Speak Up - Feds Proposal to Ban Recreational Fishing Tackle

[Bobber]

Get the details.....

Get the facts.....

Make your decision.....

http://www.ofah.org/tackleban/index.cfm

[SkeeterJohn]

Fact or not the reality is that this is a sign of things to come and it is in all of our interests to try to do something about it.

I wonder how many of us here will bother to download the petition and get 25 signatures then mail it off?

[Rob]

( John)I plan on getting some sig's. I was thinking of going out early sat. morning to Petrie and stand by the bait shop as to hit people going in and out. "What do you think", good idea or not. Is there anyone else out there that would like to help Also maybe we could ask Baitcaster's and Paddletail's to put a petition in there store's.

[Wall-I-Guy]

I wonder how many of us here will bother to download the petition and get 25 signatures then mail it off?

I may be off base here but,

I was all set to download the sheet and get some signatures until I read the sheet. Why does it matter if I'm a member of OFAH or not

They're more concerned with seeing if you're a member of OFAH, than anything. The proof is in the fact they also want you to send the completed form to them, with the 25 addresses included, gee, how convenient for them .

If they were so concerned about the issue, why not just have it sent to your member of Parliament Or at least have it as an option

[Matt Massey]

Hi Everyone,

I was at the OFAH booth all weekend as a volunteer and we had over 1000 people sign the petition and we thanked each and every one of them that did.

If you take the opportunity to link through to the OFAH webpage Bobber has placed in the original post. There is a form letter you can download to send directly to Stephane Dion, Federal Minister of the Environment. So you have two options, send out the form letter or download the petition and get 25 signatures.

The OFAH is not concerned if you are a member or not. We are concerned however about how this lead ban will effect the fishing industry in Canada.

In response to the OFAH putting forth an unbiased opinion. How could we? One of the organization's missions is to protect your hunting and fishing rights in the province of Ontario. This would include lobbying activities at both the Federal and Provincial level, which can never be unbiased when trying to impact public policy legislation. However, there are two studies available from the US, at present, that look at the effect of lead sinkers and jigs on Common Loon populations in North America. If you have questions regarding these studies I would urge you to contact Robert Pye, Communcations Coordinator with OFAH robert_pye@ofah.org .

I would certainly encourage all the Hawk Talkers to read the OFAH website and the Environment Canada website to understand both sides of the issue and make their own informed decision on this issue before acting or signing a petition.

Cheers,

Matt

[R.U. Ketchinenny]

There's no need for knee-jerk reactions, but if you don't think that lobby groups are responsible for the studies and the proposed ban, you're sadly mistaken. All opinions are biased. The science is funded and the results presented not in quantitative data format, but in manipulated and carefully worded marketing presentations.

There is no true altruism.

The EPA and the Environmental Defense Fund are the driving forces in the U.S. (see: http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-15 ... --,00.html

This is what our government intends to do (taken from http://www.cws-scf.ec.gc.ca/fishing/paper_e.cfm):

Based on information collected to date, removal of leaded fishing gear less than 2 cm in length in any direction, and less than 50 grams in weight would essentially eliminate the threat of lead poisoning from fishing gear to waterbirds in Canada. Therefore, consistent with existing regulations on fishing gear in Canada and elsewhere, the Government is proposing a prohibition on the import, manufacture and sale of fishing sinkers and jigs that are less than 50 grams and contains more than 1 % lead by weight and that are less than 2 cm in length along its longest axis. The proposed lead content limit of 1% would also apply to other tackle, such as spinners, lures, spoons, etc., that attach to fishing line and that because of their small size could be swallowed by waterbirds. This is consistent with the definitions of lead sinker and jig under the NWA and National Parks regulations.

So a size limit on sinkers and heads, but not on spinners lures and spoons? Hmm...

The only regulatory factor is no tackle with 1% lead, or greater.

Just for giggles, I went here: http://www.matweb.com/search/GetComposition.asp and searched on all metal alloys with 1% lead, or greater.

289 alloys matched the search criteria including bronze, brass, nickel and copper.

Look at every piece of tackle in your box and sort them into piles. One that contains the metals listed and one that doesn't. Which one's bigger?

Now think of the ramifications again.

And how, exactly is that 4" brass spoon going to get lodged in a loon's gullet?

I personally haven't formed my final opinion yet. I still have reading to do; hopefully from reports and editorials from both sides of the lead fence.
But there sure are a lot of questions yet unanswered.

The message here is not to jump on a bandwagon, but rather to be informed. If you agree with the lead ban, then don't sign a petition. Or rather, petition for it.

If you disagree with the lead ban but don't feel comfortable gathering names, write a letter directly to your MP. It probably carries more weight anyway. If 35,000 people all take the time to fill out an individual letter, the MPs will take notice.

Guns are now registered. If you fail to abide by the new storage laws, you face upt to 10 years in prison but there's no new penalty for the commission of a crime with a firearm.

