Lead Ban On All Fishing Tackle

[Wayne SW/MO]

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?

[Ann]

I have spent the better part of my day RESEARCHING the effects of lead fishing gear. All the investigations I have found on lead fishing gear have to do with birds. I could find nothing in regards to the fish specifically or any direct link to the water habitat. Not enough research has been done on lead fishing gear and the effects of it on fish or the environment. Yes there are generalizations but that is not a true investigation.

I believe that there are effects; however I don’t think they are significant.

Here is a link to one study that I found…

nwhc.usgs

[Outside Bend]

Try as you can to insult our intelligence with your forth grade science remark, you've still come up with nothing.

I'm not trying to insult anyone's intelligence- you really should've been taught about food chains in fourth grade science. I did. I guess that's public school education for you

And I'm not surprised that I've "come up with nothing."

The first part of the discussion was "There's no evidence lead tackle harms wildlife." That's false. It moved to "lead split shot may be harmful, but not other lead products." Now it's "well lead may impact wildlife, but there's no evidence it's of concern in fish tissue." Of course there's no way for me to give a satisfactory answer when you keep changing the question!

No, lead doesn't accumulate in fish flesh like mercury does. Lead typically winds up in organs- specifically the liver and the gonads. People don't typically eat fish gonads or livers, so there's little issue of people getting lead poisoning from eating fish.

But since fish generally propagate themselves through reproduction, having your gonads poisoned by lead could be an issue. While writing an earlier post I started thinking about sucker populations, and how curious it is that one of the fish taxa most susceptible to lead poisoning seems to be undergoing a steady decline in many parts of the Ozarks. Maybe lead poisoning could account for some of that decline, I don't know...but it'd be interesting to tease that out.

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's not a question of how you feel about using lead or whether or not you see the proof. The question is whether using lead fishing tackle negatively impacts wildlife. When more than 20% of sampled birds died from lead poisoning via fishing tackle, I think that's an issue. Think about it in human terms- if 20% of the US death rate was attributable to lead poisoning, wouldn't you think that's an issue?

I admit, someone dropping a split shot or two seems inconsequential. But according to USFWS, anglers cumulatively spent 517 million days fishing in 2006. Assuming you lose an average of a half-ounce of lead each trip, by the end of the year more than 8000 tons of lead have been deposited in our waterways. If it were discovered Dow or Monsanto was releasing 8000 tons of heavy metals into streams each year, we'd be outraged. Since it's you and me doing it though, it's inconsequential? I call BS.

"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.

The sub-lethal effects of lead are well understood- again all you'd have to do is look it up. What that quote says is that the relationship between human health and overall environmental well being aren't completely 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?

Ok.

"Annual average Pb concentrations in sucker fillets ranged up to 0.67 μg/g (wet weight basis) and exceeded the World Health Organization guidelines of 0.3 μg/g (wet weight basis) at many of the sample sites."

Granted that's a study from the Old Lead Belt, but I doubt there's a way to establish whether fish are lead-poisoned via tailings or lead-poisoned via fishing tackle. It's all lead.

I'm not trying to make enemies here, guys. I just can't wrap my mind around why it's immoral for someone to poison a stream with fertilizer or cadmium or oil or chickens, but it's alright for us to poison a stream with lead. Can anyone answer that for me?

I guess I'm done with this for now, there's better things to do on a Saturday evening

EDIT: I didn't think much about using lead either, until I started seeing these ban announcements online. When I started researching it, I did realize that it some of the data is a little alarming (to me), and I won't be purchasing the product for fishing any more.

[eric1978]

I'm not trying to make enemies here, guys. I just can't wrap my mind around why it's immoral for someone to poison a stream with fertilizer or cadmium or oil or chickens, but it's alright for us to poison a stream with lead. Can anyone answer that for me?

Because we're Americans and we don't want to be inconvenienced...it's our right to do whatever we want, don't you know that?

OB, what do you use to weight your flies if you're not using beads?

[Outside Bend]

Because we're Americans and we don't want to be inconvenienced...it's our right to do whatever we want, don't you know that?

