Current Prevalence of Alternative Sinker Material

[tlkilian]

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

 

[flyingmonkie]

1) The sport we love depends on healthy ecosystems.  I'm in favor of anything that helps out Mother Nature.  As long as the bans are based on fact (I assume they are), then I support them.

2) The industry is trending away from lead, but lead is so pervasive, I don't think you can say it's been significant yet.  Most of the marketing around lead alternatives (especially tungsten) focusses on performance increases over "being green".  I think this is smart... not all anglers will agree with me about the impact we make on the environment, but all anglers like the thought of catching more fish.

3) Tungsten is definitely taking up increasing shelf space, but it still makes up only a small percentage of what's available.  

Lead is going to be hard to get rid of.  Not only is it cheap, but it's easy to work with.  I'm just guessing, but I doubt there are a lot of folks that pour their own tungsten jig heads.  Can you even do that???

[Bluebasser86]

Tungsten is becoming more popular, but I think it has much more to due with it's advantages over lead (smaller size, increases sensitivity), than it does concerns over waterfowl and loon populations. 

We have no restrictions here, and the waterfowl populations are doing just fine. 

I've been fishing a long time around water birds of all varieties. It's very rare for me to see a dead one. From what I've read about the loons, it sounds like a lot of the "facts" are either opinions, or fabrications. 

I know we need to do a lot more to help the environment, I feel like I do more than most to minimize my impact. If it is something that is truly having a significant negative effect, then yes I agree with it. However, if it's the result of a tiny fraction of birds being injured or dying, then I don't think it's needed. 

@flyingmonkie Tungsten has an extremely high melting point (6,191 degrees), that requires very specialized equipment which is part of why it's so much more expensive. 

[dwh4784]

Tungsten is harder to work with, but not a valuable metal so still relatively cheap. I got my tungsten wedding ring for roughly $20 seven years ago and it still looks brand new, it can't be scratched by anything short of a diamond. Jewelry stores will absolutely screw you on it if you let them though.

For fishing weights, no idea how they melt it but it is so dense and strong it makes perfect sense. I'm very much in favor of going away from lead in anything that may end up in the water.

[tlkilian]

7 minutes ago, Bluebasser86 said:

Tungsten is becoming more popular, but I think it has much more to due with it's advantages over lead (smaller size, increases sensitivity), than it does concerns over waterfowl and loon populations. 

We have no restrictions here, and the waterfowl populations are doing just fine. 

I've been fishing a long time around water birds of all varieties. It's very rare for me to see a dead one. From what I've read about the loons, it sounds like a lot of the "facts" are either opinions, or fabrications. 

I know we need to do a lot more to help the environment, I feel like I do more than most to minimize my impact. If it is something that is truly having a significant negative effect, then yes I agree with it. However, if it's the result of a tiny fraction of birds being injured or dying, then I don't think it's needed. 

@flyingmonkie Tungsten has an extremely high melting point (6,191 degrees), that requires very specialized equipment which is part of why it's so much more expensive. 

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. 

[Bluebasser86]

From a quick search, Loon.com list 49% of loon deaths in New Hampshire from 1989-2011 were a result of ingesting lead fishing lures. That sounds like a lot, except 49% is 124 birds. Spread out over 22 years of study, it breaks down to 5.6 loon deaths a year. Are the numbers similar for New York as well?

I don't know what the loon population is like in the NE, and we have very few in this area (they've actually just recently began appearing on some of our lakes where they've never been before), so I'm admittedly very ignorant on the subject. I'd be curious to know what is being done about these other major issues like the mercury and habitat loss due to development? It's only going to do so much to take away the use of lead if the remaining birds have no where to lay their eggs or if all the fish they're eating contain dangerous levels of mercury that are going to eventually kill them anyways. 

[Tim Kelly]

We had a similar situation here in the early nineties with a few very vocal people claiming swan deaths were directly caused by fishing weights. They had x-rays of swans with lead weights in their gizzards, where they have grit to grind up their food before swallowing it, which had caused them to ingest the lead. While I'm sure it is not only possible, and that some swans died as a result of this, I seriously doubt it was a significant cause of swan or waterfowl death. Lots of swans are killed because they fly into electric power lines for example, and I'm sure you could find a lot more corpses under power lines than you would lead poisoned birds on the water. The trouble is, it only takes a very few, very vocal, people to start shouting and it becomes an issue. 

 

I would be inclined to resist all bans like this as they're not usually based on a significant risk to the animals they're aiming to protect. Many other human made threats are far more significant, but it's relatively easy to pick on something relatively minor and make the uneducated general populous agree that "something must be done". Politicians fall over themselves to line up with these type of causes, and so we end up wrapped up in pointless regulation and added expense which results in a few people feeling smug and very little difference to the animals! 

