If they make it hazardous waste , the disposal fees will drain your retirement fund.:eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by crappiedoc
Printable View
If they make it hazardous waste , the disposal fees will drain your retirement fund.:eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by crappiedoc
I'd have to say a rough estimate of maybe $5,000 or more!!! This would be to replace all the jigs, and other lead based lures I have.
Also have to replace all the lead I have with non-lead and with the costs it reallly would add up.
Plus, like NIMROD stated "If they make it hazardous waste , the disposal fees will drain your retirement fund".
As he states that I have to say I didn't see anything about what they plan on doing if they ban lead what the heck are they going to do with all that will get turned in??????????!!!!!!!!!!!!
Fatman
WOW, I have read all these posts and really haven't seen one good argument for allowing the lead poisoning to continue. Cost for transitioning, cost for this, cost for that, bla, bla, bla... I'll go broke, I'll quit fishing... Here's a Kleenex!!
Ladies aren't these the same exact lines that were used when waterfowl shot transitioned from lead to steel??? If you think back I'm sure you'll remember. Hunters made the transition. Sure it costs more. But what do you expect.
I'll ask Mr Obvious question... Zinc has been on the market for many years. How many have voluntarily phased lead products out where you could and zinc products in? My guess, 0! I know I haven't transitioned from lead. I use it because it is cheaper than zinc. I will just have to endure the costs like the rest.
It's about time we plan ahead for future generations of anglers rather than continuing to do things just because we have always done it that way.
One last comment, if by some slim chance the ban does go through and all the government folks get their share at watering this thing down, how long do you really think it will take for the transition to take place? My guess is 2-5 years. With that being said hopefully it will help ease the blow on everybody's checkbook.
Things to think about,
Jim
Lead poisoning? What lead poisoning? I haven't seen one good scientific study that concludes that lost tackle is having any significant effect on wildlife populations. The Petition is aimed at hunting...hunting of upland game...especially with shotguns. Why? Because birds mistake the pellets for seed and eat them. If the Petitioners hadn't been on a mission to ban lead ammo, there most likely would never have been a Petition. Anecdotal evidence of a handful of bird deaths over a 5-year period is hardly a scientific study.Quote:
Originally Posted by gijimbo
The case against the use of lead shot for waterfowl hunting was compelling. Large quantities of lead of the perfect shape and size were being dumped dead center into the habitat most frequented by waterfowl. Of course the birds were going to find the spent shot and eat it. Jigs and sinkers are not being dumped into the environment intentionally and they are not being lost in the exact locations that maximize the chances of ingestion.
When there's a scientific study that quantifies the "damage" being done to wildlife populations, we can resume the discussion about banning lead fishing tackle. I suspect that such a study will place lost fishing tackle in the "trace" category as a contributing factor. Meanwhile, the lost wheel weights from vehicles also cause some unknown number of wildlife deaths, so why don't we ban driving--just in case it might endanger a few loons?
So according to your study that you have done, NO jigs or weights are dumped in the exact location that birds feed. Where do you come up with this stuff? How much lead and trash is dumped around banks from bank fishing and boat fisherman alike. I can only assume that your study is based on you alone. Your entire fight seems to be self centered and about you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Corker
As to vehicle weights, when was the last time you saw a loon feeding around the highway?
I personally am undecided on this, I have voiced my opposition on the epa site, and with my state reps.
Other states, and other countries have taken it upon themselves to either ban lead completely, or lead weights under a certain size. That's a pretty huge step, and yet fishing remains in those states and countries.
If you want a huge long drawn out study to be done, do you also want to pay the taxes to support that study. To suit you, it seems they would need to test every bird in the U.S.
So I suppose since lead is so safe, everyone would let their pregnant wife, or young children bite on some split shot while fishing? I would certainly hope not.
Corker, does it really take a study to prove something as simple as "common sense"?
Lead has been ruled such a safe product to use for paint...that's why there isn't lead based paint. Speaking of lead based paint, how about the million or so Chinese made Wal-mart toys that were recalled do to lead based paint. Maybe we should have let the toys come in and told our kids, "oh a little lead won't hurt you.."
How about the safe use of lead for potable water lines into millions of homes? Seems like somebody was able to prove beyond some slim doubt that lead got carried into each glass of water each man, woman and child drank.
If lead is so safe, why do you think they now use "lead-free" solder to solder the copper water lines in your house...see reason above.
If lead is so safe, why has it been banned from gasoline? Here is a link for you to mull over EPA Takes Final Step in Phaseout of Leaded Gasoline | EPA History | US EPA
The evidence for banning lead is quite overwhelming if you really look at the adverse and irreversible side effects lead causes.
I am sure I could find evidence against lead in waterways to make the point too. I used these examples because with lead being safe to use, it only made sense to point out products that no longer use lead. Products that were once part of the older generations lives on a daily basis.
All of us need to accept the change and plan for the future anglers of America. Do millions of dollars really need to be spent to prove common sense?
I will have to endure the same expense and inconvenience as everyone else once this passes. If nothing else, think about children who will benefit from the change rather than yourself.
Jim
Veryb well said !!I'm an avid jig pourer and maker myself.But reading all of these posts really gets me thinking.
I'll spoon feed you on this one! Those are ALL ingestion topics, not absorb-Quote:
Originally Posted by gijimbo
tion through the skin. Nor are they inhalation. The lead based paint thing is
COMMON sense, children put things in their mouth. Lead in your plumbing is
chealeted by the chemicals in the water to make it safe to drink (chlorine)
Gasoline lead was vaporized and came in contact (like dust) with everything
the ingestion route again. Since its discontinuence it not a contaminant of
water/food sources. And as for water QUALITY, I did a post already, do your
homework. Lead has been used for thousands of years and it's not showing
up the WATER tests, if half of what you thought were true, we'd all be dead.
Lead is most toxic when it's accelerated to 1,100 to 2,200fps. Lead is the
least of your worries after reading your conclusions.
Once again I'll entertain another who thinks just because we have always done things that way we need to continue. I read you post about "Water Quality," generic as it was it provided very little insight.Quote:
Originally Posted by crappiedoc
The reservoir I fish at does not use distilled water. Therefore the chelating effect is very possible in the water I fish and swim. Do you know the exact chemical compounds that are made up when farm run-off and lead mix? Rain tainted with industrial pollution and lead? I don't.
What micro-organisms eat the chelated lead bacteria? What fish eat the micro-organisms? What eats the fish? See the pattern...it's called (big phrase coming up) the food chain. And YES, it is about ingestion and all other forms lead can enter our beings.
Do we need to wait for it to become an epidemic lead problem before we enact a solution? This is a fine chance for America as a whole to get ahead of the curve rather then spending trillions fixing it. You do have a point in the fact that lead in the small forms we ingest it may never cause one ounce of harm to anyone of us. That is at the current levels of ingestion and exposure. Will these levels remain the same or decrease over the next generations...Nope not without regulation. The industry had it's chance to fix the problem and choose not too. Therefore regulation is necessary.
I like many others will pay the increased prices for lead alternative tackle. It will benefit future generations to come.
Jim
PS. Go ahead and wipe your chin, I am done feeding you.
3000+ years of lead use and we all glow in the dark. Nothings "safe", but
when it comes down to it, is lead really the problem? You have to mix it in
with other things. Is fishing tackle the problem, I don't think so. The water
quality issue, did you follow up. Send me to a USGS or COE water data that
show lead and I'll jump ship because I couldn't find one.