Pitbulls are now outlawed. But the owner of an Akita that attacks, faces the same 10 day quarantine rules that have existed for a long time.

These people are passing laws that directly affect our lives.

Lobby for, lobby against, don't lobby at all but please take the time to find out what the problem is... or isn't.

It's our tax money, our government and our sportfishing.

Take some time and have a read.

http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publicat ... cle332.htm

http://www.cws-scf.ec.gc.ca/publication ... ndex_e.cfm

http://www.cws-scf.ec.gc.ca/fishing/paper_e.cfm

http://www.fishontario.com/articles/is-lead-dead/

http://www.outdoorcanada.ca/fish/without_lead.shtml

[Bobber]

Folks there are other websites and material available to read through. This was just one site that had some information on it. I'm not saying it is the facts, I'm saying go get them. I'm not saying I'm for or against it, I'm saying you make your own decision to act or not. I think as sportfishermen, we should have a concern or at leat take an interest in the subject. There may be some out there that are not aware of this. I wasn't until the boat show this past weekend.

Thanks all, it's just information.

[Tomcat]

In the Ontario Out of Doors 2005 Fishing Annual, there is an article on this issue entitled "Feds want your lead". At the end of that article, John Kerr provides an email address to which the general public can submit their views on the issue before 18 March 2005. The email address follows: LeadFreeFishingConsultations@ec.gc.ca

The Canadian Wildlife Service also recommends that Occasional Paper 108 be reviewed by anyone desiring a more thorough technical understanding of the issue. Occasional Paper 108 is available at: http://www.cws-scf.ec.gc.ca/publication ... =e&id=1031

I contend that some of the observations/conclusions by the authors of Occasional Paper 108 are flawed. For instance:

1. The authors claim that 559 tonnes of lead is sold annually in Canada as fishing sinkers. And because the authors can work their numbers to show that 559 tonnes is an annual figure, they conclude that each year, that 559 tonnes of lead sinkers is lost to the bottoms of lakes. It is assumed that the majority of sinkers purchased annually are to replace those lost while fishing the previous year.

2. The authors state that domestic production and import of sinkers in Canada averaged 140 tonnes annually between 1995 and 1998. Consequently, they believe that the balance of the sinker market in Canada (approximately 400 tonnes)(remember they claim the size of the problem is 559 tonnes) originates from home and other small-scale production.

I have recreationally fished over 40 years and I can assure you that the bulk of my lead (sinkers, jigs, etc.) purchased each year isn't deposited on some lake bottom. I might lose 10% of all the sinkers/jigs I use in a fishing season. At the end of each season I routinely discard used lead products to municipal waste and buy new products the next season. I suspect that many fishermen do the same. I would also question what percentage of sinkers/jigs actually lost annually in Canada are lost in water so deep so as to not be a death threat to wildlife (loons)?

3. A survey conducted in 1986 in the United States estimated that for every one split shot sinker used, four to six might be spilled and lost (Lichvar 1994). Split shot sinkers account for almost half of the total U.S. sinker production (U.S. EPA 1994).

4. Data presented in a report from New York state indicates that of 105 loon carcasses examined between 1972 and 1999, less than 25% of them died due to lead poisoning "and aspergillosis combined". Data from Michigan was similar (out of 180 loon carcasses examined between 1987 and 2001, 42 (23%) were judged to have died from lead poisoning).

5. Occasional Paper 108 actually includes the following statement:
"An average of six cases of wildlife mortality from sinker ingestion have been documented annually in Canada between 1987 and 1998, and about 20 cases have been reported annually in the United States during a similar time period (1983–1998)".

We the taxpayers are spending untold amounts of dollars to fund research, pay salaries, advertising etc. on this issue. And for what? To potentially protect, on average, 6 loons per year? I contend that the majority of taxpayers would scoff at such waste.

6. Many of the currently available alternative products are more expensive than lead, as a result of higher costs of the raw materials and more complicated manufacturing processes. Based on numbers presented in the report, the annual cost increase for lead-free sinkers and jigs to Canadian fishermen would be approximately 11 million dollars.

That's 11 million dollars annually in addition to the taxpayer dollars expended on research, salaries, etc. to protect 6 loons per year. Surely, such levels of expenditures are not cost beneficial!

[Auger]

Folks

I myself could not care less for this ban. Lead sinkers and lead jigs make sense. The other material makes no sense. If they push it though, I will revert to ways my forefathers fished using nets and spears and to hell with white mans laws.

This will also be the same with hunting, we take off the land to survive, this was past ways, this will be future ways.

This is all I have to say about this.

[Caseys Dream]

Intesting comments so far. I am on record in favour for the lead ban, but for different reasons. I cantacted the OFAH regarding this issue, and was quite happy to read the editors comments in this months issue.

