Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on January 24, 2006

Click here to view bill details.

Is lead tackle really a problem?? Aren't there better things to spend our hard earned tax dollars on than more regulations? Lets strap us all down with more laws for the DNR to regulate our lives. That means if there is a favorite fishing tackle from Grandpa that has lead in it. You won't be able to use it. How many times has this beaurocratic red tape maker been fishing. Does he just charter a fancy fishing boat with all the bells and whistles and only has to reel the fish in when it is on the line. Has he ever been out in a 12 foot fishing boat with a 3 hp motor or just oars enjoying nature as it should be or is he just a slave to the concrete jungle he works in. Lets not give the DNR more ammo to shoot us with. Lets just get back to reality and quit making frivilous laws to tie us up with. It is too bad that a mans word isnt good enough anymore and that trust is only if you sign a 500 page document saying that you will repay the debt. What happened to Honesty & Integrity (Like a good old hand shake). Lets get real issues on the books and stop strapping us down.

Did you guys think of something other than lead sinker we can use? The cost of this new sinker is going to cost 5 to 10 time what we pay now. I think this is peta's way to stop fishing.

For those of you complaining about this bill, a few questions. Do we have to be absolutely selfish and self-centered about everything? Is that really what it takes to be a worthy human being in today’s coarse society? What has become of conservation ethics as fostered by sportsmen -- hunters and fishermen? It's just about impossible to see how this legislation would cost taxpayers at large anything in particular. It might cost individual fishermen something more than they are paying today for lead sinkers and lires, though. Lead sinkers and lures have been left out of my tackle for a number of years, ever since I became aware of the health hazard they create for certain bird species. The extra cost of alternative tackle seems like a very small price for me to pay in return for being assured that I am not inadvertantly harming wildlife that bring considerable pleasure when I encounter them on fishing trips.

Are you really this ignorant? Do you have even a hint of what this will do to fishing industry in the Great Lakes area? If you want to dick around and get your name on a bill so people can have a clue who you are, how about one that forces a heavier hand on the industries that pollute the Great Lakes and rivers? How about signing your somewhat meaningless name (in my eyes) to something that actually will limit the pollution that industry puts into the lakes? I was always under the impression and direction that unless you have a solution, the problem really does not exist. You do not have a solution!

I do not believe that this bill, if passed, will have ANY effect on the waters of Michigan. I am an AVID fisherman and very rarely use lead based lures or sinkers.... even if I did I just don't believe that any lure or sinker lost on the lake bottom will have a measurable effect on the quality of water in that lake. Mike Ozinga Grand Rapids MI

While I am well aware of the problem of lead in paint, I have seen no data to suggest that lead used in fishing tackle is a big problem. Is there a study? Lead is commonly found in nature and a few sinkers aren't going to cause groundwater poisoning or any other major pollution problems. IMO, if you're going to go to all the trouble of introducing legislation, it should address a REAL problem. And if you THINK it is a real problem deserving of attention, at least put forth some scientific data. I am unconvinced that this is worthwhile when I can't even swim at Metro Beach in lake St. Clair because of high bacteria counts. It's not lead. And fish aren't poisonous due to lead, but mercury. What about that? This is a solution to a non-existant problem and our legislators should be ashamed of wasting their time and our tax dollars on such rubbish.

>I am unconvinced that this is worthwhile when I can't even swim at Metro Beach in lake St. Clair because of high bacteria counts. It's not lead. And fish aren't poisonous due to lead, but mercury. What about that?< This legislation isn’t about human protection so much as it is about wildlife protection. Real sportsmen -- hunters and fishermen -- have a long, proud history and tradition of looking out for wildlife by regulating their own activities. It is an important and integral part of the conservation ethic true sportsmen embrace. Supporting legislation like this is consistent with the sportsman's ethic and a way of continuing and honoring constructive tradition. If enacted, the proposed ban on lead fishing sinkers and lures in Michigan would cost the taxpaying public at large virtually nothing. The increased cost of tackle to fishermen would be minor. The problem of ingested lead harming certain waterfowl species is real enough that Great Britain, Canada, and the states of New Hampshire, Maine, Vermont and New York have recognized it and taken steps to limit the use of lead in fishing tackle. Minnesota is considering legislation for the same purpose, and in the meantime has launched an education program aimed at discouraging the use of lead tackle. I’m no monkey-see-monkey-do type in matters like this, and so do not think Michigan should act just because other nations or states have. But I believe the enacted restrictions are both reasonable and based on sound data and scientific reasoning. Moreover, when the so-called “precautionary principle” can be applied at little or no economic or other cost, it seems to make poor sense to not apply it.

"But I believe the enacted restrictions are both reasonable and based on sound data and scientific reasoning." It is sooooo easy to type this... but why don't you actually prove it by citing that "sound data and scientific reasoning". This bill is absolutely rediculous. I agree with the fact that our legislatures time and our tax dollars would better be spent on going after corporate polluters that are doing MUCH more damage to the Great Lakes. Geeze... why don't you people get a clue over in Lansing???? If I were a betting man... I would bet that Rep. Chris Kolb won't get re-elected based on the introduction of this bill alone!!

