Printable View
Here are my top reasons to object to an EPA ban on lead jigs, sinkers, and other fishing tackle.
1. Loss of ability to make my own tackle. Home-making tackle is an enjoyable part of the fishing experience, but the melting point of alternate metals is too high for home production.
2. Cost. If home production of jigs, sinkers, and other tackle items is no longer legal, my tackle cost will increase.
What other reasons can be added to the list?
Here is ONE jig head for $5.99 1/100oz
Round Jig Heads
Now if that does not give you goose bumps I do not know what will.
I think that it should be mentioned that with the loss of being able to use lead for the fishing lure enthusiest that state fishing lis. sales and maybe evn boating monies to the state would be at a loss.If we can push the all around story of what this ban will do to the state monies for this wonderfull sport we could get some backing from them.
#1 is false, tin is a viable alternative and has a melting point of 450*F, it is more expensive than lead though...maybe not a popular response... but I'm not here to win a popularity contest.;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Corker
Thanks for helping get our facts straight. The fastest way to have our comments tossed on the scrap heap is to make false claims.Quote:
Originally Posted by GCD
If I wanted to switch to tin, where would I look for raw material & where are prices quoted? Also, tin is less dense than lead. That means that my standard 1/32, 1/16, and 1/8 oz jig heads will be larger in order to weigh the same. How much will the diameters increase? Will the size increase make these jigs more effective, or less?
lead returns to its natural state in a very short time causing it to disapate back in to the earth and tin and other stuff takes a lot longger to decompose and return to its natural state
Without lead,there would be no standard weight on a jighead.Same size,but no weight at all,lol.You would have to tie on an old nut above it.
That's pure tin. Where do you buy pure tin? If you think you are going to melt your old can after eating the beanie weenies, it ain't going to happen with your Lee pot. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by GCD
I know nothing about the markets for raw metals, but the website metalprices.com lists the per-pound price of lead at $0.91 and tin at $9.71.Quote:
Originally Posted by Barnacle Bill
Those round-headed unpainted lead jigs that now retail for $0.10 apiece will cost at least $1.00 if made of tin.
The end result is more tax money and it's more collectable this way. Don't
try the heartstrings stuff, it's obvious they don't care. Their animals lovers
first, people second. But I'll bet you their being used. Read the New Yorkers
article on the Koch brothers (Koch Industries) and their use of third parties
to manipulate society and big business. These people are pros, find and use
scientific data or heritge can be good also. Use gov. to fight gov. they're
always ready to spend other peoples money.
I understand why they banned lead shot for waterfowl hunting is because the ducks and geese would pick up the lead shot that was lying on the bottom of the shallow water lake or river thinking it was gravel.
Then they would get it in thier gizzard and die from the toxins.
But to ban the use of lead for fishing is just plain stupid!!!!
They have no reason in the world to present such a stupid law.
Thats my opinion anyway!
Tom
Home - Hoosier Crappie and Catfish Guide Service Indiana
Here is 1 lb of Tin for sale on Amazon.comQuote:
Originally Posted by Corker
Amazon.com: TIN-1-lb.-Ingot-99+%-Pure: Industrial & Scientific
$14.99 / lb
That's $21.77 w/ shipping for 1 lb of tin.
Assuming 1/16 oz jigheads, you can make 256 jig heads out of 1 lb of tin.
$21.77/256 = .085 (9 cents) per jig... (metal cost, not including jig hooks, etc)
And here's 1 lb of Lead on Amazon.com
Amazon.com: LEAD-Ingot-Pure-99.9%: Industrial & Scientific
$1.89/lb
$9.59 w/ shipping for 1 lb of lead.
$9.59/256 = .037 (4 cents) per jig... (metal cost, not including jig hooks, etc)
There's better prices and free shipping elsewhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by FishinGeek
I posted this in another thread, but will post it here too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GCD
[QUOTE=crappie josh;1252379]lead returns to its natural state in a very short time
Winner, winner, chicken dinner!!! Your right, as it encrusts or oxidizes it just
becomes elemental Pb. When Pb has a 2,3,4 it's combined with something else
and these are generally acids used to create an atmoshere or solution in
which the reaction can evolve. Some chemicals include chlorine and others
used in the water treatment process. Wiki has an excellent def. on lead.
