Get the lead out

[CrappieJohn]

Right now, as you read this, someone is dying from alcohol in one form or another and nicotine in one form or another.The government is doing little to eliminate these "toxins" from our daily environment. Until they do get these removed, they can stuff this lead issue in their knickers and nether regions just beyond! When evidence comes rolling in that thousands and thousands of these loons are croaking from lead, then they still have got to prove that it is from fishermen's tackle. Remember now...loons eat fish and their bills are NOT suited to dabbling in mud.And lead sinks. There is more to this issue than just lead!$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

------------------
Plastics...making better fishermen without bait! Good Fishing Guys! CrappieTom

Culprit Tackle Crappie Pro Staff
[email protected]

[Chev_trucks501]

I'm with Crappie Tom and the others on this one. That's All

Wondering if I put enough Uranium in my boat would it GLOW? and would the Glowing Atract Fish? and would the DNR ticket me for using a Glowing Boat?

Good Luck
Chev

[Guest]

I wonder? Just how many jigs are on the bottom of the river between dam #4 and Hay creek? I have certainly left my share in the last 30 years! The loon/lead thing? I have a hard time believing lead has made that much of an impact on the Loon population. The fishing industry isn't the first to be attacked on the lead issue! Remember lead based paints? Gone!! My issue is that we as sportsmen need to protect our environment for the future generations. It is never to late to start.
We have to take care of Mother Nature or she will certantly take care of us!!

Mostly opinion and some fact.

Rich
PSD Catch-N-Tackle/Bio-Bait

[Old Guide]

ok, I've read all the posts on this topic down to here. Could someone tell me what Bismuth costs a pound? Where to get it? Lead is .25/lb.

------------------
Old Guide Charters
Lake of the Woods
http://fishingminnesota.com/oldguidecharters/
Call Toll Free:1-800-952-(9484)

[1Yogi]

In my first post I never dicussed the fact that lead was killing waterfowl Loons in particular. I stated a well documented fact and asked some questions. Question my "Chemistry" if you choose but the fact remains that lead is Toxic. So again I ask,
Since lead is Toxic does it make environmental sense to keep using it in this application?
How much lead is lost in the water supply by people using it as sinker and jig material?
How much lead does it take to contaminate a 1000 acre lake?
How many years will it take for all the lead we loose to make a 1000 acre lake too toxic for wildlife to be supported?
Since all the Scientific data is not available to answer some or all of these questions we are left with the basic fact that lead is toxic. The razor principle dictates that finding an alternative to a Toxic substance is the best course of action.
Who among you is willing to spin the wheel to see which future generation has to deal with the mess we created before they were born? My conscience tells me to buy CatchnTackle or make my own jigs and sinkers with nontoxic material. And promote others to do the same. Thats my conscience, I've said my piece, now let your conscience be your guide.

[Blackstarluver]

What is the cost difference twixt Pb and Bi or Sn? I have always believed that for its price and properties that lead was the element for the job. Sure Pb is toxic but in metal form it is less toxic. I s'pose all proponents of non-lead tackle are true to their stand against pollution and drive electric vehicles(autos and boats)?
"In for a penny, in for a pound"
God lyk

[This message has been edited by Blackstarluver (edited 04-21-2004).]

[BradB]

Catch’n,

You should be commended for your use of the high quality hooks. This is far more attractive to me as an angler than the use of non-toxic materials. I would likely pay the differential just for those hooks, but I would not do so just because you are not using lead.

All,

If you go to the MOEA site you’ll see a number of links that supposedly justify this initiative to replace lead fishing tackle. This bibliography is not convincing if you read it carefully. All of this is based on reducing the death of waterfowl. All of these sites show data that shows that loons have died from ingesting lead. However, I could not find a one of them that showed that the loon population is suffering due to the use of lead in fishing tackle. It’s a “significant cause of mortality” and “…almost half…of the dead and dying…loons submitted…suffered from lead poisoning.” But I could not find a place where it says that the population is declining. Yes, some loons have died from lead. But is it significant? Also, they cleverly indicate that waterfowl die from lead poisoning but blur the cause between lead shot (banned) and fishing lures.

