Get the lead out

[walleyehawk]

KJM

As a taxpayer, I am curious how much this effort is costing me. With no disrespect intended, how much is the "Get the Lead out" state budget? How much is being spent in total? And how many people are involved in this effort.

Just wanting to get info.

Thank you

[BradB]

Kevin,

I would also like to see this information. Could you please post your annual budget for the "Get the Lead Out Program" as well as the number of personnel who are paid to staff it.

Thank you,

Brad

[BradB]

frozenminnow,

There should be no shame in a taxpayer asking how many of his or her dollars are being spent. Furthermore, those responsible for spending those dollars should be willing and able to provide the public with an accounting of how many of these dollars, and how they are being spent.

IMHO, I do not think that this program is scientifically justifiable. As this is my position, I think that the agency that spends the dollars that I provide them with ought to give me the facts I request. I am willing to give them adequate time to respond, but I would like an answer.

Please don't try to shame people into not asking these questions. The more we as citizens ask them, the better bang we will get from our government buck.

Brad

[This message has been edited by BradB (edited 05-01-2004).]

[Guest]

Brad:
Yes I agree that you have the right to ask how your money is being spent and it's a good thing to keep up on.

PLease don't get me wrong, I am not trying shaming anyone into anything. I was just stating that there are tax dollars being wasted in much greater ways than this, and nothing is being done or said about it.

To say that this is not scientifically worth it think about this.

Lead has been used since at least the early 1900's. so? Of all the tackle that your GG Grandfather G Father, and Father and yourself have lost a few among many including my family and myself?
This has to have had some impact on the lakes and it needs to stop at whatever cost.

An agreement between citizens and the government, to switch this over at the lowest cost possible to the individual seems like a better proposal than just ignoring the issue totally and think that it isn't going to get worse. Possibly some of the Outdoor stores such as Gander Mtn. and Cabella's could start a program and do a 1 on 1 exchange for cost? Yes it will cost them some money but at the same time they help out and does anyone ever buy just a pack of sinkers at Gander? LOL I never get out of there under 50 bucks,so a dollar or 3 for the non lead alternatives each visit is nothing that my pocket book is missing so far. The brass weights seem to work good.

Another is the ice fishing issue, the use of lead has almost zero impact due to you don't snag and the only lost lead is when the big guy broke the line, or them expensive jigs we (and yes I mean myself) have dropped down the hole. So the use of lead is hard to justify but it has to be done in a whole to be effective and fair.

Brad, Please don't take it wrong I have many lead jigs weights and other tackle that I am not going to be able to replace and they are going to be collectors items more than anything. I am not real happy about having to someday replace all of it I can but,it is going to have to be done sooner or later.

[Guest]

All of the complaints about how the state is spending money on this project? And to think we still have the welfare system and many other major wasted tax dollars,and the big complaint here is being directed at an area that is actually trying to help this state. Whatever the reason tax dollars are being spent there is always people for it and people against it.
Possibly there could be a volunteer box to check on your license or tax for that donates 1 dollar to the lead exchange fund, not just for tackle but lead shot etc. with this money can be put tward buying non lead and exchanging on a more 1-1 basis. Some tackle made of lead may never be reproduced in non lead, but getting all they can off the market is a good step foward for a better future. How about 50% off non lead for exchange? just a thought.

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

[Guest]

Just another thought?
Could someone tell me the era when lead tackle was first introduced to the market?

[BradB]

Frozenminnow,

We have a fundamental disagreement that I’d like to acknowledge. As always, I have no ill intent and I appreciate the consistently polite way we’ve been able to discuss this issue. But that being said, here is the issue.

You have continually brought up your concern regarding the amount of lead that is being deposited into Minnesota’s waterways. You clearly consider this an environmental problem that should be addressed.

The “Get the Lead Out” program was created out of a concern for loon mortality due to ingestion of lead fishing tackle. My review of the scientific studies that generated this concern has shown to me that the use of lead-based tackle for fishing is not threatening the population of loons, or other waterfowl. As such, I do not think this program is a wise use of tax dollars.

Due to the chemical nature of lead, I do not consider the gradual accumulation of lead tackle in Minnesota’s waterways is an environmental concern. Lead is toxic and a carcinogen, so if individuals want to use alternative tackle to preserve their individual health then I believe it should be their choice to do so. However, I do not believe that any government agency should be actively counseling them to do so.

You believe lead is bad, we should stop using it, and it is an acceptable use of tax dollars to promote this change. I do not believe this, and do not think that state tax dollars should go for this effort. That is our essential disagreement.

Brad

[1Yogi]

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."
This ia a quote from a previous post.
Here are a few Numbers
1 liter=0.264172052 US Gallons
1 0z = 28.35 grams
28.35/8=3.54375 (1/8 oz sinker)
1 Gram = 1,000,000 mcg
mcg per 1/8 oz 3,543,750
I will grant that this is a big IF but if lead were completely water soluble that means that 236,250 liter of water could be contaminated. That's 62,410.647 Gallons of Water.
How fast does the lead leach into the water?
How many Gallons of water are in the average MN lake?
How much lead is lost each year in MN lakes?
If water has no effect on lead why is it recommended that I run the water for a while at home before I take a drink? I don't think it is just to ensure my water is cold.
If I take an 1/8 oz sinker and drop it in a Gallon of spring water how long will it take for it to have toxic levels of lead?
P.S. I,m Still in to form a buying group for that material.

[This message has been edited by 1Yogi (edited 05-02-2004).]

[This message has been edited by 1Yogi (edited 05-02-2004).]

[BradB]

Yes, the USEPA MCL is 15 ug/L and the Canadian MAL is 10 ug/L. These numbers are for dissolved lead, in water, and based on consumption of 2 liters per day over a lifetime. Lead sinkers dissolve very weakly and very slowly, and it is not correct to assume that a 15 ug lead sinker thrown into 1 liter of water will result in 15 ug/L dissolved lead.

If lead weights dissolved like sugar, then there would be an issue. But the fact is they do not.

[1Yogi]

Brad,
I asked for data as I gave some, it is nice that you think lead won't leach into the gallon of water but how long before you won't drink any? The fact is that some of the lead does become water soluble. Even if it dosen't dissolve like sugar. Again I ask How long will it take for the water to become toxic? Recommendations are that when I take a drink of water from the faucet I run the water to ensure that I get lead levels reduced, and that is just if the water sits overnight, and from solder that is only partially composed of lead.

[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.