OB, what do you use to weight your flies if you're not using beads?

I only fish dry flies, preferably upstream

I usually use brass beads anyway, occasionally tungsten. They make lead-free wire and I have some, I guess I'll be investing more in that direction.

I guess I figure there's no easy solution, and there are probably more pressing issues facing our aquatic resources than sinkers and split shot. But it is something within our realm of control, so maybe we ought to head in that direction.

[jdmidwest]

The Center for Biological Diversity, a fringe group, is the one pushing the ban, which included lead ammo, based on their observation of the matter. Here is their story about the lead, but no real scientific data shown that I could find on their web. It does seem to be about waterfowl picking up pieces of lead weight for grindage, but what about jigs and lead weighted flies? We went down this road years ago and lead alternatives became available. I think lead weight was even banned on some waters, so what is new?

Link from the Center of Biological Diversity web

EPA Denies Petition to Protect Wildlife From Toxic Lead-based Ammunition

WASHINGTON— Conservation groups expressed dismay today after a decision by the Environmental Protection Agency to deny a petition to ban toxic lead bullets and shot that commonly kill and harm bald eagles, trumpeter swans, endangered California condors and other wildlife. An estimated 10 million to 20 million birds and other animals die each year from lead poisoning in the United States.

“The EPA had ample evidence that lead bullets and shot have a devastating effect on America’s wildlife, yet has refused to do anything about it. It’s disappointing to see this country’s top environmental agency simply walk away from the preventable poisoning of birds and other wildlife,” said Darin Schroeder, Vice President for Conservation Advocacy at American Bird Conservancy.

On Aug. 3, American Bird Conservancy, Center for Biological Diversity, Association of Avian Veterinarians, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, and the hunters’ group Project Gutpile petitioned the EPA to ban lead in bullets and shot for hunting, as well as fishing tackle. The petition referenced nearly 500 peer-reviewed scientific papers illustrating the widespread dangers of lead ammunition and fishing tackle. While the EPA is still considering the petition’s request for the regulation of lead fishing tackle, it denied the petition’s request regarding lead ammunition on the grounds that the Toxic Substances Control Act contains a specific exemption for lead ammunition.

“We strongly believe that the EPA has the clear authority and duty to regulate this very harmful and toxic substance as used in bullets and shot, despite the so-called exemption for lead ammunition that is written into TSCA. We had hoped they would take that responsibility seriously but we remain committed to making sure toxic lead is removed from the environment and we’ll redouble our efforts to see that through,” said Adam Keats, senior counsel for the Center for Biological Diversity.

Lead is an extremely toxic substance that is dangerous to people and wildlife even at low levels. Exposure can cause a range of health effects, from acute poisoning and death to long-term problems such as reduced reproduction, inhibition of growth and damage to neurological development.

Animals are poisoined when they scavenge on carcasses shot and contaminated with lead bullet fragments, or pick up and eat spent lead-shot pellets or lost fishing weights, mistaking them for food or grit. Some animals die a painful death from lead poisoning while others suffer for years from its debilitating effects.

[gotmuddy]

If we go to tungsten, and it is imported from China, who is to say we won't STILL be getting lead? I mean, if our government allows toys to imported with lead in them why would they stop fishing lures and weights from having lead?

I am not arguing that lead has no effect on the environment, it obviously does, as does anything else. However why attack lead when there are far more pressing things to consider(mercury, gas fracking, local polution). So why lead?

[tinfoil hat]The government doesn't have to take away your guns if you have no bullets.[/tinfoil hat]

[Outside Bend]

If we go to tungsten, and it is imported from China, who is to say we won't STILL be getting lead? I mean, if our government allows toys to imported with lead in them why would they stop fishing lures and weights from having lead?

[tinfoil hat]The government doesn't have to take away your guns if you have no bullets.[/tinfoil hat]

Good thing you can make unleaded bullets, hey.

