Current Prevalence of Alternative Sinker Material

[J Francho]

Is that the same NYDEC that still insists on a closed bass season for Region 5, whose director doesn't believe there's a significant population of smallmouth bass in Lake Ontario?  Yeah, I'll pass.  They're highly intertwined in politics (which is no bueno on this site) and while there are many good people working hard for citizens, there some enacting policies that are not based on science.

[tlkilian]

23 minutes ago, J Francho said:

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?

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. 

 

[J Francho]

Playing both sides of the coin....

 

My opinion: the ban is stupid.  It doesn't stop anyone from using lead in NY.  It doesn't save any extra loons from dying.  I would look elsewhere than fisherman to affect some kind of improvement.  The only reason we're "it" is because we're an easy target.  Try going after some huge corporation.  Oh yeah, they have lawyers and money....

[IndianaFinesse]

And the fact that lead is also banned from use in jigs and jig heads is just plain stupid.  What do you think is gonna happen if a loon decides to eat a tungsten jig head?  The same thing that would happen if the bird had eaten a lead jig head, the hook would likely kill it, not the lead that was banned. 

[J Francho]

Just now, IndianaFinesse said:

The same thing that would happen if the bird had eaten a lead jig head, the hook would likely kill it, not the lead that was banned.

The document linked to above shows exactly that.  But it was the lead that got 'em.

11 minutes ago, tlkilian said:

I know at the time of publication it says that the NY lead ban was too new to draw meaningful data

There weren't enough deaths before the ban to draw any meaningful conclusions, but show a bunch of gross pictures to officials, present well prepared speeches about the dangers of lead, and talk about action to save the loons, and everyone's crying and passing laws.

[Tim Kelly]

Too easy to get politicians behind causes that appear populist and without any real chance of a meaningful backlash in the polls. Not many that aren't morally bankrupt.

[Catt]

@tlkilian

Sounds like to me ya don't get the answers ya wanted!

Ya throwing out a lot of names trying to impress someone!

Let me throw out a couple far ya

Texas Parks & Wildlife who lead the nation in most every form of wildlife management.

Sabine River Authority comprised of biologist from Texas & Louisiana.

Louisiana dept of Wildlife & Fisheries some of the top biologist in migratory bird management.

Duck Unlimited, no explanation need

I've hundreds of hours working with biologist from all four, have 50+ yrs experience in the outdoors, & a degree in the Philosophy of Science.

Good luck with your research, I've done mine

[WRB]

Both lead and Mercury occur naturally in the North American continent. The only lead that can be banned is man made products that contain lead. Paint was the first product, lead plumbing seals and shot shell pellets and bullets followed. California doesn't  bother trying to use migratory birds and a excuse, the anti hunting fishing lobby is so powerful they just banned lead on all state and federal land. We can still buy and use some lead fishing products for the time being.

Mercury is more problematic however the film industry went to didital, so no more film processing , the major source of mercury contamination. The fish become the targets for the anti fishing group and put up Mercury warning signs at every public fishing location, launch ramp, fresh fish retail store etc.

There isn't any argument that both lead and Mercury consumption is dangerous to your health and some animals. More migratory birds and raptors are killed in large number by wind generators, don't see anyone banning those, in fact the same zealots promote wind generators for protecting the environmemt. Just depends on your goals what sceince you believe in.

Tom

[scaleface]

Anyone remember  when Jimmy Houston was hawking sinkers made out of rocks ?

["hamma"]

2 hours ago, tlkilian said:

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. 

No doubt the New York agencies described are respectable, and they want whats best for their state. And yes Massachusetts has come a long way. My point is watch who is being delegated to a decision making authority and why. Nowadays Massachusetts seems to be a testing ground for "new" and upcoming laws. example: fines for residents that dont have health insurance,..lol if ya cant afford insurance what makes you think one can afford a fine?,, and yeah massachusetts did it first, how do I know? Im one of the unfortunate that was working a temp job, with no insurance provided, and with kids on child support?,.. I couldnt afford the premiums, and was fined 1K each year.

 Back to the subject? OK,..the lead ban,.... if there is only a few nesting loons in the entire state,.. why is a lead ban "so" important to the legislature, that it passes a law condemning the entire state to use alternatives? They could of restricted certain areas,...why the state as a whole?

 There are some very competent and compassionate people in this state that do care about its well being, and the wildlife and fisheries management dept, is at the forefront of that concern. I've met some of them, and many of their rangers, every one of them a stand up person without any hidden agendas  and that have shown nothing but care and concern for the states well being

My above post is about the puppeteirs that pull the strings, the so-called "fat Cats" that "govern" Back when I attended the meeting in Boston? there was a well rounded and deeply concerned Board that was in jeopardy at that time. And the remarkable attendance that day ended said jeopardy,... Nowadays? I believe things have changed on the Board. Not just with the lead ban, the added saltwater licenses as well, removal of the broodstock salmon stocking program, changes in lobster regulations,  groundfish regulations,..etc.

I was born and raised in this state, Im 53,... and see some of the recent instances here,..  simply deplorable

 If you live in this state, and fish? you've noticed

 As far as your research paper reguarding lead and mercury contaminations? in New York?

 I had the train of thought that there most likely hasnt been a single state in the country that has not been greatly and meticulously tested, monitored, and well documented, for any contaminents, of any kind, ever since the bald eagles started disappearing many years ago. So the data? is out there.

 your questions?

1) no im not in support of a ban

2) other materials have been around for a while now, but,..the alternatives mold differently, Therefore, not providing a true replacement of lead 

3) the aisles in any tackle shop or even bass pro shops haven't changed much at all, there are "some" alternatives, but again, they have been there for several years, even before the lead ban.

