# Federal ban on lead fishing tackle proposed



## skeeter334 (Mar 12, 2005)

A proposal to ban all lead in fishing tackle is under consideration by the federal government, and your comments of opposition are needed to counter the threat.

This ban proposed in a petition by the Center for Biological Diversity and other environmental groups would include not only sinkers and jigs, but components that contain lead, including brass and ballast in spinnerbaits and lures of all kinds.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is accepting comments until Sept. 15. Hunters and shooters already have been successful in getting ammunition excluded from the ban, and now it's time for anglers and the fishing industry to be heard.

Intent of the ban is to reduce death of birds by ingesting lead. But a study by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service determined that less than 1 percent of waterfowl and other birds, including eagles, are killed by ingesting lead.

Additionally, a ban on lead could raise the cost of affected fishing tackle from six to 15 times, depending on metals used and cost of raw materials.

To learn more and voice your opposition, go to http://capwiz.com/keepamericafishing/taf/confirm/?alertid=16355526&style=1&content_dir=.


----------



## Yankee Sticker (Apr 14, 2010)

Or if you are on the other side

http://action.biologicaldiversity.org/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=4716

and more detail for fellow science nerds

http://www.epa.gov/oppt/chemtest/pubs/Petition Attachment.pdf


----------



## I Fish (Sep 24, 2008)

You know what I'd like to see, regardless of what "side" you think you should be on, is numbers. You know, cold hard facts from independant sources. Just how many birds are we talking about? Annually, is it 5 or 5 million? My opinion, this is just another attack by "animal rights". Their great wisdom has outlawed lead shot for waterfowl, because they supposedly eat so much of it. OK, fine, but why can I use lead shot to kill pheasants in the same cornfield I have to use "non-toxic" shot for waterfowl? I guess ducks don't eat the lead that is shot at upland birds? Also, if this lead is such a problem, why don't we see the casulties? I've never ever found just a random dead duck or goose. I'm sure someone has, but if it is killing so many of them, why don't we see more of them dead, and how can one be sure that bird died from ingesting lead? 
The Division of Natural Resources, Wildlife Division is charged with protecting our wildlife, not the EPA.


----------



## Streamhawk (Apr 25, 2008)

not surprised to see a group do this for 1% of the bird population that will affect millions of people who enjoy one of the few things that most can afford today, fishing. Really??? 1% of the bird population affected. I bet more birds are shot by hunters or eaten by predators then what is affected by ingesting lead shot. I believe in conservation but this is a little crazy. 1%??


----------



## Streamhawk (Apr 25, 2008)

I Fish said:


> You know what I'd like to see, regardless of what "side" you think you should be on, is numbers. You know, cold hard facts from independant sources. Just how many birds are we talking about? Annually, is it 5 or 5 million? My opinion, this is just another attack by "animal rights". Their great wisdom has outlawed lead shot for waterfowl, because they supposedly eat so much of it. OK, fine, but why can I use lead shot to kill pheasants in the same cornfield I have to use "non-toxic" shot for waterfowl? I guess ducks don't eat the lead that is shot at upland birds? Also, if this lead is such a problem, why don't we see the casulties? I've never ever found just a random dead duck or goose. I'm sure someone has, but if it is killing so many of them, why don't we see more of them dead, and how can one be sure that bird died from ingesting lead?
> The Division of Natural Resources, Wildlife Division is charged with protecting our wildlife, not the EPA.


I agree. The EPA is another whole story in itself. This is all about leaning to the left and control. In order to have a socilaist society, everything must be controlled. This is just another attack on our pursuit of happiness.


----------



## nitsud (May 22, 2010)

Streamhawk said:


> I agree. The EPA is another whole story in itself. This is all about leaning to the left and control. In order to have a socilaist society, everything must be controlled. This is just another attack on our pursuit of happiness.


Well, it didn't take long for the socialist tag to be tossed around. It's popular these days. Can I get a Nazi accusation?

The facts are out there, you just have to go find them, and be willing to actually read some things critically. Of course, scientists are primarily interested in killing our economy, and destroying our god given right to dump whatever crap (sometimes literally, as in the LMR) wherever we want. All scientists are socialists, you know...

