Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
[Frozen] Moderators: Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
Jump to page : 1 2 Now viewing page 2 [30 messages per page] Muskie Fishing -> General Discussion -> oppose the federal ban on lead in fishing tackle |
Message Subject: oppose the federal ban on lead in fishing tackle | |||
DJS |
| ||
I look forward to the day that when I rise out of bed in the morning and I need to call the government hotline so they can tell me the most efficient route I should use on the way to the bathroom and how long I can turn the lights on and how much water I can use for my shower. The above statement is only absurd until it becomes our reality and then we'll all ask, "How did this happen?". It starts with a ban on lead and then what? Is there a harmful chemical in fishing line? | |||
Muskiemetal |
| ||
Posts: 676 Location: Wisconsin | 25,000 Boat 5,000 Locators / GPS 4,000 Fishing tackle 5,000 Fishing rods and reels (conservative) Having to spend 1 more dollar for lead free jigheads OUTRAGOUS!!!!! | ||
lambeau |
| ||
The above statement is only absurd until it becomes our reality and then we'll all ask, "How did this happen?". It starts with a ban on lead and then what? Is there a harmful chemical in fishing line? that's the kind of nonsense people used to say about Asbestos and Mercury and DDT and PCBs...and without those "absurd" government regulations and clean-up efforts, no one would be fishing muskies in the Fox River or Green Bay right now. i'm not a fan of government over-regulation unless it's sensible and necessary, which i think it is in this case. i like loons, and i can fish just fine using other kinds of weights in my lures. | |||
Junkman |
| ||
Posts: 1220 | I think that one of the hardest things to do in life is to sort out what folks are telling you because they have their own agenda at heart, or whether they really care about you. Some folks, like the ones who end up working at the DNR can be more confusing than others. They can seem totally out of touch with reality one minute, and then the next minute you see them do something that puts more healthy fish in the lakes and more healthy deer in the woods. It's no different with politics when you think the Dems are always going to stick up for the unions and the GOP is always going to stick up for the fat cats who own the oil companies. Life presents too complex a canvas to be painted with just one brush. I agee that when somebody shows up and says, "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help," the heapingest teaspoon of doubt is fully in order. On the other hand, they put up stop signs at intersections where your kid might have been hit by a car, and developed a car seat that has kept plenty of them from crashing through the windshield. So, the argument really needs to get away from WHO is telling you to buy a different kind of split-shot sinker, and move strictly into the area of WHETHER it is smart "as and angler" to choose a different product. Marty Forman | ||
gus_webb |
| ||
Posts: 225 Location: Nordeast Minneapolis | Having to spend 1 more dollar for lead free jigheads OUTRAGOUS!!!!! That's kind of the question, though... What constitutes a jighead? A Bulldawg/SuperD/Suzy Sucker could technically be a jig, couldn't it? It's soft plastic twister tail cast around what is essentially a giant jig. I'd bet a lot of bucktails have a lead egg sinker behind the hair or flash to get enough weight in the lure. So that's a lead sinker, right? And most every wood bait has some weight buried in it to run properly. While the lead may be more or less 'contained' in any given bait, it still (most likely) has some in it. If we're going to consider this as something similar to the dangers of asbestos, could existing lures be grandfathered in the same way? My 1925 house has asbestos. It's still intact, not flaking (or becoming 'friable'), and not currently a health risk. New homes shouldn't use it, but mine has it... that doesn't mean I can't use my house. I'd be much more inclined to support this legislation if there was some clarity on what the ban actually means. If it's that no lures containing lead may be used, that's one thing. If it's that no lures may be produced (after a certain date) that contain lead, that's something else. | ||
Brian |
| ||
If it can be done within a reasonable cost, I am in favor of banning lead. I prefer not to touch the stuff. When I work on my lures in the kitchen, I wipe down the table after I am done, and I am still nervous about it. Brian | |||
pterodactyl |
| ||
seems the critical issue (besides ensuring waterfowl don't eat gravel-like lead pieces) is lead solubility in water. e.g. Does it just sit there as a big inert chunk or dissolve into our water? bold font is mine | |||
simple fisherman |
| ||
And if the water is slightly acidic, say from sulphur dioxide would lead then be water soluble. On another point is this ban the sky is falling type thing, maybe even initiated by anti-gun proponents as a back door effort to close shooting ranges. Water temps are falling and I am just so darn happy I could just poop. | |||
sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32890 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | If there's no lead in fishing, whom shall we follow? Sorry, had to. Long freaking week. | ||
Simple fisherman |
| ||
Posts: 69 Location: Pittsburgh | WE SHALL FOLLOW THE FISHING GOD MEPPS SON OF CISCO BROTHER TO LEGEND COUSIN OF WILEY AND LEO GRANDSON OF HEDDON AND RAPALA Posts like this is the reason Im called simple Edited by Simple fisherman 9/10/2010 3:47 PM | ||
Jump to page : 1 2 Now viewing page 2 [30 messages per page] |
Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |