LI Democrat Pushes Law through to BAN LEAD SINKERS
21 - 40 of 62 Posts
Joined
·
269 Posts
Wow, its been a while. My old handle on this site was CaptainAnt. For 2 years I have been preaching about PETA to everyone I know. Last month I finally saw an ad on Fox News from ConsumerFreedom, branding PETA as supporters of terrorists, which they are. The truth about them is coming out. Now if someone could take care of that Newkirk ***** with a lead sinker to the head, I wouldn't shed any tears.
Joined
·
67,033 Posts
Guys,
I'm no fan of PETA, I think they're a bunch of hyrocrites who should be run out of town on a rail. But why the big objections to the lead ban on small splitshot? 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?
I'm no fan of PETA, I think they're a bunch of hyrocrites who should be run out of town on a rail. But why the big objections to the lead ban on small splitshot? 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?
Joined
·
269 Posts
Mike,
I have no problem trying to save the waterfowl in the area. My problem is that laws like this are victories for organizations like PETA. It encourages them. Give em an inch and they will want a yard. THey will not stop until your rite to fish is revoked and everyone lives in treehouses.
I have no problem trying to save the waterfowl in the area. My problem is that laws like this are victories for organizations like PETA. It encourages them. Give em an inch and they will want a yard. THey will not stop until your rite to fish is revoked and everyone lives in treehouses.
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.
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.
Joined
·
7,215 Posts
"Show me some proof "
quote:
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?
22% of 202 Common Loons found dead in New England had ingested lead objects, principally sinkers and jigs. All of the loons that had ingested lead were adults representing 38% of the 115 adults examined. The percentage is even higher if birds collected only from fresh water are considered, i.e. 57% of 74 adult birds. These results show that lead toxicosis is a major mortality factor for Common Loons in Eastern North America, although the data probably represents a portion of the birds dying from this cause. Lead poisoned waterfowl commonly hide in dense cover as they become weaker, and are easily overlooked even by those searching for them (Twiss, 1998).
Through experimenting with captive waterfowl it has been shown that a single dose of .3 grams of lead per bird will result in death. Lead sinkers and jigs generally weigh between .5 and 15 grams, hence the ingestion of even one sinker will be fatal to the loon (Twiss, 1998). These sinkers and jigs present a problematic situation to waterfowl based on their feeding habits.
University of Vermont
"Lead-induced waterfowl deaths have been recorded in 15 countries, including New Zealand. The United States banned lead shot on federal land in 1991. Since that time, lead shot has been banned in Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Norway, and in areas of Australia, Sweden, Finland, and Belgium."
"In Britain, the sale of lead fishing sinkers weighing less than 28.3g has been banned since 1987 because of widespread mortality of swans resulting from ingestion of sinkers"
quote:
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?
22% of 202 Common Loons found dead in New England had ingested lead objects, principally sinkers and jigs. All of the loons that had ingested lead were adults representing 38% of the 115 adults examined. The percentage is even higher if birds collected only from fresh water are considered, i.e. 57% of 74 adult birds. These results show that lead toxicosis is a major mortality factor for Common Loons in Eastern North America, although the data probably represents a portion of the birds dying from this cause. Lead poisoned waterfowl commonly hide in dense cover as they become weaker, and are easily overlooked even by those searching for them (Twiss, 1998).
Through experimenting with captive waterfowl it has been shown that a single dose of .3 grams of lead per bird will result in death. Lead sinkers and jigs generally weigh between .5 and 15 grams, hence the ingestion of even one sinker will be fatal to the loon (Twiss, 1998). These sinkers and jigs present a problematic situation to waterfowl based on their feeding habits.
University of Vermont
"Lead-induced waterfowl deaths have been recorded in 15 countries, including New Zealand. The United States banned lead shot on federal land in 1991. Since that time, lead shot has been banned in Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Norway, and in areas of Australia, Sweden, Finland, and Belgium."
"In Britain, the sale of lead fishing sinkers weighing less than 28.3g has been banned since 1987 because of widespread mortality of swans resulting from ingestion of sinkers"
That comes under the heading of Dont Believe Everything You Read! What else did those birds have in their stomachs? Where is the proof they died from the lead...and not from being run over by some tree hugger trying to catch and hug them? Give me a break!
Joined
·
67,033 Posts
HJ,
Thanks for providing the references, I knew I had read about several such studies. As far as lead buckshot goes, How many bucks do you think are shot in the water? Lead shot has been banned for waterfowling for over a decade for exactly the same reason. As far as opposing everything PETA supports, well, that's just ridiculous.
Thanks for providing the references, I knew I had read about several such studies. As far as lead buckshot goes, How many bucks do you think are shot in the water? Lead shot has been banned for waterfowling for over a decade for exactly the same reason. As far as opposing everything PETA supports, well, that's just ridiculous.
I just received thisz from a representative from the New York Fishing Tackle Trade Association (NYFTTA)
Opinion of Policy *
Legislative Review
"Lead Ban Law"
Not all legislation NYFTTA addresses yields positive results. One such
defeat was the "lead ban bill." Effective May 2004, sinkers weighing 1/2oz or less will be illegal for RETAIL sale. Yes, you understood this
correctly, this cowardly legislation only applies to RETAIL sales.
Included in this ban are split shot, egg, dipsey, rubber core, slip
sinkers, pinch on and bank sinkers. Consumers can purchase lead sinkers,
1/2 oz or less, from out of state catalogs, internet sales, out of state
retailers or make it themselves. Fisherman may use, purchase or make all
the lead they want, however, New York retailers are prohibited from selling
the forbidden products.
Supported by NY environmental groups and sponsored by State Senator Marcellino and State Assemblyman Englebrite, this legislation was targeted at saving New York's wildlife and preventing lead poisoning in children.
The reasons may be justifiable but the methods were misguided.
At first, this ban was directed at all "sales" from New York businesses
until NYFTTA informed New York State member wholesalers, importers and
distributors that they could not sell any of the restricted product to anyone anywhere, including other states, even if those states allowed the retail sale of lead products. It didn't take long before the sponsors of
this bill amended the legislation. Under a promise from New York wholesalers, importers and distributors that "If this bill passes into law, we will immediately move our companies out of New York!!!." The bill was promptly amended, striking the word "sale" and inserting the word "retail sale."
In spite of our efforts, retailers took the brunt of this legislation.
NYFTTA suggested that any lead ban should include the "use" of any
prohibited products. A phase out period should be incorporated for "use"
of lead product along with retail restrictions. Ban the retail sales of,
then in two years ban the "use" of, possession would not be prohibited.
However, this too fell on deaf ears.
Additional questions, concerns or comments should be addressed to Erin
Crotty, DEC Commissioner at 518-402-8540, State Senator Carl Marcellino at
516 922-1811, State Assemblyman Steven Englebright at 631 751-3094.
Opinion of Policy *
Legislative Review
"Lead Ban Law"
Not all legislation NYFTTA addresses yields positive results. One such
defeat was the "lead ban bill." Effective May 2004, sinkers weighing 1/2oz or less will be illegal for RETAIL sale. Yes, you understood this
correctly, this cowardly legislation only applies to RETAIL sales.
Included in this ban are split shot, egg, dipsey, rubber core, slip
sinkers, pinch on and bank sinkers. Consumers can purchase lead sinkers,
1/2 oz or less, from out of state catalogs, internet sales, out of state
retailers or make it themselves. Fisherman may use, purchase or make all
the lead they want, however, New York retailers are prohibited from selling
the forbidden products.
Supported by NY environmental groups and sponsored by State Senator Marcellino and State Assemblyman Englebrite, this legislation was targeted at saving New York's wildlife and preventing lead poisoning in children.
The reasons may be justifiable but the methods were misguided.
At first, this ban was directed at all "sales" from New York businesses
until NYFTTA informed New York State member wholesalers, importers and
distributors that they could not sell any of the restricted product to anyone anywhere, including other states, even if those states allowed the retail sale of lead products. It didn't take long before the sponsors of
this bill amended the legislation. Under a promise from New York wholesalers, importers and distributors that "If this bill passes into law, we will immediately move our companies out of New York!!!." The bill was promptly amended, striking the word "sale" and inserting the word "retail sale."
In spite of our efforts, retailers took the brunt of this legislation.
NYFTTA suggested that any lead ban should include the "use" of any
prohibited products. A phase out period should be incorporated for "use"
of lead product along with retail restrictions. Ban the retail sales of,
then in two years ban the "use" of, possession would not be prohibited.
However, this too fell on deaf ears.
Additional questions, concerns or comments should be addressed to Erin
Crotty, DEC Commissioner at 518-402-8540, State Senator Carl Marcellino at
516 922-1811, State Assemblyman Steven Englebright at 631 751-3094.
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)
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)
Joined
·
7,215 Posts
Are you joking ?
quote:
And like I said, that research should have been more than some paper written in a college dorm about Loons in New England.
Do you really think lead and loons are different than they are in New England ?
Lead has no effect on the birds because they are in NYS ?
Do you really think like this Doc ?
The report is not a college paper written in a dorm room either.
And do you really believe that paper was the only data they used, or you just grasping at straws with that comment, since you were proven wrong ?
Your comments are a joke really,
you choose to ignore facts to support your incorrect position.
Lead kills waterfowl, plain and simple.
If the poisoning of the food chain is accpetable to you, because you do not want to use a substitute for small lead sinkers, then maybe you have been closing too many of those split shots with your teeth.
quote:
And like I said, that research should have been more than some paper written in a college dorm about Loons in New England.
Do you really think lead and loons are different than they are in New England ?
Lead has no effect on the birds because they are in NYS ?
Do you really think like this Doc ?
The report is not a college paper written in a dorm room either.
And do you really believe that paper was the only data they used, or you just grasping at straws with that comment, since you were proven wrong ?
Your comments are a joke really,
you choose to ignore facts to support your incorrect position.
Lead kills waterfowl, plain and simple.
If the poisoning of the food chain is accpetable to you, because you do not want to use a substitute for small lead sinkers, then maybe you have been closing too many of those split shots with your teeth.
Joined
·
7,215 Posts
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.
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.
Doc, it is easy to dispute everything by saying its wrong. But it is meaningless unless you provide data/proof to support your position.
You have not done so, and cannot either.
It has been proven conclusively for many years already the problems of lead and birds/waterfowl.
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.
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.
Doc, it is easy to dispute everything by saying its wrong. But it is meaningless unless you provide data/proof to support your position.
You have not done so, and cannot either.
It has been proven conclusively for many years already the problems of lead and birds/waterfowl.
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
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
Joined
·
67,033 Posts
Just to try and get in the middle hear. Doc, I don't think we need more research to prove that lead on the bottom of ponds and streams hurts waterfowl. The federal government did plenty of research on this before they banned the use of lead shot in waterfowling more than ten years ago. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the source of the lead, out of a shotgun or a fisherman's line doesn't make much difference to the birds.
Now given the fact that most of that, presumably unbiased, research was done some time ago, we can't raeally blame HJ for not being able to come up with it on the net in short notice.
I happen to agree with Doc and the NYFTTA, that a much better answer would have been to ban the use of lead in some waters, rather than an outright ban on its retail sale in the state. But just because the law may not be perfect doesn't mean that its a a PETA conspiracy.
Maybe we all should be working to have the law amended to bring it more in line with our priorities while still helping the birds?
Now given the fact that most of that, presumably unbiased, research was done some time ago, we can't raeally blame HJ for not being able to come up with it on the net in short notice.
I happen to agree with Doc and the NYFTTA, that a much better answer would have been to ban the use of lead in some waters, rather than an outright ban on its retail sale in the state. But just because the law may not be perfect doesn't mean that its a a PETA conspiracy.
Maybe we all should be working to have the law amended to bring it more in line with our priorities while still helping the birds?
Mike,
The legislators involved in writing the bill are HEAVILY influenced by PETA and other environmentalists. They are the same people that will endorse MPA's - no doubt.
Every state has a few of these elected PETA supporters, problem for us is that New York has a few more then most
The legislators involved in writing the bill are HEAVILY influenced by PETA and other environmentalists. They are the same people that will endorse MPA's - no doubt.
Every state has a few of these elected PETA supporters, problem for us is that New York has a few more then most
Joined
·
67,033 Posts
George,
I'm not questioning their motivation, all I'm saying is that in this particular case they have a point. Why needlessly harm waterfowl? If its really a big deal that law should be changed to prohibit the use of lead sinkers in waters less than 10 ft deep. It'll accomplish the same goals and will do less harm to more people. Now maybe the PETA supporters might object, due to non-germane issues, but the rest of the legislators ahould overpower them. The problem, as I see it, is that when this legislation was pending no one, besides the NYFTTA opposed the language, and then they changed it ti sccomodate NYFTTA's objections without giving it a lot of thought.
I'm not questioning their motivation, all I'm saying is that in this particular case they have a point. Why needlessly harm waterfowl? If its really a big deal that law should be changed to prohibit the use of lead sinkers in waters less than 10 ft deep. It'll accomplish the same goals and will do less harm to more people. Now maybe the PETA supporters might object, due to non-germane issues, but the rest of the legislators ahould overpower them. The problem, as I see it, is that when this legislation was pending no one, besides the NYFTTA opposed the language, and then they changed it ti sccomodate NYFTTA's objections without giving it a lot of thought.
21 - 40 of 62 Posts
