I am glad to see that you have the passion and the level of concern for the environment that you are expressing. I believe that most of the folks here hold that same ideal. My point is that before I have to discard my supplies of lead wire, I need to see proof that the level of lead that is added is a hazard. Then I will do my part as I always do. These folks(PETA) don’t care one iota about lead. Their whole agenda is to eliminate sport hunting and fishing. This is just one of their’ backdoor’ tactics to that end, and I’m not just going to willynilly aid and abet these people. I really don’t use hardly any lead on my flies, but will defend others against legislation that has no basis of fact! If it does - fine. I’ve spent a good portion of my life working on fish and wildlife projects. I’ve also been on more garbage clean-ups (water & land) than you can shake a stick at. These PETA people do absolutely nothing directly for wildlife or the environment, but spend an inordinate amount of time trying to disrupt the work that us real animal lovers are trying to accomplish. I have zero respect for those people. While I’m sitting here worrying about how much lead fishermen use, my county is not going to renew a lease on 400 acres of land my group has worked on for 9 years. We have planted over 45,000 trees, plowed/picked rocks/planted numerous fields/foodplots and fought like the devil to keep ATVs/OHVs and garbage dumpers out!!! NOW the county wants to lease this same chunk of land to a company that wants to drill test holes which could lead to coal or shale gas extraction/mining. This piece of land was already strip-mined and deep-mined. It was then “reclaimed” to the tune of 1 million dollars. ALL FOR NOT??? So as you can see some of us on the other side of this lead issue do not think this is so cut and dry. I’m off my soap box now!!! Best regards, Dave S. (fishdog54)
I look at it this way…all those “concerned folks” can start up a new company…then market a “decent” substitute for lead wire at a reasonable price. And if my curiosity says to try it I will. And if it works, I just may decide to keep using it. And then we all feel better. Instead of telling me I “can’t” use it…and basing the decision on junk science.
I thank you and applaud you for all of the hard work you’ve done. Please don’t stop. And I completely agree with you that PETA does some very strange things and goes about them many times in very strange ways. But to disagree with an important issue just because PETA is for it (whatever their motives are), I think, is cutting off your nose to spite your face.
I think we all have to agree that to ingest lead is bad - for fish, animals, and humans. Does anybody believe there is no such a thing as lead poisoning? Back when I was a smoker, I didn’t need to wait for a study to tell me how many cigarettes a day were bad for me. I knew that any, even one, was bad - and the cumulative effects add up, and they add up quickly. I knew that and I finally quit. And I didn’t need to wait for the government or anybody else to tell me that smoking around other people who didn’t was bad for them and I didn’t need to wait to be told that I wasn’t allowed to do it in most places any more, either. The same is true for lead in our water systems. I don’t need a study to tell me how much lead is bad. Heaven knows how many pounds of lead split shots and lead weighted flies I have left in streams and hanging in trees over the years. But I quit using lead a few years ago because I realized, like most people (or at least I hope like most people), I want things to be better for my kids and their kids than it was for me. And if using lead-free products can help out in that ultimate goal, I will be happy to. Waiting until it gets too bad is not an option for me and our kids don’t deserve having to pay for our mistakes, especially if helping out a little by doing something as simple as changing the type of product we use while we are enjoying what we love to do. If the amount of lead present right now is not already at a dangerous level, then we got lucky. Let’s don’t push it. A lot of people will happily do or not do something voluntarily but will protest when they are told to do or not do exactly the same thing, be it right or wrong. I will, too! But this is the right thing to do.
I am, by no stretch of the imagination, a fanatical “tree hugger” or a PETA supporter. Where it’s allowed, I’ll keep a fish or two for dinner. But, at least to me, helping to stop the accumulation of even a little bit of lead where and when I can - when it is so easy to do it in this case - is a no-brainer. If I’m completely wrong and lead is no danger at all, what exactly has it cost me and the other people who switched? I few dollars and absolutely no change whatsoever in our enjoyment of our sport? I’ll take that chance. Better us than our kids.
I hope they add to this a stipulation that all fishermen must carry water purification tablets and must sprinkle two of them in the stream before entering the water. It can’t hurt, could possibly help, wouldn’t alter the cost of fishing much (compared to your new helios), and anyone who cares about the environment at all should see that we should all do our part, no matter how small or seemingly insignificant.
I already quit hunting, not shooting though and I would hate to quit fishing, but I may if all this garbage come to be.
It is not worth it to me at this time in my life. So if they want less tax collected and less spent on products which would hurt every angle both sides have the so be it. I doubt that I am alone with this kind of hard sticking with what one says. After the baseball strike in the 1990’s I said that I was done and I still don’t watch baseball on TV or in person unless it’s little league and that is still worth watching.