Petrolem chemicals and by-products also have this "cross-linking" capability.
There are many folks who use lead to make tackle to save money - me included. It will hurt if the price of materials go up - and it will - especially when there are no (legal)material alternatives....if you hunt - look at what has happened to the price of shot shells for waterfowling....
This will also impact small tackle manufacturers - how many people on this site and others, like TU will be impacted? The economy is in a rut, and many folks - individuals and small businessmen/women are just scrapping by.
I also suspect that larger tackle manufacturers will also be impacted - as many still make their product w/ lead. If lead is eliminated, the price go's up, sales go down, people will get laid off - more un-employment.
I know hunters pay a excise tax on hunting gear - Pitman/Robertson tax. Fisherman pay in the same tax or similar one - so if sales of tackle drop, tax moneys also drop.
I need to verify the Pitman/Robertson fund on fishing gear.
UG
Uncle Grump
I posted this in another thread but it's spot on with what you said.
Was on the Cast Boolit site (Reloading) and one of the guys there made the following statement:
"My understanding (from something I read about this in the last couple of days is that the EPA can't regulate anything that is "excise taxed", therefore ammo can't be regulated by them. That said, if I recall correctly, all fishing tackle is also taxed for Pitman-Robertson, so they shouldn't have any jurisdiction over sinkers, either."
Now I've been searching all day and havent' found anything comfirming this but I'll keep looking.
Fatman
The Pittman Robertson Act covers the hunting side of the Federal Excise taxes - guns, ammo and releated.
FEDERAL AID IN WILDLIFE RESTORATION ACT (PITTMAN-ROBERTSON ACT): Summary from Federal Wildlife Laws Handbook
The Dingell Johnson Act covers sport fishing.
FEDERAL AID IN SPORT FISH RESTORATION ACT (DINGELL-JOHNSON ACT): Summary from Federal Wildlife Laws Handbook
The funding is described as a sales tax, not an excise tax. Here's the verbage:
Sport Fish Restoration Account. The provisions of this Act are funded through the Sport Fish Restoration Account, which is part of the Aquatic Resources Trust Fund created by the Wallop-Breaux amendments in 1984 and described in 26 U.S.C. § 9504. As explained in 26 U.S.C. §§ 9504 and 4161, the Account consists of sales tax on sport fishing equipment (including fishing rods, reels, lines, hooks; artificial lures, baits and flies; and fishing supplies and accessories), electric outboard motors and sonar fish-finding devices, and import duties on fishing tackle and yachts and pleasure craft. Congress authorized the amounts received by the Sport Fish Restoration Account to be appropriated for carrying out the Act. § 777b.
UG
what about the hundreds of jig heads i already bought and paid for what am i suppose to do with them?
Sounds like you already have the meat of a comment letter! One of the underlying premises the tree huggers cite in their petition is the volume of lead tackle sold is a good measure of the volume of lead dumped into the environment. This totally ignores the stockpiles of jigs and other tackle items that fishermen purchase and never use.Quote:
Originally Posted by wisheniwasfishen
Yup. I don't bust off many jig heads where I fish, but I own easily 3000 jig heads. Many head styles, many different combinations of head weights and hook sizes, accumulated over three decades. Some of them are prerigged in plastics, ready to go, most are in the bags.
And that doesn't count lures that incorporate lead into the bodies, like Roostertail spinners, or the many kinds and sizes of sinkers I have acquired.
The argument that the volume of lead fishing gear sold reflects the amount left on the bottom of lakes and rivers ignores not only our accumulation of diverse stockpiles but also the effect of innovation. Take drop shot sinkers with incorporated swivels and line clips--no telling how many tons of those have been bought by anglers who already own pounds of split shot, bullet weights, and egg sinkers.
If it became illegal to use lead-containing fishing tackle, a lot more would be taken than the monetary value of the items. There is no way to repay the hundreds of hours I have spent over the years researching the merits of the various lead-containing products I bought, shopping for availability and best price, driving across town to make purchases, and so on. Many of the products are no longer manufactured at all, and would not be available in some alternative form if lead lures were outlawed. So banning lead lures would make waste of many hours of my life, and the thought of that ticks me off big time.