[Catt]

@Bluebasser86 & @Tim Kelly

Went through all of this with the lead ban on duck hunting!

We can not shoot ducks with lead in rice & soybean fields because of the risk of lead poisoning...these are the same rice & soybean fields we shoot doves in with lead shot!

The reported "scientific" evidence said tens if thousands of dead ducks & geese died annually but not a single photograph!

As for mercury poisoning!

There has been a consumption warning on Toledo Bend since the 70s. If you analyze the research data one would have to eat 3 pounds of fillets monthly per person!

[Tim Kelly]

Same over here. I do wonder where these people come up with their "scientific" evidence. You'd think the sportsmen out in the field week in week out would see a problem if there were one, but it doesn't seem to be the case. A lot of the evidence for a lead shot ban over wetlands here in the UK conflated wildfowl dying from the effects of being wounded by lead shot, and subsequently dying, with animals ingesting lead. 

 

Makes you very wary of scientific evidence and the motivations of those that use it in their cause!

[Logan S]

The real problems are too hard and/or expensive to fix, so those with an agenda to 'fix' the environment settle on the easier 'problems'...In this case it's lead fishing weights.  

I'm sure there are some adverse effects from lead if you look hard enough, however I'm extremely skeptical that it actually rises to the level where it would legitimately require this kind of attention.  

[12poundbass]

6 hours ago, Bluebasser86 said:

From a quick search, Loon.com list 49% of loon deaths in New Hampshire from 1989-2011 were a result of ingesting lead fishing lures. That sounds like a lot, except 49% is 124 birds. Spread out over 22 years of study, it breaks down to 5.6 loon deaths a year. Are the numbers similar for New York as well?

I don't know what the loon population is like in the NE, and we have very few in this area (they've actually just recently began appearing on some of our lakes where they've never been before), so I'm admittedly very ignorant on the subject. I'd be curious to know what is being done about these other major issues like the mercury and habitat loss due to development? It's only going to do so much to take away the use of lead if the remaining birds have no where to lay their eggs or if all the fish they're eating contain dangerous levels of mercury that are going to eventually kill them anyways. 

Like you're quick search shows you can take numbers from this research and that research twist a couple things and boom you have an eye catching article that grabs everyone's attention. Journalism is dead, we now a days have to do our own research because every environmental group and politician has their own agenda and will do anything they can to get what they want. The 49% stated in the article is technically correct but there's fine print we all have to read. What's the percentage of loons and their eggs/babies lost to predation? How many are lost to natural causes? I'm willing to bet more than 49% per year not per 22 years. Lead weights in fishing isn't the issue. Soft plastic lures are more of an issue to wildlife than lead but you rarely hear about that. Don't get me wrong I use them all the time but I make a conscious effort to properly dispose of them when I'm done, plus the biodegradable lures suck!

[Choporoz]

http://vet.tufts.edu/wildlife-medicine-program/research-2/loon-health-and-mortality/

Not exactly exhaustive research, but looks to be a lot more 'scientific' than many of the sensationalist info on the interwebs.

I think that its safe to say that lead in our waters from fishing and birdshot almost certainly has a statistically significant negative effect on loons.  As to whether that impact warrants (drastic?) changes of a legislative nature, I won't offer an opinion yet.  I do think that 'better' research is going to be quite challenging -- finding ill/dying/dead birds, determining the extent to which lead was a factor, etc.   Loons are a bird that captures the attention and imagination of anyone that enjoys the waters they frequent, so they are getting the attention here.  But, I suspect that IF there's a significant negative impact from lead on loons....then, there's probably a significant negative impact on other wildfowl....and possibly other species, as well.  I really hated the idea of giving up lead shot shells, but I have overcome that outrage and adjusted just fine.  I will keep an open mind and support moving towards 'safer' fishing materials, if further science suggests.

[J Francho]

The effects of any animal ingesting lead is well documented.  What I want to know is has there been a dramatic decrease in loon mortality due to lead restrictions?  There has not.  It's a bunch of bull.

[MIbassyaker]

9 hours ago, Bluebasser86 said:

From a quick search, Loon.com list 49% of loon deaths in New Hampshire from 1989-2011 were a result of ingesting lead fishing lures. That sounds like a lot, except 49% is 124 birds. Spread out over 22 years of study, it breaks down to 5.6 loon deaths a year. Are the numbers similar for New York as well?

