Mn lead tackle ban bill introduced

I wonder how they will classify a spinner bait or skirted bass jig with a trailer ?

I’m sitting on about 200#’s of lead ingots. I cast most of my own jigs. So, I guess I have to use 1oz and bigger now! You’d think ‘painted’ jigs wouldn’t be a problem!?

I’m sitting on about 200#’s of lead ingots. I cast most of my own jigs. So, I guess I have to use 1oz and bigger now! You’d think ‘painted’ jigs wouldn’t be a problem!?

MN already bans lead wheel weights so this isn’t much of stretch to ban lead fishing accessories.
Has anyone seen a loon along side the highway eating wheel weights?

Anybody opposed to lead in water ways has used their teeth one too many times to crimp their sinkers. Literally almost anything else we do to our water ways doesn’t compare to lead. Why? Because lead doesnt biodegrade and remains as is for thousands of years. Lead is also a neurotoxin. There is also no safe level of lead. Research lead.

As far as actually using fishing weights, tungsten is the way to go anyways. Iron and steel just don’t cut it.

Ryan Wilson wrote:

Anybody opposed to lead in water ways has used their teeth one too many times to crimp their sinkers. Literally almost anything else we do to our water ways doesn’t compare to lead. Why? Because lead doesnt biodegrade and remains as is for thousands of years. Lead is also a neurotoxin. There is also no safe level of lead. Research lead.

As far as actually using fishing weights, tungsten is the way to go anyways. Iron and steel just don’t cut it.

One question I have is if lead fishing lures and ammunition makes any significant contribution towards lead concentrations in the water. How much of the lead in our water comes from things like that vs from historic emissions and pollution of lead-containing fuels/chemicals?

I shudder to think the millions of tons of metals that have been dump into Minnesota waterways. It would be a staggering amount just on Mille Lacs.

Again, the idea of banning the use of lead weights, etc. will be somewhere between difficult and impossible to enforce. And it would be silly to try. Banning the manufacturing and sale of lead fishing products effective a few years from now would accomplish the same goal in a reasonable way. I personally don’t think that would have a significant impact on fishermen.

Lead isn’t good for people or the environment and those concerns aren’t like to go away. So it’s reasonable to anticipate that something will happen on this in the foreseeable future. Of course, the prevailing all or nothing political strategy and discourse means, well, who knows what we might get.

All if you read the text of the Bill I posted it would take effect July 1 2024. However I see little chance of passage. There is no companion Bill in the MN Senate. Actually on the Senate side, they have a Bill yo make non-toxic ammo tax-exempt (but there is no House companion Bill). Neither look viable

john23 wrote:

Again, the idea of banning the use of lead weights, etc. will be somewhere between difficult and impossible to enforce.

Really???? you don’t fish Canada parks much? https://www.canada.ca/en/parks-canada/search.html?q=use+of+lead+sinkers+and+jigs&wb-srch-sub=

Buzz wrote:

All if you read the text of the Bill I posted it would take effect July 1 2024. However I see little chance of passage. There is no companion Bill in the MN Senate. Actually on the Senate side, they have a Bill yo make non-toxic ammo tax-exempt (but there is no House companion Bill). Neither look viable

Buzz, I get that. 2024 seems reasonable for banning the manufacture and sale, but banning the use anytime soon is ridiculous.

And Dave, I would guess that people occasionally break the lead tackle rule in Canadian Parks. Maybe it happens all the time. It’s easy to write a law or rule against it, but enforcing it would be nearly impossible to do effectively … especially statewide. It’s hard enough to enforce fish limits, etc.

john23 wrote:

And Dave, I would guess that people occasionally break the lead tackle rule in Canadian Parks. Maybe it happens all the time. It’s easy to write a law or rule against it, but enforcing it would be nearly impossible to do effectively … especially statewide. It’s hard enough to enforce fish limits, etc.

Lead ammunition has been banned for waterfowl hunting here in the U.S. for many years and it is enforced. Why would it be any different to enforce lead free for fishing?

I think it has a reasonable chance of eventually catching on. If it does pass, which I think is unlikely, at least I have years to get into compliance. That’s something I can do in small amounts over time.