Split, you should lift this post and paste it into a comment letter. I wouldn't change a word--just tell your story. Non-fishing regulators need to hear the real effects of the rule they are considering, and they need to hear it from ordinary citizens who be punished with a rule that's not justified by the arguments offered by the tree huggers.Quote:
Originally Posted by split handle
I'll be doing that, but first want to get a better handle on exactly what the proposal is and what arguments I am countering. I don't want to come across as just a whiner who doesn't want to be inconvenienced. I also want to be able to acknowledge and rebut the contrary arguments.
There isn't actually a proposal on the table at this stage of the process--but that will happen soon. A rulemaking under TSCA can begin with a petition from citizens, organizations, or anyone who believes there are toxic substances that should be controlled. The 100 page petition that started this is here. Upon receiving such a petition, EPA issues a request for public comment on the pros & cons of the petition. This is where we stand at the moment.Quote:
Originally Posted by split handle
After the comment period ends (9/15 in this case), EPA reviews the comments and decides whether to proceed with a regulation. The best outcome for us would be for EPA to announce that it won't pursue the issue further.
If our arguments today don't convince EPA to abandon the rulemaking, a proposed regulation will be written and published in the Federal Register for public comment. When that comment period closes (typically 60 days), EPA will review the comments and decide whether to amend the proposal or issue it as a final regulation.
Found this. From Massachusetts by the Toxic Use Reduction Institute from 2005.
Fishing sinkers
Nearly 2,500 metric tons of lead are used each year in the United States to produce fishing sinkers. Many of these sinkers are lost during use. One study found that anglers lost, on average, one sinker every six hours of fishing. Lead sinkers are lethal to waterbirds, such as loons and swans. One study found that the most common cause of death in adult breeding loons was lead toxicity from ingested fishing sinkers. A number of states have placed limits on the use of lead fishing sinkers. In Massachusetts, lead sinkers are prohibited for use in the Quabbin and Wachusett Reservoirs, the two bodies of water that support the core of the state's loon population. Use of lead sinkers is restricted in several other states in the Northeast, and is restricted or banned in several countries. Many anglers produce their own lead sinkers at home. This activity can expose individuals and family members to airborne lead particles or vapors.
The Institute examined five possible alternatives to lead for use in fishing sinkers: bismuth, ceramic, steel, tin, and tungsten. For each alternative, the Institute examined human health, environmental, technical/performance, and cost criteria.
* Human health. All the alternative materials are superior to lead from the perspective of the human health criteria the Institute examined (carcinogenicity, developmental toxicity, and occupational exposure).
* Environment. The alternatives are generally superior to lead from an environmental standpoint as well. All of the alternatives are clearly less hazardous to waterfowl and other aquatic species than lead.
* Technical criteria. The principal technical criteria of interest for this application are density, hardness, malleability, melting point, and corrosion resistance.
o Tungsten is more dense than lead; all the other alternatives are less dense than lead.
o Harder materials are preferable for use in many sinkers. All the alternatives are harder than lead; pure tin is about equal to lead in hardness, while tin alloy is harder than lead.
o Greater malleability is an advantage for sinker applications where the sinker is crimped on to the fishing line. Tin has malleability equal to that of lead; all of the other alternatives are less malleable than lead.
o Low melting point is considered an advantage because it allows individuals to produce sinkers at home, although home production of lead sinkers also creates human health hazards. Bismuth and tin have lower melting points than lead; ceramic, steel, and tungsten have higher melting points.
o Carbon steel is less resistant to corrosion than lead. Stainless steel and all the other alternatives are similar to lead in this regard.
* Cost. The alternatives generally have a higher retail price than lead sinkers, although some steel sinkers are competitive in price with lead sinkers. Studies conducted in the 1990s suggested that fishing sinker purchases represent less than 1% of total expenditures by anglers on their sport, so an increase in fishing sinker costs would be unlikely to have a significant effect on users.
