As the owner of sucker punch baits we make lead free jigs and it would benefit the business. But I'm also a B.A.S.S nation member and my club team competes in NH waters, It won't affect me very much but I know others that are very upset by the proposed change.
Let me know your opinions
New Hampshire Union Leader 03/29/2013, Page A09
The science is clear: NH must ban lead fishing sinkers and jigs
THE TIME has come for stronger laws to protect our loons — a threatened species — from toxic lead fishing tackle, as New Hampshire Senate Bill 89 proposes.
Despite nearly three decades of educational outreach to encourage anglers’ use of alternatives, lead fishing sinkers and jigs (hooks with a lead weight molded around them) remain by far the largest known cause of New Hampshire adult loon mortality.
When one considers the life cycle of the loon, the importance of protecting adult loons is clear. Loons are slow to breed and often require many years to produce even one or two chicks. For this reason, survival of adult loons is the most important factor in ensuring the continued viability of New Hampshire’s small loon population. The loss of adult loons to lead sinkers and jigs — at least 124 between 1989 and 2011 — has had a significant negative impact upon our state’s loons.
Decades of data gathered by the Loon Preservation Committee (LPC) clearly establish that nearly half (49 percent) of all documented New Hampshire adult loon deaths are caused by ingestion of lead sinkers and jigs weighing one ounce or less. To address this problem, SB 89 would extend our state’s current ban on the sale and freshwater use of lead sinkers and jigs to cover jigs in the aforementioned weight range.
The American Sportfishing Association (“ASA”), an organization that represents tackle manufacturers’ business interests, is opposing any restrictions on lead tackle.
The ASA claims such laws are “unwarranted” because our loon population is growing — a shameful half-truth. New Hampshire’s loon population has experienced meager and painfully slow population growth, which was made possible only by intensive management supported by extensive volunteer contributions.
Without such efforts, any gains would be quickly reversed.
Just 38 pieces of lead tackle erased six full seasons of work by LPC’s volunteers to build and float loon nesting rafts.
ASA also dramatically overstates the cost of switching from lead by saying that alternatives “can” cost 20 times as much as lead tackle.
In reality, a wide variety of non-lead tackle is available, it is comparable in cost to lead (sometimes less), and it performs as well or better.
Unfortunately, anglers might never know it because ASA’s misinformation discourages their exploration of alternatives to lead. An extensive list of non-lead tackle suppliers is available at www.loon.org.
Since the Senate recently passed SB 89 by a unanimous vote, ASA has gone so far as to claim that the bill will end all fishing. Similar histrionics were heard when our Legislature passed the first ban on lead sinkers and jigs in 1998. That bill led other northeastern states to enact similar bans and resulted in a dramatic increase in demand for affordable non-lead tackle. It is a trend that may be beginning again — much to the ASA’s dismay. The Massachusetts Fisheries and Wildlife Board voted unanimously to implement lead tackle restrictions similar to those in SB 89, and the Maine legislature is considering similar protections for loons. This is good news for loons, but undoubtedly troubling to the ASA because loon-killing lead tackle has higher profit margins than the non-toxic alternatives.
Alas, some of New Hampshire’s bass fishing clubs, such as N.H. B.A.S.S. Federation Nation (“B.A.S.S. Nation”), are buying ASA’s hype. Worse yet, these clubs have become openly hostile toward supporters of loon conservation.
At its February meeting, B.A.S.S. Nation called SB 89 an attempt to drive bass anglers off the water “under the guise of protecting the loons.” The club also discussed how members might challenge protection zones established around loon nests and gain access to fish in these highly sensitive areas.
Additionally, B.A.S.S. Nation has already hazed one manufacturer (and angler) with a boycott for appearing before the Senate to share his experience making a wide range of affordable non-lead tackle.
For elite anglers in the clubs — the kind well-equipped with bass boats and hundreds of lures — the cost of investing in non-lead replacements for some of their tackle would be proportionate to the multitude they own. So, for them, providing facts about alternatives equals “selling out the bass fishing fraternity.”
Many anglers have a strong conservation ethic and respect for wildlife. Unfortunately, if their support for SB 89 is drowned out by the lead tackle industry, only industry profits — not threatened loons — will be protected.
