Please help stop the lead ban.

S

starcrafttom

Active member
Please help us stop this bill. Follow the link on the bottom if you agree.


The HB 2241 house bill/lead ban would effectively cripple or stop river fishing for salmon and steelhead, trout, bass, walleye, bait, and any other small jig/hook fishery. This would send our citizens and redirect our out of state sportfishers to BC, Alaska, Oregon, and Idaho to fish where these methods are still legal, taking their revenue with them. This opens the doors for expanded future lead bans and could ultimately be expanded to illegalize all lead weights including downrigger balls. Can you imagine if we were forced to have to convert to tungsten? Downrigger balls could be way over $100.00 each! This bill is an anti-fishing bill.

The Puget Sound Anglers promotes and educates sportsfishers to be stewards of our resources. We feel that as the largest sportfishing organization in Washington state, that critical decisions such as these should go through us and not around us. We work very hard to safely promote our sports fisheries and are involved in all decision making for them. This bill does not invite us to the table and instead puts us on the table.

A number of groups have petitioned the federal EPA numerous times during the last five years to ban the use of lead nationally and have been rejected each time. The EPA has repeatedly ruled that if lead is not ingested there is no evidence of harm to the environment, public, or our natural resources. The agency determined that no action was warranted and expressed concern over the enormous economic consequences. The same petitioners filed another petition in 2011 that is currently under review by EPA and a decision is expected by late February of 2012 which we believe this latest petition will be rejected. An interesting note is that the commercial industry and Native American tribes are excluded from this legislation.


The bill is an effort by environmental and bird watching groups to ban the use of lead under 1 inch in length and 1oz in weight in all state waters. Passage of this legislation would have very real economic consequences to our industry and recreational fishers. It must be must be stopped. According to the latest science the only risk to birds is if the lead is ingested. The WDFW Commission ruled on this issue two years ago by passing lead size restrictions on a small number of lakes that were certified to be home to breeding pairs of loons and any further attempts to expand their policy should be made by this independent citizen commission where we are involved with the decision making.



This lead ban is not by the WDFW commission and is going to be heard in Olympia on Thursday Jan 19. This is an end run around our commission where our fishing and resources are dealt with for recreational and commercial fishing and should stay there.


Please write to the Committee listed below. Be respectful in your emails and calls and ask for their support in killing this proposed legislation. If you reside in any of these legislators districts, be sure to mention that and communicate to them what organization you belong to and the membership. Also, we need to have our business members and sports fishing organizations present in real numbers to testify or sign in opposition to the legislation at 8:00 AM on Jan 19. Please check here for info.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary ... #documents
Rep Dave Upthegrove (Chairman) Dist.33 (D) dave.upthegrove@leg.wa.gov 360 786-7868
Rep. Jeff Morris (Dist. 40) (D) jeff.morris@leg.wa.gov 360 786-7970
Rep. Shelly Short (Dist. 7) (R) shelly.short@leg.wa.gov 360 786-7908
Rep. Kirk Pearson (Dist.39) (R) kirk.pearson@leg.wa.gov 360 786-7816
Rep. Steve Tharinger (Dist. 24) (D) steve.tharinger@leg.wa.gov 360 786-7904
Rep. Luis Moscoso (Dist. 1) (D) luis.moscoso@leg.wa.gov 360 786-7900
Rep. Paul Harris (Dist. 17) (R) paul.harris@leg.wa.gov 360 786-7976
Rep. Joe Fitzgibbon (Dist. 34) (D) joe.fitzgibbon@leg.wa.gov 360 786-7952
Rep. Dean Takko (Dist. 19) (D) dean.takko@leg.wa.gov 360 786-7806
Rep. Larry Crouse (Dist.4) (R) larry.crouse@leg.wa 360 786-7820
Rep. Drew Hansen (Dist. 23 (D) drew.hansen@leg.wa.gov 360 786 7842
Rep. Sharon Wylie (Dist. 49 (D) sharon.wylie@leg.wa.gov 360 786-7924
Rep. Terry Nealey (Dist. 16) (R) terry.nealey@leg.wa.gov 360 786-7828
Rep. Laurie Jinkins (Dist. 27) (D) laurie.jinkins@leg.wa.gov 360 786-7930
Rep. David Taylor (Dist. 15) (R) david.taylor@leg.wa.gov 360 786-7874
Rep. Gerry Pollet (Dist 46) (D) pollet.gerry@leg.wa.gov 360- 786-7886
Rep. Matt Shea (Dist 4) (R) shea.matt@leg.wa.gov 360-786-7984