I don't know what the loon population is like in the NE, and we have very few in this area (they've actually just recently began appearing on some of our lakes where they've never been before), so I'm admittedly very ignorant on the subject. I'd be curious to know what is being done about these other major issues like the mercury and habitat loss due to development? It's only going to do so much to take away the use of lead if the remaining birds have no where to lay their eggs or if all the fish they're eating contain dangerous levels of mercury that are going to eventually kill them anyways. 

Well, that's not all loon deaths. It's a sample, taken to obtain an estimate of the rate. You could never examine all loon deaths since nobody could ever recover all loon carcasses. If half of the carcasses you find are deaths attributable to lead ingestion, what fraction of the carcasses you didn't find are due to lead ingestion?  Or rather, what reasons are there to think half is an overestimate? If it could be an overestimate, it could just as well be an underestimate.

1 hour ago, J Francho said:

The effects of any animal ingesting lead is well documented.  What I want to know is has there been a dramatic decrease in loon mortality due to lead restrictions?  There has not.  It's a bunch of bull.

I don't see why you should expect loons to respect state borders, or expect lead sinkers already present at the bottoms of lakes before the ban magically disappear after the ban.

Look. nobody on this board has a truly objective view of this. The OP is asking enthusiasts if they agree with efforts to make their fun time less affordable and more inconvenient. Everyone agrees, "yes, lets look at the evidence", and then immediately find reasons (agendas, politics, motivations, sensationalism, etc.) to ignore reports of evidence whenever it tells them things they don't want to hear.

[webertime]

I am not if favor of the ban for a few reasons.  Number 1 is that they are a Migratory Bird...  Bird eats a Lead Sinker in Georgia and dies in NY, it's NY's fault?  That's irrational.  It has to be an all or nothing sort of ban, this state by state stuff does no good. 

Lead sinker in a solid stable state sitting on the bottom (or snag) leach a miniscule amount of lead into the environment (FAR less than what gets washed into the rivers from eroding river banks).  There are probably tens of millions of lead sinkers in the waters we fish collectively.  So we ban lead NOW...  there are still tens of millions of lead sinkers in the water...  That's more than enough to poison all the loons.

 

Lead is used in the paint on our baits too, that's not going away.

 

Tungsten availability is expanding and the marketing of it is what makes it noticeable on shelves.  Fishing is the only "hobby" that I can think of where you are constantly buying replacements, we even have the Tackle Monkey.  What other "hobby" does that to the same extent? 

 

 

What I would be interested in knowing more about is more of a holistic view on the lead vs tungsten debate.  Tungsten is a VERY hard material, how much energy is used to Melt and form them into weights?  How is it gathered from the environment? (effects of mining it and the energy used)  I think that a comparison of that vs Lead would show that on the whole Tungsten Weights aren't significantly better for the Earth than lead is.  An example of this is Aluminum vs Steel in trucks.  It's lighter and pretty strong, you get better mileage due to the lighter weight!!!!  Less gas burned!   Then go Google Aluminum Smelting.  The amount of energy used (waste produced) to make Aluminum for the truck beds/frames is greater than the reduced waste created by having the Aluminum components in the truck.

[tlkilian]

2 hours ago, Catt said:

@Bluebasser86 & @Tim Kelly

Went through all of this with the lead ban on duck hunting!

We can not shoot ducks with lead in rice & soybean fields because of the risk of lead poisoning...these are the same rice & soybean fields we shoot doves in with lead shot!

The reported "scientific" evidence said tens if thousands of dead ducks & geese died annually but not a single photograph!

As for mercury poisoning!

There has been a consumption warning on Toledo Bend since the 70s. If you analyze the research data one would have to eat 3 pounds of fillets monthly per person!

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.  

[Catt]

1 minute ago, tlkilian said:

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.  

The consumption warning is for people not loons, the loon population is doing fine & growing.

This area down south aint known for loons but Toledo Bend has a health population in spite of no bans on lead weights or mercury contamination.

Explain that one!

[Fisher-O-men]

Probably cracking down on idiots that put lead directly into the loons (shooting them) would save far more loons.

Guys, be careful what you willingly give up.  There are powerful groups with the agenda of shutting down any activity that in any way interferes with "nature".  Plainly that means shutting down both hunting and fishing!  Never mind that the conservation efforts of both sports greatly enhance the populations of animals.

