Get the lead out

[Blackstarluver]

What is the cost difference twixt Pb and Bi or Sn? I have always believed that for its price and properties that lead was the element for the job. Sure Pb is toxic but in metal form it is less toxic. I s'pose all proponents of non-lead tackle are true to their stand against pollution and drive electric vehicles(autos and boats)?
"In for a penny, in for a pound"
God lyk

[This message has been edited by Blackstarluver (edited 04-21-2004).]

[BradB]

Catch’n,

You should be commended for your use of the high quality hooks. This is far more attractive to me as an angler than the use of non-toxic materials. I would likely pay the differential just for those hooks, but I would not do so just because you are not using lead.

All,

If you go to the MOEA site you’ll see a number of links that supposedly justify this initiative to replace lead fishing tackle. This bibliography is not convincing if you read it carefully. All of this is based on reducing the death of waterfowl. All of these sites show data that shows that loons have died from ingesting lead. However, I could not find a one of them that showed that the loon population is suffering due to the use of lead in fishing tackle. It’s a “significant cause of mortality” and “…almost half…of the dead and dying…loons submitted…suffered from lead poisoning.” But I could not find a place where it says that the population is declining. Yes, some loons have died from lead. But is it significant? Also, they cleverly indicate that waterfowl die from lead poisoning but blur the cause between lead shot (banned) and fishing lures.

Basically, they seem to claim that because lead is toxic that it “just makes sense” to stop using it. I find this a specious argument and agree that this is probably more political than scientific.

Furthermore, I took a look at the MOEA site in general and I have to wonder why we are funding this? It looks like a state run environmental advocacy group. Take a look for yourself (Google MOEA) and ask yourself if you think this is something your tax dollars should be funding.

[Guest]

Thanks BradB, I'll let Rich Smith know you may be ordering!
I like those red hooks too.

I too wonder about this whole lead lure/weight issue being valid.

The more truth and factual information such groups would post here on forums like this one... the better we will all understand and be convienced of any real "problems" with lead lures & weights.
Catch'n
Dave Hoggard

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

[BradB]

1Yogi has asked 4 questions. He is correct that there is not scientific evidence available (at least that I know of) to answer all of these questions. I will attempt to answer them as best I can:

Q1: Since lead is Toxic does it make environmental sense to keep using it in this application?

A2: Yes. Lead may be toxic, but there is no available proof that lost lead-based fishing gear is having a negative effect on the population of a species. Some waterfowl have died from lead poisoning anecdotally, but it has not been documented that the use of lead tackle directly threatens the population of an animal species.

Q2: How much lead is lost in the water supply by people using it as sinker and jig material?

A2: Canada estimates that “5 tonnes” are lost annually in the form of sinkers and jigs. The Adirondack Cooperative Loon Program estimates that “In the United States and Canada…hundreds of tons of lead fishing tackle are deposited in marine and freshwaters annually…” I assume these are SWAG estimates and that nobody really knows for sure.

Q3 How much lead does it take to contaminate a 1000 acre lake?

A3: That would depend very much on a number of factors such as depth, bottom structure and content, pH, and ultimately the total volume of water contained in that lake. There are probably many other factors as well, including the plant growth on that lake, its latitude, the annual photoperiod, etc., etc.

Furthermore, what constitutes “contamination”? Would it be the USEPA drinking water MCL of 15 ug/L? Would the entire lake need to have a static concentration of 15 ug/L or greater for it to be considered contaminated? This level is based on a lifetime consumption of 2 liters per day in drinking water, and has numerous safety factors applied to it. Any real contamination value, one that has real impact on wildlife, would likely be well above that 15 ug/L level.

Q4 How many years will it take for all the lead we loose to make a 1000 acre lake too toxic for wildlife to be supported?

A4 The same problems addressed in Q3 apply to this question. My assumption that by the time enough anglers lose enough lead tackle on a given 1000 acre lake to make it too toxic for wildlife, that that lake will be otherwise contaminated by boat residue, human waste, and just other effects of overuse. My SWAG at this would be tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of years.

Finally, I contest the Razor Principle for use in this issue. I do not think it follows that since lead is a known toxin that we need to find an alternative. I do not agree with this logic. I believe you have to look at the substance, its use, and its effects and then make an informed decision. A conscience is nice, but let’s be more rigorous than that in making these types of decisions.

