Is this the ban against poisonous lead or some other new kind of more healthy, tasty, vitamin fortified lead.

I mean, don't Nabisco still make a mighty fine lead snack ? ( I cannot remember it's catchy name )

Hmmm, Kelly was accused of being chicken little less than a week ago. You have until Sept 15 to voice your opinion to the EPA before public comment is closed. Seems the sky IS falling.

Lead is poisonous, I don't think anyone can dispute that, it also happens to be a readily available, cheap, easy to work with material that is common in fishing tackle...so we have to choose, I can say yea it sucks for me, but it's really gonna suck for my son when he is my age if we don't do something about all the poisons & waste that we have haphazardly strewn to all corners of this planet..the is a limit & we are closer t reaching it every day...at our present rate, the future of gasoline isn't what we should worry about, clean water is going to be the most valuable liquid on the plant...ban lead, ban PCBs, ban mercury, ban freon, ban farts if it will help...lead is rather small in the big picture.

Damn right, Mike! Ban it now, I couldn't agree more with what you said.

Well according to all those scientists we're gonna have more water with all those glaciers a melting! There is more lead in your vehicle wheels to balance your tires than there is lead in lakes and streams from lost lures & sinkers. Remember back to your high school science class and that lead is a natural element (Pb) and in the soil at the bottom of those waterways. It is only harmful in large quantities and then it has to be ingested. The same goes for mercury. Freon is harmless unless there it is released into the atmosphere and that is not how freon systems are set up. As for farts...well the EU is looking to target farmers for cow methane "releases".

I'd agree with you if you were right, but you miss the mark on one critical part of your arguement. Read the article Robin linked. Lead is NOT killing birds and making the water unfit. A common tactic among most radical groups is "repeat it enough and it becomes true, especially if it's based remotely on fact." Lead can be dangerous, but it isn't causing a general mahem problem. There are some places where it is, but there is no need for a blanket ban.

Keep your stupid politics off the fishing board. Go slum in off topic.

Wow, somebody musta struck a nerve.

I was speaking science, not politics or emotions sir, and it is highly relevant to fishing, not an off topic.

Europe used a creative method to force electronics manufacturers to stop using lead and other materials in their products. They did not ban lead. Instead they passed a law that if your product contained any lead then the manufacturer/retailer would be responsible for the disposal of that product when the consumer is finished with it. Needless to say, this would be a logistics nightmare and it was an effective way to get the lead out of new electronics in Europe and most of the world since most suppliers don't want to carry two types of inventory.

Rex

so continually saying lead is okay will make it un-poisonous ?

Yup - that's the theory, I'm already back to using lead paint, and am thinking about trying it on my kids eggs ( just some sprinkles, that's just a teeny tiny amount )

Nope, it'll always be poisonous. Saying banning a poisonous substance will save the birds will become true in many people's minds, though. It's poisonous, it's got to be bad, right?

Banning lead to save the waterfowl (the stated intent of the ban) will be an effective thing that is long over due seems to be the general consesus of the posters in this thread. Doesn't matter that the studies show lead is not a significant contributor to waterfowl mortality, it has to be true because, well, lead is poisonous and the people proposing the ban say it will help.

Lead in gut piles left in the field is a significant contributor to the mortality of condors (per the scientific studies), and I fully support the ban on lead bullets in the condor corridor. It may help save an endangered species. Lead in water has no significant effect on waterfowl (from the actual scientific studies) and, therefore, the ban will have no appreciable impact on waterfowl populations. The proposed ban is a feel good thing and nothing more (unless you accept the "conspiracy theory" that the animal rights groups are trying to outlaw hunting and fishing in any way they can).

I'm not telling anyone to support or oppose the ban, I'm just discussing the FACTS. Ya'll have to make up your minds what your positions are.

ah, to heck with it

Agreed. Packing up my 5 wt and headed to Jackson Lake in the mountains to see if I can tease some trouts into taking a fly.

Ya'll make some excellent points & maybe lead doesnt do much harm, but I can't get worked up opposing the banishment of it...I'm done too.

I wouldn't buy into the hype. Lead is only poisonous if ingested. Otherwise it's fine, just another metal on this planet. Just don't eat it! I'm not feelin guilty...

But this might turn into a good thread! I'll brew a pot of coffee

So studies show lead is not a "significant contributor" to waterfowl or fish mortality.... today. So we should just keep on until it reaches the "significant" point? And if we keep on it one day will. I'm going to have to agree with the bass bug, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure( I did not make this one up). I use lead subs and my nymphs sink just fine, it is not like we either we use lead weights or fish on top. But if it came to that I would just fish on top , as it would be selfish of me to put my pleasure ahead of the future generations right to clean air and water. I sleep well at night.

