Evidently it is illegal to dump leads. Harry Haskall in this weeks anglers mail states it is a offence to discard lead plastic coated or otherwise, into United Kingdom and other European Union surface waters. Under UK litter law it is a offence to dump on any land covered with water with a currant fine of £2500. I must admit I am not to keen on the clips that allow for this and have never used them I prefer a running lead set up myself.
Has anyone been following the lead debate
- Thread starter tiinker
- Start date
richiekelly
Well-known member
About time this stupid practise was outlawed, only problem I can see though is who will police it? unless someone is there when an angler cast's out and reels in minus the lead how can it be proved that a lead has been dumped? will this require fishery owners/controlling clubs to amend their rules?
Does the same apply to weights made of stone?
Does the same apply to weights made of stone?
steph mckenzie
Well-known member
Stop making weights out of Lead, there you go, problem solved.
Carpheads must be made of money if they are going to dump a lead with every fish - potty! 
mg:
I always fish a running lead if doing a bit of PVA bagging and if I get a break then the fish should be fine. :thumbs:
mg:I always fish a running lead if doing a bit of PVA bagging and if I get a break then the fish should be fine. :thumbs:
The bad one
Well-known member
I have made the same points on here over the last couple of years about dumping lead in the water environment, as per disposing of toxic substances in the environment and got howled down about it.
Told it would have little impact blah, blah, blah! Despite it falling under the Environmental Protection Act since 1990.
Strange eh? now some writer has put it in AM that people are talking about it as being correct.
The policing of it is down to the EA (Pollution Control) and therefore their Bailiffs. Many of which are anglers and would probably know what a dumping rig looks like.
But I do take the point about them policing it, as bailiffs are becoming as rare as hens teeth.
PS it wouldn't apply to stones unless they were knowingly made of heavy metal ore.
Told it would have little impact blah, blah, blah! Despite it falling under the Environmental Protection Act since 1990.
Strange eh? now some writer has put it in AM that people are talking about it as being correct.
The policing of it is down to the EA (Pollution Control) and therefore their Bailiffs. Many of which are anglers and would probably know what a dumping rig looks like.
But I do take the point about them policing it, as bailiffs are becoming as rare as hens teeth.
PS it wouldn't apply to stones unless they were knowingly made of heavy metal ore.
Last edited:
beerweasel
Well-known member
I don't do the carp thing so this is all a bit mad to me.
Can't they just use steel nuts ?
Can't they just use steel nuts ?
Interesting. is there reference to which piece of legislation says this?
A quick jaunt on google reveals that under the provisions of section 87 of the Environmental Protection Act 1980 (see here), there is no offence committed if litter is left with the consent of the owner.
So, one might conclude, that unless fishing clubs or water owners specifically state in their local fishing rules that no lead weights must be left behind in the water, it would be difficult to argue a case for prosecution, particularly as there would be no evidence to support it.
The bad one
Well-known member
How dare you say that.... Korda don't do them!
And they'd have to use some creative thinking and DIY skills to make such a weight. Creativity and thinking has no room in modern carping, as Danny making Fair Brass out of the suckers caters for their every need.
And they'd have to use some creative thinking and DIY skills to make such a weight. Creativity and thinking has no room in modern carping, as Danny making Fair Brass out of the suckers caters for their every need.
sam vimes
Well-known member
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.
It's fair enough using lead dumping as another stick to beat modern carpers with, if that's what floats your boat. However, if you aren't one of their number, be careful what you wish for. I can't see any legislation or club rules that could be introduced that could only effect carpers, provided they are remotely logical or fair. If losing a lead is deemed to be unlawful, it matters little if that loss is intentional or not.
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.
It's fair enough using lead dumping as another stick to beat modern carpers with, if that's what floats your boat. However, if you aren't one of their number, be careful what you wish for. I can't see any legislation or club rules that could be introduced that could only effect carpers, provided they are remotely logical or fair. If losing a lead is deemed to be unlawful, it matters little if that loss is intentional or not.
Lord Paul of Sheffield
Well-known member
I've said it before but what about lead shot in shotgun cartridges?
shot over water - no one gives a second thought about that
shot over water - no one gives a second thought about that
sam vimes
Well-known member
They are supposed to. Legislation is in place to force shotgunners to use lead free shot when shooting over or near water or at certain wild bird species.
Lead and Non-Lead Shot | BASC
Whether it is always complied with is another matter entirely.
The bad one
Well-known member
Interesting. is there reference to which piece of legislation says this?
