Scott Ferguson Posted November 4, 2010 Report Share Posted November 4, 2010 http://www.asafishing.org/news_110410.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Clifford Posted November 4, 2010 Report Share Posted November 4, 2010 They actually saw that this petition was based on nothing. No science, no studies whatsoever. Thank God reason was adhered to in this case. In dismissing the petition, EPA indicated that the "petitioners have not demonstrated that the requested rule is necessary to protect against an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, as required by the TSCA." EPA also cited state-specific actions and the increasing education and outreach activities being undertaken, stating that those actions "…call into question whether a national ban on lead in fishing gear would be the least burdensome, adequately protective approach to address the concern, as called for under TSCA." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike G Posted November 11, 2010 Report Share Posted November 11, 2010 More on the story here. The Bird Conservancy had a case backed by studies. But the EPA did not back the radical action of outlawing all lead in fishing tackle. Towards the end of the article, the statement is made that the EPA did not act on the ammunition part of the demand earlier because they did not have the authority. That is hard tounderstand IMHO. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101104/ap_on_sp_ot/us_lead_fishing_tackle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.