arsenic is a common problem with wells in the western u s of a as are other 'natural pollutants'
this is why we have laws regarding testing for pollutants in our water
My irritation and the EPA
- Thread starter leaningright
- Start date
arsenic is a common problem with wells in the western u s of a as are other 'natural pollutants'
this is why we have laws regarding testing for pollutants in our water
cawacko
Well-known member
NERD!
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
I agree and if lead from recretional fishing is demonstrated to be contributing to the problem then it should be regulated but on the basis of fact.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Well then there is hope for you wingnuts after all!
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Not a bad idea.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
But you'll keep lying.Well then there is hope for you wingnuts after all!
Submitted a letter to my congressman when this came up. He got back to me on it and will receive my vote yet again....uh...not just because he got back to me but because he continues to demonstrate a degree of common sense on issues before making decisions. Here is his response:
Dear Mr. [leaningright]:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed ban on lead in fishing tackle. It is very important to me that I know and understand the concerns of my constituents.
As an outdoorsman, I know how important Oklahomans regard the protection of our natural resources. I have always considered responsible management of wildlife populations and the promotion of outdoor conservation to be among my top priorities in Congress. After conducting a close review of the proposed ban on lead fishing tackle, I have concluded that it lacks a clear scientific basis for imposing such a far reaching regulation. Similar proposals have been rejected in the past because of insufficient data and this one is no different.
Based on my concern with the proposed lead ban, I authored a letter of opposition to Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. I gathered support from 77 of my colleagues in Congress and mailed the letter to Administrator Jackson on September 24, 2010. The bipartisan letter outlines our opposition to the proposed ban and urges Administrator Jackson to deny the petition for the proposed ban. The letter explains the negative economic consequences the ban would have on recreational fishers and their ability to engage in a great American pastime.
Conservation starts with those who love the outdoors and the proposed ban would wrongly penalize some of our best stewards of the environment.
Should legislation concerning a ban on lead fishing tackle be considered by the full House of Representatives, I will certainly keep the best interests of Oklahoma anglers and sportsmen in mind. As an avid sportsman, I believe it is critical to strike a balance between the protection of our natural resources and the promotion of outdoor activities. Again, thank you for contacting me regarding this important matter. If I can be of further service to you on this or any other matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Respectfully Yours,
Dan Boren
Dear Mr. [leaningright]:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed ban on lead in fishing tackle. It is very important to me that I know and understand the concerns of my constituents.
As an outdoorsman, I know how important Oklahomans regard the protection of our natural resources. I have always considered responsible management of wildlife populations and the promotion of outdoor conservation to be among my top priorities in Congress. After conducting a close review of the proposed ban on lead fishing tackle, I have concluded that it lacks a clear scientific basis for imposing such a far reaching regulation. Similar proposals have been rejected in the past because of insufficient data and this one is no different.
Based on my concern with the proposed lead ban, I authored a letter of opposition to Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. I gathered support from 77 of my colleagues in Congress and mailed the letter to Administrator Jackson on September 24, 2010. The bipartisan letter outlines our opposition to the proposed ban and urges Administrator Jackson to deny the petition for the proposed ban. The letter explains the negative economic consequences the ban would have on recreational fishers and their ability to engage in a great American pastime.
Conservation starts with those who love the outdoors and the proposed ban would wrongly penalize some of our best stewards of the environment.
Should legislation concerning a ban on lead fishing tackle be considered by the full House of Representatives, I will certainly keep the best interests of Oklahoma anglers and sportsmen in mind. As an avid sportsman, I believe it is critical to strike a balance between the protection of our natural resources and the promotion of outdoor activities. Again, thank you for contacting me regarding this important matter. If I can be of further service to you on this or any other matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Respectfully Yours,
Dan Boren
Phyllis Diller
Was it me?
Will they try to ban rohypnol, the date rape drug, in fishing tackle? That would be a more irritating outrage.
Billy the Great Khan
Uwaa OmO
Couple of things need to be pointed out.
Firstly, the petition wasn't submitted by the EPA, it was submitted by the California CBD (Center for Biological Diversity).
Secondly, the EPA has no authority to regulate such things under the 1976 Toxic Control Act, so even if they attempted such a thing, it would be struck down in court when challenged.
Now on to the broader subject of lead and it's toxicity in the things listed in the petition (which also contained ammunition), there is not evidence to suggest that it in any way contributes to lead poisoning in the environment. Not that that matters much (since the same lack of evidence failed to stop them from banning lead shot for waterfowl).
Firstly, the petition wasn't submitted by the EPA, it was submitted by the California CBD (Center for Biological Diversity).
Secondly, the EPA has no authority to regulate such things under the 1976 Toxic Control Act, so even if they attempted such a thing, it would be struck down in court when challenged.
Now on to the broader subject of lead and it's toxicity in the things listed in the petition (which also contained ammunition), there is not evidence to suggest that it in any way contributes to lead poisoning in the environment. Not that that matters much (since the same lack of evidence failed to stop them from banning lead shot for waterfowl).
Now I get it.
You would be inconvenienced by a ban on lead fishing gear. And it would cost you more. But it is not about the money, and who givea a fuck about the ever-increasing amount of lead recreation sports leave in nature.
This is the first time I can remember agreeing with Damn Yankee;
Why does it matter? The lead doesn't go away, it will eventually meet some concentration. Besides, the standard is probably going to get lowered at some point in time. They usually do.
I'd rather not have the bottoms of ponds and rivers littered with metal that doesn't need to be there. Make the stuff out of steel so it eventually rusts away.
As far as the cost issue, gimme a fucking break. Who cares if an angler spends 15 times for products that he spends pennies on. So a weight costs a quarter rather than 2 cents. Maybe they'll pick the shit up when they drop it instead of leaving the crap lying around.
You are socially conservative. Look in the mirror, much more closer than you have been. Jesus does not teach social conservatism.
You would be inconvenienced by a ban on lead fishing gear. And it would cost you more. But it is not about the money, and who givea a fuck about the ever-increasing amount of lead recreation sports leave in nature.
This is the first time I can remember agreeing with Damn Yankee;
Why does it matter? The lead doesn't go away, it will eventually meet some concentration. Besides, the standard is probably going to get lowered at some point in time. They usually do.
I'd rather not have the bottoms of ponds and rivers littered with metal that doesn't need to be there. Make the stuff out of steel so it eventually rusts away.
As far as the cost issue, gimme a fucking break. Who cares if an angler spends 15 times for products that he spends pennies on. So a weight costs a quarter rather than 2 cents. Maybe they'll pick the shit up when they drop it instead of leaving the crap lying around.
You are socially conservative. Look in the mirror, much more closer than you have been. Jesus does not teach social conservatism.