Non-Lead Weights

FAOL Community Fly Anglers Online
1

Hi,

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

[LEFT]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.

[/LEFT]

2

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

3

One word…tungsten

4

Exactly!!!
Why even take a chance?

5

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).

6

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.

7

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.

8

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

9

[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.

10

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

11

Lead shot for hunting water fowl has been banned for years.

12

[b]Fowl is a word for birds in general but usually refers to birds belonging to one of two biological orders, namely the gamefowl or landfowl (Galliformes) and the waterfowl (Anseriformes).

Sorry, I don’t understand: “…[/b]not only do you want to eliminate the possibility, you want to eliminate EVEN the possibility…”

Sorry, trying to figure this double out?

13

Byron,

Your exact quote: “However, it seems to me that even the possibility of harming either resource through our actions should be eliminated”.

‘Fowl’, as primarily defined:
A) American Heritage Dictionary: Any of various birds of the order Galliformes, especially the common, widely domesticated chicken
(Gallus gallus).

  1. A bird, such as the duck, goose, turkey, or pheasant, that is used as food or hunted as game.
  2. The flesh of such birds used as food.

B) Meriam Webster: 1. a bird of any kind ? compare waterfowl, wildfowl
2. a cock or hen of the domestic chicken (Gallus gallus); especially : an adult hen
3. any of several domesticated or wild gallinaceous birds ? compare guinea fowl, jungle fowl

You wrote, “There are some day-to-day things we can do that might not add to the overall problem”. Yes indeed there are things we can do that will not add to the overall problem. As I wrote, if you don’t want to harm this resource (meaning what we consider ‘game’) and do everything you can, on a personal level, to help the situation, do the simple thing - just say NO and STOP! No to hunting. No to fishing. Those can be your personal statements. Just don’t say you are doing your personal best effort for the resource while you’re taking the hook out of the 5th, 10th, or perhaps 15th native or wild trout or other gamefish of that day. — End of this discussion.

14

I agree with EdD. I think tin is the way to go.

I really like the Dinsmore brand of split shot. It’s oval shaped, it holds well, and it’s pretty easy to remove.

I started using it a couple years back when I went to Yellowstone and that’s what I’ve bought ever since.

Brian

15

The proposal to ban lead fishing weights met a lot of resistance from gear and bait fishermen (and tackle manufacturers) who didn’t see an acceptable alternative to lead in 1/2 ounce jigs. Notice the EPA didn’t say it wasn’t a problem, they just said it should be handled by someone other than them.

For fly fishers, there’s not much excuse for using lead. Yellowstone National Park banned it years ago. I started using non-toxic shot to fish there, and now I just use it everywhere. I personally like the Dinsmore tin shot. It’s plenty heavy, tends to stay where you put it, and comes in a nice subdued green color.

16

I have no problem with limiting use of split shot or other small ingestible pieces of lead. My issue is with the environmental organizations that take this to far. Recently in Washington a couple of these orgs wanted to ban lead anchors because of what they termed environmental hazards created by lost anchors. Lead does not dissolve in water. It is a natural occurring,stable, inert metal that, unless it is ingested, does absolutely no harm to the environment. How does banning the use of lead in a 30 pound anchor help to protect the environment? I haven’t seen any swans eating 30 pound lead anchors. Next I had one of these environmentalists tell me that a lead anchor will lose up to 50% of its volume over a few years of use. Bull hockey! I have a lead anchor I have used on the Skagit River for about 20 years now and it still weighs the same as it did when I first got it. These people shoot themselves in the foot when they take these things into the ridiculous.

17

Kerry,
The elimination of small ingestible pieces of lead is all that I am talking about.
The US has, I believe, outlawed use of lead shot in hunting migratory waterfowl.
Great Britain has outlawed any fishing weights less than one ounce as they found that voluntary efforts were not working.
I certainly haven’t said anything about 30 pound anchors…sounds like an expensive anchor?

18

The movement to ban lead fishing weights began with the study from Tuft’s University in Massachusetts showing that 52% (16) of 31 dead loons examined by them died of lead fishing weight ingestion. This study was published in 1992 and this started the move to ban lead fishing weights.

“Of the 75 loons received, 31 adults were examined. Sixteen of these adult birds (52%) died from lead poisoning.”

See Pokras, M.A. and R. Chafel. Lead toxicosis from ingested fishing sinkers in adult common loons (Gavia immer) in New England. Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 1992. 23: p. 92-97. From:

http://www.jstor.org/pss/20460274

However this death rate of 52% was much greater than death rates found by other researchers. The US Government funded a cooperative study through the U.S. Geological Survey, National Wildlife Health Center, 6006 Schroeder Road, Madison. This was a cooperative study from 5 scientific organizations - U.S. Geological Survey, National Wildlife Health Center; Department of Veterinary Sciences, University of Wyoming; BioDiversity Research Institute, Falmouth, ME; Arizona Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, School of Renewable Natural Resources University of Arizona; and the Vermont Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Vermont. The study was of dead waterfowl including over 300 dead loons collected from 9 states: Minnesota, Wisconsin, Maine, New York, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Florida, California and Alaska.

