Proposed Lead Ban by WDFW

[Nik]

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

exactly. if they keep water moving periodically, the "gunk" doesn't grow.

[sickbayer]

well i think it is a stupid debate...lead is bad no matter what form it is, now if there is a simple fix like banning it do it...and use the stuff that isnt quite the same weight. i fail to see how lead catches me more fish.....although i do wonder about those 2 10lb downrigger balls i lost....

[fishermen]

Mike I agree with you 100%. When the data shows fishing sinkers are the problem I will be the first to change to an alternative.

[bcalvert]

Mike I agree with you 100%. When the data shows fishing sinkers are the problem I will be the first to change to an alternative.

I am with the both of you; this was my contention all along! There should be no emotion involved in this decision, it should be based on relevant statistical data. Leave the emotions to the ‘Loon’-atics…

[Gisteppo]

So what constitutes relevant statistical data?

E

[bcalvert]

So what constitutes relevant statistical data?

E

Relevant to me would be more than 9 known cases during 1996-2008.

[Gisteppo]

10? 20? 40?

If the data clearly shows a correlation to avian mortality, why does a number have to be larger for you to take action?

E

[MikeFishes]

Seems that I always come late to the fun debates.

I'm all for the ban IF:
1. Statistical data from qualified studies (backed up by scientific study standards and independent analysis) shows that avian deaths occur IN the NW due to lead from Fishing Tackle (not shot from bird hunting rounds). The studies that the ban is based off of is studies on the eastern side of the country. Not that region has an effect, there's more history to fishing in the east than the west.
2. Metrics are defined and approved that will show that the ban is effective.
3. If Metrics are not met, the ban will sunset.
4. Analysis of the cost of the ban (cost to government, commercial, and recreational) is published.

I'd rather it be done with all together. We're talking about only 1/2 oz and smaller, right? Big deal. Ban it from all the lakes. My only complaint is the cost of non-lead weights is quite a bit more as well as possibly more damaging to the envrionment than lead. At least that's what someone said here a while ago (when I asked about a year ago).

[G-Man]

Again, let me state that I really don't mind the regulation, I don't like the implication that this will solve the loon's problems and we as sportsmen are made out to be the bad guys. There is no denying that loons occasionally ingest lead weights and jigheads and perish as a result. You can find pictures of weights that were removed from loon carcasses on several web sites. How or why they ingested the weights is still unknown. Will banning small lead weights and jigheads solve the problem? It will probably save a few birds, but is someone going to pick up all the previously lost lead weights and shot? I understand the concept of baby steps but when our State decides to “save” a species it starts off by crawling toward a solution. There really only are two requirements for saving any “at risk” species. Habitat restoration and environmental clean-up, it only works when you do both.

I think deep down inside that the majority of us don't have a problem with any type of lead ban and understand that it will help in the long run. What rubs us is that we see, first hand, how seriously messed up our fish and wildlife habitat has become and that the measures being taken to correct the problems are totally inadequate.

[fishermen]

This proposed ban by WDFW is based on theory and political pressure by the federal government. Unfortunately I believe that environmentalist are using this to gain a foot hold and to push their agenda in the fishing community. There to many hidden gremlins. Regardless of what we as fisherman think, the agency will turn the proposal into law.

[Mike Carey]

10? 20? 40?

If the data clearly shows a correlation to avian mortality, why does a number have to be larger for you to take action?

E

Because there is always a risk/reward analysis in everything humans do. Just about any activity has that component in it. Let's agree that lead does kill birds, that's pretty obvious based on analysis of some of these dead birds. OK, so where does it land in the continuum of bird mortality? Is it a huge risk factor, negligible, or somewhere in between? It would be nice to have some science giving us better data than just saying there are 5 dead loons so lets do a ban on a dozen (or so) lakes.

Otherwise, using this logic we will soon see lot's of potential things to ban, for example, "some birds" die from oil and gas leaking from boat motors, therefor we should ban all lakes from recreational gas motors.

