[derf]

from the island free press:

Anglers, tackle shops, and fishing advocacy groups were surprised by The National Park Service announcement last week that it has “stepped up” efforts to reduce lead in the parks.

“Our goal is to eliminate the use of lead ammunition and lead fishing tackle in parks by the end of 2010,” said Acting National Park Service Director Dan Wenk in a media release. “We want to take a leadership role in removing lead from the environment.”

The announcement by NPS last week is not a rule and is not a ban on lead tackle and ammunition in the parks – at least not yet.

However, the media release from NPS in Washington, D.C., was headlined, “National Park Service Gets the Lead Out!” and called it a reason for visitors to the parks and for wildlife to celebrate.

The folks who were caught by surprise by this cheerful announcement were not amused – or celebrating.

The discussion of lead used in ammunition and fishing tackle is not new to most anglers and owners of businesses that sell tackle.

However, local anglers, tackle shop owners, and groups that represent sportfishermen were surprised by the suddenness and the timing of the announcement. Most knew nothing about it until the NPS media release went out on March 10.

And most were unhappy that stakeholders had not been invited to give their input.

In a March 13 media release, The American Sportfishing Association (ASA), along with a number of fish and wildlife management conservation groups, asked the National Park Service “to reconsider its ban on the use of fishing tackle made with lead components in national parks by 2010.”

“The sportfishing industry is surprised and dismayed by the March 10 announcement made by the National Park Service,” said ASA Vice President Gordon Robertson. “Their intention to eliminate the use of lead in fishing tackle in national parks was made without prior consultation of the sportfishing industry or the millions of recreational anglers who fish within the national park system.”

Robertson further said, “In his January 21, 2009, Executive Memo to federal agency and department heads, President Obama made it very clear that he expects the federal government to be transparent, participatory and collaborative and that ‘executive departments and agencies should offer Americans increased opportunities to participate in policymaking and to provide their Government with the benefits of their collective expertise and information.’ We expect the National Park Service to follow the President’s order.”

In the normal course of events, the release noted, the sportfishing and shooting sports industries (lead component ammunition is also included in the ban) would have been notified by the NPS about this change in policy and would have been invited to discuss this decision with NPS staff.

Robertson further explained, “The NPS policy announcement, issued by a press release, does not explain how this decision was reached, why it may be necessary or how this rule will be implemented. To our knowledge, there has been no proposed rule, nor any opportunity for public comment. We request that the NPS withdraw this proposal and discuss the rationale for it with the appropriate stakeholders before taking further action.”

Jody Lyle, a Park Service spokesman in Washington, D.C. commented about the reaction to the announcement in a phone interview.

“There has been a lot of confusion since we put out the release,” she said.

The Park Service, she said, will spend 2009 “cleaning up our own house” on the use of lead.

The release said the new lead reduction efforts will include changes in NPS activities, such as culling operations or the dispatching of wounded or sick animals. Rangers and resource managers will use non-lead ammunition to prevent environmental contamination as well as lead poisoning of scavenger species that may eventually feed upon the carcass.

“After we do that,” Lyle said, “we will get the public, the industry, the stakeholders involved.

“There will be a lot of time to have input,” she noted.

And Lyle said that in addition to calls opposing the effort to remove lead from ammunition and fishing tackle in the parks, there have been calls that are supportive of the effort to remove the metal, which can be toxic if ingested, from the environment.

The issue of lead in ammunition and fishing tackled has been talked about for several decades. It has been at the forefront of the green movement since lead shot was prohibited for waterfowl hunting in 1991. That came in the wake of studies that showed that lead pellets were ingested by some waterfowl and could cause harm to them or their environment.

Since then, at least a half dozen states have prohibited lead in ammunition and fishing tackle, mostly smaller-sized tackle.

The National Park Service Press Release noted, “Lead is banned in gasoline, children’s toys, and paint because of its effects on human health. In the United States, there is an accelerating trend to expand efforts to reduce lead contamination associated with firearms and hunting. California and Arizona have recently implemented mandatory and voluntary bans, respectively, on lead ammunition to facilitate California condor recovery. And Yellowstone National Park has had restrictions on lead fishing tackle for years to protect native species and their habitats.”

In addition, according to ASA, a number of states have regulated lead in fishing tackle. They include:

• New Hampshire— The first state to ban the use of lead sinkers. Legislation passed in 1998 (effective in 2000). The legislation prohibits the use of lead sinkers in lakes and ponds up to one ounce and lead jigs up to one inch in length. Later expanded the legislation to include all waters of the state.

