BassBlaster

Lead Ban Status Update

You may recall that some birdy groups tried a few months back to get the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to ban all lead fishing tackle and lead shot.

Sportsmen and women went nuts about it, which helped shoot down the attempt, but the EPA didn’t really have the authority to do it anyway. The bird-heads knew that, so why did they do it? It was the easy way, but if at first you don’t succeed….

Everyone knew more was coming, and here’s where it is now. (Info taken from Robert Montgomery’s piece on bassmaster.com, D-Arcy Egan’s article in The Cleveland Plain Dealer – the headline writer used the “fisher” word again” – and Madison.com (WI).

> Three environmental groups have sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in U.S. District Court, hoping that a judge will force the agency to ban lead in fishing tackle and ammunition. “The EPA has the ability to protect America’s wildlife from ongoing preventable lead poisoning, but continues to shirk its responsibility,” said Jeff Miller from the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD).

> This time around, only CBD, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, and Project Gutpile are involved. The American Bird Conservancy and Association of Avian Veterinarians chose not to join the suit.

> Getting the lead out would have cost the country’s 60 million recreational anglers many millions of dollars.

> Rather than working with hunters and fishermen, whose license dollars provide most of the support for wildlife management programs in Ohio and around the country [and who pay the freight on most of the endangered/threatened stuff too], the so-called “nonconsumptive” groups now seem eager to fight. The question seems to be whether they’re against lead in tackle, or disdain fishing and hunting.

> Rep. Steve LaTourette, a Republican whose 14th District covers the northeast corner of Ohio, said: “We’ve got historic unemployment, soaring deficits and…the EPA is worried about lead fishing tackle. If this doesn’t tell you our priorities are out of whack, I don’t know what will.”

And on the Other Hand…

> Dave Clausen, a member of Wisconsin’s Natural Resources Board [and] a veterinarian who hunts, said there is “no doubt” that sportsmen deposit more lead on the Wisconsin landscape than any other source.

> He noted the largest four Wisconsin industrial dischargers combine emit about 2 1/2 tons of lead each year, while the shelves of a single large sporting goods store easily hold 5 tons of lead shot.

> Lead can poison birds, and as few as two or three pellets are fatal for some species.

> WI DNR toxicologist Sean Strom said, “We found a higher incidence of lead poisoning during the fall, which coincides with the hunting seasons.”

Bottom Line

A lead ban is coming, it’s just a matter of when. So open up your wallets because tackle and shotgun shells are going to be a lot more expensive.

What ticks me off is that these environmental groups literally do zero with their money except sue. Yet angler and hunter dollars earmarked for fish and game management are being used for threatened/endangered species work because of these lawsuits. Put up or shut up.

Here’s an idea: tax the greenies.

2 Comments

2 Comments

  1. BobbyJ

    December 8, 2010 at 3:48 pm

    I disagree that “a lead ban is coming”. The feds won’t do it. The courts won’t do anything and they recognize this for what it is – just greenie posturing. Maybe some state will try it, but when the hunting/fishing dollars dry up and sportsmen start going elsewhere, they will quickly become a case study for other states in what not to do.

  2. Teeg Stouffer

    December 9, 2010 at 7:02 pm

    What a complicated issue.

    We all know that lead is bad. The way it is mined is not good for our waters, it’s got toxicity to humans, and it’s got toxicity to our wildlife and waterfowl when it makes its way into the environment.

    This is not a secret, and it’s not debatable.

    On the other hand, it’s pervasive in outdoor sports, and it’s effective. And cheap. That’s what this is really about. Anglers are hungry for innovation but slow to change.

    If the fishing industry embraced non-toxic metals, it would mean dollars for the manufacturers.

    That’s what confuses me.

    The manufacturers would have big up-front costs but ultimately would have a new revenue stream as anglers swapped out their tackle.

    Hunters and fishermen put more money into conservation than any other group, that’s good. But it’s not a “license to sin,” either, is it?

    It should be the sportsmen’s group who sound the rally cry, and who partner with the industry to be the best stewards of our resource that we can.

    Nothing will shut up the “greenies” like that would.

    If the sportsmen went on the offensive and drove change, we’d become the heroes, and disarm any and all opponents. That’s the future I envision.

    Teeg

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Gitcha Bassin' Fix

To Top