Lead Free Fishing - Voice your concern
I have no problem with not using lead, I just find it weird that they are blaming it on loon deaths....I know it probably has killed some but I find the numbers they are speculating hard to believe. Mind you Im not an expert in that field. If they just said that the government has an easier job at reducing lead content through fishing use than big business polution that would be fine.
Lead in our waterways is a huge issue and not only for loons. All waterfowl end up 'eating' some at some point in time, usually trying to get small pebbles to be in their gizzards to help break down food.
I had done a lot of research on this for a Biology course in College a few years back and it would well be worth the extra dime!
Lead is out of everything, paint, gas why not our waterways. We took it out of shot shells for waterfowl and this is the logical next step.
Some lakes already have lead bans unless under an once... Mississippi is one of them!
We spend 8-10$ if not more on a lure and those that fish for Musky hit 30-45$ a lure! Why not spend an extra dollar on non lead sinkers and jigs.
Even if we leave the loons out of the picture wold you swim in a lead lined pool? why would you if you're in a lake. Lead is so stable it will never in many lifetimes deteriorate itself and just increases contaminents in the water ways.
I can go on for hours on this subject but just wanted to through in my 2 cents.
Carlco
I had done a lot of research on this for a Biology course in College a few years back and it would well be worth the extra dime!
Lead is out of everything, paint, gas why not our waterways. We took it out of shot shells for waterfowl and this is the logical next step.
Some lakes already have lead bans unless under an once... Mississippi is one of them!
We spend 8-10$ if not more on a lure and those that fish for Musky hit 30-45$ a lure! Why not spend an extra dollar on non lead sinkers and jigs.
Even if we leave the loons out of the picture wold you swim in a lead lined pool? why would you if you're in a lake. Lead is so stable it will never in many lifetimes deteriorate itself and just increases contaminents in the water ways.
I can go on for hours on this subject but just wanted to through in my 2 cents.
Carlco
-
Markus
- Diamond Participant
- Posts: 7362
- Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 8:05 am
- Location: Nova Scotia/St Catharines
I'd be fine with whatever they decide. For me, it's as simple as - if we're poisoning our waters, then lets stop. We have so many different ways to get our presentation down where it needs to be, so if lead is doing damage, lets get rid of it.
I guess duck hunting has warmed me up to this idea. I have no problem paying the extra $ for bismith and tungston shells. Course, you might not want to be around me when a pattern a bird with steel and he quacks a laugh and hightails it out of range.
I don't go through that much lead, so the extra cost for upgraded jigs would be ok. Retailers will love it in the end too, it should give them the oppurtunity to re-establish a higher margin for the replacement items.
I guess duck hunting has warmed me up to this idea. I have no problem paying the extra $ for bismith and tungston shells. Course, you might not want to be around me when a pattern a bird with steel and he quacks a laugh and hightails it out of range.
I don't go through that much lead, so the extra cost for upgraded jigs would be ok. Retailers will love it in the end too, it should give them the oppurtunity to re-establish a higher margin for the replacement items.
-
bigfish1965
- Participant
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 10:08 am
For those wondering why people would be against the lead ban here's a few thoughts.
The plumbosolvency rate of lead in natural water is negligible. The last time the Great Lakes were tested for lead all the lakes came up at levels below detection rates (exception was two sites on LAke Ontario near an industrial effluent)
People often mistake lead in the water as being the same as lead in the air. Lead oxides are far more toxic than lead in water. There is more lead in your tapwater than in the lake itself.
The mathematical errors contained in the pitch for the ban make me wonder if this isn't about perception of a problem and not a real problem. After all if they had a decent pitch to make they would not need to make up phoney numbers.
The idea that loons die from injesting lead jigs is another smooth pitch...do they believe the fate of the loon was any different had he injested a bismuth jig? The loon was doomed with a hook in its belly.
Most states that banned lead did so incrementally and with a reasonable limitations such as only weights under a certain size or mass.
This is starting to look like the spring bear hunt ban or the gun registry. There is no sound science behind it at all.
The plumbosolvency rate of lead in natural water is negligible. The last time the Great Lakes were tested for lead all the lakes came up at levels below detection rates (exception was two sites on LAke Ontario near an industrial effluent)
People often mistake lead in the water as being the same as lead in the air. Lead oxides are far more toxic than lead in water. There is more lead in your tapwater than in the lake itself.
The mathematical errors contained in the pitch for the ban make me wonder if this isn't about perception of a problem and not a real problem. After all if they had a decent pitch to make they would not need to make up phoney numbers.
The idea that loons die from injesting lead jigs is another smooth pitch...do they believe the fate of the loon was any different had he injested a bismuth jig? The loon was doomed with a hook in its belly.
Most states that banned lead did so incrementally and with a reasonable limitations such as only weights under a certain size or mass.
This is starting to look like the spring bear hunt ban or the gun registry. There is no sound science behind it at all.
-
eye-tracker
- Gold Participant
- Posts: 1998
- Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 9:23 am
- Location: Perth, Ontario
- Contact:
