Proposed Lead Ban by WDFW

[fishaholictaz]

I'm all about civil liberties and keeping all constitutional rights. You know like prying my gun from my dead cold fingers. Controling polutants in our enviornment is something we can all live with. Not using lead weights is an easy measure. I even go so far as to collect used bullets after a little target shooting. Recycling is good. It's kind of like switching to unleaded gas. I'm sure a lot of you pups don't even know about leaded gas. We all lived and we all still drive our cars. I'm sure we all breath alot easier because of it.

Bodo very well put.

We as sportsman were the first conservationists what happened? If we don't want to loose every thing we better make the adjustments needed to keep the outdoors pristine. And even if the weights don't kill that many birds think of all the waste created by lost weights... If they could find a cheap alternative that is less toxic both as weights and in the raw form why not?
We as people won't put the effort forward to find an alternative unless we HAVE to....

[Maurice]

I fall on either side of the ban, If it passes, as long as I can still fish!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Anonymous]

So now they plan on adding Lake Wenatchee, then probably Potholes. Ya right, this won't impact the bass fishing on other lakes because 'they' won't add other lakes in the future, RIGHT.

[Bigbass Dez]

I'm all about civil liberties and keeping all constitutional rights. You know like prying my gun from my dead cold fingers. Controling polutants in our enviornment is something we can all live with. Not using lead weights is an easy measure. I even go so far as to collect used bullets after a little target shooting. Recycling is good. It's kind of like switching to unleaded gas. I'm sure a lot of you pups don't even know about leaded gas. We all lived and we all still drive our cars. I'm sure we all breath alot easier because of it.

Bodo very well put.

We as sportsman were the first conservationists what happened? If we don't want to loose every thing we better make the adjustments needed to keep the outdoors pristine. And even if the weights don't kill that many birds think of all the waste created by lost weights... If they could find a cheap alternative that is less toxic both as weights and in the raw form why not?
We as people won't put the effort forward to find an alternative unless we HAVE to....

I dont mind efforts to improve our enviroment ! I do believe we as anglers have a important role each time we pick up trash left at boat launchs , wipe down boats after getting out the lake etc .. NO PROB ! But dont "Make" me pay a higher cost for non lead made materiels and tell me the the main reason is because of all the lead that has been left in lakes by way of angling ! That doesnt sit well with me at all ! Tru tungsten Dropshot weights $1.30 each Football head $2.00 each etc ! Is it fair to say that now if a loon swallows a trungten football head it will still live ? Heck no , Because it was the darn hook that killed the bird not the lead !! how is this HELPING the state efforts on saving the Loons ? If anyone can answer that question for me i will stop losing sleep over this !

[G-Man]

BBD - I hear you. Keep in mind that this is all politics until there are sweeping changes made. In politics you step on the least number of toes while you proclaim to have addressed an issue. While banning the use of lead while fishing in certain waters will undoubtedly save a few animals, it pales in comparison to the millions of animals effected by other pollutants and habitat loss. Write to whomever will listen to or read your protest that you support environmental reform that they shouldn't expect you to get behind a law that makes little to no sense and a negligible impact on the animals in which it is supposed to protect.

You all know that even if all the sport fishers in this State were to use non-lead weights, bio-degradable fishing lines and lures with hooks that rust, legislation restricting fishing in some form would continue to be tabled. The only way this will stop is if a large majority of the sport fishers in this State get organized and put pressure on elected officials. If you could honestly say to a government official that you have the backing of half a million or more registered voters, they will do anything you ask.

[Gisteppo]

It seems to me that everyone is stretching from A-Z here when A and B have only been proposed.

Let's take a step back here...

The slippery slope theory is great and all, but they are asking for a few lakes. In order to justify moving to another body of water, 2 things MUST occur: data collection must show that the intended program was effective at its designed target, and whatever new target is identified, it must also be proved necessary through data collection.

While we all live on different parts of the political spectrum, there is still due process, regardless of opinion. They won't just blanket ban lead for X reason, and any of us will not be replacing all of our lead (again, it would be a very low cost change anyways) unless we only fish at the designated lakes.

