tlkilian

As it relates birds, lead is usually swallows with the mistaken identity of a small stone. Many bird species do this to aid on the breakup of food within the gizzard. Obviously, lead sinkers aren't small stones and so the birds suffer the effects of lead poisoning as the sinker remains in their gizzard. The reports I read are of a scientific nature and tell what is being observed among a certain population of loons and the effect lead is having on them. Strictly in relation to loons, I've never claimed that thousands of birds are dying due to lead poisoning. I've tried to impress the point that lead is just one of many issues facing the species. In arms of waterfowl as a whole I'll stick by the studies I've found, such as the The Wildlife Society one I posted here, that say that lead shot and fishing bans save a significant number of birds. You can agree or disagree, it's your thought processes. In terms of the Gettysburg point. That Civil War battle was fought over 150 years ago. Everything that was shot out of a rifle, musket, cannon (most cannon shells were cast iron) has now either been picked up for a pretty cool souvenir or is buried underground after over a century and a half of sitting out there. I'm also willing to guess that the amount of lead weights in our rivers, lakes, and streams today far outstrips even the original amount of lead munitions discharged during Gettysburg.

You'll find a lot of mercury contamination, at least here in the east, is a result of emissions from coal fired power plants as mercury enters the water cycle and falls as acid rain. You're right in acknowledging the danger wind turbines pose to birds. That's a legitimate concern that I'm sure some people far smarter than I are working on finding a solution to. The question around this is regulation and promotion. Some things that cause great harm to bird species can't be regulated. Cats, for instance, kill tens of millions of birds (some say a lot more) but no one's coming to regulate your cat because it's unfeasible. Wind energy does have a lot of regulation involved but is encouraged because it is a sustainable source of energy that won't contribite to carbon emissions and can offset the effects of climate change. The lead tackle industry is an easy target because a.) the manufacturers and distributors of the product can feasibly be regulated and b.) it offers no real benefit, as alternatives exist and while they may be more expensive like in the case of brass and steel, they're not so exorbitantly overpriced from lead that people wouldn't make the switch if they had to. On top of those points add in that a lead ban or restriction as is the case in many states would end up helping the environment and you can see why it's being pursued by officials.

All that time invested in volunteering, getting a degree, and educating yourself on the issues and yet you still insist on throwing toxic hunks of metal into our waterways to save a few bucks rather than invest in alternatives such as steel, brass, or ceramic. I neither need nor appreciate you're condescension and want to say that you're wrong about me not getting what I expected. This is exactly what I expected. I just didn't expect it to be such a huge issue for people to say they might be willing to suck it up and pay a bit of extra money for the sake of a cleaner world. It had to turn into 'big brother's coming to take away my rights' and 'it's a PETA conspiracy.' Even if everything I said was nonsense, the fundamental fact that lead is poisonous wasn't convincing enough for people to see that it is an issue that effects waterfowl. I've given stats and reports showing that lead is responsible for mortality. I just thought that maybe the life of a bird such as a loon was worth more than the savings you can get by purchasing lead tackle. Apparently I was wrong. I think if this post has taught me anything it's the fact that the fishing community is a stubborn one and I don't think I'm going too far in that assessment. I appreciate everyone who answered my questions. Please continue to do so if you wish, the more opinions I have the better I can accurately reflect what everyday fishing folk think. Clearly I, like everyone else here, has an agenda, but regardless, everyone's points of view will be reflected fairly and accurately.

It's not an either/or argument, it's the sum total of all environmental stressors that contribute to population stagnation and decline. It's like asking a student why they failed a test. 'Did you not study enough OR did you not understand the material?' Most of the time both are part of why that kid did poorly. Here's a link to a report published by The Wildlife Society: http://wildlife.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Lead08-1.pdf Skip to results of bans. I know at the time of publication it says that the NY lead ban was too new to draw meaningful data from it, but the other numbers are quite compelling.

The BRI, WCS, DEC of NY, and NYSERDA are all well respected non-profits/state government institutions whose scientific reporting influences policy decisions made by the powers who will that dictate the regulation of toxic elements and other threats to waterfowl. I'm from Massachusetts as well and with that being said, I'd strongly disagree with your negative perception of the state. Massachusetts has done a lot to preserve its wild spaces and keep them as nature intended i.e not full of our physical and chemical refuse. There are few places I'd rather live than Massachusetts, whose progressive nature is something I strongly identify with. I sympathize with you on the beaver front. Those guys, while adorable, are destroying all the trees around the two ponds I frequent back home. I'm going to research more into what occurred in the western half of the state. It certainly sounds like a difficult situation to resolve.

