Printable View
Anyone know what is going on? I saw this on another BB but I am completely ignorant. It is alarmist? Is is a real threat.
http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/s...ory?id=4975762
I definitly agree with the comment in the article about lead sinkers. There is no evidence that lead sinkers are threatening populations of water birds.
Lead shot is banned from sell in NY for this very reason. I have a hard time getting it sent to NY from some places.
Hi Esopus,
I wrote some stuff on lead toxicity from fishing weights for the Wisconsin FF BB because there is a move to ban lead weights based on shoddy assumptions. I won't post it unless there is an interest by folks who want to answer critics with scientific research that shows that fishing weights are not threatening water bird populations.
On that note. Can any one send me some Black bird shot. Comes in tube dispensers. No carriers will send to NY. Best shot i've ever used. Impossible to get off your line.
Silver Creek,
I would definitely like to see your scientific data on the actual effects of lead in streams. I was talking to a friend about this the other day. I can't see it having the effect to the extent that some would lead us to believe. He was also bringing up the fact the flourocarbon tippet is also harmful, when dispensed into the stream. While I do agree that to be fact, is it any worse than regular nylon? I know that nylon does break down sooner than flourocarbon. However, one can argue back with the fact does a 1,000 years more matter when we are talking about thousands of years already? I am sure that you have done a lot of research on this due to your scientific background. I would be very curious to read your opinions as to what the facts really are here.
About the "ban" on fishing.... Obama has done a lot of things that i don't think are right for this country, but when we are faced with so many dire situations both overseas and right here in our back yard that they would be wasting out countries resources on trying to ban access to sportfishing. I guess that going "green" means keeping our youth inside playing video games rather than fishing with their parents. My blood pressure was up just a tad while reading that article.
I have recently visited the Tamarack Wildlife Rehabilitation and Education Center while trying to keep a young blue heron from starving after a big storm in Western Pa. They showed me a number of eagles that they were trying to save that were dying from the effects of lead poisoning. The bald eagles were poisoned from eating fish of course.
Also, there was a special on bald eagles on PBS this year, I think it was on Nature, that documented bald eagle deaths due to lead poisoning.
Ducks and other waterfowl and especially Ospreys were ravaged in certain areas not only from DDT use, but from eating lead pellets deposited in the water from shotgun shells that didn't find their mark.
There isn't a stream, river or lake in the U.S. that doesn't have some toxins present, generally PCBs and Mercury (from Coal burning plants). Just look in the back of the PA Fishing Summary or PFBC site for the Fish Consumption Advisory.
Canada has banned lead shot and sinkers because of its documented effects on wildlife. See two sites below for documentation, and there are more. It is not hard to find.
So why add more lead to the mix when we don't have to??? Use zinc.
http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7...6676--,00.html
http://www.cws-scf.ec.gc.ca/index_e.cfm
[quote author=Silver Creek link=topic=4197.msg33117#msg33117 date=1268152220]
I definitly agree with the comment in the article about lead sinkers. There is no evidence that lead sinkers are threatening populations of water birds.
[/quote]
That is not true at all. You should get your facts right. rsOi is 100% correct in his post. Why add more poison to our waterways when there are alternatives.
The study that is most often quoted is one from Tuft's University in Massachusetts showing that 52% (16) of 31 dead loons examined by them died of lead fishing weight ingestion. This study was published in 1992 and this started the move to ban lead fishing weights.
"Of the 75 loons received, 31 adults were examined. Sixteen of these adult birds (52%) died from lead poisoning."
See Pokras, M.A. and R. Chafel. Lead toxicosis from ingested fishing sinkers in adult common loons (Gavia immer) in New England. Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 1992. 23: p. 92-97. From:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/20460274
However this death rate of 52% was much greater than death rates found by other researchers. The US Government funded a cooperative study through the U.S. Geological Survey, National Wildlife Health Center, 6006 Schroeder Road, Madison. This was a cooperative study from 5 scientific organizations - U.S. Geological Survey, National Wildlife Health Center; Department of Veterinary Sciences, University of Wyoming; BioDiversity Research Institute, Falmouth, ME; Arizona Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, School of Renewable Natural Resources University of Arizona; and the Vermont Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Vermont. The study was of dead waterfowl including over 300 dead loons collected from 9 states: Minnesota, Wisconsin, Maine, New York, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Florida, California and Alaska.
I believe this is the most reliable study of the effect of the toxic effects fishing weights. It does not include deaths from bullets and lead shotgun pellets like most other lead toxicity studies do.
