Article from Fish Sniffer.
Written By: Dan Bacher, October 13, 2014
The Brown administration, the same one that is relentlessly promoting the construction of the environmentally destructive peripheral tunnels, is now proposing to ban many items found in your tackle boxes in order to “save” the environment.
On September 12, the state Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a regulatory plan that could lead to banning common fishing gear that contain lead, copper and zinc, drawing the wrath of many anglers and fishing groups who have been under assault by Governor Jerry Brown since he took office.
The state held two workshops – one in Sacramento on September 25 and the other in Cypress in Orange County on September 29. During these workshops, staff could cite no studies or rationale for banning these products, in response to tough questions from anglers.
In its plan, the DTSC claims, “Recreational anglers fish in sensitive habitats like lakes, rivers, streams, bays and the ocean. More than 2 million Californians fish recreationally. Together, these anglers may lose hundreds of tons of fishing and angling equipment into the environment. The hazardous chemicals in the equipment they lose can expose and potentially harm birds and other wildlife.”
“Lead poisoning associated with the ingestion of lead fishing weights has been well documented in a variety of bird and animal species around the world, including swans, waterfowl, gulls, turtles, cranes, herons, pelicans…”
However, the California Sportfishing League (CSL), American Sportfishing Association (ASA), Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA) and other groups say there is no data or studies that back up the contentions of the EPA – and say a ban on gear containing these substances could deny anglers access to their favorite gear or increase its cost up to 20-fold.
After the California Department οf Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) released іtѕ draft “Priority Product Work Plan,” the California Sportfishing League launched a major online petition to delist gear frοm thе Draft Work Plan. In the workshops held in Sacramento and Cypress, group representatives also asked regulators to delist fishing gear from the plan.
Thе Draft Work Plan іѕ the first stage οf Governor Brown’s”Green Chemistry Initiative.” Thе DTSC plan identifies seven product types, including fishing sinkers аnd gear that contain metals such аѕ lead, zinc аnԁ copper. Thе nеw regulations could ban the manufacturing, distribution and sale of standard fishing gear.
“Existing state regulations have already contributed to a significant decline in fishing participation,” said David Dickerson, president of the California Sportfishing League. “Additional regulations will only encourage fishing gear manufacturers to flee California to more friendly states.”
Regulatory and industry experts, including the former director of the California Department of Toxic Substance Control, also share concerns associated with banning common fishing gear,
“The proposed regulations will increase the likelihood that manufacturers, sellers and retailers of fishing weights and gear will be subjected to costly and onerous regulations, and potential fines,” said Maureen Gorsen, an environmental attorney at Alston & Bird, LLP and former director of DTSC.
“The result could be a wide range of enforcement options requiring restrictions or bans on sale, product reformulation, additional environmental impact studies, enhancement of disposal programs or funding for essential research and enhancement. The bottom line is that the cost of manufacturing fishing gear will increase significantly and these costs will be passed on to consumers,” she said.
The American Sportfishing Association has analyzed product bans in the past and concluded that non-lead fishing tackle products require significant and costly changes to the industry, while alternatives may not be available and most do not perform as well. Depending on the different metal and current prevailing raw material costs, the cost of fishing gear could increase 10 to 20 fold.
CSL believes the public has not had sufficient time to fully analyze the proposed regulations on manufacturers, considering that DTSC just released its plan on September 12 and will close the public comment period on October 13, 2014, just four weeks later.
Some environmental groups support a ban on lead in fishing gear. Jeff Miller of the Center for Biological Diversity told the Sacramento Bee, “The science on small amounts of lead causing health problems and mortality for birds is pretty robust. We know the effects of lead, we know it doesn’t take a lot of lead to kill a bird, and we know birds that are picking up these lead sinkers and ingesting them thinking they’re pebbles or grit.”
However, that science apparently wasn’t robust enough, since the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 2010 denied the Center’s petitions to ban lead weights, stating that lead fishing gear did not pose unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment.
Los Angeles Times columnist George Skelton wrote that the state could not provide him any body of research that could justify this action and said, “Actually, nobody knows exactly what the state is thinking.”
“And I ask the same question that perhaps you do: Doesn’t the state of California have higher priorities to focus on?” said Skelton.
Likewise, George Osborn of the California Sportfishing League, the first speaker to give public comment in the Sacramento hearing, asked the EPA officials and scientists what studies they had done in California regarding sinkers and other fishing gear on the environment.
Osborn and the public learned that the EPA and other California regulators have not conducted any field research that would justify fishing gear being listed among the greatest threats to the health and safety of man, habitat or species.
Mark Gorelnick, attorney for the Coastside Fishing Club and the American Sportfishing Association (ASA), told the DTSC staff , “I’m not here to extol the health benefits of lead,” but he noted that no studies have been conducted on the impact of lead and other chemicals in fishing gear in California.
“If we want to eliminate fishing in California, a lead ban would be a good start,” he stated.
Bill Jennings, Executive Director of the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, said his organization has not taken a position on the proposed regulations.
“We do know that lead is acutely toxic, but there is no data available on the impact of lead fishing gear on fish,” said Jennings. “For shotgun shells we had data and we knew lead bioaccumulates in wildlife, but we can’t say the same for fish. All we can say is lead is on the bottom and probably has an effect on invertebrate community.”
“The studies have been never done on how lead migrates up the food chain and for what period the toxicity is effective. Probably over time we should get lead out of fishing. The question is: how long do we take to phase it out? What substitutes are there for lead?”
He emphasized, “This doesn’t rate way up high on the overall impacts to river fisheries. What IS high on the list is how the regulated have captured the regulators, just like Wall Street big banks captured regulatory apparatus. We’re seeing weak permits issued to diverters and polluters all over the place.”
I agree that with Skelton, Jennings and others that this latest initiative by the Governor is definitely a case of misplaced priorities. It’s extremely ironic that Jerry Brown, one of the worst Governors for fish, water and the environment in California history, is going after fishing gear allegedly to “save the environment” while pushing for the destruction of the Delta and Central Valley salmon populations through the construction of the peripheral tunnels – and while promoting making the state into a massive toxic dump by expanding fracking operations.