Click the link below to log in and send your message:
http://www.votervoice.net/link/target/psa/54NtFGti.aspx
 
Here is copy of the letter that I sent thru the action alert web site at the bottom.

This seemingly innocent bill would outlaw the most effective fishing lures and you would see many fisheries terminate. Our kids would not be able to learn to trout fish from the banks, where many start, as there would be no way to cast their rods without the smaller weights. River fishing would surely cease to exist.

Can you imagine Washington state with no river, lake, and small boat fishing? This bill, its sponsors, and the Environment committee could be responsible for crippling the sportsfishing in Washington state as we know it. We understand there are tough choices at times and this is one of them. As a sportfisher I am not in favor of this bill and understand that fishing is worth over a 3.2 billion dollars to this states yearly economy. Our sportsfisheries, culture, and way of life all are at risk with this decision. This will cause our state's citizens, their kids, and grandkids to either quit fishing or to take their fishing vacations elsewhere, such as Alaska, BC, Oregon, Idaho, etc., and their money right out of this state.

We are in tough economic times and the economy has caused us to stay here at home to fish. This has spurred many local tackle manufacturers and retailers to be able to add many employees and jobs when we need it most. We need this to continue and be able to use our resources for our citizens. This bill would stall sportfishing manufacturing and retail sales starting layoffs. Is that really what we want? No.

Representing as a member of the Puget Sound Anglers 17 Chapters with thousands of members, we use conservation to support, promote, and operate many kids yearly fishing events. These events could cease to exist through this legislation. This would cause devastation for river salmon and steelhead, bass, walleye, and numerous other sportfisheries. They all rely and exist almost purely on what this bill bans. Through responsible fishing our kids and grandkids learn about our fisheries and our environment. Through this they are educated on how to take care of it with the hands on approach. By removing them from fishing, it will surely keep them from learning to protect our fisheries and resources.

The WDFW Commission ruled on this issue two years ago by passing lead size restrictions on a small number of lakes that were certified to be home to breeding pairs of loons. All fishery decisions in Washington state should be done by this independent citizen commission.

According to Gordon Robertson of the American Sportsfishing Industry, nets in Lake Superior have killed thousands of loons in the last year. Compare that to Washington State where a total of less than ten loons have been verified to have died in our state in the last decade from lead poisoning. Recreational fishing is our cultural heritage and we have been fishing lead in lakes, streams, and ocean waters for over a century. We must not let small special interest groups overreact and control how we conduct our fisheries.

Please reject this proposed legislation for the following reasons.
1. It is not scientifically defensible. Lead is not harmful to the environment or wildlife if not ingested. Cite Environmental Protection Agency ruling on petitions.
2. Economics. This could cost the industry and state hundreds of jobs and million of dollars to address a problem that does not exist.
3. The legislation is punitive to one industry and misdirected. Tribal and Non Tribal nets kill thousands of birds and aquatic animals each year and yet they are excluded.
4. The state should be doing everything possible to create jobs rather creating legislation that will result increased unemployment and lower state revenues.
5. This type of policy setting should be determined by the WDFW Commission or federal mandate.

Please retract this bill and let this decision making take place where it belongs, with the WDFW Commission and by Federal Mandates of the Environmental Protection Agency.
 
Tom,
Why don't you learn how to fly fish. Can't you make some bullet shaped concrete downrigger balls? Have you called Cabela's and Bass Pro Shops about this? I bet your boys from Coastal Conservation are in on this. :twisted:
D.D.
 
