How much will it cost to throw away all your lead?

If EPA and the tree huggers succeed with their ban on lead jigs, split shot, sinkers, and other tackle items, how much will it cost if you have to discard all tackle items made of lead? Think about what's in your tackle box, your boat, and your garage. Include all that old stuff that looked so good at the time you bought it years ago, but is still in the original packages.

In aggregate, this number could be huge--and a strong argument that the costs of a lead ban far outweigh possible environmental benefits (which have not been proven--or even estimated.)

I would more than likely stop making lures all together and fishing would be comes thing of the past for me :( cause I would have enough money to regear and if I did it would cost way to much

Since I'm a "heard head" it's going to take one or two fines for me before I throw away my lead... then it'll go in the garbage can just for spite!:mad:

I'de be a worm fisherman with an old lugnut for a sinker along with my bobber.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GCD

it's going to take one or two fines for me before I throw away my lead..

---

Bad plan. The first offense will cost no more than $25,000. After that, continued violations would be willful and the fine would go up to $50,000 per day plus a year in prison.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GCD

Since I'm a "heard head" it's going to take one or two fines for me before I throw away my lead... then it'll go in the garbage can just for spite!:mad:

---

It's the "hard headed", "I'm gonna do what I want, regardless", "do it for spite" ideology that the tree huggers are looking for .... it only makes their case stronger. What we need is to DEMAND proof (but, not from the tree hugger organizations) that lead fishing equipment is a hazard to wildlife, in enough volume of death by lead poisoning, that it makes environmental & finacial sense to ban it.

So far as I can see, that point hasn't been made, proven, or even legitimately presented. It's just the PETA/Sierra Club/ABC/CDB environazi's & wannabe's attempt at forcing their ideology onto the rest of the American public .... by being the "squeeky wheel". What we need to do is be as professional as possible, in our statements/comments, about the whole matter .... and not emotionally reactionary.

Consider going this route, rather than making rash statements of dubious integrity >>> http://view.s4.exacttarget.com/?j=fe...776d007876&r=0

... cp :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crappiepappy

It's the "hard headed", "I'm gonna do what I want, regardless", "do it for spite" ideology that the tree huggers are looking for .... it only makes their case stronger. What we need is to DEMAND proof (but, not from the tree hugger organizations) that lead fishing equipment is a hazard to wildlife, in enough volume of death by lead poisoning, that it makes environmental & finacial sense to ban it.

So far as I can see, that point hasn't been made, proven, or even legitimately presented. It's just the PETA/Sierra Club/ABC/CDB environazi's & wannabe's attempt at forcing their ideology onto the rest of the American public .... by being the "squeeky wheel". What we need to do is be as professional as possible, in our statements/comments, about the whole matter .... and not emotionally reactionary.

Consider going this route, rather than making rash statements of dubious integrity >>> http://view.s4.exacttarget.com/?j=fe...776d007876&r=0

... cp :cool:

---

Thanks, Pappy. This is the direction I see us going--at least on behalf of C.c. Most of my working career dealt with federal agency regulations. I understand the rulemaking process and totally agree that we need to be objective and specific. Regulators code and sort all the incoming comments on their proposals. When they spot form letters, post cards, or other organized attempts to "stuff the ballot box", they stack that pile together and count it as little more than a single opinion. They also have a single stack for "this is stupid", "I hate it", and similarly unobjective non-specific comments. To be heard, we need to make our arguments clearly and objectively. If we can personalize how a ban would harm fishermen, like CrappieJosh has done a couple of posts up this thread, that adds even more impact.

To answer the cost question at the start of this thread:

Just considering jigs, sinkers, spinnerbaits, buzzbaits, and lead-bodied inline spinners, I would lose the use of goods with an initial aggregate purchase price of at least $1100. I shudder to think what the replacement cost would be--for those things that I could replace--using lead substitutes. Realistically, at this stage of my life, with the need to save for retirement, I would not be able to replace two-thirds of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GCD

Since I'm a "heard head" it's going to take one or two fines for me before I throw away my lead... then it'll go in the garbage can just for spite!:mad:

---

Is this the same guy who "talked" on another thread about minding the
law:eek: And the guy probably deserved to be be beaten:confused: And
now you'll confront a LEO twice, what if he's a tree hugger and beats you
senseless then rolls your body into the water. Or is the shoe on the other
foot, if it happens do you want somebody to speak up on your behalf?:rolleyes: Remember we're all in this together!:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by split handle

To answer the cost question at the start of this thread:

Just considering jigs, sinkers, spinnerbaits, buzzbaits, and lead-bodied inline spinners, I would lose the use of goods with an initial aggregate purchase price of at least $1100. I shudder to think what the replacement cost would be--for those things that I could replace--using lead substitutes. Realistically, at this stage of my life, with the need to save for retirement, I would not be able to replace two-thirds of it.

