NorEast Fishing Forum banner
1 - 9 of 62 Posts

· Banned
Joined
·
3,311 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
State Assemblyman Steven Englebright, Democrat from Setauket, has pushed his bill through the State legislature to ban the sale of lead split shots in the State of New York! The bill still needs to be signed by Pataki (not sure if Pataki has decided yet which way he wants to vote).

This is the second of several stages that environmentalists plan to lobby. The first phase was the outlaw of lead shot for shotguns. The next step will be the ban of the USE of lead split shots. Then the focus will be on the sale of lead sinkers OVER one ounce. The final step will be the the ban of the USE of lead sinkers of any weight.

If you haven't been following this one, the purpose of the bill is to protect waterfowl. However, the lobbyists could not show enough evidence about the effects of split shot sinkers on the environment to get the bill passed so they threw in the added "alert" that anglers, including children, often place the lead splitshots in our mouths to close them with our teeth. This was enough of alarming news to convince the legislature that lead splitshots are a bad thing.

I don't know about you, but I've been closing splitshots with my teeth since I was four. So did my father, and so did his. I believe the ban also applies to the sale of small lead jigheads.
 

· Banned
Joined
·
3,311 Posts
Discussion Starter · #26 ·
quote:
Using a slighly bigger weight isn't going to be much or hardship, and we will be heling to save some waterfowl, what's wrong with that?
====MakoMike=====


Nothing would have been wrong with that had our State been able to show more a few strands of evidence that lead split shots have caused any type of injury/harm to the waterfowl. But their case was so week that the only way they were able to persuade Pataki to sign the bill was to insist that it was just as much for our safety as it was for the waterfowl because we (anglers) and our children have been allegedly INGESTING lead each time we put a split shot into our mouths to open or close them with our teeth.

Show me some proof that here in New York state that our lead spitshots & sinkers have been indeed causing harm to the waterfowl. In theory it sounded like it could happen. In reality, has anyone ever documented waterfowl ingesting a lead splitshot left behind by an angler and then has that scientist proven that the waterfowl actually got sick from the splitshot?

I agree with the others; This is all PETA politics in motion.
 

· Banned
Joined
·
3,311 Posts
Discussion Starter · #32 ·
By the way, you still didn't answer my original question;

quote:
Show me some proof that here in New York state that our lead spitshots & sinkers have been indeed causing harm to the waterfowl. In theory it sounded like it could happen.


Since the people the law effects are friendly local New York tackle shops, the least the State could have done was back their law up with some stats that were specific to New York state. And like I said, that research should have been more than some paper written in a college dorm about Loons in New England.

If you go back two years to the debate in Albany over this bill you'll read in the minutes that very little scientific data existed that was specific for our State. That's why they had to throw in that the lead ban was necessary because anglers and their children were in danger.

(This post edited by DoctorFish on 05/03/2004)
 

· Banned
Joined
·
3,311 Posts
Discussion Starter · #35 ·
quote:
Are you joking ?


HungryJack, all due respect, but you aren't always correct and there is no reason to continue to attack each and every one of us as if we are idiots. And no, I wasn't joking.

For starters, just because you can find something posted on the internet, doesn't mean that it it's the absolute 100% one and only truth.

You stated; quote:
The report is not a college paper written in a dorm room either.


HOWEVER, you specifically quoted and posted a link to an article on the internet that was written by Paul Kapsch, Matt Landi, and Sarah Schwartz on March 22, 1999 as part of their participation in the University of Vermont's Vermont Legislative Research Shop.

Sorry HungryJack, but this time it is YOU who are wrong. Who do you think the "Vermont Legislative Research Shop" is?????

Are they some well-funded scientific research team with phd's and other advanced degrees from well respected educational institutions????

Are they well-respected investigative journalists who've dedicated their lives towards researching & writing about environmental issues??

Are they some other highly-educated, unbiased scientific group that is dedicated towards providing the public with untainted scientific data???
NO!

NO!!

NO!!!

For your information (and despite how you've already stated that I am wrong) the Vermont Legislative Research Shop who wrote that article was indeed nothing more than a bunch of 18 or 19 year-old college students.

But since you never take any else's word for it, especially when they oppose what you write, I'll let you read it for yourself;

quote:
The UVM Vermont Legislative Research Shop is a supervised group of students pooled together with the resources of UVM for the purpose of supplying information and conducting research for the Vermont State Legislature. This service is the culmination of a collaborative project between Senator Matt Dunne (D Windsor) and Professor Anthony Gierzynski of the UVM Political Science Department.


