Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Lead sinkers, cause and affect.

  1. #1

    Default Lead sinkers, cause and affect.

    Quote Originally Posted by AKHunterNP View Post
    bigtex, I make a leader about an arms length, tie a 1/0 hook on it and before cinching the knot slide some yarn in there. If I put 15lb test on my reel, I'll use 10lb test for my leaders. I use orange, yellow and pink. I make my yarn so it comes down to just before the hook starts. Then get you some 1/4 inch solid core lead. They sell it in coils for about 5 bucks. Cut it into about 5 inch pieces and punch a hole in one side, they make special pliers to punch the hole in it. Then I tie a #3 swivel to the other end of my leader and put the lead on the swivel. To tie it to my line I just tie it to the loop of the swivel. It is alot cheaper than buying flies. I make about 50 of them at a time, my wife and daughter like to lose them. I was slaying them last year on the Klutina with that rig.
    Do you have any concerns about leaving 50 or more pieces of lead in a pristine river Not trying to start an argument, but if every fisherman did that, I can't imagine it would be real good for the long term health of the river......

  2. #2
    Member Bullelkklr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage Alaska
    Posts
    4,841

    Default Everyone

    uses lead - I know nobody that uses steel - it is 4 times the cost. No worries though - I am sure that the greenies will change that for use pretty soon - just like steel shot for waterfowl.

    Show me some studies that prove how harmful our fishing sinkers are to the fish - if it is effecting populations then I would be all for it - I am sure that there are consequences - but are they measurable?

    As for camping - I would reserve a tent spot at one of the campgrounds - but I haven't looked at other options either. It is not as simple as just pulling up to the river and having a spot to throw your tent.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    fairbanks
    Posts
    201

    Default steel over lead

    well i started to fish with less lead for salmon i use the slinky style wieghts and i use 1/4 in ball barrings for my filler. its about 22 or so for an ounce they do work good to been using them for about 4 years. just my 2 cents

  4. #4
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    7

    Default Environmental Responsibility

    Visit the EPA website and note all the fish consumption advisories tied to heavy metal accumulation. If you PM me, I can send you citations for over 750 published articles on lead accumulation in the aquatic environment. Bottomline is - don't s&$t where you eat! You don't have to convert to steel or other lead alternatives, but do your best to free up snags and retrieve your lead. This is also goes for folks who leave coils of fishing line on the bank..please pack it out. Helping to take care of the resources that we all enjoy, will ensure that the "greenies" don't influence how we enjoy it in the future (i.e. regulations banning lead).

    The "out of sight out of mind" view has led to thousands of rivers across the country being polluted to the point of sterility or led to major restrictions on how many fish and what species of fish you can eat monthly. Prior to lead shot bans, it was estimated that US hunters deposited 6000 tons of lead into waterways ANNUALLY. Acid rain or low pH river systems allow the lead to breakdown into the sediments where it begins to accumulate in plants, prey species for early age class fish, waterfowl, small mammals, and raptors. Loon mortality in some Michigan lakes was attributed to lead 50% of the time. In Canada, estimates of fishing lead in the environment equalled 14% of all non-recoverable lead discharged into the environment per year.

    The bottomline is that we all need to do our part to take care of the resources otherwise we will be forced to change our behavior through laws banning lead sinkers and shot. Based on 2006 freshwater fisherman numbers for AK, if each fisherman left a lb of lead in the river each year, it would amount to over 85 tons of lead deposited in our rivers annually.
    Tight lines...

  5. #5
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    7

    Default Everyone has an opinion, but some are more informed than others

    Every source I noted is peer reviewed and are included in the EPA report on lead in the aquatic environment. I would be curious to see the debunking literature you suggest. Continue to operate in a state of blissfull denial and ignorance, so that when regulations come I can say I told you so.

