Lead Sinkers Issue Again

[CoachBob]

On Valentine's Day the EPA must respond to the latest petition to have EPA regulate/ban lead fishing gear under the Toxic Substances Control Act.
I have listed the site below where you can look at the petition. It has a good table of contents so you can skip to the section(s) that interest you.
If you want to know what "science" they have behind the petition, I have copied below the petition's "statistics" and data. Their approach is that buying new lead means that the same amount of lead was lost.
I'm not ranting here, but howmany shot sinkers do you lose a day? Maybe one or none? Even cork fishing how many do you lose? Who created these loss figures? No one. i know crappie fishermen that have like a gazillion lead head jigs because they always think a new size or color will make the fish jump on the hook.
Oh, well. Let's see what Valentines brings.
Another thought, are loons just dumb, and if not, why aren't storks and cranes and herons and ducks in the deep south dying in droves?

http://www.epa.gov/oppt/chemtest/pubs/TSCA_sinker_petition.pdf
Accurate quantitative information on how much lead is entering the environment from lead fishing weights and tackle sinkers is not available, but approximations can be made from the quantities of lead fishing tackle sold in the U.S., assuming most or many sinkers are purchased to replace those lost while fishing (Scheuhammer et al 2003), and from studies of sinker and tackle loss by anglers. Roughly 4,000 metric tons of lead fishing sinkers are sold annually in the U.S. (Scheuhammer et al 2003; USGS 200. Studies of sinker and tackle loss rates among recreational anglers vary - a variety of factors can influence whether lead will be lost, including the type of fishing activity, the location of the activity, the time of year, and the skill of the angler. Fishers lost 2-3 sinkers per angling day in the United Kingdom (Bell et al. 1985). Anglers in the U.S. reported losing
0.18 sinkers/hour, and 0.23 hooks and lures/hour, with 2% of anglers reporting losing a fish with tackle still attached (Duerr 1999). Radomski et al. (2006) reported average loss rates on Minnesota lakes of 0.0127 lures per hour, 0.0081 large sinkers per hour, 0.0057 split shot sinkers per hour, 0.0247 jigs per hour, and 0.0257 hooks per hour;
for a estimated total of one metric ton of lead lost for 6,000 anglers in 2004.

[Uncle Jesse]

for a estimated total of one metric ton of lead lost for 6,000 anglers in 2004.

Over how many thousand square miles of water? As Mark Twain wrote, "There a lies, damn lies and statistics."

[Marco]

I guess I'll have to pull my three or four metric tons of lead-head jigs ( from a long ago era) out of storage and skew their therom regarding "lost" lead. This, like many such "studies" relies heavily on making the statistics read in favor of the statistician keeping his/her job. In MY job, the facts must be much more obvious to collect my due.

Mark
PS: I'm not totally against "statistics". Without the study of, how else could we know approximately how many morons occupy our mudst?

[sharps]

Figures don't lie......but liars figure

[Silver Creek]

The US Government's own study by the U.S. Geological Survey, National Wildlife Health Center shows lead death rate of 3.5% on a study of over 300 dead loons collected from 9 states: Minnesota, Wisconsin, Maine, New York, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Florida, California and Alaska.

The U.S. Geological Survey, National Wildlife Health Center survey is also from 5 cooperating institutions including Massachussets, the home of Tufts. One of the authors of this report is the Biodiversity Institute in Gorham, ME. They are experts in toxins especially mercury.

The BRI and the other 4 study centers including Madison, WI. signed onto the report with the primary author, U.S. Geological Survey, National Wildlife Health Center. The report is below.

Lead Toxicity in Waterbirds

Read the following data on lead and loons in Minnesota.

http://www.jeffsundin.com/Article_Le...s_vs_Loons.htm

Loons populations are not in danger and are actually growing. The same is true in Wisconsin. Loons, eagles, osprey and trumpeter swans are increasing. If lead was threatening these populations, they should be decreasing.

Eagles and Osprey

http://www.northland.edu/loon-population-survey.htm

Loon Project

Swans

What limits populations of these birds in not lead, it is the availability of habitat.

The percentage death rate from led is a out the same as from C & R fishing. The reason that trout populations do not decrease is that the death rate from C&R does not sufficiently large when viewed in comparison to the other causes of death.

What is important is whether the population of these target species is healthy. To add the expense of fishing without affecting the overall population is non sensical.

You will hear the no lead advocates talk out of both sides of their mouth. They will say that tons and tons of lead are lost; and in the next sentence, say that the cost to replace this lead with tin, tungsten, or bismuth will not be expensive. You cannot have it both ways. If a lot of lead is being lost, the cost will be great. If the cost is small like they say, then there must not be a lot of lead being lost.

[Chuck S]

More trumped up nonsense from the enviro crowd. They sure give Conservationists a bad name.

[cycler68]

Uncle Jesse wrote:
"Over how many thousand square miles of water? As Mark Twain wrote, "There a lies, damn lies and statistics.""

I would think lost lead would tend to be concentrated in the best fishing spots. I used to fish the tailwaters of the Big Bend dam near Chamberlain, SD. When the river was very low you could find thousands of lost lead jigs and fishing sinkers, many of them corroded. I would like to see a study defining just how much lead enters the water from such a source and how it affects wildlife of all types downstream.
Many counties in Europe have banned lead fishing sinkers for decades. I would like to know if this has helped, harmed or had no effect on their wildlife populations.