I'm 16 and just started to make my own jigs and now there telling me i wont be able to use them? What are we gonna use to sink or lines? Why are they doing this? Its never been a problem before.. This is really dumb.So what now lead jigs whats next lead shot and bullets? What about the icefisherman...I think the lead is the least of our problems...We have tons of poluted water with all other stuff i.e. oil,gas garbage ect.. I say they ditch this rule and leave us fisherman alone..

>I agree with the fact that our legislatures time and our tax dollars would better be spent on going after corporate polluters that are doing MUCH more damage to the Great Lakes.< I endorse the idea of “going after” corporate polluters, but this comment is out of the ozone. It assumes that, somehow, the proposed restrictions on lead fishing tackle would cost the taxpayers at large a bunch of money. I don’t see that in this bill at all. What I see is nominal -- very small -- increases in the dollar cost of sportfishing for those indivoiduals who pursue the activity. In return, those sportsmen get to take another step in the direction wildlife protection and conservation, which is an integral part of the true sporting ethic. That seems like a pretty good investment, actually. You show me where and how this bill to restrict the use of lead fishing tackle will cost taxpayers in general any significant or consequential amount of money and I might change my mind about it. When appeals to the conservation ethic, which calls for wildlife protection, fall on deaf ears and meet hostile resistance we find good reason to believe our society has indeed become crass, coarse and obsessively self-absorbed.

If you’re actually age 16, then your youthful commentary may be forgiveable. With a few suggestions. First, you should read the bill. It may not be quite as restrictive as you think it is. Second, you should do a little reasearch and checking around, which will help you discover that materials other than lead are available for effective sinkers and jig heads, and to weight lines. Third, as you grow up please learn to look beyond your own convenience in making decisions and taking positions on matters like this. It’s not that your own interests and convenience are unimportant. It’s that they are not the whole package. >Its never been a problem before.< Maybe you’re quite wrong about that. Maybe it has been a problem for a long time, but you didn’t know about or recognize it. There was a time, you understand, when open sewers were thought to be OK, and that running streams of toxic industrial waste into lakes and rivers was OK. Our history books are filled with examples of awakening to problems. It’s usually called progress. >So . . . whats next lead shot and bullets?< If I’m not mistaken, lead shot has been a no-no for waterfowl hunters and hunting for quite some time. For precisely the same reasons we now are concerned about lead sinkers and other lead fishing tackle. Here’s what our Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Division has to say about the issue: “Lead poisoning has been recognized as a mortality factor in waterfowl since the late 1800's. Lead poisoning cases today are either the result of ingestion of spent lead shot or fishing sinkers and jig heads during normal feeding activities. When the lead reaches the acidic environment of the gizzard (ducks, geese and swans) or the ventriculus (loons), it is worn down, dissolved, and absorbed into body tissues. Once the lead reaches toxic levels in the tissues, muscle paralysis and associated complications result in death." >I say they ditch this rule and leave us fisherman alone.< I say you should find yourself some mentors who are true sportsmen, who know and live by the conservation ethic and are willing to help you learn and make it your ethic, too. They make great fishing companions, and friends.

First, when you can post your real name, and not as Anonymous Citizen, I will hold some value to your opinions. Second, no burden to the taxpayer or sportsman? Do some research. Who do you think id going to pay for their re-education initiatives to get people off of using lead weights? The use of which dates back at least over 600 years. You think these representatives will be taking a cut to pay for that or do you think tax/fishing dollars will? The cost of a package of lead sinkers, #5 in size is $1.99 for 60. Tin is $3.98 for an equal number, nearly twice the cost. Heavier brass weights are about $1.10 an ounce as opposed to lead, which is $0.27 an ounce. About 4 times the cost. Do not tell me that there is little or no cost variation or increase in cost to the end user. Again, I must say, why does the sportsman have to pay the majority of the cost for cleanup and the business that pollute do little or nothing to aid in the process? Before you can commit to forcing a 200-400% cost increase, you need to seriously look at EVERYTHING it affects. I am pro wildlife, but at the same time, I am pro man and must consider the already ridiculous costs involved with living in this state. We are taking a hit in sales and manufacturing. Tourism is at an all time low due to weather and other issues. Our schools are failing and going bankrupt, as are commercial fishing, hunting and other sports. Do we really need to drive another one out of business in this state by imposing kneejerk laws to get popularity votes?

>First, when you can post your real name, and not as Anonymous Citizen, I will hold some value to your opinions.< Oh, Frantz, you are such a sly fox, suggesting that who says something is more important than what is said. But I noticed you felt threatened enough by my comments to respond to them. So you pretty well refute your own position on this one. My name might be Robert, though, if that will make you feel better. How do I know Frantz isn’t just some pseudonym you made up to hide behind? >I am pro wildlife, but at the same time, I am pro man and must consider the already ridiculous costs involved with living in this state.< Somehow, I really don’t believe you are pro-wildlife. I think you are all about your pocketbook, quibbling over the difference between $1.99 and $3.98 for a package of 60 fishing sinkers. The percentage difference may be great. But the real difference is less than the cost of a gallon of gasoline you’ll use in getting to your fishing hole. The difference in cost of gas and cost of sinkers, though, is that you can help materially benefit wildlife by spending that itty-bitty more on sinkers while you happily absord the cost of the gas and spew junk into the atmosphere by burning it in pursuit of your own pleasure.

You see my posts, they are distinct and easily recognized by the name attached with them. When you no longer fear you anonymity being lost, feel free to question my motives. Until then, for all anyone knows, you are the same person who posted every other thread on this forum.