Anyway, this is a pretty interesting topic, and I found this article pretty good:

http://www.jeffsundin.com/Article_Lead_Sinkers_vs_Loons.htm

Also, for those opposed, I think this link might be more helpful:

http://capwiz.com/keepamericafishing/issues/alert/?alertid=16355526

One pretty clear thing that I would say is that the statement about lead-free tackle costing 6 to 15 times leaded tackle is to note very carefully the wording of that statement. "non-lead fishing tackle products can cost from six to 15 times more than lead products." Notice it doesn't say will. I think this statement is fairly misleading. As a quick check, look at lead free sinkers at Bass Pro Shops. I'm showing a $3.99 assortment of 72 lead free split shot ($0.05/sinker), and a $4.99 assortment of 124 leaded split shot ($0.04/sinker). Huh. That seems to be pretty much negligible. Non-lead fishing tackle can cost a million times more than lead products, but that doesn't mean that it actually *does* cost a million times more. There are going to be things that would be more expensive, for sure, but I'm absolutely f-ing sick of people trying to scare me with half-truths, innuendo, and misrepresentations, and that goes for all sides.

In any case, I hope that this discussion can avoid the inane and emotional responses that have already started. My own view is that I don't much like the idea of a complete federal ban, but I'm going to try to find and buy lead free stuff. Partially out of concern for myself and my family, and partly to preserve what I've come to love and respect in the outdoors.

Let the flaming begin...

D


----------



## JoshGibson (Feb 18, 2006)

I will do it too! DAMN SOCIALISTS AND LIBERALS!!!!!


----------



## Yankee Sticker (Apr 14, 2010)

Total mortality rate is 1% of the population per year in the US. 
How would people react if that whole 1% of deaths was due to one factor? 
In 2002 .018% of the US population died from car accidents. 
If that .018% was 1% wouldn't you expect the government to do something legislatively to prevent this?
It's not giving up fishing, it's mainly jig heads and sinkers and they are available at Bass Pro for pretty much the same price. 
Not trying to get into a left wing / right wing debate here. 
I hunt, I fish, I own guns. Just trying to be conscious of my actions.


----------



## Zander (Dec 6, 2009)

I'd like to see a 10 pound largemouth INGEST my LEAD SPINNERBAIT!


----------



## I Fish (Sep 24, 2008)

I think the numbers from the studies speak for themselves. Given that the studies only account for found dead loons means that there is no data taken into account in regards to predation. I'm sure raccoons, mink, opossums, snakes, and every other carnivorous animal out there take their toll. These numbers we will never truly know. 

This was copied from the study: _Summary -The results of the Zoo Study are similar to those of the PCA study. Four loons out of 46 tested had lead poisoning and 3 of those (6.5%) had ingested lead sinkers. Three of the loons that were counted as fatalities from lead poisoning also had potentially lethal levels of mercury. The reports author, avian zoologist Jimmy Pichner concluded, Lead poisoning does not appear to be a major cause of loon mortality in Minnesota._
This also was copied from the study: _A recent paper, Lead poisoning in North American Wildlife from Lead Shot and Lead Fishing Tackle, shows how an environmental organization (HawkWatch International) can skew the results of a study to suit their own purposes. Their paper misrepresented the findings of the PCA study by stating that 17% of adult loon deaths in Minnesota could be traced to lead poisoning from fishing tackle. The statement is deceptive for two reasons. First, the 17% death rate resulted from lead poisoning in general, not poisoning from lead tackle specifically. Second, the calculation does not represent the percentage of lead poisoning in adult loons; it is the percentage in all diseased loons, including juveniles and chicks. The rate of lead poisoning in adult loons was 10.7%, and half of that (5.4%) could be attributed to ingestion of lead tackle_.

My next question is, of the loons thats death could be attributed to fishing tackle, how many also had ingested lead from other sources? I mean, did they have 30 shotgun pellets and 2 split shots, or did they only contain fishing tackle?

This comes from the article: _Proponents of a lead ban say there are many good substitutes for lead and that the cost of converting to lead-free tackle would be only pennies a year for the average angler. But these contentions are not factual. Some Minnesota tackle companies have done extensive studies on lead substitutes and have been marketing some lead-free products. The problem is, most lead-free materials cost considerably more, and dont work as well as lead because theyre lighter for their size. And some of these materials have another downside: They cant be molded onto a hook to make jigs or other lures because their melting point is so high that the hook would be damaged.

Estimates of the cost of restocking a tackle box with lead-free sinkers and lures range from $50-$100 for a casual angler to $200-$500 for a serious one. And for a die-hard walleye, bass or muskie fisherman, the cost could well reach into the thousands._

So, from the above, if lead alternatives are relatively cheap, why have the manufacturers said otherwise? I think it not only is because of the cost of materials, but also the cost of retooling and manufacturing. Higher melting points require more energy to be expended in the proccess. I find it hard to believe that tackle manufacturers just don't care about the environment, and are just trying to scare us into buying their poison. Also, take into account that if these materials suddenly come into such a high demand, their cost will increase significantly. 