 Im done!

[tlkilian]

 

1 hour ago, Catt said:

@tlkilian

Sounds like to me ya don't get the answers ya wanted!

Ya throwing out a lot of names trying to impress someone!

Let me throw out a couple far ya

Texas Parks & Wildlife who lead the nation in most every form of wildlife management.

Sabine River Authority comprised of biologist from Texas & Louisiana.

Louisiana dept of Wildlife & Fisheries some of the top biologist in migratory bird management.

Duck Unlimited, no explanation need

I've hundreds of hours working with biologist from all four, have 50+ yrs experience in the outdoors, & a degree in the Philosophy of Science.

Good luck with your research, I've done mine

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. 

[Glenn]

I'm going to step in here and ask everyone to take a deep breath.  Not sure how this turned confrontational....it's fishing weights.  Kinda silly to get all worked up about if you ask me.

Back to the OP's question:  I've seen many different lead alternatives over the years, dating back to the late 80's when "brass and glass" were all the rage.  None of them have really taken hold, except for perhaps tungsten.

So why Brass and Tungsten and no others?  Simply put: angler benefit.  If the use of those materials can result in more fish caught, then they're more widely accepted.  Nobody likes to be told to make a change because "I say so" by laws or otherwise (it will hurt Bambie).  But if there are compelling benefits to make the switch (say mono to braid), then you won't be able to fend off the bandwaggoners - the more benefits, the better.

Tungsten is getting there. Once it becomes more affordable, then you'll see an inflection point.

[Brayberry]

I against lead bans, PERIOD!  If you do your own research, and not read all the paperwork from the people trying to ban lead, you'd see very few waterfowl die of lead poisoning.  If lead was so deadly to wildlife, why isn't Gettysburg, PA just full of dead animals? There must be millions of everything from cannonball shrapnel to musketballs scattered all over that area.

[tlkilian]

1 hour ago, WRB said:

Both lead and Mercury occur naturally in the North American continent. The only lead that can be banned is man made products that contain lead. Paint was the first product, lead plumbing seals and shot shell pellets and bullets followed. California doesn't  bother trying to use migratory birds and a excuse, the anti hunting fishing lobby is so powerful they just banned lead on all state and federal land. We can still buy and use some lead fishing products for the time being.

Mercury is more problematic however the film industry went to didital, so no more film processing , the major source of mercury contamination. The fish become the targets for the anti fishing group and put up Mercury warning signs at every public fishing location, launch ramp, fresh fish retail store etc.

There isn't any argument that both lead and Mercury consumption is dangerous to your health and some animals. More migratory birds and raptors are killed in large number by wind generators, don't see anyone banning those, in fact the same zealots promote wind generators for protecting the environmemt. Just depends on your goals what sceince you believe in.

Tom

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. 

[tlkilian]

10 minutes ago, Brayberry said:

I against lead bans, PERIOD!  If you do your own research, and not read all the paperwork from the people trying to ban lead, you'd see very few waterfowl die of lead poisoning.  If lead was so deadly to wildlife, why isn't Gettysburg, PA just full of dead animals? There must be millions of everything from cannonball shrapnel to musketballs scattered all over that area.

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. 

[Logan S]

31 minutes ago, tlkilian said:

The lead tackle industry is an easy target because a.) the manufacturers and distributors of the product can feasibly be regulated

Admission that lead tackle is the low hanging fruit....If the people/agencies/organizations actually cared as much as they would have you believe, they would go after the much bigger and more impactful problems.  

31 minutes ago, tlkilian said:

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.

Wrong.  Lead does offer benefits.  It is widely available, cheap, and easy to pour/manufacture.  You can melt/pour lead fishing tackle in your garage.  This is not the case with Steel, Brass, or Tungsten...All of which require specialized production facilities as compared to lead.  

31 minutes ago, tlkilian said:

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. 

This statement is akin to claiming that by throwing one single 5-gallon bucket of water on a massive wildfire you are 'helping' the situation.  It might be accurate in the most technical sense, but not in the actual fixing-the-problem sense.  

------------------------------------

You have made your position quite clear and don't seem to be interested in actually considering other points of view, despite asking for them.  I wish you luck in your research, although based on your responses it doesn't actually sound like that's what you're doing...I would call it bias confirmation.

[fishwizzard]

Every time I get cranky about lead bans I think of my grandfather, who would carefully save all the used motor oil he could get his hands on.  He would then use it to kill plants along his fence line.  I am sure that he personally never saw any ill effects from this, but I am kinda glad that, through laws, this isnt a common practice anymore.  But man would that old fart give you an earful if you suggested he move to a different means of weed control. 

In practice i come down in the middle.  I support bans on lead shot for waterfowl hunting but not for sinkers and jigs.  A single shotgun shell holdsmore lead than most of us would like to admit losing in a single day and one will sometimes (if you are lucky) shoot dozens of shells off in a single day bird hunting.  It would take some really specific data to get me to believe that most of the bird mortality is coming from inkier and jigs rather than the decades of lead shot already on the bottoms.  

I think the market for fishing stuff will respond the same way ammo companies did and the amount of lead free tackle available will grow and the price will come down with competition.  I will never buy tungsten weights from like SK or whomever because I know I can get it far far cheaper from places like Sebert Outdoors or other online places that buy and sell in bulk.  At some point enough people are going to clue into this and the larger retail places will have to respond.  

 

[Glenn]

17 hours ago, tlkilian said:

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.

I think you have your answers. You're welcome.

This has become argumentative at this point, and is therefore derailed.

And scene....