Well, Frantz, (if that’s your real name) it doesn’t make any difference who I am any more than it makes a difference who you are in this discussion. I look at the content of your argument. Ypour first shot was feeble and now is completely hollow -- nothing but noise about whether I sign what may or may not be my name. How silly. I’ve stated my reason for liking the looks of HB 5575. That's all that matters in this discussion. To recap, my reason is that implementation will cost taxpayers in general nothing or little, and that the additional costs to individual sportsmen will be insignificant. But in return sportsmen get to help protect certain wildlife (in this case waterfowl) species and in so doing honor the tradition of the conservation ethic. It’s a good bargain in my book, and I’ve said so.

Is this a game to both of you? This is actually a serious issue for both sides, not a place for a pissing match between a couple of children.

I am dead serious in the position I take. It is a position that I have repeated consistently in each of my posts. It is the non-serious people who bring up totally irrelevant matters such as my Anonymous Citizen status and questions as to whether this is a game to me. To refresh you on my position once again, I think HB 5575 is a good idea. It would ban the use of lead sinkers weighing less than 1 oz and lead jigs 1.5 inches long or less in Michigan waters. The legislation would cost general taxpayers virtually nothing, and the increased cost of sinkers and lures to individual fisherman would be very small. In return, we would help reduce the incidence of lead poisoning in certain waterfowl species -- a problem that has been recognized since the late 1800s. That is wholly in keeping with the best and proudest tradition of sporting ethics, of which careful conservation of natural resources is a cornerstone cherished by true sportsmen. I appreciate opportunity to restate my case for HB 5575 in response to irrelevant personal attacks. Keep 'em coming.

Glad you have all the facts, but you are dead wrong as well as to cowardly to even post under a real name. This is the problem, most people, such as yourself, do not look at the whole picture. You get this idea in your head that you are saving the whales and read or consider nothing beyond that theory of sainthood. This bill calls for the ban of ALL FISHING ITEMS THAT CONTAIN LEAD OR LEAD COMPOUND, this would include anchors, you cannot even force on down a ducks mouth. Virtualy every fisherman will have to basically replace every bit of tackle he owns, as the standard means of conencting a hook to any other fishing device is.....waiting for the punch line...... LEAD YOU IDIOT! Goodbye to most your ice fishing gear, trolling weights, weighted line and the list goes on. You are like watching the people that cheered for the assault weapon ban not understanding that standard NATO ammuniton also includes virtually every caliber for the .22 on up to the 12 guage as most any ammunition is used by NATO for training and or live operations. Don't read the enire law, jsut the parts you like to hear.

>Glad you have all the facts, but you are dead wrong as well as to cowardly to even post under a real name.< And this comes from someone who posts under the name, “Anonymous Citizen,” just like cowardly moi . . .. Peculiar, eh? Your personal attacks on me aside, I will agree with you that HB 5575 goes too far in banning all items of fishing tackle that contain any lead or lead compound. This should be corrected. However, I believe it is well within bounds and sensible to ban the use of lead sinkers weighing less than 1 oz and lead jigs 1.5 inches long or less in Michigan waters. These are objects within a size range representing a hazard to certain waterfowl species that will ingest them. Now, a detail. >Virtualy every fisherman will have to basically replace every bit of tackle he owns, as the standard means of conencting a hook to any other fishing device is.....waiting for the punch line...... LEAD YOU IDIOT! < This sure as shootin’ is news to me, oh Anonyomous Genius. I think it probably is overblown poppycock. In 50-plus years of fishing I’ve always attached my hooks by either tying them directly to the line or leader tippet, or using some kind of a steel or brass (probably bronze, actually) snap swivel. I’ve never used or heard of lead being used to attach hooks to lines -- the stuff is just to soft and malleable to do the job as far as I know, and I can't visualize how it would be done. But then, I don’t purport to know everything, so I’ll check this out with some of my sportsman buddies, and through a few other sources. Also, I’ve never used lead anchors to hold my boat in place, although I suppose lead could be used in a dead weight anchor. (But that would be boat ground tackle, and not fishing tackle, wouldn’t it?) I have used gallon milk jugs filled with sand as anchors, to pretty good effect for lightweight watercraft. Old cast iron sash weights have done a nice job for me as canoe anchors over the years. My basic position on this bill remains solid and unchanged. I support it in principle, with a call for reasonable modifications that I’ve stated above. The sportsman in me tells me it is the ethical thing to do. Would you join me in that position?

Sorry, when I look at the treble hooks in my tacklebox, it appears there is lead keeping the 3 wires together which make up the actual hook. I was under the impression that my teardrops were cast in lead as well. Wait, that must be brass in my weighted lines what odd flexability and superglue holding the hook on my larger spoons, it just looks so grey in color, that must be what confused me. That 60 pound lead triangle that keeps me at the base of the damn when fishing steelies can go I guess, at a couple hundred to replace it with something as effective, what the heck, it's just money right. I mean, after $2,200 in property taxes, over $300 for vehicle tax, oops, license fees, the 40+ cents per gallon gas tax, 6% sales tax, $75 trailer tax, sorry, license fee, the $100 license fee (got it right that time) on the boat, the upgrade I already did to the boat last year to get a newer, cleaner running motor at the tune of nearly $3,000, oh yes, plus tax and last but not least nearly $8,000 in combined income tax, what the heck, what's another grand to toss out there while another big business will rape us in the cutover from lead and the government that forces it on us does nothing to hold them accountable yet still insists that we pay the price. Again, with such a hazardous and harmful product, one that comes from the earth and is not man made, why is there not a bill being brought to the house that does something to first regulate or ban the mining of such an evil product?

