Lead Lure Ban in Minnesota
Senators Solon, Bakk, Murphy and Tomassoni introduced a bill (S.F. No. 23) on January 8th, 2003 to prohibit the sale and use of lead sinkers within the State of Minnesota and any portion of boundary waters controlled by the state. A lead sinker means a device that: contains lead, weighs one once or less, is designed to be attached to fishing line, and is intended to sink fishing line. Although it is not spelled out, I interpret this to mean all fishing lures that weighs less than an ounce and contains lead. Lures that come to mind are all types of jigs, spinnerbaits, buzzbaits, bladebaits (sonars) and any sinker that is made of lead.
The motivation behind this bill is to reduce loon mortality due to lead ingestion. Studies of the subject are limited. The study referenced by lead ban advocates was done in 1988 on seventy dead loons in Maine. The study found that lead ingestion caused the death of half of the birds. From this study proponents extrapolate that lead ingestion is the cause for half of all loon deaths. Three more-current studies reported considerably lower mortality (less than 5%), while commenting that there is insufficient data to make sound conclusions. In addition, the loon population is stable and growing in the US. If you are interested in the details, these studies can be accessed in the two previous posts in the Mississippi River-General Discussion Forum.
Minnesota has the largest population of loons in the United States. The loon is Minnesota s State bird. Most of us enjoy seeing and hearing them. I suspect none of us would willfully harm a loon, but there are many things we do to our environment that harm wildlife. We encroach into their habitat; we pollute the air and water; we kill animals with our cars; in some cases we try to do too much for them.
I see this bill as emotionally driven, not scientific. It s an example of legislation that is not based on a documented need. The studies do not support a need to ban lead fishing lures. Also, it is another law that cannot be enforced. The financial impact has not been studied. There are many large and small lure manufacturers in the state. I suspect we all know someone who makes tackle on the side. A reasonably priced, easy to use substitute for lead does not exist. Replacement metals such as steel, brass and tungsten can not be molded into a jig head. Tin and bismuth cannot be used in a small operation and cost considerably more than lead. How the ban might effect fishing related tourism should be considered.
Minnesota anglers, we need to be heard loud and clear. Contact your state senator and representative. Let them know your opinion. If you make tackle, let them know how it will affect you financially. Do not assume that the large tackle manufacturers will stop this bill. They could not stop it in Maine and Connecticut. Both states have a lead lure ban and the lack of angler participation is sited as a reason the bills passed. Neighbors, this bill could impact you if you fish the boarder waters. Even though neighbors of Minnesota may have little voice in the state, please watch for similar legislation in your state.
We all have a lot to loose if this bill is passed. Loons tangled in fishing line was another cause of death, guess what the next bill might be!