Sent my reply in support of Puget Sound Anglers, which I am a member of.
We, recreational fishermen, are being attacked from all sides. Commercial fishermen seem to have the deck stacked in their favor, if they mess up, they are given a light fine and keep fishing. If I mess up with a barbed hook, big fine!
It is important that we protect ALL recreational fishers, whether they fish with a fly rod or use downriggers. Ever try to catch a chinook in Puget Sound with a fly rod? It doesn't happen. Not all of want to fish with one method, that's why we have to give freedom of fishing with accepted and preferred equipment to all recreational fishers.
So, even if you don't fish right now, you may in the future and heck, you might even get some fish from a friend who does fish with lead, give your support through the Voter Voice link at the end of Tom's message. It will only help.
Thanks!
 
Tom - how will a bill that is designed to "ban the use of lead under 1 inch in length and 1oz in weight in all state waters" naturally lead to "$100 downrigger balls"? IMHO there's good data to show that small easily ingestible pieces of lead cause problems in waterfowl that sometimes intentionally ingest small pebbles. I believe that's the rationale for proposing a ban that bans the small size weights. We've had a federal ban on the use of lead shot used in hunting for quite awhile now and it hasn't resulted in any disastrous consequences for hunting (at least not of which I am aware). New Hampshire, Maine and NY have all banned the use of small lead weights for fishing based on the same rationale. I guess I'm not convinced that a ban on small, easily ingestible weights is that bad an idea.
 
I dont see how a banned in river and the salt will have any impact of waterfowl at all. The lead bans in hunting was a good idea because the lead was being used in the same areas that the birds feed. ducks do not feed in fast flowing rivers. Also only 10 water fowl deaths have been linked to fishing weights in the last 10 years. Where as nets on the great lakes have been linked to 10,000's of loons being killed last year along.

This bill is not addressing the real problem but is merely a attempt to stop or make fishing more costly for everyone. If you dont think the shot ban had a impact on hunters you are wrong. It tripled the cost of a box of shell. That cuts into the amount of hunting a average guy can do. Now I supported the lead ban on water fowl even thought the science was spotty at best. Bit of a over reaction really, but still a good idea. But This is just b.s.

As for the size of lead. This opens the doors for expanded future lead bans and could ultimately be expanded to illegalize all lead weights including downrigger balls . Not surprising there is no authority in the bill to fine anyone. In other words it will only severe to force fisherman to buy their lead and weights out of state. This will cause a hit on the tax income of the state at a time that the state is already falling short. If I have to go out of state, say Portland, once a year to get my lead I might as well buy all my lures while I'm there. Portland can have my tax money.

So this bill is not going to save any birds, not going to be enforced in the field and will cut into the state coffers. So why bother??
 
I called every name on the list today. Even talked with the sponsors of the bill and brought up several points they had not thought of. This bill does not stop me from using lead in the state but stops it from being sold in the state. There are 50 jig manufacturer in the state that are really small business that employee 3 or 4 people each. Kiss their jobs good bye along with tax base it creates.

I would support a bill that was going to work, this bill is not it. the sponsors falsely believe that fisherman will just gladly pay more to use alternate materials if they outlaw the selling of lead. The majority of fishing in the state of Washington in done on the Columbine river, you know next to Oregon where lead would be still legal... This bill as written is useless and harmful to the people of Washington.
 
Will -c. I learned to fly fish first before any thing else. I have not done it in a long time for many reasons. Mostly to do with the elitist attitude of a large percent of the fly fisherman today. fly fishing is fun but there is nothing more magical or ethical about it. In fact there is a lot wrong with it ethically as its practiced in a lot of areas by many people. but its still fun.

I had a woman yell at me for spinner fishing on a stream that I had fished for years. She told me that I should catch and release or be killed. I shit you not she said that I should be shot for keeping a fish. This is after watching her release about 5 bleeding trout back into the stream to die from her ruff treatment while unhooking. any way I ran her off the stream and later ran her boyfriend off when he gave me lip, flatlanders are a pain.

But back to the point. if you can help please send the emails.
 
I recall reading that lead based fishing sinkers are already banned in all Canadian and American National Parks. I don't see the problem with a ban on lead in our water's, it will benefit the water fowl by eliminating lead from their diet.Steel sinker's and steel downrigger weights are already available,we will just have to buy new terminal tackle , no big deal. Tug
 
I did support the lead shot ban--but do not support the sinker ban--especially when it goes up to 1". I was just sorting thru my tackle boxes today, prior to our Keys fishing trip. I have many lead head jigs which I use in fresh water--and some in salt water. I rarely loose them. Same for the soft malleable sinkers I use on spinning rod lines.

I did send that mass e-mail--and will send a specific mail to the representative of the area which I visit almost yearly in WA. (and where I have a number of friends who live there full time).

I also enjoy fly fishing and have done that for over 60 years.

There are far more birds killed by the wind generators than are killed by any lead sinkers. We seem to be in a proliferation of wind generators by the thousands. As we drove across the texas plains a couple of weeks ago the skyline was full of them. So is it about the birds?
 
every fall our news channel shows I'm thinking Trumpeter Swans, but anyway very large white birds whithering a way in the shallows if the coyotes can't reach them they could be out there for a month before they croak they end up starving to death (one of many lakes)... the autopsies show their loaded with lead buckshot .. this one lake straddles Washington and BC and is on the magnatory route for the Swans and their bottom feeders .. it is loaded with lead buck shot ..its very sad to look at and i can see people out to put a ban on all lead, pellets or weights .. you would think cannon balls would be excempt but smaller weights lost in flowing creek beds would eventually wear down ... the one resident in the area loads the Swans into his pickup and buries them, over the years he's tallied up 2,000 birds (Swans) like this lead poisoning is a major problem birds, fish and humans ... wc
 
You are right its awful about the swans eating lead buck shot, which is already illegal. My problem with this bill is that it will do nothing for the birds. Most of the lead digested by ducks and other birds is from feeding in shallow still water. I have no problem banning the use of lead in these areas only. Last year several lakes that are breeding ground for loons were band from the use of lead on those lakes. This bill just out laws the use of lead on all bodies of water whether these waters are feeding grounds for ducks or not.

Even if I supported the premise for this law I would not want it enacted. It does not have any hope of being effective. With out a enforcement clause it has not use. With many jobs on the line and no real benefit to the wildlife I see no reason to support this bill and many reasons to oppose it.
 
starcrafttom":9zv55m93 said:
You are right its awful about the swans eating lead buck shot, which is already illegal. My problem with this bill is that it will do nothing for the birds. Most of the lead digested by ducks and other birds is from feeding in shallow still water. I have no problem banning the use of lead in these areas only. Last year several lakes that are breeding ground for loons were band from the use of lead on those lakes. This bill just out laws the use of lead on all bodies of water whether these waters are feeding grounds for ducks or not.

Even if I supported the premise for this law I would not want it enacted. It does not have any hope of being effective. With out a enforcement clause it has not use. With many jobs on the line and no real benefit to the wildlife I see no reason to support this bill and many reasons to oppose it.
Click to expand...

Now your arguments are making more sense to me than the opening statement (including the $100 downrigger ball :lol: ). A few comments to this and WC's post. Lead buckshot is now banned but it remains in the environment for a long time. Smaller shot in moving stream beds does eventually wear down but it takes quite awhile. Lead itself is fairly quickly oxidized on the outside surface in typical surface water and doesn't add much soluble lead to the surrounding water after it's oxidized. The main problem is small pieces of lead being ingested by birds that pick them up in shallow water.

So I agree with Tom that there are many areas in which using (and inevitably losing) small pieces of lead will not result in potential harm to birds. However, just because a body of water is flowing doesn't mean that there are not shallow still areas within in it in which waterfowl feed. There are often shallow side channels, bays and sloughs associated with the rivers in the Pacific NW (including the Columbia) where birds feed. In such locations, it makes sense to not use small lead - particularly split shot or "slinkies" (nylon tubes filled with small shot commonly used while fishing moving water).

So how would one write sensible legislation to prevent the use of lead in situations where it makes sense? One could write a provision that is all enforcement based. Fish and wildlife game officers would in the process of doing random checks look to see if you're using small lead in areas where the water is shallow and not moving. Perhaps Tom would agree to such a provision.