I can clearly see who is willing to give up their freedoms and who is not. Believe me my son didn’t give his leg for me to loose freedoms I have had my entire life. We give away freedoms all the time because some idiot with some group sells out government some bill of goods that is just BS!
My wife works for EPA and actually worked on this rule during the Clinton administration. Several environmetal groups petitioned EPA to look in to this. Studies(although highly controversial) determined that there is a risk for waterfowl, especially Loons ingesting small lead fishing products. Some one in the Clinton adminstation convinced EPA to create a rule banning all lead fishing products, never made it through the comment period. Apparently a large portion of lead fishing products in larger sizes are manufacturered by Mom & Pop businesses and the rule would have literally put them out of business. Major lead fishing product manufacturers were on board to bring out alternate products for split shot and other small lead products that would have reduced the risk to waterfowl.
This time it appears the Obamma administration is following in the Clinton administrations footsteps but awaiting comment before they proceed. Rumours at EPA are that a revised rule will be created that phases out the smaller lead products such as split shot and lead wire for fishing uses.
Thanks for the response to my rant. I agree with you 100% that it is better to be proactive than reactive! I too am concerned about what we leave, or in some cases not leave for the future generations even though I have no children of my own. Most of the stuff I’m involved in planning and planting may not fully mature until after I am gone from this 3rd rock from the sun! The use of lead wire is hopefully a moot point for me personally. A few days ago my dad picked up a few 1 pound rolls of wire (silver solder?) composed of tin & silver with a diameter of .030. He got it dirt cheap at a yard sale so you can’t beat that! I’m going to do an exhaustive scientific comparison test on it comparing it to lead. In other words I’m going to drop the two in a glass of water and see which one hits bottom first! LOL!!! Anyway, I will certainly consider your comments. Thanks again.
I have said it would hurt people’s business in other replies about this issue, and I was made fun of. I truly believe it will hurt other business such as Jann’s Netcraft, Lure Parts Online, Barlow’s…you name it. It will also hurt BPS, and Cabelas too. Some people have saved up decades worth of lures and stuff, and now they want them to throw it away or what? I can see phasing it out slowly, if necessary. But grandfather in what we already have. What will business do with the lead already in their stock and on hand at the time the ban might go through? Do you really think they will take it all as a loss? You can bet your bottom dollar the losses of the bigger companies will go to the little guy who buys the tackle or fishing equipment. I am against brass being banned because if it has any lead in it, it is a minute amount. I have a lot of conventional tackle, and I have a lot of flies I have made. Clousers have lead eyes. Many hooks have been wrapped with lead. I have lead spinners. I have spent a fortune on this stuff. I just can’t see throwing it away because somebody wants us to quit hunting and fishing. That is what it boils down to. If you think it is just lead, you are wrong. It is a step in the direction they want to take it. The animal rights are pushing this for all they are worth. They are against eating meat, but don’t really get it that vegetables must silently scream when you rip 'em outta the ground. I am sick of the bs frankly speaking. This reminds me of the CO2 is a toxin…I say baloney. The air you exhale is poison? I don’t think so. Besides that, without C02 plants would not survive, and neither would we. It is just another way to tax us, and sponge off of normal working class people. I am tired of all the government regulations on everything. They try to fix one thing, just like gas additives, and then they find out later, it was worse than the original thing was. So have these alternatives been safety tested? On water problems I say there is more poisons going down the drain from household cleaners and fertilizers, and herbicides, and pesticides, from your yard.
Many of the environmentalists feel its the “right and sensible thing to do” to eliminate lead from their fishing, that’s fine. Nobody is telling them they have to use it. Just the same, I dont appreciate anyone telling me I have to NOT use it.
Also, in the ridiculous situation that anyone would make it a law that people HAD TO use lead, I still suspect that, rather than give up fishing altogether, many would still fish without lead. Very similarly, if this lead ban goes through, it will likely be something that takes place on the commercial level. Its not that lead would suddenly become illegal to fish with, but rather that lead would not be tolerated in commercial fishing products, so that, eventually, lead would be so hard to come by for the average angler, that it would simply, in effect, cease to exist on the stream.
If they did, however, institute a sudden ban on lead, making it illegal and issuing fines streamside, I’d just cease fishing easy-access waters with the stuff, and only bust out the lead when I was out in the back woods, far from any road. Bad rules were made to be broken, and any rule that makes criminals out of otherwise innocent anglers is a Bad Rule.
Well here’s the deal. As with anything, when targetting any “perceived evil” out there. And I say 'perceived" because seldom is there ever clear and precise science on anything sought to be banned, and it all comes down to what side of the “environmental” fence you stand on that determines your perceptions.