"From 1995 through 1999, 2,240 individuals of 28 species of waterbirds were examined in the United States for ingested lead fishing weights. A combination of radiography and visual examination of stomachs was used to search for lead weights and blood and liver samples from live birds and carcasses, respectively, were collected for lead analysis. Ingested lead weights were found most frequently in the Common Loon (Gavia immer) (11 of 313 = 3.5%) and Brown Pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) (10 of 365 = 2.7%), but also in one of 81 (1.2%) Double-crested Cormorants (Phalacrocorax auritus) and one of 11 (9.1%) Black-crowned Night Herons (Nycticorax nycticorax). "
http://www.nwhc.usgs.gov/disease_inf...ds_sinkers.pdf
The Minnesota DNR also did their own study of the death rate of loons due to lead fishing rates.
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/eco/nonga...s/leadout.html
"Out of 101 dead loons that were analyzed, a total of seven died of lead poisoning and an equal number died of fish line entanglement." That 7% rate includes both lead from bullets and shotguns as well as fishing weights. The actual rate was just over 5% due to fishing weights.
It is obvious that the data from Tufts is not constant with the wider survey data from the US Government's National Wildlife Health Center. One of the authors of this report is the Biodiversity Institute in Gorham, ME. They are experts in toxins especially mercury toxicity.
Why would the Biodiversity Institute, an expert in heavy metal toxicity not include the Tuft's data? The only conclusion that seems plausible is that the data from Tufts was a special situation that does not apply to the country as a whole as determined by the U.S. Geological Survey, National Wildlife Health Center.
I found this explanation, ""Although the rates were much lower in the NWHC study, there is no doubt that lead-sinker mortality is higher in New England than in other parts of the country. The variance appears to be a result of the different character of lakes (and loons) in the two regions. Pokras points out that the heaviest incidence of lead poisoning occurs in a heavily fished 5-lake region in New Hampshire. The lakes, most of which are only a short drive from Boston, are deep, clear, infertile and very heavily developed. As he described the situation, on weekends, you can walk across the lake from boat to boat. There are practically no natural nesting areas, so the birds nest on floating platforms installed by loon-preservation groups. The loons commonly hang around docks and fishing boats, hoping to pick up lost or discarded bait, a behavior that greatly increases their odds of ingesting fishing gear. Adding to the problem is the fact that the lake basins have a high density of lost sinkers that are easy to see because the bottoms are so clean."
If the 50% of loons were dying of lead toxicity nationally and specifically in my state of Wisconsin, one would expect and effect on loon populations and other waterfowl.
There is a proposal to ban lead weights in Wisconsin but the most recent data shows that populations (Eagles, Osprey, Loons and Trumpeter Swans) that are supposedly at risk from lead fishing weights are actually INCREASING and not decreasing.
http://dnr.wi.gov/org/land/wildlife/...preysurv08.pdf
http://www.northland.edu/sigurd-olso...ion-survey.htm
http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/water...on-Project.pdf
http://whyfiles.org/015species_restore/swan.html
http://library.fws.gov/Bird_Publicat...swan_pop00.pdf
"A central tenant of fish and wildlife management is management for the optimal overall population level, not for the well being of any one individual. Simply put, sustaining populations is the goal of fisheries and wildlife management, not sustaining individuals."
"It is not disputed that lead toxicosis may harm or kill loons and other water birds. This fact is well documented. The pivotal question is: are loon populations, and populations of other water birds, significantly reduced by lead sinker ingestion? Or phrased in a more comprehensive fashion: is mortality from lead toxicosis in loons and other water birds high enough to threaten self- sustaining loon populations? Based on available research the answer to both of these questions is no."
"This determination is based on a comprehensive 1999 study requested by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Federal Aid and conducted by the National Wildlife Health Research Center in Madison, Wisconsin......the results showed that only 3.5% of common loons (from a sample of 313) had ingested lead sinkers and just 27 of 36,671 waterbird and bald eagle carcasses (0.007%) contained ingested lead sinkers"
http://www.asafishing.org/images/gov...d_position.pdf
The FEDERAL GOVT'S OWN RESEARCH to study the effect of lead fishing weights showed at most only 3.5% of the deaths were due to lead weights. Other water birds had LESS that 3.5% lead weight ingestion. Now consider that the death rate from C&R fishing varies from 3-5% per fish per release, and some fish are caught multiple times. It then becomes apparent that a maximum 3.5% death rate from lead fishing weights in birds is probably less than the cumulative population deaths from C&R fishing in trout. Why not ban C&R fishing using that same logic?????
Shouldn't there be evidence that lost lead fishing weights are affecting wildfowl populations before any ban is passed? If lead weights are responsible for a maximum of 3.5% of the death of loons, why not ban C&R fishing on that same basis.
It should also be noted that no one has studied the effect of lead fishing weights on the deaths of water fowl feeding on river systems. The data that is used to ban trout fishing weights on rivers are based on erroneous data from a unique situation on some lakes in New England.
We base threats to wildlife based on population studies. That is how we determine endangered and threatened species. That is exactly how we justify C&R fishing as a renewable resource. The threat of lead based fishing weights should be based on that same logic.
