Closer to a ban on traditional lead weights.

[JAA]

The price of lead shot is trivial. I can't remember the last time I bought any, probably over a year ago. Anglers don't discard a tub of shot at the end of each trip and buy another.

It's still a metal that forms toxic compounds. The argument for using it in angling does not stand rational scrutiny as we don't need to use it.

It's cheap - counter - you're putting a comparatively small increase in price over polluting the environment with lead
Shooter are worse - counter - so what, anglers are still damaging the environment with lead
Lead is better - counter - anglers are polluting the environment with lead for a few extra fish to catch.

I'd suggest we need to be seen as custodians of the environment and bunging lead about so we can catch a few extra fish rather undermines that.

[Olly]

You can find coated lead weights that are not made by the "cartel" as it has been called above, on various websites should you really wish to use them - as I do - to cast distances if required.

What designates a ledger weight as a "sea weight"? Anglers now use leads and feeders up to 5oz plus for barbel on a flooded Trent or Thames - legally.

I do wonder how huge a non-lead ledger weight that heavy would be? Should we all be using pebbles or boulders or drilled bits of brick?

[JAA]

You can find coated lead weights that are not made by the "cartel" as it has been called above, on various websites should you really wish to use them - as I do - to cast distances if required.

To which (as Devil's Advocate) I would ask?

"How do you know the plastic will last a long time if the weight is lost?"
"How long is acceptable before the lead in the environment is 'OK'?"
"Why do you need to use lead at all, surely you're not risking polluting the environment with lead, just so you can catch an extra fish?"

[Nigel Rainton]

6,000 tons of lead are fired every year. Every year for over 100 years. The government did not implement the recommendations of the LAG because they were over complicated and not evidenced based. That's what happens when spurious arguments are used to justify sweeping restrictions.

[JAA]

6,000 tons of lead are fired every year. Every year for over 100 years. The government did not implement the recommendations of the LAG because they were over complicated and not evidenced based. That's what happens when spurious arguments are used to justify sweeping restrictions.

Sure. But as I said, using that as a reason for anglers to carry on is not a sustainable argument. Because someone else is doing a bad thing, doesn't mean it's OK for 'you' or 'I' to do it. 'We're' still doing the bad thing.

In fact, anglers might be better off taking a leadership position and voluntarily abandon all lead weights, for the greater good. However that would require acting as a group for the interests of all and abandoning the posturing and self-interest most anglers use instead of rhetoric or debate.

F-all chance of that I'd say.

One more time:

Not putting any more lead into the environment is a good thing.

Using lead when one never has to is a bad thing.

Embrace the good thing.

[Nigel Rainton]

The WHO report on lead in the environment estimates that 300 million tonnes of lead have been released into the environment over the last 500 years. Contamination in living creatures is mainly from the air. The use in paint, petrol and cosmetics has been reduced worldwide. Can anyone give me a reference to evidence of the link between lead split shot and lead poisoning in wildlife?

[Santiago]

I agree with JAA, that lead in water should be considered as a bad thing because it's highly toxic, so why put any more in. However, lead doesn't actually react with water per se, it requires oxygen to produce lead oxide which is water soluble and highly toxic. So the vast majority of the lost angling weights are pretty inert, even over hundreds of years ; especially when lost in silt. Conversion to soluble lead oxide will, however, be happening in waters where oxygen levels are highest, like shallow faster water etc.etc. So it wouldn't hurt for anglers to be seen to be doing their bit. Regardless, the vast majority of lead in waterways is from run off through old lead pipe work, from leading on roofs etc.etc, and from shooting ; all of which contribute far more to the problem than anglers. The science is counter intuitive! Out of water but exposed to oxygen and moisture lead becomes a real environmental problem. Whereas lead at the bottom of a lake is much less of a problem! However, it might be beneficial for angling to embrace the ban, if it should happen, just for purely political reasons like being seen to care for the environment in the eyes of the public.

[Rod]

SofaSurfer, I think we all have our own opinions, but what with the rise of animal activists, we need to be one step ahead of the game, or our grandchildren might find it illegal to fish for sport, not withstanding that we anglers are the real custodians of our lakes and rivers, we do more to look after them than all the so called departments and charities. But this wont matter to the PC brigade, when they turn their attention to us, and lead is just one arrow in their quiver. If we have sorted the problem before they get round to us, it will put their noses out, and might make it easier to put our case, but if we blunder along as we are now, dropping weights every time we hook a fish, as well as all the other stuff certain anglers leave behind, we wont have a leg to stand on. As for the argument about shooters, that is their problem, but if we continue to shout about it, we only draw attention to the small amount we do leave behind. So to sum up, what we need is some form of weight that is comparable to lead in both density and cost, when that is available then make loud noises to the public to show what we have done, before people like PETA start lobbying parliament.

[Olly]

To which? - not quite with that!

So long as lead is legal I will use lead. I cannot see any swan gulping down a 1 oz lead let alone a 5 oz feeder! I do object however to the new craze of "dropping the lead" on every cast - madness!

Lead shot used by anglers - well we are doing our bit there!

And whilst lead is toxic what other damage are we doing to the environment that could and would be more effective to deal with?

[JAA]

The WHO report on lead in the environment estimates that 300 million tonnes of lead have been released into the environment over the last 500 years. Contamination in living creatures is mainly from the air. The use in paint, petrol and cosmetics has been reduced worldwide. Can anyone give me a reference to evidence of the link between lead split shot and lead poisoning in wildlife?

41 million other UK voters don't give a crap for this kind of evidence one way or the other.

They see anglers throwing lead into the water. Lead is toxic. Therefore angling=bad. Anglers lose.

I agree with JAA, that lead in water should be considered as a bad thing because it's highly toxic, so why put any more in. However, lead doesn't actually react with water per se, it requires oxygen to produce lead oxide which is water soluble and highly toxic. So the vast majority of the lost angling weights are pretty inert, even over hundreds of years ; especially when lost in silt. Conversion to soluble lead oxide will, however, be happening in waters where oxygen levels are highest, like shallow faster water etc.etc. So it wouldn't hurt for anglers to be seen to be doing their bit. Regardless, the vast majority of lead in waterways is from run off through old lead pipe work, from leading on roofs etc.etc, and from shooting ; all of which contribute far more to the problem than anglers. The science is counter intuitive! Out of water but exposed to oxygen and moisture lead becomes a real environmental problem. Whereas lead at the bottom of a lake is much less of a problem! However, it might be beneficial for angling to embrace the ban, if it should happen, just for purely political reasons like being seen to care for the environment in the eyes of the public.

Exactly. Despite the science, the appearance is what matters.

Plus, simple arguments are usually more effective than complex ones, right or not.