Lead Tackle Ban hearing Tuesday 2/23

Lead fishing tackle Bill
If you would like to submit comments to the Chair email: [email protected]

Tuesday, February 23, 2021 , 1:00 PM
Environment and Natural Resources Finance and Policy
Chair: Rep. Rick Hansen
Location: Remote Hearing
Agenda:
HF157 (Fischer) Lead tackle sale, manufacture, and use prohibited.
Section 1. [97C.326] LEAD TACKLE.
1.6 Subdivision 1. Definitions. For purposes of this section, the following terms have the
1.7 meanings given them:
1.8 (1) “jig” means a weighted hook. Jig does not include lead fishing-related items, including
1.9 but not limited to fishing line, flies, lures, or spoons; and
1.10 (2) “sinker” means a device that is designed to be attached to a fishing line and intended
1.11 to sink the line. Sinker does not include artificial lures, weighted line, weighted flies, or jig
1.12 heads.
1.13 Subd. 2. Prohibition. A person may not use a sinker or jig to take fish if the sinker or
1.14 jig contains lead and weighs one ounce or less or measures 2-1/2 inches or less in length.
1.15 EFFECTIVE DATE. This section is effective July 1, 2025.
1.16 Sec. 2. [325E.3895] LEAD TACKLE.
1.17 Subdivision 1. Definitions. For purposes of this section, the following terms have the
1.18 meanings given them:
1.19 (1) “jig” means a weighted hook.Jig does not include lead fishing-related items, including
1.20 but not limited to fishing line, flies, lures, or spoons; and
Sec. 2. 1
01/06/21 REVISOR CKM/EE 21-01197
State of Minnesota This Document can be made available
in alternative formats upon request
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
H. F. No. 157 NINETY-SECOND SESSION
01/19/2021 Authored by Fischer
The bill was read for the first time and referred to the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources Finance and Policy
2.1 (2) “sinker” means a device that is designed to be attached to a fishing line and intended
2.2 to sink the line. Sinker does not include artificial lures, weighted line, weighted flies, or jig
2.3 heads.
2.4 Subd. 2. Manufacture prohibited. No person shall manufacture for sale in Minnesota
2.5 a sinker or jig that contains lead and weighs one ounce or less or measures 2-1/2 inches or
2.6 less in length.
2.7 Subd. 3. Sales prohibited. A person may not offer for sale or sell any sinker or jig if it
2.8 contains lead and weighs one ounce or less or measures 2-1/2 inches or less in length.
2.9 EFFECTIVE DATE. This section is effective July 1, 2024.
*Amendments are due for all bills by 1:00pm, Monday, February 22, 2021.

What are the proposing as an alternative? Tungsten? I guess I understand the jigs because they could potentially be swallowed by a fish but is there really enough lead/sinkers being lost that it’s having any major effect on the water? That I would find hard to believe.

Tom Albrecht wrote:

What are the proposing as an alternative? Tungsten? I guess I understand the jigs because they could potentially be swallowed by a fish but is there really enough lead/sinkers being lost that it’s having any major effect on the water? That I would find hard to believe.

I believe the main concern is eagles and loons

Coletrain27 wrote:

I believe the main concern is eagles and loons

Primarily loons. Eagles are more so related to the lead ammo ban because they pick away at gut piles of harvested deer and ingest lead bullet fragments but to my knowledge this proposal does not include ammo like the last one did a few years ago.

Should be interesting to see if MN Fish weighs in on the lead ban. They sent a letter of support for the walleye reduction.

Buzz wrote:

or measures 2-1/2 inches or less in length.

One question I’d have is how are they measuring it?
For instance on a jig there are multiple components. Could be Size of the lead, size of lead+hook length, or total length of lead, hook, and trailer. Lots of variables IMO.

Size, weight are all questions that need answers. I’ve seen x-rays of loons with spinner baits in them. Didn’t seem possible but I guess it is.

Yeah good thing there is no more loons on the whitefish chain, oh btw guess who is the big push for this yup, Crosslake Loon Center.

This is so stupid, how about we bitch about the 350hp pontoons destroying the ecosystem for the loons, oh no we can’t bitch about that because of the tourist it brings to the Crosslake area.

Yeah Yeah, I am sick of the city council and this dumbass loon center.

What is the problem they are trying to fix? Loon deaths? Seems to me like we’ve never had more loons in my lifetime. If it’s just general environmental concern, I would hope they would just limit sales moving forward to non-lead materials. Making it illegal to use what we already own, would be a HUGE cost to anglers.

BigWerm wrote:

What is the problem they are trying to fix? Loon deaths? Seems to me like we’ve never had more loons in my lifetime. If it’s just general environmental concern, I would hope they would just limit sales moving forward to non-lead materials. Making it illegal to use what we already own, would be a HUGE cost to anglers.