Basically, they seem to claim that because lead is toxic that it “just makes sense” to stop using it. I find this a specious argument and agree that this is probably more political than scientific.

Furthermore, I took a look at the MOEA site in general and I have to wonder why we are funding this? It looks like a state run environmental advocacy group. Take a look for yourself (Google MOEA) and ask yourself if you think this is something your tax dollars should be funding.

[Guest]

Thanks BradB, I'll let Rich Smith know you may be ordering!
I like those red hooks too.

I too wonder about this whole lead lure/weight issue being valid.

The more truth and factual information such groups would post here on forums like this one... the better we will all understand and be convienced of any real "problems" with lead lures & weights.
Catch'n
Dave Hoggard

------------------
Fishermen are catch-n on
Catch'n Tackle
For Bass, Walleye, Pike, Lakers, Trout, Panfish
Used by FishingMN Family

[BradB]

1Yogi has asked 4 questions. He is correct that there is not scientific evidence available (at least that I know of) to answer all of these questions. I will attempt to answer them as best I can:

Q1: Since lead is Toxic does it make environmental sense to keep using it in this application?

A2: Yes. Lead may be toxic, but there is no available proof that lost lead-based fishing gear is having a negative effect on the population of a species. Some waterfowl have died from lead poisoning anecdotally, but it has not been documented that the use of lead tackle directly threatens the population of an animal species.

Q2: How much lead is lost in the water supply by people using it as sinker and jig material?

A2: Canada estimates that “5 tonnes” are lost annually in the form of sinkers and jigs. The Adirondack Cooperative Loon Program estimates that “In the United States and Canada…hundreds of tons of lead fishing tackle are deposited in marine and freshwaters annually…” I assume these are SWAG estimates and that nobody really knows for sure.

Q3 How much lead does it take to contaminate a 1000 acre lake?

A3: That would depend very much on a number of factors such as depth, bottom structure and content, pH, and ultimately the total volume of water contained in that lake. There are probably many other factors as well, including the plant growth on that lake, its latitude, the annual photoperiod, etc., etc.

Furthermore, what constitutes “contamination”? Would it be the USEPA drinking water MCL of 15 ug/L? Would the entire lake need to have a static concentration of 15 ug/L or greater for it to be considered contaminated? This level is based on a lifetime consumption of 2 liters per day in drinking water, and has numerous safety factors applied to it. Any real contamination value, one that has real impact on wildlife, would likely be well above that 15 ug/L level.

Q4 How many years will it take for all the lead we loose to make a 1000 acre lake too toxic for wildlife to be supported?

A4 The same problems addressed in Q3 apply to this question. My assumption that by the time enough anglers lose enough lead tackle on a given 1000 acre lake to make it too toxic for wildlife, that that lake will be otherwise contaminated by boat residue, human waste, and just other effects of overuse. My SWAG at this would be tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of years.

Finally, I contest the Razor Principle for use in this issue. I do not think it follows that since lead is a known toxin that we need to find an alternative. I do not agree with this logic. I believe you have to look at the substance, its use, and its effects and then make an informed decision. A conscience is nice, but let’s be more rigorous than that in making these types of decisions.

[BradB]

Blackstarluver,

I called Jann's Netcraft (for another question really, but the timing was right) and asked them about Lead, Tin, and Bismuth. They had no idea where folks could get Tin and Bismuth or the cost differential. Maybe you have to go to specialty metal suppliers to get the stuff? Maybe Catch'n can give us an idea?

[B. Amish]

It's funny, they probably had the same conversations about DDT and arsenic back when they thought it was safe.

Anybody know how they turned out?

[deadminnowcatcher]

just another option- make it mandatory to tie your lead tackle to a strong enough line so that lead is not lost in the lake-maybe rope or steel line?

[BradB]

Nice try B. Amish, but there is a BIG difference here. Restrictions on Arsenic (as a pesticide) and DDT (as an insecticide) were based on strong data that showed a demonstrable effect on animal and human life.