There is no cheap substitute for lead that is near the specific gravity of lead. Tungsten is dense but solid tungsten is not soft. Soft forms of tungsten are composed of tungsten particles and a soft carrier that lowers the overall density. Tin is often used as a substitute for split shot, but tin alloy shot is not near the density of lead. Silver is the closest for both malleability and density.
Here are the specific gravities of some metals in comparison to lead.
Tungsten 19.0
Tantalum 16.6
Lead 11.342
Silver 10.5
Molybdenum 10.2
Bismuth 9.781
Copper 8.89
Nickel 8.85
Monel 8.80
Cobalt 8.71
Iron 7.87
Tin 7.29
Zinc 7.14
Tin is 2/3 the specific gravity of lead. You would need 50% more tin to equal the weight of lead but you would also have a greater volume that would decrease the sink rate even if the weights were identical. In addition, where density per volume is critical as in wrapping lead wire in fly construction, I have not found anything yet that is the equal of cheap lead wire. Silver wire would be the closest but it is not as malleable.
Tungsten is heavier than lead but it is not malleable and must be compounded with a carrier substance that lower's the net specific gravity if it is to be used as a substitute for split shot. I have seen no comparisons of the net specific gravity of tungsten compounds compared to lead.
I can't wait to read this after my talk tonight!
Quote from Canadian Occasional Paper No. 108 (as noted above):
There are numerous viable alternative materials for producing fishing sinkers and jigs, including tin, steel, bismuth, tungsten, rubber, ceramic, and clay. Tin, steel, and bismuth sinkers and bismuth jigs are the most common commercially available alternatives in Canada. Many of the available alternative products are currently more expensive than lead; however, switching to these products is anticipated to increase the average angler's total yearly expenses by less than 1% (~$2.00). Nevertheless, the continued availability of (cheaper) lead products has made it difficult for the manufacture and sale of nontoxic alternatives to achieve commercial viability.
Orvis sells Non-toxic split shot that is primarily tin for $9.95 (haven't counted the number of shot, but more than several dozen in multiple sizes).
Silver Creek wrote:
...at most only 3.5% of the deaths were due to lead weights. Other water birds had LESS that 3.5% lead weight ingestion. Now consider that the death rate from C&R fishing varies from 3-5% per fish per release, and some fish are caught multiple times. It then becomes apparent that a maximum 3.5% death rate from lead fishing weights in birds is probably less than the cumulative population deaths from C&R fishing in trout.
I have to ask what are the other causes of death and their rates associated with entanglement in fishing gear, trauma, disease, predation and other causes of mortality? If disease, predation and natural mortality are less than 3 - 5% in fish and waterfowl populations, then lead poisoning is significant. Yes?
I'm not saying stop all fishing in the Chesapeake Bay, or ban lead or ban anything...but personally, if an alternative is available, I will use it, and I do.
As I stated before, why add another toxin to our already stressed environment if we don't have to? Clean Coal processing still dumps Mercury into our air and water systems...so it's really not clean. Mercury is a very stable long-lived element, and PCBs do not degrade readily. (Those who fish the Housatonic are I'm sure well aware of the PCB problems in that area.)
Look in the back of the Pa. Fish & Boat Commission's Fishing Summary. If the Fish Consumption Advisory doesn't scare you, or at least give you reason to pause...then nothing I can say about lead poisoning will change your mind.
I wonder what the levels are in the Salmon River in NY? There must be tons of lead in each pool!
I admit to using lead IN my flies when I weight them for EU nymphing. However, if I am using split shot I always use tin instead of lead.
In my view, there are three issues. The major one is whether lead fishing gear is decreasing populations of water birds. The second is related to the first and is whether lead weights are decreasing populations of water fowl on rivers. The third issue is lead substitutes.
The third issue of lead substitutes comes into play only if there is a need to eliminate lead from fishing gear. To say that because there are lead substitutes, that is a reason to replace lead is putting the cart before the horse. First it must be proven that lead is decreasing populations. Population effects are the logical end points for me.
Should you chose a different end point such that even 3.5% death is unacceptable, then you must be willing to apply that end point to all your other decision processes. You should also say that because 3.5 % of caught trout die after release, we should not be allowed to fish even though that 3.5% death rate does not affect the population of trout in a river.
Nor would we allow recreational hunting because there is a greater than 3.5% rate of waterfowl that are wounded and eventually die without being harvested. A similar statistic can be done for all outdoor blood sports such as deer hunting. Once that logic becomes the logic that is used to govern outdoor sports, they will no longer be allowed.
Loons are the species that are most sensitive to lead because they eat their food whole so they are more prone to ingesting lead fishing weights from lake bottoms. So loon surveys are the ones that are most often quoted BUT they don't inhabit rivers.
I am NOT asking for data that lead is toxic. Nor am I asking for surveys that are general surveys of lead toxicity that combine lead bird shot, bullets and fishing gear.
What is pertinent to me is that lead fishing weights specifically are affecting populations of water fowl. Even better would be data specifically to fishing rivers and streams for trout or bass. After all, that is what I do. Toxic lead weights in a lake is important, but it bears no relationship to toxicity to rivers because loons don't feed on rivers.
In regards to other causes of loon deaths related to fishing gear, in the Minnesota survey discarded fishing line entanglement killed more loons that lead fishing weights, so by extension we should outlaw fishing line and especially fluorocarbon because it takes a very long time to degrade.
There is one statistic that would change my mind. That is the additive effect of incremental death rate. When a species is threatened and populations are decreasing, incremental death rates are additive and cause an incremental decrease in population. However that is not occurring in Wisconsin. Populations of the target species of loons, eagles, osprey, and swans are ALL increasing. Non a single species is decreasing.
So does anyone have data that is specific to population effects of lead fishing weights on rivers? I suspect that they would be negligible.
Should you chose a different end point such that even 3.5% death is unacceptable, then you must be willing to apply that end point to all your other decision processes. You should also say that because 3.5 % of caught trout die after release, we should not be allowed to fish even though that 3.5% death rate does not affect the population of trout in a river.
We do Not put produce millions of water foul to stock each year. So yes 3.5% is unacceptable . If 3.5% of trout are killed each year what is the percentage they are replaced next year by the hatcheries? The birds only have mother nature. Have you ever seen a animal die from lead poising? I am sure it is a slow painful way to die.
[quote author=VTflyfishing link=topic=4197.msg33170#msg33170 date=1268279270]
We do Not put produce millions of water foul to stock each year. So yes 3.5% is unacceptable . If 3.5% of trout are killed each year what is the percentage they are replaced next year by the hatcheries? The birds only have mother nature. Have you ever seen a animal die from lead poising? I am sure it is a slow painful way to die.
[/quote]
VT,
You have not countered any data that I posted, nor have you answered the central question of whether you have a consistent criteria to apply to all wildlife populations.
Since you haven't posted any studies which refute the studies from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the studies showing increasing populations of wild birds, I am at a loss as to how to reply except by examining the implications of what you posted when applied to the target species of lead fishing weights.
What you have posted is that it is OK to have a 3.5% kill rate for every trout that is Caught and released because we produce millions of trout to stock each year. If that statement is logical, then it is equally logical to artificially raise loons, eagles, osprey, swans to replace the ones who die from lead toxicity.
Would that be an acceptable solution to you? I doubt that it would be. If it is not, then you as a fisher are asking for a special privilege. It is the logical fallacy of special pleading better know as a double standard.
I don't think you realized the implication of what you just wrote. That is exactly the reason that I pointed out that there needs to be a consistency rather than emotion in discussing the subject of lead fishing weights.
If you buy into the argument that wildlife as individuals are how the impact of outdoor sports are to be judged rather than by populations, you cannot logically defend C&R fishing.
So what are they going to do to the hunters? From reading that, it seems that fishermen are the ones that are going to have to bear the burden of the threat of lead poisoning in waterfowl.
It makes more sense to me that the birds are ingesting shot gun pellets, rather than fishing weights. Also, I am curious as to how they can say with certainty that the birds are being poinsoned by fishing weights of shot gun pellets. Lead is lead correct?
Aaron they are all ready working on the hunting part by banning lead in shotgun shells when hunting for waterfowl. The issue with lead pellets that they are already in the water ways from hundereds of years of waterfowl hunting with lead.
[quote author=Silver Creek link=topic=4197.msg33172#msg33172 date=1268290967]
[quote author=VTflyfishing link=topic=4197.msg33170#msg33170 date=1268279270]
We do Not put produce millions of water foul to stock each year. So yes 3.5% is unacceptable . If 3.5% of trout are killed each year what is the percentage they are replaced next year by the hatcheries? The birds only have mother nature. Have you ever seen a animal die from lead poising? I am sure it is a slow painful way to die.
[/quote]
VT,
What you have posted is that it is OK to have a 3.5% kill rate for every trout that is Caught and released because we produce millions of trout to stock each year. If that statement is logical, then it is equally logical to artificially raise loons, eagles, osprey, swans to replace the ones who die from lead toxicity.
Would that be an acceptable solution to you? I doubt that it would be. If it is not, then you as a fisher are asking for a special privilege. It is the logical fallacy of special pleading better know as a double standard.
[/quote]
I think its a great idea to raise the birds artificially for release to replace the numbers we damage. I would agree with you that 3.5% is not that great of a number if we were not talking about endangered/ almost endangered species. I will say it again why put more poison in our water ways when we have non-toxic options?