.
Sheridan Brown, an attorney from Grantham, is the Loon Preservation Committee’s legislative coordinator. He can be reached at advocate@stbrownlaw.com.
Another View
Sheridan Brown
SHERIDAN BROWN
Powered by TECNAVIA
Copyright © 2013 Union Leader Corporation. All rights reserved. 03/29/2013
Last edited by joeyt56 on Fri Mar 29, 2013 12:57 pm; edited 2 times in total
It is simply a cheap easy material. There are plenty of alternatives that can cause much less harm. The banning of lead in other states has in no way stopped anglers from enjoying their time on the water.
The comment of "it is a way to drive bass anglers off the water" is simplistic and ignorant. Ask any Massachusetts angler if they stopped fishing because they could not use lead. The proof is there, people just don't like to change.
I laughed about the guys bitching about the cost of changing as well..the "elite" of the sport will drop 15k on a new boat every few years, but replacing tackle would bankrupt them...c'mon.
Anglers in general need to stand up and be the first people to want to help wildlife and the water ways. We should be seen as stewards of the banks. Too many ignorant fishermen dump trash, leave line and lures everywhere and give responsible anglers a bad name. It isn't the environmentalists trying to drive anyone off the water..we drive ourselves off the water, by polluting and destroying the places we supposedly love.
I know I know, preaching to the choir here as most on these boards are the responsible ones, or at least I like to hope so.
The point is though, that changing from lead does not mean you cannot fish. It does not change what you do and in fact the alternatives are not all that different price wise. Anglers need to stop getting pissed off about making the world a better place and start working toward finding balance with our love of the sport and our respect of the world.
To be fair, there is really no need to use lead.
It is simply a cheap easy material. There are plenty of alternatives that can cause much less harm. The banning of lead in other states has in no way stopped anglers from enjoying their time on the water.
The comment of "it is a way to drive bass anglers off the water" is simplistic and ignorant. Ask any Massachusetts angler if they stopped fishing because they could not use lead. The proof is there, people just don't like to change.
I laughed about the guys bitching about the cost of changing as well..the "elite" of the sport will drop 15k on a new boat every few years, but replacing tackle would bankrupt them...c'mon.
Anglers in general need to stand up and be the first people to want to help wildlife and the water ways. We should be seen as stewards of the banks. Too many ignorant fishermen dump trash, leave line and lures everywhere and give responsible anglers a bad name. It isn't the environmentalists trying to drive anyone off the water..we drive ourselves off the water, by polluting and destroying the places we supposedly love.
I know I know, preaching to the choir here as most on these boards are the responsible ones, or at least I like to hope so.
The point is though, that changing from lead does not mean you cannot fish. It does not change what you do and in fact the alternatives are not all that different price wise. Anglers need to stop getting pissed off about making the world a better place and start working toward finding balance with our love of the sport and our respect of the world.
I agree with what you said, I think it just the mentality of the anglers that have been using lead for a long time now that don't like change and they just feel their way of life is being attacked. And in the back of their minds they are thinking if we let them win then what is next for them to ban.When it comes to cost yes the material that myself and other companies use is very expensive. The current cost for us is about 10 times what it would cost to make lead. But if we charged 10 times more for one of our jigs we wouldn't be able to stay in business. The average lead jig is usually what? 2-4 dollars and the usual bismuth jig is 3-5 dollars I really don't think it will break the bank to switch over to lead free.
As anglers we should be the ones setting the example for good conservation.
Also lead sinkers are already banned in nh they would just be expanding the items on the ban list.
their facebook page says the same, no actual numbers..... hence the research...... well here it is,,, 5.6 loons each year die from lead poisioning. yup 5.6.... thats the average from 1989-2011, ok now it just seems to me that thousands of dollars will be made with the non-lead tackle, but also thousands lost to fishermen who have lead now, i feel the direct effects of this when fishing tournaments in new hampshire, i do not throw a grub like i use to. just does not feel the same, i would like to say that every law that is passed, it is one less leap for anyone else to start another law, whats next, no fishing during the loon nesting period? and don't tell me it can't happen, it does . look at bartons cove, if you cross anywhere near the eagles nest, you get a big fat fine, and would if more eagles move into the area, guess what , no fishing anywhere..... it may sound mean , but over protection of any species is not a good thing, should i mention the federal ban on dog fish? should i mention towns that shut down deer hunting, guess what happens then, lyme ,coyote's ect.. you get the picture, no one want a species to go extinct, i love animals, but for 5.6 loons a year? seems like all that money could be used where it's needed.