Vermont Legislative Research Shop

So as you can see, you've quoted an article written by Paul Kapsch, Matt Landi, and Sarah Schwartz, who were all college students in 1999 who were asked to write an article for Senator Matt Dunne (D Windsor), who, by the way, is a HUGE PETA supporter!!!!!!

quote:
More nonsense from Doc

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry HJ,

I don't give much credibility to a paper that was written by three college students. -Especially when they cite PETA websites and PETA influenced data as their sources.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[/B]Please point out where Peta websites are cited in that report ???
You can't, because there are NONE, just a figment of your imagination.

Please point out where this data is "Pete influenced" as well.
Again, you can't. [/B]


This one is too easy to answer.

For starters, their first two primary sources are papers written by MARK POKRAS director of the wildlife clinic for Tufts University School of Veterinarian Medicine and one of the most active PETA supporters IN THE COUNTRY!

But don't take my word for it. Do your own research on Mark Pokras and you'll discover that very often when PETA needs scientific fact to back one of their campaigns, they turn to Mark Pokras and he somehow coincidentally writes an article to support PETA's political agenda.

Here, take a look at these websites. Scroll down and you'll see his name al over the place taking a stand that backs PETA.

www.animalliberationfront.com
www.wildlifedamagecontrol.com
www.animalrightsnews.info

There are many other articles in both print and on the web where this guy has knocked fishing & hunting and labeled us as public enemy number one to wildlife.

I don't have the time to go down the list, but there at least four or five other PETA sources that these college students quoted as their reference material.

One thing we do agree upon is that lead does indeed cause harm to waterfowl. I'm not disputing that fact. What I don't see is the scientific proof is how banning the retail sale of fishing split shots BUCKTAILS, LEAD HEADS, etc... is going to help save waterfowl. If you told me that the law was to ban their use in freshwater bodies of water then I would understand. But this law is all about politics with very little true scientific NEW YORK STATE SPECIFIC data to back it up.

Show us the numbers. Prove to us that there is NON-PETA influenced research and data out there that proves that my tackle shop will be saving the lives of waterfowl if when they stop selling me my favorite 1/4 ounce & 3/8 ounce bucktails!

And HungryJack, for once, instead of bashing me and every other member here who tries to voice an opinion, why not try directing some of that energy towards our true enemies such as PETA and their strong political machine. As quick and easy as it was for you to pull a PETA-influenced article from the archives for the sole purpose of bashing my opinions, you could have just as easily pulled a sportsman-influenced article to support the income of your local tackle shops.

It's times like these when I question who's side you are really on.

Are you with us or are you against us?

It's okay to be the voice of reason every once in a while but to be on a crusade to put down your fellow anglers every chance you get...

And to never admit you are wrong...

ever...

Can you do anything on this site other than attack its members and everything they write?

Why can?t you ever take our side?

If you find it impossible to agree with us then at least do us the favor and refrain from quoting PETA-based articles to discredit what we write. We all know that PETA and its supporters disagree with our opinions. We don?t need you to remind us of how PETA can take the truth and leverage it in their favor.

And if anyone else has any doubt whether or not PETA is our enemy, just visit the FISHING HURTS website and see for yourself;

www.FISHINGHURTS.COM
 

· Banned
Joined
·
3,311 Posts
Discussion Starter · #41 ·
My problem is that the PETA agenda is looking to accomplish their goals any way they can, including using these little "baby steps" to get their way.

This year it's lead splitshots & jigheads. Next it will be all lead sinkers. Then on to stainless steel hooks. Then to all metal hooks, swivels, wire, tackle, etc... Then to mono line. Then to braided line. Then to graphite rods...

In a little more than a decade or so we'll be left standing with nothing more than bamboo rods, wooden hooks and cotton line.

The same thing is happening with hunters. It wasn't enough to ban all lead shotgun shot using the reasoning that loons and other waterfowl die when they ingest it. Now PETA is targeting ALL LEAD BULLETS. They've got their science whiz-kids trying to link the deaths of eagles and other predators to the ingestion of animals that were shot by hunters with lead bullets but got away. It's also the same tactic they used on the mice poison industry (they stated that poisoned mice were being ingested by the predators causing them to die).

Their deep pockets can buy them any research statistics they need.

PETA is on the war path and they've got our hobby in their sights!
 

Attachments

· Banned
Joined
·
3,311 Posts
Discussion Starter · #60 ·
quote:
One More Time . . .

This question has been asked before and still no reply but I'll try again.

How does this bill protect birds?

Anyone? I guess we all agree that the bill is a joke.


I still would like to know the answer too.
 
1 - 9 of 62 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top