There were some studies done and they found that loons injest small lead sinkers, jigs, etc off the bottom, mistaking them for pebbles for their gizzard. I don’t know if the loon population is thriving or not to be honest but it must be having at least some impact otherwise this ban wouldn’t be proposed.

from the lakes i fish……….there are no shortages of loons!!!!! just my observation.

actually pretty fun to sit around a campfire in the evening listening to them talk to each other from different lakes!!!!!

In my opinion I don’t think this has to do with loons at all. It’s just a stepping stone for the peta/ anti folks. This gets them one step closer to banning lead bullets, that’s all.
The loons appear to me to be thriving, they’re pairs on about every lake in the state, some lakes have multiple pairs.
They pull “science” out of their hats and shove it in our faces and expect us to believe every word in the name of “science”. Well I believe what I can see, and I see loons everywhere.
Mark my words, we stand to lose a lot more than a few boxes of tackle should this bill pass.
This has also been discussed recently in another thread. In that thread we discussed real environmental issues that these folks ignore. I’d be a lot less skeptical if they were concerned about the damage being caused by agriculture and road salt as well as the supposed issues that the use of lead is creating.

Idea? How about trapping a loon or 100 and sampling their blood for lead. If this problem is this wide spread that new laws are required to ‘save the loon’ I’d think a little science might help here. Wait… these proponents don’t want science. Duh!

If blood is unattainable a tiny punch biopsy should provide adequate sample for analysis.

Again, way too logical… let’s allow people with more money than brains to continue dictating our outdoor future.

Honestly, if they are worried about the loon population, they need to get rid of some of the eagles. Hear me out. My parents have a place on the WFC and every year for the last 10 years, the pair of loons that nest in their bay has had their chick(s) taken by an eagle. The eagles will actually wait till the chicks plump up a bit for a couple of weeks before they snatch them. Not that I would ever propose getting rid of eagles, but they are huge predators of loon chicks.

gimruis wrote:

I don’t know if the loon population is thriving or not to be honest but it must be having at least some impact otherwise this ban wouldn’t be proposed.

There’s about a dozen per lake around Nevis, I can tell you that much.

From a 1989 MN DNR loon population study:
https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/eco/nongame/projects/loon_1989study.html
About 12,000

Currently on the MN DNR website:
https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/birds/commonloon.html
About 12,000

I don’t think the loon population is in trouble. If you want to see a bird population in trouble google “birds affected by ddt”.

With how prevalent the use of lead tackle is in this state if it is killing the loons-they should be dead and piled up on the shorelines of lakes all over the state.But they are not,that tells me this isnt the problem its made out to be.Email sent

Its probably time to faze in a lead free tackle. There is proof that it is killing loon, swans ect… Not sure if its enough to effect overall populations, but dying of lead poisoning sounds like a terrible way to die. I don’t think its a thing that they can do immediately because there isn’t enough options on the market.
But I guess I’ve also felt that its long over due for a lead ammo ban too.

Muskie1978 wrote:

But I guess I’ve also felt that its long over due for a lead ammo ban too.

I wonder why they didn’t try to push that in there too. In 2018 the ammo portion was a part of the proposal and its not this time. The issue with lead ammo is with eagles. They pick away at gut piles of harvested deer and ingest lead fragments. But I remember reading that the bald eagle population was the highest its been in like 40 years or something so the opposition to it used that data against it.

Netguy wrote:

From a 1989 MN DNR loon population study:
https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/eco/nongame/projects/loon_1989study.html
About 12,000

Currently on the MN DNR website:
https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/birds/commonloon.html
About 12,000

I don’t think the loon population is in trouble. If you want to see a bird population in trouble google “birds affected by ddt”.

Looks like they count loons, like they count wolves and walleye in Mille Lacs….at least they’re consistent!

Waterfowl shotshells starting going to steel or other “non-toxic” material in the early 80s due to eagles ingesting lead pellets when consuming crippled or unrecovered waterfowl. My buddy and I were pissed because we had just started reloading lead shot and the two lakes we duck hunted were the first two to move to steel shot in the state.