Huntindave wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>john23 wrote:</div>
And Dave, I would guess that people occasionally break the lead tackle rule in Canadian Parks. Maybe it happens all the time. It’s easy to write a law or rule against it, but enforcing it would be nearly impossible to do effectively … especially statewide. It’s hard enough to enforce fish limits, etc.

Lead ammunition has been banned for waterfowl hunting here in the U.S. for many years and it is enforced. Why would it be any different to enforce lead free for fishing?

Unlike fishing tackle, it’s relatively easy to keep track of shotgun shells. Unlike fishing tackle, shotgun shells have a very finite lifespan – once you shoot it, you can’t reuse the lead shot (lead sinkers, on the other hand, theoretically last a lifetime).
Unlike fishing tackle, most people don’t have a 20 year supply of shotgun shells on hand.

A ban on the use of lead tackle would force anglers to throw away perfectly good stuff. With the lead shot for waterfowl ban, hunters could still use the lead shot shells for pheasants, etc. which made the ban a little more tolerable (though I’d bet there were many, many violations early on). Finally, the federal lead shot ban is still somewhat controversial 40 years later and hasn’t been adopted beyond waterfowl.

I’m just not in favor of passing unreasonable/unenforceable laws when it can be avoided.

If the goal is to keep lead sinkers out of our environment, which I think is a good goal, the more reasonable way to do that would be to ban the manufacture and sale, but not the use of lead sinkers. Manufacture bans could start in say, two years, and sale bans could start a year or two after that. Eventually there would be no point in banning the use of lead because there wouldn’t be any out there. Everyone wins except the lead sinker manufacturers, who would have to pivot to non-toxic.

What to do with the guys who pour at home, like me? I’d be inclined to say they can keep doing it if they want to. They can load up on lead ingots if they want to before the ban takes place; they just can’t sell their products after the sale ban.

Anglers would have little to be upset about if the use of lead wasn’t banned. That said, I’m sure many would spend $10 to complain about the government forcing them to spend $5 more on weights: “I’ll never change from my trusty lead weights to the red-commie tungsten models, even if I do have to special order them from China and have them shipped to my brother out of state.” Or, “I’m going to drive to Wisconsin and bring a bunch of lead weights back with me just to stick it to the man.”

This conversation is probably all theoretical at this stage anyway, but my point is that if outdoor groups worked together on this we’d probably get a reasonable implementation. Instead, we get hyperbolics from both sides and a less predictable and possibly less reasonable outcome.

John23
Shot shells are reloaded all the time. Guys are pouring jigs and sinkers all the time.
I still don’t see why and how “enforcement” would be any different. If you are in a blind hunting ducks and you have lead shot in your possession, you are going to receive a citation.

Same would be true for fishing. If you are fishing and have lead jigs/sinkers in your possession, you will receive a citation.

So again, why do you say the proposed regulation would be hard to enforce?

All the lead ban bill is far from passing and if it did, it would ban sales in 7/2024. Nothing is stated about possession. I highly doubt anyone is going to be looking through your tackle.

Buzz wrote:

All the lead ban bill is far from passing and if it did, it would ban sales in 7/2024. Nothing is stated about possession. I highly doubt anyone is going to be looking through your tackle.

I assume the goal is to eventually fully phase it out from use though, correct? First you target the manufacturers to cut off supply and then you target the users at a later time. And if that is the end goal to ban its use fully, then being in possession of it would be a citation.

john23 wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Huntindave wrote:</div>

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>john23 wrote:</div>
And Dave, I would guess that people occasionally break the lead tackle rule in Canadian Parks. Maybe it happens all the time. It’s easy to write a law or rule against it, but enforcing it would be nearly impossible to do effectively … especially statewide. It’s hard enough to enforce fish limits, etc.

Lead ammunition has been banned for waterfowl hunting here in the U.S. for many years and it is enforced. Why would it be any different to enforce lead free for fishing?

Unlike fishing tackle, it’s relatively easy to keep track of shotgun shells. Unlike fishing tackle, shotgun shells have a very finite lifespan – once you shoot it, you can’t reuse the lead shot (lead sinkers, on the other hand, theoretically last a lifetime).
Unlike fishing tackle, most people don’t have a 20 year supply of shotgun shells on hand.

A ban on the use of lead tackle would force anglers to throw away perfectly good stuff. With the lead shot for waterfowl ban, hunters could still use the lead shot shells for pheasants, etc. which made the ban a little more tolerable (though I’d bet there were many, many violations early on). Finally, the federal lead shot ban is still somewhat controversial 40 years later and hasn’t been adopted beyond waterfowl.

