Response to my letter to the MinisterofNatResources(leadban)

[Kpin]

"Dear Mr. Blah Blah:

Ty for your letter of March 3, regarding lead fishing gear...etc.

(weeding out all the mindboggling political bullsh*t here).

The Dept recieved responses from nearly 400 individual Canadians.

(cutting it even shorter)

I have asked that a meeeting be organized to bring together specialists in the fields of wildlife toxicology and lead in the environment, in order to discuss the environmental impacts of lead products lost by anglers. This meeting will be held in Oct. in conjunction with the annual Aquatic Toxicology Workshop in Waterloo. Details @ www.atw.ca

www.cws-scf.ec.gc.ca/fishing/index_e.cfm (for more progress on the Environment Canada "Fish Lead Free" Web site."

Thats more or less it, I'm sure maybe some of you received the same letter per verbatum.

Guess we'll see where this one will go.

[UrbanAngler]

Not sure how many of you are members of the Ontario Federation of Anglers & Hunters (OFAH), but they are opposed to this ban and are another channel to get your voice heard.

Take a look at their commentaries here:
http://www.ofah.org/tackleban/index.cfm

No, I don't work for OFAH, but I support their efforts as should most of us...

[ady]

Not sure where I stand on this one. In the UK lead shot was banned quite a few years ago and rightly so - the majority of anglers use significant quantities of shot particularly in the small to dust size region. This is the nasty stuff the most fowl swallow to help grind their food. Canada is quite different - I haven't used a single lead shot since I came here and I doubt the loss of jigheads at the size and numbers required can do the same amount of harm. Shotgun lead should be banned in my view, and I think it might actually be but I'm not a hunter.

Anglers in general promote enviornmemtal issues as it sustains our sport, I'm not sure I understand the OFAH stance on this. Is it a big deal to use different metals in our jigheads??? or is it something else. Best I go surfing....

[saskie]

I'm not sure I understand the OFAH stance on this.

Regardless of the issue, OFAH will always be:
1) Lobbying for longer seasons and more generous bag limits
2) Opposed to any regulation of hunting/fishing
3) Doing so in manner designed to attract a maximum of attention and free publicity.

[orrsey]

Those who duck hunt use steel shot....or whatever lead they have left.

[Duck Gunner]

Not sure where I stand on this one. In the UK lead shot was banned quite a few years ago and rightly so - the majority of anglers use significant quantities of shot particularly in the small to dust size region. This is the nasty stuff the most fowl swallow to help grind their food. Canada is quite different - I haven't used a single lead shot since I came here and I doubt the loss of jigheads at the size and numbers required can do the same amount of harm. Shotgun lead should be banned in my view, and I think it might actually be but I'm not a hunter.

Anglers in general promote enviornmemtal issues as it sustains our sport, I'm not sure I understand the OFAH stance on this. Is it a big deal to use different metals in our jigheads??? or is it something else. Best I go surfing....

Well where do I start...

First of all, I have to disagree with the blanket prohibition of lead shot for waterfowl hunting. I agree areas of high hunting intensity should be made non-toxic shot zones. This makes sense. However, where I hunt 90 % of the time I am hunting by myself and the other 10% with less than 3 other hunters. In general, hunter numbers are substantially decreased since I was a lad. Opening morning would bring the sounds of gunfire fromall over the area. Now there might be 2 or 3 blinds on the lake. For this reason, I moved back into the swamps. There's not enough hunters to keep the birds moving on the lake anymore. The cost of steel and gun and hunting licenses are discouraging more and more people from duck hunting.

On the subject of costs, the Fiberals promised and swore that there would be no substantive price increase between lead and steel shot. Hmmm... Let's see, a box of cheapie lead shot shells used to cost $4 or $5 and steel runs around $10. (Yes they were right only double the price that's not very much of a difference.) They also said there was no need to change firearms. Well anybody who has tried using steel shot through a full choke will tell you that it is more effective to throw the whole shell by hand than fire it through the barrel. All it does is spray the shot, there's no pattern!!! So either buy a new barrel or spend an extra $50 and buy a new gun. (Yes no added cost here)

If they wanted to make a difference, perhaps they should made a law requiring that all lead shot be copper plated. This would effectively seal the lead in until long after it was accessible for "eating" by waterfowl.

As far as birds dying from lead poisoning, I have seen far more birds dying from, what I call affectionately, "steel shot" poisoning. These are birds which are not killed outright by hunters due to the lack of power due to the substantially deceased shot energy. (Steel is much lighter than lead , thus the reduced killing potential.) So these cripples and wounded fly or dive/swim away, only to turn up floating against the shore at a later date. That is what is truly sickening. Every bird I find should result in a waste flesh charge against the Fiberal government. (I know that's not realistic...)

I can't continue as I am getting pee pee off by this theme...

But in closing, let's remember that the UK also took everyone's guns away. Keep this in mind when you read about the registry, that's how it started over there too...


DG.

[Jigs]

When they brought out the steel shot law, I compared the weight, velocity, patterning, of steel vs. lead and quit hunting waterfowl..............Which, IMHO, was the reason for steel shot in the first place; get a lot of people to pack it in.

No one likes to see wounded ducks hide and die; not what the sport was intended for.

Watching a flock of whistlers, teal, mallards, whatever, tip into your set just as it gets light enough to see, compares to the thrill of catching about a 5lb. largemouth.........and I sure miss it.

Our governments will cave in to ANY tree/fur hugging pressure group that is urban and has lots of political clout and bucks.........the hell with reason and science


Like Duck Gunner says, gets you so angry just about start shakin

Which is why its probably good to have an organization like the OFAH who find it necessary to lobby hard for anglers and hunters. They probably know they aren't going to get half of what they ask for, but if they weren't there, fishing and hunting would be subject to unprotected assaults from the "antis".

When you read of groups wanting to "protect" cormorants.........you want to be glad the OFAH is there........just one example.

Off on a tangent..........end of rant.

[bigfish1965]

The lead ban for hunting shot at least had some merit. If lead shot were avilable to ducks and other waterfowl in shallow water, it could be a problem for them.
However, lead sinkers are a completely different matter.
The rationale behind this comes from the injestion of lead jigs by loons. This reportedly kills dozens of loons a year.
Okay...newsflash..It makes no difference what a jig is made of...if a loon swallows it, it will likely die.
The other rationale was some thinly disguised references to lead pollutant in the water.
The only problem is that in fresh water, lead is inert. It cannot dissolve in fresh water unless a significant agent assists in the breakdown (like chlorine).
ALso there was reference to loons dislodging small split shot lost in snags...
Okay, so my 200 pounds sorry butt could not free the line, but a loon can and will magically swim deep enough to find it, somehow dislodge it and then eat the splitshot from the line???
That kind of death falls under natural selection.