There really has to be way more planning into something like this on a lot of levels before it’s reasonable to just ban lead. It’d be like banning rubber tires without a viable, somewhat cost effective replacement for people. Am a closet bird watcher, love birds and would like to start the process of whittling out smaller lead especially, but there has to be some sort of phasing it out on the manufacturer’s part first and developing new non lead products, that takes time. An all out halt seems idiotic. Not that I put that past our wonderful state, that also thought defunding the LEO’S was a brilliant maneuver. Also seems idiotic to not start preparing for a lead ban over a period of time to let not only the consumer, but also businesses and manufacturing to get things set into place to make it happen. A lot of people have stock piles of lead, molds, painting and lure making supplies that are mainly meant for lead. Doesn’t sound like titanium can be powder coated with success for the guys who do their own painting? Guys might be sitting on a lot of spendy stuff worth pennies on the dollar when lead gets band, as well as manufacturing companies that are setup for lead and I’m sure the cost to change over, along with the cost of different, expensive raw materials will skyrocket for them. This will trickle down and make replacing non lead based equipment not cost effective for a high percentage of people. And what happens to all the tons of lead fishermen own and have squirreled away already? I’m for it long term and it’s coming, just a matter of time. But there’d probably be way more support for it if there was a somewhat regulated time line that covered a laundry list of angles this will affect and how to address them without people needing to take out a 2nd mortgage to replace the tackle they already own and have acquired over a long period of time. But that’s asking a lot from people who don’t have the greatest track record for making well informed, educated and reality based decisions, it’s all pie in the sky.

Good thoughts Basseyes.If there was a cost effective similar alternative to lead I could honestly care less about banning it.

There might be some sort of buy back or trade in program.

basseyes wrote:

But that’s asking a lot from people who don’t have the greatest track record for making well informed, educated and reality based decisions, it’s all pie in the sky.

Many politicians only think about the main intention of the bill/law and don’t think about all the collateral implications of it.

gimruis wrote:

There might be some sort of buy back or trade in program.

And who do you suppose would be paying for that?

Tungsten stimulus checks!I think politicians are well aware of the implications of the laws they pass,most just flat out do not care.It probably doesnt effect them personally,or a big enough group of people to have any signifiacant pushback.Add in anything they may gain from the special interest groups and lobbyists and that far outweighs any pushback they may recieve.Every year like clockwork you can count lawmakers working on new bans,restrictions,loss of freedoms.

basseyes wrote:

There really has to be way more planning into something like this on a lot of levels before it’s reasonable to just ban lead. It’d be like banning rubber tires without a viable, somewhat cost effective replacement for people. Am a closet bird watcher, love birds and would like to start the process of whittling out smaller lead especially, but there has to be some sort of phasing it out on the manufacturer’s part first and developing new non lead products, that takes time. An all out halt seems idiotic. Not that I put that past our wonderful state, that also thought defunding the LEO’S was a brilliant maneuver. Also seems idiotic to not start preparing for a lead ban over a period of time to let not only the consumer, but also businesses and manufacturing to get things set into place to make it happen. A lot of people have stock piles of lead, molds, painting and lure making supplies that are mainly meant for lead. Doesn’t sound like titanium can be powder coated with success for the guys who do their own painting? Guys might be sitting on a lot of spendy stuff worth pennies on the dollar when lead gets band, as well as manufacturing companies that are setup for lead and I’m sure the cost to change over, along with the cost of different, expensive raw materials will skyrocket for them. This will trickle down and make replacing non lead based equipment not cost effective for a high percentage of people. And what happens to all the tons of lead fishermen own and have squirreled away already? I’m for it long term and it’s coming, just a matter of time. But there’d probably be way more support for it if there was a somewhat regulated time line that covered a laundry list of angles this will affect and how to address them without people needing to take out a 2nd mortgage to replace the tackle they already own and have acquired over a long period of time. But that’s asking a lot from people who don’t have the greatest track record for making well informed, educated and reality based decisions, it’s all pie in the sky.

I’m fully against a lead tackle ban but I’m going to play devil’s advocate on a few of the points made here.

If I’m reading the bill correctly, the bans would be implemented in 2024 & 2025. That gives 3-4 years for retailers and consumers to clear out inventory. What do you feel would be a better transition period?

Tungsten is getting more common every year, it’s already taking over ice fishing. So I don’t see how we can claim there aren’t viable alternatives. Steel shot is roughly twice the cost of lead and high end non toxic is way more than that. So it’s not like a cost increase to get rid of lead is anything new.

What i don’t understand is why a single state would restrict a company, like water gremlin, from manufacturing tackle that they can legally distribute in 49 other states. If they truly feel lead tackle is harming loons, then I understand the sale and use bans in Minnesota. But a manufacturing ban in 1 single state doesn’t make any sense to me.

I can’t imagine what a pair of 1/4oz tungsten walleye jigs would cost…thinking $10/pair?

I usually pay around .50-.75$ cents per 3/8 oz jig,depending on how much I buy at a time it may even be cheaper.Only alternative I could find was 2 3/8 oz tungsten jigs for 8$ that clam makes,1/4oz I want to say was 3 for 8$.