I think its the equivalent of banning tobacco. We know that the numero uno killer in the USA is alcohol; but you can get alcohol even in counties that were voted DRY by the people. Cigs kill a few; alcohol kills a bunch; and you can be a teetotaler and still get creamed by a drunk; but the money is in the booze; so we ban cigerettes in public places but allow a bartender to serve some guy 15-20 beers a night. Compare the lead threat to the natural gas storage and the contamination it is causing worldwide; its a joke. Its all about the $$$$$; its all like a magicians act; a little slight of hand; some distractions to keep people from recognizing what is happening -p-

you are right pearow and we are often powerless to prevent injustice but I do not have to support it or be a part of it. Cigarettes are legal and weed is not. For the system, It is money in selling cigarettes and alcohol and money in keep weed illegal. So I do not smoke, drive drunk or use lead weights but I am not trying to save the planet because it will save its self. I just trying to do the ethical thing. I could toss trash out and say that my little bit is nothing and justify it by saying look at all the trash mine in so tiny.... but I don't. You are either part of the solution or part of the problem, there is no middle ground. Now, let's go fishing!

Why is weed illegal? Cotton had a stronger lobby than hemp in Congress, and Cotton producers helped to stir up stories of jazz musicians giving cannabis to <gasp>white women.</gasp>

So it is today. Why, after all these years, do we still have a drunk driving problem? Because for all intents and purposes, driving while intoxicated is tolerated by society and efforts to create the kinds of laws that would really put a dent in it (i.e., making it a felony punishable with prison time, permanent loss of driving privileges, etc) wouldn't be tolerated by the hospitality industry, which has a mighty powerful lobby behind it.

Wonder why there's still so much illegal immigration? Well, who's working the kitchen in the restaurants we all patronize? Want to stop it? Good luck, dude, you're going up against the restaurant and hotel lobby, not to mention big ag, and you're gonna lose. Besides, they've already done a great job of making sure we're all focused on the immigrants themselves as the problem (oh, those CRIMINAL immigrants! They're CRIMINALS! HORRIBLE! psst, come on in the kitchen and I'll put you to work for $3/hr, ya freakin' criminal! Just let me get back from the Tea Party demonstration first)

Sorry... all I really meant to say was that I'll be happy to use lead substitute eyes, split shot, and what not, whether or not lead is a significant contributor to waterfowl mortality. As for banning lead? Well, do it or don't, it seems to me it's a nice idea but largely cosmetic. I'm not out to save the world either; as far as I'm concerned humans are probably beyond saving at this point. I just hope my daughter grows up to be part of something good.

In no way do I feel obligated to fix the worlds problems but I just try no to make things any worse. You are correct jack and I have 5 daughters and hope your daughters and mine has some clean water to fish in. I don't have the answers and I could be wrong but it is just my opinion. IF the waters ever get ruined by fishing lead... I didn't do it.

I do not believe lead should be banned outright. Lead is still going to be used in ammo. (at least for now) There is more harm to our waterways from medicine, and chemicals flushed down the drain, and lawn chemicals (herbicides and fertilizers)etc... You can grandfather in the lead products now. You can have the fishing manufacturers come up with alternatives, and once their lead stocks have been sold out, then go to the new metal. That way they don't throw a ton of lead into the garbage dump, and money down the drain. If they have to bite the bullet on their lead in stock we all will pay. I have spinner blades, lead on flies, lead in my conventional tackle. I do use more brass products now, and do not think it should be outlawed for the minor percentage of lead that may be in the brass. They can have a 5% allowance of lead in brass, and that would help tremendously. I would tend to worry more about why male fish are becoming feminized via medicines in the water, and the introduction of genetically modified fish such as salmon, and what that might do to our fishing in the future. (not to mention our health) There can be a date set for allowing manufacturers to make the changeover. But as far as an outright ban on lead and brass, I am against it. Especially if they say you cannot use the materials you already have on hand. You can bet the prices on your supplies will drastically increase. Those companies who are already struggling will fold if they just have an outright ban. It would cost money for changeovers, and if they have to get rid of all their lead on hand...it would be something else to consider. What would they do with it? Sell it to China, or dump it? I don't have a good idea on that one. I know the Chinese love putting lead in stuff. I distinctly remember them sending us lead in baby bibs for crying out loud. So maybe they will buy up the surplus, at a steal of course in price.

I also wonder what would happen to the warehouses of lead products that Jann's Netcraft, Barlows, Lure Parts Online etc... I guess they would be forced to sell it to another country at a deeply discounted price.

Two related predictions, by the year 2023:
1) NFL players will have to use hand sanitizers after handling their mouth guards.
B) MLB teams will have replace their dirt and grass annually to keep the fields from being deemed bio-hazards from all the spit.