    Just so you know...
    The USFWS has banned the use of lead sinkers in 13 wildlife refuges containing habitat used by loons, and in Yellowstone National Park.
    In their 1994 response to a citizen’s proposal to require labels or warnings on lead fishing sinkers stating that the products are toxic to wildlife, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed a ban on the manufacture, processing, and distribution of lead and zinc sinkers for use in the U.S. The EPA estimated that the proposed rule would prevent an estimated 450 million lead and zinc-containing sinkers from being produced each year, and from potentially entering the environment. The economic impact (purchase price of sinkers) was estimated to be less than $4.00 for the average angler per year. They estimated that approximately 4.7 million birds could be potentially saved by the proposed regulation. A bill was introduced into the 1994 Legislature containing these restrictions, but was not passed into law.


    FYI-
    New Hampshire—Became the first state to ban the use of lead sinkers. Legislation passed in 1998 (effective in 2000). The legislation prohibits the use of lead sinkers in lakes and ponds up to one ounce and lead jigs up to one inch in length. Later expanded the legislation to include all waters of the state.
    Maine—Passed legislation in 2001 (effective January 1, 2002) to ban the sales of lead sinker ˝ ounce or less.
    New York—Passed legislation in 2002 (effective May 2004) that bans the sale of lead sinkers to the end user.
    Vermont—Passed legislation prohibiting the use (effective January 1, 2007) and sale (effective January 1, 2006) of lead fishing sinkers ˝ ounce or less. The state must implement a lead sinker education program beginning July 1, 2004.

    Sorry for highjacking this post, my only point was to inform folks about issues associated with lead in our rivers and that we all need to be cognizant of how we can reduce the risks of future regulation.

  6. #6

    Default

    As far as fishing line goes, I picked up a handy little device called a Monomaster from Grasshopper Outdoor Products.
    Here's the link.
    http://www.grasshopperproducts.com/

    For $12, there's no longer an excuse for leaving line on the ground. The website has some short videos on how it works and what it can do.
    Last time I was out, I would hunt for line on the river bank to roll up in the cylinder. I urge everyone to get one of these.
    I know I sound like an infomercial, but I just couldn't believe how simple this thing was. Once you see it, you do a "Why didn't I think of that."
    Ben

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bullelkklr View Post
    uses lead - I know nobody that uses steel - it is 4 times the cost. No worries though - I am sure that the greenies will change that for use pretty soon - just like steel shot for waterfowl.

    Show me some studies that prove how harmful our fishing sinkers are to the fish - if it is effecting populations then I would be all for it - I am sure that there are consequences - but are they measurable?

    As for camping - I would reserve a tent spot at one of the campgrounds - but I haven't looked at other options either. It is not as simple as just pulling up to the river and having a spot to throw your tent.
    I'm anything but a "greenie"...but if 100 fisherman leave 50 sinkers in a river each year, in 10 years that 50 THOUSAND sinkers. I can't believe that has no effect on the watershed in the long run. My grandkids will appreciate me spending a few extra dollars to not poison them in the long run.

    Do we really need to wait until it's "measurable" before we stop putting what we know is a carcinogen and birth defect causer in our pristine waters?

  8. #8
    Member Bullelkklr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage Alaska
    Posts
    4,841

    Default I do

    always pick up my line and others. I also try to get my lead back.

    I myself am a bit of a greenie as well - but I live to hunt and fish - a lot of the people making the laws don't - and they don't where people do either - that is what I have a problem with, not sportsmen trying to keep or better our environment.

    I am still going to use up my lead. I do have a bunch of steel sinkers that I used to use for bass tourney's when I lived in PA for a couple years...they make a louder tick tick.

  9. #9

    Default

    The last thing we need is more regulations. I'm a firm believer that if sportsmen "regulate" themselves, then the gov. has less ammo to use as excuses for new rules. Not that they won't try anyways....but lets not give them any more reasons! As was pointed out, if they banned lead shot, can sinkers be far behind? My 2cents.

  10. #10
    Member Big Al's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Palmer,Alaska
    Posts
    1,737

    Default

    It is just a little more than a shame, that the lack of understanding of the nature of lead and water exposure is so little understood by the general public.

    This is a topic that has nearly drove me to drink since the lead ban for water fowl in the 1970's.

    Lead in the presence of water forms a hard oxide, many time harder than the lead it covers. It takes a mechanical action to remove this oxide. The longer the exposure to water the more oxide the lead contains. Lead in the presents of moisture laden air causes the formation of this same oxide.

