Two-click comments

EPA closes the comment period on Wednesday. Based on the 687 comments already on the record, we've lost. The vast majority of these comments are from hunters objecting to the ammo ban that EPA rejected on 8/27. All comments of this type are irrelevant and will be tossed.

A search of the comments database using the term "fishing tackle" produces 9 hits. A search using the term "jigs" gets 0 hits. We need numbers--numbers we can see. How do we know what will happen to all those easy-to-submit form letters promoted by other web site operators?

Here's an action plan that's fast, easy, and sure to improve the score:
1. Review the points you want to make. (See below.)
2. Click here to go to the official Regulations.gov comment input page.
3. Type your name and comments.
4. Click the "Submit" button.
That's all there is to it.

The comment input page looks like this:
http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/i...ommentPage.jpg

These seem to be the comments of greatest concern to C.c members:
- The rulemaking process is flawed. After EPA rejected the major theme of the Petition on 8/27, we are unsure what parts of the Petition continue to be valid and under consideration by EPA. EPA should demand a revised Petition and restart this process.
- The benefits of a lead ban are unclear. Wild animals are exposed to other sources of lead, including lost wheel weights and spent ammunition. The Petition does not make a convincing case as to the extent of problems that may be caused by lost fishing tackle.
- There are no good alternatives to lead. Lead is used in fishing tackle because it is very dense, low in cost, and easily fabricated into many styles of sinkers, fishing lures, and “lead core” fishing line. No other metal possesses all of these characteristics. Most alternative metals several times as much as lead per pound.
- Substantial cost increases will apply to tackle manufacturers, distributors, and users. Three categories of costs must be considered:
a. cost of disposing of existing stocks of lead-based tackle,
b. cost of retooling to manufacture tackle items from alternate metals, and
c. cost of supplies of alternate metals to be used in the ongoing fabrication of lead-free tackle items.
- Taxes and other revenues designated for wildlife conservation may suffer. Depending on the reaction of fishermen to the higher costs of lead-free products, tax revenues, license fees, and usage fees may also suffer. Fishing is a sport – a voluntary recreational activity. Significantly higher tackle costs will discourage some number of fishermen who will discontinue fishing in favor of another sport, or no sport at all. Those who leave the sport will no longer contribute license and usage fees and the excise and sales taxes, not just on purchases of tackle items, but on all items relating to the sport of fishing. A number of these fees and taxes help pay for wildlife conservation and management.

I did it. That was easy. Thanks Cork.

Dayton

Thanks for making it so easy,my comments were added.

Comment submitted, Thanks Corker!

Corker

Uploaded my comments via a txt file - longer than the 2K limit on the form. I've got my tracking id - I intend to search for my comments tomorrow.

Have you / anyone else done this?

Thanks for making the comments thing so simple.

UG

Done!!

Thanks for making this so easy to do Corker,

Been there ...done that. Thanks Corker.

I just put in my $.02. Thanks for making it so easy Corker. This thing has me so ticked off that I'm dreaming about it. This ban would be a nightmare.

Thanks for making it so easy, Corker! Hope everyone sends the meesage. :D

I don't know if this will help but found this on another sight while looking into the EPA Lead Ban. Cut and paste into the comments, then sign your name at the bottom.
Heres a link the web site I found this on, breaks it all down and has some good info. Keep America Fishing

Template Message

I am writing to oppose the proposed EPA ban on lead in fishing tackle. This ban would have a significant impact on the recreational fishing community with minimal benefit for the referenced waterfowl. Lead is used not only in sinkers but in a wide variety of fishing lures and other tackle components.

The petitioners’ document is replete with commentary unsupported by scientific data and rife with misunderstandings about the use of lead sinkers. Although the petition is aimed at reducing waterfowl death from lead sinker ingestion, a study by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has shown that less than one percent of birds die from ingested sinkers. Lead fishing tackle does not present a population level problem to any bird species. In fact, loon populations are increasing throughout their breeding range.

If a particular body of water is of concern, the issue is most effectively addressed by a local science-driven process, not a national ban. Fisheries and recreational fishing methods are best managed by state agencies.

While supporters of this ban claim that there are many comparable alternatives to lead sinkers and jigs, this is not the case. Depending on the alternative metal and current prevailing raw material costs, non-lead fishing tackle products can cost from six to 15 times more than lead products. Non-lead products may not be as available and most do not perform as well. Mandatory transitioning to non-lead fishing tackle would require significant – and costly - changes from both the industry and anglers.

The resultant decrease of fishing tackle purchases will diminish the dollars for fisheries conservation through fishing license sales and the federal manufacturers’ excise tax on fishing equipment. Something our country can ill afford.

I urge you to deny the lead ban petition, because it will have a significant negative impact on the recreational fishing community and only a negligible impact on waterfowl populations.

Thank you for your consideration,