How many loons have died from other human actions in these lakes, and what other actions should we ban? Is lead the sole problem? The article indicated humans disturbing the nesting areas was always a possible cause of loon population decline, so rather than ban tiny lead weights, lets ban the humans from going to these lakes (which would also indirectly resolve the lead issue, i.e., no humans on these lakes to leave lead behind).

Now, after all the above, let me say that personally I'll look at switching to non-lead weights in these smaller sizes, because for me personally I'd rather not throw some in to the environment that is dangerous when I have an option of something else. Which is what this thread has educated me on. But that's my personal choice, not some vague plan that "may" save "some" birds, imposed on us by an agency using quasi science.

[Gisteppo]

I can see your logic Mike. Im not as pessimistic, but as long as a common end is found which betters the water quality and protects animals so we can continue to harvest fish, Im all in.

E

[YellowBear]

Maybe if they go ahead and ban lead to save a few Loons they can figure out a way to thin out the Cormorants.

[fishermen]

After doing some research on the net I will have to retrackted the first sentence of my last post. Enough evidence exits that in some states like Michigan, lead sinkers are a problem for the Loon.

[Mike Carey]

can you post that link if you still have it? I'd like to read the study. thanks

[fishermen]

I went ahead and googled the subject. A lot came up from Michigan eastward. I will have to go back and find the study I found and when I do I will post.

[Bigbass Dez]

http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/sta ... nlloon.pdf


HERE IT IS MIKE , HAVE AT IT !! What stood out to me was the amount of time and the amount of birds that the study was done on !!

[Gisteppo]

15 years of data from across the US, and the surveyors only being able to find 20 active nests in their survey areas that are used more than annually. Limited numbers of nesting pairs is an indicator of low breeding stock levels, which in most agencies warrants protection.

Toxicants
Lead. Lead toxicosis affects loons in New England (Pokras et al. 1993), Minnesota (Franson and
Cliplef 1993), and elsewhere. Lead jigs or sinkers are often found in loon proventricula or
gizzards. They may be consumed with live bait or taken from lake bottoms (as “gravel”) (Pokras et
al. 1993). Lead poisoning causes loss of balance, gasping, tremors, and impaired ability to fly.

Consuming a single lead sinker is enough to kill a loon (Smrchek 1994).
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 1994) proposed, under the Toxic Substances
Control Act, to prohibit manufacturing, processing, and distribution in commerce of lead- or zinccontaining
fishing sinkers for use in the United States. The EPA continues to deliberate on the
proposed rule and response (T. Spector, personal communication, May 1999). Loons may soon
receive some protection from poisoning through a ban on lead sinkers and jigs in some national
wildlife refuges (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999).

E

[G-Man]

I’m going to beat on this dead horse one more time as it hasn’t seem to have sunk in to some of you how the game is played. Anyone who looked at the study should have noticed that the recommendations did not include banning lead sinkers. Why oh wise one, please tell me. Well, a loon won’t swallow a piece of lead out of our lakes if it never visits in the first place. Sound confusing? Let me simplify it for you. There are only a few loons in our State because we aren’t supplying the necessary habitat and food not because they are dying from all the lead sinkers we are feeding them. Yes, lead is bad and should be banned, but not having anything to ingest the lead is worse. The worst thing to come out of that study was the comment that the loon should not be listed as a State endangered or threatened species. This will allow continued development and intrusion into areas where loons have been known to nest or visit while migrating.

The lead ban, which in time will be extended State wide, gives our government a few extra years if not a decade or two, to hose the land while the effects of the ban are documented and studied. Once said land is hosed and the ban proven to be only marginally effective at best, it will be too late to un-hose said land without eliminating the property tax revenue generated by said hosing. Can you picture State and local governments downzoning prime residential or commercial property to greenbelt or greenway status in our lifetime? I didn’t think so.

That, my friends, is how the game is played.

[Gisteppo]

G, I agree with what you have to say.

I will note, though, that downzoning is already occurring. I cannot change my waterfront within 100' of the lake unless it is to make it riparian areas per state law adopted in 2006. No new property can be build upon (this has exemptions for grandfathered properties or remodels) within 100' of the water's edge, and no changes to natural areas unless the state and DEQ give written consent.

E