Lastly, I think if lead fishing tackle can be proven to be a major problem in certain areas, by all means, control it in that area. To me, all of this one size fits all regulation, is like saying because pedestrians in the city get hit by cars, we are lowering the speed limit nationwide to 25mph.


----------



## nitsud (May 22, 2010)

I Fish said:


> _Proponents of a lead ban say there are many good substitutes for lead and that the cost of converting to lead-free tackle would be only pennies a year for the average angler. But these contentions are not factual. Some Minnesota tackle companies have done extensive studies on lead substitutes and have been marketing some lead-free products. The problem is, most lead-free materials cost considerably more, and dont work as well as lead because theyre lighter for their size. And some of these materials have another downside: They cant be molded onto a hook to make jigs or other lures because their melting point is so high that the hook would be damaged.
> 
> Estimates of the cost of restocking a tackle box with lead-free sinkers and lures range from $50-$100 for a casual angler to $200-$500 for a serious one. And for a die-hard walleye, bass or muskie fisherman, the cost could well reach into the thousands._
> 
> So, from the above, if lead alternatives are relatively cheap, why have the manufacturers said otherwise? I think it not only is because of the cost of materials, but also the cost of retooling and manufacturing. Higher melting points require more energy to be expended in the proccess. I find it hard to believe that tackle manufacturers just don't care about the environment, and are just trying to scare us into buying their poison. Also, take into account that if these materials suddenly come into such a high demand, their cost will increase significantly.


Alot of what you mention is why I don't think an outright, immediate ban is the way to go. I don't find it at all hard to believe that manufacturers don't care about the environment, nor do I think they should be overly concerned about the environment. Corporations exist to make money, not take care of the environment, and that's as it should be. It's kind of interesting to consider what happened before lead was banned in gasoline. Car and gasoline manufacturers claimed that it'd never work, that reliability would drop, etc. None of that happened. The main effect was a drop in lead level in everybody. Tackle manufacturers are now claiming that tackle will be 6 to 15 times (I've even heard 10 to 20 times) more expensive, and that's demonstrably not accurate, even with existing tackle.

Retooling is expensive. Development of new products and materials is expensive. Some of the manufacturers wouldn't be willing or able to adapt. Personally, I'd like to see what innovation would take place, what kind of solutions would develop, what kind of new lures would be made. Much of the problem in American discourse and debate currently is that nobody wants to talk about facts and solutions, just opinions. Everything is tied to ideology, nevermind reality. The reality is that environmental actions have improved our watersheds around the country (and locally) to a great degree. Another reality is that the reasonable estimates from 1-5% of waterfowl with gullets dying from fishing tackle isn't likely to endanger any species.

By the way, geese suck. I'm just sayin'... I'm more concerned about my boy than the birds.

D


----------



## fallen513 (Jan 5, 2010)

It's a communist conspiracy.




> BEIJING (Commodity Online): It seems there is no end to Chinas appetite for metals. Chinas economic health is robust and it is continuing with the metal buying spree. Chinas imports of all metals rose in July with imports of refined lead in particular jumping by over 80 per cent compared with June...


----------



## fallen513 (Jan 5, 2010)

FYI it is absolutely absurd to think lead is harming much of anything.


----------



## nitsud (May 22, 2010)

fallen513 said:


> It's a communist conspiracy.


They gotta make our kids toys out of something...


----------



## fallen513 (Jan 5, 2010)

> An estimated 10 million to 20 million birds and other animals die each year from lead poisoning in the United States. This occurs when animals scavenge on carcasses shot and contaminated with lead bullet fragments, or pick up and eat spent lead-shot pellets or lost fishing weights, mistaking them for food or grit. Some animals die a painful death from lead poisoning while others suffer for years from its debilitating effects.



It's complete garbage for weak minds to consume. Do not believe it.


----------



## GETTIN' THERE (Apr 17, 2007)

I just love the way that everything, I mean everything has become political anymore. Hell, you can't go to the lake, unwind, and try to relax and forget your worries anymore.


----------



## nitsud (May 22, 2010)

fallen513 said:


> FYI it is absolutely absurd to think lead is harming much of anything.