    You may have noticed that old lead weights have changed colors, no longer shinny, gray. This is the hard oxide. This is what the ancient Romans fought to remove from there own water supply system.

    I find that the lack of proof by archaeologist looking for lead contamination in ancient Roman bones must of proved disappointing to the greenies.

    When airborne lead was removed from the air (no longer used in gasoline) the numbers of lead toxicity dropped like a rock in water fowl in California.

    The greenies (after lead shot) called victory for water fowl. No one asked what happened to the lead shot that was still in the waters of California, It had been there for over a hundred years. Where did it go? Did the greenies sneak out after dark and gather it all up? Did they forget to tell the media about how they saved the planet?
    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tryants." (Thomas Jefferson

  11. #11
    New member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    6

    Default No need to be defensive

    83% of all stats are made up on the spot? You want us to take your word for it when you admit to living in blissful ignorance and liking it? Why don't you put up some scientific evidence that supports your theories. If you have 750 published scientific articles that state that lead doesn't have any impact on viable fisheries or wildlife then please enlighten us. I do not believe this forum was intended to be anti lead- just use common sense. I want my children and grandchildren to experience the outdoors just like me. If we don't all do our part then future generations pay the ultimate price!

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default Scientific Studies

    If you look you can find plenty of "scientific" studies to support about anything you wish to claim. Do you remember all the "scientific" studies of the 70's that proved there was global COOLING and that we were about to enter another ice age? I bet I could find 700 studies if I looked.

    The there was the more recent scientific study by NASA of the warmest years of the 20th century. After someone pointed out their error and they corrected the Y2K bug it turned out the 2 warmest years were before WWII. You didn't hear much about that in the papers but NASA quitely went back and corrected their data and re-posted it on the internet. How many scientific studies on global warming referenced the orginal flawed NASA date? I bet you could find thousands.

    Then were many studies in the 60s and 70s that we were going to run out of uranium to fuel our nuclear plants; oil to run out cars etc. The list of wrong studies goes on and on. Many of them are flat wrong but followed the popular thoughts of the day.

    Lead shows up in a lot of places besides sinkers. Lead flashings on houses where the vent pipes exit the roof is very common. Lead was used in a lot of older houses to connect portions of the sewer system because it was easy to work and lasted forever. Lead covered buried electrical and telephone cables are everywhere. All these applications are exposed to the enviornment yet we still aren't dying of lead posioning.

    Lead bullets from the Civil War are commonly found in many of the south and eastern states. These bullets have lost virtually no weight and are pretty much intact except for a hard coating of lead oxide. Remember this is after nearly 150 years!

    Don't be too hasty to jump on the bandwagon about the latest threat to the world just because there are a lot "scientific" studies. People get paid to do these studies and publish them; there is a lot of error out there.

    For the record I am an registured professional engineer with a lot of scientific and technical training. I an not an expert on the enviornnment but I've been around a lot of things in my 40 years of experience.


    Quote Originally Posted by fullyloaded View Post
    83% of all stats are made up on the spot? You want us to take your word for it when you admit to living in blissful ignorance and liking it? Why don't you put up some scientific evidence that supports your theories. If you have 750 published scientific articles that state that lead doesn't have any impact on viable fisheries or wildlife then please enlighten us. I do not believe this forum was intended to be anti lead- just use common sense. I want my children and grandchildren to experience the outdoors just like me. If we don't all do our part then future generations pay the ultimate price!
    Living the urban lifestyle so I can pay my way and for my family's needs, and support my country. And you?
    ".. ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" JFK