Prices (per lb):
Lead .9643
Bismuth $8.50
Ceramic - Many different varieties from $1.00 to $42.00
Carbon Steel - $1.45
Pure Tin - $10.00
Tungsten - $13.00
There are two major problems with this analysis:Quote:
Originally Posted by OGFWeatherby
1. EPA's ban will not stop with "sinkers". The petition and EPA's preliminary comments use that term to mean sinkers, split shot, jigs, Road Runners, lead core line, and any other tackle product that contains lead.
2. It is unreasonable to assume that all lead items are produced to replace a comparable item which was lost. Jig fishermen stockpile large quantities of lures.
Excise Taxes - Federal Excise Taxes Due
Read down the page. It shows that
What products must I pay excise taxes on?
Businesses must pay excise taxes on:
Environmental products, such as domestic petroleum oil spills and ozone-depleting chemicals.
Communications and air transportation taxes
Fuels used in business
Purchase of trucks, trailers, semi-trailers (at a percentage of the sales price)
Ship passenger tax (per passenger)
Manufacturers Taxes on coal, taxable tires, gas guzzlers, etc.
Foreign insurance taxes
Sport fishing equipment, fishing rods, poles, outboard motors, etc.
Floor stocks tax on ozone-
I have to pay 10% on each hook I buy to resale along any any products you make to fish with that is sold.. Say I make up a Fish Formula and sell it I have to add 10% to the price for the Excise Taxes along with any State and Fed tax's..
Pete
So your point is that a ban on lead would result in an overall reduction in tackle sales which would, in turn, cut into federal tax revenue?Quote:
Originally Posted by ShilohRed
My point was someone was trying to find out for sure about the Excise taxes on fishing tackle..Quote:
Originally Posted by Corker
And yes if they cut out lead it may well cut down on the revenue but doubt it as what ever they make us use is going to cost more therefor there will be more tax on that product. It sounds to me like someone has what ever they think will replace lead and there trying to get this pushed through to make a Killing on it there selfs..
I sure hope they don't ban it for a long time my self. And it does not matter that I have a few $$$ in Lead, Jig hooks and molds.. along with Poured sinkers . But its going to hurt everyone that sells tackle and also the ones using it.
Pete
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corker
Corker, those are not valid arguments to overturn an EPA ban. Send that to them and they will trash it. To beat a movement like this, you'd have to prove that it's false. Adding the phrase "tree hugger" to your submission also will do little to further your cause.Quote:
Originally Posted by crappie josh
It took me exactly 1 search to find a study that documented fishing gear in water foul. http://www.nwhc.usgs.gov/disease_inf.../03JCF.W01.pdf
which was a very small cross section of birds. Sure lead returns to it's normal state, assuming it isn't ingested by any living thing. And in it's natural state, it's still toxic to us and wildlife, correct?
In another post it even mentions that pouring your own lead puts you and your family at risk for carcinogens, poisoning, etc.
I'm not for or against the "tree huggers" I've made my submission to my local and state reps. But fighting something like this with "hobby lead work in my garage" submissions will not do a darn thing to further your cause. If lead was killing fish, or there was something else killing fish, I'm sure there would be a heck of a lot of people on here going bananas over it.
The #1 reason is Ducks don't feed in 15 plus foot of water They'll let China send everything in the world over here to KILL Our pets and Children and there so worried about the envioroment Why don't they put Their A------'s togather and take care of the working class in this country it's time people said something and chunck'im all out thi8s election plain and simple!
I posted a link to a study regarding water fowl with ingested fishing gear. Send you submission in with that statement if you want, but again, that's not going to get it done.Quote:
Originally Posted by flatfish46
I think maybe we are thinking of ourselves. Maybe fishing from a boat, maybe responsible with our tackle. But there's bunch of people that aren't. The same ones that fish and leave their trash on the bank, or dump out their tackle and just leave it. That may very well be 50% of the problem, but there's not real policing of that either.
Hell, I'd like to start a movement for officers to patrol and bust idiots that leave trash out when they are fishing. I doubt I can get the backing for that.