Please, the thousands made on non lead jigs? Verse what the thousands made on lead? Verse the thousands spent to buy a boat every few years..buy hundreds of dollars of lures yearly.. The argument that is bankrupts fishermen is ludicrous and is shown false repeatedly.
You mention 5 or 6 dieing a year..glad you did a bit of research as it is a start ( though your numbers you state are simply averages and do not show the whole of the picture, 2010 for instance 11 Loons were recovered with death resulting from lead tackle )..did you fail to read about the very low breeding of the loon In NH..with many breeding pairs not even producing offspring that survive. That the number of breeding couples is well below what the sustainable numbers should be and that the deaths per year are far higher then what can sustain the population?
Let us also keep in mind that the 5 or 6 is simply the number average per year of lead tackle related deaths, not the total dead each year. Lead shot from shotguns is also a factor, discarded mono and other fishing line, as well as boat collision all add more angler or human related deaths to the count that are not being addressed here..then there is the % of unknown or other and/or natural deaths. So it is not just 5 or 6 dieing a year, that is just part of the whole and the numbers they feel they can work to alleviate.
5 or 6 sounds like a small number, but it is an average and when coupled with other factors it means that the population of loons in NH has been in decline for a multitude of years. At the rate it is going they will eventually not be in NH.
Also keep in mind this study is for Loons, but they mention that there are problems with other species as well, not covered here.
From your response I understand that some of you could care less, as long as you get to throw your lures without problems. Which is a very ignorant and selfish view of the world.
No one is trying to stop you from fishing, to think so it idiotic and paranoid. We, as anglers have to find balance or we will destroy what we "love". I find it disgusting that fisherman care so little about the rivers, lakes and wetlands that they frequent. With over population and a societal ignorance about nature ..we really need to focus on finding ways to make less impact while still enjoying the world around us.
And really..money spent where it is needed..lol...you know as well as I do that environmental agencies are already far under funded and staffed..and in the grand scheme of politics receive very little consideration.
http://www.loon.org/research.php
http://www.loon.org/mortality.php
http://www.loon.org/assets/pdf/Effects%20of%20Lead%20Fishing%20Tackle%20on%20Loons%20in%20New%20Hampshire%20-%20Report%20to%20NH%20Legislature,%20February%202013%20Senate.pdf
ignorant?? think of this next time you go to bed. hope you can sleep well, have donated to any food banks? i have., homless shelters? veterans organizations? thousands of dollars will be spent changing one law, it's not going to be five bucks, and what to save 5.6 loons a year? ok, i will give you 20 loons a year, just so you can feel good, for me i would kill 100 loons a year if it would help just one veteran out. and thats not ignorant, thats just caring in the right places. and before you jump down someones throat, everyone is entitled to an opinion, you have yours and i have mine. so i think i will send my hard earned money to the mothers against drunk driving fund in new hampshire, where 174 people where killed by drunk dirving, ya, money well spent, the only people who value an animals life more than man kind are, well i will stop there.
http://www.newhampshire.com/article/20130327/NEWHAMPSHIRE03/130329259/-1/newhampshire
i refuse to respone any further than this last post.
ignorant?? think of this next time you go to bed. hope you can sleep well, have donated to any food banks? i have., homless shelters? veterans organizations? thousands of dollars will be spent changing one law, it's not going to be five bucks, and what to save 5.6 loons a year? ok, i will give you 20 loons a year, just so you can feel good, for me i would kill 100 loons a year if it would help just one veteran out. and thats not ignorant, thats just caring in the right places. and before you jump down someones throat, everyone is entitled to an opinion, you have yours and i have mine. so i think i will send my hard earned money to the mothers against drunk driving fund in new hampshire, where 174 people where killed by drunk dirving, ya, money well spent, the only people who value an animals life more than man kind are, well i will stop there.
http://www.newhampshire.com/article/20130327/NEWHAMPSHIRE03/130329259/-1/newhampshire
What the hell are you rambling about?