Anyone want to venture a guess as to the world's largest lead producer? HINT: it rhymes with "China." As for tungsten...well, there's nothing I can think of that rhymes with Australia. There's one I'd rather buy from than the other, can you guess which one?

I am not arguing that lead has no effect on the environment, it obviously does, as does anything else. However why attack lead when there are far more pressing things to consider(mercury, gas fracking, local polution). So why lead?

Because lead is a poison. UH GAIN...if poison is bad, and lead is a poison, wouldn't it be logical to conclude that lead is bad, and that perhaps dumping tons of it into the nation's streams isn't a wise thing to do, even if we really, really enjoy doing it?

Why is lead a special case? My previous question is still hanging out there, waiting to be answered...

[Stockton Lake Guide Service]

I tried so hard not to get back on here. But I thought I would do some more research on what is going to replace lead, if it was to pass.

I couldn't find very much as to studies on the use of tungsten, however it looks like the DOD has quit using it in heavy artillary shells because of the dangers. I didn't have time to read thru the entire thing (and my guess is that we would want to keep our artillary shells dangerous, thats just a joke). But here are the symptoms of tungsten toxicity:

* Acute nausea within 15 minutes of ingestion.

* Sudden onset of seizures.

* Rapid onset of clouded consciousness leading to coma with evidence of encephalopathy.

* Initial moderate renal failure progressing to acute tubular necrosis with anuria within 24 hours

* Hypocalcaemia

* Gradual symptomatic recovery over weeks with complete resolution of biochemical/metabolic abnormalities after 5 months

Here are the signs of lead poisoning:

* Pain, numbness or tingling of the extremities

* Muscular weakness

* Headache

* Abdominal pain

* Memory loss

* Mood disorders

* Reduced sperm count, abnormal sperm

* Miscarriage or premature birth in pregnant women

* Fatigue

This is obviously on humans, not fish. I just thought I would post some info on tungsten metal so that it might make everyone think if the alternative is better or worse than the lead. After reading the symptoms of both, I'm not even sure if I want to be around either one of them. Might just tie a rock onto my line next time.

outside bend- you put that it is a fact that 20% of the birds die from lead poisoning from fishing tackle. Did you mean to put that? I believe the correct statement would be that 20% of loons died from lead and this appeared to be from lead shot, not fishing tackle. Although I have read a few reports that split shots have been eaten by loons, but this might lead to a change in the way we use the weights ie where, size, depth of water, I don't think it supports an overall ban of lead. And there is a huge difference between a company dumping 800 tons of toxins into a single location and people fishing that break off a weight. Not sure as what you are trying say about the largest producer of tungsten, but that appears to be china in everything that I have read.

Be nice if someone would just solve this problem outright, but the fact is that everything has it's downfalls and its advantages.

[Amish Bill]

Well I have seen the light, Moving out of the house tomorrow, tearing it down so nature can have it back. Guess I'll sleep under a tree and when I wake in the morning I'll walk around the other side and take a crap, unless of course one of you come up with some more interesting scientific research that proves that it's bad for the environment. For the love of pete you people that have all this time for "Research". After working 10 or 12 hours coming home to take care of house work (Yes I still use a gasoline powered lawnmower) I have niether the time or the desire to read what yet another stuffy,arogant beurocrat who thinks being human is bad has to say. I'm guesing the ones on here with all the stats are probably in college or just recently graduated. Your sick and tired of me, well I'm sick and tired of being told my pickup is bad for the environment, drilling for oil is bad,Hell I can't even use a decent lightbulb after I forget 2012? Thank you Mr. Bush. You want to talk about how bad this stuff is then I suggest start practicing what you preach. Quit using lead weights. stop driving your cars, and go live under a tree. While we're at it I guess we all better start running around naked, It takes diesel to run those tractors for cotton, and we all know how bad that is for mother earth, and we sure wouldn't want to harm one of her creatures. Better shut your computer down too, we're burning that nasty old coal to run those power plants. Every time I hear some meely mouthed snot telling me my lifestyle isn't what they think it should be makes me want to go out and pour a quart of oil around a tree or something.