However, I can see numerous issues with this route. 1) We currently don't have enough fish and game officers in Washington to even come close to adequately enforcing our poaching laws and we have no obvious source of funds to hire people to enforce small lead ban. 2) Some weights are painted or otherwise coated. How would an officer determine if your weight is made of lead? Will he remove it from your line, measure it's volume by displacement and weigh it on an accurate scale to determine if it has the density of lead? Will he scrape it and do some onsite chemistry to determine if it's lead? I think it's not practical to expect law enforcement to be able to determine if your weight (especially a painted one) is lead. 3) How do we define shallow and moving water? Some water that is shallow 50-80% of the year may be deep after a rainstorm. Some water that is not moving today, may be flowing after a rainstorm. Still if it's shallow and not rapidly flowing for much of the year (or even just the times that some migratory bird is there), it's a potential source for birds to ingest lead. So given the above considerations, I can see why someone may write legislation to ban the sale of small lead weights statewide. It may be the only practical way to reduce this source of lead in the waters where it matters.

So the current bill may be flawed but it may be better than other alternatives (or maybe it's worse than doing nothing). However, without discussing the specific language of the proposed bill, it's difficult to say. Nonetheless, I still maintain that a ban on small, easily ingestible lead weights is not inherently a bad idea.
 
Tom,
I hope you knew I was just breaking your stones. I sent the email but with a Pa. address I wonder if they will see me as out of state trash. I hope you folks have a snow shovel the news said the forcast calls for pain in the way of snow. One of our suppliers from Kent was not going to even open today. Last year I broke my fishing licence record, Pa. New Jersey, Maryland,Florida, and two short term licences in Utah and Wyoming. I feel like a fish prostitute.
D.D.
 
NETS KILL THOUSANDS OF LOONS ON LAKE SUPERIOR? Give me a break!

Very few nets left on Lake Superior and very few loons on the lake, no nesting places.

With statements like that it's hard to believe anything their say.

C-Otter
 
I've not been bird hunting for several years, so I'm sure things have changed somewhat since then...not to mention, laws likely vary by state. However, a quick search shows the same problem exists today, that struck me as strange previously. In many locations, at least in CA - lead shot isn't banned based on location. It's banned based on what you are hunting. If waterfowl - no lead. Upland game - lead is fine.

This makes zero sense. If the concern is that lead gets into waterways, plenty of that happens when hunting pheasant, dove and quail in places like the CA Delta. In locations such as these, private pheasant clubs are numerous, and their hunting seasons are extremely long compared to waterfowl.

Another issue not often raised - if the concern is the death of waterfowl that doesn't make it back home to the dinner table, steel shot is responsible for plenty of that. With lead - the stated problem is one of death from ingestion. With steel shot - you get far more injured birds that get to die a slow, likely agonizing death due to the lower energy from steel shot. Yes, this can certainly be mitigated by using proper and responsible hunting techniques - but as anyone who has hunted on public lands will attest to, competition for birds results in tons of yahoos shooting beyond steel shot's effective range.

Be it waterfowl or upland, I never shoot unless close enough to make a clean kill with steel. Anything beyond that range, is beyond my personal shooting ability to consistently make a clean kill with lead shot. So for me, limiting things to steel shot everywhere, would simply result in added ammo expense.

Which compared to the other expenses for a day of hunting, is trivial.
 
Hi, Here is a update on the lead issue. Its been dropped for this year and will not be picked up again this year. Here a note I got from the PSA Pres.

Thank you to everyone who helped with this anti-fishing/lead ban campaign for House Bill 2241. We were heard loud and clear. The meeting for tonight is being canceled and we were told it would not be rescheduled. We were asked to stop the emails and Voter Voice now.

If the need arises to restart this campaign you will be notified immediately.

Thank you for helping and being involved in the process of our fisheries.
Puget Sound Anglers



Click the link below to view this message on the web:
http://www.votervoice.net/link/target/psa/5J2MEN99.aspx
Click to expand...

Just goes to show that making calls and sending emails does work.
 
Back
Top