Aaron,
Lead shot has already been banned. Steel shot is now used. It is less effective that lead so there are more cripples with steel shot.
Hunters also had to buy new shotguns or retrofit their guns with new barrels. Since lead deforms and gives a wider spread than steel, hunters also needed to buy new chokes for their shotguns. Since steel is harder than lead, it wears barrels out faster.
The difference between lead shot and lead fishing weights is that a single 12 gauge shotgun shell can have well over a hundred pellets and a duck hunter shoots thousands of pellets in an outing spread over acres of water. Compare that with the amount of lead that a fisher loses even over an entire season and there are several magnitudes of difference.
The comparison between lead shot and lead fishing weights is used by those who want to outlaw lead but they are not comparable. The shotgun hunter INTENTIONALLY shoot pounds of lead over a wide area in a short time. The fly fisher occasionally loses lead in a fly or in split shot.
The argument that the average fisher won't have to spend much money is also a false dichotomy of sorts. I quote rs0i
[quote author=rs0i link=topic=4197.msg33163#msg33163 date=1268264993]
Quote from Canadian Occasional Paper No. 108 (as noted above):
".....switching to these products is anticipated to increase the average angler's total yearly expenses by less than 1% (~$2.00)."
Orvis sells Non-toxic split shot that is primarily tin for $9.95 (haven't counted the number of shot, but more than several dozen in multiple sizes).
[/quote]
rsOi, if it is true then $2.00 is all the extra it would cost the average fisher AND it costs $9.95 to buy a single tin of non toxic split shot, what do your own numbers say about how much shot is lost by the average fisher? If that amount of shot is truly being lost by the average fly fisher, it wouldn't fill a 12 gauge shell. Again it is an example of playing fast and loose with the facts. It is EXACTLY those kinds of "facts" that are illogical.
You cannot on the one hand say that fishers are spreading a huge amount of toxic lead and on the other hand it will only cost $2.00 extra to substitute expensive tin shot to replace that huge lead loss.
[quote author=AaronJasper link=topic=4197.msg33173#msg33173 date=1268307035]
So what are they going to do to the hunters? From reading that, it seems that fishermen are the ones that are going to have to bear the burden of the threat of lead poisoning in waterfowl.
It makes more sense to me that the birds are ingesting shot gun pellets, rather than fishing weights. Also, I am curious as to how they can say with certainty that the birds are being poinsoned by fishing weights of shot gun pellets. Lead is lead correct?
[/quote]
I don't know about were you guys live but in Canada maybe only Alberta it is illegal to use lead shotgun pellets now. Now we are stuck using steel but the steel is becoming better and better quality and is almost as heavy as lead. I duck hunt all the time so it is not the hunters were I am.
[quote author=VTflyfishing link=topic=4197.msg33170#msg33170 date=1268279270]
We do Not put produce millions of water foul to stock each year. So yes 3.5% is unacceptable . If 3.5% of trout are killed each year what is the percentage they are replaced next year by the hatcheries? The birds only have mother nature. Have you ever seen a animal die from lead poising? I am sure it is a slow painful way to die.
[/quote]
Okay that is not true at all the number of water foul is getting insane. Its killing agriculture is what its doing. 3.5% is not that much obviously. That's why they have limits. They now how to conserve wildlife. If to many water foul were being killed the limits would be lower. The number of geese is way too much around here. during the migration you can barely see the sky there's so many. I bet there are more geese and ducks than there are people on this world.
Ducks and geese should not to be eating wheat and peas and every thing else. They were normally eating weeds and whatever was on little ponds and lakes so there populations were normal. when the agriculture go's really high the water foul populations go crazy high. They now adapted to eating grains more then what they normally would.
When you are talking about the endangered species like the great blue heron then your getting a problem.I believe that's why they banned lead here not so much the hunted water foul like ducks and geese but the endangered or more rare water foul like the great blue heron or loons.
Also ducks and geese are hunted by coyotes, owls, ext. When a duck or goose gets hit with some lead pellets and later dies. The other duck hunters that are not humans eat the duck filled with lead and then they will die. That another reason they are banning lead for duck hunting and fishing.
With fish that is a big problem. Yes you can restock them but what about the wild bull trout or the wild brookies in the rocky mountains, or any wild fish in that matter. If they die off it will be very hard to bring up the population. even with restocking they wont be the same wild fish. They will be the same fish you would catch in a trout pond. Although most of the rivers and lakes are stalked so i don't no what to tell you there.
[quote author=AaronJasper link=topic=4197.msg33173#msg33173 date=1268307035]
So what are they going to do to the hunters? From reading that, it seems that fishermen are the ones that are going to have to bear the burden of the threat of lead poisoning in waterfowl.
It makes more sense to me that the birds are ingesting shot gun pellets, rather than fishing weights. Also, I am curious as to how they can say with certainty that the birds are being poinsoned by fishing weights of shot gun pellets. Lead is lead correct?
