Lead Ban On All Fishing Tackle

[Chief Grey Bear]

I was simply stating that an item containing 2% lead would have less lead toxicity than an item containing 96% lead-

I think it's an idiotic assumption to assume that tungsten is OK. Better to err on the side of safety.

QB, are you sure you read and understood what OB stated? I think that has been one of the major problems of this whole thread. And some other threads I can think of too.

Let me help you out here. OB never stated that Tungsten was ok. He stated that it would have less lead toxicity than pure lead. 2% is < 96% agreed?????

[jdmidwest]

Well we just as well light the fire, How about gigging, no lead needed..... then we have ma bell... and Dupont spinners.... oh man Redneck Fishin is good.

There you go, GIGGING does no harm to the environment. Other than to kill the fish it touches. We can use worms and crickets and use rocks for weights, as long as they are rocks from the stream we are fishing as opposed to rocks from the stream over the hill with rock snot on it or zebra mussels. We can use rocks as long as there is not a mudpuppy hiding under them, then we will have to look for something else for weight.

[gotmuddy]

There you go, GIGGING does no harm to the environment. Other than to kill the fish it touches. We can use worms and crickets and use rocks for weights, as long as they are rocks from the stream we are fishing as opposed to rocks from the stream over the hill with rock snot on it or zebra mussels. We can use rocks as long as there is not a mudpuppy hiding under them, then we will have to look for something else for weight.

The sad truth is there will always be some environmental group wanting to stop you from doing what you want regardless if they have a valid reason or not.

[Al Agnew]

Wow.

I'm going to be blunt here. The level of bashing of environmental organizations based upon the old "they want to run my life" argument is just simply willful ignorance. The level of denial that lead COULD be a problem in fishing tackle is also willful ignorance. The level of equating animal rights organizations with environmental organizations is willful ignorance. At least that's my opinion.

The capacity for humans to rationalize what they want to do or keep doing is infinite.

When you get right down to it, it all becomes a matter of risk management. Is the risk great enough to justify action which has its own downsides? You have a set of facts: Lead is harmful to living creatures if ingested or absorbed. Refined lead is not environmentally inert and can leach into waterways. It can also enter the food chain in various ways. That's basic science, and anybody who argues it in any way is being...willfully ignorant.

Now, observation shows that birds that live on or near water can ingest lead in several different ways. So can fish. So can other aquatic creatures. That's simple fact. Observation also shows that fish can accumulate lead in their tissues, and whether or not it's in the meat of the fish that we eat or the guts that the eagle eats, it still can get into critters higher in the food chain. Oh, by the way, those eagles also eat waterfowl, so they can get it that way, too. You can't deny any of that, unless you are...willfully ignorant.

It is also fact that birds can die and have died in significant numbers from ingesting lead. It is fact that lead in the body is unhealthy for just about any critter.

So, put it all together and any reasonable person without an ax to grind, either because they like using lead or because they like to bash environmental organizations, can see that there is potential and actual harm from lead in the aquatic environment.

So the question becomes, and it's the ONLY real question, how much risk is there, and is it enough to justify the banning of lead in fishing tackle? THERE is where we can intelligently disagree. And you have to balance the known facts with the scientific estimates of total impact, and then balance that with the impact of banning lead. At what point does lead represent enough of a problem to make banning it the intelligent option? Are we there, yet? At what point does inconveniencing anglers and causing the cost of fishing to go up a bit become necessary? Are you willing to let a certain percentage of a particular bird species die each year so you can keep using those split shot? What percentage?

I don't like using individual bird deaths as a justification for anything. It is only one step removed from the animal rights viewpoint. But when it comes to an endangered species, or a scarce species, it's the only way to go. Other than that, with plentiful species, it becomes more a matter of what's good for the population and the ecosystem in which they live. If enough fish or birds or whatever are suffering from lead in the waters to alter populations, then it's time to start getting worried about it.