Oh, don’t be apologetic for debating something you evidently are concerned about. That’s healthy. I’m not necessarily a believer that the treble hooks and fixed hook-spoon rigs you describe use lead alloy solder. Possibly, but there has been a real movement away from that material in industrial processes, from what I can gather. My reading indicates further that if it’s not a thing of the past yet it probably will be sometime before long, so I think your point may be largely moot. As for uses of lead in fishing tackle (as opposed to that 60 lb lead weight you use as boat ground tackle -- an anchor), I already have said I can agree that HB 5575 is over the top in banning it altogether. The proper focus at this point should be on the small sinkers (under 1 oz) and smaller jigs (less than 1.5 in) that are readily ingested by and subsequently poison certain waterfowl. I’d push hard for a change in HB 5575 that would eliminate the blanket ban on lead tackle and concentrate on getting rid of the harmful smaller stuff. If you have the income to shell out major bucks on boats and motors and specialized tackle, you probably would barely (if at all) feel pinched by the minor incremental cost of replacing your small lead tackle items with items made of materials that aren’t toxic to waterfowl. One good feature of HB 5575 as it stands is that it provides a multi-year time window to phase in the new stuff as you phase out the old “expendables.” Of course, I believe that ethical sportsmen do and should support good conservation measures, even when it costs them a little personal money or inconvenience. So, if we could get the bit of repair work done on HB 5575 that I mentioned above would you join in supporting it for the sake of waterfowl protection and conservation?

The Canadian Sport Fishing Association studied this issue a while back. The same junk science had been put forward in support of banning lead tackle in Canada. The same junk science has already been discredited. Water quality is not being effected. There are no fish kills. Lead is not passed up the food chain. I think that one bird may have happened to choke on a sinker in front of some PETA fruit somewhere, so now it's become stylish to ban lead tackle. It's just another piece of feel-good legislation based on junk science. Bad bill.

I would not reconsider, more so now than before. You say that name is not an issue, when it is in all aspects of any debate. For all we know, you have been arguing with yourself this whole time. OK, let's set that whole issue aside. my new issue is this. How can I possibly have any faith in a man/woman that on blind faith is will to back a bill without fully reading or understanding all aspects of its affects on people, animals and economy. At first debate you backed this bill 100%, now you better understand it and you back up and have to stand a different ground with "So, if we could get the bit of repair work done on HB 5575 that I mentioned above would you join in supporting it for the sake of waterfowl protection and conservation?" That blind backing of a bill based on emotion is part of the problem, not part of the solution. Bills like this are passed by the thousands because people like you focus on a very small portion of the bill that makes them feel all good inside, while other areas of the bill eat away not only at an individuals life's work, but on his freedoms as well, and I am not just referencing this bill, but others that have been passed by people like you who blindly jump into backing them. Is this a personal attack on you, well kind of, but not entirely, it is a strong hard view from the other side of reality.

