Park Service aims to eliminate use of lead in the parks By IRENE NOLAN
Anglers,
tackle shops, and fishing advocacy groups were surprised by The
National Park Service announcement last week that it has “stepped
up” efforts to reduce lead in the parks.
“Our goal is to eliminate the use of lead ammunition and lead
fishing tackle in parks by the end of 2010,” said Acting National
Park Service Director Dan Wenk in a media release. “We want to
take a leadership role in removing lead from the environment.”
The announcement by NPS last week is not a rule and is not a ban on
lead tackle and ammunition in the parks – at least not yet.
However, the media release from NPS in Washington, D.C., was headlined,
“National Park Service Gets the Lead Out!” and called it a
reason for visitors to the parks and for wildlife to celebrate.
The folks who were caught by surprise by this cheerful announcement were not amused – or celebrating.
The discussion of lead used in ammunition and fishing tackle is not new
to most anglers and owners of businesses that sell tackle.
However, local anglers, tackle shop owners, and groups that represent
sportfishermen were surprised by the suddenness and the timing of the
announcement. Most knew nothing about it until the NPS media
release went out on March 10.
And most were unhappy that stakeholders had not been invited to give their input.
In
a March 13 media release, The American Sportfishing Association (ASA),
along with a number of fish and wildlife management conservation
groups, asked the National Park Service “to reconsider its ban on
the use of fishing tackle made with lead components in national parks
by 2010.”
“The sportfishing industry is surprised and dismayed by the March
10 announcement made by the National Park Service,” said ASA Vice
President Gordon Robertson. “Their intention to eliminate the use
of lead in fishing tackle in national parks was made without prior
consultation of the sportfishing industry or the millions of
recreational anglers who fish within the national park system.”
Robertson further said, “In his January 21, 2009, Executive Memo
to federal agency and department heads, President Obama made it very
clear that he expects the federal government to be transparent,
participatory and collaborative and that ‘executive departments
and agencies should offer Americans increased opportunities to
participate in policymaking and to provide their Government with the
benefits of their collective expertise and information.’ We
expect the National Park Service to follow the President’s
order.”
In the normal course of events, the release noted, the sportfishing and
shooting sports industries (lead component ammunition is also included
in the ban) would have been notified by the NPS about this change in
policy and would have been invited to discuss this decision with NPS
staff.
Robertson further explained, “The NPS policy announcement, issued
by a press release, does not explain how this decision was reached, why
it may be necessary or how this rule will be implemented. To our
knowledge, there has been no proposed rule, nor any opportunity for
public comment. We request that the NPS withdraw this proposal and
discuss the rationale for it with the appropriate stakeholders before
taking further action.”
Jody Lyle, a Park Service spokesman in Washington, D.C. commented about the reaction to the announcement in a phone interview.
“There has been a lot of confusion since we put out the release,” she said.
The Park Service, she said, will spend 2009 “cleaning up our own house” on the use of lead.
The release said the new lead reduction efforts will include changes in
NPS activities, such as culling operations or the dispatching of
wounded or sick animals. Rangers and resource managers will use
non-lead ammunition to prevent environmental contamination as well as
lead poisoning of scavenger species that may eventually feed upon the
carcass.
“After we do that,” Lyle said, “we will get the public, the industry, the stakeholders involved.
“There will be a lot of time to have input,” she noted.
And Lyle said that in addition to calls opposing the effort to remove
lead from ammunition and fishing tackle in the parks, there have been
calls that are supportive of the effort to remove the metal, which can
be toxic if ingested, from the environment.
The issue of lead in ammunition and fishing tackled has been talked
about for several decades. It has been at the forefront of the green
movement since lead shot was prohibited for waterfowl hunting in
1991. That came in the wake of studies that showed that lead
pellets were ingested by some waterfowl and could cause harm to them or
their environment.
Since then, at least a half dozen states have prohibited lead in ammunition and fishing tackle, mostly smaller-sized tackle.
The National Park Service Press Release noted, “Lead is banned in
gasoline, children’s toys, and paint because of its effects on
human health. In the United States, there is an accelerating trend to
expand efforts to reduce lead contamination associated with firearms
and hunting. California and Arizona have recently implemented mandatory
and voluntary bans, respectively, on lead ammunition to facilitate
California condor recovery. And Yellowstone National Park has had
restrictions on lead fishing tackle for years to protect native species
and their habitats.”
In addition, according to ASA, a number of states have regulated lead in fishing tackle. They include:
• New Hampshire— The first state to ban
the use of lead sinkers. Legislation passed in 1998 (effective in
2000). The legislation prohibits the use of lead sinkers in lakes and
ponds up to one ounce and lead jigs up to one inch in length. Later
expanded the legislation to include all waters of the state.