  13. #13
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    7

    Default

    Lead does persist in the environment which is why waterfowl ingest it and get lead poisoning from their gizzards grinding it down. I completely agree with many of the statements below, but folks need to think about lead in a stationary environment like a lake or on the ground vs a riverine environment. In a lake the lead sinkers just sit in the sediments, which is how waterfowl like mallards pick it up. In riverine systems, lead is subjected to degradation resulting from benthic shifts and friction. Studies have found that sinkers deposited in swift river systems lost substantial weight by the time they were recovered further downstream.The lead sediments likely end up depositing in slack water areas and marine sediments. Acidity also is a major factor. In general, under neutral or basic pH in streams or lakes, lead oxidation products are mostly insoluble. However, the presence of sand in the stream sediment can erode the crust of the sinker and release particles of lead compounds into the water. The more acidic the pH of the water, the more likely the dissolution and mobility of these compounds. As a professional fisheries biologist, I am very familiar with this topic, however, my intentions were never to proclaim that the use of lead was a major issue in AK. My initial post was tied to some statements regarding losing 50 - 5" long 1/4" diameter lead during a fishing trip and the poster not being concerned about it. I think we have wore this topic out, so fellow forum members can derive their own conclusions based on the information provided.
    Tight lines...

  14. #14
    Moderator LuJon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Palmer, AK
    Posts
    11,415

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mvarner View Post
    Lead does persist in the environment which is why waterfowl ingest it and get lead poisoning from their gizzards grinding it down. I completely agree with many of the statements below, but folks need to think about lead in a stationary environment like a lake or on the ground vs a riverine environment. In a lake the lead sinkers just sit in the sediments, which is how waterfowl like mallards pick it up. In riverine systems, lead is subjected to degradation resulting from benthic shifts and friction. Studies have found that sinkers deposited in swift river systems lost substantial weight by the time they were recovered further downstream.The lead sediments likely end up depositing in slack water areas and marine sediments. Acidity also is a major factor. In general, under neutral or basic pH in streams or lakes, lead oxidation products are mostly insoluble. However, the presence of sand in the stream sediment can erode the crust of the sinker and release particles of lead compounds into the water. The more acidic the pH of the water, the more likely the dissolution and mobility of these compounds. As a professional fisheries biologist, I am very familiar with this topic, however, my intentions were never to proclaim that the use of lead was a major issue in AK. My initial post was tied to some statements regarding losing 50 - 5" long 1/4" diameter lead during a fishing trip and the poster not being concerned about it. I think we have wore this topic out, so fellow forum members can derive their own conclusions based on the information provided.
    Tight lines...
    Excellent information and I agree it is wise to practice leave no trace principles in whatever we do in our wilderness. I have read and reread the initial quote by AKHunterNP and I cannot see where he claimed to lose 50 weights in a single outing. He just states that he makes 50 at a time due to the likelyhood of his wife/daughter to lose them. It does not give a timeframe for this loss it could be per year at 30 different creeks, per 10 years at 50 creeks, or per day at 1 creek. I doubt that anyone is losing them at that rate lead aint cheap so I am sure that the vast majority of people do everything they can to conserve including AKHunterNP.

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    salt lake city ut
    Posts
    409

    Default use a snagless sinker

    If you all used a sinker that snaged less you would leave less of them in the rivers I think it would help alot ,,,I fished 10 days last year and only lost a couple sinkers

  16. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ripndrag View Post
    If you all used a sinker that snaged less you would leave less of them in the rivers I think it would help alot ,,,I fished 10 days last year and only lost a couple sinkers
    Have you toyed with the notion of making them out of anything other than lead? I do know that design and intended use has more to do with their performance than weight does. For instance, an inverted pyramid as opposed to a cannon ball, for bottom fishing deep holes or the ocean. Half the weight and more drop per second, and less drift. Sinking lines help as well. Weighted hooks when allowed offer a huge advantage over sinkers. Fish and Game needs to look at what works and legalize them. I have walked along the banks of the Kenai in springtime and you would not believe the amount of lead and everything else I have seen in the rocks. I don't need a study to tell me this is NOT good.

  17. #17
    Member akriverrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chugiak, Alaska, United States, United States
    Posts
    754

    Default for those

    who are really concerned you could powder coat your lead weights before fishing with them. its easy to heat them up and swish them around in pro tec powder coating. bake them off at 350 for 20 minutes and the lead is encapsulated in powder coating. the powder coating would chip and have to be redone after a fishing trip. i dont think this method would be 100% effective but would limit the exposure of the lead to a minimum. i also seen some green weights for sale at walmart a few weeks back but they were expensive. tungsten probably. dont try and bake any weights with rubber inserts.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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