Bulldog: I have heard that about certified "organic" produce you find in the store. I guess there are pesticides that are ok to use and still be an organic food, but they need to be used in such high quantities that it ends up being worse for the local environment in the end. I guess the only way to make sure is to grow your own!

Back to the lead, has anyone seen any type of study that indicates lead from anglers as an issue? Thats really what we need to defend/bash the proposal any more than we already have. I'll poke around a little.

Then ban eating ducks

DT, they haven't made pennys out of copper for years...

I would not be against banning lead. There is absolutely no way that it cannot do some harm to the waterways. The thing about the ducks eating lead shot is a good example. Not good if you eat the ducks and certainly not healthy for the ducks themselves.
 
If you ever fished Lake Ontario there is (or at least was) a trolling tactic in use there called a "drop ball". Basically it involved attaching about a 1/2 pound lead ball to the line with a pin and spring mechanism. When a fish would hit the pin would pull and the ball would drop off. Imagine how much lead could accumulate at the bottom of Lake Ontario after years and years of who knows how many fisherman doing this.

They can have my Lead when they pry my cold dead fingers off of my Lead pot.....

i have roughly 60 lbs of sinkers made up and a 100+ lb of wheel weights just waiting to be melted. if i don't give too much away that should last me for some time...LOL. the whole lead ban is bullchit if you ask me, either way not going to change how i fish. tight lines justin

as a state certified "lead safe" contractor for years  and recently certified to be in compliance with the new Federal EPA  Renovation, Repair, and Painting Rule that went into effect 4-22-10,  i know enough about lead hazards to be an authority on the subject...............of making popcorn......not lead....


The shotgun approach to TOTAL ban seems overzealous and unwarranted .
If indeed there are "real" hazards in some major fished waterways, then target them specifically .
I could  support that "IF" they can show "credible" data to support the reason for a ban.

until then, don't let  pregnant women, and children chew  on your split shot or eat paint chips in homes built before 1978


..L.T.A.

something small scale now, over an extended period of time, becomes large scale. Why do humans wait until it's too late to fix things? 90 percent of the scientific data we have compiled has taken place since the 90's. Technology has boomed in the past 20 years. We will not know the long term effects of it all for decades to come.

excellent. i have no problem swapping out tin for lead, or going in another direction in fishing. the name "tinhead" jig has a nice ring to it. already i have begun divesting myself of lead.

ORIGINAL: genieman77

ORIGINAL: jimhalupka

Waiting until there is evidence means it's too late,

huh???
what in the he!! are you talking about??

If there's NO evidence of hazard , WHY would ANYONE support MANDATING a change?????


..L.T.A.

ay yi yi... no evidence as of YET.  in the main scope of things, our existence is a mere shred of the bigger picture.  If we don't refine our ways now, we have ourselves to blame.  Let's say we've been exposing lead to stream bottoms for 100 years.  Though there is no evidence that it has a negative impact, how can you be sure if we don't stop it now, there won't be a problem in another 100?

If you say so!

amazes me how studies seem to reverse themselves everyday.  Scientists say one thing one day, and the opposite the next. 

I don't really feel like it genie.

the point is, has lead been found to be a dangerous substance?  Yes.  Could it adversely affect the environment in 100-1000 years of long term exposure? Yes.  Do we know for sure?  No.  Does this mean we should sit around and do nothing about it so we can save a few dollars?  No.

we are on a downward spiral...

slash and burning... perfect example of what can happen to the environment when man alters it.

There is more lead (and mercury) falling out of the air from the power plants, than everyone sinkers combined, a couple sinkers in the water is nothing ---Pa is the nations largest polluter of waterways because of the coal fired power plants. Gotta have lights though!! Just sayin!!

hahaha that is hilarious...

they are doing this JUST because they want us to spend more money, and it's contributing to the removal of our rights as wasteful hillbillies!

ORIGINAL: jimhalupka

I don't really feel like it genie.

the point is, has lead been found to be a dangerous substance?  Yes.

 if it gets into your blood stream in "sufficient" quality , yes.
Otherwise , no, it's not a "dangerous substance"

Could it adversely affect the environment in 100-1000 years of long term exposure? Yes.  Do we know for sure?  No.

then what, pray tell are you basing your assertion on that it "will" effect the environment  ???
"specifically" pertaining to a fishing lead ban

Does this mean we should sit around and do nothing about it so we can save a few dollars?

if NO impact can be shown, then the answer to your question is YES.
if it ain't broke, what are you trying to "fix"???

we are on a downward spiral...

slash and burning... perfect example of what can happen to the environment when man alters it.

This is what frustrates me the most about enviro orgs and their agenda.
OVER THE TOP analogies like  "slash and burn" .
Next you'll I'll be hearing if we don't ban lead split shot, it's a slippery slope and soon we'll revert   back to dumping mine tailings in the creeks.....


what's lacking in this debate, Jim..is COMMON SENSE proposals



..L.T.A.

ORIGINAL: bird dog We cannot predict how much lead could leach into the water system in the next 100, or 200 years or whatever.  l

why can't we??
I ain't buying that, Bird Dog, some of the water ways in the country have had heavy fishing pressure for a LONG time.

and why hasn't ANYONE sited ONE impact study to bring something of VALUE to support your side of the debate?
Is the WHOLE thing based on some boggyman  ???

Show me some data, man!!! I might be on your side then

  we know that lead is a toxic substance. My point is that with that knowledge, and with a viable alternative of an another less toxic or non-toxic substance the prudent thing to do would be to use that alternate substance. what will it hurt?

It will have very little to no  impact on me personally.
I spend more on energy pops in one  week than I do for split shot in three seasons.
it won't be a burden to "me" .
it might to others anglers though who use more than just a few packs of split shot

Lake Erie almost died once. Didn't we learn our lesson then? We need to be responsible stewards of the environment and do our best maintain/improve our water quality for future generations.

here we go again with ridiculous analogies .
To compare the industrial poisons that were routinely discharged into Erie to lead shot just slays me....

anyone here who has ever seen a bald eagle can in large part thank the legislature that banned DDT. If that hadn't been done they would likely be extinct by now.

again, more over the top analogies.
But since you brought up DDT, lemmie ask, would you sacrifice some birds for millions of HUMAN lives that are lost to malaria  in 3rd world countries??

I WOULD!!!

It always cracks me up when these types of proposals are characterized as some kind of plot by the liberals to control our lifestyles.

That's for someone else, not me, but your going to have to  show me credible data for a good reason to ban lead for sport anglers.
so far, you who support a ban  have shown me NONE, ...cause ...."we don't know's, and  maybe's" don't get it with me.
Surely there MUST be SOME studies done???


and lastly, there are  only two ways for lead to enter your blood stream.
eating it and breathing it
can anyone show me a "genuine" risk of contamination from  lead in fishing products???
cause as i said, you very well might convince me.

til then, all you're  trotting out now are  boogymen as far as I'm concerned


..L.T.A.

some of these guys would rather save 50 bucks