CSF Opposes State Lead Fishing Tackle Ban

[Lipripper]

Posted on Friday, April 06, 2018

By Soren Nelson, Pacific Southwest States Coordinator

On April 2, the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation (CSF) joined a coalition of recreational fishing organizations in submitting comments opposing California AB 2787, a bill that would outlaw the manufacturing, sale, and purchase of lead fishing weights weighing less than 50 grams.

In the letter, CSF highlighted the potential impact this legislation would have on conservation in the state. It noted that in 2017 alone, California's anglers contributed over $77 million to conservation through the American System of Conservation Funding. Annually, angler expenditures generate over $2.4 billion for the state economy and support over 35,000 California jobs.

AB 2787 has the potential to be among the strictest fishing tackle bans in the country, given the broad scope of weights and sinkers that would be banned under the bill provisions. To date, no studies have been conducted in California to demonstrate lead tackle has an adverse impact on fish or wildlife at a population level.

The bill is currently scheduled to be heard by the Assembly Committee on Government Organization on April 10.

[Smallie_Stalker]

That's today. Hope it doesn't pass. 

The whole "an adverse impact on fish or wildlife at a population level." is the argument that is used all the time in these situations. Unfortunately my home state bought the lie in 2012. 

A similar ban in Cali failed before. Let's hope history repeats itself.

[Lipripper]

That's today. Hope it doesn't pass. 

The whole "an adverse impact on fish or wildlife at a population level." is the argument that is used all the time in these situations. Unfortunately my home state bought the lie in 2012. 

A similar ban in Cali failed before. Let's hope history repeats itself.

So far Illinois don't have a ban on it yet either.

[bigjim5589]

A few weeks ago I was in a discussion on a saltwater site that I visit frequently about lead & pouring lead possibly being hazardous to people nearby ( neighbors for example). The person who initiated the discussion was from MA, and seemed to be fine with an all out ban. Most of his comments lacked any scientific proof or logic and certainly no knowledge of elemental lead. His argument was based on what he thought he knew or what he had heard.   

At this point in time there have been no studies that indicate that banning elemental lead would be justified. Lead compounds can be toxic, which we already know, and is why we no longer use such compounds in paints or gasoline. We don't pour tackle with compounds of lead. 

All of this negativity towards lead is based on misinformation & twisted arguments. 

I pointed out in that discussion that chlorine bleach, something that may be in many households is more toxic than lead, yet there doesn't seem to be any interest in banning it. 

[Smallie_Stalker]

Without getting too long winded, the ban here was based on the lie that Loons are an endangered species. Because a total of 9 loons had been found dead of lead poisoning allegedly caused by the ingestion of lead fishing weights and/or jigs,  that supposedly proved beyond any doubt "an adverse impact on fish or wildlife at a population level" All lead weights and jigs under 1 ounce were banned. (Yet Walmart and other stores continue to carry lead weights and jigs  ).

When the matter came up for alleged discussion people opposing the ban brought scientific evidence to support their view. They also argued that if loons were the real problem, and there are only loon populations on 14 bodies of water in the entire state, then restrict the ban to those waters only. It was obvious that the matter had been decided before the "discussion" took place. They were politely thanked for their contributions to the discussion and then politely informed that the ban would go into effect on the first day of the upcoming January (2012).

Because MA is required to have at least 2 seats on the board of the DF&W appointed to people who have no background in science of any kind we have 2 animal rights activists who get to vote on issues like this. Their views are always based on pure emotion. Scientific evidence, logic and reason make no difference. 

[Eric-Maine]

Been fighting it in Maine since 1998. Losing the battle incrementally. The only positive results thus far is for do gooders to feel good.

[coldfront]

I pointed out in that discussion that chlorine bleach, something that may be in many households is more toxic than lead, yet there doesn't seem to be any interest in banning it. 

chlorine bleach down a fire ant hill solves that problem. 

man, sure wish we could stop the half-baked science crap for once and all.