The Outdoor Community banner

Please read

3755 Views 17 Replies 7 Participants Last post by  Trailcamologist
If you're a fisherman or woman, and in case you didn't know, the EPA is taking public comment on a petition to ban lead from fishing products, including sinkers, jigs, weighted fly lines, and lures, spinners and stick baits containing brass and ballast.

Our fishing rights are at stake and we need your help as members of the fishing community. The comment period is short, so please act now to keep America fishing! Submit your own comments or use the template here:

Please share this will all your fishing friends! Thank you!
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Thanks for posting.

I submitted my comments against the proposed ban.

At present, NY State has a ban on the sale of lead sinkers less than 1/2 oz, but still allows their use. They have begun the downward trek along the slippery slope.

This EPA proposal is absolutely ludicrous if it tries to include a ban on weighted fly lines and lures. I am willing to bet PETA is among the other organizations pushing this agenda.
No fishing rights are at stake here. The only thing at stake is our environmental responsibility.

Lead is a nasty pollutant and I see no real reason to continue using it in fishing. Tin and tungsten work every bit as well, although they are slightly more expensive.
I'm all for protecting the resource and the enviroment, but realistically What kills more birds , lead sinkers or Wind Turbines, airplanes or windows?

The petition was presented with the aim of reducing bird deaths caused by the ingestion of lead sinkers and jigheads; however, a study conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service found that less than one percent of all waterfowl and other birds such as eagles are killed by lead sinker ingestion.
BONZy said:
I'm all for protecting the resource and the enviroment, but realistically What kills more birds , lead sinkers or Wind Turbines, airplanes or windows?
I know what your saying. But realistically planes, windows, and turbines will never go away in our lifetimes. We have the means to eliminate lead with a far more environmentally conscious substance(s).
the piles of birds at the bottom of them, throughout Pa is astounding. my home, apprx. 2/ yr.

Airplanes are the highest source of lead to the environment.....not lead sinkers. This topic was brought up about a month age and I posted some info on a Cali. study.
See less See more
Of course burning fuel with lead in it is going to produce lead emissions. So does burning dirty coal. No one is disputing that.

But do we have an easy solution to rid plane fuel from lead? How about to quit burning coal? What we have is an easy solution to remove ONE source of lead polution. Big deal, now you will need to spend an extra .50 for split shot...
No... 50cents per split shot is not the point. The point is The EPA will not go after and fine the biggest source of lead because it is a GREAT economic source. They go after a VERY, VERY minute source of lead. There is more lead in the houses in the city of Erie, than years of fishing w/lead shot, have put into the environment.

Get rid of X-ray, CT, MRI rooms, while the EPA is at it.
Too late for me, I stocked up on a lifetime supply of lead shot three years ago when NY started their nonsense.
The poor guy driving the UPS truck had to strap on his back brace to carry the Cabela's boxes to my doorstep..

You can take My Lead from My Cold Dead Hand!!!
Tin & Tungsten are poor replacements - especially in cold temps.

Windows? I had a crazy robin with a nasty habit of makin love to his reflection in my sliding door glass panel. Got so excited he left me daily presents on the porch.

Good thing he finally moved on, cause he was gettin darn close to dying from lead poisoning.
limbhnger10 said:
No... 50cents per split shot is not the point. The point is The EPA will not go after and fine the biggest source of lead because it is a GREAT economic source. They go after a VERY, VERY minute source of lead. There is more lead in the houses in the city of Erie, than years of fishing w/lead shot, have put into the environment.

Get rid of X-ray, CT, MRI rooms, while the EPA is at it.
Lead paint has been banned, but it sure doesn't mean it isn't in existance.

Let's be serious here, you are comparing halting the flight of planes, metal processing facilties, and combustion of coal to banning lead used for fishing. It is obvious we need the planes to operate, processed metals, and the power from coal, but do we need to be using a pollutant to drown worms? Especially when there are viable options available that are not toxic?

I see no foul in wanting to stop pollution from an easily preventable source. A little bit can go along way...
Protect Your Right to Fish! Take Action Now!

September 2, 2010

Dear Cabela's Customer:

Occasionally, an issue of such importance arises we feel it necessary to contact our loyal customers. With our fishing rights at stake, this is such an issue.

On August 23, 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was petitioned by the Center for Biological Diversity and others to ban lead from ammunition and fishing tackle, including sinkers, jigs, weighted fly lines and components containing lead, such as brass and ballast in lures, spinners, stick baits and other fishing products.