>The Canadian Sport Fishing Association studied this issue a while back. The same junk science had been put forward in support of banning lead tackle in Canada. The same junk science has already been discredited.< I don’t think the science has been discredited. In fact, to my knowledge the science of this issue is well documented and long has been accepted in wildlife management circles. The Michigan’s DNR wildlife biologists, who study these things, say this about the lead issue: “Lead poisoning has been recognized as a mortality factor in waterfowl since the late 1800's. Lead poisoning cases today are either the result of ingestion of spent lead shot or fishing sinkers and jig heads during normal feeding activities. When the lead reaches the acidic environment of the gizzard (ducks, geese and swans) or the ventriculus (loons), it is worn down, dissolved, and absorbed into body tissues. Once the lead reaches toxic levels in the tissues, muscle paralysis and associated complications result in death.“ The dispute is not over the science of lead ingestion by waterfowl. The dispute is over how to deal with its ramifications. Some people argue that the ramifications aren’t serious or substantial enough to quit making fishing tackle from lead. On the other side we have folks who contend that saving waterfowl is worth the small additional cost -- to sportsmen who fish -- of making well-focused changes in the materials we use and the way we do things. I’ve come to believe, through some thought-provoking posts in this little debate we’re having that HB 5575 goes too far in proposing a ban on ALL fishing tackle that contains lead or lead compounds. But I continue to believe that ending the use of lead for making sinkers weighing 1 ounce or less, jig heads 1.5 inches long or less is an excellent idea because it focuses specifically on the tackle items that do the harm we hope to prevent. So I call for support and passage of HB 5575 with sensible changes to its language so this can be accomplished. >Water quality is not being effected. There are no fish kills. Lead is not passed up the food chain.< I’ve not seen a single claim made in support of banning lead sinkers and jigs that suggests “water quality” is the issue. But it is well established, scientifically, that lead plumbing in domestic water systems presents a human health hazard. Nor have I seen any claim that fish kills are the issue with lead tackle. You are making both these things up out of whole cloth and introducing issues that are not in play here, as far as I can tell. In debate, that is a junk tactic. There is some indication that lead ingested by waterfowl and even upland birds may be passed up the food chain, however. Here’s what the DNR biologists say about that: “Ducks, geese, swans and loons are the animals most commonly affected by lead ingestion . . .. Lead poisoning has also been noted in small mammals (raccoon) and raptors, presumably from the ingestion of lead contaminated prey. . . .” And there is one more thing the DNR biologists say about lead shot and sinkers that is worth thinking about: “It has been proposed that the mortality directly due to lead poisoning may be secondary to the losses due to "non-lethal" effects of lead such as reproductive problems, increased susceptibility to disease and infection, and increased predation due to anemia and weakened muscles.” >I think that one bird may have happened to choke on a sinker in front of some PETA fruit somewhere, so now it's become stylish to ban lead tackle.< Surely, you jest. Waterfowl dieoffs due to poisoning (hardly “choking,” as you would have it) from ingested lead are well documented. Remember, the problem has been recognized since the late 1800s. Virtually every reference to lead poisoning (in humans) that I can find says something like the following: “The symptoms of lead poisoning include neurological problems, such as reduced IQ.” Have you been biting into your lead sinkers to clinch them on the line? >It's just another piece of feel-good legislation based on junk science. Bad bill.< Oh, I have to agree this is feel-good legislation. But what’s wrong with that? Should it not feel good to do the right thing? The world probably won’t end if HB 5575 fails to pass in some form (an improved one, I hope) and more birds die from ingesting lead that we sportsmen leave scattered about where we fish. But I’m of the nature that believes we humans do have the God given (or otherwise acquired) power to recognize what we do that isn’t so good and make it right as best we can. We also have been endowed with conscience, which I also believe creates something of an obligation (moral or other) to correct things we louse up, to the extent we can. All indications are that this lead sinker business is one of those cases where we’ve loused things up. The way to make it right is clearly in view and readily doable without creating major disruptions. Ethical sportsmen ought to support the idea of doing something constructive about it. Here’s a thought, brought to you from the Michigan DNR wildlife biologists: “In waterfowl a dose as small as 1 pellet can result in anemia, while a lethal dose of 5 or more pellets can result in death due to heart attack or muscle paralysis. Occasionally cephalic edema (swollen head) may be seen in Canada geese.” That 1-pellet dose is one shotgun pellet, which usually is smaller than most fishing sinkers, if I’m not mistaken. So we see it doesn’t take much to produce harm. By the same token, anything we do to reduce the number of poisonous lead pellets and pieces of lead fishing tackle laying around for birds to ingest is a step in a positive direction. HB 5575 can be fixed by focusing on the small tackle items that cause harm. With that repair it would be a step in that positive direction, and so ought to be supported and passed.

>How can I possibly have any faith in a man/woman that on blind faith is will to back a bill without fully reading or understanding all aspects of its affects on people, animals and economy. At first debate you backed this bill 100%, now you better understand it and you back up and have to stand a different ground with "So, if we could get the bit of repair work done on HB 5575 that I mentioned above would you join in supporting it for the sake of waterfowl protection and conservation?"< Well, Frantz, (or Hans or Schmanz, or whatever your real name is), this actually may be worth discussing. Let’s put it this way. We all should have a whale of lot more faith in and respect for people who critically examine their own positions and understandings and statements, and are capable of modifying them as a result, than for people who don’t and won’t. Capacity to recognize and acknowledge error and make corrections is a cornerstone of integrity; blind refusal to do so is the antithesis of it. If the best purpose of discussion through forums like this one isn’t to broaden our understanding of what’s on the table, and perhaps modify (refine) our views and positions, then what is it for: spitting at each other and launching abusive personal attacks of the sort you rely on in your arguments? If, in broadening our understanding of the issue at hand by discussing the actual issue at hand we come to modify our views or positions on it along the line, what’s fundamentally wrong with that? If you actually and honestly examine what I’ve written here, it must be clear to you that my fundamental position regarding lead fishing tackle has not changed an iota. That is: Lead poisoning in waterfowl is a real problem that can be mitigated by ending the use of lead fishing tackle the birds are likely to pick up and ingest if it is lost. Ending the use of this tackle will come at virtually no cost to the taxpaying public at large and only at nominal cost to affected sportsmen. Supporting an end to the use of this tackle is consistent with the ethics and traditions long held dear by outdoor sportsmen. Certain posts in this discussion caused me to go back and critically reread the draft of HB 5575. I have come to the conclusion, based in part on certain comments here, that the proposed ban on all fishing tackle containing lead is overly broad and, therefore, is unreasonable. HB 5575 can be repaired and made very acceptable to reasonable and responsible sportsmen by limiting its scope to that fishing tackle which is most likely to be ingested by waterfowl, that is, sinkers of 1 ounce or less in weight, and jig heads of 1.5 inches or less in length. >That blind backing of a bill based on emotion is part of the problem, not part of the solution.< Well, you see that my support for a modified version of HB 5575 is based not on emotion, but reasoning and cold consideration. Else, I would not have been able to modify my original statements, eh? My posture is hardly blind, but in fact is quite enlightened. What about yours, Frantz (etc.)? >Bills like this are passed by the thousands because people like you focus on a very small portion of the bill that makes them feel all good inside, while other areas of the bill eat away not only at an individuals life's work, but on his freedoms as well, and I am not just referencing this bill, but others that have been passed by people like you who blindly jump into backing them.< It’s now patently obvious, Frantz (etc.), that your refusal to compromise and support a revised version of HB 5575 is based upon blind emotion rather than careful consideration of what I’ve said. You oppose my posture not on its merit but only because it is my position. And then you shoot off into the ozone with untelligible babbling about irrelevant stuff. Not very rational, Frantz (or Hans . . .). That’s the view from the real side of reality. Now, who will join me in supporting a rationally modified version of HB 5575 that would limit the lead tackle ban to sinkers weighing 1 ounce or less and jig heads 1.5 inches long or less?

