Bass Pro Shops   Daveys Locker Sportfishing  Newport Landing Sportfishing   The Fishing Syndicate  Carver Covers  Tight Lines Guide Service  Bob Sands Fishing Tackle  
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 46

Thread: California Taking Steps To Ban Common Fishing Weights And Gear

  1. #1

    Default California Taking Steps To Ban Common Fishing Weights And Gear

    California Taking Steps To Ban Common Fishing Weights And Gear
    SPECIAL TO WESTERN OUTDOOR NEWS
    Published: Sep 17, 2014

    SACRAMENTO — The California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) released its draft Priority Product Work Plan, a program of the California Green Chemistry Initiative last Friday, targeting all common fishing weights and gear with lead, zinc and copper.

    Given the plan profound impact on the fishing community, the California Sportfishing League has launched a major online petition to have fishing gear delisted from the draft Work Plan.

    The draft work plan is the first release of Governor Jerry Brown’s Green Chemistry Initiative. The DTSC plan identifies seven product types, including fishing weights and gear that contain metals such as lead, zinc and copper. The new regulations could ban the manufacturing, distribution and sale of popular fishing gear.

    “Existing state regulations have already contributed to a significant decline in fishing participation,” said David Dickerson, president of the California Sportfishing League “Additional regulations, will not only encourage fishing gear manufactures to flee California to business friendly states, it will have a substantial impact on California’s economy and jobs, when fishing is no longer an accessible and affordable source of recreation for millions of anglers.”

    Concerns associated with banning common fishing gear are shared by regulatory and industry experts.

    “The proposed regulations will increase the likelihood that manufactures, sellers and retailers of fishing weights and gear will be subjected to costly and onerous regulations, and potential fines,” said Maureen Gorsen, an environmental attorney at Alston & Bird, LLP and former director of DTSC. “The result could be a wide range of enforcement options requiring restrictions or bans on sale, product reformulation, additional environmental impact studies, development of disposal programs or funding for fundamental research and development. The bottom line is that the cost of manufacturing fishing gear will increase significantly and these costs will be passed on to consumers.”

    The Virginia-based national organization American Sportfishing Association, (ASA) which has analyzed product bans in the past, concluded that non-lead fishing tackle products require significant and costly changes to the industry, alternatives may not be available and most do not perform as well. Depending on the alternative metal and current prevailing raw material costs, the cost of fishing gear could increase 10 to 20 fold. ASA also notes that in 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agencies denied petitions to ban lead weights, stating that lead fishing gear did not pose unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment.

    Given that DTSC just released its priority list this past Friday and will close public comments a mere four weeks later, CSL believes the public has not had sufficient time to fully analyze the proposed regulations on manufactures, retailers and the broader fishing community. DTSC has announced workshops for Sept. 25 in Sacramento, and Sept. 29 in Cypress, before closing the public comment period on Oct. 13.

    “Given that fishing does not impose unreasonable impacts on habitat and wildlife, it is remarkable that fishing gear was included in DTSC’s first draft and with little public notice,” said Dickerson. “As a result, the recreational fishing community, and the industries dependent on its growth, have only weeks to respond to an initiative that will have a profound and costly impact on California tourism and jobs, and possibly, deny millions of Californians and tourists access to recreational fishing. Given the lack of analysis and sufficient time for public input, fishing gear regulations should be delisted from the State’s plan.”

    In response to the proposed regulations, CSL has launch a major online petition drive to have fishing gear delisted from DTSC’s draft Priority Product Work Plan. Anglers, manufacturers, retailers and small business owners can join the coalition at www.sportfishingconservation.org or by Facebook.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    141

    Default

    Thanks for the heads up. Maybe they should ban the people littering and contaminating our waterways. I admit lead isn't perfect but in comparsion to the trash and chemicals being dumped by inconsiderate people is at least 100000 timesfold compared to the lost weight and sinkers in the water

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vinh View Post
    Thanks for the heads up. Maybe they should ban the people littering and contaminating our waterways. I admit lead isn't perfect but in comparsion to the trash and chemicals being dumped by inconsiderate people is at least 100000 timesfold compared to the lost weight and sinkers in the water
    Littering etc is illegal......

    I think I'm ok with this ban.

  4. #4

    Default

    This feels like adding insult to injury. It's not like we're loosing those weights and hooks on purpose, damn it.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Murrieta
    Posts
    3,789

    Default

    Why do I get the feeling that this will somehow affect ammunition as well? And Fishing Lakes, just wait and see what the EPA has in it's pipeline for everything water.

    This state is a political joke...

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Murrieta
    Posts
    3,789

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by inthroughtheocean View Post
    Littering etc is illegal......

    I think I'm ok with this ban.

    You're ok with this ban??? Why?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Orange
    Posts
    1,204

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HawgZWylde View Post
    Why do I get the feeling that this will somehow affect ammunition as well? And Fishing Lakes, just wait and see what the EPA has in it's pipeline for everything water.