[/quote] aron they already band all lead for waterfowl hunting for many years even when we hunt the fields for geese we still have to use non toxic shot no lead anywhere.
xXFLYFishingXx I do not think the concern is with the species that have abundant populations but is with the ones that are endangered/ almost endangered. I hunt waterfowl my self. I believe in conservation through hunting I also believe in protecting those species that need protecting even if we are protecting just 3.5%. Just like steel shot and all the new non toxic shot on the market has improved over the years so would any lead substitute for fish weights.
Two reasons why waterfowl are still getting lead shot in there body even though it is banded. One is the fact that from all the years that lead was allowed it is still in the environment and two people break the law and use lead shot.
This is a interesting thread no doubt.
Aaron yes there are many types of lead, which may be soft or hard and mixed with other material.
Interestingly lead shot and weights were banned in my home lands the UK many years ago for fishing. There was a min size you were able to use but l cannot remember what is was now. And the reason why was this.
In the UK the majority of fresh water fishing is related to species other than trout. Much of this takes place on lakes and ponds, rivers also to some extent. It was proved that lead was the main cause for mortality found in Swans and the main reason why is related to the Swans ability to feed at depth from the pond bed which by and large ducks are not able to do.
By this means of angling large amounts of lead shot and smaller lead weights were used.
Unless it has changed there was no regulation so far as hunting wildfowl and non use of lead shot.
Frankly l do not believe that lead has ever been a major reason for mortality compared to other issues.
However it is one that can be controlled and that is more the issue if you ask me.
As we all know data can be calculated to suit the needs !!
I part owned and operated a large hunting operation at one time where geese and ducks were the main quarry, and to say the least l have killed 1000s of em in my time. In the UK there were no limits.
Lead no question of doubt results in a high percentage of harvested birds, quite the opposite for non toxic shot from that l have seen and experienced while hunting with friends here in the US, and believe me l know how to hit birds.
There are now shot gun shells in the $40 mark per box of 25, ridiculous. We are also seeing a decline here in Arkansas, duck capitol of the world in numbers of hunters, simply they cannot afford to hunt.
Geese populations have increased and we now see no limits set for certain species due to agricultural damage, few have a interest to hunt them, they are not by any means a good table fare.
Arkansas is the largest producer of rice for the country , which is one reason why the bird numbers are increasing, available food source. Now we come to the illogical sense of regulation.
You can hunt the same fields for dove or any other non migratory USFW regulated species with lead shot. but you cannot hunt a duck on the same land with lead, if that make sense.
The same applies if you hunt the rivers, creeks and lakes.
So far as l am aware other than what was at one time excess hunting of given species the only major reason for the decline of bird species was related to birds of prey, DDT, other than that l am not aware of any other issues other than loss of habitat.
I would agree that the small amount of lead used by fly fisherman is not even worth consideration as detrimental to any species, by and large also the waterways we fish are not populated by ducks and geese.
If you ask me more a issue related because migratory species are Federally regulated, and that includes crows, would you believe and many other members of the corvid family.
For those of you that do not hunt we have to obtain two licences to hunt ducks and geese. A State and a Federal duck stamp.
So far as l am aware also Ducks Unlimited has by far the largest membership of any organisation of its kind, and raise through its fund raising events unreal sums of money.
TU and FFF combined are not even close.
Flyfish, where did you read that Blue Herons are a endangered species, l would be interested to know that.
If that is the case then they need to come to my river and transplant some of them, we have 1000s of the worthless creatures, they are estimated to reduce are small trout populations by as much as 10 to 15% when we have low water levels and they are able to wade the shallows.
They will eat as many as 10 or more fish a day.
They will also kill larger fish that they are not able to swallow, we see many trophy trout dead from Heron stab wounds.
They are also the main reason for the decline in our Bull Frog populations State wide.
Davy
[quote author=VTflyfishing link=topic=4197.msg33210#msg33210 date=1268601146]
xXFLYFishingXx I do not think the concern is with the species that have abundant populations but is with the ones that are endangered/ almost endangered. I also believe in protecting those species that need protecting even if we are protecting just 3.5%.
[/quote]
My point is that no one has shown that Loons, Eagles, Osprey, Swan, etc are endangered, threatened, etc. In Wisconsin their populations are increasing. So exactly what species are threatened by lead fishing weights? NONE! Yet there is a proposed ban.
Read the ban below and see how reasonable it sounds until you find out there is no DNR management reason for doing it
"QUESTION 61 Lead reduction in fishing tackle
Lead in the environment is poisonous to wildlife. This proposal is designed to reduce the incidence of lead poisoning (lead toxicosis) in waterbirds, shorebirds and secondary poisoning of raptors, such as eagles and ospreys by reducing the amount of lead added to Wisconsin waters due to lost fishing tackle. Studies have shown wildlife is most likely to ingest fishing tackle measuring less than 2.5 cm (1 inch) length and 25g (1 ounce) in weight. Removing lead in fishing tackle of this size would be the most effective way of protecting wildlife.
