Get the lead out

[big_fish_guy]

SXViper.....

AMEN brother!
Your point on the steel shot, EXACTLY!

[TMan]

Hasn't the loon population grown as of late? Hasn't fishing pressure increased as of late? Why doesn't that match up then...? I suppose the folks that push for banning of lead will no longer paint your jigs either, since paint and clear coats are toxic? ...Unsubstantiated impact & a political initiative, period.

[Guest]

Good discussion going here guys!
I see it as a good thing... our talking about this issue.

I am proud that my friend Rich Smith has invested his money and put forth the effort into providing an alternative for us all.

I will be using some "Safe Jigs" and some lead jigs both in the future.

As for the mfg cost of jigs... I think it is only less than a penny each more on a 1/64oz and up to about three cents more on a 5/8oz for the cost of the material.
Catch'n
Dave Hoggard

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

[BradB]

SpikeRoberts,

I find your criticism fair and well taken. I am fully aware that wildlife science has far less of an ability to fully characterize problems than other scientific arenas may. I also understand that proof is a slippery thing and often hard to grasp. My review of the data (not complete, mind you, and I’m open to any new data that might change my mind) leads me to believe that, yes, lead has killed some loons but, no, it is not felt that lead tackle use is threatening their overall population. As such, I do not think this merits any change in the habits and practices of the angling public.

I will admit to the fear that these well-intentioned exchange programs will lead to an unjustifiable ban on lead tackle altogether. I fear that since advocacy-type groups are leading these in initiatives, MOEA included, that they would lead with their hearts over their minds. A cheap, dense, and very useful material (lead) will then be taken from the angling public. I do believe it’s a slippery slope, and if it’s a fallacy so be it. Call me paranoid, if you will.

I think we can all agree here that the failure mode is the physical ingestion of the piece of leaded tackle. The probability of this happening to any given loon on any given day is poor, don’t you agree? As such, I believe it is highly unlikely that any “direct, negative, cause-effect link” will be found at a point where it is too late to do anything about it. If loons suddenly change their behavior to seek out lost leaded tackle, then I’d be prepared to switch my position. But I think they prefer fish, and will probably continue to do so.

B. Amish

Understood. My point to you surrounds the definition of “harmful”. Everyone knows that lead, arsenic, and DDT can be harmful. But in toxicology, the poison is in the dose. I do not believe that the dose in this case merits a change. I do not feel that the cases of arsenic and DDT, or even fire, are analogous to lead use in fishing tackle.

Those “assumptions” I put down a few posts back were taken right from the sources--thus the quotes. As far my personal assumptions go, with the lack of data that is about all one can do. Would you be happier if I theorized rather than assumed? Perhaps it’s just the choice of words.

[Havin' Fun]

So are we the consumer paying more for the research and development or what?

I know from what I've seen that alternatives to lead are far more expensive than that! Yikes!

I'm not hoping on any bandwagon with this one, as ALL my terminal tackle is lead, and I keep complaining about the prices I pay for that. But if wasn't an issue...I wouldn't hesitate to switch...but the hundereds of jigs and sinkers I have to replace isn't a small financial endevor currently.

[CrappieJohn]

In the original post, there is a Carol Something or other, director of Minnesota's Non-Game......"non-game"- see the cross in venues here? Further into the reading it states that the survey shows 90% of Minnesotans are ......how many of these "Minnesotans" bought fishing licenses? And to question this additionally, how many of these "Minnesotans" spend as much money on this sport as many of us do? And speaking of money, that article already has acknowleged that this replacement garbage is more expensive. This whole thing reminds me of the seatbelt law. All this garbola about saving lives. I concede that lives are saved. Now how about the lawmakers concede that, on the other side of that coin, there are probably hundreds of instances where persons cooked in wreckage because the seatbelt they were wearing made it impossible to remove them. These people have a way to make this issue look like wide-scaled carnage. And then they employ these obscure percentile figures to fuel the fire a bit more. And to insult those of us who think a tad more, they show absolutely no proof that those included in the "percentile figures" are even fishermen! Just who will be most affected by these "maybe" changes? Thats like asking me if I prefer tampons over pads. Just how in the HECK should I know and since these things I don't use. Now, I am sure that women might even go so far as to say that "any" answer I give, I cannot qualify so why include it in that survey. And I say likewise here. To this topic. The original post did not specifically state that the persons polled were fishermen from Minnesota....fishermen at all for that matter. I've said it before folks...This is about money! Corporate greed! I want to see all sides represented equally before I make decisions and when some one comes along with dump like this, no, I don't buy into it. It makes me leary. Now you go back to the seat belt law. Go look in your newspaper's court records and see if you see anything there today that was not there a year ago. Find it? It's attached to some other petty piece of garbage, the sum of whinc is twice the cost of the original piece of garbage. It is "no seat belt". They can't stop you for just a seatbelt violation and they certainly would not have stopped you a year ago for the other petty infraction. But now they can double up on you.It's the same thing here. They made law out of half of the story and it was all about money!

