Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by LD, Aug 9, 2013.
Thanks Cabezon and Kerry S and a couple of others for proving that there are still a few folks on this site who can exhibit common sense.
I think you will find that lead is not soluble in water.
The lost lead sinkers are not a significant water quality issue. If lead were even marginable soluble in freshwater the spend lead shot found in various ponds and lakes for waterfowl hunting with lead shot would have dissolved years ago rather than persisting as a problem for various waterfowl. They have issues with the lead shot in that they ingest the shot to provide the gist for the gizzards. As they is ground down it enters their blood streams which often leads to death.
Here in Washington lead sinkers can be a problem for loons feeding on local waters; however here again the problem is not the lead in the water. The majority of the time the loons dying of lead poisoning get the lead from stealing fish from anglers and as they break the anglers line the bird ingests the fish, hook, and sinker leading to the problem. That problem got of just as easily been solved by requiring anglers on those key waters to use free sliding sinkers that had no obstacle between the swivels and the rod tip. Then when the loon breaks the anglers line to get the fish the sinker would fall harmlessly to the bottom as a ban on the use of those sinkers.
If as anglers you are concern about fishing related impacts on the environment I suggest that you focus on our leaders - both monofilament and fluro. A dual fold impact from the material left in the environment and the manufacture of the material.
So many armchair scientists, so few experts...opinions abound and facts are adrift in the currents.
Once again, whose anchor is weighing 4,5 or 8 pounds lighter? I have one that has been used for over 12 years and is still the same weight it was when purchased. I'm not buying into the hype.
I don't think there is anything illegal about dragging anchor while fishing although it likely isn't the smartest thing to do in waters that are used for spawning. Most guys I see using this technique will use a portion of an inner tube about two feet long. They will tie the ends off with wire and fill it with sand and small rocks from a river bar. This results in an 'anchor' that is banana shaped and drags the bottom with out hanging up much. The desired affect is to slow the drift without using oars or a kicker.
yes drift fishermen litter the hell out of rivers. but lead anchors? come on. perhaps some of you should take up a less destructive hobby like ballet or chess, this California mentality its getting old. oh yeah the lead is still on the anchor smart guy, no really it is a soft metal its just a different shape now. buy a prius, and eat only food you grow, and return to silk lines. my guess is most of the compensator rigs i see some of you drive pollute far more than my anchor, so sell that diesel Ford and get a bike
I would venture a guess that the suction dredging is doing far more damage than the lost lead on the river bottom.
Hmmm...so, as long as it's the birds dying from the lead, by eating the fish - there's not a problem that the fish have lead in them?
"The majority of the time the loons dying of lead poisoning get the lead from stealing fish from anglers and as they break the anglers line the bird ingests the fish, hook, and sinker leading to the problem."
Talk about common sense.
Is there any evidence that the fish are getting lead from those sinkers? I don't think so.
The waterfowl because of the way they digest their food - they use their gizzards to grind their food and for that process to work they ingest some grit to aid in the grinding of that food. In the process to getting that grit they in some areas also ingest small shotgun pellets found in the same areas as their grit. The later grinding process reduces the lead so that it enters their blood stream resulting in death. I do not believe any of the fish here in the PNW are ingesting rocks as a regular part of their diet thus avoiding the sinkers. Further in those cases were incidental rocks (sinkers) are ingested they are not subject to the grinding process and if small enough readily pass through the fish's digestive system.
In the case of the loons they are not getting lead poisoning from the fish themselves but rather from the associated sinkers that comes along with the fish when they steal them from the anglers. The free swimming fish (except those that have broken loose from anglers and still have line and sinker attached to them) are not carrying lead poisoning from those sinkers.
Now there may well be a number of contaminates in the fish associated with a number other pollution sources (including lead) but that is a whole different story and issue.
While I don't have the knowledge about whether or not it has been proven to be harmful to our rivers, I can pretty much guarantee you that a lead anchor can be worn down by the river over a couple of years. Not years as in a few hours a day 1/4 of the year, it would be 24/7. And not as in dissolution, but in the same way that river rocks are rounded over time, or the way rain will wear down cement forming a line at the edge of a carport.
The reason lead paint is harmful is because it chips off and gets pulverized into dust where it is then inhaled or ingested. It seems as though the same thing might happen to our rivers should they become too littered in the future. Even if it has not been proven one way or another , it sure sounds bad in theory. Why wait to find out.
On a related note, leads atomic symbol is Pb which stands for plumbum, the latin derivative of the modern plumbing. As it turns out the Ancients actually used lead as an easily molded medium for pipes to transport water. I don't believe we do that anymore.
Here's the deal. I don't care if anyone wishes to use non-lead weights and anchors in rivers and in fact I think it is likely a good idea. I don't agree with some of the hype being spread about lead anchors and the damage caused by using them. Concrete dissolves in fresh water. So does most types of rock. Lead does not. Comparing the two is apples and oranges. I only ask for proof that lead anchors are a significant danger to the environment. So far I have only seen anecdotal evidence and opinion. And I think some of that is being made up as we go.
I don't quite think it is apples and oranges, concrete can be worn down by water, but the end result is still a mixture of the two substances, not a solution. So its not really water soluble, just like lead. But when I look at a canister of split shot and I see that the inside of the container is coated with a fine lead dust, without all of the erosive forces of a river it makes me wonder. And if I were to dump out the shot, pour a little water in there and swished it around, would you want to drink that mixture?
Other than all that I guess I would have to agree to disagree rather than elaborate any more on the subject. To each their own opinion I guess.
I'd be more worried about Hanford Nuclear waste leaking into the Columbia than fucking lead in the rivers
Where I sit I worry more about all the mercury and lead the fucking Canadians dump into the Columbia daily than the radioactive waste. Mostly because I'm upstream of Hanford.