Acristickid
Well-known member
EPA makes controversial call on lead
By Bob Frye, TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Sunday, November 14, 2010
You're going to be able to keep those lead sinkers in your tackle box after all.
The Environmental Protection Agency — which earlier this year said it had no authority to ban lead ammunition — recently denied a petition calling for a ban on the manufacture, use and processing of lead in fishing gear.
In announcing the decision, the EPA said "the petitioners have not demonstrated that the requested rule is necessary to protect against an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment."
A letter announcing the decision also noted that "the increasing number of limitations on the use of lead fishing gear on some federal and state lands, as well as various education and outreach activities, call into question whether a national ban on lead in fishing gear would be the least burdensome, adequately protective approach to address the concern."
Predictably, reaction to the decision was split.
The groups that petitioned the EPA to enact a lead ban — saying spent bullets and lost lead fishing tackle kill millions of wild birds and animals each year — called the decision "inexcusable."
"Under the Obama administration, the EPA seems to have lost its will to regulate toxic substances, even in the face of overwhelming scientific information about the harm to wildlife and threats to human health," said Michael Fry, director of conservation advocacy at the American Bird Conservancy, one of several groups that sought the ban.
Fry added that the EPA erred in suggesting that it is up to petitioning groups to determine how to change regulations in ways that are "least burdensome."
On the other side of the argument was the fishing industry.
The American Sportfishing Association, which represents tackle and gear manufacturers, said the EPA's decision was the correct one. Disputing claims by the Bird Conservancy and its supporters, the Association said there's no sound science supporting a lead ban.
"The sportfishing community applauds the EPA's decision," said Association (ASA) vice president Gordon Robertson. "It represents a solid review of the biological facts, as well as the economic and social impacts that would have resulted from such a sweeping federal action. It is a common-sense decision."
Banning lead tackle and requiring fishermen to use alternatives that can cost 10 to 20 times more would keep many of them at home, he added, which in turn would lead to fewer license sales, lost revenue and less money for fish and wildlife conservation.
Robertson thanked anglers for their support on the issue, too. More than 43,000 sent letters to the EPA through the KeepAmericaFishing.org website.
By Bob Frye, TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Sunday, November 14, 2010
You're going to be able to keep those lead sinkers in your tackle box after all.
The Environmental Protection Agency — which earlier this year said it had no authority to ban lead ammunition — recently denied a petition calling for a ban on the manufacture, use and processing of lead in fishing gear.
In announcing the decision, the EPA said "the petitioners have not demonstrated that the requested rule is necessary to protect against an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment."
A letter announcing the decision also noted that "the increasing number of limitations on the use of lead fishing gear on some federal and state lands, as well as various education and outreach activities, call into question whether a national ban on lead in fishing gear would be the least burdensome, adequately protective approach to address the concern."
Predictably, reaction to the decision was split.
The groups that petitioned the EPA to enact a lead ban — saying spent bullets and lost lead fishing tackle kill millions of wild birds and animals each year — called the decision "inexcusable."
"Under the Obama administration, the EPA seems to have lost its will to regulate toxic substances, even in the face of overwhelming scientific information about the harm to wildlife and threats to human health," said Michael Fry, director of conservation advocacy at the American Bird Conservancy, one of several groups that sought the ban.
Fry added that the EPA erred in suggesting that it is up to petitioning groups to determine how to change regulations in ways that are "least burdensome."
On the other side of the argument was the fishing industry.
The American Sportfishing Association, which represents tackle and gear manufacturers, said the EPA's decision was the correct one. Disputing claims by the Bird Conservancy and its supporters, the Association said there's no sound science supporting a lead ban.
"The sportfishing community applauds the EPA's decision," said Association (ASA) vice president Gordon Robertson. "It represents a solid review of the biological facts, as well as the economic and social impacts that would have resulted from such a sweeping federal action. It is a common-sense decision."
Banning lead tackle and requiring fishermen to use alternatives that can cost 10 to 20 times more would keep many of them at home, he added, which in turn would lead to fewer license sales, lost revenue and less money for fish and wildlife conservation.
Robertson thanked anglers for their support on the issue, too. More than 43,000 sent letters to the EPA through the KeepAmericaFishing.org website.