I’m just not in favor of passing unreasonable/unenforceable laws when it can be avoided.

If the goal is to keep lead sinkers out of our environment, which I think is a good goal, the more reasonable way to do that would be to ban the manufacture and sale, but not the use of lead sinkers. Manufacture bans could start in say, two years, and sale bans could start a year or two after that. Eventually there would be no point in banning the use of lead because there wouldn’t be any out there. Everyone wins except the lead sinker manufacturers, who would have to pivot to non-toxic.

What to do with the guys who pour at home, like me? I’d be inclined to say they can keep doing it if they want to. They can load up on lead ingots if they want to before the ban takes place; they just can’t sell their products after the sale ban.

Anglers would have little to be upset about if the use of lead wasn’t banned. That said, I’m sure many would spend $10 to complain about the government forcing them to spend $5 more on weights: “I’ll never change from my trusty lead weights to the red-commie tungsten models, even if I do have to special order them from China and have them shipped to my brother out of state.” Or, “I’m going to drive to Wisconsin and bring a bunch of lead weights back with me just to stick it to the man.”

This conversation is probably all theoretical at this stage anyway, but my point is that if outdoor groups worked together on this we’d probably get a reasonable implementation. Instead, we get hyperbolics from both sides and a less predictable and possibly less reasonable outcome.

I for one understand what you are saying and agree. Nobody is going to dump half their tackle box and go buy new non lead equipment. If they can not find lead equipment and are forced to buy an alternative then eventually there will be some change. Hard to do it at a state level in my opinion.

Ripjiggen wrote:

I for one understand what you are saying and agree. Nobody is going to dump half their tackle box and go buy new non lead equipment. If they can not find lead equipment and are forced to buy an alternative then eventually there will be some change. Hard to do it at a state level in my opinion.

Understand and agree with what he says as well, aside from calling a lead tackle usage ban unenforceable. It would be easily enforced, really no different than lead shot with bird hunting. The problem would be compliance (at least early on), not enforcement.

So fishermen would have to toss jigs, split-shot, and other weights. I certainly wouldn’t want to do that, but how much cash do people really have tied up in that stuff? The replacement cost will obviously be a lot higher, but replacement is inevitable anyway. My point is we’re not talking about replacing expensive crankbaits and spoons.

My first thought is the 2 lbs of #5 split shot I donate to the north shore rivers steelhead fishing every spring. That would get spendy with non toxic.

tswoboda wrote:

My first thought is the 2 lbs of #5 split shot I donate to the north shore rivers steelhead fishing every spring. That would get spendy with non toxic.

Yes, it does. I had to buy tungsten split shot for trips to the UK and NZL and at the time I paid over $20 for about 50 pieces of tungsten shot. Not sure if its any cheaper now, but was crazy-expensive and nothing I could do because I’m such a nymphing addict.

I also do not like the fact that the relative size of tungsten shot is quite a bit larger than lead shot of equal weight. Tungsten did not seem to fish the same to me and I think it is because the shot’s physical size is different and it has a different action in the water. It also does not crimp as tightly to the leader as does lead, so it falls off a lot more.

Nothing I could do about it, when in Rome…

Just like anything else that is replaced, it’s going to have to happen at the manufacturing level first. I mean, that’s who manufactures said products to begin with. I would imagine since enforcement on angler use would be pretty hard to accomplish, especially on a financial level, that people that are still using lead tackle would still be allowed to use what they have until it’s gone but they aren’t buying any new lead tackle because it won’t exist anymore. That’s why it’s called “phasing out”. Same thing happened with leaded gasoline. That was banned and it’s not like every gas station in the country just had to dump all of their leaded fuel. Not at all, they were allowed to continue to sell it until it was gone and then they received unleaded gasoline to sell. Which took about 30 years until it was phased out. It starts at the manufacturing process and ends at the consumer level over years (sometimes decades) of integrating a better product, technology, or manufacturing process. If you’re using lead tackle in 15 years, yeah, you’re probably going to get a citation regardless of your geographical location within the US.

Progress will always upset somebody somewhere.

