Lead Tackle Ban hearing Tuesday 2/23

As far as the lead ban is concerned, I don’t have a problem with stopping the manufacture, but to have to stop using gear that you have on hand is pretty wasteful and expensive.
As far as the Loons are concerned their issue is more complex than lead.
Lakeshore development, waves from pleasure boats and Eagles are probably the biggest issue.
At some point America will have to make the decision which species we want to protect.
I doubt that anyone could realisticly make the case that the Bald Eagle needs to be on the endangered species list anylonger.

Tom schmitt wrote:

As far as the lead ban is concerned, I don’t have a problem with stopping the manufacture, but to have to stop using gear that you have on hand is pretty wasteful and expensive.

So if the state of Minnesota bans the manufacture of lead tackle, but not the use… What exactly does that accomplish?

So if the state of Minnesota bans the manufacture of lead tackle, but not the use… What exactly does that accomplish?
[/quote]

if you dont manufacture it then the use of it will reduce over time

Coletrain27 wrote:

So if the state of Minnesota bans the manufacture of lead tackle, but not the use… What exactly does that accomplish?

if you dont manufacture it then the use of it will reduce over time
[/quote]

Not if it is just Minnesota that bans the manufacture. Just like anything else it will find it’s way in and continue to be used.

It’s a complex issue and trying to ban it in under a decade seems ignorant.

Agree that banning it in mn when the rest of the lower 48 and Mexico hasn’t will only punish fishermen in mn with no real affect on any large scale.

Habitat and heavy recreational traffic does a lot of damage as well, and lead fishing tackle is cherry picking low hanging fruit. Lead is toxic and never leaves the body from what I understand. In a perfect world it’d be great to get rid of it, but so would getting rid of lake homes and all habitat destruction from man. But that’s highly unrealistic.

People get hyper focused on things like lead and turn a blind eye to habitat problems within issues like this, failing to see the whole picture. Don’t disagree lead causes issues, but it’s not the biggest problem birds face. That is extremely frustrating dealing with the birding community.

.

This whole “save the loons” ruse started in the NE United States (Maine, New Hampshire, New York) by a guy named Dr. Mark Pokras.

He did one study himself which showed an astounding 52% of loon mortality was from lead sinkers!

He then proposed a nation wide lead ban to the EPA. The EPA found data from other studies and states that did not even remotely close to the same numbers to back his data up. His numbers were roughly 10X inflated! Read that again.

Some states (they’re listed above) went ahead with it on their own and put a lead ban in place anyway.

The year before the BAN, New Hampshire had six…yes…six…loons die from ingesting lead.

The year after the ban took place….eight loons died from lead. So strange…

However….it doesn’t note how many loons were killed by other sources.

I’m gonna take a wild stab and say lead poisoning was just a tiny fraction of loon mortality.

Mother nature likely killed hundreds herself (predatory fish, poor nesting conditions, flooding, predatory birds, etc)

Man likely killed far more than six with methods other than unintentional lead poisoning (nest destruction from wakes, hit by boats, etc)

The data available for Minnesota shows that lead poisoning is one of the LOWEST causes of death in loons.

But let’s BAN lead

If you’re in support of the ban to “save the loons,” you’re drinking the wrong Kool-Aid

Attachments:

1. 

   Screenshot_20210222-062112.png
   

2. 

   Screenshot_20210222-062018.png
   

3. 

   Screenshot_20210222-061740.png
   

Some more information pertaining to Minnesota.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mprnews.org/amp/story/2020/02/10/effort-aims-to-persuade-minn-anglers-to-go-leadfree-for-loons

The article from MPR (Minnesota public radio) says that the MPCA (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency) estimates that lead causes 14% of loon mortality.

Yet the same article states in the beginning that lead is the NUMBER 1 killer in one of the opening paragraphs.

So which is it? MPR who is supporting the BAN can’t even get their numbers straight.

Makes you go hmmmmmm…..

There’s still money to burn from the BP Oil Spill of all things, and they’re using it to try and BAN a problem that is far down the list.

A small loon problem that has a big affect on approximately TWO MILLION+ ANGLERS in Minnesota! (there’s 1.4 million licensed anglers in the state, and who knows how many under 16?)

If the data showed Minnesota had a declining Loon population, and one of the primary contributing factors was lead, I’d be all for the ban.

But the population is stable and lead is FAR down the list of loon mortality.

The ban is a solution for a problem that really isn’t a problem.

However, it will cost millions of anglers hundreds of millions of dollars in lead replacements.