• Maine—Passed legislation in 2001
(effective January 1, 2002) to ban the sales of lead sinkesr 1/2 ounce
or less.
• New York—Passed legislation in 2002
(effective May 2004) that bans the sale of lead sinkers to the end
user.
• Vermont—Passed legislation prohibiting
the sale (effective January 1, 2006) and use (effective January 1,
2007) of lead fishing sinkers 1/2 ounce or less. The state implemented
a lead sinker education program beginning July 1, 2004.
In Massachusetts in July of last year, a bill that sought to regulate
lead weight and sinker devices in all inland freshwater bodies did not
proceed forward at the end of the legislative session.
Most of the restrictions in other state have addressed smaller pieces
of metal – pellets and small sinkers – that are more easily
ingested. And most involve freshwater lakes and ponds.
Hatteras tackle shop owners are very unhappy, not too happy, or just barely accepting of a possible ban.
Bob Eakes, owner of Red Drum Tackle who serves on the board of the
American Sportfishing Association, says there really isn’t
another metal suitable for fishing on the Outer Banks.
The Park Service in its release said that non-toxic substitutes for
lead made in the United States are now widely available, including
tungsten, copper, and steel.
“Is there anything like lead that is malleable and affordable and
that we can use to fish off the beach here?” asked Eakes.
“Absolutely not,” he answered.
Eakes said he could understand that small pieces of lead from shot,
BBs, or lead shrapnel might be a problem for waterfowl. But the
size of the weights used to fish the Outer Banks make then an unlikely
meal for a bird.
“It’s ridiculous,” Eakes said. “The level
upon level of regulations the government puts on us.”
Frank Folb of Frank and Fran’s tackle shop in Avon, notes that as
far as he is concerned anglers cast into state waters and the state has
had nothing to say about lead tackle.
“And,” he adds, “have you thought about what the cost will be to the angler?’
Tackle made out of alternative metal, he said, will be much more expensive and larger and bulkier to achieve the same weight.
Folb also noted that lead is used not only in sinkers, lures, and jigs, but also in cast nets and fishing rods and reels.
Bryan Perry, owner of Frisco Rod and Gun, says that all of the locally made lures contain lead.
“The intentions are probably good,” he said, “but
it’s just all a part of the ‘green gone wild’
movement.”
“It’s not the end of the world,” Perry said,
“but it’s just going to add up to more expense for
fishermen when we don’t need anymore expense.”
MORE INFORMATION
Frank Folb of Frank and Fran’s tackle shop in Avon did some research comparing lead lures to other metals.
Here is some of what he found.
A few facts:
Lead: (Preferred lure and sinker metal)
Present Value per pound: 60 cents
Melts at 622 degrees F
A cubic inch weighs .409 lb.
Bismuth: (Alternative 1)
Present Value per pound: $15-$17
Melts at 520 degrees F
A cubic inch weighs .350 lb.
Difference in cost alone would make sinker prices skyrocket. Presently
I sell a 5-ounce sinker for $1, but with Bismuth the price would have
to be $25. Also the size of the sinker would increase about 15 % making
casting more difficult.
Copper: (Alternative 2)
Present Value per pound: $1.80
Melts at 1980 degrees F
A cubic inch weighs .321 lb.
Presently I sell a 5-ounce sinker for $1, but with Copper the price
would have to be $3. Also the size of the sinker would increase about
21 % making casting more difficult. Pouring sinkers would also become
much more expensive because copper would not melt until you reached
1980 degrees F and molds and handling would at least triple in cost
making the $3 for a 5- ounce sinker low.
Zinc: (Alternative 3)
Present Value per pound: 55 cents
Melts at 757 degrees F
A cubic inch weighs .254 lb.
Presently I sell a 5-ounce sinker for $1 and with Zinc the price would
have to be $1. Also the size of the sinker would increase about 60 %
making casting much more difficult. Pouring sinkers would also become
much more expensive because Zinc would not melt until you reached 787
degrees F and molds and handling would increase cost making the $1 for
a 5-ounce sinker a little low.
Steel: (Alternative 4)
Present Value per pound: 10 cents
Melts at 2777 degrees F
A cubic inch weighs .160 lb.
Cost of steel is only 17% the cost lead, but the cost of production of
the finished product would be so high that the retail would skyrocket
to at least the cost of then copper alternative of $3 for a 5-ounce
sinker. Also size of the 5-ounce sinker would increase by 70% and they
would RUST as well. Impossible to use.