It's well established that it's toxic to animals and people. Now, saying that animals die a painful death, etc. is clearly hyperbolic. If it's absurd to think lead is harming much of anything, let's see the data. I've seen quite a bit to show that it's toxic at even low exposure levels, and there are known links between lead and neurological problems, particularly in children.


----------



## fallen513 (Jan 5, 2010)

nitsud said:


> It's well established that it's toxic to animals and people. Now, saying that animals die a painful death, etc. is clearly hyperbolic. If it's absurd to think lead is harming much of anything, let's see the data. I've seen quite a bit to show that it's toxic at even low exposure levels, and there are known links between lead and neurological problems, particularly in children.



Toxic, at what size molecules? Breathing in lead dust is one thing.

A solid fragment of a 7mm round in an elk's ass is not killing grizzly bears.




It's all fiction Dustin, get with the program buddy. I eat lead sinkers for breakfast.


----------



## nitsud (May 22, 2010)

fallen513 said:


> Toxic, at what size molecules? Breathing in lead dust is one thing.


So wait, does that mean that shooting guns is bad for you? Cause I'm pretty sure that'd produce some lead dust... The issue with the birds is they get them in their gullets and use them to grind up food.



> It's all fiction Dustin, get with the program buddy. I eat lead sinkers for breakfast.


Huh, I always wondered what gave you your super-striper powers...

or is that super-hybrids powers...


----------



## fallen513 (Jan 5, 2010)

nitsud said:


> So wait, does that mean that shooting guns is bad for you? Cause I'm pretty sure that'd produce some lead dust... The issue with the birds is they get them in their gullets and use them to grind up food.



Where are there these high concentrations of shot that enormous amounts of birds are getting them in their gizzards? Please do tell.


----------



## fallen513 (Jan 5, 2010)

Read this carefully and tell me it's not utter horse$h!t!




> Biologists have pinpointed the condors' fatal exposure to fragments of lead ammunition lodged in the remains of an animal carcass. After gutting game like wild pigs and deer, and taking the parts they want, hunters leave the remaining viscera or "gut pile" in the woods.


----------



## nitsud (May 22, 2010)

I was talking primarily about sinkers, and referencing the article linked above:

http://www.jeffsundin.com/Article_Lead_Sinkers_vs_Loons.htm

Particularly the section on Minnesota vs. New England. How's that?


----------



## fallen513 (Jan 5, 2010)

Sounds like they should tackle their mercury problem first.


----------



## Chuck P. (Apr 8, 2004)

Have you all tried the steel sinkers? I have and it's not pleasant.

There seems to be this little thing called RUST that occurs when steel gets wet, go figure.

What do we have to do, rustproof our sinkers? Really?


----------



## nitsud (May 22, 2010)

fallen513 said:


> Read this carefully and tell me it's not utter horse$h!t!


Which part? I'm not a hunter, so I'm not sure if it's common practice to leave the viscera in the woods. I'd kind of hope not, but I suppose there are scavengers that'd take care of it.


----------



## nitsud (May 22, 2010)

Chuck P. said:


> Have you all tried the steel sinkers? I have and it's not pleasant.
> 
> There seems to be this little thing called RUST that occurs when steel gets wet, go figure.
> 
> What do we have to do, rustproof our sinkers? Really?


Haven't, but I suspect stainless steel would be reasonable. Not as dense as lead (11.34 g/cm^3 for lead, vs 8.03 g/cm^3 for stainless), but it won't rust and it's not much more expensive. Bismuth (9.78 g/cm^3) is another possibility, as is tin (7.365 g/cm^3). These are both low melt point metals. Tungsten is another possibility, but it's high melt point would probably not make it useful for jig heads. It actually has a higher density than lead at 19.25 g/cm^3.

Other than the rust, any problems with the steel ones?


----------



## fallen513 (Jan 5, 2010)

nitsud said:


> Which part? I'm not a hunter, so I'm not sure if it's common practice to leave the viscera in the woods. I'd kind of hope not, but I suppose there are scavengers that'd take care of it.


It _is_ a common practice to leave viscera in the woods< it's horse crap that a single lead fragment in a carcass is causing poisoning to the extent its threatening a species.


----------



## fallen513 (Jan 5, 2010)

Read this nefarious wording.




> &#8220;prohibit the manufacture, processing, and distribution in commerce of lead for shot, bullets, and fishing sinkers.&#8221;



F the loons.

(EDIT: I know they "shot" down the bullets portion, but tell me "they" weren't going for the hail mary of world changing legislation!)