This is a discussion forum. The purpose of my initial post in this thread was to seed the discussion. Nine days later, we've had a good deal of discussion and refined our reasons for opposing a ban on lead. Mainly, it boils down to the impact of higher costs for affected tackle items and the loss of our freedom to choose the type of tackle that suits us best.Quote:
Originally Posted by mduncan62
You can't prove a negative. For that matter, we don't know WHAT's considered to be the petitioners' argument. When EPA denied the part of the petition relating to ammo, it voided 90% to 95% of the 100-page document. At that point, the agency should have demanded that the petitioners remove the rejected content, supporting data, and references, and then resubmit the 5 to 10 pages that EPA considers a valid petition for a formal regulation.Quote:
Originally Posted by mduncan62
I'm sorry the you see this as "your cause" and not "our cause."Quote:
Originally Posted by mduncan62
The link is broken, please repost it.Quote:
Originally Posted by mduncan62
Here it is. http://www.nwhc.usgs.gov/disease_inf.../03JCF.W01.pdfQuote:
Originally Posted by Corker
So if we are indeed causing disease and death in waterfowl, this should be disregarded because we might have to pay more for tackle? That's going to be a really tough argument to win with the EPA. Lead tackle has already been banned in certain lakes around the country. All this is working against beating this ban. It might only be delayed at best.Quote:
Originally Posted by Corker
As I have already said several times, I have submitted the form letters to the government leaders in my state. If we as a the members of a sport are causing the problems for the ecosystem that are alleged, should we be ok with that?
When they banned lead paint, or leaded gasoline, were you this mad and felt like they were stripping you of your freedom of choosing what paint to use, or what gas you put in your car?
I saw this report, but have no idea how you weigh the value of 23 birds over 6 years against the freedom of choice of millions of fishermen. It's up to the petitioners to present a case for the value of lost birds and up to us to explain why lead is important to fishermen and what is likely to happen if it is banned.Quote:
Originally Posted by mduncan62
OK. I realize, and I would hope that you would too, that they only checked 2,240 individuals of 28 species of waterbirds. Which would be a very very small percentage of the entire population of said species. Also 1995 to 1999 is 5 years if you want to be technical about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Corker
90+% of the petition focuses on the potential effects of spent ammo. Unless we discontinue hunting and fishing, there will be some toll. If the tree huggers prevail and sportsmen are banned (or priced out of their sports), the taxes, license fees, and other revenues that allow us to manage natural resources will disappear, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by mduncan62
A delay will allow interested parties to search for common ground and for manufacturers to find cost effective alternatives to lead tackle products.Quote:
Originally Posted by mduncan62
Show me how much of a problem we're causing and we can discuss it.Quote:
Originally Posted by mduncan62
Paint is paint, but I wasn't happy with the gas reformulation. The alternative products that replaced these items did not cost 15 times as much as the leaded product, however.Quote:
Originally Posted by mduncan62
Oops, sorry.Quote:
Originally Posted by mduncan62
This is my stand on the EPA and lead bans, if lead is banned to this extent it will be banned for private use period. We will have to say goodbye to lead in all applications. I do not think it will happen this year beause of this ideal. If lead for fishing is banned and not in ammunition we have a direct avenue to get the ban overturned. Dicrimination lawsuits are a great thing and although the fishing industry uses x tons, the ammunition industry used how much more?
The bans on lead in gasoline and paint took years to get done also. We need to fight this to get a viable alternative and to force the EPA to make sure that the information they use is a scientifc FACT and not independant often biased studies to get their way.
Lead shot kills birds, period, in water or dry land. It also kills animals other than birds, I have no doubt about this. I also have little doubt that lead fishing tackle is killing wildlife in one or another. Are the numbers higher enough to be used for a ban, I doubt it compared to the flollowing things that also kill wildlife.
Wildlife is kiled by:
Many pesticides
Nitrates in the water from agriculture
Habitat destruction
Cars
Airplanes
trains
fishing nets
plastic pop can ring things
plastic actually kills millions of animals a year in the tons of it that are ingested by thousands of animals in our water ways and on land
And how many other thngs out there kill thousands more animals than lead does in any study?
I have been searching for a couple days but I can not find how quickly lead oxidizes in water. Does anyone have the information? BTW, lead that does oxidize in water it returns to it's pure form which is highly soluable in water which makes it POTENTIALY toxic to everything that swims in, eats from or drinks the water.