On August 27, the EPA denied the petition regarding ammunition, but let stand the petition to ban lead in fishing tackle and has opened a short period for taking public comment.

Such a ban would cause prices of fishing products to skyrocket. Alternative metals can cost from six to 15 times more than lead, and most do not perform as well. For many, fishing would no longer be the affordable sport it is now.

Please join Cabela's and Keep America Fishing in opposing this ban by submitting your comments to the EPA no later than September 15, 2010. You can easily do so by clicking here.

It is a fast and easy way to assure your opinion is heard.

Cabela's is working in conjunction with the American Sportfishing Association and Keep America Fishing to protect our tradition and heritage of fishing.

Thank you for your help.



Received this from Cabela's sent E-mail to state representative opposing the the lead ban.
See less See more
Response from Senator Casey鈥

Reply 鈻

* Reply
* Reply all
* Forward
* Delete
* Junk
* Mark as unread
* Mark as read
* Delete all from sender
* Print message
* View message source
* Show message history
* Hide message history
* Show details
* Hide details

Senator Robert P. Casey, Jr.

Senator Robert P. Casey, Jr.
[email protected]

* Send e-mail
* Find e-mail

Add to contacts
To [email protected]
From: Senator Robert P. Casey, Jr. ([email protected])
Sent: Tue 9/07/10 10:32 PM
To: [email protected]
Attachments, pictures and links in this message have been blocked for your safety. Show content | Always show content from this sender
Dear Mr. Porter:

Thank you for taking the time to contact me regarding the petition submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on August 3, 2010, concerning a ban on lead components of bullets, shotgun pellets, fishing weights and lures under the Toxic Substances Control Act. I appreciate hearing from you about this issue.

The EPA鈥檚 public comment period opened on August 25, 2010, and ends on October 31, 2010. The EPA must decide whether to accept or reject the petition by November 1, 2010. I understand that some people strongly support the proposed ban and believe it would be useful for protecting wildlife species from the threat of lead poisoning and safeguarding human health, while other people deeply oppose the proposed ban and believe it would be costly, intrusive and unnecessary. As I continue to work on this issue, I will continue to keep both views in mind.

As always, I appreciate your views, thoughts and concerns as they assist me in understanding what is important to the people of Pennsylvania. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about this or any other matter of importance to you.

If you have access to the Internet, I encourage you to visit my web site, I invite you to use this online office as a comprehensive resource to stay up-to-date on my work in Washington, request assistance from my office or share with me your thoughts on the issues that matter most to you and to Pennsylvania.

Bob Casey
United States Senator

Reply from Senator Casey to my E-mail. I don't expect alot of help from him he is a Democrat & will follow the current administration policy's. He has stated that many supported the led ban,so that basically tells me where he stands.
See less See more
Agreed, I picked up the same hints in his response. This should not discourage others from taking the samesteps you did.

You know when they pushfor crap like this now ,I can't help but think they are just rearranging deck chairs on ther Titanic.From Washington to your local government this country is hurting so badly, ANDTHIS IS WHAT THEY DEEM AS NECESSARY ACTION????????

Don't waste a crisis, isn't that the motto, it is the perfect smoke shield to pass a bunch of stuff that does not matterexcept to some lobby group. I might add that to my e-mail to him.

Good job M-37 bringing this up, I saw it on the newswire, my 1/2 oz sinker is what he has on his plate now huh?? Guess it beats getting to the real problems, Makes ya wonder does his office have windows ?

HPA recently sent a donation to "Keep America Fishing"...time to post more about this organization, i think. From the lead ban to threatened access on some of the best PUBLIC fishing waters, some are not wasting a this crisis to stick it to sportsmen.
See less See more
I got the exact response from Senator Casey as well, and felt the same. Not very encouraged!! However if enough people would send in their comments he might be forced to take action?

Its not so much about split-shot as it is getting a foot in the door with the group that is pushing this. The Center for Biological Diversity is no friend to hunters and sportsman. Do a Google search on them and their anti-hunting views. Lead split-shot first then lead ammunition next.

to all that have taken the time to email the EPA
See less See more
BONZy!!! You are correct it's all about getting their foot in the door. I will be stocking up on split-shot & whatever other lead based lures I feel I need & I will use them Regardless of what ever the EPA decides.

