Lead Ban Chronicles – Fishing Tackle in WA
Just saw this from the American Sportfishing Association. I know, it’s not hunting or ammunition, but it’s really all the same bloody thing, isn’t it?
In the name of honest disclosure, I’ve done no research on this issue and really don’t have a position right now. My knee-jerk response, of course, is that this is no different from the lead ammo ban and the proposed ban is little more than an over-reaction to a nominal risk… but that’s the problem with knee-jerk reactions.
Anyway, take a look. I can promise you, as with the lead ammo, this will not be limited to the state of Washington. Remember, the National Park Service is working toward the same ends in all National Parks.
Read up, learn, and act appropriately.
November 17, 2009
American Sportfishing Association Policy Alert
Washington State Anglers Face a Ban on Lead Fishing Tackle
For more information, contact Gordon Robertson, vice president and Government Affairs lead, 703.519.9691, x237 or Mike Leonard, Policy Fellow, x230.
Without evidence that lead fishing tackle is posing a threat to loon populations, a proposed ban in Washington State is completely unwarranted!
Please send a letter to the Washington State Fish and Wildlife Commission demanding that they reject a proposed rule that would ban the use of lead fishing tackle. The proposal is based on the assumptions that lead fishing tackle poses a threat to loon populations and that many alternatives to lead are widely available for approximately the same price – neither of which is true. The deadline for comment is December 1, 2009.
No evidence exists that concludes that lead fishing tackle is threatening loon populations. A study of common loons by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife found “no evidence of a declining population or a substantial change in distribution” in the state, and loon populations are stable or increasing throughout their range. Advocates for the proposed ban are using as evidence a finding that says over the past 13 years, nine loons are found to have died from ingesting lead fishing tackle.
Additionally, fishing tackle made from alternatives to lead can be much more expensive, in limited supply and not perform as well.
According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington isthe fifteenth largest state in terms of annual sportfishing expenditures. Washington’s 736,000 anglers spent $1.04 billion in 2006, generating $210 million in state and local tax revenue. Washington’s anglers support 15,000 jobs with $513 million in salaries and wages. If Washington’s anglers stopped fishing and did not spend their money elsewhere in state, the state’s economy would shrink by $1.66 billion. In addition, non-residents comprise 13 percent of Washington’s anglers who have a significant impact on the state’s economy.
Please take action now to ensure that the Washington State Fish and Wildlife Commission rejects the proposed ban by sending your letter by December 1, 2009.
[...] See the original post here: Lead Ban Chronicles – Fishing Tackle… [...]
November 22nd, 2009 at 11:19 pm
As a native to Washington and a skeptic by nature I wonder how much of the issue is economic. Those tax numbers are significant, if anglers have to purchase additional gear it will generate additional revenue. Washington is a no income tax state, thus it is heavily dependent on property and sales and use taxes. Regulation, rightly or wrongly could lead to additional sales helping the state’s coffers in addition to indirectly assisting fishing and tackle suppliers (while negatively effecting outfitting services who would see additional costs).
Maybe I’m reading too much into it and it is really the enviornmentalists pushing to the movement that at this point has no scientific evidence to support it.
Tough to say, lead is a nasty element and on the shooting front it’s not something I want in my meat. Now that copper has become a viable alternative I won’t go back, but until the economies of scale start to take effect it’s kept me from seriously looking for a .300 Weatherby at $85 a box.
November 23rd, 2009 at 7:00 am
Thanks for dropping in, JR.
That’s the problem with these kinds of issues lately… everything becomes so bloody politicized, you don’t know who to believe. Everything seems to have an ulterior motive.
As to the economic effects, you may be onto something. On the other hand, while I certainly can’t lay this at the door of the Lead Ammo Ban, CA has apparently seen a significant decrease in the number of hunting licenses sold. I was told a number the other day, but will refrain from using it until I can verify.
It wouldn’t completely shock me, though. If it costs too much to hunt (or fish) in your home state, at some point it becomes economically sound to take your business out of state. The attrition rate will logically rise as well, since there are plenty of other activities clamoring for consumer dollars.
No easy answers to this one.
November 23rd, 2009 at 4:40 pm