Get Updates! and Search
No RSS feeds have been linked to this section.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Entries in lead ban (25)

Wednesday
Jul082015

California Could Ban Lead, Zinc, Copper Fishing Tackle

Unless public outcry forces a reversal by the California Department of Toxic Substances (CDTS),  the state is moving ahead with regulations that could ban fishing gear that contains lead, zinc, and copper. This follows quickly after the recent announcement that lead ammunition will not be allowed on state property and for all bighorn sheep hunting.

“It appears that politics, rather than science, was the basis for CDTS’s decision. While there are many sources of pollution that pose a serious threat to California’s ocean and streams, anglers are not among them,” said David Dickerson, president of the California Sportfishing League (CSL), which is spearheading opposition to the potential ban.

An environmental attorney and former CDTS director added that sellers and retailers of fishing tackle likely will be subjected to costly and onerous regulations, as well as potential fines.

“The result could be a wide range of enforcement options requiring restrictions or bans on sale, product reformulation, additional environmental impact studies, development of disposal programs, or funding for fundamental research and development,” said Maureen Gorsen. “The bottom line is that the cost of manufacturing fishing gear will increase significantly and these costs will be passed on to consumers.”

CDTS’s intentions were revealed in its draft of a Priority Product Work Plan for the Green Chemistry Initiative, which identifies seven product types, including fishing gear, for regulation and/or ban. Legislation authorizing the initiative was passed in 2008, but implementation was delayed for more than five years because of complexity and the potential for massive costs to small businesses, according to John Kabateck, California executive director of the National Federation of Independent Business.

“Green Chemistry is yet another example of Sacramento pursuing its agenda of environmental extremism without any concern for costs to consumers or California’s economic future,” he wrote in the Sacramento Business Journal in 2013.

 “The department has issued a broad proposal that will enable it to regulate the manufacturing and distribution of any product it chooses that could impose unworkable burdens on tens of thousands of small businesses in the state.”

And CDTS is doing so with fishing tackle even though the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced in 2010 that lead gear does not pose an unreasonable risk to wildlife.  Also, a recently passed budget bill contains a provision to prohibit the use of federal dollars to ban lead fishing tackle.

In public hearings, the department admitted that it has no scientific studies to show that lead poses an environmental problem in California, added Dickerson. “State regulators failed to comply with state law that requires them to conduct an independent analysis before including any product in this regulatory process,” he said.

The CSL president predicted that additional regulations will encourage businesses to flee California to more business friendly states. “Furthermore, when fishing is no longer an accessible and affordable source of recreation for millions of anglers, it will have a substantial impact on California’s economy and jobs.”

A recent CSL study revealed that fishing license sales have dropped more than 55 percent since 1980, with the state ranking last nationally in fishing participation by percentage of its population.

“The high cost of fishing licenses and unwarranted limits on fishing have contributed to a significant decline in participation,” Dickerson said. “Increasing the cost of gear and potential bans will only accelerate the decline, and threaten California jobs that are dependent on outdoor recreation and tourism.”

In addition to CSL, others lobbying for delisting of fishing gear include the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Travel Association, the National Federation of Independent Business, the California Parks Hospitality Association, the California Association for Recreational Fishing, the American Sportfishing Association,  and Coastside Fishing Club.

Anglers who want to voice their opposition to a lead ban can sign at petition on CSL’s website.

(This article appeared originally in B.A.S.S. Times.)

 

Monday
May252015

Lead Ban Would Be Bad News for Anglers, Economy in California

 

Click on the photo for more information and to sign a petition against a ban on lead fishing tackle.

As California considers prohibiting fishing tackle that contains lead, zinc, and copper, a report by the California Coastal Conservation Association and the American Sportfishing Association  (ASA) reveals that banning traditional fishing tackle will diminish participation, which generates millions of dollars for fisheries conservation in the state.