Spending just a few million dollars on a Loon Hatchery would provide an infinity better return on investment lol (tongue in cheek, but it’s probably true)

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mprnews.org/amp/story/2020/02/10/effort-aims-to-persuade-minn-anglers-to-go-leadfree-for-loons

B-man wrote:

The year before the BAN, New Hampshire had six…yes…six…loons die from ingesting lead.

The year after the ban took place….eight loons died from lead. So strange…

Are you under the impression that EVERY loon that dies gets studied?

Reef W wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>B-man wrote:</div>
The year before the BAN, New Hampshire had six…yes…six…loons die from ingesting lead.

The year after the ban took place….eight loons died from lead. So strange…

Are you under the impression that EVERY loon that dies gets studied?

No, but I’m under the impression that most dead loons that are found are studied to find their cause of death.

The state of Minnesota says that lead is pretty far down the list…..

Are you under the impression that most loons that die from lead sink to the bottom because they’re so heavy, never to be found??

B-man wrote:

No, but I’m under the impression that most dead loons that are found are studied to find their cause of death.

The state of Minnesota says that lead is pretty far down the list…..

Are you under the impression that most loons that die from lead sink to the bottom because they’re so heavy??

ohh, good one

About the numbers though… Here’s the Pokras study: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/10619353_Mortality_of_common_loons_in_New_England_1987_to_2000

It says “Although every loon carcass was not found, our recovery was high, averaging an estimated 28% in recent 4 yr of the study in New Hampshire”

The year before the BAN, New Hampshire had six…yes…six…loons die from ingesting lead.

The year after the ban took place….eight loons died from lead. So strange…

Do you see why this is incorrect now?

B-man wrote:

Pollution Control Agency) estimates that lead causes 14% of loon mortality.

Yet the same article states in the beginning that lead is the NUMBER 1 killer in one of the opening paragraphs.

So which is it? MPR who is supporting the BAN can’t even get their numbers straight.

Where did the article say that lead is the number one killer? I saw where it said that lead is a leading cause, but that’s it. Maybe I missed it?

John you’re correct, it says “a” leading cause, not “the”.

Unfortunately they don’t list what the higher leading causes are, because they wouldn’t fit the agenda.

Confirmation bias is a hard thing to avoid.

So in 50 years will we still be fishing with lead? 25 years? My point is that it’s going to change whether it’s about loons or toxicity. As tackle improves the industry isn’t going to keep using lead anymore then we use blocks of ice in our icebox’s at home. Technology will change. Lead shot, lead slugs, paint, gas, now batteries, wheel weights, the list in endless.

Buzz wrote:

So in 50 years will we still be fishing with lead? 25 years? My point is that it’s going to change whether it’s about loons or toxicity. As tackle improves the industry isn’t going to keep using lead anymore then we use blocks of ice in our icebox’s at home. Technology will change. Lead shot, lead slugs, paint, gas, now batteries, wheel weights, the list in endless.

When the industry is ready and a 3/4oz non-lead jig doesn’t cost $9 a crack things will be different.

If the new replacement is EFFECTIVE and COST effective the transition would be seamless.

Right now it’s not…..so it won’t [be seamless]

When it is, I’ll be all for it and never look back.

But before we go crazy with the legislation: Remember, it’s really easy to ban something. It’s virtually impossible to “un-ban” something.

Right now there are 1.4 million licensed anglers in the state. If each angler had to replace 100 jigs at $5 each, it would cost $700,000,000.

If it saved 100 loons in the coming years, EACH loon’s life saved would be worth SEVEN MILLION dollars to the fisherman of Minnesota.

$7,000,000 for ONE bird.

What’s the restitution value that Minnesota puts on a Loon shot by a poacher? I can’t find a solid number specific to loons. But I’m guessing it’s sadly under $2,000 from what I saw for moose, lynx, etc. A far cry from millions.

Don’t you think we could spend that $700,000,000 on more effective things? I do, and I’m all for it.

Building nesting rafts
Purchasing Habitat
Protecting nesting areas
More buoys and signs in nesting areas
Building habitat
Educating boaters
Educating hunters
Etc

How much would a single nesting raft cost? Hundred bucks?

We could build a few handfuls for the better part of a billion dollars.

If we want more loons, we can do it pretty easily before the industry makes it feasible to transition to non-lead tackle.