Model 37
I've been fishing lead-free for years, it's really not that big of a deal.
Got a very encouraging response from Congressman Tim Murphy this morning:

Thank you for contacting me with your thoughts on the proposed ban on lead in fishing tackle. I appreciate the opportunity to respond to your concerns.

On August 3, 2010, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received a petition calling for a ban on lead fishing gear. The groups submitting the petition claim that the lead sinkers, jets, weighted fly lines, and other lead based products are poisoning our nation's waterways. In the petition the EPA has been asked to ban the use of lead in fishing tackle because there is non-lead, non-toxic fishing gear available for use.

As a member of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus I oppose these efforts, and have joined my colleagues in sending a letter to the EPA's Administrator Lisa Jackson urging for the dismissal of this petition stating "there is no scientific basis to warrant such a far reaching ban on traditional fishing equipment."

Under the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA), which was signed into law in 1976, the EPA is responsible for identifying and regulating toxic substances in the United States. As a member of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce I have participated in multiple hearings over the past year focused on modernizing TSCA. Most recently, at a July 2010 Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection hearing on the Safe Chemicals Act, I called for "critical updates" to TSCA. Many chemical innovations have greatly benefited both consumers and manufacturers by improving the standard of living and increasing life expectancies, but as I pointed out in my opening statement, "there have also been new chemicals associated with harm and problems with public health."

It is essential to regulate chemicals that are dangerous to public health without applying a zero-risk standard that would discourage or even prohibit the use of chemicals known to benefit the public. We need to create a workable safety standard that effectively protects the public while continuing to allow chemical manufacturers to innovate and develop safe, new innovative products.

It is important that the EPA takes its time and thoroughly reviews all information and comments before implementing a ban on lead fishing tackle. If the agency acts to quickly and unnecessarily bans lead fishing products it could impose major economic hardships on those who rely on fishing for income, and in turn cause prices to skyrocket.

Please do not hesitate to contact me with your questions and concerns. If you would like to receive my email newsletter describing important votes and key committee activity, visit my website at and sign up.


Tim Murphy
Member of Congress
See less See more
From the US Sportsmans Alliance

A bill recently introduced in the U.S. Senate would protect traditional fishing tackle from being banned by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) while offering additional protections for traditional ammunition.

The bill, S. 3850, was introduced on September 28 by Senator Blanche Lincoln (D- AR) and comes after a petition was filed seeking to ban both traditional ammunition and fishing tackle. The petition was filed under the Toxic Substance Control Act of 1976 (TSCA) by several groups, including the Center for Biological Diversity and the American Bird Conservancy.

The EPA previously announced, in a letter to the petitioners, they did not have the legal authority to ban traditional ammunition. However, in that same letter, they indicated that the EPA does have the authority to review the second portion of the petition regarding traditional fishing tackle.

Senate Bill 3850 will exempt traditional fishing tackle, in a way similar to traditional ammunition, from being regulated under the TSCA. The legislation also includes language strengthening the protections for traditional ammunition by clarifying that its components remain exempt.

Numerous recreational fishing groups have already signaled their support for the legislation and cited concerns that a ban on traditional fishing tackle will result in fewer fishing licenses sold and less dollars being spent on fishing gear. With license sales and excise taxes on fishing gear making up the majority of fishery conservation funding, any reduction in fishing activity will have a negative impact on future conservation efforts.

鈥淭he scientific evidence is simply not there to justify such a costly move as banning traditional ammunition and tackle,鈥 said Rob Sexton, U.S. Sportsmen鈥檚 Alliance vice president for government affairs. 鈥淭he harm caused by these types of bans could devastate fishing and wildlife conservation for generations to come.鈥

Other groups echo Sexton鈥檚 statement.

"If the petition is accepted as presented, all lead in all fishing tackle would be banned, which would substantially increase the cost of recreational fishing and negatively impact angler participation across the country," said American Sportfishing Association (ASA) Vice President Gordon Robertson. "Senator Lincoln's legislation will help to ensure that future regulations on fishing tackle are established in response to scientific data instead of unjustified petitions."

Take Action! Sportsmen should contact their U.S. Senators immediately and ask that they join Sen. Lincoln in sponsoring this legislation and seek its passage. Tell them that a ban on traditional fishing tackle is not scientifically warranted and that it will result in much less funding for fishery conservation. Also tell them that further protections for traditional ammunition should be included in order to avoid future attacks that could limit wildlife conservation funding as well.

To find your Senator鈥檚 contact information, please visit
See less See more
1 - 18 of 18 Posts