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

Culprit Tackle Crappie Pro Staff
[email protected]

[honker23]

I think is totally based on $$ and a few environmentalists trying to further limit us who enjoy the outdoors. They talk about how much they love the animals, but I'd be willing to bet we (outdoorsman)spend way more time and $$ helping the wildlife.

If the arguement is based on the toxicity of the lead, then we have to look at the mechanism of entry.
Are the birds eating the jigs? If so the point about the hook in the throat kind of eliminates the concern over PB toxicity.
Are they eating fish, who ate the jigs/split shot and became toxic. A previous post made a good point about the permeability of metal ions through the gut and blood vessels.
Are we worried about the lead breakdown at the bottom of the lake, contaminating the water? Then why can I still use lead anchor weights on all my decoys. Do you know how many jigs and split shot it would take to equal the lead in the 10 weights I lose a year?
Just a few thoughts I had

[Guest]

Brad:
Concerning your post?
"I would assume that in most cases the lead that is lost (jigs, sinkers, etc.) is sinking into the bottom of the lake. I’m sure it dissolves to some degree there, but I’m also sure that it would take a billion fishermen a day losing a billion jigs a billion years to increase the lead concentration in the water of a tiny pond to an toxic level. The USEPA MCL for lead is 15 micrograms per liter. Do the math on how many liters are in a lake, and calculate back how many micrograms of lead that would take."

Here is some intresting math.

If you took a paper clip and cut it into 1 million pieces? Each piece is a microgram.
(Information from the Univ. of Kansas study on vitiman intake levels.)

Which means? That each little sinker, jig, and ounce of bird shot that is lost in lakes, is a little worse than most estimate. 1 sinker is about 1 million micro grams or about 66,666.6 liters (17613 gallons) of water to be possibly polluted.

The state of MN and other orginizations like the non-game wildlife that are trying help preserve our outdoor future, are taking a harsh bashing here by some.

And about being all about money? Thats not true, with the exchange programs its almost free to start for a lot of tackle., so? who's making a killing here? I know.. Its them iron mining people up der on da range, trying to get a piece of da tackle industry!

Yes the tin sinkers are a little shiny, but the stainless look real close to lead.
There are dense plastics that can actually absorb liquid scents.

Support Minnesota,
Buy Steel

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

[Duffman]

honker23.....

http://www.realknots.com/

[BradB]

frozenminnow--

Concerning your post. It would not be correct to assume that all the lead from each lost split shot actually dissolves into the water (as in your paper clip analogy). Lead does not dissolve at a pH greater than 7.5. The lake bottom pH probably differs vastly across all the lakes and rivers of Minnesota, but I think it is safe to conclude that some lead does dissolve but not all. It would be interesting to see a study on this.

The issue with the loons is that their stomach pH (like ours) is quite low, and the lead dissolves much more rapidly under those conditions.

[Havin' Fun]

Which is what the information from Connecticut was trying to say! Lead needs a high acidity to dissolve it, therefor allowing it's ions to pass through our stomach into the blood stream.

Thus, it's LIKELY that most lead ingested would just pass through the stomach undigested and given off as waste in it's solid form.
But I too would like to see solid evidence of this as well. Sounds like a great doctoral project for any biochem majors out there!!!!!

[can it be luck?]

