mikemicropterus wrote:
I agree with you Paul. I'm just saying that it will drive up the costs and to some it may lead to a decline in the amount of fishing they do. It may also put a few companies out of business and what about the guys who make their own jigs that will not continue. The compnaies who see this as inevitable are already making weights from different materials.
I don't mean this to attack you or to be rude, however, I believe there are flaws in these parts of your argument.
How much of an increase in costs are we talking about here? Would it really enough to prevent people fishing? Would it be hundreds of dollars per season or tens of dollars per season? Personally, I think the cost differential will be minimal to negligible over what it is now.
You wrote about companies going out of business, but in the same paragraph also wrote about these same companies adapting to the change. This also brings me to a point you failed to consider: more companies producing the same product usually results in more competition which can make costs to the consumer far more attractive than before. Also, more competition means more jobs.
Again, I'm not attacking you. I understand what you are saying, but I don't agree with your argument.
As for increased government intervention in our lives, that's a whole other argument. It's up to each of us to decide whether a lead ban would necessarily fall on the side of good or bad intervention. Personally, I see it as good intervention since it has a positive environmental impact.
Time's fun when you're having flies.