----------



## yetihw (Mar 3, 2008)

Let's look at this another way. Take out any scientific facts or theories. Lets look at what we all should know and agree on due to our life experiences. The fact that we are talking about this means that this is now big enough and at the attention of the federal gov't. This action would effectively make its citizens change the way they do something and make their life different due to their edict. This action would take away a freedom once had and make it a crime. Based on these facts I have no doubt in my mind that this will become a law and we will have to change.


----------



## nitsud (May 22, 2010)

fallen513 said:


> It _is_ a common practice to leave viscera in the woods< it's horse crap that a single lead fragment in a carcass is causing poisoning to the extent its threatening a species.


I pretty much agree with that, and said as much above, particularly with regard to loons. Just because it's not threatening a species doesn't mean it's necessarily a good idea. I think that having 400 lumps of toxic metal sitting on the bottom of a lake could be a problem (same section of the article linked above). Have the bans in New York, New Hampshire, etc. killed recreational fishing there? I doubt it.

Could be that I'm biased against loons, though. I do like raptors, and they are often primarily scavengers, so the path described above is at least feasible.


----------



## nitsud (May 22, 2010)

yetihw said:


> Let's look at this another way. Take out any scientific facts or theories. Lets look at what we all should know and agree on due to our life experiences. The fact that we are talking about this means that this is now big enough and at the attention of the federal gov't. This action would effectively make its citizens change the way they do something and make their life different due to their edict. This action would take away a freedom once had and make it a crime. Based on these facts I have no doubt in my mind that this will become a law and we will have to change.


I'm all for the libertarian ideal, which means you are free to do what you will, so long as it doesn't infringe on my right to do the same or harm me. You don't, for instance, have the right to burn radioactive waste in your yard, because it's harmful to others around you. Environmental protection gets complicated, because it's not as easy to tease the effects from the causes. I'm somewhat surprised that anglers, who have probably seen more of the positive effect of environmental regulation than most (particularly in this area), as well as the damage that we are capable of doing (Grand Lake St. Mary comes to mind), aren't in general interested in trying to reduce the use of clearly toxic materials.

The phrase "Take out any scientific facts or theories" pretty much sums it up, I guess. Who needs facts? It's been a fun day, and I've managed to not do any work at all!! I'm going to go fishing now... and I'll probably use some lead weights of some sort...


----------



## fallen513 (Jan 5, 2010)

Have the gun bans in NY & CA stopped gun crime? 

LOL.


----------



## eatwhatyoukeep (May 2, 2005)

nitsud said:


> They gotta make our kids toys out of something...



Can't you see that the Chinese are trying to corner the sinker and jig head market. We have to stop this before it is too late


----------



## Rednek (Nov 6, 2006)

On 8/27/10, Congress decided not to entertain the petition according to the reply I got from Mike Dewine.


----------



## flathunter (Apr 5, 2004)

I hope they dont pass this, I use sinkers from 5 ounces up to 10 ounces, and have 200lbs of sinkers on hand...I dont think I could get a steel sinker in 10 ounces...I dont think lead sinkers in there solid form laying on the bottom of a lake or river are toxic, at least no where near as toxic as all the other crap that gets dumped in our waters.


----------



## flathunter (Apr 5, 2004)

Rednek said:


> Perhaps you should explore _legislative _proposals _instead of whine _about _them. There was a size limit to the petition. Get involved inste_ad of HOPING.


Naw, I have been involved in enough stuff...I will just continue to hope, or whine as you call it.


----------



## Weatherby (May 27, 2005)

> On 8/27/10, Congress decided not to entertain the petition according to the reply I got from Mike Dewine.


Not true. The EPA said they cannot do anything about the lead used in hunting. They are still (as required by law) going forward with the fishing part of the petition.

By the way I received the same response from Sherrod Brown. I sent a reply stating that he was given incorrect information and have yet to hear back.

If this passes there will be no Grandfather clause. If you use lead anything for fishing, you will be breaking Federal law.


----------



## TomC (Aug 14, 2007)

Well i guess ill be in violation. I have 600lbs of ingots and 100lbs in various sinkers. There gona have to pry them sinkers out of my cold dead hand!


----------



## dinkbuster1 (Oct 28, 2005)

TomC said:


> Well i guess ill be in violation. I have 600lbs of ingots and 100lbs in various sinkers. There gona have to pry them sinkers out of my cold dead hand!


Same here! guess there will be a lot of "lead outlaws" out there, including me!