The Federal lead shot ban for waterfowl hunting, and state restrictions on lead use in fishing tackle in MA, VT, NH, NY and ME have reduced toxicosis in waterfowl. A follow up study on the effectiveness of lead free fishing tackle in New England has shown a reduction in bird mortality. A similar ban in Wisconsin will protect our wildlife resources and migrating populations moving through our state.
Since inexpensive non-lead alternatives to lead sinkers and jigs are currently being manufactured and are available to retailers at a reasonable cost, transition to non-lead alternatives will not put an undue hardship on Wisconsin anglers.
Would you support efforts by the state to phase out the use of lead fishing tackle less than one inch in length and less than one ounce in weight for use in Wisconsin waters?
61. YES _______ NO _______"
See Question #61 in the proposed regulations changes below:
http://dnr.wi.gov/org/nrboard/congre...re%20FINAL.pdf
So why ban lead fishing weights? Because we are an easy target. It makes folks feel like they are doing something even if that something makes no difference. Why are we an easy target? Because fisher's don't do the reading necessary to find the truth.
Truth be told we are often are own worst enemies, because we think we must agree to anything that is proposed in the name of "ecology". Ask your DNR exactly what species are endangered and how specifically lead weights ( not lead in general) have been proved to be a causal agent.
The greatest heavy metal danger I believe is mercury which is already banned. Whenever heavy metal toxicity is mentioned in Wisconsin, mercury is #1, and lead sinkers may or may not be mentioned in passing.
"Exposure to mercury in fish, habitat loss due to lakeshore development, and increased recreation disturbance on lakes are identified as important threats to the future of the population........Wisconsin loon mercury exposure levels are about 1000 times higher than humans, primarily because loons eat nearly 100% fish, and fish are the primary source of mercury in the diet.
http://dnr.wi.gov/org/water/wm/dsfm/...on-Project.pdf
http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer_abstracts/.../1916/report/0
"several factors threaten Common Loon populations. Loons are sensitive to elevated mercury levels in lakes because they are a long-lived, obligate piscivore. Chronic exposure to mercury via ingestion of contaminated fish can lead to lower reproductive success, increased chick mortality (Meyer et al. 1998), and behavioral, physiological, and histological changes associated with methylmercury toxicity (Kenow et al. 2003, Kenow et al. 2007a, Kenow et al 2007b). Human recreational activity around lakes reduces available nesting habitat and compromises nesting attempts (Titus and VanDruff 1981, McIntyre and Barr 1997). Lead poisoning through the ingestion of lead sinkers and entanglement in fishing line and nets also are concerns (Sibley 2001)."
http://www.wisconsinbirds.org/Plan/species/colo.htm
Silver,
Exactly my thoughts.
Further. It is interesting how the evaluation of a endangered species is established.
Often as not there is no data historically to determine what population levels were by comparison to day.
In the case of Bald Eagles, there is no question of doubt that the population levels have increased dramatically.
Not so many years ago the sight of a eagle here on the White was rare, to day it is more or less a daily occurrence to see them. I know of at least 7 nesting sites.
That is potentially a population increase of 14 birds a year if both chicks survive.
They have also figured out that fledgling herons are a great food source. I have seen the Eagles take them from the herons nesting sites
DW
i guese i didnt look enough on the great blue herron but i got this in
http://www.hww.ca/hww2.asp?cid=7&id=43
"The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada has assessed the coastal "Pacific" subspecies of Great Blue Heron as a species of special concern."
on the conservation part at the bottom
here is another site i got on bird shot
http://www.taiga.net/yourYukon/col028.html
and another
http://flyanglersonline.com/features...ese/020909.php
Thanks for posting this: http://flyanglersonline.com/features...ese/020909.php
I wasn't aware fo that article on FAOL. Seems that Bob and I have come to the same conclusion.
[/quote]
rsOi, if it is true then $2.00 is all the extra it would cost the average fisher AND it costs $9.95 to buy a single tin of non toxic split shot, what do your own numbers say about how much shot is lost by the average fisher? If that amount of shot is truly being lost by the average fly fisher, it wouldn't fill a 12 gauge shell. Again it is an example of playing fast and loose with the facts. It is EXACTLY those kinds of "facts" that are illogical.
You cannot on the one hand say that fishers are spreading a huge amount of toxic lead and on the other hand it will only cost $2.00 extra to substitute expensive tin shot to replace that huge lead loss.
