That is a lot of lead

[FlyFishin'Jam 0]

Curious, so whats the lead in the fish from, is that some dissolved lead from industry? Or is this coming up the food chain from say algae or micro organisms living on, near the lead being eaten by progressively larger organisms till it makes it to the fish. Talking bout lake ontario really and warnings for adults of breeding age not to eat certain fish due to quantities of lead and mercury etc?

[mybadhabit 0]

My concern would be for the Northeast and rust belt states, the acid rain is causing the pH levels to decrease. This decrease may be enough to start to react with the lead and put "dissolved lead" into the water table and eventually into the wild fish population.

 

Blane

[RedRoverMike 0]

Lead is a naturally occurring substance that takes decades to break down in the water. Now even though the flow of water can erode lead easily just as it does rocks, lead is much much heavier at the molecular level, therefore it would only collect and bounce along the bottom untill it is stuck in a spot or gets dumped into a delta. Lead gets into big fish through bottom feeding baitfish that feed in areas where lead particles have collected. Preditory fish that eat a mass amount of baitfish and have a long life span tend to be affected the most. Take giant tuna for example, these fish eat multiple times their weight in baitfish that feed on mercury saturated algae at the bottom of the ocean. It takes a lot of baitfish for a tuna to gain just one pound, and because these fish live for decades, they collect large amounts of trapped mercury in their muscle tissue. Trout, bass, and some other gamefish grow too fast and have a wide variety of feeding options. This is why lead, mercury, and other chemicals are not a big deal to these fish. The problem is made to seem way worse then it actually is. The only thing that we as fly fishermen should be worried about is the mass amount of PCB's in the water and in fish. These are petroleum based chemical solvents that hinder fish growth, shortens life, and causes cancers in both humans and fish when exposed in large amounts. While the effects of PCB's on humans is something of speculation among people in the FDA, it is proven that PCB's in the water can kill fish and even cause mass fish kills.

[SilverCreek 0]

If you are going to worry about heavy metals in fish you are eating, worry about mercury and not lead.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/fish-contaminated-with-mercury-pose-worldwide-threat-to-health-439267.html

In a European study of the heavy metals Mercury, Cadmium and Lead in fish, they found that the average fish consumption was 43% of the recommended limit of Mercury, 10% of the recommended limit of Cadmium, and only 3% of the recommended limit of lead.

 

So in this study you could eat 30 times the average consumption of fish and still be under the recommended level of Lead but then you would be 13 times the recommended level of mercury

 

"Abstract: The study was carried out to determine the current levels of mercury, cadmium, and lead in fish and seafood from the market of Comunitat Valenciana, Spain…… The levels found were, in general, lower than maximum levels proposed by European legislation. The estimated weekly intake of mercury, cadmium and lead through fish and seafood consumption was found to be about 43%, 10% and 3% of the established provisional tolerable weekly intake, respectively."

 

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19393210802236935#.UgezQuCkMrg

[williamhj 0]

Thanks Silver! Though I doubt the folks like those in the video will let facts get in the way of a good story. Sadly the facts take too much work to understand, most people stop at youtube videos and the like.

 

I don't think the motivation of the video is a public service announcement, but it is miners trying to direct attention away from what they do. Video of tables full of lead is dramatic. But it ignores what their dredger does. It ignores the hill and mountain sides covered with mining debris that gets washed down into creeks and rivers here in Colorado. Granted that is from mining in the past, but it is hard for me to believe that shot above our flies even shows up as a blip in comparison.

[SilverCreek 0]

There is a proposal to ban lead fishing weights in Wisconsin but the most recent data shows that populations (Eagles, Osprey, and Loons) that are supposedly at risk from lead fishing weights are actually stable or increasing. It is obvious that the populations of the birds that feed on fish or feed in lakes are not in danger.

 

The biggest threat to osprey are actually eagles who push out the breeding osprey pairs. So should we then "ban" eagles?

 

"There were 1,287 known eagle nest territories occupied by breeding adults in 2011. This was an increase of 40 pairs from 2010..... DNR staff and volunteers recovered all sick, injured, or dead eagles in 2011. The leading cause of death was collision with a vehicle.

 

There were 527 osprey nest territories occupied by breeding adults in 2011. This is a decrease of four pairs from 2010.... Bald eagles continue to push ospreys out of suitable nest habitat in areas of the state with dense populations of breeding eagles."

 

http://dnr.wi.gov/news/features/2012_June_Osprey/WisconsinBaldEagleandOspreySurveys_2011.pdf

 

"The analysis results are in and the outlook for Wisconsin's loon population looks good. The adult loon population for 2010 was estimated at approximately 4,000 and chick population was estimated at approximately 600. This represents a significant adult population increase over the 3,373 adults and slight chick population decrease below the 805, estimated in 2005. Thus, 2010 had the largest adult loon population estimate since the survey started in 1985."

 

http://www.northland.edu/loon-population-survey.htm

 

"Breeding loon numbers are rising and the total state loon population according to LoonWatch has grown from 3,017 in 1995 to 4,010 when estimated in 2010."

 

http://dnr.wi.gov/wnrmag/2013/02/loon.htm

 

This is how ridiculous the "ban" on lead fishing weights has become. All heat and no light.