What about the millions of gallons of sewage that Grand Rapids dumps into it continually?

That doesn't count, ducks and other wildlife are smart enough not to eat or swim in raw sewage. We are only trying to save the few that are being weeded out through eating lead, we will get to the others in another election year. Thank you.

Two months in jail for the horrendous crime of using my grandfather's fishing tackle? You must be kidding. Can you folks in Lansing please get a grip and use some common sense?

Before this bill goes any further, please keep in mind the other ramifications. Section (B)(iii) is the catch all and includes anything with lead in fishing tackle. Think about that. there is lead in fishing reels, leadcore line, down rigger weights, lure paint, sinkers and jigs to name a few. First off, the amount of the listed tackle that gets lost is negligible. Second, most of these items are used in water too deep for waterfowl to ever find them. Third, there is no way shape or form a loon or duck could injest virtually all of the items that would be banned. It seems that the benifit of this bill would be absolutely negligible at best. The increased economic cost, on the other hand, would be a major headache. It would also be nice to see some good scientific data that shows these items are in fact causing bird deaths. I would think the commercial fishing nets across norther Michigan would pose a far greater threat to any diving bird. Please reconsider the wording on this mislead bill.

This is one of those bills that smacks of "feel good" legislation, "hey mom look I'm for a clean environment" by supporting this bill. A ban on lead tackle ... it's somewhat easy to understand lead is bad for us, lead is bad for animals, I think we all understand that. But what is the real impact of lead tackle on wildlife? How many waterfoul die a year from lead poisoning caused by fishing tackle ingestion? Those of you that beleive that a lead ban will have no economic impact, or a small economic impact, are surely mistaken. Tungsten, the popular replacement for lead tackle, versus lead as an alternative will eliminate many if not all cottage manufacturers of fishing tackle, not likely that most folks will have the foundry necessary to melt tungsten at 6200 F melting point, as opposed to the 620 F melting point for lead. Let's look at the cost of enforcing this legislation, all enforcement officers will have to trained - that's obviously not free. How about the esoteric costs? Enforcement officers will be spread even thinner in a environment of collapsing budgets, meaning less enforcement of perhaps more meaningful restrictions that are already enacted. In an atmosphere where legislators don't take on polluting corporations for fear of alienating a campaign funding source or corporate tax payer, legislators should recognize that the sportfishing industry is a major contributor to Michigan's economy. I'm not here saying that lead shouldn't be banned in some way, but this legislation is based on "others are doing it" and not on developed data. On top of that the bill is so poorly written that if you only read the beginning of the bill it would appear to only affect jig and sinkers - but actually read it (b) "Lead fishing tackle" means any of the following: (i) A sinker that contains 1 ounce or less of lead or a lead compound. (ii) A jig that contains lead or a lead compound. (iii) An item of fishing tackle, other than a jig or sinker, that contains any lead or lead compound. b(iii) covers everything that is not a jig or a sinker, which mean anything that has lead in it is classified as "lead fishing tackle" would be banned beginning Jan 1, 2009. So those that try to portray it as just affecting "your sinkers and jigs" and "it's no big deal" are simply mischaracterizing the way in which the legisaltion is written. This is sloppy legislation drafted by lazy legislators who really don't care about the environment but are looking for a check mark on the chit for future campaigns. Let's do some real research and let's enact meaningful legisaltion that addresses all of the lead input into the state's environment, yes even those pesky polluting companies. Greg Fruitport, MI

Indians nets kill more birds than lead sinkers do. How many lead sinkers actually get lost anyways? I can see waterfowl hunting, where every shot is dozens of lead bb's... Essentially dozens of split shot per round, multiply that by say a box of shells, that adds up quick.. But I lose maybe 6 split shot a year... Is it really going to save the birds by having me switch to lead alternative? I hit a partridge with my car last year, We should look into car alternatives.. Perhaps Bicycles... Ridiculous!!!!