Folks always look for the easiest targets. Nobody wants to try and tackle lawn fertilizers…or kitchen cleaners. And they aren’t going after farming and pesticide practices. So they target some insignificant factor…practiced primarily by honest law-abiding folks. Who right or wrong will follow the ban once they get their “agenda” passed. They don’t care one second about the impact. They are morally “right” in their perceptions…so it becomes a crusade to “teach” us all the error in our ways. Especially now that we have the global warming witch hunt going on. All you need to do is whisper “greenhouse gas” or “mother earth” and you become a diety with unbelievable wisdom. So we’ll pass the lead ban in the name of the Loon (although has anybody ever seen a dead loon killed by lead injestion?). And we’ll do it in the name of keeping the lead out of our waters…while we pump chlorine and flouride into our municipal water supplies, as we fertilize the local water tables in the name of green grass.:^)
I mean seriously. Does anybody expect a logical person to buy any of this stuff? Once the BS is peeled away? Lead fishing gear is simply an easy target for advertising their agenda.
Honestly, in terms of ppm, there’s probably more estrogen and pharmaceticals in mosturban/suburban waterways than lead.
Overall, you wanna make the biggest positive impact on our environment for future generations? Stop having so many kids. The amount of resources depleted and waste generated in raising a child for one year is astronomically greater than the negative impact of an angler losing 50 years’ worth of lead in the stream. Put the money you would have spend on a kid each year into saving the environment and you’ve just doubled your impact.
Give the man a cigar. It sounds good to the eco-nutzis who would have us back in caves, naked I guess (you can’t kill an animal for food or clothing) and the eco-nutzis have the ear of the press who convince the dumb masses that you have to be stupid to disagree with them.
I saw a remark on the web some time ago that said: “Yes, we should all just get naked and walk back into the ocean from whence we came! YOU FIRST!” LOL!!!
If they could come up with a replacement that weighed the same, molded the same and powder painted the same and was as CHEAP as lead I’d have no problem switching. But so far they don’t and everything else is way more expensive.
What kind of backlash and outcry would there be if they proposed a ban on all natural fly tying materials???
I just think it’s amazing how many folks are willing to “give up” things that don’t affect them, with little to no regard for those that it will impact. “I think YOU will be just fine without it.” LOL! Thanks…I appreciate the wisdom and concern afforded me. :^)
It’s a non-issue that someone is trying to use to get re-elected. USGS political ‘hack’ Dr. Barnett Rattener was one of the authors of this so-called ‘study’ that they are using to justify this really dumb action. First off, let me explain what Dr. Rattners ‘job’ is. He leads “hypothesis-driven” ‘investigations’ (hypothysis=no physical evidence=no proof=no science at all…) into his invented field of “eco-toxicology”. Now, Dr. Rattners education is in Zoology, and Environmental Physiology. He is not a chemist, nor has he had any formal toxicology training. He is a political appointee who has to come up with issues to justify his job. His study has absolutely no physical, or scientific evidence to support any claim that lead from fishing gear is any sort of major environmental hazard. They ‘estimate’ that several 1000 tons of lead from fishing gear are introduced into the environment annually, without explaining how they arrived at that figure, They just pulled a number out of thin air. No one knows how much lead gets into the environment from fishing gear, but common-sense will tell you these figures are ridiculous. It this were true, then we’d all be stepping on sinkers every time we wade-fished. I hardly ever find any sinkers where I fish, because when I do, I take them home and re-use them. Dr. Rattner is so intelligent that when asked how much lead it would take to poison a duck, he replied “one single BB would be enough…” He should probably go to his Alma Matter and ask for all his money back, because BBs are made of copper…not lead. Any 1st year chemistry student knows the difference between copper and lead (Copper-symbol CU=Atomic #29=Atomic Weight-65.5. Lead-symbol PB= Atomic # 82=Atomic Weight 207.0). I just did this from memory, and my degree is in Medicine. And he is supposed to be a Toxicologist…? Give me a break.
They have no figure on how many waterfowl have actually been poisoned by eating lead shot, because there are none. It is just ‘possible’ that it could happen. Of course, the water fowl are obviously in no danger from loss of habitat due to agriculture and industry, and I’m sure BP’s oil spill was never any threat to them i[/i].
Waterfowl, and humans alike, are in much more danger from industrial waste and chemicals being LEGALLY dumped into places like the Cumberland River by companies like Champion Paper. Mercury levels are so high in some TN. lakes from this that they have posted warnings not to eat the fish. And what about the nice little ‘rainbow’ oil slicks left behind by motorboats? On any given day, there are thousands upon thousands of hydrocarbon powered watercraft out joyriding and polluting the waters. Are they going to ban them?
As long as they allow these types of tragedies, I am not interested in hearing any of their garbage about banning legitimate outdoor activities without proof of damage. I have already put my elected officials on notice on this issue, and signed several petitions to the EPA, as well as started a few of my own. If they are going to ‘clean up’ the environment, then they need to start with the biggest offenders.
