Has anyone been following the lead debate

[The bad one]

the bad one - Yeah, looks like the newer legislation amends the old one, rather than replacing it. So, I think the original link to EPA 1990 is still valid (notice that section 87 parts 1 to 4(C) are amended).

Peter - that was my thinking too. Would be interesting to see case law on it.

May be James, but my original comments first post about lead as a pollutant and disposing of toxic substances in the environment is a relevant under the EPA.

 

[nicepix]

Peter, That would have been a lot less confusing if you had shot the lawyers BEFORE writing the legislation!

As for shooting, "Guns" (by this they mean the person in control of the weapon) are supposed to use tungsten or steel shot over water, the particular problems with this is that neither are as heavy as lead and therefore don't have the hitting power AND both steel and tungsten can damage gun barrels, not a problem with your £200 second hand AYA Yeoman, but a little disconcerting when pumping steel& tungsten shot through your £50,000 Holland and Holland.

Perhaps this explains why "some" guns continue to used lead loads.

If lead is bad news then the fact that some countries still use depleted uranium SABOT Tank main gun rounds, is a lot worse.
As I understand it only the Krauts have managed to get a Tungsten replacement to work!

I am still right about the Lawyers though!!

Keith,
Non toxic shot isn't as gun unfriendly as it used to be. It is only with tight chokes that you have to be concerned. I shot steel loads for pigeon with no real problem other than the inevitable plastic wads that came with steel shot in those days (and maybe still do). If you had an old Churchill or Holland & Holland with 1/2 choke or wider modern non toxic loads would be OK.

I understand why some might do it. I definitely understand why the industry might wish to see it done. However, I doubt that routine lead dumping is anywhere near as prevalent as magazine land might suggest. Whilst it isn't a non-issue, outside of some specific weedy waters, and particularly suggestible anglers, it's not a particularly big one either.

As far as I'm concerned, any water that's so weedy as to require a lead to be dumped every time is too weedy to fish safely anyway. I've lost one lead in my last four years worth of carp fishing. The cost of the damned things meant I wasn't especially happy losing that one. I've definitely lost far more lead over the years when legering on rivers. I've no intention whatsoever of intentionally jettisoning a lead every cast. I very much doubt I'm in a minority in that......................

So that's why you bought some waders - to look for that lead!

 

[sam vimes]

So that's why you bought some waders - to look for that lead!

If I were a rabid proponent of drop off rigs, it probably would be the case!

 

[Lord Paul of Sheffield]

How many of us fish water that needs to drop the lead every run

 

[geoffmaynard]

A few years ago I went to Finland, fishing a salmon river. Leads were outlawed there, instead the weights used were in stainless steel, the shape of an elongated German hand grenade. Just as well, the bottom was so rocky that every cast jammed the weight up and it was lost. So good thinking on behalf of the locals re weights. A shame they didn't give the same care to discarded line - it was absolutely everywhere.

 

[terry m]

How many of us fish water that needs to drop the lead every run

Quite. There is a fervour building around this tactic but the reality is that most thinking carp anglers would only employ this method in heavily weeded waters where losing the lead gets the fish up in the water more quickly, and by definition is more fish friendly. The picture all too often painted is that every weekend on popular lakes, the water level goes up six inches as a result of the growing carpet (mattress) of leads on the lake bed. Utter balderdash.

I read Pomeroy's response in AM, and to be frank it reeked of commercial bias - i.e. use my stonze products instead of lead, the valid points he made were blunted by this transparency.

For the avoidance of doubt, I have never deliberately fished with a method to lose the lead, but I am less than convinced that the problem is anywhere near as big as it is painted.

 

[tiinker]

One thing is clear with taking to other bailiffs and fishery managers is that if the clips are used so that they easily discard the lead when needed to lots of leads are lost when not needed to. If on the other hand the tail rubbers are on tight they become all but fixed. When bailiffs check rigs on my fishery and those of other bailiffs on other fisheries it is about two thirds loose to one third to tight . The tight get a warning so they go loose and more leads are lost. The only winners are the lead suppliers.