[12poundbass]

All of us on this site (there may be a couple of trolls) are here because we are outdoorsmen/women. We care about our natural resources,wildlife, and the sports we choose to pursue. We love the outdoors. You hear a hundred different  birds every day and never think twice about it. You hear a loon and you almost always stop in your tracks and look. My son is six and there are a bunch of birds he can name by sight. He knew the sound of a loon by age three. These are majestic birds that we all love. I'm willing to bet the original poster wasn't expecting this to go the way it's gone. I think it's because we as sportsman (and women) are always on the defensive. The finger pointing is always in our direction. Look at the California Delta a year or two ago or Mills Lacs (I think that's the right lake) over the walleye situation and how the bass is to blame or private waters on public waterways. These are what the general public hears about. Do they ever hear about the conservation efforts of the NWTF,RMEF,DU,BASS Nation clubs, and so many others? Rarely if at all. We as a nation have steered towards focusing on the negative because it's "news worthy" and less on the positive. My belief is the conservation efforts towards our sports far outweighs this whole lead issue by far. Am I open minded to a better alternative to lead? Absolutely! I have tungsten weights. However there are bigger fish to fry (no pun intended)!  

[tlkilian]

10 hours ago, Bluebasser86 said:

From a quick search, Loon.com list 49% of loon deaths in New Hampshire from 1989-2011 were a result of ingesting lead fishing lures. That sounds like a lot, except 49% is 124 birds. Spread out over 22 years of study, it breaks down to 5.6 loon deaths a year. Are the numbers similar for New York as well?

I don't know what the loon population is like in the NE, and we have very few in this area (they've actually just recently began appearing on some of our lakes where they've never been before), so I'm admittedly very ignorant on the subject. I'd be curious to know what is being done about these other major issues like the mercury and habitat loss due to development? It's only going to do so much to take away the use of lead if the remaining birds have no where to lay their eggs or if all the fish they're eating contain dangerous levels of mercury that are going to eventually kill them anyways. 

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. 

 

["hamma"]

1 hour ago, J Francho said:

The effects of any animal ingesting lead is well documented.  What I want to know is has there been a dramatic decrease in loon mortality due to lead restrictions?  There has not.  It's a bunch of bull.

^^^ this

 and lemmie  explain

 I live in Massachusetts, and we have a lead ban due to the "loon" issue

 Many years ago I was a member on another website that was designed for the New England Sportsman. Hunters and anglers alike, One day I read a post about the "new" board of directors for fisheries management being overrun by PETA, The poster was a well known angler that was actually affiliated with the site. The post asked for people to attend a meeting in Boston to combat these "new" members of the board being elected in Massachusetts. A year or so after this? the site disbanded

 segway to a few years prior

  A year or two prior a couple "scientists" determined that the traps being used in the state for beaver, were inhumane and needed to be banned. So the state banned the traps in question,... What happened? the beavers started to overrun the western part of the state. Damming up streams and small rivers wherever they could. Turning prime, taxable lands into swamps. Millions, and Millions of dollars in taxes were lost. People were losing their prime farmlands to water laden  now "consevation" lands due to the beaver overpopulation. And legislation had to once again be changed to repair the damage done.,. Oh by the way, these "scientisits" were named. 

Come to find out at the meeting in Boston I attended to battle the "new" board members being elected? same names as the "scientists" So when I got my turn to speak I simply pointed out that these "new" board members are the same "scientists" that deemed the beaver traps inhumane, and caused Millions, and Millions of tax dollars worth of damage out in the western section of the state due to the "beaver mishap" then I said "Whats it going to take, bears raiding trashbarrels in Boston before you see the harm thats on its way by appointing these"scientisits" to our fisheries board of directors??". 

 The motion to appoint was shut down, and for several years afterward things went quiet. Then next thing ya know, theres a lead ban in Massachusettes due to the decline in loons,..

Ummm A heads up! theres maybe and I say maybe,. 2 or 3 bodies of water with nesting loons in Massachusetts, Quabbin reservior, and Wachusett reservior, both are severely restricted as far as fishing goes.  and the Conn River

HMMMM sound fishy? oh it is,...truely is, and wouldnt ya know that a few years after the "meeting" in Boston, the  "scientisits" got their appointment.

 The Squeaky Wheel gets the what? oh yeah,... PETA  (and I dont mean the peta my brother named his dog Pete after,)..Pain In The A**

 I do love fishing this area and Quabbin rules, Maines awesome,..But Massachusetts s**** to live in.

 I had over a hundred and fifty or so, hand tied jigs (bassjigs that is),.nevermind the dozens of hair jigs, then maribous that I hand tied as well, add in the seven or eight different styles of weights I use,... that ALL, yes,..ALL needed replacement now

 I have since given many of my jigs away to friends that live in states that allow lead,. And have re-placed a mere fraction of what I had tied up. Some weights I have replaced as well, but there are still many techniques I cant employ now as my weights options are limited to either tungsten, tin, or steel and many of the weights I had in lead, are not made in either. And I have spent the last few years seeking alternatives,... to no avail

 Be sure the "reports" handed in to your states legislation is tried and true before you just allow stuff to happen. PETA is EVVVEERRRYYYWWWHHHEEERRREEEE!