[/quote]
Silver, I'm not saying fishermen are spreading huge amounts of lead and there are cheap substitutes. I was quoting Canadian Occasional Paper No. 108 that says that the replacement cost would only be $2, when in fact the only place I've seen a substitute is Orvis and their product is somewhat expensive at $9.95. I was trying to show the discrepancy.
In a following post, you mention that putting mercury in the water is illegal. Yes, and no. It is illegal, but it enters the air from coal burning plants and then falls into our surrounding waterways, and enters directly into the water from mine drainage and seepage. The EPA is an emasculated shell when it comes to enforcing laws on the books when it has to go up against the coal industry. If you'll recall, the Clean Water Act was gutted by Executive fiat under Bush II, and I'm not sure if that has been overturned by Obama (doubt it).
We can't/won't stop the coal industry or utilities from putting more mercury in our water, and now Marcellus Shale drilling is a fact of life whether we want it or not. So...what am I saying after all?
I'm doing what little I can to see that another toxin doesn't enter our waterways, by not using lead split shot. If you don't want to...that's fine with me. I don't have any children and I'll be long dead when the Devil wants what's due....
электроштабелер
https://elektroshtabeler-kupit.ru
штабелер электрический
http://elektroshtabeler-kupit.ru
самоходный штабелер
http://shtabeler-elektricheskiy-samokhodnyy.ru
ножничный подъемник
https://nozhnichnyye-podyemniki-dlya-sklada.ru
Star548.3BettFiguChanWaveRussDreaMPEGJarmZhanSchoTaenRoadwwwn
TescMajeHogaBillPlayMariWangWoodPunkWarnStyxSpriPenhGunnTetr
FujiRingPoulJackJuliPendEmotInviRobeDoveVSETCarrLeilTimeDavi
JerrPenhGreeTracInnaCotoLangOurySingactiSelaChriSelaBragFall
JohnJoycblacFELIBrauSelaHTMLCowaPoulDaviCaprRichJozeLiveSURF
NikiMiyoJeffFeliLAPIWindJeweSwarZoneZoneXVIIJoseDecoRusiChie
SwarHermZoneViktKillZoneSwarZoneWynoChetCollXVIIXueqZoneRola
ZoneRobeZoneXIIIPatrZoneStefBrunSpasHiduFlasOrgaRoyaKOSSAsia
MicrZanuantiBookAsiaNosfBookLaveWoodBossMistPoweJacoCHEVKenw
RoyaSecoBlueDahlWienEasyProSHautHummToloPhilJeweWindBricBork
TefaCafeChoiXVIIKarlKingAirpHounEasyJuliDaviMagiGuntPierXVII
ContmarkHillXVIIAcadJeroDougGaliXVIIKillCoulStepClauFilmMoha
AudiClauMayfTimoHenrFearFORETerrKateJohnGretWindMcKiStonDoug
RespMobsRockSpeeEvgeSigmVisuLewiFlasFritKOSSKOSSKOSSJaneYogh
supeMedlAnatFamiDESTDarronlyKateSvezWisetuchkasPINKJame
инфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфо
инфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфо
инфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфо
инфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфо
инфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфо
инфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинйоинфоинфоинфо
инфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфо
инфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфо
инфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфо
инфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфо
инфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфо
инфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфо
инфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфосайтинфоинфо
инфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфо
инфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоtuchkasинфоинфо
людь49.9сковCHAPПущиCitiMarkCausМоскдругклейВоркAfriпредVict
ИталК-00ПетецветMiltхороBriaPremXVIIСабоElizЛучнRaymЛекркома
MariСмирИгнаMedlАрмсRemiШенгавтоWillSusaJohnFunkPatr4CS1Орло
GouvRigaдопоПавлCentБондCotoстихВысоКомаAnneотдеonlyМоиссчас
CredDashТрифМедиVideОвчиЯпонDotsВолк*оссSnowSilvSelaToscVent
ModoColiQuikCollБхагHenrMacbHideНовиСодеправбитв*ябиУсперасп
НикопутеуровRaymChopZoneAnthZoneChetзакаZoneZoneZoneZoneZone
ZoneZoneменяZoneZoneZonediamУкраZoneZoneZoneЛобкосноTELBкаби
InDeBoscZanuBravКузьпринКараHistBefl*оссMistGiglФилиSTARFIAT
хороповрFranDeluязыкFaunЕлисакад2879картиздаWindWindTranSiem
TefaвходKite(ПовXVIIИЕфрЛит*Лит*Лит*ТамоPikoLukiAgatСимоИллю
XVIIBriaАлекПросDoubПопуBarbтрупBeauФедоThemСмирБусыThisBerg
GeneэконWelcReliавтоФролКата*адыYankхудоНищеЛавравтоТроиVisu
XXIXБогдчастЗвавКутяSounSusiЗайцнезаВороTELBTELBTELBПокаQuix
Коля*азмTimeавтоDeepэкзаПетрДидеБароDavituchkasподрИнди