It is all about the $$. Lead is cheap and they sell lots of it. Alternatives are expensive and their market will suffer.
EPA to ban LEAD! Cabela's says promote LEAD ;(
http://capwiz.com/keepamericafishing/issues/alert/?alertid=16355526
Cabela's posted on their website to oppose the Proposed Federal Ban on Lead and Fishing Tackel thru EPA standards. Isn't this messed up?
Cabela's is all for promoting LEAD for the common gear chucker to keep costs low. Seriously, isn't there enough mono and pencil lead in the rivers as is? Not to mention worm styro containers, cigerette buts, neoprene and flannel on the banks?
Cabela's posted on their website to oppose the Proposed Federal Ban on Lead and Fishing Tackel thru EPA standards. Isn't this messed up?
Cabela's is all for promoting LEAD for the common gear chucker to keep costs low. Seriously, isn't there enough mono and pencil lead in the rivers as is? Not to mention worm styro containers, cigerette buts, neoprene and flannel on the banks?
1 - 20 of 53 Posts
I'm all for an alternative. Something that's reusable that you can use all season can't cost that much more although I haven't done the math. I use the tungsten putty ($11) which works well when it stays put.
Not everyone can afford the expensive (non lead) stuff.....
Before taking any action, it makes the most sense to analyze the pros and cons of the existing condition. Some use of lead creates adverse effects. Some use doesn't, or at least hasn't yet been shown to have adverse effects. Should all use therefore be banned? Maybe consider banning specific uses known to cause adverse effects, and let the others be.
Just think, if all fishing lead were banned, all the gear chuckers might take up fly fishing. Now, there's some detrimental effects!
Sg
Just think, if all fishing lead were banned, all the gear chuckers might take up fly fishing. Now, there's some detrimental effects!
Sg
Hmmm... ban lead and you essentially ban ammo. That's what they really want to go after.
The only thing wrong with that pot is thatban lead and you ban ammo
it's cracked.
Hmmm you may be on to something....but the NRA thought the same thing. It was 'shot' down last week. The EPA announced that they do not have the authority to regulate ammo. Some crazy radical members of Congress specifically exempted ammo from the EPA's jurisdiction. The petition did include ammo.Hmmm... ban lead and you essentially ban ammo. That's what they really want to go after.
We need to start a strong fishing lobby...how about the National Rod Association!
I got an e-mail from an ecology contact a few days ago that stated that the EPA had rejected the petition that would have banned lead ammo. It's kind of a part of some of my job.
While some people would like to find a way to ban ammo, I don't think the EPA would. For one, the EPA can't think. It's an agency not a person. Agencies, especially government ones do not think with one mind. I work for a government agency and we aren't all a bunch of homogenous thinking robots. It's really quite the opposite.
Go Red Sox,
cds
While some people would like to find a way to ban ammo, I don't think the EPA would. For one, the EPA can't think. It's an agency not a person. Agencies, especially government ones do not think with one mind. I work for a government agency and we aren't all a bunch of homogenous thinking robots. It's really quite the opposite.
Go Red Sox,
cds
I buy steel weights from Walmart for the same price as lead. I know it's not split shot, but I use the tin shot when I need split.
As much as I hate more government intervention, it really sickens me to see bait casters dropping huge weights and leaving them on the bottom (and bottles, cans, power bait jars, worm cups and huge rat nests of mono on the bank).
As much as I hate more government intervention, it really sickens me to see bait casters dropping huge weights and leaving them on the bottom (and bottles, cans, power bait jars, worm cups and huge rat nests of mono on the bank).
But isn't the head of your agency a political appointee and by definition held on some politician's leash?
Kind of ironic, when you think about it, guys pay hundreds of dollar for a bait castin rod and reel, and then complain cause lead substitute is too expensive!
In my case, no. In the case of the EPA it is a cabinet level position. Appointed by the pres. and then confirmed by the senate.
I believe the petition was rejected.