[tlkilian]

59 minutes ago, Catt said:

The consumption warning is for people not loons, the loon population is doing fine & growing.

This area down south aint known for loons but Toledo Bend has a health population in spite of no bans on lead weights or mercury contamination.

Explain that one!

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. 

[J Francho]

9 minutes ago, tlkilian said:

I can tell you that other populations here in New York, for example, have been negatively impacted by mercury contamination and lead.

Is it lead, or is it the mercury?  Where is the data that says loons are doing better now that sales of lead in NY has been stopped?

[tlkilian]

29 minutes ago, "hamma" said:

^^^ this

 and lemmie  explain

 I live in Massachusetts, and we have a lead ban due to the "loon" issue

 Many years ago I was a member on another website that was designed for the New England Sportsman. Hunters and anglers alike, One day I read a post about the "new" board of directors for fisheries management being overrun by PETA, The poster was a well known angler that was actually affiliated with the site. The post asked for people to attend a meeting in Boston to combat these "new" members of the board being elected in Massachusetts. A year or so after this? the site disbanded

 segway to a few years prior

  A year or two prior a couple "scientists" determined that the traps being used in the state for beaver, were inhumane and needed to be banned. So the state banned the traps in question,... What happened? the beavers started to overrun the western part of the state. Damming up streams and small rivers wherever they could. Turning prime, taxable lands into swamps. Millions, and Millions of dollars in taxes were lost. People were losing their prime farmlands to water laden  now "consevation" lands due to the beaver overpopulation. And legislation had to once again be changed to repair the damage done.,. Oh by the way, these "scientisits" were named. 

Come to find out at the meeting in Boston I attended to battle the "new" board members being elected? same names as the "scientists" So when I got my turn to speak I simply pointed out that these "new" board members are the same "scientists" that deemed the beaver traps inhumane, and caused Millions, and Millions of tax dollars worth of damage out in the western section of the state due to the "beaver mishap" then I said "Whats it going to take, bears raiding trashbarrels in Boston before you see the harm thats on its way by appointing these"scientisits" to our fisheries board of directors??". 

 The motion to appoint was shut down, and for several years afterward things went quiet. Then next thing ya know, theres a lead ban in Massachusettes due to the decline in loons,..

Ummm A heads up! theres maybe and I say maybe,. 2 or 3 bodies of water with nesting loons in Massachusetts, Quabbin reservior, and Wachusett reservior, both are severely restricted as far as fishing goes.  and the Conn River

HMMMM sound fishy? oh it is,...truely is, and wouldnt ya know that a few years after the "meeting" in Boston, the  "scientisits" got their appointment.

 The Squeaky Wheel gets the what? oh yeah,... PETA  (and I dont mean the peta my brother named his dog Pete after,)..Pain In The A**

 I do love fishing this area and Quabbin rules, Maines awesome,..But Massachusetts s**** to live in.

 I had over a hundred and fifty or so, hand tied jigs (bassjigs that is),.nevermind the dozens of hair jigs, then maribous that I hand tied as well, add in the seven or eight different styles of weights I use,... that ALL, yes,..ALL needed replacement now

 I have since given many of my jigs away to friends that live in states that allow lead,. And have re-placed a mere fraction of what I had tied up. Some weights I have replaced as well, but there are still many techniques I cant employ now as my weights options are limited to either tungsten, tin, or steel and many of the weights I had in lead, are not made in either. And I have spent the last few years seeking alternatives,... to no avail

 Be sure the "reports" handed in to your states legislation is tried and true before you just allow stuff to happen. PETA is EVVVEERRRYYYWWWHHHEEERRREEEE!

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. 

[blckshirt98]

I'm not keen on banning lead because of the reasons stated that it can start a slippery slope of legislation.  Next thing you know they're going to find the soft plastics in fish and birds and ban all plastics.  Also it's not just lead causing the mortality in the loons there's other factors involved and banning lead is like plugging a hole in a boat with a finger.  Also if a loon ingests lead, what if they ingest brass or steel or tungsten?

Tungsten also is too expensive right now to be a viable alternate.  Tungsten drop shot weights run about $1.50 and up per piece, vs around 20 cents for a lead weight.  Brass and steel are more in line price-wise and I'd use those over tungsten until tungsten prices dropped.