>I'm not here saying that lead shouldn't be banned in some way, but this legislation is based on "others are doing it" and not on developed data. On top of that the bill is so poorly written that if you only read the beginning of the bill it would appear to only affect jig and sinkers - but actually read it . . . < I can’t agree with the first part of this assertion, but do agree with the second part. The problem of waterfowl poisoning by lead ingestion is well studied and documented. Disagreement arises over the questions of what to do about it, and more fundamentally, whether we see it as a problem that’s worth (pardon the pun) tackling at all. Agreed that HB 5575 in its present form is excessive in its sweeping ban on all lead-based fishing tackle. That makes an excellent argument for correcting the bill as it goes through the legislative process. It is not a good argument for opposing well-focused restrictions on use of lead in tackle items that are causing the documented problem we intend to solve. In other words, you can say that opposing HB 5575 out-of-hand because of its obvious (but correctable) defect is as outrageous and unreasonable as HB 5575’s proposal for a ban on all tackle that contains lead. >In an atmosphere where legislators don't take on polluting corporations for fear of alienating a campaign funding source or corporate tax payer, legislators should recognize that the sportfishing industry is a major contributor to Michigan's economy. . . . < Conventional corporate polluters make that same argument: “Leave us alone because we contribute to the Michigan economy.” Let’s not forget that the “sportfishing industry” is a commercial interest that has far more to do with separating fishermen from their hard-earned money than it does with fishing itself. Sportsmen have a great tradition of supporting regulation of their own activities, for the sake of resource and wildlife conservation. It seems that sportsmen, then, would be chary of taking a position that economic and commercial interests trump conservation concerns. This line of argument -- about the conomic importance of sportfishing -- also suggests that sportfishermen and the industry that exploits them by catering to their needs and desires are incapable of adjusting their behavior to meet new requirements. That’s crazy. Those same arguments were made when the DNR was considering its ban on salmon snagging as a fishing technique, back in the 1970s. The customary argument was that it would “kill” salmon fishing in the state because Pacific salmon couldn’t be caught any other way during their spawning runs. To my knowledge, Pacific salmon fishing in Michigan remains a viable sport, despite regulations against snagging. >Those of you that beleive that a lead ban will have no economic impact, or a small economic impact, are surely mistaken.< Or, quite likely, they have it right. Perhaps the best way to gauge this is to look at actual experience in states and places that have enacted sensible restrictions on the use of lead fishing tackle. So far, we have Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, New York, Great Britain, Canada’s national parks and wildlife refuges, and several national parks and refuges in the Western United States. Minnesota is considering restrictions on lead fishing tackle, too, althougth efforts there have been stymied by the same interests that object to even a corrected version of Michigan’s HB 5775. >This is one of those bills that smacks of "feel good" legislation, "hey mom look I'm for a clean environment" by supporting this bill. A ban on lead tackle ... it's somewhat easy to understand lead is bad for us, lead is bad for animals, I think we all understand that.< So what, exactly, is so bad or wrong about supporting or enacting legislation that makes us “feel good” because it pushes us in the direction of doing the right thing? Is the only worthwhile legislation that which makes us “feel bad” because it takes us in a wrong direction? I don’t say this to offend. I just don’t see the rational basis or logic in this line of argument.

What are you talking about? I have been fishing since I could walk, Ihave collectivly lost probabaly 6oz worth of sinkers. I feel very strongly that there has to be someting else going on here. I am a very avvid outdoorsman, Ihunt everything from ducks and geese to deer and bear. I also fish for every thing in the water. There are much larger issues to addres than the use of lead. How about the cleanup of the Kalamazoo river. Are we that concearned with a few lead split shot that some diving duck may or may not happen to eat, that we will just pass by the fact that a large fishery in our state is so polluted that THE STATE ITS SELF TELLS US NOT TO EAT THE FISH. This ban would cost me as an angler alone very close to $900 to replace everything that is an ounce or less. There is no cheap about that I work 6 days a week and only am fortunate enough to get out on sundays when the weather is close to nice that is alot of money to me for getting out 30-40 times a year. I have many more thoughts on this subject. You have my name and the city I am from, get in touch we can discuss this more with facts and logic, So I assume I will never hear from you.

>Indians nets kill more birds than lead sinkers do.< Is that actually true? Data, please. >How many lead sinkers actually get lost anyways?< Well, that’s a good question. Several sources say that some 2,700 tons of lead sinkers are manufactured in the United States each year. That is 5.4 million pounds. You can do your own math from there to figure out how many sinkers that is. Now, as one essay on the topic notes, those sinkers must be going somewhere (otherwise there would be no reason for manufacturing them year after year), and unless fishermen are hoarding them it seems reasonable to suspect that a high percentage are getting lost in the water. >I can see waterfowl hunting, where every shot is dozens of lead bb's... < During the 1980s the US Fish and Wildlife Service reported that some 6,600 tons of lead shot was being deposited in lakes, marshes and estuaries each year. This led to the eventual (1991, I think) ban on use of lead shot in hunting migratory waterfowl. That suggests lead sinker losses do not represent as great a problem as did the use of lead shot. Nonetheless, the ingestion of lead sinkers and jigs has been implicated by scientific studies as a cause of waterfowl mortality. >But I lose maybe 6 split shot a year... < Then switching to sinkers made of another material would have very, very, very little impact on the cost of your sport. The question here for you is whether spending the few nickles or dimes per year you keep for yourself as result of using lead rather than non-lead sinkers is worth more to you than participating in the conservation of waterfowl. >Is it really going to save the birds by having me switch to lead alternative?< It can’t possibly hurt, and indications are that it would help in waterfowl conservation. The question for you to grapple with is where you place your own values. >I hit a partridge with my car last year, We should look into car alternatives.. Perhaps Bicycles... Ridiculous!!!!< Your “Ridiculous!” conclusion is correct, regarding the partridge-car incident. Not so with the basic issue raised by HB 5775. It is true that HB 5775 goes too far in calling for a blanket ban on all fishing tackle that contains lead. HB 5775 needs rewriting, and if it can be written to focus on tackle items that really do cause the problem it addresses (smaller lead sinkers and jigs) it is worthy of being supported by ethical sportsmen.