I believe this is the most reliable study of the effect of the toxic effects fishing weights. It does not include deaths from bullets and lead shotgun pellets like most other lead toxicity studies do.

"From 1995 through 1999, 2,240 individuals of 28 species of waterbirds were examined in the United States for ingested lead fishing weights. A combination of radiography and visual examination of stomachs was used to search for lead weights and blood and liver samples from live birds and carcasses, respectively, were collected for lead analysis. Ingested lead weights were found most frequently in the Common Loon (Gavia immer) (11 of 313 = 3.5%) and Brown Pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) (10 of 365 = 2.7%), but also in one of 81 (1.2%) Double-crested Cormorants (Phalacrocorax auritus) and one of 11 (9.1%) Black-crowned Night Herons (Nycticorax nycticorax). "

http://www.nwhc.usgs.gov/disease_information/lead_poisoning/publications/waterbirds_sinkers.pdf

The Minnesota DNR also did their own study of the death rate of loons due to lead fishing rates.

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/eco/nongame/projects/leadout.html

“Out of 101 dead loons that were analyzed, a total of seven died of lead poisoning and an equal number died of fish line entanglement.” That 7% rate includes both lead from bullets and shotguns as well as fishing weights. The actual rate was just over 5% due to fishing weights.

It is obvious that the data from Tufts is not consistent with the wider survey data from the US Government’s National Wildlife Health Center. One of the authors of this report is the Biodiversity Institute in Gorham, ME. They are experts in toxins especially mercury toxicity.

Why would the Biodiversity Institute, an expert in heavy metal toxicity not include the Tuft’s data? The only conclusion that seems plausible is that the data from Tufts was a special situation that does not apply to the country as a whole as determined by the U.S. Geological Survey, National Wildlife Health Center.

I found this explanation, "“Although the rates were much lower in the NWHC study, there is no doubt that lead-sinker mortality is higher in New England than in other parts of the country. The variance appears to be a result of the different character of lakes (and loons) in the two regions. Pokras points out that the heaviest incidence of lead poisoning occurs in a heavily fished 5-lake region in New Hampshire. The lakes, most of which are only a short drive from Boston, are deep, clear, infertile and very heavily developed. As he described the situation, ?on weekends, you can walk across the lake from boat to boat.? There are practically no natural nesting areas, so the birds nest on floating platforms installed by loon-preservation groups. The loons commonly hang around docks and fishing boats, hoping to pick up lost or discarded bait, a behavior that greatly increases their odds of ingesting fishing gear. Adding to the problem is the fact that the lake basins have a high density of lost sinkers that are easy to see because the bottoms are so clean.”

If the 50% of loons were dying of lead toxicity nationally and specifically in my state of Wisconsin, one would expect and effect on loon populations and other waterfowl.

There is a proposal to ban lead weights in Wisconsin but the most recent data shows that populations (Eagles, Osprey, Loons and Trumpeter Swans) that are supposedly at risk from lead fishing weights are actually INCREASING and not decreasing.

“A central tenant of fish and wildlife management is management for the optimal overall population level, not for the well being of any one individual. Simply put, sustaining populations is the goal of fisheries and wildlife management, not sustaining individuals.”

“It is not disputed that lead toxicosis may harm or kill loons and other water birds. This fact is well documented. The pivotal question is: are loon populations, and populations of other water birds, significantly reduced by lead sinker ingestion? Or phrased in a more comprehensive fashion: is mortality from lead toxicosis in loons and other water birds high enough to threaten self- sustaining loon populations? Based on available research the answer to both of these questions is no.”

“This determination is based on a comprehensive 1999 study requested by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Federal Aid and conducted by the National Wildlife Health Research Center in Madison, Wisconsin…the results showed that only 3.5% of common loons (from a sample of 313) had ingested lead sinkers and just 27 of 36,671 waterbird and bald eagle carcasses (0.007%) contained ingested lead sinkers”

http://www.asafishing.org/images/government/asa_lead_position.pdf

The FEDERAL GOVT’S OWN RESEARCH to study the effect of lead fishing weights showed at most only 3.5% of the deaths were due to lead weights. Other water birds had LESS that 3.5% lead weight ingestion. Now consider that the death rate from C&R fishing varies from 3-5% per fish per release, and some fish are caught multiple times. It then becomes apparent that a maximum 3.5% death rate from lead fishing weights in birds is probably less than the cumulative population deaths from C&R fishing in trout. Why not ban C&R fishing using that same logic???

Shouldn’t there be evidence that lost lead fishing weights are affecting wildfowl populations before any ban is passed? If lead weights are responsible for a maximum of 3.5% of the death of loons, why not ban C&R fishing on that same basis.

It should also be noted that no one has studied the effect of lead fishing weights on the deaths of water fowl feeding on river systems. The data that is used to ban trout fishing weights on rivers are based on erroneous data from a unique situation on some lakes in New England.

We base threats to wildlife based on population studies. That is how we determine endangered and threatened species. That is exactly how we justify C&R fishing as a renewable resource. The threat of lead based fishing weights should be based on that same logic.

19

The use of lead shot for hunting waterfowl is hazardous to the waterfowl at which it is shot!

Yup!

20

Another good one Allan. How funny