I think we as anglers and hunters are taking the same stance we always automatically take, that this is an affront against our sport. I do have problems with the science involved, it is hoky, as is many studies. It was already stated, studies are paid for by someone, and whatever ideas you want advovated by that study will undoubtedly come across as the conclusion. But, on a loon basis, I think the death of a few loons is important, not an end of world situation though. Hell, we jumped all over a guy for posting a picture of an OOS muskie on the ice, passed between friends. Sacred muskie? Sacred loons? We are not consistant on these important issues. We can be environmentalists and anglers, who is in a better position to be stewards of the enviroment than us?

Hunters have switched shot, was that an afront to duck hunting?

But the bigger story here is a way to get a significant amount of lead from enteringour waterways in years to come. Lead does disslove, albeit very very slowly, but it does and will still be prevalent for many many years to end up in the tissues of our fish as we eat them. This is a good opportunity to reduce this lead loading by a removal of significant point source lead intrusion into waterways. That is the bottom line guys.

The goverment really did go about this the wrong way, but we are smart people, and have smart people behind us to help make the tougher decisions. The OFAH editor of OOD magazine says it all,

"Let's not get carried away with talk about the occasional loon that falls prey to jigs and sinkers. No, let's talk the children upon whose shoulders pass the burden of stewardship of our renewable resources....I don't have all the answers, but I know that unless I see irrefutable evidence to the contrary that lead ISN'T toxic, I will never crimp another lead sinker onto their lines" Ontarion Out of Doors, March 2005, Burt Meyers pg 6.

I think this says it all. I was quite unimpressed with the OFAH stance before, but I now have hope that we, as anglers and hunters are finally doing what we should do, changes for the better, not just as knee jerk responses to bogey-man threats against our loved sport.

CD

[Graembo]

How would that ever be enforcable?!!! they can barley enforce the reg's as it is right now!! Waste of gov't time & money once again.....never ceases to amaze me. The cop boats can't even catch me on the water...like c'mon. They have no $$ for that.


Personally, I can't wait till all these politicians are dead...it's my generations that gets to live with the changes they thought would get their party the most $$ and re-elected!! yeehaa...K I'm quittin now b4 i start .

G

[D-mo]

I basically cant see the big problem here .. we all know lead is basically bad for the environment so ... isnt it time you all give it up. There are subsitutes for your sinkers and stuff ..so whats the big problem.
I have fished in the waters of Alberta where lead is banned and it is accepted ..so why not here.
Time to bite the bullet ... opps ..I guess I cant say that ...hmmmm

[MichaelVandenberg]

I don't think they plan on enforcing anglers not be able to use lead:

The government is proposing to prohibit the import, manufacture, and sale of lead sinkers and jigs used for recreational angling.

Currently what they are attempting to do is ban the import and sale of lead products in question. The idea would be that over time, no one will be using lead because they can't buy it.

My beef with this whole lead ban is the governments motivation. As it was stated, they want to ban certain lead products to save the 6 loons that die due ingesting lead every year. Why not state that lead is toxic. Even humans can die from too much exposure to lead (do we still use lead paint in houses or anywhere?). I think if the government played this angle instead of the 'saving the loons' angle a lot more people will except this.

The government also had bad motivation with the Cormorant cull (still a good idea mind you). They did it because the islands tree and brushes were being de-faced by these birds. What about the 1 lb of fish each Cormorant eats a day. When you have 1/2 million of these birds in Ontario, that is a lot of bait fish being eating a day. I think the reason why they used the de-facing reason is this is something the average person can see. The average person doesn't see the baitfish population being reduced. Similiarly with the lead ban, everyone can see dead loons floating in the water but the average person isn't using lead as not everyone fishing.

It is all about getting the majority of the population on the governments side. Since, not everyone is an angler they can simply just agree with the government because it doesn't apply to them.

Anyways, I am taking up too much of your time (if you are reading this ).

Cheers,

Mike

[Bobber]

It was my understanding that it was not just lead in sinkers and jigs, it was any lead greater than 1% in any type of tackle which would include spinners, hooks, leaders, spoons, other terminal tackle, rods and reels if they have lead in them.

To be honest with you, I have not read the entire case from top to bottom, only heard this from others whom I've spoken to at various events.

Perhaps I need to understand further exactly what is involved here. Interesting conversation though. Thanks folks.

[Matt Massey]

Bobber is correct. It isn't just lead sinker and jigs, its any fishing tackle with 1% lead content or more.

This is a far reaching ban.

If you buy a Shimano Reel it says right on the box "This product contains a substance known to cause cancer in the State of California" That's lead folks, and the government wants to impose a ban on those Shimano Reels as equal to lead sinkers. Policy without thought.

Sign the petition, send the letter, do what you can to voice your opinion against the proposed ban. Or sit on your hands and in 5 years you can complain about "how it used to be".

I am going to ask Crystal Brown from Baitcasters have a the petition in her store and at the Carp Show in April.

Matt