gov/applications/release/Detail.cfm?ID=857

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's unclear about this statement? “Our goal is to eliminate the use of lead ammunition and lead fishing tackle in parks by the end of 2010.”

 

"1. Nothing has changed for the public. We are simply announcing the NPS goal of eliminating lead from NPS activities to protect human and wildlife health."

 

Now it is clear to me.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark,

 

Your number 1 is a slick restatement of the argument from ignorance-a standard logical fallacy. We argue from ignorance to knowledge-normally quite impossible. We don't know where the lead goes so it must go in the water, right? Wrong! We still don't know where it goes. To clear up the mystery I looked in my tackle collection and found sinkers and jigs that I bought 40 years ago. A lot of guys like me just carry it along from season to season. Or do you dump your unused lead in the lake at the end of the fishing season.

 

Your number 2 is another gross overgeneralization. Lead is very easy to buy from Umqua, Cabelas, Fly Shops and plumbing suppliers to name a few. It is not highly regulated because, unless you eat it as children might, the dangers are very low. We keep it out of paint and toys. The computer you sit at now depends on lead solder to keep information flowing. The tires on your car are balanced with lead weights. Why are these things not hazardous to ducks? They are not the size and shape that ducks ingest.

 

Remember it is tiny bird shot that is the problem. Our fishing weights and jigs are not that size and freuently not that shape. That may be why there is no definitive study linking lead fishing gear to waterfowl deaths. This too is the key point of the article. Where is the evidence-habeas corpus?

 

PS I have no problem if you want to take a no-lead pledge. Give all your clousers and Jigs a decent burial.

 

 

I didn't restate anything, nor intend to be "slick". I posed a question, that still you haven't been able to answer. In fact, you say your self, Where does it go? we still don't know"

You mentioned all that lead in your tackle box. What will happen to it when you are done with it? Can you insure that it won't go into a landfill?

 

Everything you mentioned is regulated. You can't throw a computer monitor away and lead tire weights get recycled when you bring your tires in.

 

im not a fly fisherman but i do exclusively use lead. but if i can get lead weights for 1/10 of the price of tungsten then it's a no brainer. If you can bring the price of tungsten (and any of the other alternatives to lead) down or match the price of lead im all for it. I just went to cabelas and checked out a how much a pack of 100 lead bullet weights cost in 1/4 oz. $9.99. went to a website at random which sells 10 tungsten weights for the same price. now at tru-tungsten, for a 3 pack of plain colored bullet weights is $6.35. now a ban on lead in illinois would drive the cost of these "alternatives" up considerably. so yes, it would be a huge expense for me.

 

 

First off, where the hell do you lose so many sinkers? Nevermind- not important.

 

100 1/4 ounce sinkers, 25 ounces or 1.5 lbs of lead. Times how many anglers?

The EPA would BLEEP a golden apple if you were a chemical company and tried to discharge that much lead into a stream.

 

The more you guys go on about this, the more you are convincing me regulation in some way is in order. I was on the fence before you guys started. Actually against any kind of regulation, till numbers strted getting thrown around.

 

Where possible, I will buy and support alternatives. And kudos to the fly fishing industry, once again, being ahead of the game, by long ago making them available.

 

You and I will never see eye to eye. So really, this is a purposeless discussion. And you are welcome to the last word, cause quite frankly reading thsi stuff is more aggravation than it's worth.

Later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...