A good example of this is the phosphorus ban in Spokane. In one particular water system (Lake Spokane, and the Spokane aquifer underneath it) a problem was identified. They noted phosphorus levels were astronomically high in this body of water. After looking at all of the polluters and sources, it was noted that removing detergents that use phosphorus would substantially improve water quality in short order. A ban was placed in the county here.

Have you guys in Grant Co had to change your detergent? What about Pierce Co? A need was identified, a law was enacted, and a result is forthcoming.

The above example is of a similar cost change, but to a MUCH LARGER group of people. If no other body of water is effected, the law will not spread.

Please, keep in mind that it isn't some insidious conspiracy on the part of the <insert hated political division: left, right, martians, etc> to destroy your enjoyment of fishing, it is just a result of a problem identified scientifically.

E

[Mike Carey]

that could be part of the problem. It doesn't seem to be very good science at this point in the discussion. I am feeling a bit odd arguing in favor of lead in the environment, but it would sure be easier if they could point to a study showing X number of dead birds with X % of lead poisoning which conclusively led to their deaths. For example, when DDT was banned it was very clear the damage that was seen on a wide-scale to nesting birds egg shells.

I'm definitely getting worried about all the sinkers I closed with my teeth as a boy. Must explain my dropping out of college the first time. Oh never mind, that was the partying that caused that. :farao:

[Amx]

that could be part of the problem. It doesn't seem to be very good science at this point in the discussion. I am feeling a bit odd arguing in favor of lead in the environment, but it would sure be easier if they could point to a study showing X number of dead birds with X % of lead poisoning which conclusively led to their deaths. For example, when DDT was banned it was very clear the damage that was seen on a wide-scale to nesting birds egg shells.

I'm definitely getting worried about all the sinkers I closed with my teeth as a boy. Must explain my dropping out of college the first time. Oh never mind, that was the partying that caused that. :farao:

Did you drink all that beer out of lead tankards.

[G-Man]

I think you will find in this day and age that the majority of detergents contain a small amount of phosphates or none what so ever. I don't think you are going to see a marked reduction in phosphate levels in the Spokane River.

Some light reading:

Now that the dishwasher phosphate ban is in place in Spokane County, the Spokane River should meet its goal for low phosphate levels, at least according to Representative Timm Ormsby. I am sure the residents around Spokane Lake wait with baited breath. Just don’t hold your breath, or your kid’s breath, or their kid’s breath waiting for a nutrient-free lake from the banning of dishwasher phosphates. Won’t happen. Not even the slightest chance. Diminimus impact. Maybe if our political leaders banned soda pop and French fries… More on that later.

Various assumptions were used to calculate the phosphorus saved from the river by the July 1st ban. Some herald it as a victory for the river, while others have calculated how many new homes they can put up to offset the credit. But is there really an improvement? Let’s explore by examining cigarette butts on the ground. Assume there are 10 million butts on the ground in Spokane and Kootenai County. If we pick up 500 butts tomorrow, did we make a positive impact on the environment? Mathematically, it is an improvement.

Back to soda pop and fries. Legislators can make a real impact if they ban these items. The phosphorus in these items passes through your body and offers a greater phosphorus contribution to water than dishwashers. But hey, if banning phosphates in dishwasher detergents fits the altruistic bill and is a general feel-good, why not? Why don’t we ban triclosan, the active ingredient in anti-bacterial soaps and other consumer products known to cause antibiotic resistance in humans and demasculinization in fish after it passes through a sewer plant? A ban on triclosan could actually make a difference.

The missing information from Ormsby et al. is how much the City of Spokane will save on the estimated $100 million + price tag to add advanced phosphorus removal to its wastewater treatment plant by virtue of the ban. Still waiting for that number. People are still consuming soda pop and fries. There is still phosphorus in the wastewater discharge.

Maybe before we urge lawmakers to solve this or that environmental issue in Olympia, we could collectively adopt an agenda of “educate not regulate”. This remark was attributed to Spokane Councilwoman Nancy McLaughlin as she opined on Mayor Verner’s alternating day irrigation plan which we find measurable, impactful, and highly laudable. Leadership without lawmaking is a virtue.