Tuesday, February 23, 2021 1:00 PM, HTV 2
House Environment and Natural Resources Finance and Policy Committee

HF157 (Fischer) Lead tackle sale, manufacture, and use prohibited.

https://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/Live/2

B-man wrote:

Right now there are 1.4 million licensed anglers in the state. If each angler had to replace 100 jigs at $5 each, it would cost $700,000,000

Jeez that really puts things into perspective! Seven hundred million dollars! You’re also forgetting about the sinkers too…so it might be even more.

gimruis wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>B-man wrote:</div>
Right now there are 1.4 million licensed anglers in the state. If each angler had to replace 100 jigs at $5 each, it would cost $700,000,000

Jeez that really puts things into perspective! Seven hundred million dollars! You’re also forgetting about the sinkers too…so it might be even more.

Perspective or HYPERBOLE? In a 2 minute google search I found non-lead jigs at $1.50 each for 1/2 oz down to $0.60 each for 1/16 oz.

tswoboda wrote:

Perspective or HYPERBOLE? In a 2 minute google search I found non-lead jigs at $1.50 each for 1/2 oz down to $0.60 each for 1/16 oz.

I didn’t cross check his numbers, thanks.

Coletrain27 wrote:

So if the state of Minnesota bans the manufacture of lead tackle, but not the use… What exactly does that accomplish?

if you dont manufacture it then the use of it will reduce over time
[/quote]

Coletrain27 wrote:

So if the state of Minnesota bans the manufacture of lead tackle, but not the use… What exactly does that accomplish?

if you dont manufacture it then the use of it will reduce over time
[/quote]
And it will allow anglers to use up their supplies rather than throwing it out.

tswoboda wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>gimruis wrote:</div>

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>B-man wrote:</div>
Right now there are 1.4 million licensed anglers in the state. If each angler had to replace 100 jigs at $5 each, it would cost $700,000,000

Jeez that really puts things into perspective! Seven hundred million dollars! You’re also forgetting about the sinkers too…so it might be even more.

Perspective or HYPERBOLE? In a 2 minute google search I found non-lead jigs at $1.50 each for 1/2 oz down to $0.60 each for 1/16 oz.

Care to share a link?

How much for the 3/4 or 1 oz tungsten jigs? It seems almost impossible to find anything over 1/4 ounce?

Or are you talking about the lighter steel/tin alternatives?

Can you find bismuth in bigger jigs?

I’m not against a lead ban on fishing tackle, but the industry isn’t ready with enough alternatives yet

(Judging by Google searching for tackle, there just not much out there)

So, if they ban them, what happens to the billions of ones currently in stock at retail stores? They’ll get sold to anglers and all will be ok.

I remember when they phased out lead shot for waterfowl, and people were up in arms about that, and I think it worked out well.

I also remember when unleaded gas came into existence and again, the world was ending, cars were not going to last 50,000 miles, blah, blah, blah. I think that worked out ok as well.

We all know lead is not good for any living creature, so why would people be opposed to a phase out. With anything like this, it’ll take time, and we’ll have to adjust, but it won’t be the end of the world.

Jig fishing on the rivers will become VERY expensive!

B-man wrote:

Care to share a link?

How much for the 3/4 or 1 oz tungsten jigs? It seems almost impossible to find anything over 1/4 ounce?

Or are you talking about the lighter steel/tin alternatives?

Can you find bismuth in bigger jigs?

I’m not against a lead ban on fishing tackle, but the industry isn’t ready with enough alternatives yet

(Judging by Google searching for tackle, there just not much out there)

Just google “non lead jig head”. And yeah the ones I quoted were either tin or tin/bismuth alloy. As stated they were 1/16 up to 1/2 oz; I didn’t find anything over 1/2 oz but I also only looked for 2 minutes. Yes tungsten is expensive, but that’s not the only alternative to lead.

Again I’m very much against a lead tackle ban, just providing counter-points to the arguments made here.

Anonymous wrote:

I remember when they phased out lead shot for waterfowl, and people were up in arms about that, and I think it worked out well.

I don’t remember how the lead shot ban went down, but I would think that would provide a good model on how to phase out lead tackle. Biggest difference is that was at a national level vs. a state level.

Fisher just testified that the alternatives to lead are many time less expensive then lead… from .07 to ??.

The girl scouts are testifying now about swans.

Held over for possible inclusion in the omnibus bill.

Brian Klawitter wrote:

Fisher just testified that the alternatives to lead are many time less expensive then lead… from .07 to ??.

So he’s a true politician…..lying through his teeth

Will the ban produce an underground market for lead tackle? As was stated earlier there are people who have a good supply of lead and molds.
Will lead tire balancing weights be banned because they are a source of lead?

One thing to consider…all the prices we are currently seeing for non-leaded jigs etc, will rise substantially. Can you imagine the demand when the whole state of MN needs to restock their tackle box!