[m_grieb 0]

I am not trying to be a smart ass but if people banned the use of lead fishing weights, who cares? When is the last time you've went to a bait shop/ fly shop that didn't at least have one lead free alternative? IMO nobody loses anything by banning lead( except for those looking for it at the bottom of a body of water), even if it really isn't harmful. Having no lead in the bottom of a river just eliminates the money hungry guy destroying nature.

 

Matt

 

Once again, I'm NOT trying to be a wise guy, maybe someone will explain to me why it would be a problem if lead weights were banned.

[switch10 0]

I am not trying to be a smart ass but if people banned the use of lead fishing weights, who cares? When is the last time you've went to a bait shop/ fly shop that didn't at least have one lead free alternative? IMO nobody loses anything by banning lead( except for those looking for it at the bottom of a body of water), even if it really isn't harmful. Having no lead in the bottom of a river just eliminates the money hungry guy destroying nature.

 

Matt

 

Once again, I'm NOT trying to be a wise guy, maybe someone will explain to me why it would be a problem if lead weights were banned.

 

That's where I'm at as well.

 

I haven't needed to use lead since I found that tungsten putty stuff that Orvis makes. It sinks faster than lead, and doesn't slide around or damage your line. Sold.

[williamhj 0]

I like the tungsten putty as well, that's what I use on the water. However, the 'lead-free' stuff I've seen for fly tying isn't as heavy so you have to wrap on more of it to get the same weight. I'm almost done with my spool of it and it won't be replaced, I'll just pick up a spool of lead wire.

[SilverCreek 0]

The problem is cost and malleability.

 

Tungsten is not malleable and much more expensive. Lead wire is the best there is for tying flies.

 

More importantly, should not regulations be based on fact?

 

You are free to use whatever weights you want but if someone is going to tell me that I cannot use a specific material, they should be able to show me why. This proposal comes from a mistaken a priori belief about lead fishing weights that is assumed from lead shot and duck population evidence, when what is needed is a posteriori evidence of what they assume (that fishing weights are affecting eagle, osprey, and loon populations).

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori

 

It is a classic error in deductive reasoning.

 

http://www.humboldt.edu/act/HTML/tests/fallacy3/3.1a.html

[netabrookie 0]

I hate to sound like a jerk, but who's to say that somewhere in the future it will be discovered that tungsten isn't all that safe either. After reading a bit, I found a few sentences that said "tungsten interferes with molybdenium and copper metabolism, and is somewhat toxic to animal life." There has been so many things put on the market and then later discovered that it wasn't such a good idea after all. The earth and all of it elements were getting along great before mankind started stirring and mixing them all together. I am not trying to sound like a saint because I plan to continue to use my rolls of lead wire unless it's banned, I am just throwing a thought out there. I don't know how long a study is conducted to determine if something is safe for society or nature, but some of the studies in history evidently were not long enough.

[m_grieb 0]

Tungsten may not be as ideal as lead, but someone will figure something out. Another thing, if tungsten is malleable enough to wrap around a hook, how much more malleability do we need? And also, if someone is buying sooooooooo much tungsten that it becomes a major financial issue, someone needs to stop fishing for snags. And I think this is being looked at like the only thing we can do with tungsten is wrap it around the hook for weight. There are many options( fluorocarbon leader, sinking line, tungsten putty, beads) for using alternatives like tungsten.

While I understand that there is not justified reasoning for a ban on the lead, I do not think it is a big deal. Also, this information m

[m_grieb 0]

Is most deffinately not all the information there is out there. I'm sure there are things that have not been said and have not been given to the public for thought. This would also make an individual like myself wonder if they are hiding something that might fill the reasoning gap.

[switch10 0]

I like the tungsten putty as well, that's what I use on the water. However, the 'lead-free' stuff I've seen for fly tying isn't as heavy so you have to wrap on more of it to get the same weight. I'm almost done with my spool of it and it won't be replaced, I'll just pick up a spool of lead wire.

 

I've tried weighting individual flies with a "tungsten thread" which is actually a relatively malleable (as far as tungsten wires go) thin wire. I've also tried Tungsten Stretch Lace, to weight flies.

 

Neither product wraps around the hook shank as neatly, and as easily as lead wire does. I've used the "thread" as a ribbing as well, but the added weight was very minimal.

[SilverCreek 0]

Tungsten is not malleable. In fact, tungsten is one of the hardest and least malleable metal!

 

"Tungsten" wire is not pure tungsten, but a tungsten powder combined with a binder that makes is less dense. It would be interesting to test the specific gravity of that "tungsten" wire against pure lead.

 

"Tungsten is extremely un-malleable as it ranks between an 8-9 on the Mohs Scale, with diamonds being a 10 (the highest)."

 

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_malleable_of_tungsten

 

"For MALLEABILITY: Cu, Ag, Au, Pt, Ga, In, Li, Na, K, Rb, Cs, and other metals are all more malleable than W."

 

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem00/chem00448.htm

 

 

Tungsten may not be as ideal as lead, but someone will figure something out. Another thing, if tungsten is malleable enough to wrap around a hook, how much more malleability do we need?