Subject: The UN initiated CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY is out of touch with reality.
The Situation
On August 23, 2010, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was petitioned by the Center for Biological Diversity and four other organizations to ban all lead in fishing tackle under the Toxic Substances Control Act. This includes sinkers, jigs, weighted fly line, and components that contain lead such as brass and ballast in a wide variety of lures, including spinners, stick baits and more.
On August 27, 2010, the EPA denied the petition for ammunition but maintained the petition to ban lead fishing tackle. Supporters of hunting and the shooting sports have been successful in having ammunition excluded from this ban.
The petition was presented with the aim of reducing bird deaths caused by the ingestion of lead sinkers and jigheads; however, a study conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service found that less than one percent of all waterfowl and other birds such as eagles are killed by lead sinker ingestion.
The reasons for opposing the ban are:
The data does not support a federal ban on lead sinkers used for fishing. In general, bird populations, including loons and other waterfowl species, are subject to much more substantial threats such as habitat loss through shoreline development. Any lead restrictions need to be based on sound science that supports the appropriate action for a particular water body or species.
Depending on the alternative metal and current prevailing raw material costs, non-lead fishing tackle products can cost from six to 15 times more than lead products. Non-lead products may not be as available and most do not perform as well. Mandatory transitioning to non-lead fishing tackle would require significant changes from both the industry and anglers.
A federal ban of the use of lead in fishing tackle will have a significant negative impact on recreational anglers and fisheries resources, but a negligible impact on waterfowl populations.
America's 60 million anglers generate over $45 billion in retail sales with a $125 billion impact on the nation’s economy creating employment for over one million people.
Anglers are encouraged to support voluntary angler education programs for the use of lead sinkers and should urge state and federal fish and wildlife agencies to do the same.
How You Can Help
The EPA has opened the petition for public comments. Please take the following two simple steps to oppose this ban.
Officially submit your comments opposing this ban using the EPA’s comment page at www.regulations.gov. Comments are due by September 15. You can copy and paste the template message below into the official comment form.
Enter your zip code at the bottom of this page to voice your concerns directly to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. Your letter to EPA Administrator Jackson will also be copied to your two Senators and House member.
Template Message
I am writing to oppose the proposed EPA ban on lead in fishing tackle. This ban would have a significant impact on the recreational fishing community with minimal benefit for the referenced waterfowl. Lead is used not only in sinkers but in a wide variety of fishing lures and other tackle components.
The petitioners’ document is replete with commentary unsupported by scientific data and rife with misunderstandings about the use of lead sinkers. Although the petition is aimed at reducing waterfowl death from lead sinker ingestion, a study by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has shown that less than one percent of birds die from ingested sinkers. Lead fishing tackle does not present a population level problem to any bird species. In fact, loon populations are increasing throughout their breeding range.
If a particular body of water is of concern, the issue is most effectively addressed by a local science-driven process, not a national ban. Fisheries and recreational fishing methods are best managed by state agencies.
While supporters of this ban claim that there are many comparable alternatives to lead sinkers and jigs, this is not the case. Depending on the alternative metal and current prevailing raw material costs, non-lead fishing tackle products can cost from six to 15 times more than lead products. Non-lead products may not be as available and most do not perform as well. Mandatory transitioning to non-lead fishing tackle would require significant – and costly - changes from both the industry and anglers.
The resultant decrease of fishing tackle purchases will diminish the dollars for fisheries conservation through fishing license sales and the federal manufacturers’ excise tax on fishing equipment. Something our country can ill afford.
I urge you to deny the lead ban petition, because it will have a significant negative impact on the recreational fishing community and only a negligible impact on waterfowl populations.
Thank you for your consideration.