Hammer em', Sheew, I feel a little better now. I can't count the number of split shots I put in my mouth to either crimp close or open. I probably ingested alot of lead in my years of fishing.
Maybe that's the reason for the extra arm growing out of my side. Nah, it's probably just "evolution" at work. So I can cast more!
Also I better be careful if I decide to have more children......I'd hate to be the father of a "deformed loon" or something!
Alright, I'm stepping out of this one. Have at er boys!

------------------
http://groups.msn.com/canitbeluck

[Bob/Mn]

Last year there was a bill presented in the state to ban some lead fishing products. The bill did not pass.
The bill was four lines long and went something like this:
1. If it contained lead
2. If it is less than one inch in length
3. If it is less than one once.
4. If it is used to sink a line.
This is not word for work but close.
If the bill had passed I would have to dump out over $500 worth of tackle. All the retailers in the state would have to dump their lead inventory.
I could see the writing on the wall. A lead jig that cost me a dollar would probably cost me three dollars or more after the ban.
The main reason for the lead ban was that the Loons use gravel to help grind up their food and ingest Lead products when scooping up gravel.
This didn’t wash, as I have never lost a jig in gravel. If I lost a jig it was in rocks or wood and not after some effort the retrieve the jig before breaking the line. Now if the jig is that firmly seated in wood or rocks how in the world does a loon get the jig loose to ingest it.
I really hope our Legislators do some homework and research before presenting a bill like this in the future.

[Guest]

Water with a PH too high or Too low can affect lead.
This is from http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/programs/extension/publicat/wqwm/index3.html
I am sure it applies to lakes also.

The pH (acidity or alkalinity) of the water affects how easily lead dissolves from pipes, solder, or fixtures into the water. Corrosive water (which has a very high or low pH) can dissolve lead from the supply pipes, faucets, or solder and flux used to connect copper pipes. Water can be tested to determine whether it is corrosive. Soft (water with a low mineral content), acidic water can dissolve lead from the pipes or solder of household water systems.

Water with a high mineral content may offer some protection from lead pipes or solder, as a mineral buildup on the inside of pipes prevents contact between water and the lead pipes or solder.

I don't know many lakes that are of a neutral PH.

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

[smallies24]

I think some people are getting a little out of hand with the cost issue. If you think trying to get consumers to switch to lead is some kind of propoganda, answer this question for me.

Why would a company which is already manufacturing lead wieghts/jigs etc. want to switch to alternative metal or material? Switching from lead would require a huge capital investment by these manufacturers. Not to mention the money that would have to be invested in the engineering behind the new products. Also, steel is becoming an extremely expensive material to use in manufacturing. The cost of steel has tripled, I believe just in the last year.

I simply can not see any information to support the theory that this is all about money. That being said I feel no particular reason to switch from lead at the present time. I would support a ban for using lead in shotshells.

Steel has been a huge success for use in shotshells. I know many argue that it's performance is poor, but I disagree. Steel is faster out of the barrel and kills efficiently within a reasonable range. Birds are lost/wounded due to ineffective shooting and people shooting beyond the capabilities of their equipment as a couple people have mentioned previously, not because steel pellets don't perform.

My only hesitation with regards to fishing equipment is whether or not lead is harmful by simply being present in the water. If so, I figure a couple hundred dollars spent on new jigs would be worthwhile. After all, it's nothing compared to the thousands I've spent on other fishing and hunting related equipment.

Th reason for my contradiction between hunting and fishing is that much of the lead lost while fishing is not available to animals for ingestion. Where pellets out of a shotshell are readily available to wildlife.

My two cents

[This message has been edited by smallies24 (edited 04-22-2004).]

[This message has been edited by smallies24 (edited 04-22-2004).]

[BradB]

frozenminnow--

Yes, that may be. Lead can be slowly dissolved in its ionic form (Pb+2) off a lead sinker or jig at low or high pH's. In my experience, it is more soluble at a lower (more acidic) pH. However, in all cases likely to occur in nature it will dissolve weakly. The point is that your lead sinker or jig will not dissolve in the water such as iron would, or an equivalent weight of granular sugar. Lead is not a terribly soluble substance in water. That is a good thing, and is something that can be used for its defense.

All that aside, the issue here is ingestion of the lead weight or jig by the bird. This is what the studies that are being used by the anti-lead folks reference.

[Coach Dog]

I guess we need to ask what the cost of a loon's life is. Is it $100,000 per loon? I mean, this switch from lead to steel, bismuth, etc. would cost hundreds of thousand of dollars if not millions. Unless hundreds of loons are dying every year from choking on split shot, this switch should not be made.

------------------
GIT-R-Done!

[deadminnowcatcher]

automobiles kill human beings-do we ban cars?? just a thought

[chunkytrout]

IMO, loons aren't the only ones. Lets look at the chain shall we. Little mudsucker eats the lead, small walleye fry eats the mudsucker, laker eats the walleye fry, I eat the laker. Hmmmmm. I'm for the change up. The little things can make a difference. I switched to bismuth shot last season for upland. No skin off my back. If you don't want to change, then don't. I'll do my part wherever possible.

chunk

[BradB]

Chunkytrout,

The food chain scenario that you outline applies to mercury and PCB’s, but is not a good analogy for lead. Lead is not easily bioaccumulated as these other contaminants are, as it does not attach to fat. We are fortunate that lead does not readily dissolve, as it would be the lead in solution that would cause toxicity problems.

I do not think that small fish would be physically capable of eating lost split shot or jigs. I suppose a forage fish like a bluegill, or perch could have one stuck in him (like an ice jig) and be eaten by a larger fish. But as Hammer em’ posted on Page 2 of this thread, the lead will be mostly excreted.

The issue that the anti-lead advocates bring up is the fact that loons, and other waterfowl, physically eat lost jigs and sinkers. These bits of lead are then trapped in the gizzard of the bird and ground up into small pieces. The acid in the gizzard then dissolves these small pieces and carries the lead into the bloodstream of the animal, ultimately killing it.

No one is disputing the fact that this happens to birds. There is question, however, if it is having an impact on bird populations. They have shown that birds have died, but they have not shown that bird populations are at threat because of it.

[Guest]

Well put, Chunky.

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

[fishlakeman]

This issue kind of reminds me of those inner city gun buy back programs. Spending thousands of dollars on getting guns out of the hands of people that wouldn't commit crimes anyway. Totally ineffective.
I think the money from taxes would better be spent focusing on the mercury and pcb's problem that effects humans and all wild life, compared to lead contaminating a few birds. This it a tiny concern compared to the other environmental issues our lakes,ponds, and rivers face today.
I think a lead tackle ban is absolutely ridiculous because of the several millions of dollars that us fisherman would loose by having to replace tackle with more expensive, sometimes poorer performing equipment. Being a soon to be college student, I don't have the money to throw away 400$ of tackle and then spend $600 dollars to get decent replacements. Thats a 1000 dollars to use the tackle that I already have.
Don't get me wrong, I'm probably the biggest conservationist of my age a person could be. I practice very selective harvest, and use steel shot for everything except grouse hunting. I convinced my grandpa to put 180 acres of farmland in to crep with great success. I think it's a decent idea to use lead alternative and I probably will buy some, but a lead ban is way out of proportion.

[fishlakeman]

By the way, I believe Bismuth shot for shot gun shells is 100$ for 5lbs. I know it was 100$ but I can't remember the weight of the container. It definately wasn't over 10 lbs. I saw it a the reloading supply section at cabellas. Think how much money that is compared to lead!

[wall eyell be]

Please don't try to tell us "this doesn't cost anything". It costs plenty. The only distinction is WHO'S PAYING FOR IT.

W E B

[walleyehawk]

To those that think this does not cost anything, guess again.

When I went to Gander Mountain for the exchange, there were 3 guys manning the booth-when one would have sufficed. Why three, well you get the environmental lecture and a strong push to change your evil ways.

Just think how many more are back at the office.

NBC does the fleecing of America Series on the news and this has to a candidate. We have a number of employees and a state budget. And their only task is to collect lead and give a couple of bucks of free fishing environmentally friendly tackle away.

At a time when we are cutting back on police and schools....A fleecing of Minnesota!!