Get the lead out

[CrappieJohn]

The question was asked just a couple of posts back regarding when lead was inaugerated as fishing lure metal and how much has been lost in the waterways. Along time ago and lots probably. But the issue is that SOME loons have died from what appears to be lead related poisoning. Some loons...not hundreds or thousands or any combination thereof. And not IN MINNESOTA. So with the money crunch in this state today, I would think that if ANY state agency was involved with this issue and using state tax dollars...the money spent is not being done so in even remotely good spirit. This whole thing is about as foolhardy in concept as those nuts that say you have to eat your hamburgers well done while they sit down to a steak dinner....medium rare please!

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

Culprit Tackle Crappie Pro Staff
[email protected]

[Guest]

Brad
Yes its good to be able to share views without tossing mud. I just view lead as a toxic source being introduced to our lakes and streams by us and it needs to stop all together. I wonder this, if the lead is covered by the dirt on the bottom over time does the lead not still break down in the soil due to the PH?
Some lakes deep and sandy bottom dont take the hit as bad but places like the River and some of the inland stumpy rock bottom they get more loaded each year with lead.
I am hoping some kind of deal can be reached here without someone having to take a big whack in the pocket book.
Also as the supply and demand becomes more? The prices of the alternatives may start to come down in price (lets hope) .

------------------
http://www.geocities.com/frozenminnow/Northernoutdoorpromo.html

[BradB]

Frozenminnow,

The question you pose about lead weights being covered by dirt, lake depths and bottom contents, and what the effect of current would be is an interesting question. I would guess that no one has ever studied this at that level of detail, and it might make for an interesting university project. I would suppose that the major factor in lead dissolution would be the amount of surface area exposed to water. If wave and/or current action were to wear away at the lost jig or sinker, then it is likely that it would dissolve more quickly in that situation. This is partly why bird with gizzards die from lead ingestion, as they grind that lead up in the gizzard and by grinding increase the surface area open to dissolution and entry into their bloodstream. If it were stuck in the muck I do not believe it would dissolve very quickly, as lead just doesn’t do that, and there is nothing in that situation to increase surface area.

Although this is an interesting question, I do not want to lose sight of the major question in this thread. The “Get The Lead Out” program in Minnesota, and similar anti-lead fishing tackle programs across the US and Canada, are based on loon mortality due to lead ingestion. They are not based on the toxicity of lead left at the bottom of lakes or rivers.

Brad

[BradB]

1Yogi,

Your questions are extremely difficult to answer as there are so many variables that affect the answer. The reason you run your tap for a while is that you are concerned about a small amount of water, that has been sitting for an extended period, in contact with lead pipes or solder. Like many things in science, it is a question of contact time and surface area. When you try to extrapolate this to a lake or river there are just too many variables.

The fact of the matter is that lead is not particularly soluble. This is an established fact. If you want answer to specific questions, you're probably going to have to do the test yourself. You'll be waiting a very, very long time before the water becomes toxic, IMHO.

Brad

[say_der]

I had the good fortune to attend one of these tackle exchange events on Saturday at the Bloomington Gander Mountain.

There was one employee from the MOEA and a couple of volunteers from the Audobon Society.

I was given more than a fair exchange for the lead that I brought.

The gentleman from the MOEA said that this is a small part of a huge project to reduce the amount of lead introduced into the environment. So overall the tackle portion of it maybe small, but the effort is definately in the correct place.

The part about the loons is also to help children recognize the concern about lead. Not necessarily the only reason to quit using lead split shot.

I traded in everything made of lead that I had except for some bottom bouncers that I forgot at home. Those will be gone at a future tackle exchange. The new jig heads look great. Nothing wrong with them at all - 3 color paint, nice eyes, very clean looking compared to some of the non-toxic ones of the past.

If they don't work quite as well for some odd reason, so what? It's called fishing, not catching, for a reason.

[KJM]

This is Office of Environmental Assistance responding to an inquiry about the budget for "Get the Lead Out!" activities.

We are happy to share information, including budget details, with folks. You may recall in a recent posting that OEA described its initial "entry" into this issue as lead metal used in manufacturing. This point is important to know in better understanding funding.

