Help Stop Lead Tackle Ban in New Hampshire

Your help is needed now!

Keep America Fishing says this:

On Wednesday, March 28, the New Hampshire Senate is expected to vote on legislation to expand current restrictions on the use of lead sinkers and jigs. If this unjustified bill passes the Senate, it may then move to the House of Representatives for further consideration.

It is critical that anglers take action now to ensure that this lead ban legislation is not adopted.

In January, the New Hampshire State Senate introduced legislation (SB 224) to expand current restrictions on the use of lead sinkers and jigs in state waters. A recent amendment, supported by loon preservation advocates and lake owners, further expands the proposed ban by prohibiting the use of any lead jig measuring 2.5 inches or less.

Current regulations banning the use of lead jigs measuring one inch or less are already onerous enough and have impacted the ability of New Hampshire’s anglers to enjoy the sport. As this bill moves closer to passage, it is more important than ever that New Hampshire’s state policy makers hear from you.

Go here to help defeat this legislation and to learn more. Also do a search about lead on this site to learn more about how anti-fishing groups are using it in their war against angling.

Lead Fishing Tackle NOT a Factor in Eagle Deaths

Photo copyright Robert Montgomery

Just as those opposed to recreational fishing continue their assault via Catch Shares and Marine Protected Areas our oceans, they persist on the freshwater front by pressing for a ban on lead fishing tackle.

No research supports their charges that significant numbers of eagles, loons, and other birds die of lead poisoning from fishing weights. But they are not deterred by facts. Rather, they hope that their use of eagles and loons as “victims” will fuel an emotional landslide of support from the public and force government officials to bow to the pressure.

A ban on lead fishing tackle is not about protecting wildlife; it is a preservationist tactic to push us off the water.

But the emeritus director and founder of the Raptor Center at the University of Minnesota just slapped preservationists upside the head with the truth in a letter to ProMED, a mail website maintained by the International Society for Infectious Diseases.

And it’s not just what Dr. Patrick T. Redig said. It’s what he didn’t say as well. In presenting the facts about eagle deaths from lead poisoning, he did NOT mention lead fishing tackle at a contributor.

In short, eagles are dying from ingesting deer and small game remains that are contaminated with spent lead ammunition. 

And, Redig adds, “As the annual poisoning event occurs from mid-November through March, a time when most waterfowl have left the shallow ponds where accumulated lead shot is available in the sediments, it is also quite certain that poisoning of eagles is not related to accumulated lead residues in waterfowl carcasses.”

That means that lead objects in the water, whether from anglers or waterfowl hunters, have nothing to do with eagle deaths.

Unintentional deaths of eagles are a tragedy, certainly, and the causes should be addressed --- now that we know the facts and can take actions that accurately address those facts.

Here’s an excerpt from his letter to ProMED:

“Our organization, The Raptor Center at the University of Minnesota, has been documenting and treating clinical cases of lead poisoning in eagles since the mid-1970s. Of the 120 or so eagles admitted every year for a wide variety of causes from 1974 to the present, some 25 to 30 were presented annually for acute lead poisoning; most of these eagles are beyond treatment and were euthanized.

“In addition, every eagle admitted, regardless of cause, is tested for lead, and over 90 percent have elevated lead residues in their blood during the hunting seasons. Clearly, eagles are exposed to a significant amount of lead.

“Extensive epidemiological monitoring and clinical evaluation (blood lead levels, radiographs, necropsies) of this phenomenon show that the source of lead is spent ammunition, especially fragments from high velocity rifle bullets and, to a lesser degree, shotgun slug fragments, buried in white-tailed deer residues, gutpiles, and
un-recovered carcasses.”

Meanwhile, environmental groups have presented a second petition to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for a ban on lead fishing tackle, even though the agency rejected the first last year. Concurrently, some of these groups have filed suit, challenging dismissal of that first petition.

Go to Keep America Fishing to learn more about this issue, as well as the Hunting, Fishing, and Recreational Shooting Sports Protection Act. We need passage of this legislation to ensure that regulations related to fishing tackle are based on fact, not fiction. Also, send a message, telling the EPA that you oppose the proposed ban and encouraging your  representatives in Congress to support the act.

Environmental Groups Still Using Lead Lies to Threaten Recreational Fishing

Anti-fishing groups use the loon as the "poster child" for their campaigns.

If you’re a freshwater angler and you think that your right to fish isn’t being threatened also, I have news for you:

You’re wrong.

The same folks who want to implement Catch Shares in our ocean fisheries and establish “marine protected area” where no fishing is allowed, are coming after you as well.

Only their approach is a little less in-your-face and a lot more sinister.

With the iconic loon as their poster pinup, they want to take away your right to fish in fresh water by starting with a ban on lead. And not just weights either. They want to eliminate jigheads, spinnerbaits, and anything else with a lead component.

The latest evidence: The American Bird Conservancy (ABC) is looking for a lead campaign manager.  Get the job description here.

Here’s a key part of that description: Campaign Manager will work with states and agencies to put lead-free regulations into effect.

And here’s an interesting coincidence: ABC joined the usual cast of anti-fishing characters --- Environmental Defense Fund, Ocean Conservancy, Defenders of Wildlife, etc. --- in supporting President Obama’s creation of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force, which set up a massive bureaucracy for “zoning” uses of marine waters.

“Since the fishing industry is already leading with producing non-toxic sinkers, and waterfowl were the only birds really in need of a lead-free zone (loons and other birds do ingest lead shot), so to speak, this smacks to me as totally unnecessary and, therefore, more nefarious,” says a confidential source.

Continued

The California Condor: A Real Case of Lead Poisoning

Environmental extremists have long used half-truths and questionable statistics to push for a ban of lead in fishing tackle and lead ammunition. Their ultimate objective, of course, is not to eliminate lead in the environment, but to eliminate anglers and hunters.

Sadly, that no-compromise stance feeds a feverish controversy in which the fact that, sometimes, lead use should be restricted.

In the Statesman.com, Mike Leggett provides a great example of how lead  might be harming Callifornia condors and helpful insights into how we might better deal with this ongoing nationwide issue.

B.A.S.S. Weighs in on Connecticut Attempt to Ban Lead

B.A.S.S. Conservation Director Noreen Clough says in an open letter to Connecticut legislators:

"On behalf of the more than 500,000 members of Bass Anglers Sportsman Society (B.A.S.S.) nationwide, who, in addition to being avid anglers, remain focused on issues related to aquatic resource conservation, I am writing to urge you to oppose S.B. 59, which would ban the sale and use of lead fishing sinkers and jigs throughout your state.

"This legislation places unnecessary, unwarranted and severe regulations on recreational fishing tackle, which will have a significant negative impact on Connecticut's anglers.

"On November 4, 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rejected a petition to ban all lead fishing tackle on all U.S. waters, stating that the petitioners did not demonstrate that such a ban is 'necessary to protect against an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment.'"

I've said it before and I will say it again: Banning use of lead fishing tackle  is more of an attack on recreational angling than it is an attempt to protect loons and other birds, and the science doesn't support such an action. But anglers and the fishing industry should more actively embrace alternatives because getting the lead out --- in general --- is a good idea.