    This state is a political joke...
    You're behind the ball. This has already happened...
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...ition/2969497/

    California is first state to ban lead in hunting ammo
    Michael Winter, USA TODAY 9:20 p.m. EDT October 11, 2013Less-toxic bullets and shot will be required by July 2019 in bid to protect wildlife, the environment and hunters' health.
    By July 2019, California hunters will be required to use lead-free ammunition. In a move to protect wildlife and the environment, California on Friday became the first state to ban lead in hunting ammunition.

    The measure, signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown, phases out lead bullets and shot by July 2019, with regulations due by July 2015.

    "Lead poses a danger to wildlife. This danger has been known for a long time," Brown wrote in a signing message, noting that a leading conservation wrote about lead poisoning in 1984. The federal government banned lead ammunition from waterfowl hunting in 1991.

    The measure expands an earlier ban on lead hunting ammunition in California condor habitat. The new law covers all wildlife, including "game mammals, game birds, nongame birds and nongame mammals" such as coyotes.

    "The risks to California's incredibly diverse wildlife are many," Brown wrote. "We must manage our state's wildlife for the use and enjoyment of all Californians. It is time to begin this transition and provide hunters with ammunition that will allow them to continue the conservation heritage of California."

    Brown noted changes to the legislation that "better protect the hunting community," including authorizing the state's Fish & Wildlife director to suspend the ban if the federal government outlaws nonlead ammunition because it can pierce armor.

    Supporters also said the ban would protect the health of hunters and their families.

    "Switching to nontoxic lead ammunition will save the lives of eagles, condors and thousands of other birds every year – and, importantly, will keep hunters and their families from being exposed to toxic lead," the Center for Biological Diversity said in a statement.

    But the organization representing state game wardens had urged Brown to veto the lead ban.

    "California Game Wardens are on the front line enforcing the ban on lead ammunition for most hunting in condor range. But there is insufficient data to justify such a drastic action across the entire state," the association's leadership wrote in a letter to the governor.

    The bill was one of 11 gun-regulation measures the Democratic governor signed.

    But Brown vetoed seven other firearms bills introduced in response to the Connecticut school massacre last December. The most controversial sought to ban the manufacture, sale and importation of semiautomatic combat-style rifles with detachable magazines.

    "I don't believe that this bill's blanket ban on semiautomatic rifles would reduce criminal activity or enhance public safety enough to warrant this infringement on gun owners' rights," Brown wrote in veto message. He said the bill applied to "low-capacity rifles that are commonly used for hunting, firearms training and marksmanship practice, as well as some historical and collectible firearms."

    The measure would have also required current owners to register their weapons and would have prohibited them from selling or transferring them.

    Noting that gun violence had killed more than 1,100 Californians since the the Sandy Hook Elementary School mass shooting, Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, a Democrat representing Sacramento, said he sponsored "because I believe aggressive action is precisely what's needed to reduce the carnage in our communities, and to counter the equally aggressive action by the gun industry which is intent on exploiting loopholes in our existing ban on assault weapons."

    Brown also rejected legislation to allow Oakland to draft stricter gun regulations and to let San Francisco and San Mateo County supervisors ban gun shows.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    141

    Default

    We have been using lead weights for decades without a problem. Secondly a lot of the reservoirs where the water is stored as drinking water does not ban using lead weights but it does ban littering and people jumping into the water. Why? Because the lead has a minuscule impact in a body of water unless its puddle.. Either way the cities have filters to filter out lead here is one example. http://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/drin...ease/lead.html. Another thing to consider is why does the DFG have warning on consumtion of fish with mercury and pcbs but not lead.

    Here is another article by the EPA. It said lead poisoning usually comes faulty pipes. It does not cite the drinking water coming from whatever source e.g Lake Cachuma.http://water.epa.gov/drink/info/lead...nformation.cfm.

    Here is the water quality results from Lake Cachuma . I don't see lead in there but the other heavy metals are there

    http://www.usbr.gov/mp/nepa/document...fm?Doc_ID=5618

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HawgZWylde View Post
    You're ok with this ban??? Why?
    Why not? It won't effect me/ I'm not going to be the one loosing money from it. I see it as only effecting fishing product companies (which is a HUGE industry). To me it sounds like its basically gonna force the companies to change the types of materials they use in their products (to more environmentally sound products). Because if they don't change they will loose a ton of money and business. I think its naive to think we're not going to be able to have certain weights and lures anymore. It's a business. They need to make money. They need to have their product sold. During the 70's when lead was outlawed in gasoline did it stop us from getting gas?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Orange
    Posts
    1,204

    Default

    The price difference between lead vs. alternative materials is pretty decent. Check out lead free ammo vs. lead ammo. If you want to pay almost double $ for your weights then fine. I think it BS!

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •