[seaslug44]

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!

 

[noreast]

Mike,

Lets face it the bill is an absolute joke and does little if anything to protect birds. We are still allowed to make them, use them, and buy them through mail order and the Internet.

All it did was stop NY retailers from selling them.

Another fine example of our legislature hard at work

 

[sealaw]

PETA - My two cents

Doc,

I couldn't agree more with your assessment of PETA and their motives. Unfortunately, unless rec. fishers (and the fishing community AS A WHOLE - yes, including comms)can marshall the same type of commitment to fight these ridiculous laws as PETA has been able to do getting them passed - we are "sitting ducks"; (pardon the pun). We need to be proactive and single-minded about these issues. In a way, the fact that many of these issues have come to the forefront all at once this year is probably just the "kick in the pants" that we need to galvanize some action.

Write letters! Make phone calls! Send emails! Generously support groups like IGFA, RFA, CCA and others who are in the trenches every day on these matters. BUT, make sure you know which side of the fence they stand on before sendingm your $$$ !!! Many groups out there these days don't make a public showing of their sympathies toward PETA and their agenda.

Most of us spend hundreds, if not thousands of dollars every year on tackle, bait, boating equip., etc. etc., etc.; let's shell out a few bucks to PROTECT OUR PASSION! Not only that, but make sure your elected representatives know that you spend this time & money - get it on record! The more written support we give to pro-fishing representatives - the more ammunititon (and motivation) they have to fight these battles!

Thank you for the soap box - I tender the floor.

 

[Scratcher]

My take on the law is that it was watered down by lead manufacturers, you can blame that on lawmakers, not PETA. I don't know how we go from a split-shot ban to a PETA conspiracy, but here is a good explanation of how lead poisoning in waterfowl occurs, it is from the USFWS. I think a lot of people may not know that waterfowl actively seek out and pick up split-shot sized pebbles and swallow them, or that loons nest on freshwater but winter on salt water. I can't see waterfowl eating 2 oz sinkers, but then again if we've learned one thing it is that if you dump something in the environment it is likely to wind up on your dinner plate if you are a fisherman I guess that puts me on the side of the loons (meaning HJ and MM lol):

Lead has been used by humans since ancient times. Signs of lead poisoning have been documented for just about as long. Because of lead's toxicity to humans and the environment, its use in products is currently being phased out in this country. Older houses painted with lead based paint or with lead pipes are carefully being renovated. Lead levels added to gasoline are being lowered. Another major change is the elimination of poisonous lead shot and the mandatory switch to nontoxic shot for waterfowl hunters.
Lead poisoning in waterfowl was first documented in the US in 1894. Since then, lead poisoning of waterfowl has been found in all the major flyways in the world including the United Kingdom, Japan, and Australia. More recently, lead poisoning has also been documented in a wide variety of upland game birds such as pheasants and quail, as well as shorebirds. The newest recognized threat of lead poisoning is in the raptors, or birds of prey.

Wildlife biologists recognized the need to eliminate lead shot as early as 1935. Experimentation with steel shot began in the fifties, although it wasn't until 1991 that laws were finally changed making nontoxic shot a requirement for all waterfowl hunting in the United States. Before the changes from lead shot to nontoxic shot, waterfowl hunters in the lower 48 states were depositing several million pounds of lead into the environment each year. This lead in the environment was responsible for the deaths of an estimated 1.5 to 3 million ducks and geese each year, as well as an unknown number of upland game birds and raptors. Here in Alaska, the number of lead-killed waterfowl equals as much as 10 times the total number of birds waterfowl hunters kill each year.

Why does lead shot have such an impact on waterfowl? Ducks and geese have a gizzard which is a part of the stomach that can be characterized as the teeth and jaws of the bird. It is inside the gizzard that food is rotated and crushed before moving down into the main part of the stomach. This grinding action within the gizzard is often aided by a bird swallowing sand, grit, or a few pebbles. Waterfowl get in trouble when they pick up toxic spent lead shot for use in their gizzard instead of sand or even non toxic steel shot. Some lead shot is picked up by accident whereas it appears other waterfowl species deliberately select the lead shot. What this all means is that millions of ducks and geese are being poisoned while they are feeding, and many consequently die from the effects of ingesting lead shot left behind by waterfowl hunters.

For Alaska Naturally and the Innoko National Wildlife Refuge, this is Beverly Skinner. The solution to lead poisoning in waterfowl is non-toxic shot. It has been reported that as few as one or two #6 lead shot pellets is sufficient to cause lead poisoning in waterfowl. In some areas of Alaska over 1/3 of nesting birds are found to have elevated lead levels in their blood. I'll have information on alternatives to lead shot next week.

 

[sealaw]

Connection between waterfowl feeding habits and fishing sinkers?

I don't understand how waterfowl (dabbling ducks, loons, etc.) are affected by fishing sinkers. I can easily understand how lead shot used by hunters in shotguns can wind up being ingested by waterfowl; the pellets are discharged over marshlands and shallow waters (very likely less than 3' deep), thus these pellets are readily available to feeding birds. However, I fail to see how lead sinkers used by fishermen (generally in depths considerably deeper than 3')can be readily ingested by these birds. Can someone show a rational and verifiable connection here?

Further, lead sinkers build up a layer of oxidation around the outside (hence the grayish appearance), making them virtually inert and insoluble in water. Therefore, the danger of lead going into solution in saline water is nonexistent without a catalyst.

Given these factors, this legislation again begins to take on the appearance of a concerted effort by anti-fishing groups to "nibble away" at the edges until the dam breaks, under the auspices of legitimate environmental concerns.

Stay Vigilant.

 

[Scratcher]

Common and Red-throated Loons are both accomplished divers that feed to depths of 70 feet. Other divers that can feed at depth include Scoters (3 species), Oldsquaw, Canvasback and Eiders.

In terms of lead not entering the environment, I think that you are right, in the absence of a catalyst it doesn't. Of course, who knows what interaction it would have with the dredge spoil they want to dump into the sound, or with the sewage effluent that goes into our waters from NYC and other municipalities. When I was a kid I never would have thought there would be a government advisory against women of child-bearing years eating any bluefish or striper whatsoever. Or that large pelagics would be loaded with mercury. Or that mbte would be in the groundwater. It just seems that whatever we dump we wind up eating, drinking or breathing.

 

[627293]

ok so lead harms birds , thats fine. How does this law help the birds ? It doesnt!! this law is designed to hurt the retailers , plain and simple. If it banned the use of lead that would be completely different all it does is ban N.Y. tackle retailers from making any money of off lead in my opinion it is just a bunch of peta supporting crap. Pataki should have wiped his a$$ with that bill

 

[sealaw]

Waterfowl dietary regimes

Scratcher,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember learning that:

Loons are exclusively piscavores, thus stray lead shot lying in the bottom sediments pose no threat to these species.

Scoters & eiders feed almost exclusively on marine (or aquatic) invertebrates (mussels, clams, etc.) The chance that these filter feeding shellfish are ingesting stray lead shot which is then passed upward to the birds defies both the laws of chance & reason.

Canvasbacks' diets, on the other hand, do sometimes include aquatic & marine plant life and algae, thus there is a SLIGHT chance that a stray lead shot FROM A FISHERMAN might make it into the gizzard of these birds.

I still do not see these almost astronomical odds as justification for the half-measures imposed by the legislature here. Sorry!

As to your discussion regarding dredge spoils and other incomprehensible abominations we humans have imposed on our environment, you are absolutely right. However, I would think that the overarching concern here should be the danger of the dredge spoils & sewage effluent themselves, rather than their chance interaction with an occassional lead sinker.

(This post edited by sealaw on 05/05/2004)

 

[MakoMike]

Sealaw,
Regardless of their preferred diet all of the birds you listed ingest small stones to sid in thier digestion, and that's where the problem lies. The stupid birds can't tell the difference between a small round stone and a small round split shot, so they eat the lead and die.

 

[Scratcher]

Sealaw: What MakoMike said above. Birds don't have teeth so they pick up pebbles which are deposited in their gizzards. The gizzards "chew" their food by grinding it up with the pebbles.

Thats why loons and ducks eat lead shot. They actively seek the shot out on the bottom and swallow it intentionally because the lead shot is the same size and shape as pebbles. A lot of people think they accidentally ingest the shot, but thats not the case.

 

[sealaw]

Astronomical Odds

Scratcher,

First, please be careful with your words; these birds don't "actively seek" lead (your pseudo-science is showing)- although they may inadvertantly ingest a few lead shot while seeking out pebbles. I still view the odds of this happening on a large scale as astronomical, if they do in fact even swallow ANY pebbles while DIVING - they would literally have to be consistenty diving over piles of lead shot! Most fishermen I know sinply don't lose that many lead shot in exactly the same geographic (benthic) location.

Second, I am aware that birds don't have teeth (!); however, I thank you for your reminder re: the lack of ornithological dentition.

Third, while you are correct that birds do seek out pebbles to assist in digestion, I am relatively sure that this activity is confined to their times on land, and that they do not actively ingest pebbles during their diving/feeding activities. Thus, I can see the rationale behind banning lead bird shot over marshlands; but I still see the ban on lead shot-type sinkers as a knee jerk reaction to radical environmental groups who attempt to confuse science with emotion and pseudo-science.

I wonder how they will frame the argument to ban larger sinkers? Diving birds now swallowing 6-ounce bank sinkers as ballast to help them dive deeper?

I can just hear the wheels turning already....

(This post edited by sealaw on 05/09/2004)

 

[MakoMike]

Sealaw,
The birds pick up the pebbles off the bottom, not 70 feet down but they do dive for them rather then pick them up on land and ingest all the dirt leaves etc. Do a little reseacrh and you will find numerous sceintific studies showing that lead ingestion is a big problem with waterfowl, which is why the Feds banned lead shot over ten years ago. You may see the world as a conspiracy, but this isn't one of them.
True the odds of a bird finding one particular piece of shot is probably astonomical, but with thousand and thousands of them being introduced into the environment every year some of them will be found and eaten. One piece of shot will kill a bird. Is it really so much to ask that you use something else for these smaller weights?

 

[sealaw]

MakoMike,

It's not the small weights I'm concerned with ( I rarely use them, and when I do, the ones that get lost are far beyond the retrieval capacity of any birds I know of). It's the "foot in the door" that this represents...if YOU do a little research you'll find that this baby step is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to initiatives aimed at curtailing or eliminating fishing altogether. Or haven't you been paying attention to the chatter on this site as well throughout the recreational fishing community? Have you visited the PETA website lately? Do you really believe they are above using covert tactics and misinformation to achieve their objectives?

If you think I'm "imagining" conspiratorial activities, I suggest you take a good hard look at the overall picture of what's been happening in the fisheries regulatory arena over the last ten years (i.e. MPAs in Calif.), rather than getting distracted by protracted arguments over irrelevant minutae.

Respectfully,
sealaw

 

[MakoMike]

quote:

It's the "foot in the door" that this represents...

You know, sometimes even the most extreme groups do have a point. Even a blind pig finds an acorn once in a while. IMHO fighting over an issue like this does us more harm than good, in that it makes us appear to have a "don't give a ****" attitude toward environmental issues if its going to affect our fishing.
FWIW - if you look at the various threads I am once of the more active memebers when it comes to these types of issues and I was extremely active in getting the F2F bill enacted into law here in RI.

 

[sealaw]

I don't wish to discredit your efforts re: F2F and other protective measures you may be involved in - thank you for your work in that regard. I just know how these groups work. It's not that we (recreational fishemen) don't give a **** abt. the environment, in fact we recreationals for the most part have historically been on the forefront of environmental intitiatives, and have been very reserved up until recently regarding increasingly restrictive measures being placed on our sport. FYI, I have spent a good portion of my legal career representing local environmental issues and concerns, particularly those surrounding our local estuaries and living marine resources. However, this has put me in a position to see first hand how certain "ultra-radical" enviros go about advancing their interests. In a nutshell, some of their techniques are downright deceptive (fraudulent?). This is not to say that they ALL use "dirty tactics" to get their way - or that the core ideas they advance have no merit. I'm merely pointing out that this trend will not stop until we are all told we have to put down our fishing rods for good. I for one have no intention of doing so without a battle royale! So forgive me if I rustle a few feathers, but don't expect me to stop! I know where this is going....

Respectfully,
sealaw

 

[Scratcher]

Sealaw wrote: "First, please be careful with your words; these birds don't "actively seek" lead (your pseudo-science is showing)- although they may inadvertantly ingest a few lead shot while seeking out pebbles. I still view the odds of this happening on a large scale as astronomical"

Sealaw; I didn't do the science behind the studies I cited, they were done by the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the US Geological Survey. They are both known as competent at research.


While you may view odds as "astronomical" your view doesn't matter because you have no data to back them up. The preponderance of evidence from the people who have spent years studying the issue indicates an adverse impact.

If you have evidence to the contrary maybe you can post it up for us?

A foot in the door by PETA? PETA are a bunch of idiots funded by other idiots. They take a stance on certain issues that are popular with a tiny subset of the population. They also seem to occupy an inordinate amount of the time and imagination of members of this site who like to blame them for everything from the Kennedy asassination to the aliens stored in Area 51.

To my knowledge PETA has not had one iota of influence over my ability, or anyone else's ability to fish, no matter what their fund-raising literature may say.

 

[sealaw]

Some people refuse to see the train until it runs them over...

 

[Scratcher]

Or what the data shows to be true.

 

[noreast]

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.

 

[seaslug44]

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.