Futher: Gov. Gregoire signing the nation’s first restriction on phosphates in dishwashing detergent to protect the Spokane River and waters of Washington state. Rico Reed, UCR political chairperson, first suggested the legislation to Rep Timm Ormbsy. In 2006 the Washington Legislature passed the nation’s first ban on phosphates in dishwashing detergent. The law has two phases: the first phase starts on July 1, 2008, when the phosphate ban started in two counties (Spokane and Whatcom) with severe water quality problems. The second phase is in 2010 when the phosphate ban extends statewide.

The point to all this is, yes be paranoid and do your own investigating. If it doens't pass the sniff test, it's probably a load of ****. And yes, the reason for the proposed lead ban doens't pass my sniff test. Someone must have dropped a ton of splitshots to account for 39% of Loon mortalities!

[Gisteppo]

The discharge phosphorus levels at the tailpipe of the Spokane wastewater treatment plant dropped markedly about 6-8 weeks after the ban, but that is apparently not enough for your article's protagonist. I can tell you that as a resident of Lake Spokane, we have seen no change this year, but water quality sampling showed a decrease in phosphorus levels per the 3 agencies testing (DEQ, Avista, Spo Co).

The phosphate ban has to meet critical criteria to pass into a statewide ban, and to this point has not met its goals.

That discussion is for another thread, however, if you chose to start it.

E

[Amx]

How am I suppose to see my way around the lake on a moonless night without the phosphates glowing and showing the way?

[Nik]

How am I suppose to see my way around the lake on a moonless night without the phosphates glowing and showing the way?

Now that's actually funny. It is somewhat ironic that after the phosphate ban, lake Spokane was as nasty and swampy as I've ever seen it this summer. Hopefully they run some current through there next year to clean that gunk out from time to time, and then in a few years the lower phosphate levels will have their intended impact <crosses fingers>.

As far as the lead issue again, do we really need a study to tell us exactly what is going on here? is there a number of loons that die per year from lead ingestion that is acceptable to everyone? like if only 100 die per year then oh that's ok, so long at it's not 200? if there's a chance that something i leave in the environment could be responsible for wildlife dying, that's good enough reason for me personally to make a commitment not to leave it. lead is proven to be deadly if ingested. doesn't it make enough sense that we shouldn't be leaving chunks of it in lakes and rivers?

[Anonymous]

As far as the lead issue again, do we really need a study to tell us exactly what is going on here? is there a number of loons that die per year from lead ingestion that is acceptable to everyone? like if only 100 die per year then oh that's ok, so long at it's not 200? if there's a chance that something i leave in the environment could be responsible for wildlife dying, that's good enough reason for me personally to make a commitment not to leave it. lead is proven to be deadly if ingested. doesn't it make enough sense that we shouldn't be leaving chunks of it in lakes and rivers?

See, this is the point - what is the level of the impact? Again, I feel kind of weird taking up the devil's advocate position here, but degree is something that should be addressed.

We kill fish and various wildlife all the time when we go recreate, be it by discharge of gas and oil from our motors, or fishing line fouling up birds, or any number of things. So if the criteria is it kills some loons and so should be banned, then we better get ready to just sit in our rocking chairs and do nothing.

I think the word LEAD has such an ugly connotation to it that we mistake the banning of it as doing something meaningful when in fact there may be other more effective ways to protect wildlife. For example, how many birds die from fishing line every year? I'm going to take a guess that it is far more than from lead. So let's ban all fishing line that isn't biodegradable and out of the environment in say a 6 month window. Now we are talking about a REAL impact on wildlife mortality. If you're in favor of a lead ban, I'm sure we can start coming up with a nice list of things to ban that are much more harmful every year. Not picking on you Nik, just wondering sometimes how we as a society prioritize different actions to take.

Here's an interesting bird mortality study on various human interactions with birds:

Bird Mortality

And the author's conclusion statement:

"Based on existing projections and projections made in
this paper, annual avian mortality from anthropogenic
causes may be near 1 billion".

