EPA rightly denies ban on lead in fishing tackle

For the second time in little more than a year, the Environmental Protection Agency has denied a petition by the Center for Biological Diversity requesting that the EPA ban the use of lead in all fishing tackle used on U.S. waters. In its Nov. 16 petition, the group requested the sweeping ban be implemented under Section 6(a) of the Toxic Substances Control Act.

The EPA denied a similar petition in November 2010.

Section 6(a) gives the EPA authority to regulate a chemical substance or mixture if there’s a reasonable basis to conclude that its manufacture, use or distribution through commerce presents “an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment.” However, the EPA determined that the use of lead in fishing tackle does not constitute such a risk.

“After careful review, EPA has determined that, while the petition does provide evidence of exposure and a risk to waterfowl in some areas of the United States, it does not provide a basis for finding that the risk presented is an unreasonable risk for which federal action under Section 6(a) of TSCA is necessary,” James Jones, acting assistant administrator, wrote for the EPA.

Jones also cited regulatory and educational actions various state and federal agencies already are taking to address concerns about the impact of lead fishing tackle on the environment.

“The petition,” he wrote, “does not demonstrate that these state and local efforts are ineffective or have failed to reduce the exposure and risks presented to waterfowl in particular.”

In addition, Jones recognized in his letter the changes that already are taking place in the fishing tackle and equipment market where the use of nonlead alternatives is under way.

“In light of these trends, the petition does not demonstrate that rule-making is necessary under TSCA Section 6(a),” Jones added.

An afternoon stroll through the fishing department at any major sporting goods retailer will support Jones’ observations. A growing number of products already are made of such lead alternatives as steel or tungsten.

Had a ban on lead fishing tackle been granted, you can be assured that some form of mandatory transitioning from lead to nonlead materials would have been part of the edict. And that, according to the American Sportfishing Association, would result in significantly higher costs to manufacturers and anglers. The organization estimates the cost of nonlead fishing tackle can be as much as nine to 20 times more than lead products, depending on the alternative metal and prevailing raw materials costs.

“Sweeping regulations on lead fishing tackle would have a tremendous impact on the sport-fishing industry and change the face, and cost, of recreational fishing for the angling public,” ASA vice president Gordon Robertson said. “Unjustified bans will only serve to harm the economy and reduce participation in traditional outdoor sports.”

Perhaps a reduction in anglers and hunters, or even an end to recreational fishing and hunting, is the goal of some organizations pushing for the outright ban of lead fishing tackle and ammunition. Make something cost enough, and sooner or later people will stop using it. Ironically, this only would serve to cripple America’s conservation efforts because the only folks who have stepped up to finance conservation on a significant scale are hunters and anglers.

“America’s anglers are the original conservationists, committed to taking reasonable steps to protect the environment,” Robertson said. “Through fishing license fees and the federal excise tax on fishing equipment, anglers and the sport-fishing industry provide the bulk of the funding to help ensure that there are healthy and abundant fisheries to enjoy.

“The EPA recognized this fact with its dismissal of this second petition.”

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.