 “While California ranks fifth in the nation in number of anglers, we are dead last in terms of per capita participation,” said Bill Shedd, chairman of the California Chapter of the Coastal Conservation Association and President of AFTCO.

 “However, sportfishing is an important economic generator for our state, and banning lead tackle, as currently being considered by the state of California, is another burden that would increase the cost of fishing, hurt anglers and cost our economy millions of dollars in lost revenue and almost 2,600 jobs.”

Findings from surveys conducted of anglers and manufacturers by South Associates include the following:

  • A ban on lead fishing tackle would likely reduce angler activity in California, which would in turn negatively impact the recreational fishing industry and those whose livelihoods depend on it.
  • A survey of tackle manufacturers indicated that the price impact of producing lures, flies and terminal tackle with lead substitutes would double costs on average.
  • Only 25 percent of manufacturers surveyed indicated that it was even technically feasible to currently switch to non-lead substitutes.
  • If a lead ban were to cause prices to double for lures, flies and terminal tackle, the report says that approximately 5 percent of anglers would leave the sport or nearly 80,000 anglers.
  • The surveys used in the report also suggest that anglers who continue to fish, 18 percent would fish fewer days, each fishing 21 percent fewer days on average.
  • Combined with anglers leaving the sport, this would reduce total California angler days and expenditures in recreational fishing by two million fewer angler days, and $173 million in lost revenues.
  • The $173 million in recreational fishing revenues currently supports 2,582 jobs, $113.6 million in salaries and wages, $24.2 million in state and local tax revenue, and $26.4 million in federal tax revenues.

“This report shows that, in addition to the direct economic losses to recreational fishing-dependent businesses, fish and wildlife conservation programs in California would suffer as prices for tackle increase and overall fishing expenditures suffer,” said Scott Gudes, ASA’s vice president for Government Affairs.

“ Not many people realize that it is anglers who pay for California’s fishery conservation programs through fishing tackle excise taxes and license fees. A ban on lead tackle is not based on science. Anglers and conservation programs would be the losers.”

For more information about this and to sign a petition against a ban, visit the California Sportfishing League.

Thursday
Feb262015

Congress Stops Lead Ban Attempts for 2015

Congress stood solidly on the side of anglers and hunters late last year, as it specified in an appropriations bill that unwarranted regulation of fishing tackle and ammunition with lead components via the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) would be banned during the 2015 fiscal year.

“We applaud Congressional leadership for protecting the nation’s 60 million anglers from unjustified restrictions on fishing equipment that anglers have safely used for decades,” said Mike Nussman, president of the American Sportfishing Association.

Section 425 of the $1.1 trillion bill states, “None of the funds made available by this or any other act may be used to regulate the lead content of ammunition, ammunition components, or fishing tackle . . .”

But the fix is only temporary. Should Congress pass the Sportsmen’s Package Bill in 2015, which was derailed by last year’s Senate, the protection could become permanent.

During the past few years, environmental and other groups persistently have lobbied the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to ban use of lead by anglers, hunters, and shooters.

“On multiple occasions, the Environmental Protection Agency has been petitioned by anti-fishing organizations to federally ban fishing tackle containing lead based on its impact on wildlife, a position that is not based on sound science,” Nussman added.

Tuesday
Sep162014

New Regulations in California Could Include Tackle Ban

California is at it again. This time, fishing tackle made with lead, copper, and zinc could be banned as a result. And what happens in California will affect anglers all over the country.

From the California Sportfishing League:

"The State has proposed new regulations targeting lead sinkers and fishing gear. As a consequence, fishing equipment made of lead, zinc and copper could be outlawed, forcing manufactures and suppliers to flee California’s market altogether and drive up the cost of fishing gear as much as 20-fold! If fishing is listed as a product of interest, every other State in the Nation will soon follow.

"We need your help. The Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) will be holding workshops on September 25th and 29th, and your voice needs to be heard. The public comment period closes October 13th, so don’t wait! Join our fishing coalition today! Attend these important workshops."