A quick jaunt on google reveals that under the provisions of section 87 of the Environmental Protection Act 1980 (see here), there is no offence committed if litter is left with the consent of the owner.
So, one might conclude, that unless fishing clubs or water owners specifically state in their local fishing rules that no lead weights must be left behind in the water, it would be difficult to argue a case for prosecution, particularly as there would be no evidence to support it.
I actually think the wrong Act has been quoted here for "Litter" and it's an Act that came in in 2000, the name of which alludes me at the moment. It gives Local Councils the right to make land/homeowners clean up their “property, including water” if they consider it despoiled with waste and litter.
Enforcement of this Act is down to local Councils and their Environmental Street Enforcement Officers.
Last edited:
The bad one
Well-known member
Ta! That's the one.
Hhhhmmmm, not too sure that this would apply for a couple of reasons.
a) Section 18 sub section 3 states:
"(3)This section does not apply to a place which is open to the air" for the purposes of this Part by virtue of section 86(13) above if the public does not have access to it, with or without payment"
That the general public do not (typically) have access to private fishing ponds, streams, rivers or lakes might invalidate.
b) The burden of "proof" is only assumed, therefore without undertaking an underwater survey could therefore only be anecdotal?
c) The owner of the pond, lake or watercourse may give permission under section 4B
"(4B)A person may only give consent under subsection (4A)(b) above in relation to the depositing of litter in a lake or pond or watercourse if he is the owner, occupier or other person having control of:-
(a)all the land adjoining that lake or pond or watercourse; and
(b)all the land through or into which water in that lake or pond or watercourse directly or indirectly discharges, otherwise than by means of a public sewer."
I guess that is why we have lawyers . . . . . . . .
Interesting. is there reference to which piece of legislation says this?
A quick jaunt on google reveals that under the provisions of section 87 of the Environmental Protection Act 1980 (see here), there is no offence committed if litter is left with the consent of the owner.
So, one might conclude, that unless fishing clubs or water owners specifically state in their local fishing rules that no lead weights must be left behind in the water, it would be difficult to argue a case for prosecution, particularly as there would be no evidence to support it.
Have a look at EU law the water frame work directive 2000 something to do with Legal term duty of care without limit. My own view is that it is not a practice that should be encouraged. I have remove hundreds of leads from my club fishery over the years mainly because they were connected to line. I still remove a fair bit of line even though the rule is if you lose line you must retrieve it. A fair few of the lines I retrieve have no leads on them these days whether they are hang ups in the island or lines in the snags and lily beds . It cannot be a good thing to have all that lead in standing water. I do not know about the legality of the situation it is the possibility of the damage it could be doing that bothers me.
Keith Speer
Well-known member
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!!
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!!
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.
The bad one
Well-known member
Quite Peter!
A little true tail for you here…. Manchester City Council were enthusiastic users of this Act using it on BW (now CRT) for the local canal, private landowners, householders, etc. There wasn’t anyone who avoided their enthusiasm. I’m not saying it wasn’t warranted in a lot of cases but enthusiastic they were.
Until it applied to themselves and land they owned.
Round the corner from where I live is a piece of community open space owned by MCC and valued by the community it serves.
I along with others made repeated requests to them to clean it up over about a 6 week period, the litter being left by the dustbin men refusing to take anything that wasn’t in the bin.
I then instituted and started the process of proceedings to use their enthusiastic used Act back on them. The Act has provision it for members of the Public after giving 21 days notice to bring a case in the Magistrates Court against them for non compliance and cleaning up the litter.
I also informed the local press about what I was about to do, who ran it as a second page, full page spread. Low and behold it took them less than 6 hours after the paper hit the mats to send out a cleaning team to sort it out.
I had ever man and his dog from MCC phoning me up to apologise for their lack of action over the matter.
All being told I won't hesitate in the future to use this provision against them if they allow that or any other area they own to get in such a state in the city.
sam vimes
Well-known member
Quite, but it's a bit of a stretch to suggest that any current legislation makes it an illegal practice. Any law covering littering would apply equally to deliberate or inadvertant losses. If applicable, it covers all anglers using lead weights, not just those carpers that do it deliberately.
I don't see any reason why any club couldn't ban auto-dumping rigs without any problems, provided that they know what they are looking for. A lead clip doesn't necessarily constitute such a rig unless the clip arm is doctored or manufactured to do so. The drop off rigs I've encountered do not usually involve a lead clip at all.
Losing The Lead | The Session
The danger a club or water might encounter is in falling short in the fish care arms race. After all, those that employ such tactics are generally justifying it in the name of fish care.