[BradB]

Blackstarluver,

I called Jann's Netcraft (for another question really, but the timing was right) and asked them about Lead, Tin, and Bismuth. They had no idea where folks could get Tin and Bismuth or the cost differential. Maybe you have to go to specialty metal suppliers to get the stuff? Maybe Catch'n can give us an idea?

[B. Amish]

It's funny, they probably had the same conversations about DDT and arsenic back when they thought it was safe.

Anybody know how they turned out?

[deadminnowcatcher]

just another option- make it mandatory to tie your lead tackle to a strong enough line so that lead is not lost in the lake-maybe rope or steel line?

[BradB]

Nice try B. Amish, but there is a BIG difference here. Restrictions on Arsenic (as a pesticide) and DDT (as an insecticide) were based on strong data that showed a demonstrable effect on animal and human life.

The effort to limit, and eventually outlaw, the use of lead in fishing tackle is not based on sound science. It is based on "feel good" junk science, political innuendo, and anecdotal evidence.

Apples and oranges are both fruit, but as you know they are quite different.

[Duffman]

"I think there has been more waterfowl killed and not found from the poor ballistics of steel shot then would have ever died from lead poisoning."

Well, I think there has been more waterfowl killed and not found from the sky busting attitude and complete laziness of todays so called waterfowler over the poor ballistics of steel shot.

I just had to adapt when steel shot replaced lead, closer shots and more sure shots. No big deal, the whining I see on some of these subjects is comical. Lead tackle will probably be banned within 15-20 yrs, so I might as well get used to the idea sometime. Am I going go out and replace my lead tackle today??? No! But I give kudos to those folks that come up with and use lead alternatives. The more non-lead products that are available, the more people will slowly get used to the idea of them. Jeez, gettin our undies in a bunch over some splittys and jigs!?!?

[Bob/Mn]

Question, Are these lead trade ins one for one??
I took an inventory of my leaded tackle and came up with a value around $500. This includes jigs, spinner baits, and sinkers.

[big_fish_guy]

no, it's not a "one for one". I don't know what the ratio is, but a quick check on their website(link provide in first post) it's says it's not one for one. I would be curious as to what it is? I could certainly part with some old lead split shot to get some new "alternative" sinkers.

[BradB]

The press release says "Anglers who swap lead tackle will receive a sample packet of Bullet Weights stainless steel tackle. The packet includes a jig with an interchangeable head that can be changed without untying the line."

So it is not 1:1

[Blackstarluver]

SpikeR, I see your point on the slippery slope but how long will it be before the powers that be influence the easily influenced with a "straw man" or "red herring". If that doesn't work fast enough an "ignoratio elenchi" or use the advertisers dream and hit people with an "argumentum ad populum". The first step in identifying a fallacy is the knowledge of its existence. ~(~problem)
God lyk!

[Guest]

I just started to use the tin sinkers from Gander Mtn, they are an excellent replacement for the old lead and not that much more in price a few cents is worth it for the environment.

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

[YumYum]

Okay, my first post on this topic was to quote an NRA bumper sticker (slightly modified to refer to my jigs instead of my handgun). It must have been too brash because it was removed from page 1 in less than an hour, however some of the responses on pages 2 and 3 seem quite a bit harsher than quoting a danged bumper sticker.

So I'll try to express my thought a little more calmly.
The first post in this thread contains this quote. "Results show that over 90 percent of Minnesotans are willing to switch to non-lead, even if it is more expensive than its lead counterpart."
IF that statement is true, may I just say? That I am firmly ensconced in the remaining 10 percent.

[Chev_trucks501]

I too will be in the 10 percent. I wonder who they were polling? My jig and sinkers will stay lead PERIOD! It's funny people argue about this stuff like anyone attacking some one elses opinion is going to change another persons attitude without hardcore concrete evidence.

Happy Fishing with Lead or Whatever.

Chev

[walleyehawk]

I went into Gander Mountain last year at the trade in and got a few jigs and about 50 split shots. Not a close to one to one exchange. I think they give the same amount regardless of what you turn in. All of the stuff I traded in was so old that I no longer wanted to use it, so I figured out I had nothing to lose.

Afterward I looked around and saw no lead alternatives in any of the fishing stores. This year there are very few available.

To me, the new split shot are too shiney and may deter fish. The lead had a dull finish. But I have them in my tackle box and intend to try them soon. I am more apt to use the alternative split shot than jigs

Jigs are a different story and if a bird gets that hook lodged in his throat, it will not matter what type of metal, he is going to have a hook problem! And probably die from the hook first.