Go here to sign the petition to oppose the ban.

Thursday
May012014

Time to Take a Look at the Big Picture of Animal Rights Movement

Generally, we don’t take the animal rights movement literally. That’s because we’ve allowed ourselves to be distracted from the big picture by the relatively small skirmishes, including the movement to ban lead fishing tackle and, more recently, the campaign to portray catch and release as cruel.

But it’s time for a harsh reality check. The animal rights movement is about giving “rights” to fish, fowl, and furry critters. It’s also about giving rights to trees, grass, and water. And it’s coming closer and closer to a waterway near you, possibly in the guise of a Trojan horse that its devotees hope you won’t recognize for what it is.

Consider the good folks of Upper Mount Bethel Township in Pennsylvania. Some don’t want fertilizers made with human waste being spread on local farm fields, and they’ve voiced their concerns.

Enter the Community Environmental Legal Defend Fund (CELDF) to “help” these residents. It is proposing a community bill of rights for the right to water, self-governance, and sustainable farming, with a ban on spreading sludge by corporations.

Sounds great, huh? Until you check out the CELDF’s pedigree. Here is what it proclaims on its website:

“The Legal Defense Fund has assisted communities in the United States to craft first-in-the-nation laws that change the status of natural communities and ecosystems from being regarded as property under the law to being recognized as rights-bearing entities.

 “Those local laws recognize that natural communities and ecosystems possess an inalienable and fundamental right to exist and flourish, and that residents of those communities possess the legal authority to enforce those rights on behalf of those ecosystems.  In addition, these laws require the governmental apparatus to remedy violations of those ecosystem rights.”

Got that? Its objective is to give legal rights to rivers, lakes, forests, and fields.

Fortunately, at least one Pennsylvania resident did his homework and explained his concerns in a letter to the Express-Times newspaper.

“I listened to the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund lecture on the Constitution and individual rights, only to breeze over the part of the proposal that subjugates individual rights to the rights of the collective and worse, to an imagined ‘natural community,’” said James Kaleda.

“This proposal is extreme environmentalism masquerading as local sovereignty.  It has UMBT residents declare their sovereignty and then immediately subjugate their rights to the rights of a rock.

“Make no mistake about it. This bill is anti-hunting, anti-fishing, anti-wood-burning stove. It is anti-freedom . . .”

And he’s correct. A community that buys into this scam is just a heartbeat away from placing itself in a situation in which it can be coerced into prohibiting fishing because it disrupts the natural harmony and thus violates the rights of a “natural community.”

Think that can’t happen?  It already has in Europe, where animal rights groups have enjoyed so much success that they no longer try to hide their true objectives. In several countries, they’ve established political parties, with the most notable being in the Netherlands.

In 2006, the Dutch Party for Animals won two seats in Parliament. Among its successes is a ban on round goldfish bowls because they are too stressful.

“Their goal is to move away from human-centered thinking and create a society that treats animals with respect,” reported The Economist.

Meanwhile in Italy, a terminally ill veterinary student posted support on her Facebook page for animal research, explaining that it helped keep her alive. In response, she was bombarded with hate mail and death threats.

One message said, “You could die tomorrow. I wouldn’t sacrifice my goldfish for you.”

And let’s not forget that use of live bait already is prohibited in several European countries because it’s viewed as cruel, while Switzerland has banned catch-and-release fishing for the same reason.

In the U.S., sport fishing still is solidly supported by a vast majority of the people, and state wildlife agencies have done a good job of recruiting new anglers through urban fishing programs and other innovative strategies.

But let’s not forget that animal rights advocates don’t care about how many millions enjoy/support fishing or how important it is historically, culturally, and economically. They are blindly devoted to imposing their will on the rest of us, and they are not reluctant to use Trojan horses in doing so.

(This opinion piece appeared originally in B.A.S.S. Times.)