Gremlin had a non toxic split shot made of tin and bismuth. Funny that tungsten split shot is larger? With jigs it’s smaller? I recall there was a whole line of green weights? Anyone else used them?

TheFamousGrouse wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>tswoboda wrote:</div>
My first thought is the 2 lbs of #5 split shot I donate to the north shore rivers steelhead fishing every spring. That would get spendy with non toxic.

I also do not like the fact that the relative size of tungsten shot is quite a bit larger than lead shot of equal weight.

Tungsten is denser than lead. If both shot are truly of equal weight, tungsten will have lesser volume. Meaning, if your two shot are equal weight, tungsten will produce a smaller shot. Due to tungstens density, it takes less tungsten to produce shot of equal weight relative to lead. If your tungsten shot is bigger than your lead shot of equal weight, or even the same size for that matter, you’re getting ripped off on tungsten shot.

Ryan Wilson wrote:

Just like anything else that is replaced, it’s going to have to happen at the manufacturing level first. I mean, that’s who manufactures said products to begin with. I would imagine since enforcement on angler use would be pretty hard to accomplish, especially on a financial level, that people that are still using lead tackle would still be allowed to use what they have until it’s gone but they aren’t buying any new lead tackle because it won’t exist anymore. That’s why it’s called “phasing out”. Same thing happened with leaded gasoline. That was banned and it’s not like every gas station in the country just had to dump all of their leaded fuel. Not at all, they were allowed to continue to sell it until it was gone and then they received unleaded gasoline to sell. Which took about 30 years until it was phased out. It starts at the manufacturing process and ends at the consumer level over years (sometimes decades) of integrating a better product, technology, or manufacturing process. If you’re using lead tackle in 15 years, yeah, you’re probably going to get a citation regardless of your geographical location within the US.

Progress will always upset somebody somewhere.

Banning only the MANUFACTURE and/or SALE of lead tackle at the state level would do nothing but shut Water Gremlin’s doors and force more people to buy online.

At the state level, the only ban that would actually serve it’s purpose is to the ban the USE.

Lead’s density (destiny for you Back to the Future fans) is 11.3 grams per cubic centimeter.

Tungsten’s density is 19.3 grams per cubic centimeter. Tungsten split shot should be smaller than lead unless the tungsten split shot isn’t pure.

Awhile back I saw some 3/8oz tungsten jigs on the shelf-much smaller size compared to lead.They were also priced at a bit over 8$ for two jigs.A nicely painted lead 3/8oz jig can be had for .50$-1.00$.The pennies on the dollar statement to replace lead is a crock.

Ryan Wilson wrote:

Tungsten is denser than lead. If both shot are truly of equal weight, tungsten will have lesser volume. Meaning, if your two shot are equal weight, tungsten will produce a smaller shot. Due to tungstens density, it takes less tungsten to produce shot of equal weight relative to lead. If your tungsten shot is bigger than your lead shot of equal weight, or even the same size for that matter, you’re getting ripped off on tungsten shot.

Maybe it wasn’t tungsten. It must have been that tin/bismuth stuff. I haven’t used it since I last had to.

It was so brittle that it did not stay in place, it would slide down the line. If I had to use it all the time, I think I’d have to put some kind of “stop” in on the leader to keep it in place properly.

Anyway, I wasn’t a fan either on a price or performance level.

There is also a soft tungsten putty for fishing that I have used. Mold it to hooks on a crankbait, fashion your own split shot.

TheFamousGrouse wrote:

Maybe it wasn’t tungsten. It must have been that tin/bismuth stuff. I haven’t used it since I last had to.

It was so brittle that it did not stay in place, it would slide down the line. If I had to use it all the time, I think I’d have to put some kind of “stop” in on the leader to keep it in place properly.

Anyway, I wasn’t a fan either on a price or performance level.

The Water Gremlin non toxic split shot is 1 size larger for the same weight compared to lead. It’s also 3 times more expensive. Not sure what it’s made of.

First off, what is a good alternate to lead? Tungsten you say? Look up the mining process for Tungsten. Definately not the right direction to be going in. The loons have been increasing in population. https://www.minnpost.com/environment/2019/07/how-does-minnesota-know-its-loon-population-is-healthy-it-counts-them/

I’m not replacing all of my lead tackle with Tungsten. That cost me 1000s to get the lead stuff. To switch to Tungsten would be triple the cost! Obsurd