How does this law prevent anyone from volunteering or donating to places? Maybe if you took the couple hundred a year you spend on bass fishing and put it where it is "needed" then..by your logic anyway.
This law doesn't cost any group any money..nor does it cost the government any money. They aren't asking for thousands of dollars to do anything.
Your claims are ludicrous and absurd.
I can buy non lead jigs and still volunteer. I can fish, be respectful and still serve my country. I can speak out about drunk driving while keeping the world around me cleaner...
I love how people can not have a rational discussion without going way over the top. I also love how you assume because I don't want to mess up the world that I don't do anything for society..I won't even dignify that with a response. I know what I have done, where I have served and what I have given to my country, that is good enough for me.
My advice to you is not to involve yourself in a discussion if you cannot actually discuss.
http://www.loon.org/memberships.php
i lied about not posting again, but i have to make myself clear, yes it will cost people money, what i mean about all my ranting is that our donations would be better spent on more pressing issues in this world, sorry i just feel that way, i would rather donate my money to a cause that would make a bigger difference in this world than saving 10 loons a year, common sence tells me that its just not the right time to take my money away from other pressing matters in this world, if this did not cost anything then why do they take donations? thousands will be spent, if you want to save the animals before your neighbor then hit that donation button its your choice, they are alerting the public with their concern about loons, and i am alerting the public that there are more pressing issues to donate your hard earned money, and here for the people who want to donate to the "cause" that you say won't cost a dime here is the link
http://www.loon.org/memberships.php
I understand some people prefer giving to things like the wounded warrior project and the jimmy fund ( two things that I myself give to every year) but others like to give to the aspca and green peace but that is their priority. The loon.org people aren't asking fisherman to donate, they are asking the same people who give to the aspca and other wildlife management groups to pay because they care about the environment. No one is forcing you or even suggesting that if the lead free ban goes into place to donate your money. If you fish alot with the jigs they are proposing to ban then you probably lose alot as well, and have to replenish your tackle once and a while. On bass pro you can find lead jigs ranging from 2-6 dollars and the average price of my jigs are 4 dollars. And there no walmart specials. They are powder painted with boss paint, have high quality boss skirts and, mustad hooks. They look better than some of the higher priced ones on bass pro. So for any one who thinks swapping over is going to cost a ton of money is just wrong. Many of the pros use tungsten jigs now any ways because they like the sensitivity and smaller sizes better. Now tungsten is around 7 dollars on average but ive seen some at tackle warehouse for much cheaper.
All im saying is its really not the end of the world if the ban goes into affect in 2015.
will, i'm surprised by your position specifically because if i remember correctly i've seen you strongly chastise other members for their handling of bass (i'm sorry if i'm mistaken here). you've been a proponent for better handling of fish to improve survival rate, a practice that may not have had as many proponents in the past, but you support the old habit of using lead, a harmful metal.
not being mean here, but after a few hours of research, and a couple of e-mails, i wanted to find out how many loons are killed each year in new hampshire, the loon preservation site just says 49% of loons killed in new hampshire die from lead, 49% of what?
their facebook page says the same, no actual numbers..... hence the research...... well here it is,,, 5.6 loons each year die from lead poisioning. yup 5.6.... thats the average from 1989-2011, ok now it just seems to me that thousands of dollars will be made with the non-lead tackle, but also thousands lost to fishermen who have lead now, i feel the direct effects of this when fishing tournaments in new hampshire, i do not throw a grub like i use to. just does not feel the same, i would like to say that every law that is passed, it is one less leap for anyone else to start another law, whats next, no fishing during the loon nesting period? and don't tell me it can't happen, it does . look at bartons cove, if you cross anywhere near the eagles nest, you get a big fat fine, and would if more eagles move into the area, guess what , no fishing anywhere..... it may sound mean , but over protection of any species is not a good thing, should i mention the federal ban on dog fish? should i mention towns that shut down deer hunting, guess what happens then, lyme ,coyote's ect.. you get the picture, no one want a species to go extinct, i love animals, but for 5.6 loons a year? seems like all that money could be used where it's needed.
Dogfish as in sand sharks? Whats the ban on them?