I don't use lead to flyfish. I do use lead in the salt with gear. Lead breaks down poorly without the presence of oxygen. I could see the reasoning banning lead below certain sizes like the lead shot ban. Banning larger peices does not seem to be warrented.
Go Sox,
cds
I believe the petition was rejected.
I don't use lead to flyfish. I do use lead in the salt with gear. Lead breaks down poorly without the presence of oxygen. I could see the reasoning banning lead below certain sizes like the lead shot ban. Banning larger peices does not seem to be warrented.
Go Sox,
cds
From the EPA's website, press release dated 8/27/10:
"EPA today denied a petition submitted by several outside groups for the agency to implement a ban on the production and distribution of lead hunting ammunition. EPA reached this decision because the agency does not have the legal authority to regulate this type of product under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) - nor is the agency seeking such authority.
EPA is taking action on many fronts to address major sources of lead in our society, such as eliminating childhood exposures to lead; however, EPA was not and is not considering taking action on whether the lead content in hunting ammunition poses an undue threat to wildlife.
As there are no similar jurisdictional issues relating to the agency's authority over fishing sinkers, EPA - as required by law - will continue formally reviewing a second part the petition related to lead fishing sinkers."
What is interesting was that the petition was submitted a month ago, but the EPA didn't 'reject' it until it was reported in the media...then they nixed the ammo part within 24 hours.
If owning lead becomes criminal then only criminals will own lead!
"EPA today denied a petition submitted by several outside groups for the agency to implement a ban on the production and distribution of lead hunting ammunition. EPA reached this decision because the agency does not have the legal authority to regulate this type of product under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) - nor is the agency seeking such authority.
EPA is taking action on many fronts to address major sources of lead in our society, such as eliminating childhood exposures to lead; however, EPA was not and is not considering taking action on whether the lead content in hunting ammunition poses an undue threat to wildlife.
As there are no similar jurisdictional issues relating to the agency's authority over fishing sinkers, EPA - as required by law - will continue formally reviewing a second part the petition related to lead fishing sinkers."
What is interesting was that the petition was submitted a month ago, but the EPA didn't 'reject' it until it was reported in the media...then they nixed the ammo part within 24 hours.
If owning lead becomes criminal then only criminals will own lead!
First, how about we see the scientific research that has been published in juried scientific journals that offers empirical data on the impact of the various forms of lead that are being used by anglers and/or hunters. Then we explore options for changing the lead to another material if and where there are problems. My concern is there are major political reasons for outlawing lead, let's make sure there are scientific and biological reasons first.
One more thought sort of related: the next time you hear someone refer something as a government funded program, please correct them. It's a tax payer funded program. Sometimes we lose sight of the obvious.
One more thought sort of related: the next time you hear someone refer something as a government funded program, please correct them. It's a tax payer funded program. Sometimes we lose sight of the obvious.
Already done with shot shells, right. Not a surprise to move on to fishing gear. Been banned in paint for nearly 30 years. It's bad shit. There is already more research than you could read in your lifetime. Superfund sites exist because of lead.
Reasoning and doing only what is warranted would, in fact, require an organism to think....
I could see the reasoning banning lead below certain sizes like the lead shot ban. Banning larger peices does not seem to be warrented.
Go Sox,
cds
The proposed ban is more than just on sinkers...carried to extreme (as if it won't be) it includes any tackle (and I suppose reels might be included there) in which lead plays a part--such as brass, sinking fly lines, beadhead flies, and so on.
Here is the ASA's take:
http://asafishing.org/government/pa_083110.html
Here is the ASA's take:
http://asafishing.org/government/pa_083110.html
Years ago I switched from adding lead wire for my flies to copper and I have not noticed any difference in performance. I do chuck gear on occasion and I would gladly substitute an alternate product. As far as I know this is part of a political agenda to get to the gun right folks and they are using a government agency to do it.
1 - 20 of 53 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Washington Fly Fishing Forum
A forum community dedicated to fishers, anglers and enthusiasts in the Washington area. Come join the discussion about safety, gear, boats, tackle, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Recommended Communities