Since passage of the Minnesota Toxic Pollution Prevention Act (Minn. State 115D) in 1990, OEA has been the lead state agency in administering this law. Among many features designed to encourage cleaner technologies, the statute assesses a $0.02 per pound fee on reported toxic chemical releases to Minnesota's environment. Many of the state's manufacturers, including a major tackle maker, annually report to US EPA and the State their toxic chemical releases.

Beginning 1999, we have dedicated $3k toward the Let Out effort. This $3k annually is the fees on toxic chemicals emitted to Minnesota's environment.

Last year, our efforts were ramped up with the support of DNR. The Lead Out program's budget last year was more in the order of $15k. This year, with continued DNR support and an award from US EPA of $10k, the program budget is closer to $25k.

It is important to note the high level of gratis contributions from tackle makers and others who have offered to partner with us.

We have been fortunate to receive non-lead tackle at no charge for several years. We could not expect this from manufacturers of non lead indefinately. Thus, we now pay for much the non-lead tackle used at exchanges but at, for the most part, break-even cost to the manufacturers. We greatly appreciate their support.

As far as staffing, we rely heavily on volunteers. Again, we are fortunate to have so many folks willing to lend a hand. For state agency staff, it ends up to be a half person (FTE)/year.

We would welcome any anglers, such as posters on fishingminnesota.com, to who have an interest in volunteering for a lead tackle exchange event or another volunteer opportunity.

We welcome your comments and feedback.

[KJM]

For additional consideration, many have suggested that the following listing -- prepared by Carrol Henderson of DNR for the Minnesota Air Water and Waste Conference (February 2004)-- be posted to this forum:

1. We have arrived at the realization that lead in any form is poisonous to people; bald eagles; waterfowl; loons; and other living things.

2. The statistics and extent of poisoning for loons and other wildlife can be debated endlessly. This is not about whether lead is making loons become an endangered species. The fact is that this is an avoidable loss of wildlife that responsible hunters and anglers should care about.

3. Anything that we can do to reduce the amount of lead that we are releasing into the environment is a good thing.

4. It is the right thing to do.

5. Society has responded to this problem by successively removing lead from everyday products: gasoline; paint; shotgun shells; rifle bullets in the military; and now fishing tackle.

6. Nontoxic alternatives are becoming more available; they are more expensive initially, but the price is going down as the industry expands, and the original price of lead did not factor in the ultimate cost of environmental cleanup or loss of human health or loss of wildlife. Considering those factors, non-toxic alternatives are cheaper in the long run.

7. New technology including composite products of bismuth and tungsten allow creation of new bullets, shotgun pellets, fishing sinkers, and fishing jigs with ballistics performance, in air and water, that can be superior to lead because the specific gravity of the composites can reach 1.4 times the specific gravity of lead.

8. This presents a prime marketing opportunity for ammunition and fishing tackle industries to diversify their product lines with non-toxic bullets, shotgun pellets, fishing sinkers, and fishing jigs with products that have different specific gravities that perform over a range of densities that was previously not possible with lead alone. This is an opportunity to increase product lines and corporate profits in those industries.

9. Transition to non-toxic alternatives for ammunition and for fishing tackle occurs in three different levels: the society level, including government involvement; understanding and acceptance by hunters and anglers; and response by industry which must absorb the cost of research, retooling and marketing the new products and find a market among consumers that makes the transition worthwhile, and a good long term investment.

10. This transition must be synchronized among those three entities to avoid misunderstanding, distrust, confusion, loss of credibility, and loss of corporate profits.

11. It is the right thing to do.

[BradB]

Thank you for posting that data, and the other information. I appreciate very much that you were willing to do that.

I personally disagree with the assertion that it is "the right thing to do" or "anything that we can do to reduce the amount of lead...into the environment is a good thing", but I now understand your reasoning in this matter. It is correct that we could debate some of these issues endlessly.

[walleyehawk]

Thanks for the info. I thought the budget had a few extra zeros behind it but I was wrong. Your wage must be spread across a few programs and with volunteers, the program is managable.

Like Brad said, we can debate this forever and not agree. I don't think we are anti-environmental, just want cost based management. Don't spend a million to save an eagle. I am willing to try the non-lead split shot I got last year, but jigs are a harder sell to me for now. But I suppose some effort is better than none.