----------



## I Fish (Sep 24, 2008)

I just want real facts. I've read several things, but IMO, there is nothing definative. To me, it's not about killing innocent bystanders. It's about the truth. Is this a real threat to wildlife, or just a threat to our way of life? I personally believe it's the latter. Don't forget, the people that came up with Sea Kittens, and others like them, really do exist. This makes me remember a phrase I heard long ago: Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they are not watching you.

One thing that really amazes me is the devisivness of issues like this. It's an old school tactic. I also remember back in the early 90's when the anti-gun forces were working for legislation against ammo. That way they wouldn't have to outlaw guns or infringe the right to bear arms or be in any way unconstitutional. Just make it too expensive for the average Joe to buy guns and ammo through taxation and unrealistic rules and protocols. Kinda like a lead fishing tackle ban?


----------



## Streamhawk (Apr 25, 2008)

i fish said:


> i just want real facts. I've read several things, but imo, there is nothing definative. To me, it's not about killing innocent bystanders. It's about the truth. Is this a real threat to wildlife, or just a threat to our way of life? I personally believe it's the latter. Don't forget, the people that came up with sea kittens, and others like them, really do exist. This makes me remember a phrase i heard long ago: Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they are not watching you.
> 
> One thing that really amazes me is the devisivness of issues like this. It's an old school tactic. I also remember back in the early 90's when the anti-gun forces were working for legislation against ammo. That way they wouldn't have to outlaw guns or infringe the right to bear arms or be in any way unconstitutional. Just make it too expensive for the average joe to buy guns and ammo through taxation and unrealistic rules and protocols. Kinda like a lead fishing tackle ban?


amen!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Orlando (Apr 12, 2004)

http://www.ohiogamefishing.com/community/showthread.php?t=155195


----------



## skeeter334 (Mar 12, 2005)

Weatherby said:


> Not true. The EPA said they cannot do anything about the lead used in hunting. They are still (as required by law) going forward with the fishing part of the petition.
> 
> By the way I received the same response from Sherrod Brown. I sent a reply stating that he was given incorrect information and have yet to hear back.
> 
> If this passes there will be no Grandfather clause. If you use lead anything for fishing, you will be breaking Federal law.


 So if this passes, i can shoot a duck with lead ammo(im sure most of the lead shot will fall into the water) and other ducks can consume said shot? Sounds logical. 
Im sure alot of the sinkers we fisherman lose or break off are way to deep for any bird to consume as well. this sounds like something peta is behind and blowing things way out of porportion.
I personally do not like steel sinkers at all, tungsten would be my only other option at this point. Guess what? I bet tungsten is close to 6-15 times more expensive compared to lead.


----------



## BassSlayerChris (Aug 9, 2010)

Mabey if the stupid birds wouldnt eat the stuff we wouldnt have a problem!!!!! We should make it illegal for birds to have water contact. Heres the law : Birds may only consume water from county designated bird fountans. Any bird that travels to a pond, lake ect. Will be shot. Survivors will be shot again.


----------



## I Fish (Sep 24, 2008)

skeeter334 said:


> So if this passes, i can shoot a duck with lead ammo(im sure most of the lead shot will fall into the water) and other ducks can consume said shot? Sounds logical.


No. It is already illegal to use lead shot for waterfowl. It has to be "non-toxic", like steel or Bismuth. What an oxymoron. Non-toxic shotgun shell. I guess if it's steel shot, it's true!


----------



## Fish G3 (Jul 16, 2008)

BassSlayerChris said:


> Mabey if the stupid birds wouldnt eat the stuff we wouldnt have a problem!!!!! We should make it illegal for birds to have water contact. Heres the law : Birds may only consume water from county designated bird fountans. Any bird that travels to a pond, lake ect. Will be shot. Survivors will be shot again.


LOL!!!!! Thats great.


----------



## JoshGibson (Feb 18, 2006)

Thanks for posting Skeeter....forwarded to my facebook wall so all my fisherman/woman friends can get on the petition!


----------



## fishinjim (Aug 9, 2006)

fallen513 said:


> Sounds like they should tackle their mercury problem first.


florescent lightbulbs contain mercury. so, by switching to florescent bulbs we're poisening our future water supply - but it saves energy.

now, making steel weights consumes more energy than making lead ones because of the melting point of the two metals. so, we're consuming more energy to save 1% of the animal population (that would die anyways) and on and on it goes.

I think the loons that need to be helped aren't birds.


----------

