Thread: Proposed Lead Ban !!!!!!!!!!!!!

I was reading up a little on this the other day. It almost sounds like it wouldn't be that hard for them to squash the ideal.

Folks- The only surefire way to be heard is to use the official government comment form at regulations.gov. I've taken the pain out of the process and boiled it down to two clicks, type your name, and whatever comment you want to make. It's easy, fast, and guaranteed to place your comments in the EPA's public record on this proposal. Go to my "Two click comments" thread, here, and you're two clicks away from being heard.

As I now live in South Carolina, I sent the following letter to:

• Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator
• Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC)
• Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
• Representative John M. Spratt Jr. (D-SC 5th)

I am writing to oppose the proposed EPA ban on lead in fishing tackle.
This ban would have a significant impact on the recreational fishing
community with minimal benefit for the referenced waterfowl. Lead is used
not only in sinkers but in a wide variety of fishing lures and other
tackle components.

First of all, I have been an avid fisherman my entire life. As South
Carolina has an extremely healthy system of lakes, rivers, and coastal
waters, this Ban affects a huge number of people who utilize these waters.

One fact that must be considered is the depth at which waterfowl feed, as
opposed to the average depth of water fished. In most cases, fishermen
fish in waters in excess of 6-feet in depth, while most waterfowl feed in
waters generally 2 to 3 feet in depth.

When one considers that on the few occasions where lead tackle is broken
from the line, these incidents usually result in the tackle being hooked
into brush or submerged hang-ups (Not easy for waterfowl to dislodge and eat).
The frequency of waterfowl finding lead tackle in an area by feeding waterfowl is
akin to finding the proverbial "needle in a haystack".

I fully understand the issue as raised years agao with hunting shells, as
these occur in areas frequented by waterfowl (which is why the hunters are
there). These areas are generally shallow feeding areas, and would be showered
with hundreds of lead pellets per shot fired. This is a significant difference from losing
an occasional slip-shot weight while fishing.

I feel this is another example of the government SEARCHING for issues to
restrict, when our representatives should be exhausting their efforts
dealing with more serious issues which truly affect the citizens of our state.

It is my sincere hope that if THIS is what our representatives feel we
sent them to Washington to deal with, then they have paid little attention
to the true concerns of citizens of our state.

Furthermore, the petitioners' document is replete with commentary
unsupported by scientific data and rife with misunderstandings about the
use of lead sinkers. Although the petition is aimed at reducing waterfowl
death from lead sinker ingestion, a study by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service has shown that less than one percent of birds die from ingested
sinkers. Lead fishing tackle does not present a population level problem
to any bird species. In fact, loon populations are increasing throughout
their breeding range.

If a particular body of water is of concern, the issue is most effectively
addressed by a local science-driven process, not a national ban. Fisheries
and recreational fishing methods are best managed by state agencies.

While supporters of this ban claim that there are many comparable
alternatives to lead sinkers and jigs, this is not the case. Depending on
the alternative metal and current prevailing raw material costs, non-lead
fishing tackle products can cost from six to 15 times more than lead
products. Non-lead products may not be as available and most do not
perform as well. Mandatory transitioning to non-lead fishing tackle would
require significant - and costly - changes from both the industry and
anglers.

The resultant decrease of fishing tackle purchases will diminish the
dollars for fisheries conservation through fishing license sales and the
federal manufacturers' excise tax on fishing equipment. Something our
country can ill afford.

I urge you to oppose the lead ban petition, because it will have a
significant negative impact on the recreational fishing community and only
a negligible impact on waterfowl populations.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,


Robert Laughlin
(803) 364-9297

The Situation

On August 23, 2010, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was petitioned by the Center for Biological Diversity and four other organizations to ban all lead in fishing tackle under the Toxic Substances Control Act. This includes sinkers, jigs, weighted fly line, and components that contain lead such as brass and ballast in a wide variety of lures, including spinners, stick baits and more.


On August 27, 2010, the EPA denied the petition for ammunition but maintained the petition to ban lead fishing tackle. Supporters of hunting and the shooting sports have been successful in having ammunition excluded from this ban.

The petition was presented with the aim of reducing bird deaths caused by the ingestion of lead sinkers and jigheads; however, a study conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service found that less than one percent of all waterfowl and other birds such as eagles are killed by lead sinker ingestion.

This is a letter sent to all Cabellas customers who shop with them online as I do. This is one of the reasons. This company has always been very proactive in keeping us sportsmen aware of Laws and Regulations that affect the things we love.

Here is the letter emailed to me:

September 2, 2010

Dear Cabela's Customer:

Occasionally, an issue of such importance arises we feel it necessary to contact our loyal customers. With our fishing rights at stake, this is such an issue.

On August 23, 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was petitioned by the Center for Biological Diversity and others to ban lead from ammunition and fishing tackle, including sinkers, jigs, weighted fly lines and components containing lead, such as brass and ballast in lures, spinners, stick baits and other fishing products.

On August 27, the EPA denied the petition regarding ammunition, but let stand the petition to ban lead in fishing tackle and has opened a short period for taking public comment.

Such a ban would cause prices of fishing products to skyrocket. Alternative metals can cost from six to 15 times more than lead, and most do not perform as well. For many, fishing would no longer be the affordable sport it is now.

Please join Cabela's and Keep America Fishing in opposing this ban by submitting your comments to the EPA no later than September 15, 2010. You can easily do so by clicking here.

It is a fast and easy way to assure your opinion is heard.

Cabela's is working in conjunction with the American Sportfishing Association and Keep America Fishing to protect our tradition and heritage of fishing.

Thank you for your help.

Sincerely,


Cabela's

Originally Posted by rlaughlin70

As I now live in South Carolina, I sent the following letter

Excellent letter!

Gimme the stats!
How many ducks have died with lead in belly? How many?