Wayne SW/MO

There's still nothing but if's and maybe's thrown out about whether or not lost fishing tackle containing lead is harming the environment to any appreciable degree. I don't see how anyone can assume that a lost sinker will be mistaken for a piece of food, it's nearly as hard as a rock. If whomever thinks there are significant numbers of split shot lost in duck marshes, then the can ban lead split shot. There is a lot of evidence that prescription drug residue is altering the sexual genetics of fish, yet no one seems to be campaigning to improve sewage plants. We're told that if we don't spend billions in attempting to alter the earth's atmosphere we're doomed. All based on information from a handful of scientist from a fairly new university needing to establish some credibility. I want to see something I can believe, some facts that point out that our waters and the fauna in them are in harms way. The waterfowl connection doesn't work for me, the paint chip and children link doesn't work for me, and the opinions of some one who doesn't use lead in fishing doesn't cut it either. If something swallows one of my jigs, it has more problems than lead to worry about.

Try as you can to insult our intelligence with your forth grade science remark, you've still come up with nothing. We all accept that if you scatter 700 lead pellets when emptying a shotgun magazine in a feeding marsh some will be ingested. I think most would agree that a lost split shot or two isn't in the same ballpark. We talking about lost fishing equipment over a large area and I don't see the proof. "It seems clear that as more studies explore the sub-lethal effects of lead exposure in non-human species, there will be increased emphasis on integrating our thinking so that threats to human health are understood in the context of an over all environmental well-being." So basically your proof is to post a statement that for the most part states that even the sub-lethal effects aren't yet understood. We all know that fish are checked for heavy metals, show me one where lead is at levels of concern. You stated it was easy for you so how about it?

"Water birds use water (duh). There isn’t much difference between lead gun-shot and lead split-shot, and when you put either in the water, it becomes available to birds for use as grit. This leads to lead poisoning. And although a fish may not eat the shot, the inverts the fish prey on will be scraping algae and detritus off the shot, ingesting lead, and it works its way up the food chain from there. C’mon guys, this is fourth grade science…" And the evidence supporting this fourth grade science is where??? Yes we know that in California they have warn pregnant women not to eat lead items, and yes lead in it purest forms is harmful. Fortunately we check critters for harmful elements. The problem is that Mercury seems to be the number one culprit, so before we stop using sinkers because they MAY cause some harm, we should probably shut down all the power plants because they do.

I don't see where Stroud is a joke compared to the others. I'll admit I find some of the shows interesting, but when push comes to shove his is the only one where the "survivor" is alone. If you read the fine print most have some disclaimer saying they are presented with situations. I have no doubt that he's, Stroud, careful in deciding where he's survive, but any miscalculation will be more serious to him than it would be to the others. The bottom line is that having to survive is not a place anyone should want to be. There's simply to much luck involved.

"But suggesting that lead does no harm is just as much an exaggeration as suggesting it's a huge problem." But wouldn't it make sense to identify a problem, as opposed to jumping in and curing a "maybe". If East Anglia U is right then it would seem that under this cure we should tear down and bury civilization and return to caves, just in case.

"but maybe in tiny, fragile ecosystems, it could." OK, first what would a "tiny fragile ecosystem" be? I can't really picture one. Second, how much economic degradation should we put on "maybe"? The waterfowl situation is well documented, but comparing a size 4 lead shot to a sinker or jighead is like comparing a pickup to an eighteen wheeler. I'm sick of the hypocrisy of some environmental groups frankly. They're narrow minded and have the same mindset that P*TA has. Trust me Eric, the sky isn't falling and I still believe this in spite of hearing most of my life it is.

I've read through this, and while I may have missed a point, what do we gain from banning lead sinkers? What problem are we facing? This sounds suspiciously like another "Its a possibility if we throw out reason"

I doubt y'all will get overrun on that stretch.

It might be just a tad early to be crying about October mad November. There are a lot of factors yet to be considered about fall releases from TR. Not to mention that TR was LOW!

I've been on a brisket kick lately, but I think I'll go back to ribs and butts. I do a lot better with them. I have 3 smokers, but I'm partial to my Smoky Mountain Great Outdoors. maybe I'll catch up with you one of these days Oneshot.

Just a few points. The ban on lead shot was not due to water pollution, but was because waterfowl ingested the shot. The heavy metal that shows up in fish and other creatures is mercury, not lead. A ban will benefit some third world sewer trap while it puts more Americans on the unemployment list. The biggest environmental hazard from lead is in lead mine tailings, not discarded or lost fishing items.

Sometimes you can find a bunch of decent size Chubs that will take a dry. The fun depends on whether or not you're bored.

If you want a great reel for the river, go on E-bay and find a good Curado 100b. They're light, great casters, and handle light line well.

You're becoming a legend in your own time Oneshot. Is the river blown out?

"Never had a problem with Shimano reels unless I got them wet" Unfortunately where I fish there's water. I use Diawas so I don't have to worry about it or clean them constantly.

I also purchased my kayaks from Appomattox and I agree, great prices and service. I'm sure it would be worth the trouble to compare. I have a Mohawk Solo 13, not sure how the hulls compare, it is very agile, but tracking is so-so.

I can put my 6'6" rods through the front hatch, no problem. My 8'9" fly rod will go, but it has to be just right to miss the drains.

That's a Chub.

We always have this discussion concerning rod safety, why I don't know. I lay my rods in my Tarpon the same as in my solo. The solo is 12" longer, but not from where I sit. I lay my rods in the SOT the same as in my solo when I confront brush or trees, reels between my legs, tips in the bow. Of course if I think the water might cause an accident, I can put them inside my unsinkable SOT, in my solo I have to rely on hope. Hope that if I do have an accident I can find my rods on the bottom.

The Tarpon will do fine on all those rivers, including the War Eagle. I've been happy with my Tarpon 120, for about 7 years I believe. It does a good job. Don't forget that maneuverability and tracking are generally on opposite ends of the spectrum. For the most part you have to take whats most important. For our rivers and solo fishing I think tracking is probably more important. I also have a Penobscot and a Mohawk 13, and contrary to what some would have you believe, they aren't the same or interchangeable.

That's funny, waders in August in a warm water stream? Just when I thought you Yankees were tough.

That's good to hear, I know how fearsome the disease can be.

Is that concrete whistle the new bridge, or is it temporary?

I have to laugh at that one, where have you been? That's what we've been trying to get across, its the small streams, none of which are secret, but they don't need promoting.

But yet you keep looking.