• Maine—Passed legislation in 2001 (effective January 1, 2002) to ban the sales of lead sinker 1/2 ounce or less.

• New York—Passed legislation in 2002 (effective May 2004) that bans the sale of lead sinkers to the end user.

• Vermont—Passed legislation prohibiting the sale (effective January 1, 2006) and use (effective January 1, 2007) of lead fishing sinkers 1/2 ounce or less. The state implemented a lead sinker education program beginning July 1, 2004.

In Massachusetts in July of last year, a bill that sought to regulate lead weight and sinker devices in all inland freshwater bodies did not proceed forward at the end of the legislative session.

Most of the restrictions in other state have addressed smaller pieces of metal – pellets and small sinkers – that are more easily ingested. And most involve freshwater lakes and ponds.
Hatteras tackle shop owners are very unhappy, not too happy, or just barely accepting of a possible ban.

Bob Eakes, owner of Red Drum Tackle who serves on the board of the American Sportfishing Association, says there really isn’t another metal suitable for fishing on the Outer Banks.

The Park Service in its release said that non-toxic substitutes for lead made in the United States are now widely available, including tungsten, copper, and steel.

“Is there anything like lead that is malleable and affordable and that we can use to fish off the beach here?” asked Eakes.

“Absolutely not,” he answered.

Eakes said he could understand that small pieces of lead from shot, BBs, or lead shrapnel might be a problem for waterfowl. But the size of the weights used to fish the Outer Banks make then an unlikely meal for a bird.

“It’s ridiculous,” Eakes said. “The level upon level of regulations the government puts on us.”

Frank Folb of Frank and Fran’s tackle shop in Avon, notes that as far as he is concerned anglers cast into state waters and the state has had nothing to say about lead tackle.

“And,” he adds, “have you thought about what the cost will be to the angler?’

Tackle made out of alternative metal, he said, will be much more expensive and larger and bulkier to achieve the same weight.

Folb also noted that lead is used not only in sinkers, lures, and jigs, but also in cast nets and fishing rods and reels.

Bryan Perry, owner of Frisco Rod and Gun, says that all of the locally made lures contain lead.

“The intentions are probably good,” he said, “but it’s just all a part of the ‘green gone wild’ movement.”

“It’s not the end of the world,” Perry said, “but it’s just going to add up to more expense for fishermen when we don’t need anymore expense.”


MORE INFORMATION

Frank Folb of Frank and Fran’s tackle shop in Avon did some research comparing lead lures to other metals.

Here is some of what he found.

A few facts:

Lead: (Preferred lure and sinker metal)
Present Value per pound: 60 cents
Melts at 622 degrees F
A cubic inch weighs .409 lb.

Bismuth: (Alternative 1)
Present Value per pound: $15-$17
Melts at 520 degrees F
A cubic inch weighs .350 lb.

Difference in cost alone would make sinker prices skyrocket. Presently I sell a 5-ounce sinker for $1, but with Bismuth the price would have to be $25. Also the size of the sinker would increase about 15 % making casting more difficult.

Copper: (Alternative 2)
Present Value per pound: $1.80
Melts at 1980 degrees F
A cubic inch weighs .321 lb.

Presently I sell a 5-ounce sinker for $1, but with Copper the price would have to be $3. Also the size of the sinker would increase about 21 % making casting more difficult. Pouring sinkers would also become much more expensive because copper would not melt until you reached 1980 degrees F and molds and handling would at least triple in cost making the $3 for a 5- ounce sinker low.

Zinc: (Alternative 3)
Present Value per pound: 55 cents
Melts at 757 degrees F
A cubic inch weighs .254 lb.

Presently I sell a 5-ounce sinker for $1 and with Zinc the price would have to be $1. Also the size of the sinker would increase about 60 % making casting much more difficult. Pouring sinkers would also become much more expensive because Zinc would not melt until you reached 787 degrees F and molds and handling would increase cost making the $1 for a 5-ounce sinker a little low.


Steel: (Alternative 4)
Present Value per pound: 10 cents
Melts at 2777 degrees F
A cubic inch weighs .160 lb.

Cost of steel is only 17% the cost lead, but the cost of production of the finished product would be so high that the retail would skyrocket to at least the cost of then copper alternative of $3 for a 5-ounce sinker. Also size of the 5-ounce sinker would increase by 70% and they would RUST as well. Impossible to use.