Anglers rejoice over EPA decision on fishing tackle

In September I wrote about the Environmental Protection Agency's partial ruling in response to a petition calling for a national ban on the use of lead in bullets, shot and all fishing tackle. In its initial ruling, the EPA stated that it did not have authority under the Toxic Substances Control Act -- cited by the petitioners -- to address the use of lead when it came to bullets and shot. However, that wasn't the case in regard to fishing tackle.

And since there was no exclusion for fishing tackle, the EPA committed to move forward with a formal review of that portion of the petition.

The EPA released the results of that review late last week, and it looks as if America's anglers, along with its tackle manufacturers, can breathe a sigh of relief.

In his Nov. 4 letter to the petitioners, Stephen A. Owens, assistant administrator for the EPA, said they failed to demonstrate that "a uniform national ban of lead for use in all fishing gear is necessary to protect against unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. ... Your petition does not provide sufficient justification for why a national ban of lead fishing sinkers and other lead fishing tackle is necessary given the actions being taken to address the concerns identified in the petition."

The Center for Biological Diversity, the American Bird Conservancy, the Association of Avian Veterinarians, Project Gutpile and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility filed the petition Aug. 3.

In his letter, Owens noted that there are an increasing number of limitations on lead fishing gear on some federal lands and growing efforts in the education realm. Some states have followed suit, and "the emergence of these programs and activities over the past decade calls into question whether the broad rulemaking in your petition would be the least burdensome, adequately protective approach," he added.

As expected, the sportfishing industry was pleased with the EPA's ruling.

"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," said Gordon Robertson, vice president of the American Sportfishing Association.

Given the country's economic situation, one can't help but wonder what the impact would have been had the petition for an all-out lead ban been granted. I wonder if the resulting increase in the cost of lead-free tackle would have caused some anglers to stop fishing altogether.

"The resultant decrease in fishing license sales and the federal manufacturers' excise tax on fishing tackle, which represent the two most important funding sources for fisheries conservation, would be a large setback for fish and wildlife managers and this country's natural resources," Robertson said.

Coincidentally, many anglers already are taking voluntary steps to reduce the amount of lead components in their tackle collection, and numerous "unleaded" products are available in the marketplace.

I have no doubt the majority of fishing tackle products one day soon will be comprised of "unleaded" components, and since we're already headed that direction, why file the petition for a nationwide ban on lead fishing tackle in the first place?

Freelance writer Doug Nielsen is a conservation educator for the Nevada Department of Wildlife. His "In the Outdoors" column, published Thursday in the Las Vegas Review-Journal, is not affiliated with or endorsed by the NDOW. Any opinions he states in his column are his own. He can be reached at intheoutdoorslv@gmail.com.