---

I'm with you on this one, I can't even begin to put a price on my lead pro-
ducts. I've got 10k painted jigheads, 8-9k unpainted, umteen thousand
lead spoons, Lord only knows how many weights. "chit" that is my retirement!
And I had a guy give me 10 bags of lead shot. Plus I've got 2 x-ray depart-
ment worth of lead, and 2000lbs of plumbing. And I think my stockpile is
pregnant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crappiedoc

I'm with you on this one, I can't even begin to put a price on my lead pro-
ducts. I've got 10k painted jigheads, 8-9k unpainted, umteen thousand
lead spoons, Lord only knows how many weights. "chit" that is my retirement!
And I had a guy give me 10 bags of lead shot. Plus I've got 2 x-ray depart-
ment worth of lead, and 2000lbs of plumbing. And I think my stockpile is
pregnant.

---

If they make it hazardous waste , the disposal fees will drain your retirement fund.:eek:

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gijimbo

I have read all these posts and really haven't seen one good argument for allowing the lead poisoning to continue.

---

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Corker

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gijimbo

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

---

I'll spoon feed you on this one! Those are ALL ingestion topics, not absorb-
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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crappiedoc

I'll spoon feed you on this one! Those are ALL ingestion topics, not absorb-
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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gijimbo

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

---

Jim don't know how rich you are. But for me some of the size lead head and lead sinkers I use I can't buy, your saving grace Zinc or the other products they have tried to use to replace lead with. As I use 1 to 1 1/4 oz jigs for Sauger and up to 3 oz jigs for Striper's and have no way to pour it and sure can't buy it poured to use or sell.
Then in catfishing I use from 1 oz to 20 oz sinkers now figure up the price and how big a 16 oz sinker is in any other metal other then Lead??

And yes I have started moving toward other products other then lead in stuff I can but theres so much its going to be hard to do that in. One of our products we have been in the process for over 8 months of swapping over to metal rather then lead. But its going to cost and not even sure its going to be worth my $$ we sink into it for a few years unless this does come along. But its a product that people that can't or don't want to use lead can use and still fish.
I will say I wish there was a material that we could swap over to and get lead out of the water ways.. But the amount of lead in shot shells and what is used for fishing is not even close. There more lead used in fishing in one year then in shot shells for ducks and stuff in 3 to 5 years. Or longer..
But again if they could have found something that would have worked we would not be talking about this now. Because back around 1980 they were talking about banning lead then also.
I do think we had better get ready to find something else to use within the next 5 years for sure. And hope then can find something to replace it .
Pete

Pete, who knows. I have no idea what they will propose, but maybe it'll be something similar to NY where they banned lead shot under 1oz or something along those lines. Not to many birds are going to eat a 3 oz and up lead sinkers.

I say, if this ban goes threw then we all either mail all our lead to who ever is in charge over there at the EPA office. Then maybe they might get an idea of what they have done to the sport of fishing. And what scale lead plays in it.

OR

We melt down all the lead and cast bullets to shoot at the fish, then we'll be covered by the 2nd amendment. :D LOL. that'll show Them EPA jerks.

No, but seriously, I sure hope this Lead Ban doesn't go threw. I went to the sight Corker linked to in his post "Two Clicks" and voiced my opion.

I think everyone is missing what is really going one here. Lead is not the problem, its the people that fish. Thats the environmental groups gripe. This is just a back door to stop fishing. Do you really think if they get this thru they will stop there. NO. They will move on to the plastics that we use and then the line we use. The governments problem with lead is that their spy equipment wont work thru it. Lets not forget that lead is an element that the earth is producing every second of the day, they can never get rid of it. Whats the caution with lead, dont eat it- dont sand on it and breath the dust and dont breath the vapors while melting. Leave it in a solid form and its just a rock. This is just taking our rights away that our veterans have fought and died for. I would truly hate to log on to this site just to talk about the good old days when we used to be able to fish. If the environmental groups get there way, fishing will be a thing of the past. Everyone must make there voice heard and not rely one someone else to do it for us. Call and send letters to your politicians, because the only thing they understand is numbers = votes

It would cost me a fortune to get rid of all my lead guessing there is still about 800# in the shed. Figuring about 1/16 to 1/8oz at a time, that's a lot of trips to get rid of it.