The effort to limit, and eventually outlaw, the use of lead in fishing tackle is not based on sound science. It is based on "feel good" junk science, political innuendo, and anecdotal evidence.

Apples and oranges are both fruit, but as you know they are quite different.

[Duffman]

"I think there has been more waterfowl killed and not found from the poor ballistics of steel shot then would have ever died from lead poisoning."

Well, I think there has been more waterfowl killed and not found from the sky busting attitude and complete laziness of todays so called waterfowler over the poor ballistics of steel shot.

I just had to adapt when steel shot replaced lead, closer shots and more sure shots. No big deal, the whining I see on some of these subjects is comical. Lead tackle will probably be banned within 15-20 yrs, so I might as well get used to the idea sometime. Am I going go out and replace my lead tackle today??? No! But I give kudos to those folks that come up with and use lead alternatives. The more non-lead products that are available, the more people will slowly get used to the idea of them. Jeez, gettin our undies in a bunch over some splittys and jigs!?!?

[Bob/Mn]

Question, Are these lead trade ins one for one??
I took an inventory of my leaded tackle and came up with a value around $500. This includes jigs, spinner baits, and sinkers.

[big_fish_guy]

no, it's not a "one for one". I don't know what the ratio is, but a quick check on their HSOforum(link provide in first post) it's says it's not one for one. I would be curious as to what it is? I could certainly part with some old lead split shot to get some new "alternative" sinkers.

[BradB]

The press release says "Anglers who swap lead tackle will receive a sample packet of Bullet Weights stainless steel tackle. The packet includes a jig with an interchangeable head that can be changed without untying the line."

So it is not 1:1

[Blackstarluver]

SpikeR, I see your point on the slippery slope but how long will it be before the powers that be influence the easily influenced with a "straw man" or "red herring". If that doesn't work fast enough an "ignoratio elenchi" or use the advertisers dream and hit people with an "argumentum ad populum". The first step in identifying a fallacy is the knowledge of its existence. ~(~problem)
God lyk!

[Guest]

I just started to use the tin sinkers from Gander Mtn, they are an excellent replacement for the old lead and not that much more in price a few cents is worth it for the environment.

------------------
50% of something is better than a 100% of nothing. Nice fish!

[YumYum]

Okay, my first post on this topic was to quote an NRA bumper sticker (slightly modified to refer to my jigs instead of my handgun). It must have been too brash because it was removed from page 1 in less than an hour, however some of the responses on pages 2 and 3 seem quite a bit harsher than quoting a danged bumper sticker.

So I'll try to express my thought a little more calmly.
The first post in this thread contains this quote. "Results show that over 90 percent of Minnesotans are willing to switch to non-lead, even if it is more expensive than its lead counterpart."
IF that statement is true, may I just say? That I am firmly ensconced in the remaining 10 percent.

[Chev_trucks501]

I too will be in the 10 percent. I wonder who they were polling? My jig and sinkers will stay lead PERIOD! It's funny people argue about this stuff like anyone attacking some one elses opinion is going to change another persons attitude without hardcore concrete evidence.

Happy Fishing with Lead or Whatever.

Chev

[walleyehawk]

I went into Gander Mountain last year at the trade in and got a few jigs and about 50 split shots. Not a close to one to one exchange. I think they give the same amount regardless of what you turn in. All of the stuff I traded in was so old that I no longer wanted to use it, so I figured out I had nothing to lose.

Afterward I looked around and saw no lead alternatives in any of the fishing stores. This year there are very few available.

To me, the new split shot are too shiney and may deter fish. The lead had a dull finish. But I have them in my tackle box and intend to try them soon. I am more apt to use the alternative split shot than jigs

Jigs are a different story and if a bird gets that hook lodged in his throat, it will not matter what type of metal, he is going to have a hook problem! And probably die from the hook first.

Size or bulk matters more in jigs than split shots. Alternatives would really struggle in river or current situations.