Nevermind that ships continue to dump their exotic species infested bilge water into the Great Lakes. Forget about the Asian Carp that are knocking on the door of Lake Michigan. The Great Lakes ecosystem is hanging on by a thread and lead sinkers are what our lawmakers are debating. Fact is that loons die from eating lead sinkers. They die from numerous other causes as well. A Minnesota study of loon mortality revealed that an essentialy equal number of loons died from being struck by watercraft as by lead ingestion. Slightly more died from entanglement than eating lead. Should we ban boats from our waterways? Should Native Americans pull their nets? Or should we use common sense and look at the big picture. Loon populations in Michigan are on a decline. In Minnesota they are increasing. Neither state has a ban on lead for fishing. This leads me to believe that perhaps habitat just might play a more vital role in determining if a species thrives or not. Can we prevent a few loons from dying due to lead ingestion by banning lead fishing lures? Sure. Will it affect the overall ability of the species to thrive. No. Get on to more important "big picture" things in Lansing like stopping invasive species and habitat protection and creation. You will benefit far more species than just the loon.

This bill is a little on the wacky side as the wording would outlaw lots and lots of fishing tackle that wouldn't have anything to do with hurting waterfowl unless someone used it as a weapon, which is probably already illegal. I could support a lead sinker ban if there is enough evidence that lead sinkers are harming any water birds in Michigan. So far I have seen none--there is evidence that sinkers have caused loon deaths in New Hampshire, but that could be a totally different situation. What bothers me most about the bill is the part that would ban all fishing tackle that contained lead. Lead in a downrigger ball, in a sheath of dacron for leadcore line, as the weight in a Dipsy Diver or a Slide Diver, even in a fishing reel simply would never hurt any bird. Nor would lead shot used to make a plastic lure rattle. To ban all lead not only would be unnecessary, it would hamper fishing success and make a large portion of everyone's hard-earned gear illegal to use. Please, legislators, re-write this. Please, don't pass any part of it into law without highly pursuasive evidence pertaining to our state. Dave Mull

>I could support a lead sinker ban if there is enough evidence that lead sinkers are harming any water birds in Michigan. So far I have seen none--there is evidence that sinkers have caused loon deaths in New Hampshire, but that could be a totally different situation.< The loon has received most of the spotlight publicity in the lead sinker issue, but research has shown that some 27 bird species are negatively affected by lead ingestion. Those include various swans and cranes, bald eagles, and numerous duck species. Lack of studies specific to Michigan may or may not be meaningful. Numerous studies in several other states have come to the same conclusions, so why would Michigan be exceptional? I have found reference to a 1992 letter from the Rose Lake (Michigan) DNR Wildlife Research center stating that from 1988 to 1992, post mortem examination of Michigan loons revealed that 40 percent died from lead poisoning. We certainly are in agreement that the blanket ban on lead in all fishing tackle as proposed by HB 5775 is excessive and unreasonable. This should be corrected so that lead tackle covered by the bill is tackle implicated in waterfowl deaths by lead poisoning. Lead tackle restrictions in other states -- New Hampshire, Maine, Vermont -- and other locales do exactly that, providing a solution that is both acceptable and palatable to sportsmen.

>Fact is that loons die from eating lead sinkers. They die from numerous other causes as well.< Studies indicate that up to 40-50 percent of loon deaths are caused by poisoning from ingested lead. That would seem to make ingested lead a significant cause in loon mortality. Loons are one of 27 species identified as susceptible to poisoning from ingested lead. So we’re not talking exclusively about loons here. >Can we prevent a few loons from dying due to lead ingestion by banning lead fishing lures? Sure. Will it affect the overall ability of the species to thrive. No.< You may not be right about the “overall ability of the species to thrive” over the long term. Common sense dictates that if you can reduce and eventually eliminate a controllable factor causing significant unnatural mortality in a species, then the species’ probability of thriving is improved. >Get on to more important "big picture" things in Lansing like stopping invasive species and habitat protection and creation. You will benefit far more species than just the loon.< The points about need to protect our Great Lakes and inland waters from invasive species and the desireability of habitat protection and creation are valid. But, save one, they are red herring issues in this discussion, drawing attention away from the topic at hand. By definition, sensible restriction of lead fishing tackle items that factor in waterfowl mortality is habitat protection. (Certain lost tackle items constitute deadly pollution of the habitat.) As for the “big picture” argument, the history of conservation efforts tells us that not all issues and victories and advances are of large scale. Small steps -- like sensible restriction of lead fishing tackle items implicated in waterfowl mortality -- are significant in the march of progress both in their own right and because they add up over time.

...wake up. Take your head out of your ass. For once. The number of Loons that died on one Great Lake alone (I believe it was Erie) over an approximate three-year period ending 2005 is measured in the tens of thousands. Eighty-thousand is one estimate. These birds died from botulism poisoning. Now you're tellin' me that you don't even question some screwball claim that forty-percent -- forty-percent -- of loon deaths a dozen years ago were due to lead poisioning -- presumably due to those stupid birds swallowing sinkers? While I'm out fishing I'll pick up trash. I'll pick up some idiot's discarded tangle of line. But I rarely find a sinker. So where in the hell are all these loons going for their lead? Walmart? Incrementalism. If you can't see that this is a red herring, you must be blind.