I'm perfectly aware that the consumption warning was for people. To put it more bluntly, I don't see why we need to drag in human consumption limits of mercury tainted fish when the question is how waterfowl and in particular loons are effected. You can't equate the two. We're very different organisms. Your observation about the loon population of Toledo Bend could very well be true though I'd like to see some statistics and reports done by reputable conservation groups in the area before I accepted your premise. I see that the Texas Department of State Health Services has a consumption warning on the Toledo Bend Reservoir (I'm not from the area so I could be mistaken as to what you were originally referring to). More importantly your point appears to be a non sequitor. 'This population of birds is doing well inspite of negative environmental impacts therefore these pollutants aren't a problem' doesn't follow itself. I can tell you that other populations here in New York, for example, have been negatively impacted by mercury contamination and lead. We have to disregard the notion that a potentially healthy population in one part of a state is indicative of the health of a population of another population across the country. Generalizations lead to dangerous places when forming thoughtful, nuanced conclusions. Again, if you can find reputable information stating the health of loon populations in Toledo Bend despite mercury pollution, more power to you.

You'll find that most proposed solutions to mitigate mercury involve regulations at the federal level. In 2011 the EPA instituted new rules governing the regulation of toxins emitted into the atmosphere, essentially an addendum to the Clean Air Act. There's not much else you can do to cleanse mercury out of the water once it's there as it binds to the fatty tissues of fish and then moves up through the ecosystem continually concentrating in the ecosystems largest animals (loons, otters, eagles, osprey, etc.). The continued over development of shorelines is remedied through stricter laws governing zoning of new structures, giving bodies of water more of a buffer from homes reducing disturbance of nest sites and the effects of chemical run off from lawns. Conservation easements along rivers creating riperian zones along the banks is very effective, but someone has to fork over the cash to buy a bunch of land so it's a less viable strategy than just telling people they can't build their homes directly on the shoreline.

While it may take excess consumption in people to engender the effects of mercury poisoning it does not take as much mercury contaminated prey to effect a loon due to the significant difference in mass and because their diet is nearly 100% fish eating 3 lbs of fish isn't very much so even if it took that much to start raising their blood mercury levels to wouldn't be an unrealistic amount. If anything it would mean the loon was starving.

According to the Department of Environmental Conservation in New York, about 30% of loon mortality is a result of lead poisoning. Given the low rate of fecundity for loons (1-2 eggs per pair), the low survival rate of chicks (around 40%, according to a report published by the Biodiversity Research Institute in conjuncture with the WCS) and the added pressures of mercury contamination and shoreline development, even decreases in the population that we may consider insignificant can influence the bird's ability to maintain itself in a particular environment.

I'm currently writing a research paper on mercury and lead contamination in the waterways of Upstate New York and their effect on loon populations throughout the region and thought I could use a little insight into whether you have started to see a shift among angler's sentiments towards lead tackle. I know several states have enacted lead bans for smaller sized sinkers/jigs. I also know I've seen quite a bit of vitriol surrounding these laws. Are you in favor of these restrictions? Is the industry generally trending towards greater support for lead alternatives such as steel, brass, ceramic, tungsten, etc? Have you seen the aisles of your local tackle shop becoming more prolific in such alternatives? Answers to these questions would be greatly appreciated. --Tom Kilian

Sorry this post is here twice. I put it on the line, reels, and tackle section too and it got moved back.

I'll be fishing an array of spinners and spoons, as I think trout will key in on them more than anything else. I'll be casting and have to keep everything relatively deep as it's summer, but I guess it all depends where the thermocline is. Lake Willoughby is a glacial lake so it's deep anyways so I think fishing anything over 10 feet would be less than fruitless.

I'm going up to Lake Willoughby for a couple days and I know the place is known for its lake trout. I'm fishing braid with a fluorocarbon leader, but the question is what pound test do I need? I got some 20lb at the local shop because that's all they had but then went out later and got some 12lb. Which should I use? Does it matter a whole lot or would I have measurably better success with one versus the other.

I'm going up to Lake Willoughby for a couple days and I know the place is known for its lake trout. I'm fishing braid with a fluorocarbon leader, but the question is what pound test do I need? I got some 20lb at the local shop because that's all they had but then went out later and got some 12lb. Which should I use? Does it matter a whole lot or would I have measurably better success with one versus the other.

Can I spool up my Stradic Ci4+ 2500 with straight braid or do I need a tape or mono backing. I know some reels can take straight braid, but some can't depending on whether the spool is equipped for it.