I agree with many on this thread. Is this a wise use of government funds when we are cutting police, schools, etc? And how many birds are we talking about? Maybe a more efficient use of the money would be to hatch some of the birds in a protected environment where we can stock them like fish. It might cost way less to "give back" few we kill with the lead.

I also went to the MOEA site. Michigan studied 186 dead loons in 15 years, 44 of which died from lead. THREE A YEAR in the study!! In Minnesota, we lost 43 eagles since 1996. I really respect the eagles, so this may be excessive. But it is still less than 8 a year. More are probably found along side roads after being hit by vehicles. Should we ban traffic?

Point being, we are not losing thousands of birds statewide to this. (Though over 50 eagles a year would be a tragedy)

I don't want people to think I beleive in trashing the environment. I have friends that feel I spend too much time with my arms around a tree. I think we have to protect the beauty of our environment. But how much should we spend.

I saw something on a ESPN Saturday morning fishing show where hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent restoring salmon habitat. There was a species of fish that was destroying the salmon. Now, an environmental group wants to spend tens of millions (or more) to restore this fish that will eat the salmon eggs and destroy the fishery they have spent hundreds of millions on. Does this make any sense to taxpayers? Fishermen/women?

My other issue is what will happen to all of the lead tackle we have if we are not allowed to use it? I think having it in the landfill will be a much larger problem. I see lots of birds at the dump when I drive by.

Hot topic when many of us have hundreds of dollars invested in our lead fishing products.

[SpikeRoberts]

BradB,
Far from “junk science,” the documentation of the effects of lead tackle is made in dozens of articles published in many peer-reviewed scientific journals, government agency reports, and proceedings of wildlife professional symposia. Is the literature incomplete? Sure, that is the character of almost all knowledge of wildlife biology. Your position demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of “science.” In this arena (as in studies of deer, ducks, fish, and all other wildlife) what we know is based upon limited studies extrapolated across populations. Wildlife biology like all other science is the study of probabilities. Your demand for “proof” is an unachievable and complete unrealistic standard. Biologists would never be able to isolate any of the many factors that influence a population - weather, forage, habitat, and many other factors all play a role. If, in time, we are able to identify a direct, negative, cause-effect link between lead and overall loon populations it may be too late.

Given what we do know, the exchange and education program is an extremely reasonable and cost effective policy to address a potential threat. Contrary to your claims, the exchange program is completely voluntary and, within the program, there is no “effort to limit, and eventually outlaw, the use of lead tackle” (basically you’re committing what’s known as the slippery-slope fallacy). If, in the event that the “smoking gun” is discovered, taking these small steps to create a market for lead alternatives now will make a more drastic transition to lead-free fishing much more tolerable for manufacturers and anglers. I believe it was Ben Franklin who wisely said, “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”

[B. Amish]

BradB,
My point is that they didn't know they (arsenic and DDT) were harmful when they were using them, we know lead is harmful and we're still using it? Why? we don't however, have enough studies on long term effects, why jeopardize the future because lead may be cheaper and we don't want to listen to someone tell us what to do? but i guess that's the american way!

THe problem with a lot of your arguments is that your assuming everything. like the estimates about the amount of lead in the nations waters every year, you assumed they were way off, i'm sorry but i'd rather listen to a noted sources' estimates than your personal assumptions.

You wouldn't wait for scientific proof to come out on sticking your hand in the middle of a fire to figure out that your hand will burn, no, you already know that. why wait for scientific proof to confirm that lead is killing loons and waterfowl when we already know that too.

Its common sense 101

[This message has been edited by B. Amish (edited 04-21-2004).]

[SXViper]

So what happens when a Loon swallows one of the non-toxic jigs and it get stuch in its throat. Are you guys willing to ban jigs? I belive that some loons have died from lead poisoning, but I think this issue is mainly driven by $$$$ and environmentalists who start to bawl when they see a coon laying dead on the side of the road. I would also like to add that I think there has been more waterfowl killed and not found from the poor ballistics of steel shot then would have ever died from lead poisoning. So no I do not believe we need to switch to non toxic sinkers and jigs.
Brian