Size or bulk matters more in jigs than split shots. Alternatives would really struggle in river or current situations.

I agree with many on this thread. Is this a wise use of government funds when we are cutting police, schools, etc? And how many birds are we talking about? Maybe a more efficient use of the money would be to hatch some of the birds in a protected environment where we can stock them like fish. It might cost way less to "give back" few we kill with the lead.

I also went to the MOEA site. Michigan studied 186 dead loons in 15 years, 44 of which died from lead. THREE A YEAR in the study!! In Minnesota, we lost 43 eagles since 1996. I really respect the eagles, so this may be excessive. But it is still less than 8 a year. More are probably found along side roads after being hit by vehicles. Should we ban traffic?

Point being, we are not losing thousands of birds statewide to this. (Though over 50 eagles a year would be a tragedy)

I don't want people to think I beleive in trashing the environment. I have friends that feel I spend too much time with my arms around a tree. I think we have to protect the beauty of our environment. But how much should we spend.

I saw something on a ESPN Saturday morning fishing show where hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent restoring salmon habitat. There was a species of fish that was destroying the salmon. Now, an environmental group wants to spend tens of millions (or more) to restore this fish that will eat the salmon eggs and destroy the fishery they have spent hundreds of millions on. Does this make any sense to taxpayers? Fishermen/women?

My other issue is what will happen to all of the lead tackle we have if we are not allowed to use it? I think having it in the landfill will be a much larger problem. I see lots of birds at the dump when I drive by.

Hot topic when many of us have hundreds of dollars invested in our lead fishing products.

[SpikeRoberts]

BradB,
Far from “junk science,” the documentation of the effects of lead tackle is made in dozens of articles published in many peer-reviewed scientific journals, government agency reports, and proceedings of wildlife professional symposia. Is the literature incomplete? Sure, that is the character of almost all knowledge of wildlife biology. Your position demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of “science.” In this arena (as in studies of deer, ducks, fish, and all other wildlife) what we know is based upon limited studies extrapolated across populations. Wildlife biology like all other science is the study of probabilities. Your demand for “proof” is an unachievable and complete unrealistic standard. Biologists would never be able to isolate any of the many factors that influence a population - weather, forage, habitat, and many other factors all play a role. If, in time, we are able to identify a direct, negative, cause-effect link between lead and overall loon populations it may be too late.

Given what we do know, the exchange and education program is an extremely reasonable and cost effective policy to address a potential threat. Contrary to your claims, the exchange program is completely voluntary and, within the program, there is no “effort to limit, and eventually outlaw, the use of lead tackle” (basically you’re committing what’s known as the slippery-slope fallacy). If, in the event that the “smoking gun” is discovered, taking these small steps to create a market for lead alternatives now will make a more drastic transition to lead-free fishing much more tolerable for manufacturers and anglers. I believe it was Ben Franklin who wisely said, “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”

[B. Amish]

BradB,
My point is that they didn't know they (arsenic and DDT) were harmful when they were using them, we know lead is harmful and we're still using it? Why? we don't however, have enough studies on long term effects, why jeopardize the future because lead may be cheaper and we don't want to listen to someone tell us what to do? but i guess that's the american way!

THe problem with a lot of your arguments is that your assuming everything. like the estimates about the amount of lead in the nations waters every year, you assumed they were way off, i'm sorry but i'd rather listen to a noted sources' estimates than your personal assumptions.

You wouldn't wait for scientific proof to come out on sticking your hand in the middle of a fire to figure out that your hand will burn, no, you already know that. why wait for scientific proof to confirm that lead is killing loons and waterfowl when we already know that too.

Its common sense 101

[This message has been edited by B. Amish (edited 04-21-2004).]

[SXViper]

So what happens when a Loon swallows one of the non-toxic jigs and it get stuch in its throat. Are you guys willing to ban jigs? I belive that some loons have died from lead poisoning, but I think this issue is mainly driven by $$$$ and environmentalists who start to bawl when they see a coon laying dead on the side of the road. I would also like to add that I think there has been more waterfowl killed and not found from the poor ballistics of steel shot then would have ever died from lead poisoning. So no I do not believe we need to switch to non toxic sinkers and jigs.
Brian

[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 crap 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.