Non-Lead Weights

[Byron haugh]

Hi,

Just received my Henry's Fork Foundation Newsletter. In it is this short advisory which, I believe, deserves sharing:

Help Keep Lead Out of the Fork
If you hunt or fish, you can make a big difference in protecting resident swans and migrating birds by keeping your ammunition and fishing gear lead-free. HFF's Conservation Education Biologist Anne Marie Emery collected this emaciated cygnet (young swan) off Highway 20 last week. The swan showed symptoms of lead toxicosis, and despite rehabilitation efforts, did not survive.

According to The Trumpeter Swan Society board director and swan expert Ruth Shea, it can take just one injested lead pellet or split shot to sentence a swan to a slow death. And the problem continues: birds that die from lead poisoning in the wild can be consumed by scavengers like bald eagles, who then also become poisoned.

[Allan]

I'm not saying that this is much to do about nothing. If we can find a non toxic or non deadly material to use to replace lead - great.
Also, I don't want to hijack this thread so I'll start another about a similar subject, albeit completely non-fishing.
Take a look at - 'WIND KILLS', in the 'Conservation' section.
Allan

[flyfisher7]

One word.....tungsten

[Byron haugh]

Exactly!!!
Why even take a chance?

[CoachBob]

Posting this on both threads because it will likely be the EPA's position for at least a couple of years.

The Center for Biological Diversity requested that EPA regulated lead fishing weights under the Toxic substances Control Act. The EPA refused on 14 February as shown below:
After careful review, EPA has determined that, while the petition does provide evidence ofexposure and a risk to waterfowl in some areas ofthe United States, it does not provide a basis for finding that the risk presented is an unreasonable risk for which federal action under section 6(a) of TSCA is necessary to adequately protect against such risks. Accordingly, EPA is denying your request to initiate a proceeding for the issuance of a rulemaking under Section 6(a) of TSCA to adequately protect against risks posed by fishing tackle containing lead of various sizes and uses that are ingested by wildlife.
Your petition does not demonstrate why federal action is necessary given the mix of regulatory and education actions state agencies and the Federal Government already are taking to address the impact of lead fishing tackle on local environments. The risk described in the petition does appear to be more prevalent in some geographic areas than others, and the trend over the past decade has been for increasing state and localized federal activity regarding lead in fishing tackle. The petition does not demonstrate that these state and local efforts are ineffective or have failed to reduce the exposure and risks presented to waterfowl in particular. Therefore, EPA concludes that the petition does not demonstrate that action under TSCA section 6(a) is necessary to adequately protect wildlife. EPA also recognizes that the market for fishing tackle and equipment continues to change and that the prevalence ofnon-lead alternatives in the marketplace continues to increase. In light of these trends, the petition does not demonstrate that rulemaking is necessary under TSCA section 6(a).

[Byron haugh]

Coach,
That seems to be a quite specific determination. It does say: "......while the petition does provide evidence of exposure and a risk to waterfowl in some areas of the United States.............".
So, it seems to me that there is little the "common man" can do about the fish and waterfowl we love. However, it seems to me that even the possibility of harming either resource through our actions should be eliminated. It is not like there is no easy alternative action we "common folks" can do to eliminate even the possibility of damaging ducks, geese, swans, pelicans, etc.. One such simple actions is to use a lead free substitute while fishing/hunting.

I really believe we should err on the side of caution.

Someone has mentioned, in another post, the loss of fowl to wind turbines. That is a problem too. Yet, there is little I can personally do about such BIG issues. There are, however, some day-to-day things we can do that might not add to the overall problem.

This is a fishing oriented forum and using lead free weights, I believe, is appropriate to mention.

[Byron haugh]

I went to see the petition you referenced and found this embedded in that petition. It was comparing our (this country's) response to other countries.

"Great Britain banned the use of lead sinkers weighing less than one ouncein 1987, due to the harm lead was causing swans, diving birds, and wading birds, andafter determining that voluntary efforts were ineffective. Reported cases of leadpoisoning in swans from the River Thames in England dropped from a peak of 107 in1984 to 25 in 1988, one year after the ban on sale of lead fishing weights (Sears and Hunt1991). "

Just seems we might give consideration to our hobby's fatherland actions.

[EdD]

Here is another thought about lead-free weight. Per volume, tin is a good bit heavier than copper. Tin has a higher atomic weight than copper. We think of tin as being a lightweight metal, tin's standard atomic weight is a little over twice that of iron.

Ed

[TyroneFly]

[QUOTE=Byron haugh;I really believe we should err on the side of caution.

This is a fishing oriented forum and using lead free weights, I believe, is appropriate to mention.[/QUOTE]

I like the idea and practice of using lead free weights. I started using an alternative back in 2000 and see no reason to use lead in my fishing.

[Allan]

First, I really do not know how it can be argued that we should do everything we can to not hurt wildlife, while at the same time espose hunting and fishing. Lest anyone forget, there are sports where the death of the animal that is targeted is, even if not desired as in C & R, inevitable. Here's an example from one of the posts(bold is my emphasis):

"However, it seems to me that even the possibility of harming either resource through our actions should be eliminated. It is not like there is no easy alternative action we "common folks" can do to eliminate even the possibility of damaging ducks, geese, swans, pelicans, etc.. One such simple actions is to use a lead free substitute while fishing/hunting."

Gee, not only do you want to eliminate the possibility, you want to eliminate EVEN the possibility. If you really want to eliminate that possibility, just stop all hunting and fishing and go join PETA! What a bunch of ______!

Second, Byron wrote, "Someone has mentioned, in another post, the loss of fowl to wind turbines." Now that's funny.


Allan