And that's where we are. All the other crap in this thread, about environmentalists and other pollutants and religious views and the whole conservative/liberal dog pile, has NOTHING to do with it. Or shouldn't...but in the case of this as in other issues, too many people come into it with their ideological viewpoint out front, and that's their stand and they ain't gonna change it. No amount of science will change their minds, because they can always say the science is wrong or the scientists have a hidden agenda. In a larger sense, it's maybe the biggest problem with our whole society...we don't trust anybody anymore except those who tell us what we want to hear. We don't trust science, we don't trust government, we don't trust the media...except we REALLY don't trust them if they are telling us we have to do something different, but we DO trust them if they are telling us that we don't have to change a thing.

I personally think there is no pressing need to ban lead except in some places...places where a LOT of it is being put into relatively small areas, and places where birds and other critters are most likely to ingest it in significant quantities. Lead shot for waterfowl hunting was banned because, gee, it was being shot at ducks. Therefore, it was all ending up exactly where ducks are! Lead fishing tackle is banned in Yellowstone Park because a whole LOT of anglers fish the easily gotten to streams in the park, and a lot of birds and wildlife, including some fairly endangered species, were at risk of ingesting that lead in various ways. On the other hand, I don't worry very much about the split shot I happened to lose halfway through that ten mile float on a lightly pressured Ozark creek. The chances at this point of there being enough lead in that stretch of creek to wipe out more than one or two wood ducks a decade are practically nil.

I think it would be a good idea if lead is gradually phased out of fishing tackle. I'm pretty sure that, if forced, companies would come up with viable alternatives and anglers would use them. I think in the end the economic impacts good and bad would level out, and in the meantime we would have "solved" one environmental problem in a sane and logical way. And in the meantime, we should probably get serious about banning lead in the limited areas where it is MOST likely to be a clear and present problem. See my post in the other thread for one such type of place.

[eric1978]

Great post, Al...the only one worth reading out of this entire joke of a thread...and that includes mine, too. Wish I was patient and diplomatic enough to put things the way you do. But alas, I am not.

[ness]

Great post Al.

[Quillback]

No Chief, not agreed, the 2% < 96% was in reference to brass not tungsten. Do you know anything about the toxicity of tungsten? Maybe you should do a little research.

[Chief Grey Bear]

Surely you guys are smart enough to realize a compound containing 2% lead would be far less toxic than a compound containing 96% Lead. And I'm hoping you guys are smart enough to realize Zarraspook's article regarding brass clearly states it can be manufactured without lead entirely. IMO, that makes it a non-issue.

No Chief, not agreed, the 2% < 96% was in reference to brass not tungsten. Do you know anything about the toxicity of tungsten? Maybe you should do a little research.

I have quoted what OB said in its entirety as it pertains to this conversation. I will try and explain to you once again and hope that you can comprehend this time. As you will note in the first sentence of OB's quote he asked if you are smart enough to realize that 2% of any offending compound, meaning a substance of your choice, that contains in its make up, meaning what it consists of, or made out of, will be far less toxic, meaning less dangerous to you and me and everything in the environment, meaning anything, anyplace on earth, meaning the planet we live on, than something that contains, meaning consists of, meaning made of, 96% of the offending, meaning dangerous compound. In short if you played in the hiway and 2 cars came by, you stand a far better chance of not getting hit than if 96 cars came by.

Nowhere in that did he compare brass and or tungsten. And all he said about brass was that according to Zarra's link to the article, it stated that brass can be manufactured without any lead. In the post in question, I find no evidence that leads to the conculsion that OB compared the toxcity of lead, brass or tungsten.

And to answer your question as to my knowledge of the toxcity of tungsten, last year when this same topic came up, I did a fair amount research on the subject. It would be a futile attempt on my part to share that reseach here, with those that obvioulsy have their minds made up on the subject. There has been some great knowledgable commentary already posted on the subject here only to be subjected to ridicule and speculation.

[Stockton Lake Guide Service]

Day 9 and all seems to be going well here. Thought I would just drop by and see how the lead thread was going.

Anyone know what the record is for number of days the same topic is at the top? Not sure how long Phil is out of town, but I'm sure this one will be shut down the day he gets back.

OK, going back to Stockton, have fun!!!

[Outside Bend]

Thank you, Al.