[Gisteppo]

Mike, do keep in mind that every bird that dies from a fishing line related injury is theoretically protected by law. It is illegal to dispose of the line in a way that would allow the animals to come in contact with it. The lead law would be providing the same protections on the proposed lakes, restricting behavior of humans to prevent injury to animals.

E

[Mike Carey]

Mike, do keep in mind that every bird that dies from a fishing line related injury is theoretically protected by law. It is illegal to dispose of the line in a way that would allow the animals to come in contact with it. The lead law would be providing the same protections on the proposed lakes, restricting behavior of humans to prevent injury to animals.

E

yes, but would you agree that a theoretical protection is no protection if the outcome is the same? Fishing lines break all the time and birds die as a consequence. But we don't see a ban on fishing line, or a requirement to only be allowed to use biodegradable line. Why? Because that kind of ban would be next to impossible to impose. But this ban (may) happen because it's easier to impose - it's got a strong element of "feel good" and makes us think we are accomplishing something when the reality is we don't even know what the actual impact is. We know this - it's a heck of a lot less than any other method of death humans impose on birds as outlined in the study I linked above.

[Nik]

Mike first of all thanks for playing devil's advocate here. Is there such a thing as biodegradeable line? let me know if/when there is, and so long as it's of the same general quality as say Seaguar or Triline 100%, i will buy some and try it out. The difference with lead sinkers is that there is an alternative that is better in every aspect except price, and other alternative that are similar in price to lead but lacking in some other aspect. You're not being asked to make any sacrifices on quality. So in a way I am agreeing that one of the reasons this is being proposed is because of how easy it would be for everyone to switch, which is all I'm suggesting. It's easy, and though there is and always will be disagreement on how much it will help the environment, it's certainly not going to hurt it, so recycle, carpool, turn off your lights when you leave the room, and don't use lead inkers.

I would also argue that when someone breaks off, they are leaving usually a few yards of line in the water. I realize that as a bass fisherman I have a lot less line out at a given time than many other types of fishing, but on a break off I am reeling down as far is I can go into the water then pulling straight up; most of the time i'm breaking off right at the knot. I think the line that kills birds is dude that gets a snag in his line 50 yards up and coils it up around his hand then throws it in the water, which is illegal. If you use quality line in the first place, you're not going to break off nearly as often, which solves both the line problem and the sinker problem.

[Gisteppo]

No I absolutely agree with you on that point Mike. The only people that will be protecting the birds are those that abide by the law. But that is the standard we live within in a country that holds personal freedoms above all else. We put laws and controls in place as best we can, and rely on enforcement for the remainder. Some abide, some don't. I don't think the law should be thrown out just because compliance isn't 100%, however.

E

[G-Man]

Hey Nik, your on it about the discarded fishing line. As kids we could always count on finding some discarded fishing line along the banks of a river or lake which we would use to handline fish along with a discarded drink container. Man were our parents generation pigs or what! I can only imagine how much of the stuff is floating around under water these days. As for biodegradable line, it is available and called appropriately, Bioline. I haven't tried any out myself, but plan to do so in the near future. I can see myself using it for the last 30 or so feet of my braided line setup and for leaders. Remember to recycle your monofilament and super lines, most tackle shops have drop boxes/collection areas for them.

[YellowBear]

It seems that every year the sportsman are loosing something.
There always seems to be another ban or two.
Over the years we have lost access to beaches for clams and crab.
We have lost access to hunting lands.
We have lost access to camping sites.
We have lost state parks.
We have lost fish hatcheries.
We have lost Pheasant farms.
We have lost the use of most live bait.
We have lost most of the natural reproducing fish stocks.
We have shorter seasons and in some cases smaller limits.
These are but a few things that I can think of at this time.
So when I see another (PROPOSED BAN), that effects the sportsman I get a bit tight jawed.

It was mentioned above that it would be nice to see Long lake flushed out because it was nasty and swampy.
Just where do you suppose that gunk goes?

[Gisteppo]

The gunk is a function of water temp as much as it is pollutants. The flushing cools the water, the algae bloom dies.

Please note that your list is a function of defunding many of those programs due to tax cuts as well, not necessarily that the state wants to reduce access or recreational opportunity.

E